Meet the New Guy
Craig's likely successor Jim Risch: Why couldn't the folks in New Orleans get off their butts and fix things like we do in Idaho?
--Josh Marshall
Let freedom reign
With the "surge" policy in place, this was supposed to be a summer of political reconciliation. Instead, a variety of Iraqi politicians have spent their August recess plotting a "parliamentary coup" that would "oust Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, declare a state of emergency and install a new government."
At the forefront of these efforts is former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite who was Washington's first choice to lead Iraq after the U.S. occupation authority ended. He now is being presented by his followers as the best hope of saving Iraq from what they say is certain catastrophe.
But Allawi's is by no means the only name in circulation. Another former prime minister, two current vice presidents, a former planning minister, an Iraqi general from the old regime and an independent Sunni parliamentarian are among those being mentioned as potential alternatives.
"Everyone is desperate to be prime minister," said Saleh al-Mutlaq, a Sunni politician who has thrown his support behind Allawi but who has also been mentioned as a potential candidate. "Iraq is producing prime ministers."
U.S. officials are not innocent bystanders in this process.
"There's been a definite change in tone from Washington, and the momentum and drive to support Allawi will increase," said Jaafar al-Taie, a political analyst involved in the new coalition's campaign. "It's not only that Maliki must go, but that the whole system must go."
According to Allawi's published program, the parliamentarians would not only appoint a new government but also suspend the new constitution, declare a state of emergency and make the restoration of security its priority. [...]
"Even when Bush tried to modify what he said, he did not go so far," said Izzat Shabandar, a strategist with the Allawi bloc. "We know that Bush from inside would like to replace Maliki, but he did not say it clearly. He chose to say it in a diplomatic way."
As Digby put it, "It's a public coup --- Americans and Iraqis alike are all reading about it and talking about it like it's a TV show and we're all waiting to see the finale."
--Steve Benen
Meanwhile, in the other war...
Over the past six weeks, the Taliban have driven government forces out of roughly half of a strategic area in southern Afghanistan that American and NATO officials declared a success story last fall in their campaign to clear out insurgents and make way for development programs, Afghan officials say.
A year after Canadian and American forces drove hundreds of Taliban fighters from the area, the Panjwai and Zhare districts southwest of Kandahar, the rebels are back and have adopted new tactics. Carrying out guerrilla attacks after NATO troops partly withdrew in July, they overran isolated police posts and are now operating in areas where they can mount attacks on Kandahar, the south’s largest city.
The setback is part of a bloody stalemate that has occurred between NATO troops and Taliban fighters across southern Afghanistan this summer. NATO and Afghan Army soldiers can push the Taliban out of rural areas, but the Afghan police are too weak to hold the territory after they withdraw.
--Steve Benen
Day late, several dollars short
The good news is the Bush White House has unveiled a plan to assist homeowners who are poised to lose their homes in the midst of the nation's crunch and housing slump. The bad news, as McClatchy's Kevin Hall reports, is that the president's plan is very thin, leaves most affected homeowners behind, and duplicates efforts that are already underway. (via TP)
The plan was announced days before Congress returns from its August recess with housing issues high on its agenda. The proposals, however, duplicate efforts already under way by Congress and other federal agencies, would help at most 21 percent of the homeowners facing foreclosures and would do little to help areas in which inflated real estate prices are a problem.
Bush called on Democrats to approve a modernization of the Federal Housing Administration, which passed the House of Representatives last year with bipartisan support but was quashed by Senate Republicans.
He promised to require greater disclosure from lenders, a move on which federal bank regulators already have provided guidance. He promised to get tough with unscrupulous mortgage brokers, but they're largely regulated on the state level. And during a briefing Friday, a senior administration official acknowledged that the plan would do little to help states with high real estate prices, such as California.
At least 2 million foreclosures tied to the sub-prime meltdown are now expected; the administration's plan should provide refinancing options to, at the most, less than a fourth of them by the end of next year.
--Steve Benen
Rice's legacy
When it comes to aides, staffers, and high-ranking officials, the Bush White House has had a reverse Midas touch. People who have reasonably good reputations before working for Bush, tend to leave humiliated. It's as if the president's inner circle is some kind of credibility-sapping black hole.
Condoleezza Rice, for example, left Stanford with at least some stature in professional circles, only to become what David Kay described as "probably the worst national security adviser since the office was created." Seven years ago, Rice was considered a fairly credible foreign policy expert, particularly on Russian policy. Today, Rice is best known for helping sell a disastrous war and losing turf wars to Donald Rumsfeld.
As Secretary of State, she has had little success improving U.S. relations with much of anyone. Rice's biggest diplomatic victory was a breakthrough deal with North Korea, in which she triumphantly accepted the same deal the Clinton administration struck years earlier.
But, never fear, Rice has a comeback plan.
... Ms. Rice is working hard to reshape her legacy in her remaining 16 months in office. She is cooperating with a range of authors who have lined up to write books about her.... Although both the Kessler and the Bumiller books are expected to be critical of Ms. Rice on many points, State Department officials say that it is unusual for a sitting secretary of state to cooperate with so many biographies. But then again, few of her predecessors had multiple authors jostling to write books about them.
Beyond trying to influence the historical record, Ms. Rice is trying hard to rewrite her legacy to include something more than Iraq. Her colleagues and friends say that she has accepted that Iraq is a stain that she probably cannot remove before she leaves office.
At the risk of sounding uncharitable, that's probably a good conclusion to accept. Rice, like her boss, has a legacy that is based entirely on the war she helped sell.
For that matter, Rice tied her fate to the president, with whom she has chosen to be inextricably linked.
By the time Rice met Bush, he had become a Christian teetotaler and a devoted family man. The two shared a strong religious faith, a belief in American power, similar senses of humor, and a conviction that sports was a metaphor for life. He admired her brains. She valued his instincts. [...]
"There was this connective stuff -- that was really fully under way by the summer of 1999," said Rice's friend Coit "Chip" Blacker. "There's a funny kind of transfer of energy and ideas that's almost -- not random, but unstructured. It's as though they're Siamese twins joined at the frontal lobe."
The president reportedly refers to Rice as his "sister," while Rice's stepmother said she "just can't say no to that man."
I'm afraid it's a little late for Rice to start wondering how history will perceive her.
--Steve Benen
Craig vs Vitter
The fact that the sex scandals involving Republican Sens. Larry Craig (gay) and David Vitter (not gay) are being treated very differently has not gone unnoticed by the GOP establishment. The NYT's Carl Hulse quoted some anonymous Republican insiders who offered an explanation.
Despite such unusual steps against [Craig], Republicans took no punitive action against Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, after his acknowledgment this summer of involvement with an escort service that the police described as a prostitution front.
Party officials said Mr. Vitter's case was different in that he faced no criminal charges and was not in the Senate but was serving in the House at the time.
It's a pretty weak case, which Greg Sargent took apart this morning.
Of course, Craig's resignation will probably shift the conversation in a new direction, but in a sense, the point is even more salient now: Vitter hasn't faced any adverse consequences at all, and the GOP establishment is content to pretend he didn't talk to the DC Madam while casting votes on the Hill. Even some conservatives, such as Ed Morrissey, are waiting for a coherent explanation:
[Vitter] didn't plead guilty in court, but unlike Craig, he openly admits he broke the law and solicited prostitutes. Others serving in Congress at the moment have pleaded guilty to misdemeanors of more import than disorderly conduct without being forced to resign. If morality and credibility are at issue, why isn't Vitter being held to that standard?
We know the answer, but it's apparently not a response the Republican establishment is anxious to acknowledge.
--Steve Benen
A masterful con job
A couple of days ago, the NYT reported that the White House "is growing more confident that it can beat back efforts by Congressional Democrats to shift course in Iraq." It's not because conditions in Iraq have improved, and it's not because the president's policy is producing results, but because the administration has "a sense the dynamic has changed."
It's all about some amorphous "sense" that's entirely independent of reality. Consider what we've learned this week. The GAO prepared a "strikingly negative" assessment of conditions on the ground, with no political progress (the intended point of the "surge") and little evidence of reduced violence. Of the 18 Iraqi benchmarks, Bush's policy has come up short on 15. An independent federal commission believes Iraq's 26,000-member national police force is beyond repair and might need to be disbanded altogether. A working draft of a secret document prepared by the U.S. embassy in Baghdad shows that the Maliki government is rotten to the core. Iraqi civilian deaths are getting worse, not better. The latest data shows U.S. troop fatalities worse every month this year compared to the same months last year. A smidgeon of evidence pointing to at least marginal political progress late last week turned out to be smoke and mirrors.
It's against this backdrop that the White House and its conservative allies boast, "See? This is the progress we've been waiting for." More importantly, the conventional wisdom in DC is suddenly in agreement that they're right.
How on earth is this happening? Kevin Drum explains that Gen. David Petraeus has run a methodical political campaign that has produced exactly the desired effect.
[Petraeus is] keenly aware of the value of both the media and public opinion, and he did what any counterinsurgency expert would have counseled in his circumstances: he unleashed a hearts-and-minds campaign aimed at opinion makers and politicians. For months the military transports to Baghdad have been stuffed with analysts and congress members, and every one of them has gotten a full court press of carefully planned and scripted presentations, tightly controlled visits to favored units, and assorted dollops of "classified" information designed to flatter his guests and substantiate his rosy assessments without the inconvenience of having to defend them in public.
And it's worked.... Five months ago Petraeus was guaranteeing to wavering Republicans that they'd see progress in August, precisely the month when the PR campaign was scheduled to go into high gear. Today he's issuing dire warnings about al-Qaeda hegemony and nine-dollar gas if we leave, circulating bio pages that let his staff know whether they're dealing with friend or foe among visiting congress members, and insisting repeatedly that violence is down in classified briefings where he doesn't have to publicly defend his figures.
If these don't sound like the actions of an honest broker to you, they don't to me either. They sound like elements of a campaign with one overriding purpose: to convince politicians and opinion makers that we're making progress in Iraq regardless of whether we are or not.
As con jobs go, this is a masterful one.
--Steve Benen
EC Saturday Roundup
Fred Thompson isn't skipping the Republican debate this Wednesday, after all — he's buying a 30-second ad to run right before it. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Saturday Roundup.
--Eric Kleefeld
A 'zero tolerance' policy on 'serious transgressions'?
I've let my subscription lapse on Republican Talking Points Weekly, but it's pretty obvious that the Powers That Be have a clear message in the wake of the Larry Craig scandal: this shows that the GOP means business.
On Thursday's edition of "Hardball," for example, Tom DeLay, who inexplicably has been assigned to defend the Republican Party on issues relating to scandals and corruption, told Chris Matthews, "I'm not defending Larry Craig, if he's guilty. What I do know is the Republicans, as they have in the past, when you have members that have problems or scandals and they are found guilty, the Republican Party does the right thing and kicks them out."
The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes emphasized the same point in his latest column, arguing that the party is "intent on pushing scandal-plagued members of Congress out of office and far from the media spotlight."
Republicans are desperate not to have another corruption-driven defeat in 2008. So when House Republican leader John Boehner, whip Roy Blunt, and others in the hierarchy met in a private retreat outside Washington last December, the corruption issue headed their agenda. They adopted a zero tolerance policy. They want no House candidates with corruption problems on the ballot. In 2006, four House members resigned (two later went to jail).
Boehner came up with a vague phrase for the sort of scandal they had in mind. It's one with "a clear indication of serious transgressions." In Boehner's mind, an FBI raid on your home or your wife's office is such an indication.
It all sounds very nice, but there's ample reason for skepticism. In fact, this "zero tolerance" talk might make for pleasant-sounding p.r., but I don't think the party leadership means a word of it.
Consider the scandal sheet Paul Kiel put together the other day, which helped prove that this year is poised to be as shameful for the GOP as last year.
Of the 11 lawmakers on the list, Craig has resigned and Renzi has said he won't seek re-election. Everyone else -- including those whose homes have been raided by FBI agents -- remains in good standing. Indeed, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), one of the more notorious members on the list, announced this week that he will seek a 16th term next year. "I never seriously contemplated not running again," he said in an interview. If there was an outcry in GOP circles based on their "zero tolerance" policy, it was awfully hard to find.
It gets back to the same point we've emphasized again and again this week -- Republicans will act swiftly to purge the party's scandalous members when they won't suffer political consequences for it. All the other arguments are hot air.
--Steve Benen
"I apologize for what I have caused"
Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), as expected, announced his resignation just minutes ago, citing his ongoing scandal as an "unfair distraction" to his constituents. He added, "I apologize for what I have caused," though that's just vague enough to leave ambiguities.
Craig did not respond to reporters' questions after reading his brief statement, though his office said it would issue a written Q&A this afternoon with more details.
--Steve Benen
Compassionate conservatism - Katrina edition
Apparently, on the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina ravaging the Gulf Coast, conservatives have decided they've grown tired of the topic.
GOP presidential hopeful Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.) said Friday it is "time the taxpayer gravy train left the New Orleans station" and urged an end to the federal aid to the region that was devastated by Hurricane Katrina two years ago. [...]
"The mentality that people can wait around indefinitely for the federal taxpayer to solve all their worldly problems has got to come to an end," said Tancredo.
That would be the same federal government, of course, that neglected the victims before the storm hit, as the storm hit, after the storm hit, and for the two subsequent years that followed. Indeed, for all the rhetoric we've heard, as of this week, "none of the 115 'critical priority projects' identified by city officials" for publicly funded rebuilding efforts "has been completed." Of the $34 billion "earmarked for long-term rebuilding," less than half "has made its way through federal checks and balances to reach municipal projects."
What's more, it's not just Tancredo. Over at Townhall, John Hawkins offered this jaw-dropper.
Two years after Katrina, everywhere you turn, there are people carping, whining, and kvetching. Just why hasn't the pity party for the citizens of New Orleans run out of booze and chips yet? [...]
Let me tell all the citizens of New Orleans something that should have been told to them 18 months ago: it's time to stop playing the sympathy card and get over it.
Nobody is owed a living for the rest of his life because he had a bad break two years ago. Yet, we still have people affected by Katrina who have FEMA paying their rent. How sad and pathetic is it that these shiftless people are still leaching off their fellow citizens? Since when is being in the path of a hurricane supposed to give you a permanent "Get Out of Work Free" card?
If I hadn't seen it, I wouldn't believe it.
--Steve Benen
Henry Waxman still wants the private White House emails staffers used to circumvent the Presidential Records Act. Yesterday, Justin Rood reported that the Bush gang isn't exactly anxious to cooperate with the investigation.
The White House will not identify a private company which appears to be involved in the disappearance of millions of White House e-mails.
The company was responsible for reviewing and archiving White House e-mails, a White House official told congressional staff in May, according to a letter yesterday from House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif. Congressional investigators asked then for the name of the company and "have repeatedly requested" the information since then, according to Waxman.
They are still waiting for an answer, the chairman wrote to White House counsel Fred Fielding. [...]
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel declined to tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com the company's name or explain why the White House would not provide it to Congress.
Nothing suspicious about that. Nothing at all.
Waxman asked the White House to come up with the company's name by Sept. 10. We'll see how that goes.
--Steve Benen
If Craig had tried the truth
When Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) was arrested, his first instinct was to blame the police for trying to "entrap" him. When Craig held a press conference this week to defend himself, his second instinct was to blame The Idaho Statesman for causing him undue stress.
Ezra poses a hypothetical that I've been pondering the past few days: what if, instead of lashing out, Craig's crisis-management strategy had simply been based on the truth?
What would happen if Larry Craig came out as a gay man, apologized for his tortured life in the closet and the unseemly things his personal conflicts made him do, and then said that, nevertheless, he'd always been a good and dedicated senator to the people of Idaho, and he meant to retain his seat and keep fighting for the upward redistribution and failed wars (or whatever) that first turned him onto public service?
He might lose the next election, of course. But maybe he wouldn't. And maybe he'd tap into an unexpected wellspring of libertarian attitudes and relative tolerance. Why not try?
To be sure, this approach has far more merit than, say, the wide-stance strategy, but in this case, I'm hard pressed to see how it would have helped. Indeed, absurd rationalizing probably made matters worse, but I suspect the truth would have led Craig to resign anyway.
For one thing, he pleaded guilty, which effectively sealed his fate. For another, Craig may still be in denial about his sexual orientation, and probably isn't anywhere close to being able to come out of the closet.
Moreover, as unfortunate as this may be, homophobia is still a major problem in today's Republican Party. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) gets caught up in a prostitution scandal, and the party establishment says it's "unfortunate." Craig gets caught up in a gay-sex scandal, and the GOP leadership calls it "unforgivable." As Josh put it, "If you're a Republican and you want to misbehave sexually, make sure it's with a chick."
As for Ezra's point that Craig could point out how reliable he's been on "fighting for the upward redistribution and failed wars," but that leads to Craig's other problem: he's from Idaho, where a conservative governor can appoint a conservative replacement to advance the same conservative agenda.
With that, I might add one small caveat to Josh's maxim: If you're a Republican and you want to misbehave sexually, make sure you come from a state with a Democratic governor.
--Steve Benen
The Big Picture
It's always good to seek out the larger lesson behind a political scandal. So in this case, it seems to be, If you're a Republican and you want to misbehave sexually, make sure it's with a chick.
Late Update: Also, make sure you've got a Democratic governor.
--Josh Marshall
Giuliani Tries to Get Back in the Game
The battle to see which Republican presidential candidate can appoint people to key positions just before they are exposed in career-ending personal transgressions or criminal acts, or both, just keeps chugging along. Tonight, former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani tries to get back in the game. But after Mitt Romney's success with Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), it's just hard for the others to compete.
The thin gruel Giuliani's come back with looks like a sign of how Romney now dominates the contest.
Tonight, Barry S. Edward, organizer of Rudy's Reagan Day Dinner fundraiser in Pinellas County, stepped down from his position after his criminal record of extorting sex and trafficking in stolen state computers was revealed.
Edwards called the 1998 arrests "old news", but decided to step down because "I'm not relevant and I shouldn't be the story."
Explaining the incidents, the Miami Herald writes ...
The two criminal incidents involving Edwards were unrelated, and occurred within months of each other in 1998.According to a Florida State University arrest affidavit: Edwards was first charged after a 19-year-old FSU political science intern claimed Edwards, then an adjunct professor, plied him with beers, trolled briefly for prostitutes, watched ''heterosexual'' pornography and then exhorted him to masturbate in a game.
The intern said Edwards threatened him with bad grades if he didn't ''get into it.'' He declined to press charges. Edwards said the claims were ''lies'' but he didn't ''want to revisit it.'' Edwards was fired from FSU.
Shortly after his extortion arrest, state Capitol police then arrested Edwards on charges of theft, burglary and dealing with stolen property after the cops said he stole at least $10,000 worth of computer equipment from offices of the Florida Legislature.
The student later decided not to press charges and Edwards was allowed to plead 'no contest' in the computers case.
--Josh Marshall
EC Happy Hour Roundup
Tom Tancredo calls for an end to federal aid for Katrina survivors, says that it's "time the taxpayer gravy train left the New Orleans station." That and other political news of the day in today's Happy Hour Roundup.
--Eric Kleefeld
Man Bites Dog
Freed from the need to keep his silence, Karl Rove has written a piece on the Bush presidency. Verdict: Best president ever.
I believe history will provide a more clear-eyed verdict on this president’s leadership than the anger of current critics would suggest.President Bush will be viewed as a far-sighted leader who confronted the key test of the 21st century.
He will be judged as a man of moral clarity who put America on wartime footing in the dangerous struggle against radical Islamic terrorism.
--Josh Marshall
Monitoring the World
I'll still stick to the point that the real news of significance for our democracy are the oppo research sheets Green Zone authorities are circulating about visiting Democratic lawmakers. But this is a pretty choice moment too ...
But even such tight control could not always filter out the bizarre world inside the barricades. At one point, the three were trying to discuss the state of Iraqi security forces with Iraq's national security adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, but the large, flat-panel television set facing the official proved to be a distraction. Rubaie was watching children's cartoons.When Moran asked him to turn it off, Rubaie protested with a laugh and said, "But this is my favorite television show," Moran recalled.
Porter confirmed the incident, although he tried to paint the scene in the best light, noting that at least they had electricity.
"I don't disagree it was an odd moment, but I did take a deep breath and say, 'Wait a minute, at least they are using the latest technology, and they are monitoring the world,' " Porter said. "But, yes, it was pretty annoying."
Best technology, monitoring the world. I guess at this point we're just living in a Waiting for Guffman movie or Best in Show.
--Josh Marshall
Disgusting
This story in this morning's Post about Green Zone authorities putting out 'tip sheets' about visiting Democratic lawmakers that read like they were written by the RNC is a really big deal. It's all par for the course for this administration, how they've politicized every branch of the government and every agency, eroding democratic institutions in American while they pretended to build them in Iraq. In fact, from the start the White House tried to stock the Green Zone and the US occupation authority with GOP operatives. But I thought that had changed a little. This latest incident, though, should trigger a number of forced retirements and resignations.
--Josh Marshall
Reid Backs Off Firm Troop Withdrawal Timetable
Signaling a major change in negotiation strategy, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says his demands for a firm commencement date for troop withdrawals from Iraq this coming spring has become an "obstacle" and that he is willing to compromise with Republicans on the issue.
Late Update: Reid's spokesman responds to our query about his remarks, leaving little doubt that he's open to the possibility of funding the war this fall without withdrawal timelines. --gs
--David Kurtz
Craig Denounced FBI for Stevens Raid
It was just earlier this month that Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) was defending Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) from FBI tactics that Craig called "a bit Gestapo-like." (Too bad Stevens can't return the favor.) Here's the full quote, as reported by The Politico:
"I think some people say, 'Ah, but for the grace of God go I.' Especially when you have the allegations, you have the judicial segment of our government, the executive branch, out raiding the homes of senators, that is a very frightening proposition. It is a bit Gestapo-like in its style and tactics ... When the FBI was offered a key and invited into the home, they chose publicize it to make sure the media was there first, and they broke in. That is gamesmanship. That makes senators very, very angry when they attempt to cooperate when for reason they are caught in these webs and yet they are denied that for the sake of the judiciary’s publicity. That is wrong.’’
"Caught in these webs"?
We posted on Craig's comments at the time, but they take on a whole new flavor now, don't they?
[Great catch by TPM intern Will Thomas.]
--David Kurtz
Bush Justice
The investigation of the politicization of hiring practices at the Department of Justice appears to be broader than first believed. Among the practices that the DOJ inspector general and the Office of Professional Responsibility are looking into are what kinds of questions were asked of job applicants. As part of the investigation, they have sent a survey to DOJ hires inquiring whether they were asked things such as, Should gays be allowed to marry? Have you contributed to Republican candidates? What kind of conservative are you? More here.
--David Kurtz
Hear, Speak, See No Evil
Poor Ted Stevens. The much-investigated senior senator from Alaska is so hamstrung by his own legal troubles that his lawyers have barred him from commenting on the Larry Craig bathroom imbroglio.
--David Kurtz
Flashback
The Larry Franklin-AIPAC case--was it lobbying or espionage?--has been flying mostly under the radar of late. But arguments made in the case yesterday suggest this could get pretty interesting if the defendants have their way:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other senior intelligence officials should not be forced to testify about whether they discussed classified information with pro-Israel lobbyists, federal prosecutors argued in a closed-door court hearing Thursday.Two former American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobbyists facing espionage charges have subpoenaed Rice, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams and several others to testify at their trial next year. . . .
Attorneys for lobbyists Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman have argued that the Israeli interest group played an unofficial but sanctioned role in crafting foreign policy and that Rice and others can confirm it.
Trial is set for early next year.
--David Kurtz
Bush Admin Sides with Infant Formula Lobby
This is deservedly getting a lot of attention this morning. From WaPo:
In an attempt to raise the nation's historically low rate of breast-feeding, federal health officials commissioned an attention-grabbing advertising campaign a few years ago to convince mothers that their babies faced real health risks if they did not breast-feed. It featured striking photos of insulin syringes and asthma inhalers topped with rubber nipples.Plans to run these blunt ads infuriated the politically powerful infant formula industry, which hired a former chairman of the Republican National Committee and a former top regulatory official to lobby the Health and Human Services Department. Not long afterward, department political appointees toned down the campaign. . . .
The ads ran instead with more friendly images of dandelions and cherry-topped ice cream scoops, to dramatize how breast-feeding could help avert respiratory problems and obesity.
--David Kurtz
EC Morning Roundup
Manhattan District Attorney Arthur Branch's fictional career continues, as TNT has no plans for now to stop showing Fred Thompson's Law & Order reruns. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Eric Kleefeld
Today's Must Read
Finally, we're getting more of a glimpse into the netherworld occupied by Thomas Kontogiannis, and it sure is murky.
Kontogiannis is the briber of Duke Cunningham who has pleaded guilty and will be a key witness in the upcoming trial of two other alleged Cunningham bribers, Brent Wilkes and Kontogiannis' own nephew, John Michael.
Kontogiannis' plea agreement and the legal proceedings surrounding it were originally kept secret, and he was not even fingerprinted at first, all of which, combined with his history of getting off pretty easy for serious felony convictions, gave rise to speculation about Kontogiannis' ties to U.S. intelligence.
The judge in the case has now unsealed some of the records of the legal proceedings, and sure enough, Kontogiannis says bribing Cunningham was basically just the cost of doing business: "My interest is (the) United States, basically. And (Cunningham) was in a position that I could reach and tell (the government) information that I was gathering from all over the world.”
It's hard to tell whether Kontogiannis fancies himself a real-life Jack Bauer, or if he just pulled the wool over the eyes of his presumed handlers. Spencer has the details.
--David Kurtz
Craig On Way Out?
CNN: Sources say Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) may resign as early as today.
Actually this is pretty remarkable if true:
A GOP source with knowledge of the situation told CNN's Dana Bash that the Republican National Committee was poised to take the extraordinary step of calling on Craig to resign.However, that move was put on hold, the source said, because top party leaders have received indications that Craig himself is preparing to step down.
Sources have confirmed that high-level meetings on the matter were being conducted in Idaho on Thursday.
I don't recall a national party publicly calling for the resignation of a sitting senator of its own party ever before. Perhaps our Senate history buffs can help us here. More at TPM's Election Central.
--David Kurtz
The Confidence Game
White House "confident" it will win Iraq fight against Dems. In other news, salesman confident you will enjoy that used car.
--David Kurtz
The Muck Gap
Okay, it's the unreported political story of the year: the GOP's ability to dominate scandal news even while in the minority. Usually, the majority party, with more power and money, takes the scandal cake. It's almost an iron law of politics. But whether it's lobby shop or the restroom, the GOP has so far been able to reverse the historical tide, maintaining a decisive muck advantage even in the political wilderness.
In fact, the Muck Gap remains so great that we even caught CNN (see today's episode) yesterday trying to fudge the numbers to make muck seem more bipartisan than it is.
We run the numbers in today's episode of TPMtv ...
--Josh Marshall
Internet Could Have Saved Sen. Craig?
According to an article in today's Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune, more avid web readership might have saved Sen. Larry Craig's (R-ID) career.
As a number of TPM Reader/Google sleuths have been telling us, there are sites out there that rate different public sex bathrooms around the country. One of them sounds sort of like it's the Zagat's of gay public restroom sex. And that bathroom at the Minneapolis airport is like the Spago of sex bathrooms.
In any case, this from the Strib reporters ...
Another Web site lists Twin Cities-area malls, parks, health clubs and even a "cruisy toilet" at the Minnesota State Fairgrounds. Many postings list the best times to go and give graphic reviews of the venues.An airport bathroom, specifically one near a shoeshine stand behind the ticket counter, generated the most comments until Web-site users posted warnings in June that men were getting arrested there. Craig was arrested shortly after noon on June 11 in the main men's public restroom of the North Star Crossing in the Lindbergh Terminal.
It's not clear from the article exactly which review web site they're referring to or whether the warnings about the sting showed up in advance of Craig's June 11th arrest. But it seems that closer scrutiny of the web and available ratings sites could have kept Craig from his rendezvous with destiny.
--Josh Marshall
EC Happy Hour Roundup
Wyoming GOP official makes a candid admission: His state party is trying to wreck the primary calendar. That and other political news of the day in today's Happy Hour Roundup.
--Eric Kleefeld
Of All the Bathrooms in All the World
Sen. Craig was familiar with this particular Minneapolis airport restroom:
Officer: You, you travel through here frequently correct?Craig: I do.
Officer: Um,
Craig: Almost weekly.
Officer: Have you been successful in these bathrooms here before?
Craig: I go to that bathroom regularly.
Officer: I mean for any type of other activities?
Craig: No. Absolutely not. I don't seek activity in bathrooms.
Sigh.
--David Kurtz
This is Sad
We're going through the airport police audio tape of their interview with Sen. Larry Craig following his arrest. Among the highlights:
Officer: Well, you're not being truthful with me. You're not being truthful with me, Senator. I'm real disappointed in you right now. . . .
Then a little later:
Officer: Okay, sir. We deal with people who lie to us every day.Craig: I'm sure you do.
Officer: I'm sure you do to [sic] sir.
Craig: And gentleman so do I.
By the end, it's hard to tell whether the officer's "disappointment" is the stuff of interrogation room tactics or genuine:
Officer: Okay. Then it was your left hand. I saw it with my own eyes.Craig: All right, you saw something that didn't happen.
Officer: Embarrassing, embarrassing. No wonder why we're going down the tubes. Anything to add?
Craig: Uh, no.
Shortly thereafter, the interview concludes.
--David Kurtz
Bush Visits That Part of the World
When my wife was in school in Louisiana, she had a teacher who began a sentence one day with, "When you leave Louisiana and go to America . . ."
Now, Louisiana has long been different from the rest of the country, its French and Spanish colonial roots long pre-dating Anglo influence. In south Louisiana in particular, where the geographic isolation of bayou country was not penetrated until the commercialization of oil and gas deposits well into the 20th century, the Anglo influence not only came late but often came as unwelcome.
So there is precedent for Louisiana to consider itself a land apart, but I'm not sure there is any precedent for a President of the United States to refer to contiguous U.S. territory as if it were a foreign land in quite the same way President Bush did yesterday while visiting New Orleans on the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina's landfall there:
"[T]he taxpayers and people from all around the country have got to understand the people of this part of the world really do appreciate the fact that the American citizens are supportive of the recovery effort.""I come telling the folks in this part of the world that we still understand there's problems and we're still engaged."
"We care deeply about the folks in this part of the world."
He might as well have been talking to tsunami survivors in Indonesia.
Late Update: As a couple of readers have pointed out, there is a precedent for a U.S. President to refer to U.S. territory in this way: President Bush himself has done it consistently since shortly after the storm. On September 2, 2005, speaking in Mobile, Ala., the President said, "[N]ow we're going to go try to comfort people in that part of the world." And the pattern of oddly distancing the devastated Gulf Coast from the rest of the country has continued ever since, as ably documented by the blog "Right Hand Thief."
--David Kurtz
Iraqi WMD Finally Found! Democrats in Disgrace
It's been more than four years since the invasion of Iraq. And countless wingers have lost their sanity and dignity over the failed hunt from Iraqi stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. But vials of Iraqi WMD have now been found ... in the inspectors' file cabinets at the UN in New York.
--Josh Marshall
A Possible Dem Pick-Up?
We'll know tomorrow whether Sen. John Warner (R-VA) will run for re-election next year. Warner is 80 years old. The race for his seat, if empty, would be a major flashpoint in 2008.
--David Kurtz
Careful What You Ask For
Almost as soon as Sen. Larry Craig issued a statement Monday afternoon saying he should not have pleaded guilty in the Minneapolis airport restroom case (his press flack told Roll Call it was all a “he said/he said misunderstanding”), speculation began swirling that Craig may face legal consequences for disavowing his guilty plea. That was only compounded by his public appearance the next day, in which he announced that he had finally retained legal counsel to review the case. The LA Times has a good overview of the possible consequences for Craig of trying to reopen his case--none of them good.
--David Kurtz
Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places
Sen. Larry Craig is not getting much love at home in Idaho either. The GOP governor and longtime Craig ally reiterated that Craig is a friend but is declining to say one way or the other whether Craig should resign.
--David Kurtz
New Surge Meme: Gas to $9
Is this outside their area of expertise?
Rep. Jon Porter (R-NV) just got back from Iraq and he says that Petraeus, Crocker and the chieftains of the Iraqi government told him not only that there would be genocide if the US left but that gas prices would go to $8 or $9 a gallon.
The Nevada Republican, who returned Tuesday from his fourth trip to Iraq, met with U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus, U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, Iraqi Deputy President Tariq al-Hashimi and Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh."To a person, they said there would be genocide, gas prices in the U.S. would rise to eight or nine dollars a gallon, al-Qaida would continue its expansion, and Iran would take over that portion of the world if we leave," Porter said Wednesday in a phone interview from Las Vegas.
Is it Petraeus or Crocker who's got the oil price analysis portfolio?
Someone remind me.
--Josh Marshall
Tucker the Tough
TPM Reader RK:
Carlson beat up a man? A fully grown man? Please. Tucker Carlson could be beaten into submission with nothing more than a heavy thought.
--David Kurtz
EC MORNING ROUNDUP
The Hillary campaign will divest themselves of money from convicted fraud Norman Hsu — but there are no plans yet from the Obama camp to do the same. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Eric Kleefeld
But even the President of the United States
Sometimes must have
To stand naked.
-- Bob Dylan
--Josh Marshall
"Going" Problem
It has been a difficult summer for Republican politicians staying within the law in their use of public bathrooms. In today's episode of TPMtv we take a look at the misunderstood/mistaken/mixed-up cases of State Representative Bob Allen (R) of Florida and Idaho Senator Larry Craig (R).
--Ben Craw
EC Happy Hour Roundup
The influential New Hampshire Union Leader challenges Fred Thompson to declare already, and show up for a September 5 debate. That and other political news of the day in today's Happy Hour Roundup.
--Eric Kleefeld
What About Sen. David Vitter?
So how will Senate Republicans square their calls for Sen. Larry Craig's resignation with their support for Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)?
Let's put it this way: Vitter did more than slide his foot under a bathroom stall. He has as much as admitted to breaking the law by paying for prostitutes proffered by the D.C. Madam. He left precious little ambiguity in his public statements, though he didn't go quite as far as Craig's guilty plea.
But that is a slim reed of a difference. Is the only real difference for GOPers that Vitter was in for straight sex (though apparently pretty kinky straight sex, by one account) whereas Craig went in for gay sex in public places?
There's been considerable commentary on conservative commentators' double standard for Vitter and Craig. But it's a standard GOP senators are going to have to answer for, too. Let the squirming begin.
Late Update: I included the last link above, to Kevin Drum, because it specifically lays out one possible reason for the double standard: Craig's replacement would be appointed by a Republican governor, Vitter's by a Democratic governor.
--David Kurtz
Fox: Hillary and Obama Recruit Castro
Fox New breaks open the story of the Castro-Hillary-Obama alliance ...
--Josh Marshall
A Push, Not a Jump
In a sign of how toxic the political environment is for Senate Republicans, the GOP leadership in the Senate asked Sen. Larry Craig to give up his committee assignments--and then put out a public statement about it. The move is supposedly temporary, until the Ethics Committee sorts out the complaints against Craig over his conviction in the airport bathroom incident. One of those ethics complaints yesterday came from none other than the Senate GOP leadership itself.
Meanwhile, Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN), one of the most vulnerable Republicans seeking re-election next year, this afternoon called publicly for Craig's resignation. Nearly simultaneously, Sen. John McCain, a presidential candidate, did so as well. No Democrats in the Senate have yet said Craig should resign.
While most Senate Republicans can't distance themselves from Craig fast enough, Trent Lott, having been through the wringer himself over the comments he made about Strom Thurmond that cost him his position as Senate majority leader, is more circumspect, telling Bloomberg TV's "Money & Politics":
I am shocked and I am disappointed at you know, this turn of events. . . but I also have learned the hard way that before you jump to conclusions or call on people to do one thing or another at least know all of the facts and you know take advantage of an opportunity to hear what, you know, really happened."
That's the sober assessment of a politician who has stared into the abyss.
Election Central has a rundown on what happens if Craig were to heed the calls to step down.
--David Kurtz
The Few, the Proud, the Senators
As you can see over in our news section, two senators (McCain and Coleman) have called on Sen. Craig (R-ID) to resign. I strongly suspect that a number more will by the end of the day.
Now, the senate's an awfully clubby place. And senators have been known to do some awfully freaky stuff.
So here's my question: when was the last time a senator called for a fellow senator to resign his office?
--Josh Marshall
Tucker Carlson: Yeah, I Beat Up a Gay Guy for Hitting on Me
My pal Steve Clemons is guest-blogging at Andrew Sullivan's site this week. And he has a post about this astounding admission/boast of Tucker Carlson's that he bashed, literally bashed, a gay man who hit on him in a public bathroom.
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Hoekstra (R): Craig must resign.
Rep. Hoekstra (R) of Michigan says Sen. Craig must resign.
Who he's speaking on behalf of isn't exactly clear to me.
--Josh Marshall
Helluva Job, Larry
CNN: White House "disappointed" with Craig.
Another bit of understated reporting: "The general sentiment among Craig's fellow Idaho Republicans who talked to CNN's Dana Bash in Boise was that Craig's explanation is not credible."
--Josh Marshall
It's All a Misunderstanding
I wasn't familiar with the BBC comedy show "Little Britain" until TPM Reader BW sent me this clip, apropos of the Larry Craig incident. I feel like I've missed out.
--David Kurtz
All Hail the New Era of Bush
For all its well-earned reputation for cynicism, the Washington press corps, or some elements of it, has sure taken a rosy-eyed view of the Gonzales resignation.
The Los Angeles Times called it a "blessing" and an "opportunity" for President Bush, and "a chance to salvage his relationship with Capitol Hill and the legacy of his second term."
Roger Simon at The Politico says Bush is putting his legacy above loyalty: "Once famous for his loyalty to subordinates, Bush is now showing himself very capable of jettisoning the ones who create too much controversy." Very capable?
And everyone seems to be of the earnest opinion that Bush must nominate as Gonzales' successor someone of great independence and integrity to restore the Department of Justice. Wouldn't that be great.
TPM Reader MT isn't buying it, and neither am I:
Democratic lawmakers, such as Senator Schumer, and countless left-leaning bloggers have given their prescription for the AG nominee: he should be independent, not a member of the Bush inner circle, more loyal to the law than to the GOP, etc. But after watching the video of the petulant, irritated Bush making his brief statement about losing Gonzo, and hearing his claim that a good man had been "dragged through the mud," I can't help but think that the AG nominee will not be independent of the White House in any way, and will, in fact, be a middle finger to the Democrats in the Senate. Bush the spoiled brat will not be cooperative, but will instead take his ball and go home. After watching his temper tantrum, I don't see how any sane person could get a sense that the White House will capitulate on the next AG.This just seems self-evident at this stage.
If, as the evidence overwhelmingly suggests, Gonzales was a mere Bush flunky, a cipher, an amiable man doing the bidding of more powerful and more sinister men, then his departure can hardly be said to herald a new era so long as Bush (and Cheney) occupy the White House.
There is a persistent meme in press coverage that Bush--like Reagan--remains a figure aloof and removed not just from the partisan fray but from the words and deeds of his appointees and underlings. He stands apart, or so goes the thinking, undoubtedly encouraged by spin from the White House and Bushies.
Nearly seven years into his Presidency, don't we have a pretty good idea of the character and abilities of this man? There is a long track record now of truly unparalleled incompetence, corruption, and politicization. What more do we need to know? Bush's legacy is firmly entrenched, and barring any seismic historical events between now and January 2009, any changes to that sorry legacy will be at the margins.
--David Kurtz
The RNC is now planning sanctions against five states — including New Hampshire — in an attempt to regain control of the primary calendar. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Eric Kleefeld
Bible Says: Craig Lied
The Idaho Values Alliance--whose fortuitous juxtaposition on its website of articles praising Sen. Larry Craig's pro-life voting record and warning of the dangers of homosexuality and airport restrooms I highlighted the other day--is now calling for Craig to resign his Senate seat (via Kornacki):
The Judeo-Christian tradition says that the standard for identifying the truth is that “by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact is confirmed.” The senator’s guilty plea, when added to the officer’s testimony, satisfies the biblical standard for confirming the essential truth of what happened, and unless the senator can provide a compelling and convincing explanation for his plea, we will need to regretfully accept that the fact of his behavior has been established. It seems unlikely that he can “unring the bell” his guilty plea has sounded.
I'm sure the "ring the bell" double entendre was completely unintended (as was, by the way, the opening line of Craig's press appearance yesterday: "Thank you all very much for coming out today . . .").
In any event, the IVA isn't stopping with Larry Craig. It won't be satisfied until all homosexuals are run out of the GOP:
One larger issue must be addressed. The Republican Party platform clearly rejects the agenda of homosexual activists. The Party, in the wake of the Mark Foley incident in particular, can no longer straddle the fence on the issue of homosexual behavior. Even setting Senator Craig’s situation aside, the Party should regard participation in the self-destructive homosexual lifestyle as incompatible with public service on behalf of the GOP.No member of the Republican Party in the 1860s could represent his party and be a slaveholder at the same time. Nor can the Republican Party of today speak with authority and clarity to the moral issues that confront our society and at the same time send ambivalent messages about sexual behavior. It is time for the Republican Party to be the party that defends the American family in word, deed, and by personal example.
Let the purges begin. Presumably, in addition to homosexuals, the GOP must be cleansed of the divorced, adulterers, abortion recipients, gamblers . . . the list goes on. Once you remove all the "sinners" from the Republican Party, the Democrats should hold a decided electoral advantage.
--David Kurtz
Well-Said
GOP political consultant Scott Reed, reacting to the Larry Craig debacle:
“The real question for Republicans in Washington is how low can you go, because we are approaching a level of ridiculousness,” said Mr. Reed, sounding exasperated in an interview on Tuesday morning. “You can’t make this stuff up. And the impact this is having on the grass-roots around the country is devastating. Republicans think the governing class in Washington are a bunch of buffoons who have total disregard for the principles of the party, the law of the land and the future of the country.”
Welcome to the reality-based community, Scott.
--David Kurtz
So True
Palm Beach Post columnist: bathroom mishaps "serve as a cautionary tale on the importance of guy bathroom etiquette for the rest of us."
--Josh Marshall
Context and History
From TPM Reader TB ...
Dear Editors (here specifically David, and Josh):Fine coverage, as always. I very much enjoy and appreciate your site.
Regarding Larry Craig's bathroom actions and American public sex in general: there are two comments I'd like to add to the discussion. First, male-male sex in public bathrooms has been going on in America for at least 100 years...probably since the invention of the public bathroom. Our culture's lack of understanding of sexuality, and our gender-segregated bathrooms, created an environment where males naturally happen upon each other in stages of undress (much like the locker room). Such scandalous behavior has been uncovered at YMCAs (originally built as boarding houses for World War I soldiers), park restrooms, and transit station restrooms since the early 20th century. Typically, men who had sex with each other in these restrooms were caught by plainclothes investigators who pretended to accept their suitors' advances (and, in some cases, were quite passionate about their ... investigations) before booking them. Long prison terms, psychiatric "treatment", and public humiliation were common outcomes of these investigations. For most of the 20th century, there were very, very few public places in most of America for men to meet each other. There was certainly no public space friendlier to gays in Boise, Idaho, than the library and park bathrooms when Sen. Craig was a young man. I call them preliminaries because they preface more intricate coded behavior that can indicate a variety of things: whose stall the contact will happen; what activities are amenable to either party; whether money will change hands; whether there is a lookout; whether the place itself is safe; and much more. "Tearooms," as these bathrooms are called, established an entire non-verbal dialectic to facilitate sexual union between American men. They are as enshrined in gay culture as Sunday afternoon "tea dances," or Bette Midler singing at the baths, or Stonewall, or, currently, Internet dating. Even for me, as a young gay man from Wisconsin curious about gay sex in the mid-1980s, the park restrooms were the place where it all happened. The restrooms were not just an urban legend: they were living history -- noisy, confusing, heady, stinky, and nervewracking places for a sexual -- and cultural -- initiation. The codes that Craig and his arresting officer used (looking through the stall door; tapping one's foot; touching your stall neighbor's foot) are historical preliminaries to sexual contact.
Which leads me to this: we do not live in the 1930s anymore, or even the 1980s. One can make the distinction now between furtive behavior and discreet behavior. There are lots of ways by which and places where men can meet other men to wine, dine, kiss, screw, get married, or just civilly unionize. It doesn't have to happen in the bathroom, unless that is what you choose. I feel some fondness for tearooms, where men would look at me, then just 18, like I was Ganymede come back to earth. There is an excitement and danger and kink to public sex that I still enjoy, in empty cemeteries on moonless nights with someone I like, offending only the dead. There are so many ways to meet someone and approximate the thrill of the tearooms. We could say that Sen. Craig was just unimaginative, or wouldn't have it any other way; I think he hadn't caught up with the ways gay culture has changed, and he didn't know how.
But it's never too late: if I were him, I'd be on Craig's list with a crotch shot and a "married, discreet" tag.
--Josh Marshall
A Bit More to the Story
Hmmm (from the Idaho Statesman) ...
Meanwhile, newly released police records of the bathroom incident that led to Craig's arrest show that Craig revisited the Minneapolis airport 11 days later to complain about how he had been treated by police. He said he wanted information so his lawyer could speak to someone, according to a police report....
After his June 11 arrest, Craig revisited the Minneapolis airport June 22 to complain about how he had been treated by police. His spokesman said he was on his way to Idaho from Washington D.C., a trip he takes through the Minneapolis airport most Fridays when Congress is in session.
He stopped at the police operations center and told the on-duty officer, Adam Snedker, that it had been over a week since his arrest and no one had contacted him. According to the police, the senator told the officer that ”he was involved in an incident where he was “drug down to this office” where he was handcuffed, fingerprinted and interviewed.”
He wanted information about who to contact so that his lawyer could speak with someone, according to the report.
The on-duty officer patched him through to the officer who had arrested him, Sgt. Dave Karsnia, who told Craig the name, phone number and prosecutor assigned to the case.
“It should be noted that contrary to what Craig stated to Officer Snedker, I did not handcuff Craig on the date of the offense even though he was under arrest,” Karsnia wrote in his report.
Snedker said in his report that “even though I did the best to answer his questions,” Craig was not friendly and “appeared agitated and demeaning.”
You get the sense there's a bit more to the narrative we haven't heard yet. And what lawyer would that be? Presumably this was just a imaginary 'lawyer' Craig was referring to get contact info for the prosecutor. But maybe not. I've always found it a little iffy that Craig really consulted no lawyer about this since he had two months to mull it over.
--Josh Marshall
Since the news of Al Gonzales' resignation, a number of you have written in with kind words (or written blog posts) about our reporting on the USA Attorney Purge scandal. We like to let our reporting speak for itself. So we'll let it do that. But I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your kind words and your support, which means a great deal to us.
--Josh Marshall
Special Alberto Gonzales Top 10
In case you missed it, and in case you're already in Alberto Gonzales withdrawal, don't miss our special TPMtv Top 10 Moments of Alberto Gonzales Ridiculousness. Help us count down ...
--Josh Marshall
Old Heave-Ho
Senate Republicans call for Ethics Investigation of Sen. Craig (R).
--Josh Marshall
John McCain's cash-strapped campaign qualifies for federal funding — but if he accepts, he won't be able to spend much in the crucial early states. That and other political news of the day in today's Happy Hour Roundup.
--Eric Kleefeld
Craig: Bill Clinton "Bad", "Naughty" and "Nasty Boy"
Back in the Impeachment days in 1999, Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) wouldn't stand for a censure of President Clinton. The People of Idaho, Craig told Meet the Press, would only settle for impeachment of such a "nasty boy."
Late Update: Greg Sargent noted this quote yesterday over at Election Central.
--Josh Marshall
'I Am Not Gay'
Sen. Larry Craig comes out swinging. In a public appearance in Boise, Craig says he is not and never has been gay, and blames the Idaho Statesman for what he called vicious attacks against him, referring to the long investigation by the paper of rumors that Craig was gay, for his decision to plead guilty. Of course the paper didn't publish the results of that investigation until today--after news of Craig's June arrest and August guilty plea broke.
--David Kurtz
Seinfeld and Sen. Larry Craig
After spending the afternoon on a slew of emails about the Larry Craig bathroom incident--was it a crime? should it have been a crime? do I want people reaching under my bathroom stall?*--let's wrap this up on a lighter note. Elaine can only be glad that she was not in the Minneapolis airport in this scene (although that only postponed jail for her). Thanks to TPM Reader DM for the link.
*No.
--David Kurtz
Thanks for the (Hazy) Memories
It's over, it's... all over. Alberto Gonzales resigned as Attorney General yesterday. As Americans we cheer, but as muckrakers we shed a tear for the man who over the past 6 months taught us new things about how mendacious, incompetent, and ridiculous an attorney general could be. In today's episode of TPMtv we take one final, fond look back at the Top 10 Moments from the now-resigned Attorney General Alberto Gonzales ...
--Ben Craw
Goldsmith to Testify
Jack Goldsmith, the former head of Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, will testify before Congress after the summer recess about the NSA's warrantless surveillance program. This could get interesting.
--David Kurtz
Murrow Spinning in Grave
Sacramento's CBS affiliate saw fit to re-enact, live and on the air, Sen. Larry Craig's bathroom encounter in the Minneapolis airport. Via USA Today.
--David Kurtz
Is Craig's Seat a Possible Dem Pick-up?
As Eric Kleefeld explains, if Craig steps down or declines to run again, Republicans are likely to retain the seat. And there are indications that Craig may not run again.
--David Kurtz
Ethics Complaint Against Craig
CREW files an ethics complaint against Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) arising from his disorderly conduct conviction.
--David Kurtz
A Macaca Moment of a Different Sort
Video of former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami apparently shaking a woman's hand--horrors--is roiling politics there. Khatami claims the video is a fake.
--David Kurtz
The Iraq Lobby
Spencer Ackerman has more on the status of U.S. lobbying efforts by various Iraqi political factions.
--David Kurtz
Craig's Catch-22
Following up on David's post below on what Craig 'did', I have to imagine this was one of those catch-22s that Craig really had no way out of. I'm going to assume for the sake of the discussion that the gestures Craig is described as making are ones easily recognizable as soliciting sex. The rubbed shoe (see police report) seems unambiguous to me. With that assumption, it's still clear that the whole thing didn't get far enough for Craig to 'do' anything lewd. But I'm not sure that matters since obviously you can get hauled off to jail for agreeing to purchase sex from a prostitute even before things get freaky.
Given what's described, it seems quite possible that, with a good lawyer, Craig could have beaten the rap.
But had he tried, it would have become public and it would have been pretty clear -- clear enough to doom him politically -- that Craig is gay and that he gets sex in public restrooms. (If someone put their shoe under a bathroom divider and rubbed it against your shoe, you'd get the message I think.) Remember, there'd already been lots of unconfirmed reports in the past. Because of that, Craig couldn't fight the charge even though he might well have been acquitted. But once he pled guilty, it really wasn't a he said/he said, as his press spokesman said yesterday. Craig had said under oath that he was guilty of the charge.
One way or another, once he was arrested, the apparent facts, even if you think they aren't ones for which you should be criminally culpable, were ones that were not compatible with his continuing in public office -- given his politics and the state he represents. All he could do was plead out and hope against hope that no one ever noticed.
--Josh Marshall
What Did Sen. Craig Actually Do?
We've had lots of back and forth discussion here internally about what conduct by Sen. Craig in that Minneapolis airport restroom was actually illegal. We've posted the arrest report, so take a look and reach your own conclusions.
Leering stares, foot tapping, a lingering presence. Are any of those, even taken together, what most reasonable people would call criminal? Is it because they happened in a bathroom? God knows they happen every night in bars and other public spaces, among gays and straights.
TPM Reader LA refines the point:
Sure, he's a hypocrite, sure he's probably gay or bi or whatever, and sure, I despise his politics. The problem is, I'm torn between the schadenfreude of watching another one of the Family Values crowd being shown up, and feeling really bad for the guy, because he didn't do anything.Look at the police report. Did he directly ask a cop for sex? No. Did he expose himself lewdly (as opposed to exposing himself to use the facilities)? No. Did he do anything that was unambiguously sexual? No.
All he did was tap his foot, reach down (possibly to pick up a piece of TP), wiggle his fingers, and put his bag in front of him when he sat down. Oh, and he waited in front of an occupied stall. Even if he did everything the cop said he did, where was the lewd conduct? No actual sex happened. No actual sex was discussed. And if it wasn't for the sheer embarrassment of the situation, you'd be writing about the overzealous cop who arrested a sitting US Senator for no apparent reason.
If Craig was looking for sex, I hope that he can look into his heart and realize that it's 2007, and gay people are allowed to be out, and even get involved in meaningful relationships that don't begin and end in a squalid men's room. I'd hope that he'd recognize that there are even gay Republicans out there (look at former Rep. Kolbe, for one), and that a lot of the stigma and fear that still exists about homosexuality in this society has to do with the behavior of people who are in the closet.
But that, to me, is another issue entirely. The issue here is, why is the Minneapolis Airport PD arresting people for such flimsy reasons? Why do judges and prosecutors still accept these cases? Why, in 2007, 43 years after LBJ's chief of staff, Walter Jenkins, got busted in the men's room YMCA in DC, have we apparently moved no further in our analysis of these situations?
I think that's about right. Look, I wouldn't want to bring my 4-year-old son into the airport bathroom and stumble across two people having sex, gay or straight. It's tough enough getting in and out of the john without him touching every dirty surface or contributing to the mess with an errant aim. But sex didn't happen here. Even the propositioning is murky at best. And short of a proposition involving sex for money, what is illegal about inquiring about sex? Tactless, maybe. But criminal?
The hypocrisy angle--conservative U.S. senator with a voting record antagonistic to gay rights--is the one just about everyone can hang their hats on here. Paying a political price for that hypocrisy seems reasonable. But clearly the hypocrisy is not just political; it's deeply personal. The fractures and fault lines in Craig's psyche must be something to behold. It's hard not to feel some sympathy for the guy. But hypocrisy, thank god for all of us, is not a crime. Being gay shouldn't be either.
--David Kurtz
Edwards announces that as President he would unveil "Brownie's Law" -- a very radical proposal that would stipulate that senior political appointees demonstrate beforehand that they are qualified for their government posts. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Today's Must Read
Peeling back the layers of corruption in U.S. reconstruction efforts in Iraq.
--David Kurtz
In Denial
After a blog purported to out Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) last October, the leading newspaper in Craig's home state did an exhaustive investigation of the rumors that Craig was a closeted gay man. "During its investigation, the Statesman interviewed 300 people, visited the ranch where Craig grew up, and made two trips to Washington, D.C.," the paper reports today. The investigation culminated with a May interview of Craig, with his wife present, during which Craig denied the allegations.
In the end, the Statesman was unable to verify to its satisfaction the various rumors about Craig, including an alleged first-person account of sexual contact with Craig in a restroom in D.C.'s Union Station:
Until Monday, the Statesman had declined to run a story about Craig's sex life, because the paper didn't have enough corroborating evidence and because of the senator's steadfast denial.In the hourlong May 14 interview, Craig was accompanied by his wife, Suzanne. He specifically and generally denied ever engaging in any homosexual conduct.
During that interview, the Statesman played Craig an audiotape of the man claiming that he and Craig had sex in the Union Station restroom. Like the Minnesota airport restroom, the Union Station restroom is known as a place where men can find anonymous sex.
Craig denied the man's account and said, "I am not gay and I have never been in a restroom in Union Station having sex with anybody.
"There's a very clear bottom line here," Craig said. "I don't do that kind of thing. I am not gay, and I never have been."
Craig was arrested in the Minneapolis airport incident less than a month after his interview with the Statesman.
--David Kurtz
Seems Like Old Times
Back in 1982, then-Rep. Craig (R-ID) came forward early in the congressional page sex scandal to deny any role in the scandal.
Reported ABC News' Carol Simpson at the time, "The names of congressman alleged to be involved in the scandal have remained secret. But Idaho Republican Congressman Larry Craig, concerned that his name had been implicated, issued a public denial." ...
--Josh Marshall
From the Bathroom to the Boardroom
Sen. Craig (R-ID) resigns as Mitt Romney's campaign co-chairman.
"Senator Craig has stepped down from his role with the campaign. He did not want to be a distraction and we accept his decision."
--Josh Marshall
Craig Endorses Romney's Family Values
The video the Romney campaign doesn't want you to see ...
The Romney campaign yanked the endorsement video from their site and from youtube late this afternoon.
--Josh Marshall
Pro-Romney Larry Craig Vid Yanked by Romney Campaign
Back in July, you'll remember, we brought you the inside story on the GOP presidential proxy war over who could come up with the most campaign supporters "exposed in career-ending personal transgressions or major acts of criminal conduct, or both." Until now, pretty much only McCain (Florida state Rep. Bob Allen) and Giuliani (Sen. David Vitter) were in the hunt.
But now Mitt Romney has roared into the lead with campaign supporter Larry Craig (R-ID).
But it seems the last is not lasting. According to The Politico, late this afternoon the Romney campaign yanked their video of Craig endorsing Romney.
If you have a copy of the video before it went down the memory hole, let us know.
--Josh Marshall
Craig Releases Statement
Sen. Craig says he should not have pleaded guilty in the lewd conduct case. Apparently, he did not consult legal counsel.
--David Kurtz
The powerful International Associates of Firefighters has picked their Democratic candidate: Senator Chris Dodd. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Ben Craw
Best Legal Defense of 2007
A reader pointed me to this portion of the Roll Call report on the arrest of Sen. Larry "Wide Stance" Craig (R-ID), as recounted by the arresting officer:
In a recorded interview after his arrest, Craig “either disagreed with me or ‘didn’t recall’ the events as they happened,” the report states.Craig stated “that he has a wide stance when going to the bathroom and that his foot may have touched mine,” the report states. Craig also told the arresting officer that he reached down with his right hand to pick up a piece of paper that was on the floor.
I should point out--though I really don't want to--that Craig was seated on the toilet at the time, according to the report.
--David Kurtz
Dangerous Liaison
The AP follows up on Roll Call's report on Sen. Larry Craig's Minneapolis airport restroom tryst, or attempted tryst:
A Hennepin County court docket showed Craig pleading guilty to the disorderly conduct charge Aug. 8, with the court dismissing a charge of gross misdemeanor interference to privacy.The court docket said the Republican senator was fined $1,000, plus $575 in fees. He was put on unsupervised probation for a year. A sentence of 10 days in the county workhouse was stayed.
Would Senate rules require Craig to report this misdemeanor conviction to the Senate Ethics Committee?
--David Kurtz
No Joke
The Idaho Values Alliance--"Making Idaho the Friendliest Place in the World to Raise a Family"--is going to have a hard time swallowing the latest news about its beloved Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), who pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct for lewd conduct in an airport restroom.
Here's one page of the group's site, a news update where it praises Craig for his "pro-life" vote on stem cell research, followed by a "Bonus Byte" on the perils of homosexuality and airport restrooms:
One of the tragic characteristics of the homosexual lifestyle is its emphasis on anonymous sex and multiple sexual partners. It is a little-acknowledged secret that many active homosexuals will have more than 1,000 sex partners over the course of a lifetime (the average among heterosexuals is seven – still six more than we were designed for). This sordid fact of homosexual life surfaced yesterday in an AP article yesterday that reports on the number of arrests police have made for indecent exposure and public sex acts in the restrooms at Atlanta’s airport, the busiest in the world. The increased restroom patrols, begun to apprehend luggage thieves, instead uncovered a rash of sex crimes. Airport restrooms have become so popular that men looking for anonymous sexual trysts with other men have advertised their airport availability on Craigslist. One such ad was from a man saying he was stuck at the airport for three hours and was looking for “discreet, quick action.”
What are the odds of a piece on airport restroom trysts appearing below a picture of Larry Craig in a conservative group's newsletter, not to mention the reference to Craigslist? It's all too much.
--David Kurtz
Move Over, Alberto
It's a pretty short list of headlines that could knock Alberto Gonzales' resignation to second tier status. But the arrest--and guilty plea--of a firebrand conservative U.S. senator for lewd homosexual conduct in a public restroom definitely makes the list.
Roll Call has all the sordid details about Sen. Larry Craig's conviction (although traffic to the site is heavy at the moment). While the ins and outs of public restroom trysts, with an apparent language and protocol all its own, may be titillating, this detail about old run-of-the-mill abuse of power caught my eye:
At one point during the interview, Craig handed the plainclothes sergeant who arrested him a business card that identified him as a U.S. Senator and said, “What do you think about that?” the report states.
Nice touch. Bet that made quite an impression.
--David Kurtz
GOP Senator Convicted of Lewd Conduct
Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) was arrested in June at a Minnesota airport by a plainclothes police officer investigating lewd conduct complaints in a men’s public restroom, according to an arrest report obtained by Roll Call Monday afternoon.Craig’s arrest occurred just after noon on June 11 at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. On Aug. 8, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct in the Hennepin County District Court. He paid more than $500 in fines and fees, and a 10-day jail sentence was stayed. He also was given one year of probation with the court that began on Aug. 8.
--David Kurtz
Irony Alert
"The resignation of Alberto Gonzales had become inevitable. His situation was a distraction to the Department of Justice and its attempt to carry out its important duties."
--Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM), who urged Gonzales to replace New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias after Iglesias failed to indict New Mexico Democrats before the 2006 elections. The politically motivated purge of Iglesias and other U.S. attorneys triggered the series of events which ultimately led to Gonzales' resignation.
--David Kurtz
The Last Supper
The President, his Attorney General, and their wives enjoying a light moment yesterday at the President's Texas ranch:
--David Kurtz
Reagan Would be So Proud
"It's morning in America, Paul."
--Fired U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, speaking to our Paul Kiel, about the resignation of Alberto Gonzales.
--David Kurtz
Carnage at DOJ
Paul Kiel runs down the list of resignations by top DOJ officials in the wake of the U.S. Attorneys purge. It's a remarkable list, especially considering the President's assertion that Alberto Gonzales has not been shown to have done anything wrong.
--David Kurtz
Signs of Success
In today's Sunday Show Roundup episode of TPMtv we take a look at the "success" of the surge in providing the Iraqi government the time and space it needs to achieve political reconciliation. The verdict? Not so successful.
--Ben Craw
On Borrowed Time
The New York Times has a little more of the weekend tick-tock leading up to the Gonzales resignation, and I must say that it strikes me as an especially carefully crafted and stage-managed departure:
A senior administration official said today that Mr. Gonzales, who was in Washington, had called the president in Crawford, Tex., on Friday to offer his resignation. The president rebuffed the offer, but said the two should talk face to face on Sunday.Mr. Gonzales and his wife flew to Texas, and over lunch on Sunday the president accepted the resignation with regret, the official said.
On Saturday night Mr. Gonzales was contacted by his press spokesman to ask how the department should respond to inquiries from reporters about rumors of his resignation, and he told the spokesman to deny the reports.
White House spokesmen also insisted on Sunday that they did not believe that Mr. Gonzales was planning to resign. Aides to senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said over the weekend that they had received no suggestion from the administration that Mr. Gonzales intended to resign.
As late as Sunday afternoon, Mr. Gonzales himself was denying through his spokesman that he was quitting. The spokesman, Brian Rohrekasse, said Sunday that he telephoned the attorney general about the reports of his imminent resignation “and he said it wasn’t true — so I don’t know what more I can say.”
Lying to subordinates and the press is par for the course for these guys (and for much of official Washington in similar circumstances, truth be told). So nothing out of the ordinary there. But this elaborate choreograph, as related to The Times by administration officials, of Bush initially rebuffing the resignation, seems designed to emphasize that the timing and circumstances of Gonzales' departure was of his own choosing and that the President's hand was not being forced by Democrats on the Hill.
In short, I don't buy that tick-tock as being an accurate reflection of events, not with an attorney general who became a bipartisan laughingstock perhaps unparalleled among cabinet officers in U.S. history. The man was run out of town. The White House effort seems designed to minimize the appearance of that fact. If a fraction of the effort that went into stage-managing the politics of the resignation were put into actually running the Justice Department, or governing generally, well, then we wouldn't be mired quite as deeply in this mess as we are.
--David Kurtz
He Knows How to Pick 'Em
We saw the sour, petulant Bush on display in his public statement from Waco this morning. His longtime crony Alberto Gonzales remains "a talented honorable person" whose "good name was dragged through the mud" during "months of unfair treatment."
We'll have the video of the President's statement up shortly.
Update: Here is the President, a discerning judge of men:
--David Kurtz
Recess Appointment
Judged by the standards of our history, a recess appointment to replace Alberto Gonzales sounds like an incredible proposition. But don't be so sure. Just as we saw with the 'pardon scooter' movement, the word seems already to have gone out to the folks on the right to start preparing the ground for just such a move by the president. I've already heard a few just this morning saying it would be the right thing for the president to do. Watch for it.
--Josh Marshall
Reax to Gonzo Resignation
We're rounding up the reaction to the Gonzales resignation from key figures. Some of the highlights:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV): "Alberto Gonzales was never the right man for this job. He lacked independence, he lacked judgment, and he lacked the spine to say no to Karl Rove."
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX): "This will not bring peace. This will bring more chaos."
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): “The resignation of Attorney General Gonzales is long overdue. The rampant politicization of federal law enforcement that occurred under his tenure seriously eroded public confidence in our justice system."
John Edwards: "Better late than never."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): "I spoke with the White House this morning, and suggested a couple of nominees who I believe would easily gain confirmation."*
And my favorite, from Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL): "Alberto Gonzales is the first Attorney General who thought the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth were three different things."
More reactions here.
*Just guessing, but one of Feinstein's suggestions had to be former DAG Jim Comey, a non-starter for Bush.
--David Kurtz
Don't Let the Door Hit You . . .
Well, that was as unceremonial and abrupt a resignation announcement from a cabinet official as we are likely to see for some time. Video soon . . .
Update: Here's the video. Don't blink. You might miss it.
--David Kurtz
Small Shoes to Fill
Solicitor General Paul Clement is reported to be President Bush's choice for acting Attorney General.
Update: The AP is also reporting that a permanent replacement for Gonzales may not be announced before the President leaves for Australia next Monday, which at least suggests that the White House does plan on sending a nomination to the Senate for confirmation, rather than attempting some sort of recess appointment or other vacancy shenanigan.
Late Update: As U.S. News' "Washington Whispers" first reported over the weekend, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff is being floated as a possible permanent replacement for Gonzales. CNN is now reporting that Chertoff is the "likely" nominee. Considering that Chertoff presided over the Katrina disaster, his nomination as attorney general would be nothing short of unbelievable.
--David Kurtz
John Edwards on Alberto Gonzales' resignation: "Better late than never." That and other news in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Eric Kleefeld
Gonzales's Story
So Alberto Gonzales is going to have his press conference this morning at 10:30 AM to announce his resignation. Why is he going to say he's resigning?
I don't ask this mainly as a news issue, more as a chapter in the never-ending story of bogus explanations for resignations. Somehow, time with the family just won't quite cut it in this case. And 'I felt I'd accomplished my goal of destroying the Justice Department' is probably a bit too candid as well.
So what is it going to be? Some version of my presence had become a distraction? I'd never planned on staying through January 2009? Your guess is as good as mine. All I can add is that Gonzales is probably the best I've ever seen of late in shameless statement of bald face lies. So I could actually see him going with, 'I'd always planned to leave in August 2007'.
We'll see soon enough.
--Josh Marshall
Stay Tuned
Gonzales presser at 10:30 . . . President to speak at 11:30 . . .
Late Update: President's presser moved back to 11:50.
--David Kurtz
Today's Must Read
America's Top Cop turns in his badge. Let the national mourning begin.
--Spencer Ackerman
More Time with His Defense Lawyer
Faux News from Eric Kleefeld ...
Gonzales reportedly concluded that his tenure had become too much of a distraction from the administration's other lawbreaking.
--Josh Marshall
Gone-zales
NYT: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales submitted his resignation Friday. President Bush "grudgingly" accepted it.
More soon . . .
--David Kurtz
The Shoe Drops
Finally, unexpectedly, out of the blue even, we appear to have arrived at a grand cross-party consensus on Iraq: it's Nuri al Maliki's fault and he should be fired. Faced with the tough task of biting the bullet one way or another, pols across the partisan divide seem to have arrived at this as the one position they can get behind and push on the Sunday shows.
Which, of course, puts into a rather sharp relief the simple but less and less often spoken fact that Iraq is a country under foreign military occupation.
But watching the Sunday shows today -- both in what would-be-premier Allawi said as well as the comments of various US political leaders -- you see what's behind the dump Maliki movement: a crystallizing belief that democracy just hasn't panned out in Iraq and that it's time to install a strongman government that can get the country in its grip and calm things down. In Allawi's interview with Wolf Blitzer he basically make this point pretty close to explicitly.
The Allawi boomlet is the other shoe dropping on America's democratizing mission in Iraq.
--Josh Marshall
As Digby put it, "Sometimes you have to see it to believe it." From Rush Limbaugh's show a few days ago:
LIMBAUGH: Here's [caller] in Lake Orion, Michigan. Thank you for calling. Great to have you on the EIB Network.
CALLER: Hey, Rush. It's great to talk to you. I talked to you once before. I've been listening to you for a couple of years now, and I think I'm getting brighter, but there's a lot to be learned. I know I'm no expert in foreign affairs, but what really confuses me about the liberals is the hypocrisy when they talk about how we have no reason to be in Iraq and helping those people, but yet everybody wants us to go to Darfur. I mean, aren't we going to end up in a quagmire there? I mean, isn't it -- I don't understand. Can you enlighten me on this?
LIMBAUGH: Yeah. This is -- you're not going to believe this, but it's very simple. And the sooner you believe it, and the sooner you let this truth permeate the boundaries you have that tell you this is just simply not possible, the better you will understand Democrats in everything. You are right. They want to get us out of Iraq, but they can't wait to get us into Darfur.
CALLER: Right.
LIMBAUGH: There are two reasons. What color is the skin of the people in Darfur?
CALLER: Uh, yeah.
LIMBAUGH: It's black. And who do the Democrats really need to keep voting for them? If they lose a significant percentage of this voting bloc, they're in trouble.
CALLER: Yes. Yes. The black population.
LIMBAUGH: Right. So you go into Darfur and you go into South Africa, you get rid of the white government there. You put sanctions on them. You stand behind Nelson Mandela -- who was bankrolled by communists for a time, had the support of certain communist leaders. You go to Ethiopia. You do the same thing.
CALLER: It's just -- I can't believe it's really that simple.
I'm hard pressed to pick the most offensive angle here. The racism? The ignorance? The disregard for a human catastrophe of historic proportions? The total lack of decency? Take your pick.
And let's also not forget that this clown is a favorite of the Bush White House, and a frequent outlet for both the President and Vice President.
Any chance Limbaugh's Darfur comments might cause the Bush gang to reevaluate their relationship? I doubt it -- if Limbaugh can make fun of a Parkinson's patient and stay in the White House's good graces, it's safe to assume Bush and Cheney won't find this offensive, either.
--Steve Benen
'Bombing caves is not something that counts'
Evan Thomas' cover story in the new issue of Newsweek is a fascinating piece on the "ongoing hunt for Osama bin Laden." There's a lot to digest in the article, but like Jeralyn Merritt, I think this tidbit stood out:
The American effort to chase bin Laden into this forbidding realm was hobbled and clumsy from the start. While the terrain required deep local knowledge and small units, career officers in the U.S. military have long been wary of the Special Operations Forces best suited to the task. In the view of the regular military, such "snake eaters" have tended to be troublesome, resistant to spit-and-polish discipline and rulebooks.
Rather than send the snake eaters to poke around mountain caves and mud-walled compounds, the U.S. military wanted to fight on a grander stage, where it could show off its mobility and firepower. To the civilian bosses at the Pentagon and the eager-to-please top brass, Iraq was a much better target. By invading Iraq, the United States would give the Islamists -- and the wider world -- an unforgettable lesson in American power.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was on Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board and, at the time, a close confidant of the SecDef. In November 2001, Gingrich told a NEWSWEEK reporter, "There's a feeling we've got to do something that counts -- and bombing caves is not something that counts."
--Steve Benen
DNC hands down the ultimate penalty, threatening to take away every last delegate from Florida — but it still might not actually mean anything. That and other news in today's Election Central Sunday Roundup.
--Ben Craw
When Gen. David Petraeus looks to the future, and envisions the time commitment necessary to implement the president's goals in Iraq, he's picturing about another decade.
[T]he real test came over a lunch with Gen. David H. Petraeus, who used charts and a laser pointer to show how security conditions were gradually improving -- evidence, he argued, that the troop increase is doing some good.
Still, the U.S. commander cautioned, it could take another decade before real stability is at hand. [Rep. Jan] Schakowsky gasped. "I come from an environment where people talk nine to 10 months," she said, referring to the time frame for withdrawal that many Democrats are advocating. "And there he was, talking nine to 10 years." [...]
"I felt that was a stretch and really part of a PR strategy -- just like the PR strategy that initially led up to the war in the first place," Schakowsky said. Petraeus, she said, "acknowledged that if the policymakers decide that we need to withdraw, that, you know, that's what he would have to do. But he felt that in order to win, we'd have to be there nine or 10 years."
For all the talk about "turning the corner," the top general on the ground believes U.S. forces should be able to successfully stabilize Iraq -- never mind a flourishing democracy that serves as a beacon of hope that transforms the region -- by the year 2016.
Or, translated into Friedman Units, Petraeus suspects 18 to 20 more ought to do the trick.
For every pundit who insists that the Bush policy is finally, after years of failure, on the right track, the assessment creates a helpful contrast. As Yglesias put it, "To say that our current policy is working and needs just ten more years to stabilize Iraq is lunacy -- just leaving stands a perfectly good chance of working just as quickly at radically lower cost."
--Steve Benen
Brookings' Michael O'Hanlon, relying on data from the Pentagon, says the death toll is down in Iraq. McClatchy Newspapers, relying on data it compiled on its own, came to the opposite conclusion. Who's right? The AP pulled together some numbers of its own.
This year's U.S. troop buildup has succeeded in bringing violence in Baghdad down from peak levels, but the death toll from sectarian attacks around the country is running nearly double the pace from a year ago. [...]
The AP tracking includes Iraqi civilians, government officials, police and security forces killed in attacks such as gunfights and bombings, which are frequently blamed on Sunni suicide strikes. It also includes execution-style killings -- largely the work of Shiite death squads.
Kevin Drum summarized nicely the principal conclusions of the AP investigation:
* The overall death toll is down from its peak, but is still about double the rate from last summer.
* A military spokesman differed, saying fatalities are at their lowest level since June 2006, but "offered no statistics to back his claim."
* As nearly everyone predicted, many of the insurgents have simply moved out of Baghdad into other areas: "Initial calculations validate fears that the Baghdad crackdown would push militants into districts north of the capital.... In July, the AP figures show 35 percent of all war-related killings occurred in northern provinces. The figure one year ago was 22 percent."
* Residents are fleeing: "The number of displaced Iraqis has more than doubled since the start of the year, from 447,337 on Jan. 1 to 1.14 million on July 31."
Just a little context to accompany reports about "progress" in Iraq.
--Steve Benen
Sen. John Warner of Virginia, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, three days ago:
"Let the president set the timetable; let's not have the Congress set any timetable.... [T]he Congress has repeatedly tried to set timetables and a total plan by certain dates to have a withdrawal. I have voted against that, and I will continue to vote against that type of proposition."
Warner, this morning:
GOP Sen. John Warner, who wants U.S. troops to start coming home from Iraq by Christmas, said Sunday he may support Democratic legislation ordering withdrawals if President Bush refuses to set a return timetable soon.
"I'm going to have to evaluate it," Warner said. "I don't say that as a threat. I say that as an option we'll all have to consider."
That's at least mildly encouraging. To be sure, Warner is one of those lawmakers who's talked a good game for years, but when push comes to shove, and Democrats are looking for GOP allies they can count on to take a stand against the president's policy, Warner always sides with the Bush White House. Indeed, it was one of the more noticeable disappointments in his announcement this week -- Warner wants the White House to start a troop withdrawal this year, but he quickly added that he's unwilling to force Bush's hand. In this sense, his announcement was little more than a polite suggestion for a president who ignores dissent.
As of this morning, however, Warner was at least open to the possibility that the Dems' policy may be the right course, after all. It's far short of a commitment, but it's a start.
--Steve Benen
Odd rumor of the day
U.S. News' Paul Bedard often does a good job keeping his ear to the ground, but his latest rumor is an odd one.
The buzz among top Bushies is that beleaguered Attorney General Alberto Gonzales finally plans to depart and will be replaced by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. Why Chertoff? Officials say he's got fans on Capitol Hill, is untouched by the Justice prosecutor scandal, and has more experience than Gonzales did, having served as a federal judge and assistant attorney general.
For what it's worth, Bob Novak reported a month ago that "there are a number of cabinet members who would like to leave," but by all indications, Gonzales isn't one of them. Indeed, the AG's departure would likely be perceived as a defeat for the White House, which is perhaps the principal reason Gonzales is still the nation's chief law-enforcement officer. (Am I suggesting the president would keep an incompetent and dishonest Attorney General on the job out of spite? Yes.)
What's more, when Gonzales' troubles really started hitting the fan in March, Mike Allen was the first to report Chertoff was on a short-list of possible replacements, so I suppose there's some precedent to Bedard's rumor.
Color me skeptical. I don't doubt that if Bush were willing to replace Gonzales, he'd probably pick someone who stood a good chance of being confirmed, but I think it's probably an overstatement to suggest Chertoff is popular among lawmakers. Indeed, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has already called on Chertoff to resign.
And while it's certainly true that Chertoff is untainted by Gonzales' multiple DoJ scandals, he is tainted by his own DHS scandals, including the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, his "gut feeling" fiasco, and some controversial staffing decisions.
Regardless, that's the rumor. Take it with a grain of salt.
--Steve Benen
Five years ago today
Today is the fifth anniversary of Dick Cheney's 2002 speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars' national convention, which was the first instance of the White House making its case for a war with Iraq. Looking back, it's quite an oration.
"The case of Saddam Hussein, a sworn enemy of our country, requires a candid appraisal of the facts.... [W]e now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.... Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon....
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us....
"In the face of such a threat, we must proceed with care, deliberation, and consultation with our allies. I know our president very well. I've worked beside him as he directed our response to the events of 9/11. I know that he will proceed cautiously and deliberately to consider all possible options to deal with the threat that an Iraq ruled by Saddam Hussein represents. And I am confident that he will, as he has said he would, consult widely with the Congress and with our friends and allies before deciding upon a course of action. He welcomes the debate that has now been joined here at home....
"As President Bush has said, time is not on our side. Deliverable weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terror network, or a murderous dictator, or the two working together, constitutes as grave a threat as can be imagined. The risks of inaction are far greater than the risk of action."
Commenting on the speech, Thomas Ricks said this week, "I think it will be remembered as close as there was to a declaration of war with Iraq. When the Vice President got up there, we had no other evidence of a decision within the Bush administration. This seemed to be it -- the first time in history that a Vice President declared war."
--Steve Benen
When silly meets predictable
When a rock band's creativity grows stale, their songs become formulaic. They take an old hit, change the key, alter the lyrics a little, and voila. A new single.
When a newspaper columnist's creativity grows stale, the same problem emerges. Take David Broder, for example, who's been having a rough year. The formula is surprisingly straightforward: praise a politician who seems to break with a party's orthodoxy, throw in some kind words for Michael Bloomberg and Arnold Schwarzenegger, allude to "post-partisan" politics, and express some disdain for "politics as usual," and presto -- another gem from the "dean" of the DC media establishment.
Today's piece fits the mold.
Today, that tide may be carrying him away from his Republican Party and toward a third-party or independent ticket with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg -- a development that could reshape the dynamics of the 2008 presidential race.
Next month, Hagel will make a threshold decision -- whether to run for a third term in the Senate. He gave me no definitive answer, but my guess is that he will say that 12 years of battling the institutional lethargy of Capitol Hill will be enough. Certainly he is under no illusions about how much he can achieve as one of 100 lawmakers.
On the contrary, while Washington is gridlocked in partisan battle between two equally spent parties, the country is moving rapidly, he thinks, to the conclusion that neither Republicans nor Democrats have the answers to the problems people see.
Broder seems to believe that a Bloomberg-Hagel ticket would meet some pressing national demand. Do they agree with one another on policy matters? Well, no. Do they have a shared vision on how government is supposed to work? Actually, they're polar opposites. Does Broder see a scenario by which these two can win a national election? Not so much.
But, Broder says, they have "leadership" qualities. I wish I knew what Broder means by this; unfortunately, his column doesn't tell me. It apparently has something to do with "national purpose," though this, too, is just another vague platitude.
The column reads like a daydream of a writer who believes a liberal independent and a very conservative Republican will join forces, solve all of our problems, and "get something done." Get what done? It doesn't matter; it'll be something.
It's hard to see how this kind of analysis should be taken seriously.
--Steve Benen
