It's one thing for a Romney supporter to make a sign with homemade writing that reads, "NO TO OBAMA OSAMA AND CHELSEA'S MOMA" (sic). It's slightly worse for Romney to be photographed with it. And it's slightly worse still for Romney to then hold up the sign himself.
Is it any wonder, then, that the Romney campaign is struggling to explain all of this?
--Steve Benen
I was on a conference call a couple of months ago with Speaker Pelosi in which she alluded to getting the Democratic caucus out of the minority-party "mindset." The Dems had won back both chambers of Congress, a feat few expected, and it was time to start governing with some confidence, especially when it comes to Iraq.
David Espo reports that it took a while, but the new majority party no longer seems afraid of its own shadow. Indeed, it's the GOP that's divided and unsure of itself.
Senate Republicans are growing increasingly nervous defending the war in Iraq, and Democrats more confident in their attempts to end it.
More than a year before the 2008 elections, it is a political role reversal that bodes ill for President Bush's war strategy, not to mention his recent statement that Congress' role should merely be "funding the troops."
Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, made that clear Friday when he dismissed any suggestion that it could be November before a verdict is possible on the effects of the administration's current troop increase.
"September is the month we're looking at," he said unequivocally.
Espo notes that cheap slogans like "cut and run" have "largely come and gone" because Republicans find the alternative -- stay the course -- increasingly untenable. At the same time, Dems are stepping up with conviction. "Time and the American people are ... on our side," Harry Reid said.
It's perhaps easy to forget how far the party has come since last year. Espo notes that it was just 13 months ago that Reid "was the one hoping to avoid a vote on a troop withdrawal." When the Feingold-Kerry measure, which included a withdrawal deadline of July 2007, came to the floor, it garnered 13 votes. "Now," Kerry said last week, "it's the unified Democratic position.... In May, Republicans were dismissing even tough questions about the escalation. Now, they're falling all over themselves to distance themselves from the president."
Better late than never.
--Steve Benen
The Washington Post had an odd front-page item today on a 211-page study conducted by the Rand Corp. for the U.S. Joint Forces Command. The subject: how to boost the image of U.S. military operations through "shaping" the product and the marketplace.
In an urban insurgency, for example, civilians can help identify enemy infiltrators and otherwise assist U.S. forces. They are less likely to help, the study says, when they become "collateral damage" in U.S. attacks, have their doors broken down or are shot at checkpoints because they do not speak English.
I see. So, in other words, public relations is more challenging in a foreign environment in which your "target customers" suspect you might kill them.
While not abandoning the more aggressive elements of warfare, the report suggested, a more attractive brand for the Iraqi people might have been "We will help you."
You'll notice, of course, that the report put this in past tense -- it's a little late for Iraq -- so the administration will have to keep it in mind for the next war.
--Steve Benen
Rudy Giuliani delivered a speech in Iowa recently on "Restoring Fiscal Discipline and Cutting Wasteful Washington Spending." Just two minutes and 14 seconds into it, the former mayor said, "I will continue to keep America on offense in the terrorist war against us, because I think that's the overriding issue of our day."
Giuliani was also asked recently about his position on taxes. After a few soundbites, he said, "[Democratic presidential candidates] never mentioned the word 'Islamic terrorist' during the debate.... Maybe they think they're going to be insulting somebody if they say it. I'm trying to figure out who would be insulted -- other than Islamic terrorists."
And this week, also in Iowa, Giuliani was asked about increasing federal support for HIV treatments. He responded:
"My general experience has been that the federal government works best when it helps and assists and encourages and sets guidelines... on a state-by-state, locality-by-locality basis. It's no different from the way I look at homeland security. Maybe having been mayor of the city, I know that your first defense against terrorist attack is that local police station, or that local firehouse."
I'm generally not in the habit of offering advice to Republican presidential hopefuls, but I have an idea for the Giuliani campaign. As a way to save time at future appearances, perhaps one of his aides could give Giuliani a placard with the word "terrorism" on one side, and "9/11" on the other. That way, whenever anyone asks him a question about anything, he can simply point to the sign, instead of having to go to the trouble of coming up with an excuse to end up at the same point anyway.
--Steve Benen
As Atrios noted, the latest Washington Post editorial is drawing the ire of nearly everyone, and with good cause; the piece is a mess, based on a misguided premise.
The decision of Democrats led by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) to deny rather than nourish a bipartisan agreement is, of course, irresponsible.... A Democratic strategy of trying to use Iraq as a polarizing campaign issue and as a club against moderate Republicans who are up for reelection will certainly have the effect of making consensus impossible -- and deepening the trouble for Iraq and for American security.
One wonders if perhaps the Post editorial board simply hasn't been paying attention to current events. As Kevin Drum noted, "After four years of Republican insistence that Congress's only role in the war is to pony up trainloads of money and then shut the hell up, it turns out that it's actually Democrats who are making consensus impossible."
Yes, that dastardly Harry Reid insisted on bringing to the floor a measure that enjoys bi-partisan support, is popular with the vast majority of the country, and offers a realistic chance to improve the country's security interests. How "irresponsible." Doesn't the Senate Majority Leader realize that a watered-down measure of dubious reliability that offers craven WINOs political cover is the only way to reach "consensus"? He's obviously history's greatest monster.
It's worth adding, by the way, that a new meme seems to be quickly emerging within the chattering class: the lack of Senate progress on Iraq legislation isn't Bush's fault (he's vowed to veto any measure that undercut his authority to do what he pleases), or the GOP's fault (the party has voted to filibuster any measure that might pass), but actually Harry Reid's fault.
The Post editorial obviously holds Reid responsible, as does an analysis piece in today's LA Times, which blames the Majority Leader for not "compromising" enough with Republicans. For that matter, David Brooks added this assessment last night:
"[A] lot of Republicans who detest where the White House is are furious at Harry Reid.... [A] lot of Republicans would like to peel off from the president, but they feel that Harry Reid is making it impossible. He's taking this as an issue, forcing them to vote with the president for political reasons. [...]
"Republican senators were anxious to move away from the White House, to move towards some sort of withdrawal. Now they're not talking that way. They're talking, 'We've got to stick with the president.' And why? Two words: Harry Reid.'"
As hilzoy put it, "If David Brooks is right, then 'senior Republican senators' are planning to cast their votes on the question what to do in Iraq ... not on the basis of what is actually best for Iraq, or for our country, or for our troops, or for our long-term national interests, but because of 'Two words: Harry Reid.'"
And for inexplicable reasons, the Washington Post editorial board seems to find this persuasive.
--Steve Benen
Following up on the new interrogation executive order for a moment, Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is apparently one of those old-fashioned lawmakers who's withholding judgment on the new regs until he knows whether they're legal.
[Rockefeller] said it was unclear what the order "really means and how it will translate into actual conduct by the CIA." In a statement, Rockefeller repeated a committee demand made last spring that the White House turn over a copy of the Justice Department's legal analysis of the new guidelines.
Rockefeller could, of course, try to subpoena the internal documents. But the White House believes executive privilege effectively eliminates congressional oversight, and the president is entitled to define the scope and limits of his own powers.
I guess Rockefeller will just have to assume Bush is operating in good faith. What could possibly go wrong?
--Steve Benen
"I would say I am winning," says Hillary in answer to questions about whether she's electable. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Saturday Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Aside from the tragedy of the war itself, one of the more disconcerting elements of the ongoing political debate is just how little progress we've seen in nearly five years. Vapid arguments that were absurd in 2003 are still used routinely. Offensive talking points that were discredited before the invasion even began still appear in major news outlets.
Take, for example, the latest diatribe from William Kristol.
With the ongoing progress of the surge, and the obvious fact that the vast majority of the troops want to fight and win the war, the "support-the-troops-but-oppose-what-they're-doing" position has become increasingly untenable. How can you say with a straight face that you support the troops while advancing legislation that would undercut their mission and strengthen their enemies? You can't. [...]
Having turned against a war that some of them supported, the left is now turning against the troops they claim still to support.... [The troops] are our best and bravest, fighting for all of us against a brutal enemy in a difficult and frustrating war. They are the 9/11 generation. The left slanders them. We support them.
The point of Kristol's piece was to denounce The New Republic and The Nation for pieces that cast some U.S. troops in an unflattering light, but instead of just questioning the articles themselves, Kristol feels justified in rehashing the notion that to disapprove of a war is necessarily to condemn those fighting it. It's an "argument" -- I use the word loosely -- that has a child-like sophistication.
It's apparently impossible for Kristol to conceive of the failure of the so-called surge, or realize that the only thing "strengthening" our enemies is the status quo.
Indeed, to see the world as Kristol does, most Americans, a majority of both chambers of Congress, a considerable number of veterans, and even a growing number of Republican lawmakers, all stand in opposition to the men and women in uniform because they believe the president's policy is a mistake. All deserve to have their patriotism questioned because they have the audacity to see conditions as they are, not as Dick Cheney wills them to be.
But taking a step back, and simply looking at this as a matter of rhetoric, this notion of support-the-troops, support-the-mission was transparently ridiculous years ago, and Kristol, had he the ability, should be embarrassed to be repeating it now. Why is conservative discourse stuck in 2003?
--Steve Benen
After a recent audience with the president, the NYT's David Brooks was apparently impressed with Bush's unwavering certainty.
I left the 110-minute session thinking that far from being worn down by the past few years, Bush seems empowered. His self-confidence is the most remarkable feature of his presidency. [...]
But Bush is not blind to the realities in Iraq.... Rather, his self-confidence survives because it flows from two sources. The first is his unconquerable faith in the rightness of his Big Idea. Bush is convinced that history is moving in the direction of democracy, or as he said Friday: "It's more of a theological perspective. I do believe there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom. And I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me that doesn't exist."
Apparently, Brooks was impressed, but not persuaded. (via TP)
--Steve Benen
Tony Snow told reporters yesterday that the administration has seen "a declining level in the overall pace of attacks" in Iraq.
The reality, of course, is far different.
Attacks in Iraq last month reached their highest daily average since May 2003, showing a surge in violence as President George W. Bush completed a buildup of U.S. troops, Pentagon statistics show.
The data, obtained by Reuters from the Defense Department, showed an upward trend in daily attacks over the past four months, when U.S. and Iraqi forces were ramping up operations against insurgents and militants, including al Qaeda, in Iraq.
There were a total of 5,335 attacks against coalition troops, Iraqi security forces, civilians and infrastructure in June, for a daily average of 177.8 attacks per day, the highest since Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech more than four years ago.
Now, the administration hasn't responded to this report yet, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess the spin: an increase in attacks is good news because it shows the enemy lashing out in desperation. We've got 'em on the run.
Of course, if the number of attacks had dropped considerably this, too, would be good news, because it would be proof that the administration's policies were having a positive effect.
And of the number of attacks had stayed the same, this would also be good news, because a leveling off would reflect a "cooling" period, harkening a new period of stability after growing tensions throughout 2007.
That's the fun thing about listening to the White House -- the president's policy always right, facts be damned.
--Steve Benen
Less-than-clear interrogation regulations
Since the Hamdan ruling a year ago, there's been some uncertainties surrounding the Bush administration's interrogation policies, with ambiguous lines dictating CIA policy. The good news is, the White House said yesterday it was clearing things up with an executive order "barring the CIA from using torture, acts of violence and degrading treatment in the interrogation and detention of terrorism suspects."
The bad news is, the ambiguities are as dramatic as they were before the executive order.
[M]ost of the president's executive order is written in generalities, leaving unanswered whether the CIA will be free to subject prisoners to a range of specific techniques it has reportedly used in the past, including long-term sleep disruption, prolonged shackling in painful stress positions, or "waterboarding," a technique that produces the sensation of drowning.
The administration is separately crafting a list of permitted and forbidden tactics that it said will comply with Bush's executive order, but the list is classified. In a background conference call with reporters yesterday, a senior administration official declined to say whether the new guidelines will permit tactics such as waterboarding.
"I am not in a position to talk about any specific interrogation practices," the official said. "It is impossible for us, consistent with the objectives of such a program, to publicize to the enemy what practices may be on the table and what practices may be off the table. That will only enable Al Qaeda to train against those that are on or off."
Unless terrorists are prepared to grow gills, it's not clear how they can prepare to withstand waterboarding, but nevertheless, the new guidelines leave practically all of the key questions unanswered. No one outside the administration knows what's on the separate list of interrogation tactics, so no one knows whether administration policy prohibits torture, meets the standards of the Geneva Conventions, or conflicts with any existing laws or treaties.
"All the order really does is to have the president say, 'Everything in that other document that I'm not showing you is legal -- trust me,' " said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch.
Given the last six years, it's not as if the president has earned the benefit of the doubt.
--Steve Benen
Caption Contest
Some photos are just so pregnant with meaning that they demand a caption contest to tap the full yield of collective snarkdom.
Here's a photo courtesy of Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). A year ago at the annual Kenai River Classic, the big pol and lobbyist shindig hosted every year by Bob Penney, the Alaska bigwig who's now in hot water for giving Sen. Murkowski half off on a choice piece of riverfront property on the very same Kenai River, right near where the Classic is held every year.
At last year's Classic, Murkowski landed the second biggest fish, a 63 pound King Salmon which she posed with here ...
I'm going with either ...
"Penney Reels in a Big One"
or
"Bob Penney's Haul from a Great Day's Fishing"
Can you do better? Send us in your entries.
--Josh Marshall
The Horror
Sigh, it looks like some people are already freakin' out about this weekend's Cheney presidency ...
--Josh Marshall
He's Ba-aack
I'd been wondering lately about our old friend, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA). A year ago, Lewis was at the center of a widening federal investigation into congressional earmarks, lobbying practices, and the revolving door between congressional staff positions and DC lobbying firms. Then Los Angeles U.S. Attorney Debra Yang, whose office was leading the Lewis investigation, stepped down to enter private practice (with the firm representing Lewis); and San Diego U.S. Attorney Carol Lam, whose conviction of then-Rep. Duke Cunningham spawned the Lewis probe, was canned in the U.S. Attorneys purge. Since then, things have been awfully quiet (whether that was by design remains to be determined).
Until now. CBS News is reporting about a questionable new Lewis earmark, this one on Capitol Hill itself. According to CBS, Lewis has earmarked $2.4 million since 2004 to Barracks Row, a commercial development on the Hill, just four blocks from a million-dollar home owned by Lewis' wife. With the infusion of federal dollars, property values in the area have been soaring, the network reports. There's also another lobbyist connection:
But CBS News has found another link between Lewis and Barracks Row: Tip Tipton, property owner and director of the redevelopment project. It turns out he's a top Washington lobbyist, and a longtime Lewis friend and donor.He says Congressman Lewis only has the national interest at heart.
“It’s important that the area surrounding the Capitol look like an area that the United States citizens would be proud to show their neighbors and friends,” Tipton, who is [on] the Barracks Row Board of Directors, said.
Lewis wouldn't talk to us but in a statement said it's "ridiculous" to suggest he supports Barracks Row for any reason other than to help residents and visitors in a once-shabby area.
I missed ol' Jerry. Nice to have him back.
--David Kurtz
Video Surfaces Of Rudy Screaming, "Bulls#$t!"
Being a New Yorker, I'd remembered that during a cop union rally in 1992, Rudy had come unhinged and screamed, "Bulls#$t!"
For some time now I've been meaning to track video of this moment down. I thought it might tell us something about the reliability and temperament of this man who is asking us to make him our next Commander in Chief -- especially now that he's trying to win the support of GOP "values voters."
Wouldn't you know it, but video of that moment has suddenly surfaced, as if by magic! Enjoy:
"Bullsh#$t!"
--Greg Sargent
Mitch McConnell concedes the 2008 Senate map looks grim indeed for the GOP. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
In response to our inquiries, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has issued a statement responding to the uproar over the letter from Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman to Sen. Hillary Clinton condemning her for reinforcing "enemy propaganda." Says Gates:
I have long been a staunch advocate of Congressional oversight, first at the CIA and now at the Defense Department. I have said on several occasions in recent months that I believe that congressional debate on Iraq has been constructive and appropriate. I had not seen Senator Clinton’s reply to Ambassador Edelman’s letter until today. I am looking into the issues she raised and will respond to them early next week.
I'd stop short of calling that a rebuke to Edelman, but just barely short. Greg, who has been dogging this story for the last couple of days, has more at Election Central.
--David Kurtz
How does the GOP record of obstruction in the Senate compare to past Congresses? McClatchy does the legwork to get the numbers:
Nearly 1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes. If this pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous record number of cloture votes — 58 each in the two Congresses from 1999-2002, according to the Senate Historical Office.
McClatchy also puts the filibuster in historical context and notes that the Democrats used it more in recent years than in the past. In short, we've been on an upward trend for almost two decades, but the GOP is on pace to use the filibuster more than ever before in the history of the Senate.
--David Kurtz
TPM Reader TM digs deeper into President Bush's broad assertion of executive privilege:
I think David's point is an excellent one, but he doesn't sink the point home.While everyone seems to recognize that some form of executive privilege exists, everyone also seems to agree that it doesn't really apply to federal agencies that are created by the Legislative Branch. The Attorney General, for instance, only has the powers he has due to Acts of Congress, and Congress can ask him any questions it wants to about holding him accountable for how he has used those powers and carried out acts of Congress. Getting straight answers is another story, but Congress has clear powers there.
But what if, "hypothetically", political appointees ostensibly accountable to Congress were either:
A) Puppets, taking orders from the White House, without regard or knowledge for why those decisions were being made; or
B) Pretend Puppets, feigning ignorance of how or why decisions were made, pointing the finger at the White House.
And in either case, the White House stonewalls, using claims of executive privilege to withhold information that could explain the actions of executive agencies clearly under the purview of Congressional oversight?
What we would have is the overthrow of de facto congressional oversight.
That's what this is all about.
I don't hold myself out as an expert on executive privilege, but I think TM is right that this is the most dire implication of the President's sweeping application of the theory of the unitary executive to executive privilege. And by "dire" I don't mean to suggest that it's a remote or speculative implication. It is very real.
However, I still maintain that in debating the scope of executive privilege as a policy matter, it concedes too much to say that of course the President can get good advice only if that advice is protected legally from congressional oversight. By then, you are already well down the slippery slope.
--David Kurtz
An Unmistakable Signal Alright
As you've probably seen already, President Bush today, for what must be the millionth time, asserted that failure in Iraq “would send an unmistakable signal to America’s enemies that our country can be bullied into retreat.”
To which TPM Reader MR replies:
I say what the rest of the world already knows, that failure in Iraq would send an unmistakable signal that no matter how well prepared your military is, it does you no good if your Commander in Chief over-rides the judgment of the military professionals and fires any general who dares to suggest anything that might be politically inconvenient for the President.
In the course of his comments, the President also criticized the Democrats for having a debate on Iraq while at the same time saying, "Our nation deserves a serious debate about Iraq."
I don't know about you, but that clears things up for me.
--David Kurtz
Penny for Your Thoughts
Okay, in response to the developing scandal about his sweetheart land deal with Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R), Alaska bigwig and Salmon-fishing mogul Bob Penney has claimed he didn't know the land he sold Murkowski had been appreciating so quickly.
"Word of honor, I did not know what the assessed value was," he told the ADN. "I thought it was still $120,000."
But Laura McGann has dug up testimony from only months earlier in which Penney bragged about how rapidly the land's value was going up.
--Josh Marshall
A Privileged Few
As long as we're going to be discussing the parameters of executive privilege in the weeks and months ahead, can we start by revisiting the now commonly accepted notion that the President can only get free and unfettered advice if those giving the advice know it will remain confidential?
Every talking head starts the discussion of executive privilege with a solemn nod to this totem. Heck, even Kevin Drum conceded this point in a post back in March:
The president and his immediate staff really do have a strong interest in their ability to receive candid, provocative advice, and that interest is threatened if advisors are worried that the ideas they toss around in private are likely to become public. This is an important principle regardless of who occupies the White House.
Is that really true though? Literally, Kevin is right. Presidents do have a strong interest in this principle. But the President's interest, in this instance, is not in line with the public interest. In fact, executive privilege offers the President and his advisers a perverse disincentive to look after the public interest. Isn't the prospect of public exposure of hare-brained ideas, controversial proposals, and malfeasance and misdeeds the very sort of incentive the public wants looming over the President and his advisers, a dagger of accountability?
A friend of mine thinks we would be much better off subjecting the Oval Office to 24-hour TV coverage, like a CSPAN for the White House. I wouldn't go that far, but the point remains the same. The concoction of cover-ups, frauds, and misadventures in the White House over the last 35 years is precisely what should be exposed to public scrutiny. The logic, such as it is, for executive privilege would apply equally to governors, mayors, and officials at all levels of government. Yet we don't usually grant such broad privileges to other government officials.
Generally, the purpose of a privilege such as attorney-client privilege or doctor-patient privilege is to preserve a relationship that society puts more value on than enforcing the law. There is value in a client being able to fully and completely disclose their legal problems to her attorney without fear of prosecution. There is value in a patient being able to be honest and forthright with her physician without legal repercussion.
Still, there are limits to the privilege. The attorney-client privilege cannot be used to perpetuate a fraud. The doctor-patient privilege does not apply when the doctor has a reasonable apprehension that the patient may cause himself or another serious physical harm. As a society, we have placed a high value on certain relationships, placing them to a limited degree outside of the law, but only up to a certain point, at which time other values become paramount.
So back to the President and executive privilege. If a privilege is intended to resolve a conflict between competing interests in favor of the more important interest, then what interest is executive privilege protecting? There is, it seems to me, only one interest at stake: the public interest. The President is supposed to be acting in the public interest, and so are his advisers. The public disclosure of internal White House deliberations allows the public to hold the President and his advisers accountable to the public interest. If there is a legitimate competing interest here, I don't see it.
Some will argue that without executive privilege the President could be subject to harassment from Congress, that he would never get anything done because of constant subpoenas and hearings, that the effective carrying out of his duties could be undermined. But that's a different argument from the need for the President to get free and unfettered advice, and in any event, a court could resolve issues of harassment without having to grant a broad executive privilege. The scope of and burden imposed by subpoenas is resolved in courts every day.
I fully recognize that there is a basis in law for executive privilege. But both the legal justification for executive privilege and the policy justification rely mostly on the mistaken assumption that the public interest is served by the President being able to avoid public scrutiny in the execution of his public duties.
It's well past time to revisit that assumption.
--David Kurtz
Be Afraid
Be Afraid, Be very, very afraid. This headline is now running at CNN as a Breaking News flash ...
President Bush temporarily will transfer power to Vice President Dick Cheney while Bush has a colonoscopy Saturday.
So making Dick Cheney acting president for maybe an hour or two. Hmmm. Checklist. 1. Invade Iran. 2. Rule Pat Leahy 'Special Legislative Enemy Combatant' ...
What else do you think is on (Acting) President Cheney's to-do list?
--Josh Marshall
Fingers' Length
TPM Reader PW on the Murkowski's Friends and Family Discount ...
If it weren't criminal, I'd laugh. Anyone who's been around non-arm's length property transactions knows that there are simple, straightforward ways to do this kind of thing in an above-board manner. You get an independent appraiser (maybe two, one hired by each party) and ask them to appraise the property for regular sale. That's the price you pay. Then you hold onto the appraisal report(s).
--Josh Marshall
CNN completes its review of the DC Madam's phone records. Comes up empty on additional gotchas, but sketches out the John subculture in metro DC.
--David Kurtz
Building a Bridge to the 20th Century
Turns out there's one place GOP prez candidates spent a lot more than their Dem rivals last quarter: direct mail. Don't want to read too much into one factoid or imply that direct mail is an outmoded campaign money technology. But it was very much a key pillar of what the late 20th century GOP machine was built on. And I would imagine the political future belongs to the digital equivalents of direct mail.
I'd be curious to hear from our political and campaign operative readers about whether I'm reading too much into these numbers or whether the GOP campaign infrastructure is slower to make the switch.
--Josh Marshall
Friends and Family Discount
As you probably know, on Monday TPMmuckraker's Laura McGann broke the story of Sen. Lisa Murkowski's (R-AK) sweetheart land deal with a big Alaska political contributor, Bob Penney, who's also 
involved in the investigation of fellow Sen. Stevens (R-AK). It's what everyone seems to be talking about in Alaska today and perhaps soon in Washington too.
Yesterday the Anchorage Daily News picked up Laura's story. And at this point it's really quite clear that Murkowski got an illegal gift to the tune of possibly $150,000. Perhaps a bit less, but possibly a bit more. One way or another it seems pretty clear that Penney sold her this piece of choice riverfront land (where there seems to be amazing fishing -- believe me, I'm jealous) for about half price.
So today I'm reading the ADN's follow-up in which Murkowski and various pals try to explain away what happened.
Here's what one defender, Buzz Kyllonen, tells the paper. "They've been friends with Penney for years and years and years, and he probably said, 'I'll sell for a whole lot less than I would somebody walking down the street."
Well, okay, I think I can probably sign on for that explanation too.
But Penney's explanation was even better. From the ADN ...
Penney said Wednesday that the land had not been for sale but he offered it because he wanted Murkowski and her family as neighbors. On Thursday Murkowski reiterated that they were old friends.
Imagine that, a politically-wired Alaska moneyman wants the state's junior senator to live next door to him. Who can question that?
Now, Murkowski says they're old friend; they go back to grade school or something. But remember, Murkowski inherited her senate seat (though she subsequently won it in her own right) from her pop, Frank Murkowski, who was senator from 1980 to 2002 and a big player in state politics for another decade before that. So for Lisa, being pals with someone since way before she became senator doesn't mean the same thing as it woud for an ordinary mortal.
In any case, here's how Murkowski says it all came down ...
She said the family sold its house in Anchorage because her sons will be leaving for school and she and her husband wanted to be on the Kenai, a river whose salmon first drew Martell to Alaska. When she mentioned that to Penney, she said, he offered the lot."And I remember saying, 'Oh yeah, but I can't buy a lot from you. I know you,'" she said. "And he said, 'Lisa, you know everybody in the state."
Good gracious. So apparently, Murkowski knew there was a problem buying the land from Penney. But he reassured her that Alaska was a small state and she knew everyone. So it wasn't a problem. Sort of like he gave her a quick impromptu ethics advisory. And then they agreed he'd sell it to her for half price.
It helps to have a lot of friends.
Anyway, there are a few other wrinkles to this story. This hasn't gotten into our reporting that much. But while Laura was reporting on this story over the last few weeks one thing that came up was a series of very weird little details about Murkowski's disclosure reports. Some things that were supposed to be disclosed about this deal weren't. Then on forms where she did disclose there were valuation sections that happened for some reason not to be checked. Then where a date was supposed to be listed a key digit was left off, which made it impossible to know when the transaction had occurred. Taken in total, each individual snafu could be written off as a mistake. But taken together, they made it virtually impossible to see what had happened unless you independently knew exactly what to look for.
From an editor's perspective it was a bit hard to know how to treat this. You don't want to go too far out on a thin reed dealing with what could be mere errors in filling out the form. Knowing what we know now though I don't think there's much question that Murkowski knew this purchase was a big problem and the forms were filled out or not filled out in such a way as to kick up as much dust as possible.
--Josh Marshall
Bedside Manner
Alberto Gonzales went behind closed doors on the Hill yesterday where he was peppered with questions about that notorious visit to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft while he was hospitalized:
In a closed-door session, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes said members were especially interested in the reasons behind Gonzales' controversial 2004 visit to the hospital bedside of John Ashcroft, reportedly to pressure the ailing attorney general to endorse Bush's surveillance program. Ashcroft, said to have been barely conscious at the time, refused.Gonzales did not express any regret, Reyes said after the hearing ended.
"He, I thought, explained it very well in terms of why they had gone there," said Reyes, D-Texas, declining to provide specifics because many details are classified. . . .
Details of the hospital visit, first revealed in congressional testimony by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey, intensified calls by Democrats and some Republicans for Gonzales' resignation. The attorney general has shown no signs that he will step down.
Congressional Republicans, by and large, still have Gonzales' back:
Ranking Republican Pete Hoekstra urged Congress to move on from speculation over the hospital visit, which he likened to a discussion of "exactly what (flavor) Jell-O Ashcroft was eating in the hospital."
With statesmen like Hoekstra, it's hard to believe the GOP lost its majority.
Update: Speaking of Comey, he's touting Patrick Fitzgerald as a future attorney general.
Late update: Speaking of Fitzgerald, he will be a guest on the NPR show "Wait Wait ... Don't Tell Me." The show was taped last evening, and Fitzgerald received a scooter as a parting gift, engraved with "To Patrick Fitzgerald, USA, This one will stay where you put it." [via War and Piece.]
--David Kurtz
Right Hand, Meet Left
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, speaking in March about the Iraq debate in Congress:
I believe that the debate here on the Hill and the issues that have been raised have been helpful in bringing pressure to bear on the Maliki government and on the Iraqis in knowing that there is a very real limit to American patience in this entire enterprise.
Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman, in a July 16 letter to Sen. Hillary Clinton:
Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia.
--David Kurtz
Today's Must Read
Now that the administration has told Congress where they can stick their subpoena, what's next?
--Paul Kiel
"America is too consumed with Iraq," says Rudy Giuliani. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Law & Order
Sounds like he really may be the guy to carry on the Bush legacy ...
In an apparent violation of the law, a controverisal aide to ex-Gov. Mitt Romney created phony law enforcement badges that he and other staffers used on the campaign trail to strong-arm reporters, avoid paying tolls and trick security guards into giving them immediate access to campaign venues, sources told the Herald.The bogus badges were part of the bizarre security tactics allegedly employed by Jay Garrity, the director of operations for Romney who is under investigation for impersonating a law enforcement officer in two states. Garrity is on a leave of absence from the campaign while the probe is ongoing.
A campaign source said Garrity directed underlings on Romney’s presidential staff to use the badges at events nationwide to create an image of security and to ensure that the governor’s events went smoothly.
Earlier reports suggested this was just Garrity's hobbyhorse. But if the whole staff was involved, did Mitt really not know?
--Josh Marshall
We received such a well-considered email last night from TPM Reader MA that I'm going to post the whole thing:
Your post . . . about the slowdown in cases in San Francisco got me thinking about the larger bureaucratic issue associated with more than half a dozen years under Bush.This is a relatively trivial incident, but a while back I attempted to get my passport renewed and discovered the wait times had doubled (partly because of the new rule requiring travelers to Canada to have passports) -- trivial, yes, but it also highlights some of the more mundane effects of an administration run by people who have a fundamental antipathy toward government service and government programs.
This gets writ large in the case of incidents like Hurricane Katrina, the prosecution of the Iraq war and so on...but it also gets writ small in thousands of details of everyday bureaucratic life -- especially as the Bush influence trickles down through the bureaucracy from political appointees to career employees.
If the governing Bush/Cheney philosophy is that the public sector doesn't work, that it is inherently not just inefficient and corrupt, but antagonistic to citizens and individuals, this philosophy has a way of slithering its way into the workings of the system itself -- not just in the case of high profile corruption scandals, but also, again on a more mundane level, in the day-to-day operation of government bureaucracies.
And here's the weird thing, even though that sounds so unexciting, there's something almost stifling about imagining a bureaucracy that really is antagonistic to individuals -- one that not only slows down, but finds some vindication in throwing up road blocks, thwarting citizen requests, and, in the end, not serving the public. I have family members who lived in former communist countries -- and that's really how the bureaucracy was there, and life under those circumstances was made much more difficult, bureaucratic responsibilities increasingly cumbersome, much of the time the system just didn't work, and had to be gamed (or bribed).
Although I have large scale concerns about Bush's handling of the war, the economy, and so on, I also have some more micro scale concerns about what his philosophy of governance means for everyday life and our everyday interactions with the bureaucracy. Indeed, this scale, though more mundane, is also the one that in some ways affects the majority of the population more directly, even if much less dramatically. I've lived in places where the bureaucracy functions quite well, and where citizens take a certain pride in the fact that the government serves them.
The idea of living in a country where the administration's goal is to demonstrate just how bad government is/can be scares me at this very prosaic level -- I want my schools and courts and inspection agencies and passport agencies and so on to be run by people who really believe in government service and in the fact that the government can work effectively to serve the populace. Bush seems to be doing everything he can to dismantle such a world -- and he risks fueling a vicious circle in so doing.
--David Kurtz
Rogue Presidency
Huge new claim of executive privilege from the White House is about to be reported in the Post.
Late Update: And here it is ...
Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals.
Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."
And this ...
Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing.""That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."
--Josh Marshall
Duty to the State of New York
Greetings. I was away for a couple days because I was serving jury duty. Like many of you, I suspect, I have mixed feelings when I get called for jury duty. On the one hand I feel a strong civic obligation. On the other, I feel the tug of all my professional responsibilities. And in this case in particular I was anxious because we'd just relaunched the site. So I felt particularly pained and uncomfortable not being around when we were getting the new set up up and running, since so much of it is new and different from what we've done before.
The only jury I've ever served on was one in Washington, DC about four years ago. It was a fairly straightforward drug sale at an open air drug market, cigarettes dipped in PCP, two charges. I think I was one of one or two jurors who wasn't willing to convict on the first round. And we ended up convicting on one count (possession) and acquitting on the other (sale). There's a certain illogic to the combination, I grant you. But in the particular set of factual findings we had to make there was a logic to it.
In the everyday sense of reasoning it was fairly clear the defendant was guilty. But it was also clear that several key facts the police claimed had happened could not have happened -- it came down to pretty straightforward physics that even I can understand, like people not being able to see through buildings. There was the backdrop of the draconian punishments for small time drug crimes. But I set that aside as I was instructed to. But I could not see convicting the kid when it was clear that two of the central fact witnesses for the prosecution lied about key details to make the case stronger. We, the jury, argued for some time and decided to acquit on one count and convict on another where there was physical evidence that appeared impossible to dispute.
In any case, this time -- back to the present -- I was nervous about getting impanelled for the reasons I've described above and I had this and that person tell me their bright idea about how to get oneself knocked out of contention in the jury selection process. So I showed up yesterday morning, waited, didn't get called, didn't get called, then finally got called with twelve other perspective jurors down to the civil branch on the third floor.
We were escorted into a spacious and well-lighted closet for the voir dire process. One of the two attorneys, a snappily dressed man, began describing the case to us. And it became clear it was a medical malpractice claim. He gave us a brief thumbnail description of the case. And it occurred to me that having married into a family of doctors probably wouldn't make me a particularly attractive candidate. Then the defense attorney began discussing the case and in passing told us her client's name, the defendant.
And I'd gone to college with him. That's a decent number of years ago now. But not a common name, the right kind of doctor, the right location. Obviously him. And not just a name I remembered, but a friend, if one I haven't seen or heard of in going on twenty years. My hand popped up. "I think I know one of the parties to the case." At which I drew a bunch of sharp stares like I'd just popped a balloon. And that pretty much was the end of my jury duty this time.
I got sent back to the waiting pond, came back this morning and got my walking papers at lunch.
--Josh Marshall
The Financial Times reports that some cases in the San Francisco U.S. Attorney's office are moving so slowly that the Securities and Exchange Commission is considering moving forward with its civil cases alone rather than waiting on the Justice Department, with whom the SEC usually jointly files cases:
The San Francisco slowdown is the most dramatic example of larger problems that have surfaced at the DoJ since the mass sackings of eight US attorneys, including Mr [Kevin] Ryan, caused a furore in February. Six top posts at the DoJ in Washington are empty or filled with temporary appointees, and 23 of the 93 US Attorney’s offices around the country lack permanent political leadership.
Frankly, I wouldn't call this the "most dramatic example" of the problems at DOJ. The politicization at all levels that has emerged since the USAs purge is far more dramatic and more serious. But the FT report does show how even the routine work of the department is being disrupted by the dreadful leadership of Alberto Gonzales.
--David Kurtz
Seventy House Democrats write a letter to Bush informing him that they won't support any future war funding unless it pays for nothing but withdrawal of the troops. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
There's no use trying to debunk each and every lie or half truth that comes out of Tony Snow, but this one has been gnawing at me all day. It comes from a Snow op-ed in this morning's USA Today. Here he is referring to Saddam Hussein: "We never argued that he played a role [in] 9/11; political opponents manufactured the claim to question the president's integrity."
Now it can gnaw on you, too. I feel better already.
--David Kurtz
Lots of readers have emailed about the Executive Order issued by the President on Tuesday, which broadly empowers the federal government to freeze the assets of Iraqi insurgents and those seeking to destabilize the Iraqi government, including U.S. citizens. Spencer Ackerman has looked into the implications of this new order and has two reports (here and here).
--David Kurtz
Things continue to look gloomy for Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA). The governor of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Benigno R. Fitial, announced today that he is cooperating with the federal investigation related to Jack Abramoff:
The Justice Department's interest in Doolittle appears to focus on payments Doolittle's wife, Julie, received from Abramoff for fundraising work unrelated to the Marianas. But Doolittle was also heavily involved in Abramoff's advocacy for the Marianas, endorsing Fitial for governor and pushing federal funding on his behalf.Doolittle was lobbied on the issue by his own former legislative director, Kevin Ring, who went on to work with Abramoff and now is himself under investigation.
"Doolittle, he's also a friend," said Fitial.
Fitial spoke to reporters after testifying against a Senate bill that would impose U.S. immigration laws on the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, a chain of 14 islands just north of Guam in the Pacific. A similar bill passed the Senate in 2000 but Abramoff helped block it from advancing in the House.
I suppose Doolittle will cheer this latest development, too.
--David Kurtz
The Acrimony
In a post today Andrew Sullivan writes ...
What we desperately need right now is less recrimination - can we all agree that the current crew is simply unhinged? - and more imagination with respect to exploiting the opportunities opened up by the moral and strategic catastrophe of the Iraq occupation.
I don't think Sullivan necessarily disagrees with what I'm about to write. But it puts me in the mind of what Sen. Lieberman (I) said Tuesday night during the Republicans' Iraq filibuster when he decried the partisanship and acrimony of the Iraq debate, with an undisguised emphasis on his Democratic colleagues. I agree to the extent that the dangers we face because of the Iraq catastrophe are so great and the long term consequences so vast that we can't afford score settling and jockeying for advantage. This isn't rhetoric. Completely setting aside the lives we've lost and the money we've squandered I don't think this country has really taken stock of the damage we've done to ourselves or the prices we're going to pay for this folly for decades to come. As it is with a family so to with a country, when catastrophe strikes everyone has to pull together to help find a way out, a way back.
But that's not where we are. A faction in this country, and it doesn't merit a loftier label given its quickly diminishing size and its focus on loyalty to a single man, is still focused on perpetuating the catastrophe -- continuing it, expanding it and perhaps most importantly denying its very existence. One might say that denial and refusal to come clean on how we got into this mess is actually the least important element. But that's not the case since it is these that make the continuation of the policy possible.
We can agree that the current crew is unhinged. But they still control the US military and all of US foreign policy until 60 senators agree to bring them to heel.
--Josh Marshall
Speak No Evil
No enemy of the U.S. in the last 40 years has had as dim a view of American willpower as neo-conservatives do. To hear them tell the tale, U.S. foreign policy has been one long series of impotent withdrawals.
Here, for example, is Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman, in a letter, obtained by the AP, responding to questions from Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) about Pentagon contingency planning for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq:
Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia.
Haunted by this dark narrative of failure, the neo-cons are bound and determined not to repeat the weak-willed mistakes of the recent past. Why, even the very discussion of how to get out of this mess will embolden our enemies and undermine our own resolve. Instead, we must march in lockstep forward, chins jutting ahead, ignoring all of the distractions which could so easily turn us into quivering Jello.
How thankful we should be to have brave men like Eric Edelman to stifle debate, to lash us in our moments of weakness, and to encourage us to be oblivious to the reality all around us. Then and only then can we achieve America's true greatness.
If, god forbid, we were to fail, it will not be on account of such noble examples as Eric Edleman. No, it will be the fault of the weak-minded among us, besotted by our culture of tolerance and permissiveness. Men like Eric Edelman can lead, but they cannot make us follow (at least not quite yet--they're working on that). In this, we must do our duty, following without question or reason, without reflection or pause.
Ultimately, as Eric Edelman knows all too well, our own worst enemy is ourselves.
Update: Here's a copy of the letter.
--David Kurtz
The Few, the Brave
Okay, as you know, here at TPM, we're getting big into video. And most of the stuff we bring you now is stuff we've produced ourselves. But this video piece by Max Blumenthal is such a work of genius that I've got to post it.
It's Max spending some quality time at the National College Republican Convention last week.
I'm serious. Watch it. You'll thank me.
Late Update: This one's pretty damned funny too ...
--Josh Marshall
Tight Squeeze
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) is still the Southern regional chairman of the Giuliani for President camapign, and the DC Madam still wants to call Vitter as a witness at her trial.
If Vitter is forced to testify, he would have three options, the Times-Picayune observes:
A subpoena would present Vitter with an awkward choice, legal experts said. He could say he hired a prostitute. He could assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and say nothing. Or he could acknowledge that he hired an escort but that nothing illegal happened.
Fun choices.
Late update: CREW has filed an complaint against Vitter with the Senate Ethics Committee.
--David Kurtz
Tragedy as Farce
Sidney Blumenthal previews the next scene of the Iraq debacle:
Gen. Petraeus is promised as the dramatic hero who will stride to triumph in the last act. The author of a recent study of counterinsurgency who has not previously fought such a war, he has been thrust into the spotlight partly because his halo is yet untarnished. Bush's unpopularity disqualifies him from the "Mission Accomplished" moment. So he pushes out his handpicked general and walks behind his chariot, hoping the cheering of the crowd will be also for him. In his July 12 press conference, Bush mentioned Petraeus 11 times, his name flourished as a talisman for "victory." The generals with the greatest experience with the Iraq insurgency, who opposed Bush's surge, such as Gen. John Abizaid, an Arabic speaker, have been discharged or reassigned. The burden on the ambitious general to produce a military solution is unbearable and his breaking inevitable. But for now, Petraeus' tragedy foretold is being cast as the first dawn of a happy ending.
As Josh mentioned a few days ago, Bush still wants his parade.
--David Kurtz
The Challenge for Afghanistan
In today's episode of TPMtv, we ask Afghan Ambassador Said T. Jawad about some of the more controversial aspects of the war in Afghanistan: from torture on Afghan soil to the spike in civilian casualties to the allegation that President Hamid Karzai's brother is involved in the opium trade. His take on Iran's influence in Afghanistan might surprise you. Take a look.
--Spencer Ackerman
Northern Exposure, Part II
Laura McGann has the rundown on the breaking news from Alaska regarding the sweetheart land deal for Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).
Short version: Murkowski bought riverfront property on the Kenai River from a politically connected developer for $179,400, which just happened to be the assessed value of the property for property tax purposes. There are indications that the fair market value of the property may be nearly twice what Murkowski paid.
If only I could pick up real estate for the assessed value. Guess you have to be a U.S. senator for that kind of score.
Update: I've gotten a couple of emails--from readers in Massachusetts and Virginia, respectively--who would be happy to sell me property at the assessed value, saying that FMV is actually lower than their assessments. I'd be curious to know where else in the country this is the case.
In any event, our reporting shows that assessed value does trail FMV in the area where Murkowski's property is located.
--David Kurtz
New evidence surfaces of more pro-choice lobbying by Fred Thompson. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Wow. It really does defy comprehension sometimes how bad congressional reporters can be at reporting what's going on in Congress. Check this out.
Late Update: Looking more closely at the question and answer I linked to in this post, I can see what the Post reporter was saying. I think it's a strained reading, but my original criticism was too strong.
--Josh Marshall
Northern Exposure
That land deal involving Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) that TPMmuckraker's Laura McGann broke on Monday just got a whole lot more interesting.
More shortly . . .
--David Kurtz
Hillary campaign officially responds to Elizabeth Edwards' criticism of her record on women's-rights issues. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
All Nighter at Joe's Place
Maybe you had a life and weren't able to stay up all night last night to watch the GOP filibuster on the Iraq withdrawal bill. But with the help of TPM Readers who did we've put together a highlight reel of some of the best or just, well, some of the choicest moments (there's some really good stuff). At one point, right at the end of the segment, Sen. Inhofe (R-OK) gets so wound up about how good things are going in Iraq that he appears to waver momentarily in his opposition to gays in the military. Take a look ...
--Josh Marshall
Now She tells us
From Maria Bartiromo's interview of Condi Rice in the current issue of BusinessWeek:
MB: Would you consider a position in business or on Wall Street?CR: I don't know what I'll do long-term. I'm a terrible long-term planner.
--David Kurtz
We have a winner
The award for most misleading headline on today's Iraq vote goes to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, whose website leads with "Filibuster Fails to Force Iraq Vote."
Whoa. Wrong on so many levels.
We were just kicking that one around amongst ourselves. Greg Sargent pointed out that it's a twofer: "The Dems filibustered, and they failed at it. They are filibustering losers."
Just in case all the bamboozling has you confused, it was the Republicans who were threatening to filibuster to thwart a vote on withdrawing from Iraq. Rinse and repeat.
--David Kurtz
Today, we find Dick Cheney comfortably ensconced in the Executive Branch, which offers him the advantage of being able to assert executive privilege in the face of congressional subpoenas. (The specter of Cheney raising executive privilege came in this letter from the Vice President's counsel to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT). This, of course, is in contrast to Cheney's position a few weeks ago that he was part of the Legislative Branch and thus not subject to an Executive Order on the handling of classified documents.
I used to think that Cheney's undisclosed location was an underground bunker somewhere in the wilds of Maryland. Perhaps it was really this strange new netherworld between the Executive and Legislative branches, an imaginary place of the Vice President's own making.
--David Kurtz
A Non-Denial Denial
So what exactly did Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) mean when he said yesterday that he had personally paid every bill he received for the renovations to his home in Girdwood, Alaska?
--David Kurtz
What About Afghanistan?
There's a lot more heat than light coming from the Iraq debate, as the last 24 hours in the Senate showed vividly. But when it comes to Afghanistan, where the war on terrorism began, there's a relative pall.
Last week, I sat down with Afghanistan's ambassador to the U.S., Said T. Jawad, to learn more about a country that's become more and more of an abstraction as the U.S.'s focus remains squarely on Iraq. In today's episode of TPMtv, we bring you part one of our interview with Ambassador Jawad, where he tells us what Afghanistan will require from the U.S. and the international community to come back from the precipice of failed statehood.
Check back tomorrow for the final installment of our interview with the ambassador.
--Spencer Ackerman
Former Cheney aide sentenced to 10 years for passing classified information to the Philippines. No word yet on a commutation.
--David Kurtz
Well, there you have it. The Senate GOP minority has blocked a vote on withdrawal from Iraq, with the threat of a filibuster. No big surprise. It was clear from the outset that not enough Republicans would defect to overcome their party's filibuster threat.
GOP senators can whine and complain all they want about the President's Iraq policy, but when push comes to shove, the vast majority of them are still lined up right behind the President and his disastrous policy.
Since the media hasn't been able to bring itself to use the f-word (filibuster) in describing the GOP's procedural maneuvering, I'm not optimistic that the coverage of the defeat of the Democrats' proposal for a withdrawal timeline will be much better.
We've already picked up on some doozies. The vote to end debate and proceed to a vote on the Democrats' withdrawal amendment was 52-47, with 60 votes needed for passage. So that's 52 senators voting to end debate and proceed to a vote. How does FOX News report it? The Democrats proposal failed 52-47, as if only 47 votes could be mustered for the Democrats' position.
Now you would expect that kind of thing out of FOX, but CSPAN? Take a look:
Thanks to TPM Reader AG for the catch.
We'll be following the coverage closely. Let us know what you find.
[Note: Oops. In its original form, this post incorrectly transposed the vote total as 57-42, instead of 52-47.]
Update: From TPM Reader TH:
I think even the New York Times headline gives the wrong impression. It reads: "Democrats Fail to Force Vote on Iraq Pullout." It's technically accurate, of course, but even someone up on the debate is likely to think that the Democrats couldn't get their act together, that they weren't united on this. An equally accurate but essentially more truthful headline would be: "Republicans Stymie Vote on Iraq Pullout."
Exactly right.
Late update: Lead headline on the website of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "Filibuster Fails to Force Iraq Vote." Huh?
Thanks to TPM Reader MK for the catch.
--David Kurtz
Curious Timing
Hot on the heels of yesterday's release of the declassified NIE on Al Qaeda, the U.S. military in Baghdad announced today that it has captured a top leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq:
The U.S. command said Wednesday the highest-ranking Iraqi in the leadership of al-Qaida in Iraq has been arrested, adding that information from him indicates the group's foreign-based leadership wields considerable influence over the Iraqi chapter.
First off, the capture took place two weeks ago but was not announced until today. Hmmm, have we seen that before? And the detainee just happened to confess to a greater level of coordination between AQ in Iraq and Osama bin Laden's global AQ, right in line with the official White House line that AQ in Iraq and AQ are one and the same. The White House is already highlighting the capture in its daily email to reporters. Go figure.
--David Kurtz
Elizabeth Edwards stars for the first time in a campaign ad for her husband. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Townsend's Dodge
Here's a key exchange from White House Homeland Security Advisor Frances Townsend's press conference yesterday about the new NIE on al Qaeda. We know that intelligence estimates received by the White House prior to the invasion of Iraq warned that the invasion and occupation could give new life to al Qaeda -- a boon for recruitment, fundraising and more. Yesterday, CNN's Ed Henry asked Townsend precisely this question. Weren't you warned about this in advance of the war and haven't those predictions now proven out? Isn't al Qaeda stronger and aren't we more vulnerable because of the invasion of Iraq.
Townsend's answer is that of course al Qaeda will use our attacks on them for propaganda purposes to further grow their movement. But it's silly to argue that we should never attack our enemies just because they'll try to use our attacks against us in this way. It's not a zero sum game, she argues.
Now, Henry didn't have the perfect follow-up ready for this response. But honestly it's not always easy to parry this sort of bamboozlement perfectly in real time. (Believe me, it's not that easy.) But the key point is that Townsend dodges the essential issue. This would be a decent response if people were making it as an argument against our invasion of Afghanistan, because that was after all al Qaeda's base of operation. We were attacking them where they were. So it would be silly or at least a weak argument to say we shouldn't have attacked Afghanistan just because al Qaeda would use the attack as a propaganda tool against us. As Townsend's logic suggests, sure they might use it for their media campaign. But that's far outweighed by the benefit of destroying their sanctuary.
But that's the heart of the issue, the one Townsend dodges and which Henry unfortunately didn't press. Iraq wasn't a sanctuary or recruiting or training ground for al Qaeda before we invaded. This has now been as definitively established as proving a negative ever can be. So, contra Townsend, it really is a zero sum game for us since we did nothing to hurt al Qaeda by invading Iraq -- they weren't there and had no prospect of being there. But we did help them almost immeasurably by giving the whole organization a new lease on life for recruitment, fundraising and more. And the rising unpopularity of the United States in the Muslim world because of the invasion has undoubtedly played a large role in preventing Pervez Musharraf from keeping al Qaeda from reestablishing itself in Pakistan.
Townsend sort of begs off this last point by saying that if al Qaeda didn't set up in one country it would set up in other. If not Iraq, then Somalia and if not Somalia then in the Magreb or Southeast Asia or wherever. But what sort of sad sack defeatism is that? If that's the case why are we spending so much time trying to stop them from getting set up in Iraq?
The whole point is stupid.
The simple fact is that the full picture is now clear. The White House was repeatedly warned in advance that attacking Iraq would strengthen al Qaeda. We did and it did. That's where we are now. The White House has no excuse and no answer.
--Josh Marshall
Stevens: It Was All My Money
Sen. Stevens (R-AK) breaks his silence on who paid for the luxe home renovations overseen by scandal-tarred oil services company Veco ...
As a practical matter, I will tell you. We paid every bill that was given to us. Every bill that was sent to us has been paid, personally, with our own money, and that's all there is to it. It's our own money.
See Laura McGann's ongoing coverage of the Stevens' investigation at TPMmuckraker.
--Josh Marshall
Big Picture
Let me return one more time, at least for today, to this issue of who's al Qaeda and who's not. Obviously, at one level it is simply a semantic question. And it can seem like a lot of ink to spill on a point of words and definitions when so much carnage and controversy are unfolding before our eyes. So it is worth stepping back to see just what the big deal is and how it plays into our predicament in Iraq and how we might get our way out.
Beginning in the months just after 9/11 and ever since the president and his deputies have tried to float their foreign policy on the shock, fear and desire for revenge spawned by the 9/11 attacks. The first signs (though these weren't clear in their details at the time) came in the decision to pull troops away from the hunt for bin Laden himself in late 2001 in order to ready them for the assault on Iraq little more than a year later. There we have the kernel of deception which is like the original sin of the Iraq War and, because of that, keeps coming resurfacing again and again. The claim that attacking Iraq was attacking the people who attacked the United States on 9/11, that the two things were related in anything more than a mental figment.
So at the outset it was that Iraq and al Qaeda are connected and either did attack us together (as Dick Cheney frequently suggested) or could in the future (as everyone else did). Then the beginnings of the insurgency were not a problem because we were drawing al Qaeda into Iraq to fight them on our own terms. Then we couldn't leave Iraq because doing so would hand it over to al Qaeda.
As the cycle progressed there was an mounting tendency for the administration to argue that we could not abandon its policies precisely because of the scope of the failure of those policies up to the present point -- a veritable perpetual motion machine of incompetence and disaster. But setting that aside, the enduring pattern has been for the White House to ask us to make our decisions about Iraq not based on what is happening in Iraq but on what happened in New York and Washington on 9/11.
Don't look at Iraq to make this decision, look at the Twin Towers. That's been the administration strategy for over five years. So when we see the scam popping up in a slightly different guise, even if it requires getting deep into the weeds and raising an alarm over key points of word choice and emphasis, then we simply must do so. Because this is the original sin, the founding deceit upon which everything has been built and from which the entire catastrophe unfolded.
--Josh Marshall
Filibuster. It Won't Bite.
McClatchy on why tonight's filibuster isn't a filibuster ...
McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said Republicans would speak on the floor, not just yield to Democrats, but that it wouldn't be a true filibuster because the lawmakers in the minority party weren't the ones who wanted it.
Here's another beaut just out from the AP in which David Espo describes tonight's events but refuses to use the word 'filibuster' until he gets around to describing what the Democrats did four years ago in the judicial appointments fight -- that is to say, when the Democrats did precisely what the Republicans are going to do tonight. (ed.note: Thanks to TPM Reader AR for the catch.)
Like I said, the ploy that dare not speak its name -- except when Democrats use it.
(ed.note: Honestly it's gotten so flagrant, especially with AP, that I start to wonder if it's not intentional rather than a product of sloppiness and being cowed by GOP flacks)
Late Update: And then there's Reuters. When is a filibuster not a filibuster? When it's a "procedural roadblock." (ed.note: Thanks to TPM Reader AH.)
Because Filibusters Must Stay in the Closet Update: Even the Washington Post goes in for the song and dance. In this story in tomorrow's paper, the word 'filibuster' doesn't appear until the final graph when Moveon.org's "counter-filibusters" are mentioned. (ed.note: This one was flagged by TPM Reader AS.)
Really Late Update: Sigh. I'm not sure anyone can top this nonsense from Diane Sawyer who says Harry Reid "vows to filibuster."
--Josh Marshall
Stay Up All Night With Us! Sorta
It's amazing what people will do when they're into politics.
One thing I know a lot of you are going to do is stay up all night watching the filibuster hijinx in the senate. We're going to watch a lot of it here at TPM. But we're not going to be able to watch it all. So we want you to help us find the key moments for a highlight reel we're going to put together tomorrow morning.
So if you're watching tonight and you see some really choice moment, jot down the time and the time zone you're in with some very brief explanation of what the incident or statement was and then send them in to our contact email on the upper right side of the site along with the subject heading "Filibuster Video".
--Josh Marshall
A political scientist looks at the data and claims that Rudy is heading for a hard fall in the polls. That and other political news in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Quorum Call Won't Do It
There's been a lot of discussion on the blogs today about whether the Republicans can short-circuit the Democrats' plan tonight simply by making a quorum call. We called up some experts on parliamentary procedure and senate rules in particular and they say it's not true. Here's our report.
--Josh Marshall
Upping the Bamboozle
One of our sharp-eyed TPMtv sleuths CS just caught White House Homeland Security Advisor Frances Townsend saying Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda and al Qaeda in Mesapotamia (aka al Qaeda in Iraq), a group that appears to have no operational ties to bin Laden's group are in fact "the same organization." (For background on the distinction, see this morning's episode of TPMtv.) We'll bring you video soon.
Late Update: Here's the clip:
Later Update: The Bamboozle Continues:
--Josh Marshall
Must be pretty complicated. Sen. Stevens (R-AK) gets another extension on his senate disclosure filing.
--Josh Marshall
Getting Out, in Detail
There's a lot of news today. But don't miss this article in the Post about the mechanics and possible consequences of withdrawal. The piece surveys a lot of interesting ground. And I'll just try to touch on some of the highlights, if that's the right word for it.
One point is the divergence between war gaming of a withdrawal from Iraq being done in the White House press office and in the Pentagon. The idea that Iraq will be taken over by al Qaida doesn't even come up in the military's thinking. Their war-gaming focuses on civil war, partition and possible intervention by neighboring states -- no picnic, but not sufficiently threatening to the American public to be useful to the White House.
Another daunting point centers on the purely logistical difficulties of getting out. The situation in a destabilized country can change very quickly once the word gets out that the occupying power is pulling out. There are some harrowing examples from the Soviet pull-out from Afghanistan, particularly cases where they literally had to fight their way out of certain areas. A key issue here is that when you figure not just how many people but how much equipment the US has in Iraq you can't just airlift everything out.
To me this is an argument not to remain in denial for so long that we literally have no choice but to get out quickly. We still have time to manage a phased withdrawal which is integrated with a political plan. Not clear whether that will be the case in a year when we will no longer be able to sustain our current deployment.
--Josh Marshall
A Rose is a Rose ...
In today's episode of TPMtv we look at President Bush's largely successful effort to get the press to report the story in Iraq as though bin Laden's al Qaeda is the main enemy we're fighting in the country ...
--Josh Marshall
The NIE: What's Missing Here?
Spencer Ackerman on the curious refusal of the National Intelligence Estimate on al-Qaeda to broach the Iraq War's contribution to al-Qaeda's strength.
--Paul Kiel
Decision Time
Let me echo Atrios' point here about the hand-wringing consensus on Iraq among so many prestige pundits and return to the point I made back in June on TPMtv about the importance of decision in war leaders.
There does seem to be this pattern developing in which members of the WaPo-Bush consensus, having been heedless of caution when the wind was at their back have suddenly become devotees of prudence and the go-slow or rather no-go approach now that their favored policy has collapsed.
Physical courage isn't the only test of war leaders. Decision is also a key virtue. In many respects it's the key virtue for leaders since in the modern day they are seldom themselves in any physical danger. Yes, withdrawal may be a disaster. In fact, there's little doubt it will be a disaster for some players in Iraq, probably many players. But we're so deep into the pit at this point that our decision-making is inevitably constrained now to choosing from a range of disastrous policy courses and figuring out which is least bad. That's life.
I think one of the reasons for the paralysis Atrios notes is that making a major strategic choice forces us to come to grips with the disaster that is already on our hands. Perpetuating the slow-motion disaster that is the status quo is necessary to sustain our denial. But there is no virtue in paralysis and 'humility' isn't something that comes with a lot of credibility from those who had so little of it when they got us into this mess in the first place.
And one other point. I know there are many people who are for immediate withdrawal. No delays. Out in a matter of months. But I don't think that's a majority position even among those who are strongly against the war. That is because the situation is so bad and so unpredictable that it is hard to make categorical decisions before we've even got the practice started. Speaking only for myself but I suspect speaking for many others as well, the key is that we start the process. The key is that we make a category decision that the US occupation of Iraq is more the problem than the solution. Everybody is for leaving Iraq -- as Fred Hiatt might say. But saying we're going to have to make a decision in six months or after this or that improbable development means never.
For those who are trying to create a straw man argument between staying and leaving in a mad dash, that's a false dichotomy: what's necessary is that basic strategic decision -- which I think almost everyone save the president and his acolytes have made. I think quite a few people who are deeply against the war realize that getting out may not be easy or quick. The issue is starting -- not considering starting in six months, or a month, or after the Iraqis stop killing each other or after the Sunnis and Shia work out their differences about Ali and the family of the Prophet or anything else. All of those equal never because a clear-eyed look at the situation tells you that leaving is never going to be easy or free of bloodshed or, perhaps most importantly, free of the need to recognize that the whole thing was a terrible idea, a war built on deception and deceit at every level.
--Josh Marshall
I must say this really does make my day. "None of the Above" has surged into the lead in the new GOP primary poll out from AP/Ipsos. The only thing funnier is that this is even surprising. McCain's campaign has imploded. Giuliani's the fading pro-choice contender, which is sort of redundant. People seem to be catching on to the fact that Fred Thompson is a one-term senator and lobbyist not Reagan 2.0. And that leaves you with Mitt Romney, the avatar of transcendent phoney-baloneyism.
Okay, I'm done.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read
Over there. More than two-thirds of wasteful Defense Department contracts for Iraq win approval anyway.
--Paul Kiel
Fred
Here is a wonderful tour de force of the Fred Hiatt editorial in the Washington Post. The main point of the piece is to show that Hillary Clinton, despite what she wants Democratic voters to think, actually supports the Bush-Washington Post line of muscular foreign policy heroism. But along the way Hiatt manages to set up such a surge of straw men that he ends up arguing that Hillary, senate moderates and even President Bush all share one position, which is the Baker-Hamilton Commission position. And they all stand against 'Democratic primary voters'.
Here are the two key grafs ...
In other words, Clinton ascribed to what might be called the consensus, Baker-Hamilton view: Pull out of the most intense combat but remain militarily engaged by going after terrorists, training and advising Iraqi troops, and safeguarding at least some regions or borders. It's the position set forth in the proposal of Democratic Sens. Carl Levin and Jack Reed and in the compromise proposal of Republican Sens. John Warner and Richard Lugar. Last week President Bush said it's "a position I'd like to see us in."If everyone agrees, what's the problem? Bush and the Democrats have very different ideas of the conditions needed to move to Baker-Hamilton. (So, by the way, did Republican Jim Baker and Democrat Lee Hamilton when they co-wrote the report.) Bush thinks U.S. troops can pull back only after they have established, with their new counterinsurgency strategy, sufficient peace to allow Iraqi factions to begin making political compromises.
Did you know that Carl Levin and President Bush were both part of the consensus on Iraq? I'm tempted to say that this is classic high school debating society logic -- both clever and ridiculous, simultaneously. But given the author, isn't the key here a rather disingenuous effort to expand the circle of people who agree with his terribly discredited position?
--Josh Marshall
Polls
I've noticed that we're again hearing a lot of talk to the effect that the American people just don't have the gumption to brave out the genius of President Bush's Iraq policy. Or, relatedly, that if we'd had constant polls back in WWII that they too would have shown public support flagging at every little reverse between December 1941 and August of 1945.
Well, this topic came up in a rather heated exchange with a reader. So I thought the point was worth making again. Despite what a lot of people in Washington and the rest of the media seem to think, there was actually fairly extensive polling of public opinion during the Second World War.
And here's an example of some of it. (Regular readers may recognize this because I posted the same data in 2006.)
Click here or on the image itself to see a full-size copy of the data in question.
The key point is that many polls were taken during the war. And approval of the president's conduct of the war, understanding and belief in the goals of the war and other similar measurements all remained constant at very high levels or in some cases actually went up. One key data point you can see on the chart is the number of Americans will to make peace with Hitler -- that is, an negotiated end to the war rather than the unconditional surrender which was a key allied war demand. The number was under 10% for most of 1942 and 1943. Then it briefly surged up to just over 20% in early 1944 (roughly the time of the invasion of Italy) before falling back down to about 15% for duration of the war in Europe.
Given the flimsiness of the rationale and the incompetence of the execution of the war in Iraq, a more perplexing question is why support for the war held on as long as it did. But the reason for the drop is not the time the war has dragged on -- though it's now as long or longer than almost any other war in US history -- or how many have been killed. The death toll in the Second World War dwarfs the numbers of those killed in Iraq.
The reason the war is unpopular is because people don't think we are accomplishing anything that promotes our security or national interests -- indeed, quite the contrary. Not because we're not doing it right or not doing it well but because the whole concept is flawed. People can see that we're digging a hole into the Earth and a lot of them want to stop and climb out even though it will be messy.
--Josh Marshall
Bamboozle Like the Wind!
This is pretty funny. This article from Reuters manages to get through an entire article on the filibuster the Democrats are going to force senate Republicans to go through with without ever actually using the word 'filibuster'. It's almost a thing of beauty in its negative capacity of bamboozlement.
Some choice quotes ...
U.S. Senate Democrats, hoping to raise pressure on President George W. Bush and his fellow Republicans to pull troops from Iraq, have scheduled an around-the-clock war debate starting on Tuesday.
and
Democrats have all but publicly acknowledged that they will be unable to pass their end-the-war amendment because opposition Republicans are insisting on 60 votes for a victory.
Like I said, the ploy that dare not speak its name. Who will come out for filibuster pride?
(ed.note: Thanks to TPM Reader LK whose bamboozle-o-meter was clearly working over time.)
--Josh Marshall
McCain campaign hemorrhaging still more staffers in Iowa. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
About Time
It's about time on the Iraq filibuster. But it's a very good move. There has been little if any press attention to the fact that senate Republicans are filibustering practically every piece of legislation to come before the senate. But Iraq is the sui generis issue. And the Democrats need to make it clear that the Republicans won't allow anything on Iraq to even come to the floor.
The Republicans have every right to filibuster. But it should be clear that that's what they're doing.
--Josh Marshall
I must confess that I almost feel sorry for the White House in their desperate attempts to spin the Iraqi parliament's vacation. Most of the bamboozlement that comes out of the White House these days is meant to cover up for the administration's failures and deceptions -- mainly how well things are going in Iraq, how the whole fight there is against al Qaeda, how jihadists in Pakistan can't send teams to the US unless we pull out of Iraq, etc.
But in this case, you know the White House really, really doesn't want these guys to take August off -- for pure optics, if for no other reason.
Now, I don't think these guys are going off to Biarritz -- okay, maybe some of them are. But I think it's a little misleading to imagine -- as the US conversation suggests -- that these folks are just a bunch of ne'er-do-wells or loafers. I think the whole drama puts the lie to the administration line in a more telling way. And that is that Iraq doesn't really have a government. It's a country that remains under military occupation. And the 'government' is just a group of factions playing a multi-layer chess game, partly under our watch and partly gaming out position for our departure. The key is that our timelines and deadlines are clearly not theirs. And they seem fairly indifferent to the benchmarks and dramas that the White House is telling the American people are so important.
In other words, the vacation issue appears to be both less and more than it seems -- not the caricature it's portrayed as in the American media perhaps but also a sign that the narrative of events the White House is feeding the US public is a sham.
--Josh Marshall
Vaca!
Andrew Sullivan isn't the only one who gets August off. Everything you wanted to know about the Iraqi parliament's August vacation in today's Sunday Show Roundup episode of TPMtv ...
--Josh Marshall
So Many Policy Failures, So Little Time
The first thing to say on North Korea is that it's very good news that the North Koreans have again shut down the Yongbyon nuclear reactor. This is the facility that has been the center of nearly all the trouble over more than a decade now. And the IAEA has now confirmed that the plant has been taken off line, though negotiations will now begin on securing a more permanent shuttering of the facility. The Times calls the deal a "hard-won, yet fragile diplomatic victory for the Bush administration."
And so it is, sort of.
But here's the thing no one should forget: it's taken the Bush administration six-plus years to get things to where the Clinton administration had them when Bush took office.
Let's review: the Clinton administration had a deal with the North Koreans in which the US -- actually a consortium of the US and its allies -- gave fuel oil and a promise of diplomatic normalization for the North Koreans to shutter their plutonium-producing nuclear facility. The Bush team called this appeasement and set-up deliberately scuttling that deal, which indeed happened. The North Koreans proceeded to get back into plutonium production big time. And it's now assumed that they made a few actual weapons with the stuff. Realizing that they'd shot their mouth off with no idea what an alternative policy might be for the Korean Peninsula, they eventually started creeping their way back to the Clinton policy, to which point they have now arrived.
So, back to where we started, only now the North Koreans probably have several nuclear warheads instead of what was probably none in early 2001.
Yes, there are some jots and tittles and an endless amount of trying to find meaningless differences to distinguish their approach from the Clinton approach. But there's no getting around it: this is the Clinton policy. Indeed, it was also the Powell policy. And it was the policy of most people who had any sense. But it wasn't the Cheney/Kristol/AEI/PNAC policy. And now the whole exercise of six wasted years has to be chalked up as another of those mind-numbingly stupid Bush policy failures that would be funny if so much hadn't been (and continues to be) on the line.
--Josh Marshall
Obama and Clinton each have an astonishing $30 million-plus in cash on hand for the primary. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Today's Must Read
As Osama bin Laden regroups in Pakistan's Waziristan province, the locals declare an all-out war on Pervez Musharraf.
--Paul Kiel
What an amazing thing.
I must confess that it simply hadn't occurred to me until now to look for live performances of my favorite music on Youtube. Given who I am and what I do, Youtube has pretty much just been a vehicle for distributing video material from TPM. Oh, and finding Elmo videos for my son, but that's sort of a niche interest.
I think I could spend the whole evening just digging up old Dylan and Rolling Stones videos. I've gotta get out more, figuratively if not literally.
--Josh Marshall
Nader, redux
Don’t look now, but a certain third party candidate is considering a fourth presidential campaign.
Consumer advocate Ralph Nader told the Green Party's national convention that he is considering a 2008 presidential run and accused Democrats of trying to shut smaller parties out of the political process. [...]
Nader said before jumping into the 2008 presidential race he would have to put together an organization of thousands of volunteers and pro bono lawyers to defend him against the "Democratic quadrennial assault."
"We're going to be ready for them. We will confront them on every level," Nader told a news conference.
What's unclear at this point is why Nader wants to run. He recently conceded that he doesn’t expect to win a presidential race, he doesn’t expect to change the Democratic agenda, he doesn’t expect to appear in the debates, and he doesn’t even expect to make the ballot in every state.
Asked what the point of a fourth unsuccessful campaign would be, Nader told the Politico, “What third parties can do is bring young people in, set standards on how to run a presidential election and keep the progressive agenda in front of the people. And maybe tweak a candidate here and there in the major parties.”
It's hardly a persuasive pitch. Major parties can and do bring young people into the process, Nader’s multiple efforts have never affected election standards, and his campaigns have generally done a poor job of promoting progressive ideas (preferring instead to focus on his disdain for the two major parties).
As for “tweaking” candidates, that’s a pretty shallow reason to launch a presidential bid.
--Steve Benen
20/20 Hindsight
The president sat down on Friday with a small group of sympathetic conservative journalists -- Bush is generally at his most comfortable around those who already convinced how right he is -- and offered some insights into his perspective on Iraq.
"[L]ast fall, if I had been part of this polling, if they had called upstairs and said, do you approve of Iraq I would have been on the 66 percent who said, 'No I don't approve.' That's why I made the decision I made. To get in a position where I would be able to say 'Yes, I approve.'"
Mark Kleiman translated the remarks for the rest of us.
"I'm not nearly as stupid as my supporters. Back when I was telling the world that things in Iraq were going well, and you folks were helping me by calling anyone who said otherwise a traitor, I knew we were all lying."
It was an odd thing for Bush to concede, wasn't it? Last fall, the White House was insisting, aggressively, that critics of the war were confused and misguided. To disapprove of the war, the president and his aides said, was to support a dangerous agenda that would necessarily undermine national security.
Except now the president is prepared to argue that he was with the unsatisfied majority. Here's a follow-up: what does that say about Bush's opinion of the one-third of Americans who bought into the White House line and told pollsters that they approved of how the war was going?
--Steve Benen
Novak assesses Dem field
It seems like the kind of comment that warranted some follow-up.
During a panel discussion of the 2008 presidential election on the July 15 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, syndicated columnist Robert Novak asserted: "Republicans are very pessimistic about 2008. When you talk to them off the record, they don't see how they can win this thing. And then they think for a minute, and only the Democratic Party, with everything in their favor, would say that, 'OK, this is the year either to have a woman or an African-American to break precedent, to do things the country has never done before.' And it gives the Republicans hope."
And why is that, exactly? The all-white, all-male panel on the program didn't follow-up.
--Steve Benen
Too weak is too much
As weak as the Lugar/Warner amendment is, it's still too tough for the White House.
President Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said Sunday the administration's "very orderly process" for reviewing its Iraq plans should be allowed to play out despite a hurry-up initiative from two respected GOP senators.
Hadley's reply was "No" when asked whether Bush could live with the proposal by Sens. John Warner of Virginia and Richard Lugar of Indiana.
It's a toothless measure that basically amounts to a stern suggestion -- and it's unacceptable.
The president said this week, "Congress has all the right in the world to fund. That's their main involvement in this war, which is to provide funds for our troops." Any steps to change the policy in any way will be vetoed.
It's time for a gut-check among congressional Republicans -- are you anything more than the president's ATM?
--Steve Benen
Anything but 'successful'
Speaking of classic opening sentences, William Kristol takes the unusual step in a Washington Post piece of anticipating mockery: "I suppose I'll merely expose myself to harmless ridicule if I make the following assertion: George W. Bush's presidency will probably be a successful one."
Kristol's argument is surprisingly weak, but he got one point exactly right: he exposed himself to ridicule. Here's his pitch:
Let's step back from the unnecessary mistakes and the self-inflicted wounds that have characterized the Bush administration. Let's look at the broad forest rather than the often unlovely trees. What do we see? First, no second terrorist attack on U.S. soil -- not something we could have taken for granted. Second, a strong economy -- also something that wasn't inevitable.
And third, and most important, a war in Iraq that has been very difficult, but where -- despite some confusion engendered by an almost meaningless "benchmark" report last week -- we now seem to be on course to a successful outcome.
It's probably not necessary to highlight Kristol's errors in too much detail, but let's take a moment to point out some of the more glaring problems with the basic pitch.
First, Kristol credits Bush with preventing a post-9/11 terrorist attack. That's false -- about a month after 9/11, someone sent weaponized anthrax to two Democratic senators and several news outlets. Five Americans were killed and 17 more suffered serious illnesses. If the administration has made any headway in bringing the terrorists to justice, it's been awfully quiet about it.
For that matter, while the U.S. has thankfully not suffered any major terrorist attacks since 2001, Kristol neglects to mention that terrorist attacks around the world have gone up every year since.
Second, Kristol touts a "strong economy." His timing could have been better -- Kristol's boasts ran on the same day the New York Times highlighted the modern-day "Gilded Age," in which the United States has the most dramatic concentration of wealth at the top since the 1920s. All the while, poverty has increased, Bush has run the largest budget deficits in American history, and economic growth has been sluggish, at best.
And third, Kristol, of course, believes we're "on course to a successful outcome" in Iraq. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
If the handful of Americans who still approve of the president's job performance hope to persuade others to their way of thinking, they'll have to do better than this.
--Steve Benen
'Half the foreign fighters in Iraq'
This might put a crimp in the White House's talking points.
Although Bush administration officials have frequently lashed out at Syria and Iran, accusing it of helping insurgents and militias here, the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, Saudi Arabia, according to a senior U.S. military officer and Iraqi lawmakers.
About 45% of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia; 15% are from Syria and Lebanon; and 10% are from North Africa, according to official U.S. military figures made available to The Times by the senior officer. Nearly half of the 135 foreigners in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis, he said.
Fighters from Saudi Arabia are thought to have carried out more suicide bombings than those of any other nationality, said the senior U.S. officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitivity. It is apparently the first time a U.S. official has given such a breakdown on the role played by Saudi nationals in Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgency.
He said 50% of all Saudi fighters in Iraq come here as suicide bombers. In the last six months, such bombings have killed or injured 4,000 Iraqis.
The LA Times' report suggests this reality has left the U.S. in an "awkward position," because the Saudis are ostensibly a key ally in the region, which apparently has been unsuccessful in preventing its citizens from committing acts of terror in Iraq.
Or, put another way, Andrew Sullivan explains, "The Saudis, of course, are among the Bush family's closest friends, so we neither mention nor tackle this. The gulf between the reality in the Middle East and the president's account of it grows wider and wider."
--Steve Benen
With an opening sentence like this ...
Former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) used to cut seedy political deals over well-done steak at the posh Capital Grille. Jim Black had to settle for the bathroom at the local IHOP.
How can you not read it?
--Josh Marshall
Obama disagrees with Edwards and Clinton, says of debates, "the more the merrier." That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Sunday Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Webb v. Graham
Things got a little heated on this morning's "Meet the Press." (via TP)
Faiz fleshes out some of the details of Graham's errors of fact and judgment.
--Steve Benen
'We're moving the goal posts'
The Washington Post has been running a fairly interesting series lately, monitoring the perspectives of four disparate lawmakers during the course of the Iraq war debate on the Hill -- the "Anguished Moderate" (Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine), the "Conservative Democrat" (Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma), "Antiwar Liberal" (Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois), and the "Loyal Republican" (Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia.).
Today's item on Boren included a rather inexplicable paragraph.
"We're moving the goal posts," Boren said with low-key Oklahoma exasperation. "The administration, frankly, has moved the goal posts forward past September, and I disagree with that. But the members of Congress who are wanting to have this vote in July are really moving the goal posts, as well."
A congressional effort to end the war represents "moving the goal posts?" Greg Sargent explains how nonsensical this perspective really is.
--Steve Benen
Tuning out the boys who cry wolf
The New York Daily News reports today that the possibility of a domestic terrorist attack this summer appears high, but Americans are skeptical about the warnings.
To American who have grown skeptical of terrorism warnings, the professionals in the intelligence community say they understand. They also say this time, it could be for real.
That's because the level of worldwide jihadist activity this year appears disturbingly familiar to those who hunted Al Qaeda even before the 9/11 attacks.
"What you've been seeing has had a feeling, to me, a lot like the summer of 2001, where you've got a lot of things happening," a senior U.S. intelligence official said on Friday.
"It would not surprise me at all to see another terrorist event this summer in the United States," the official told the Daily News.
Yet many Americans have grown deeply distrustful of such doomsday scenarios which rarely materialize.
This skepticism didn't just materialize as a result of wishful thinking. Americans have grown to be suspicious of Bush administration's warnings because so many of them have been bogus.
The "Seas of David" cult's planned attack on the Sears Tower, the plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, the British hijacking plot, the plot to attack Los Angeles' Library Tower, the plans at Fort Dix, and the JFK Airport plot all turned out to be less serious than advertised. And yet, in each instance, the White House touted these thwarted attacks as dodged bullets. This contributes to the public perception that the administration is less than reliable when it comes to domestic security.
For that matter, Americans have also seen the administration fiddle with the terror alert system in irresponsible ways. Two years ago, former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge acknowledged that the Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks based on flimsy evidence. "There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, 'For that?'" Ridge told reporters.
And it certainly doesn't help when the administration's top official on homeland security explains that his concerns about a possible attack this summer are based on a "gut feeling."
Yes, the Daily News report raises an important point; Americans shouldn't take a lackadaisical attitude about a possible threat. But let's not forget how and why the public has come to be so cynical.
--Steve Benen
'A Mute Watchdog'
The President's Intelligence Oversight Board, a panel that has existed for decades, helps police the government's surveillance activities. For several recent presidents, the IOB has been an important watchdog, monitoring potential abuses and legal violations.
Given the Bush gang's record, you'd think the panel would have been working overtime the last several years. We are, after all, talking about a White House that has endorsed secret prisons, rendition policies, torture, and unaccountable domestic wiretapping without warrants. If the IOB exists to investigate intelligence and surveillance abuses, it was tailor made for George W. Bush's presidency.
Except, it hasn't quite worked the way it was supposed to.
An independent oversight board created to identify intelligence abuses after the CIA scandals of the 1970s did not send any reports to the attorney general of legal violations during the first 5 1/2 years of the Bush administration's counterterrorism effort, the Justice Department has told Congress.
Although the FBI told the board of a few hundred legal or rules violations by its agents after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the board did not identify which of them were indeed legal violations. This spring, it forwarded reports of violations in 2006, officials said.
The President's Intelligence Oversight Board -- the principal civilian watchdog of the intelligence community -- is obligated under a 26-year-old executive order to tell the attorney general and the president about any intelligence activities it believes "may be unlawful." The board was vacant for the first two years of the Bush administration.
The FBI sent copies of its violation reports directly to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales. But the board's mandate is to provide independent oversight, so the absence of such communications has prompted critics to question whether the board was doing its job.
You think?
Anthony Harrington, who served as the board's chairman for most of the Clinton administration, said, "It's now apparent that the IOB was not actively employed in the early part of the administration. And it was a crucial period when its counsel would seem to have been needed the most.... The White House counsel's office and the attorney general should have known and been concerned if they did not detect an active and effective IOB."
Well, sure, they should have been. But is anyone surprised that they weren't?
--Steve Benen
