The reaction to a previous Peace Prize winner
Conservative critics of Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize have had no shortage of criticisms, accusing the Nobel committee of everything from cheapening the honor to politicizing it.
James Fallows remembers hearing similar reactions in 1964, when the Nobel Peace Prize went to Martin Luther King.
The reaction was, of course, racial at its root. This was a majority-white, minority-Hispanic small town with very few black residents, which went for Barry Goldwater over Lyndon Johnson in the presidential election that same fall.
But the stated form of the objection concerned not King's race but his obnoxiousness as a man. He was a windbag. He was pompous and self-dramatizing, He was holier than thou. Plus, he had started getting involved where he didn't belong, in raising questions about the Vietnam War.
Those criticisms, of course, sound rather familiar; similar assessments are made of Gore quite frequently.
Time will tell if historical scrutiny will make Gore's critics look like King's -- which is to say, petty and short-sighted -- but given what we know, it seems like a safe bet.
--Steve Benen
Answering questions from Sept. 6
The mystery surrounding the events in Syria on Sept. 6 is slowly becoming less mysterious.
Israel's air attack on Syria last month was directed against a site that Israeli and American intelligence analysts judged was a partly constructed nuclear reactor, apparently modeled on one North Korea has used to create its stockpile of nuclear weapons fuel, according to American and foreign officials with access to the intelligence reports.
The description of the target addresses one of the central mysteries surrounding the Sept. 6 attack, and suggests that Israel carried out the raid to demonstrate its determination to snuff out even a nascent nuclear project in a neighboring state.
Hmm, "neighboring state." How subtle.
The NYT piece fills in a few gaps, including the fact that U.S. was definitely divided on the merit of the airstrikes, and that the Syrian reactor was far from completion.
But here's the nut graf:
A senior Israeli official, while declining to speak about the specific nature of the target, said the strike was intended to "re-establish the credibility of our deterrent power," signaling that Israel meant to send a message to the Syrians that even the potential for a nuclear weapons program would not be permitted. But several American officials said the strike may also have been intended by Israel as a signal to Iran and its nuclear aspirations. Neither Iran nor any Arab government except for Syria has criticized the Israeli raid, suggesting that Israel is not the only country that would be disturbed by a nuclear Syria. North Korea did issue a protest.
Interestingly enough, Syria was outraged two months ago, and looked for some regional allies to share their indignation. They came up empty.
--Steve Benen
Again with the madrassa nonsense?
Way back in January, Insight magazine, a project of Sun Myung Moon's far-right Washington Times, published an item asking, "Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?" Even by conservative standards, it was a ridiculous attack with no foundation in reality.
Fox News and several conservative blogs pounced on the story, but even they eventually backpedaled. The story was debunked, repeatedly, by news outlets large and small, and the baseless smear quickly faded away.
Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin report that the story didn't disappear altogether.
[R]ather than vanish, the whispered smear campaign appears to have gone underground, and in its purest form: Obama himself, according to a pair of widely circulated anonymous e-mails, is a Muslim.
"Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background," warns an e-mail titled "Who Is Barack Obama," that was circulating in South Carolina political circles this summer and sent to Politico by a South Carolina Democrat.
"The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the U.S. from the inside out; what better way to start than at the highest level?"
"Please forward to everyone you know," it ended.
The other widely forwarded e-mail is titled "Can a good Muslim become a good American" and answers that question in the negative, before concluding: "And Barack Hussein Obama, a Muslim, wants to be our president!!!"
What is it about South Carolina and ugly whisper campaigns?
--Steve Benen
Dumbest. Ad. Ever.
One of my favorite moments from the six Republican debates thus far came in May, when Mitt Romney tried to explain how he perceives threats to the U.S. from the Middle East: "This is about Shi'a and Sunni. This is about Hezbollah and Hamas and al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is the worldwide jihadist effort to try and cause the collapse of all moderate Islamic governments and replace them with a caliphate. They also probably want to bring down the United States of America."
The answer drew praise -- ABC News' The Note touted how impressive it was -- but Romney's take didn't make a lot of sense. Romney was articulating a national security strategy that conflates groups, sects, and agendas that have nothing to do with one another -- but he was saying it in such a way as to make it sound like he was informed.
It's exactly this kind of thinking that led to this ad, which may very well be the single dumbest campaign commercial of the year, at least so far.
It's a bit like the remarks from the debate in May -- Romney tries to come across as knowledgeable, but ends up not making any sense at all.
Glenn Greenwald recently explained that some portions of the conservative movement are genuinely convinced that we're this close to a global Islamic theocracy. It's absurd -- as Yglesias noted, "The idea that we should be laying awake at night afraid that a group of at most several thousand people who control almost no territory or valuable military equipment might establish a universal caliphate or 'collapse freedom loving nations like us' is ridiculous." And yet, that's the basis for a campaign ad from a top-tier Republican candidate.
Indeed, notice the ad talks about terrorists "collaps[ing] freedom-loving nations" like the U.S. How is that even possible? Romney doesn't say, but if we vote for him, he'll prevent it. Please.
And what does this have to do with Iran? Nothing, but Iran is in the Middle East, and when trying to sucker the far-right GOP base, that's all that matters.
As Kevin Drum noted, there's nothing serious about this style of campaigning: "There are no actual proposals or serious thoughts here. It's just a puerile contest to see who can stuff the most World War IV bullets into a single 30-second spot."
--Steve Benen
Rice decries power-hungry chief executive with unchecked authority
I genuinely believe Condoleezza Rice has no idea why so many of us would find this ironic.
The Russian government under Vladimir Putin has amassed so much central authority that the power-grab may undermine Moscow's commitment to democracy, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Saturday.
"In any country, if you don't have countervailing institutions, the power of any one president is problematic for democratic development," Rice told reporters after meeting with human-rights activists.
"I think there is too much concentration of power in the Kremlin. I have told the Russians that. Everybody has doubts about the full independence of the judiciary. There are clearly questions about the independence of the electronic media and there are, I think, questions about the strength of the Duma," said Rice, referring to the Russian parliament.
According to the AP report, Rice also told the human-rights activists that democratic institutions are the keys to combating arbitrary power from the state.
On a more serious point, McClatchy's Jonathan Landay has a report on how the Bush administration's policy towards Russia has been ineffective and based on faulty assumptions from the outset.
The piece quotes Michael McFaul of Stanford University's Hoover Institution, hardly a progressive outlet, explaining that Bush and his foreign policy team "grossly misjudged Putin," considering him "a good guy and one of us."
--Steve Benen
S-CHIP debate sends some over the edge
The irony of the last couple of weeks is that the debate over the State's Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) was supposed to be one of the easy ones. Way back in July, the WaPo's Christopher Lee noted, "If anything looked like a sure thing in the new Congress, it was that lawmakers would renew, and probably expand, the popular, decade-old State Children's Health Insurance Program before it expires this year."
It was a no-brainer. Dems and Republicans reached a compromise version, which drew praise from governors, the medical community, and children's advocates. Of all the bills likely to spark a political war, this was going to be at the bottom of the list.
And yet, here we are. S-CHIP garnered an inexplicable veto, the right is smearing a 12-year-old kid and his family, and Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee are issuing breathtaking press releases like this one.
Republican Senate hopeful Montgomery Burns today joined with Mayor Joe Quimby, D-Springfield, to support the Senate's gazillion-dollar SCHIP bill.
"If the poor children can get a piece of the action, why can't I?" explained Burns at a MoveOn.org rally in Capital City. "The little darlings are needy? Me, too. I need somebody to pay. Quimby here says he knows a bunch of low-income nobodies who are ripe for the picking. Excellent."
"You need this?" wondered the mayor. "Well, why not. I've got needs, too. Why, I've got 27 paternity suits pending and to quote the Speaker, 'suffer the little children.' The Quimby Compound is overflowing with those little sufferers. Vote Quimby."
It actually gets worse from there, including multiple references to MoveOn.org and "rental children."
Bill Scher speculates that maybe the Energy and Commerce Committee GOP's site got hacked, which seems reasonable given that committee staffers usually don't go out of their way to appear this foolish on purpose.
--Steve Benen
The Anti-Bush
As conservative apoplexy over Al Gore's earned honors continues, there are two terrific op-eds today that explain the former Vice President's fortunes in a broader context.
First up is Jonathan Chait, who explains that the right loathes Gore, in part because he's the "anti-Bush."
You might wonder why they care so much -- Gore, after all, is obviously not going to run for president, and even some conservatives now concede that global warming is real. The answer is that Gore's triumph is a measure of George W. Bush's disrepute.
Indeed, in the political culture, Gore's role is as a negative indicator of the president's standing. For all the talk of a "new Al Gore," there's nothing new about the man. His public reputation is almost entirely a function of Bush's. [...]
The defensiveness of Gore's critics comes because he is the ultimate rebuke to Bush. Gore, obviously, is the great historic counter-factual, the man who would have been president if Florida had a functioning ballot system. More than that, he is the anti-Bush. He is intellectual and introverted, while Bush is simplistic and backslapping.
I think that's right. When Bush's popularity soared, Gore's reputation was the subject of ridicule. When Bush was exposed as a fraud and a failure, it was Gore's assessments that, upon reflection, proved to be true.
And then there's the NYT's Bob Herbert considers Bush v. Gore, redux.
Mr. Bush came to mind because, for all of the obvious vulnerabilities he exhibited in 2000, it was not him but Mr. Gore who was mocked unmercifully by the national media. And the mockery had nothing to do with the former vice president's positions on important policy issues. He was mocked because of his personality.
In the race for the highest office in the land, we showed the collective maturity of 3-year-olds.
Mr. Gore was taken to task for his taste in clothing and for such grievous offenses as sighing or, allegedly, rolling his eyes. It was a given that at a barbecue everyone would rush to be with his opponent.
We've paid a heavy price. The president who got such high marks as a barbecue companion doesn't seem to know up from down. He's hurled the nation into a ruinous war that has cost countless lives and spawned a whole new generation of terrorists. He continues to sit idly by as a historic American city, New Orleans, remains wounded and on its knees. He's blithely steered the nation into a bottomless pit of debt.
Gore told Herbert, "What politics has become requires a level of tolerance for triviality and artifice and nonsense that I have found in short supply."
--Steve Benen
Qwest's Nacchio: NSA pushed long before 9/11
Earlier this week, the Rocky Mountain News broke word that Joseph P. Nacchio, the former CEO of Qwest, has accused the National Security Agency of retaliating against his company because he refused to cooperate with a domestic-spying scheme.
The WaPo moved the ball forward today, with a solid front-page piece. The key point to take away from the story, however, is the timing.
Nacchio's account, which places the NSA proposal at a meeting on Feb. 27, 2001, suggests that the Bush administration was seeking to enlist telecommunications firms in programs without court oversight before the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon. The Sept. 11 attacks have been cited by the government as the main impetus for its warrantless surveillance efforts.
It's almost as if the Bush gang, almost immediately after taking office, began a legally-dubious power grab that included warrantless-domestic spying.
I suppose some of the president's allies might be tempted to spin this as encouraging. If the administration was pressuring telecoms as far back as Feb. 2001, the president and his team were taking the terrorist threat seriously long before 9/11.
This might be more persuasive if, six months after the NSA allegedly leaned on Qwest, the president didn't blow off a certain Presidential Daily Briefing, telling his CIA briefer, "All right. You've covered your ass, now."
--Steve Benen
It's still no laughing matter
Hillary Clinton appeared on MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" on Thursday, prompting CBS News to run a report on the interview. It included this jaw-dropper, by way of reader DOK:
During the twelve-minute interview, the former first lady chuckled in response to Olbermann. But she never unleashed the highly-scrutinized, overly-analyzed belly laugh known as "the cackle" that has been the focus of national media over the past few weeks. Which raises the question: Has the tightly-managed Clinton campaign put the kibosh on the cackle?
Yes, we've apparently reached a point in the media's coverage of the campaign in which news outlets find it noteworthy when they don't notice anything unusual about Sen. Clinton's laugh.
As Greg Sargent put it, "We've come full circle: Damned if you do cackle; damned if you don't."
I was particularly fond of the way CBS tried to distance itself from its own report. The senator's laugh, the report said, is "overly analyzed." Apparently, it's so excessive that CBS finds it necessary to note its absence.
In related news, Rudy Giuliani delivered a speech yesterday in which he didn't answer his cell phone; Mitt Romney answered questions without abandoning a position he held five minutes prior; John McCain hosted a town-hall forum in which he did not refer to anyone as a "little jerk"; and Fred Thompson went the whole day without responding to a reporter's question with, "I don't know anything about that."
--Steve Benen
A new target?
Smearing 12-year-old Graeme Frost and his family was so last week. Are there any new targets for the far-right to attack? Catholics United, a left-leaning educational group, seems to be waving a red flag at the conservative bulls. (via DemFromCT)
Catholics United will launch a radio advertising campaign targeting ten members of Congress whose opposition to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) have compromised their pro-life voting records.
The ads, which feature a mother urging her Congressional Representative to support SCHIP, will primarily air on Christian and talk radio stations from Monday Oct. 15 to Wednesday, Oct. 17 as Congress approaches a critical Oct. 18 vote to override President Bush's veto of bipartisan SCHIP legislation.
The mother in the radio ad will say, "I'm the mother of three children, and I'm pro-life. I believe that protecting the lives our children must be our nation's number one moral priority. That's why I'm concerned that Congressman X says he's pro-life but votes against health care for poor children. That's not pro-life. That's not pro-family. Tell Congressman X to vote for health care for children. Call him today at XXXX, that's XXXXX."
That's a pretty good message, but I'm curious what conservatives might try to discredit this woman before people take her concerns seriously. My friend John Cole believes the far-right smear machine will clearly want to take a closer look at the voice in the ad.
Is she really a woman? What is her address and where can I find her house so I can drive by it? Does she really have three kids? ... Is she really Catholic? Does she go to church? ... Is she really pro-life? ... And most important of all, what do her kitchen counters look like?
Note to the right: Cole is kidding. Please do not go after this woman.
--Steve Benen
The 'revolt of the generals' continues
Following up on Josh's item from last night, it's worth taking a moment to consider how common the criticism of the White House's Iraq policy has become among generals.
Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded U.S. forces in Iraq for a year after the March 2003 invasion, believes Iraq is a "nightmare," with "no end in sight." In today's political climate, the White House and its allies usually dismiss critical assessments like this as "defeatist," and borderline treason. Indeed, when Democratic members of Congress offer criticism nearly identical to Sanchez's, the knee-jerk response from the right is that Dems are emboldening terrorists, undermining the troops, and putting the U.S. at risk.
But smearing generals like Sanchez is obvious more difficult. For one thing, supporters of the president's Iraq policy have made it abundantly clear that questioning the judgment of U.S. generals is practically seditious.
For another, the "revolt of the generals" is surprisingly broad. It's not as if Sanchez's criticism is unusual -- on the contrary, he's the latest in a long line of leaders with stars on their shoulder to break with tradition and blast the Bush administration for its failures.
The generals acted independently, coming in their own ways to the agonizing decision to defy military tradition and publicly criticize the Bush administration over its conduct of the war in Iraq.
What might be called The Revolt of the Generals has rarely happened in the nation's history.
In op-ed pieces, interviews and TV ads, more than 20 retired U.S. generals have broken ranks with the culture of salute and keep it in the family. Instead, they are criticizing the commander in chief and other top civilian leaders who led the nation into what the generals believe is a misbegotten and tragic war.
They can't all be "phony soldiers," can they?
--Steve Benen
Catastrophically Flawed
Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, former commander of US forces in Iraq. From Stars & Stripes ...
The former top commander of U.S. troops in Iraq slammed the handling of the war and gave a bleak assessment of the current situation in Iraq.“There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight,” retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez told a convention of military journalists on Friday.
...
But Sanchez reserved most of his venom Friday for U.S. officials, saying the U.S. government still has not brought all the resources needed to win in Iraq.
“From a catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan, to the administration’s latest surge strategy, this administration has failed to employ and synchronize the political, economic and military power,” Sanchez said.
Continuing changes to military strategy alone will not achieve victory, rather it will only “stave off defeat,” he said.
“The administration, Congress and the entire inter-agency, especially the State Department, must shoulder the responsibility for this catastrophic failure and the American people must hold them accountable.”
--Josh Marshall
Heads Up
Been following the Nacchio/Qwest communications story? More coming this evening.
--Josh Marshall
Excellent!
Stand-off between pro-torture CIA chief and anti-torture CIA Inspector General to be refereed by notorious Bush crony.
--Josh Marshall
Adventures in Fair and Balanced Reporting
CNN's front page blurb on Gore's Nobel ...
The decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and environmental scientists has incensed some CNN.com readers while pleasing others. While Robert Ellis of Ohio says the award is "well-deserved", Matthew Whitley of North Carolina says the peace prize is now a "laughingstock."
--Josh Marshall
D'oh!
You know, with Al Gore winning the Nobel Prize for his environmental activism, it really makes the Nader voters look prescient, doesn't it?
--Josh Marshall
Soooprise, soooprise
Last week I told you about International Peace Operations Association, the DC lobbying outfit and professional organization for military contractors. And then just yesterday we brought you word that Blackwater, a member of the group since 2004, had cancelled its membership in the IPOA.
So what happened to spoil the relationship?
Seems the folks at the IPOA had commenced a review to make sure Blackwater was in compliance with the IPOA Code of Conduct. Apparently it was scrutiny Blackwater didn't think it could bear.
Great company.
--Josh Marshall
Rudy!
NYDN ...
Bernard Kerik's legal nightmare is about to get worse, with federal prosecutors expected to file charges against the former police commissioner that will likely include allegations of bribery, tax fraud and obstruction of justice, the Daily News has learned.The indictment, expected next month, could prove to be an embarrassing obstacle for Kerik's former mentor Rudy Giuliani, who is cruising at the top of the polls heading into the presidential primary gauntlet.
...
Another Giuliani commissioner and a top inspector general during Giuliani's years as mayor will be called as witnesses to describe the secret meeting in Tribeca.
The Giuliani officials are Raymond Casey, former head of the Trade Waste Commission, a city agency set up to keep the mob out of the carting industry, and Michael Caruso, former inspector general with the city Department of Investigation.
In July 1999, Casey and Caruso met with Kerik, then the city Correction Department commissioner, at Walker's bar on North Moore St., court papers reveal.
At the time, Casey was investigating Interstate Industrial Corp., a company that employed Kerik's brother Donald and the best man at Kerik's wedding, Larry Ray.
An Interstate affiliate had applied to operate a waste transfer station in Staten Island, and Casey was looking into allegations that the firm had ties to the Gambino crime family.
--Josh Marshall
Winning Elections at DOJ
Remember Ohio? Find out more about how the Bush DOJ ran interference for the GOP in stifling complaints about African-American Voter Disenfranchisement.
--Josh Marshall
On Gore
First, before any other yapping and commentary, a big congratulations to Al Gore.
There are several layers of irony and poetic justice wrapped into this honor. The first is that the greatest step for world peace would simply have been for Gore not to have had the presidency stolen from him in November 2000. By every just measure, Gore won the presidency in 2000 only to have George W. Bush steal it from him with the critical assistance of the US Supreme Court. It's worth taking a few moments today to consider where the country and world would be without that original sin of this corrupt presidency.
And yet this is a fitting bookend, with Gore receiving this accolade while the sitting president grows daily an object of greater disapproval, disapprobation and collective shame. And let's not discount another benefit: watching the rump of the American right detail the liberal bias of the Nobel Committee and at this point I guess the entire world. Fox News vs. the world.
And not to forget what this award is about even more than Gore. If half of what we think we know about global warming is true, people will look back fifty years from now on the claims that "War on Terror" was the defining challenge of this century and see it as a very sick, sad joke -- which rather sums up the Bush presidency.
But more than thinking only of what might have been, where can we go from here?
--Josh Marshall
'Tis the Endorsement Season
Walter Mondale comes out for Hillary, and so does . . . Charles Krauthammer.
--David Kurtz
Today's Must Read
In what the NYT and LAT are calling an "unusual" if not "unprecedented" move, CIA Director Mike Hayden is investigating his own inspector general, who has been highly critical of the agency.
--David Kurtz
Discuss
Share your thoughts on Gore's Nobel in our special discussion thread at TPMCafe.
--Josh Marshall
Gore Wins
The Nobel Peace Prize goes to Al Gore and the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
--David Kurtz
Creeping Bushism
It seems that CIA Inspector General John L. Helgerson has probed too aggressively into the CIA's detention and "interrogation" policies. So now CIA Chief Michael Hayden has decided to start investigating Helgerson. Hayden's probe, says the Times, is looking into whether "has not acted as a fair and impartial judge of agency operations, but instead began a crusade against those who have participated in controversial detention programs."
We'll bring you more on this tomorrow.
--Josh Marshall
TPMtv: '08 Roundup: Episode #1
Starting today we're kicking off our weekly round-up of the 2008 campaign. Mainly we'll focus on the presidential race, as we do in today's kick-off episode, but not exclusively. We'll dig into the House and Senate contests and various down-ticket battles. We do a lot of digging into various aspects of the campaign. And in these episodes I'll try to distill it down to the key development and trends.
We want your feedback. So let us know what you think, both of the show, but also our analysis. We'll include your responses and questions in future episodes ...
(See this episode on Youtube.)
--Josh Marshall
The Language of Inevitability
From some recent statements put out by the Clinton campaign:
Oct. 11, regarding torture: "It’s unfortunate that Barack Obama is abandoning the politics of hope as his campaign stagnates and is launching false attacks on other Democrats instead."
Oct. 11, regarding Iran: "It's unfortunate that Sen. Obama is abandoning the politics of hope and embracing the same old attack politics as his support stagnates."
Oct. 8, regarding Iran: "It's unfortunate that Senator Obama is resorting to the same old attack politics as his poll numbers start falling. . . . A flagging campaign is not an excuse to distort anyone’s record.
Sep. 19, regarding a lobbyist luncheon: ‘‘Increasingly negative attacks against other Democrats aren’t going to end the war, deliver universal healthcare, or turn John Edwards’ flagging campaign around.’’
Working to cultivate the sense of Clinton's inevitability? Nah.
Chris Bowers has a slightly different take on some of these recent campaign statements.
--David Kurtz
The Trend Spreads
According to the AP, the Afghans are now also cracking down on the private security firms working in the country. Hard to believe that's unrelated to the beating the reputation of these companies has taken over the last few weeks.
--Josh Marshall
Not Outta The Woods Yet
Key staffer to Rep. Lewis (R-CA) subpoenaed in on-going Lewis probe.
--Josh Marshall
Yet another GOP retirement: Rep. Regula (R-OH), from Roll Call (sub. req.)
--Josh Marshall
Dana Perino riffs on the President's morning call with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki . . . and on Turkey and the PKK:
--David Kurtz
Looks Worth a Read
Haven't read it and don't know anything about it. But Prince of Darkness Richard Perle: The Kingdom, The Power & The End of Empire in America just arrived in the mail.
--Josh Marshall
Salon's Tim Grieve has a hilarious take-down of today's David Ignatius column on Barack Obama.
--David Kurtz
Mitt Romney tries to harness the anti-Rudy backlash from religious conservatives.
--David Kurtz
In Tehran by Summer
Rudy Giuliani has just announced a new raft of foreign policy advisors. And I guess the premise of the campaign is now that the Bush administration wasn't sufficiently riddled by neoconservative whackjobs.
Topping the list: Michael Rubin as Senior Iran and Turkey Advisor and Middle East Advisory Board Member.
I really don't know how to describe Rubin for those who aren't familiar with him. He worked at Doug Feith's Office of Special Plans. But that hardly does the matter justice -- rather like saying Dick Cheney was a supporter of the Iraq War. On the TPM Scale of Pure Neoconism (TM) Rubin gets well over 99%. Like the most interesting and frightening neos, Michael is that perfect mix of extreme factual knowledge and extreme lack of judgment, prone to wild-eyed theories and fantasies of various sorts but all in the end leading inexorably toward catastrophic policy moves for the United States.
You really might as well put Ahmed Chalabi as your top Mideast or Iran advisor.
--Josh Marshall
Turkey recalls its US Ambassador for 'consultations' after Armenian genocide vote in the House.
--Josh Marshall
Hmmmm ....
Sun-Times ...
White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is reorganizing his campaign, deploying key staff from the Chicago headquarters to Feb. 5 primary states while bolstering the ranks of his top leadership.The move, Obama advisers told the Sun-Times, has been long planned and is not a reaction to the lead chief rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has in national and early state polls.
Anyone heard anything? Drop us a line.
--Josh Marshall
Heads Up
Charlie Rose is going to have Blackwater CEO Erik Prince on tomorrow Monday night.
--Josh Marshall
Spencer Ackerman has more on that victims' suit against Blackwater that I mentioned earlier.
--Josh Marshall
That Really Your Lifestyle?
Matt Yglesias has some shrewd thoughts picking up on Ann Coulter's latest remarks to the effect that eventually and ideally all Jews will be 'perfected' and thus become Christians. But I have a different question. Is Ann Coulter actually trying to pass herself off as a believing member of the Christian right? A born again even? I buy the crypto-fascist hate-monger schtick. And I always assumed that Coulter was happy to be seen as one of that breed of New York 'wingers who pass respectfully past the moral bag of goods they don't live by and just generally kick liberal ass. But hardcore believing Christian on the lifestyle front?
--Josh Marshall
Is Hillary Hedging on Torture?
The issue is whether Hillary Clinton was equivocating in her denouncement of torture yesterday, keeping her options open were she to take the White House. Bloggers jumped on it yesterday. The Obama campaign makes it a campaign issue today.
Late Update: The Obama and Edwards anti-torture stances do appear to be less nuanced than Clinton's.
--David Kurtz
One of Many?
One man injured in the Nisoor Square incident and the estates of three who were killed are suing Blackwater in the US courts. The case is being handled by the Center for Constitutional Rights.
--Josh Marshall
Why State?
Apropos of why the US military and the Iraqis seem to be getting shut out of the Blackwater investigation is this question: what's the State Department's thing with Blackwater? What was it in the contracting personnel or system at State that led to this one outfit getting such an inside track? Does it go back to Bremer?
Late Update: One TPM Reader chimes in ...
I'm sure you'll get lots of leads on this from your network.Something this reader would like to see is an interview with you and Jay Garner. Since he was the first 'civilian' leadership boots on the ground, I think he might provide an interesting perspective on the mercenaries. Was State and CPA actively planning to have the contractors perform a role, or was it Bremer's brainchild after realizing that Rumsfeld's minimalist plan wasn't going to be able to do it all?
Garner had some choice things to say in Woodward's book.
--Josh Marshall
No Group That Would Have Me as a Member
Last week we told you about the International Peace Operations Association, the lobby/trade organization in DC for military contractors. Seems Blackwater has just cancelled its membership.
--Josh Marshall
"Contractors"
After the Blackwater incident a few weeks ago, just a couple days ago there was another incident in which a different contracting outfit, this one from Australia, shot and killed two innocent Iraqi women. How frequently has this been happening in cases where the story 'hook' just wasn't recognizable enough in the US to get much press?
--Josh Marshall
At today's White House press briefing, the Armenian genocide resolution . . . the new FISA bill . . . and Turkey's military action in northern Iraq.
--David Kurtz
Over at The Plank, Jonathan Cohn digs into the muck of S-CHIP, Michelle Malkin, and that kid from Baltimore.
--David Kurtz
TPMtv Interviews Paul Krugman
On Monday we sat down (virtually) with the New York Times oped page's Paul Krugman to talk about his new book, The Conscience of a Liberal, what it's like being 'radicalized' by the Bush administration and what he thinks the "big stand up and cheer moment" of the 2008 campaign has been so far.
--Josh Marshall
Nearly 90 House Dems say they will not support new funding for Iraq War, Greg Sargent has learned.
--David Kurtz
Who Leaked the Bin Laden Video?
Yesterday, the White House appeared to subtly shift the blame for the leak of the Osama bin Laden video to the Directorate of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell's office. Here's what Dana Perino said initially in her press briefing, followed by her backing off:
Q Dana, you said this morning in the gaggle that the White House did not leak the information about the bin Laden tape. How do you know that?MS. PERINO: Well, this is -- let me take you back. This is the -- there was a private company that contacted the White House to let us know that they had found the Osama bin Laden tape, asked us if we wanted to have the federal government review it. When -- the standard practice at the White House is to take that phone call -- to take that request and direct it to -- directly to the DNI's office. So we do not ask to have that information just solely reviewed at the White House, we immediately turn it over to the National Center for Counterterrorism.
That's what Fred Fielding and Joel Bagnal did, the two people who were aware of the link. And it went to the DNI -- I'm sorry -- it went to the NCTC. And to the extent that we have Americans coming forward to provide us information, whether it be a private citizen or a private cooperation, or anybody in America that can provide the government information, we take it very seriously that they should, one, feel comfortable that in providing that information, that their sources will be protected; and that we will act on it, if necessary. We appreciate what they did. This was a cause of concern that the information was leaked. And I would have to refer to the DNI's office in regards to any possible investigation into that leak.
. . .
Q When you refer questions about the leak of the bin Laden tape to DNI, is that a way of suggesting the leak might have come from DNI?
MS. PERINO: No, no. The Director of National Intelligence, as the overseer and coordinator of all intelligence agencies, that's the appropriate place for me to refer you.
DNI is pushing back, the Washington Post reports today:
Ross Feinstein, a spokesman for the director of national intelligence, said officials are looking into the leak allegation by the SITE Intelligence Group, which passed the video on to the White House and the director of national intelligence's office before its leak."At this point, we don't think there was a leak from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence or the National Counterterrorism Center," Feinstein said.
Considering this White House's track record on leaks, it should be noted that the bin Laden video was leaked on September 7, the Friday before Gen. David Petraeus was slated to begin his much-anticipated testimony on Iraq the following Monday.
--David Kurtz
Ezra Klein throws down the gauntlet: "I will debate Michelle Malkin anytime, anywhere, in any forum" on S-CHIP.
--David Kurtz
Lieberman: I'm Leaving the Iraq Stuff to Waxman
From Roll Call (sub.req.) ...
“Rep. Waxman has taken a very hound-dog approach to contracting and federal spending issues, whereas Sens. Collins and Lieberman have taken a more conservative approach,” said Scott Amey, general counsel at the nonpartisan Project for Government Oversight.Lieberman acknowledged in a recent interview that he has not been as focused on government contracting abuses as he has on the homeland security aspects of his panel.
“I’ve tended to want to focus on how we protect the homeland from terrorism, so we’ve done a lot of that,” he said.
Though Lieberman said he gets “angry when I hear about fraud or corruption in the spending of American dollars,” he said he in part chooses what to have hearings on by “watching who else is doing what,” noting that Waxman has held several hearings on Iraq oversight, as have the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees.
“You’ve got to set your own priorities, and it was clear to me that other committees were going to pick this up,” said Lieberman.
Lieberman also noted that the House split government oversight and homeland security between two different committees, making their caseload more manageable.
Still, critics say they don’t understand why Lieberman has not followed Waxman’s example, and they say his support for the war should make him more likely, not less, to hold oversight hearings.
“He supports the war. So why does he not investigate the things that undermine the mission?” asked Charlie Cray, director of the nonpartisan watchdog Center for Corporate Policy.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read
Brent Wilkes: I have an "innocent explanation" for the $700,000 in gifts to Duke Cunningham.
That and more from the Wilkes trial.
--David Kurtz
Dearborn Donnybrook!
Yesterday evening the Republican presidential candidates - yes, including Fred Thompson - debated in Dearborn, Michigan. What does Rudy Giuliani think about a potential 3rd party candidate? What role would attorneys play in a Mitt Romney foreign policy? And which candidate is the most aggressively optimistic about the future of America? Find all the answers - plus Fred Thompson! - in our Dearborn debate highlight reel ...
Late Update: We have more on the debate at over at TPM Election Central.--DK
--Ben Craw
Inside the Cave?
A Hill Republican writes in ...
What on Earth is going on inside the House Democratic Caucus?
What am I not understanding?
Why are House Democrats about to unveil a new FISA bill that is almost indistinguishable from what the White House wants?
I have to admit that I am completely stumped to see how this debate is unfolding, and I don’t get that worked up about the inner workings of the HDC….
And Greg Sargent reports from inside on what he's hearing from within the Democratic Caucus.
--Josh Marshall
In today's White House press briefing, Turkish incursions into Iraq . . . and who leaked that al Qaeda video?
--David Kurtz
It's the Strategy, Stupid?
A few people have responded to my post this morning on Barack Obama and argued that the problem is not his toughness or hunger for the nomination but his strategy which focuses on national unity. But I think my post must not have been clear (and no that's not meant facetiously). Because I don't think this is really what I said.
Ezra Klein writes ...
Ben Smith is correct to put aside the question of whether Obama possesses the ruthlessness required to run for president and instead focus on his strategy, "which hinges on a message of 'unity' that is as much in line with polling and message-testing as with his personality," and which has handcuffed him into an above-the-fray vagueness.
I suspect this gets the order wrong, and that the 'strategy' is rooted in the personality. I hope I'm wrong about this. But I'm starting to suspect that I'm not. Ezra goes on to say, "Obama, of course, could have defined the new politics however he wanted, from a focus on transformative policy to a willingness to call out the DC establishment. Instead, he let the Clinton camp define his message in a way advantageous to them." But why'd that happen exactly? Was it really the strategy that got Obama to let Clinton run circles around him? I'm not sure I get that.
I'm getting the sense that it's a little more that Obama thinks what he's selling is so choice that people will come to it rather than bringing it to them. And that can lead to a kind of campaign passivity and fuzziness, notwithstanding confidence and scrappiness.
Genuinely hope I'm wrong on this; really starting to think I'm not.
--Josh Marshall
TPMtv: The Rudy Apocalypse
The Republicans just started debating at 4 PM. Find out why the air looks to be going out of the Rudy balloon as mullah Dobson issues the word and watch Fred Thompson as he finally wheels his hat into the ring -- all in today's episode of TPMtv ...
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher gives a full-throated defense of Blackwater and its CEO Erik Prince (via Think Progress): "Prince is on his way to being an American hero just like Ollie North was.''
--David Kurtz
My Own Private Mid-20th Cent. Totalitarianism
Not long ago, New York Times columnist Roger Cohen unveiled a self-pitying lament about the hard-shake 'neocons' have gotten over the Iraq War and, more pointedly, how the collapse of Iraq has left little room for "liberal interventionists," a group Cohen defines as people who think like he does.
After an initial stir, Cohen has now returned to the subject in his Times blog 'Passages.' And here we have, again, confirmation that at the heart of "liberal hawk" attachment to the Iraq War is moral vanity.
As I first wrote several years ago, from the moment the "global war on terror" was christened, there's been a breed of intellectual who has glommed onto it for a kind of energizing world-historical play-acting. May you live in interesting times, the Chinese curse has it. But for some of us, it seems, our times are not sufficiently interesting. Orwell couldn't have been Orwell if he hadn't had around Fascism and Communism and fellow-traveling intellectuals -- things that were quite a bummer to live through but did generate a lot of good writing. So without those big ticket isms, how will we be able to compare? And thus the constant effort to puff up the times we live in, because if they're great then we can be too.
And from Cohen you hear it in spades, like living through 2002 again or like a bad dream. Strained historical allusions come forth like a verbal tick:
"Here’s a monster called Saddam Hussein (no “annoying thug” as L.K. Burnett suggests in comment 45), with a Stalinist personality cult [ding! #1], heading a Baath party that borrowed heavily from Nazi totalitarian organization [ding! #2], sitting for decades at the head of a country he’s turned into a nightmarish realm of terror, populated by a circles within circles of cowed informants who make the Stasi [ding! #3] look like a plaything."
Nazis, Stalinists, the East German Stasi. He manges to outdo himself later only when he dubs Saddam a "middle Eastern Pol Pot" -- an equation that amounts to unknowing self-parody. Just after the Iraq War I went to a conference sponsored by Social Democrats USA in which a fastidious and preening University of Maryland professor named Jeffrey Herf grandiloquently announced that those who had opposed the Iraq War (including but not limited to the Schroeder government in Germany) had failed to "learn the lesson of armed anti-fascism." And on and on it went ...
In any case, Cohen's animating grievance really comes into focus as he winnows away those who disagree with his views in a tolerable manner from those who do so in ways that are simply beyond the pale. "Why then is it so easy for people who know far less about Iraq than Makiya or deputy prime minister Barham Salih (a Kurd in a country where Saddam slaughtered about 180,000 Kurds) to be so certain about everything," he writes at one point. And then ...
What I find intolerable is the way a smug left personified by Michael Tomasky (see his attempt at humor in God, what a bunch of whiners) can drone on about Iraq for 25 paragraphs or so without ever mentioning what Saddam’s murder-central was like. Perhaps Tomasky should think a little more about how the Soviet Gulag slipped out of the awareness of wide swathes of the European and American left, some of whom would not even see the horror for what it was when Solzhenitsyn finally rammed it down their throats. If he did search his untroubled conscience, Tomasky and others like him might be less inclined to reduce Saddam’s Gulag to a subordinate clause.
And there it is again, like a tic -- the Soviet Gulag, Solzhenitsyn, the fellow-traveling left. A number of people have jumped on Cohen for red-baiting Tomasky. But that misses point. The real rub is that he can't stay focused on Iraq or the present for more than a couple lines before he needs to scurry back to mid-20th century to re-inflate the self-importance he's upset with Tomasky for puncturing. "It's just like then!," you can almost hear his stomach churn. Just as serious!
And that's the core of it. "I respect," Cohen writes at one point, "those who denounce the invasion and believe it has produced, and will produce, only disaster." It's folks like Tomasky who won't grade him on a curve, give him the respect and credit for grappling with the deep moral dramas he's spun around him, that he simply can't brook.
At one point, Cohen lays before himself the horror of Saddam's rule with the catastrophe of its aftermath ....
When I weigh this picture — a middle Eastern Pol Pot (and who cares that the United States once supported him, it makes no difference to anything at this stage) on one side; more than four years of war and killing and Iraqi disintegration on the other — I agonize.
It's a revealing sentence because it's one filled with a telling self-regard. He agonizes. And to agonize is to achieve merit. Cohen doesn't jump reflexively to one side or the other, but agonizes over the thorny complexities of the great questions. It's a serious pose because Cohen is a serious person who loves to mop up his own moral seriousness. Puncturing that bubble is a grave offense.
--Josh Marshall
Dana Perino, Meet Scooter Libby
At the White House briefing today, Dana Perino was asked about the Administration's leak of that al Qaeda video which led to the shutdown of an important conduit of intelligence information on bin Laden's group. Here is her response:
President Bush and this administration has felt strongly about leaks about classified information and intelligence. We don't think that it serves the American people well. And so that is the concern -- concern from that standpoint, as well, just on the overall issue of leaking of classified or intelligence information.
That's code for, this leaker may get a presidential pardon.
--David Kurtz
George Who?
Earlier I mentioned former Sen. George "Macaca" Allen's shout-out to Omarh Rajah, a school board candidate in Virginia. But as a TPM reader points out, there is no mention of Allen in Rajah's list of endorsements. Huh.
--David Kurtz
Former Bush adviser Dan Bartlett blasts the GOP field, but spares Giuliani.
--David Kurtz
DOJ Official: Voter ID Laws Discriminate Against Whites
This is just unbelievable. John Tanner, chief of the DOJ Voting Rights Section, not only argues that voter ID laws discriminate against whites, but here's his explanation as to why:
It's probably true that among those who don't [have photo ID], it's primarily elderly persons. And that's a shame. You know, creating problems for elderly persons just is not good under any circumstance. Of course...that also ties in to the racial aspect, because our society is such that minorities don't become elderly. The way white people do. They die first.
Your DOJ at work.
--David Kurtz
Macaca
I don't know how Fred Thompson's naming of former Virginia Sen. George Allen as one his three campaign co-chairs can be seen as anything other than a nod and a wink to a certain brand of racially-charged Republican voters.
As for Allen, he's apparently focused on another run for Virginia governor--and on escaping the shadow of his macaca comment:
"I'm trying to help out candidates in Virginia," [Allen] said, mentioning GOP House member Dave Nutter in the New River Valley and "a fella named Omarh Rajah running for the school board in Chesterfield. We've got some really good folks running."
A fella named Omarh Rajah. Does it make me a cynic if I think Allen didn't slip that name in there by accident?
Late Update: The Omarh Rajah campaign website lists his endorsements. Allen's is not among them.
--David Kurtz
Rudy's Past
Set aside the three marriages, his pro-choice and anti-gun positions, the gay roommates, and the pictures of Rudy in drag. Let's be honest. By and large, the only thing interesting about any of those things is the discomfort it causes his fellow Republicans. It ties them in knots and that's fun to watch.
But on the substance of things, there is much about Giuliani's past that doesn't stand up to much scrutiny, especially his business dealings and some of the cronies he's appointed, like Bernie Kerik. Today comes word (via The Politico) of a big lawsuit by a prominent Texas GOPer against Giuliani's law firm and his business partner and close friend and adviser Kenneth Caruso, alleging that they defrauded the plaintiff out of $10 million in a complicated investment deal involving an offshore bank later shutdown amid charges of money laundering.
Giuliani has been around and involved with some pretty mucky characters. It's still not clear the extent to which some of that muck has rubbed off onto Rudy directly. But it's hard to stay clean next to a steady drip of muckiness.
Late Update: Steven Benen has compiled a list of the company Rudy keeps.
--David Kurtz
The Watergate Tapes
Richard Nixon on Fred Thompson: Dumb but friendly.
From The Blotter:
"Oh sh--, he's dumb as hell. Fred Thompson," Nixon interjects. "Who is he? He won't say anything."In another conversation some weeks later, Nixon and his advisers were still describing Thompson as not very smart but at least beginning to play ball.
"Our approach is now, we've got a pretty good rapport with Fred Thompson. He came through fine for us this morning," White House counsel Fred Buzhardt says on a tape from June 6.
"He isn't very smart, is he?" Nixon asks.
"Not extremely so, but --," Buzhardt says, interrupted by the president.
"But he's friendly," Nixon says.
"But he's, he's friendly," Buzhardt echoes.
"Good."
--David Kurtz
Obama
For months I've been quietly hoping that Barack Obama would at least make a race of it with Hillary Clinton. So I was more than a little disappointed when all the metrics of conventional wisdom (in the wise and foolish senses) started showing Hillary leaving Obama in the dust and becoming the dominant frontrunner and presumptive nominee.
Folks who've been watching all this closer than I have, like Matt Yglesias, say part of the issue is that Obama just won't come out and say what his campaign is about. Says Matt, "Watching the primary campaign, it keeps seeming to me as if Barack Obama is making arguments that, while fairly clear to me, must go over the heads of at least half of political junkies, to say nothing of normal people going about their lives."
But the whole thing kind of crystallized for me this weekend when I was reading Maureen Dowd's review of Arthur Schlesinger's diaries in the Times. And, yes, it makes me wonder about myself too that I'm picking up political insights from Maureen Dowd. But here goes. It's her riff on Schlesinger's pained (or perhaps self-indulgent reflection) on his defection from Adlai Stevenson to Jack Kennedy ...
Kennedy has not been “consecrated by inner conviction,” he writes, adding, “I also believe him to be a devious, and if necessary, ruthless man.” But he suspects that his friend Lauren Bacall is right that Stevenson has “a political death wish.”“The thought of power induces in Stevenson doubt, reluctance, even guilt,” he says. The diaries from the ’50s are an inadvertently hilarious record of the prissy Stevenson’s coy tango with his party. The year after Adlai loses to Ike, he has dinner with Truman, who urges him to take hold of the party. Adlai disingenuously demurs about a lack of qualifications. “Well, if a knucklehead like me can be a successful president,” Truman replies briskly, “I guess you can do it all right.”
But Stevenson is stuck on the same mental pedestal that Barack Obama is on — “split between his desire to win and his desire to live up to the noble image of himself.”
John Kennedy, by contrast, “takes power in his stride,” showing with the choice of Lyndon Johnson — unpalatable to Schlesinger and Bobby Kennedy — that he is “grasping the nettle.”
I don't know if she 'gets' Obama. But I think she's on to some of what's got his campaign stuck in second gear. And I think it's what Matt's talking about too. Obama isn't so much running for the nomination in the sense of reaching out and taking it. He's trying to show us how marvelous he is (and this isn't snark, he's really pretty marvelous) so that Democratic voters will recognize it and give him the nomination.
But that's not how it works in this country. I don't know if it really works otherwise anywhere else. But you have to really want it, come out and say it, take it. I thought about qualities that describe what is at issue. 'Toughness' seems to bound up in meta-national security mumbojumbo. 'Ruthlessness' sounds too, well, ruthless. You have to want it enough that you reach out and take it. Which isn't always pretty and admirable. But that's what it takes.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read
Everything you need to know about the Democrats' rolling over on FISA is contained in the bill's name: Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed and Effective Act of 2007, a.k.a, the RESTORE Act.
It's is so painfully obvious when the Democrats are playing someone else's game, right down to the propagandistic title.
--David Kurtz
Republican Id
That's great. Racist candidate Tancredo says that border towns that are against his nutso border fence idea should be made part of Mexico.
--Josh Marshall
Obama attacks Hillary over Iran vote; her camp hits back against his "flagging campaign."
--David Kurtz
From the Frying Pan Into the Fire
Rudy Giuliani will venture before the Family Research Council's "values voter" summit this weekend in D.C.
--David Kurtz
On Second Thought ...
Thompson campaign decides having George "Macaca" Allen and Dick Cheney's daughter as his chief press spinners after tomorrow nights debate ain't such a bright idea after all.
--Josh Marshall
Tell Us What You Really Think
Joe Wilson: "Chronic liar" Bob Novak is "going straight to Hell."
--David Kurtz
This is an amusing image: Former New York Sen. Alfonse D'Amato is playing Rudy Giuliani in Fred Thompson's practice sessions for tomorrow's GOP debate.
--David Kurtz
TPMCafe Book Club: Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger
In their controversial 2004 essay, "The Death of Environmentalism," Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger shook up the environmentalist community by saying, as Nordhaus later put it, "there's a dead body in the room, and it's starting to stink."
With their new book, Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility, they continue their focus on practical solutions to global warming--such as increased government investment in clean energy technologies--rather than on an apocalyptic future. They will be discussing the book this week at the TPMCafe Book Club.
Joining in the discussion will be William Chaloupka, Ross Gelbspan, Linda Hirshman, Carl Pope, David Roberts, and Joseph Romm.
--David Kurtz
Have Mercy, Have Mercy!
It may be a first. Castration via live satellite hook up.
This morning, tough guy Joe Scarborough unloaded on "Iraqi losers" for complaining about Blackwater for blowing away so many Iraqi civilians.
Moments later, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) comes on the show and sends Scarborough scurrying for cover. Take a look. You'll get a kick out of it ...
--Josh Marshall
A Clue to Cheney's Sympathies?
Liz Cheney is one of the three co-chairs of the Fred Thompson campaign, it was announced today. She joins former GOP Sens. Spencer Abraham and George Allen, who one presumes will do outreach to the anti-macaca vote.
--David Kurtz
Former Petraeus adviser: The general's congressional testimony on Iraqi civilian casualties was "potentially misleading."
--David Kurtz
Richard Shelby and the Politicization of Intelligence
CQ's Jeff Stein actually reads the political memoirs that proliferate in Washington. At the end of a piece about the quiet that has settled over the CIA after years of turmoil, Stein drops this little bomblet about Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) (via War and Piece):
Tenet got back at Shelby in a little-noticed passage in his memoir.He recounted how, in December 1996, shortly after President Bill Clinton nominated his national security advisor Anthony Lake to be CIA director, Shelby approached him after a committee briefing. (Tenet was then deputy director.)
“George, he drawled,” according to Tenet, “if you have any dirt on Tony Lake, I sure would like to have it.”
Tenet was taken aback, he wrote, because he and Lake were friends.
Tenet also wrote that, “National Security Agency officials told us that Shelby staffers had been asking whether there was derogatory information in their communications intercepts on Lake.”
But the NSA refused Shelby’s entreaties, two sources said, and there was no derogatory information in the FBI’s files.
Shelby also demanded, and got, the FBI’s raw files on Lake. The senator did not respond to three days of requests last week for comment.
But Lake did.
“The facts speak for themselves,” he said in a brief interview.
Shelby’s ability to obtain FBI files, which could be filled with uncorroborated allegations and rumors, he added, set a bad precedent.
“Using intelligence agencies to go after officials,” he said, “is not a good idea.”
Tenet's memoir has been out for a while now. Have I just missed the follow-up reporting on this? Back in 2004, Shelby was investigated for leaking classified information to reporters, and although Shelby was not charged in that case, it was clear that he had in fact leaked. But this accusation from Tenet seems to be unrelated to that other case.
--David Kurtz
A Cog in the GOP Machine Speaks
Convicted Abramoff co-conspirator Neil Volz: "[I]t's kind of like I took on this mind-set that there was a machine at work and I was just a cog in the machine. And, therefore, I need to get mine."
--David Kurtz
Fred Thompson promises to pick up where President Bush left off in dismantling Social Security .
--David Kurtz
Forever
You've no doubt seen this morning's article in the Post in which key Iraqi government leaders say that political reconciliation is not possible and, in fact, no longer even the goal. Writes the Post, "Iraqi leaders argue that sectarian animosity is entrenched in the structure of their government."
In other words, the strategic goal of the Surge -- creating the breathing room for political reconcilation -- is one the Iraqi government no longer appears to believe is either credible or realistic. So what we've signed on for is being the permanent armed mediator in the Iraqi domestic quarrel, or perhaps protracted divorce.
--Josh Marshall
Catch the Fever!!!
Tomorrow night the Republican presidential candidates will debate in Dearborn, Michigan - the first debate of the full Fred-Thompson-included GOP field. With Thompson's feeble performance on the campaign trail thus far, Rudy Giuliani's fundamental obstacles in winning over the religious right wing of the party, and Mitt Romney's, well, chronic Mitt Romneyism, we thought we'd check the enthusiasm temperature of the Republican party in today's Sunday Show Roundup episode of TPMtv. Catch the GOP '08 fever!!!
--Ben Craw
Today's Must Read
Iraqi government, not backing down, calls Blackwater shooting in Nisour Square "deliberate murder."
--David Kurtz
Notes From the Abyss
It seems we're again peeling back another layer of the 'liberal hawks' question. Todd Gitlin has a post I heartily recommend to you about the Times Mag's piece on Kanan Makiya, the Iraqi emigre intellectual who was so much grease on the slope into the abyss.
And from the article itself, if you're familiar with Fouad Ajami -- he on Chalabi -- “Persuading the Americans to take down Saddam was Chalabi’s finest hour.”
Finest hour? How many hours does he have? Is there anything else of note or consequence he's responsible for save for this catastrophe? I'm not sure Ajami's come up with something that good since he called on President Bush to pardon Scooter Libby to honor the principle that a fallen soldier should never be left behind on the battlefield.
--Josh Marshall
Ya Think?
Sometimes a headline and subhed sort of hit you with a certain frisson of understatement.
Here from WaPo ...
Departing Bush Staffers Wonder About LegacyThe cumulative exodus of so many key people at once has transformed the White House as it heads into the dwindling months of the Bush presidency.
--Josh Marshall
So much for those briefings
At Friday's White House press briefing, Dana Perino insisted, repeatedly, that lawmakers had been briefed on the secret legal opinions from the Bush administration, which endorsed "the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency." By my count, she repeated the claim 14 times during a 27-minute press briefing.
"The appropriate members of the Congress were briefed"; "Intelligence Committee members were briefed"; "I have been told they were fully briefed"; and so on. Asked specifically if lawmakers had been "fully briefed on the actual memos," the White House spokesperson said, "Yes."
Since then there have been quite a few lawmakers who've said the opposite.
Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he has not been briefed. "I find it unfathomable that the committee tasked with oversight of the C.I.A.'s detention and interrogation program would be provided more information by The New York Times than by the Department of Justice," Rockefeller told acting Attorney General Peter Keisler.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she has not been briefed. Asked on Fox News this morning whether she'd been briefed about the secret memos, Pelosi said, "No, not about the secret memos."
And Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee in 2005 and a member of the "Gang of Eight," said the same thing: "We were not fully briefed. We were told about operational details but not these memos. Jay Rockefeller said the same thing, and I associate myself with his remarks. And we want to see these memos."
The White House has its own private definition of the word "torture." Maybe the word "briefing" means something different to the Bush gang, too?
--Steve Benen
NRCC Chairman spins Broder
The situation is bleak at the National Republican Congressional Committee. The GOP's House committee has $1.6 million in the bank, but is $4 million in debt. The NRCC has struggled to convince incumbents to avoid retirements, and its recruiting efforts have largely been busts. Two weeks ago, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) was so discouraged by the campaign committee's plight that he threatened to fire its chief strategists, and NRCC Chairman Tom Cole (R-Okla.) considered resigning.
So, when Cole sat down this week with David Broder, putting on a brave face and insisting the Republicans will do just fine, one suspects Cole struggled to keep a straight face. And yet, according to his column today, Broder seems to have bought the spin without question. As Broder explained it, Cole's optimism is reasonable because, "The Democrats are also looking like dogs."
Cole, who admits Republicans hurt themselves in 2006 with scandals and out-of-control spending, said the [latest Washington Post] poll confirmed for him a comment he heard this week from a Republican colleague. Speaking of the Democrats, he said, "My God, they're dragging themselves down to our level."
It all adds up, Cole said, to a political environment reminiscent of 1992 -- a tough year for entrenched incumbents of both parties who suddenly saw their margins shrink or disappear. "The American people are rising up in disgust," Cole said, "and incumbents will pay. It's not anti-Republican anymore. It's anti-Washington."
Cole argues that the House Democratic leadership has made a strategic error by wielding its narrow majority to craft partisan bills that invite a Bush veto. That was the case with several resolutions to shorten the Iraq war, and it will be the case later this fall with a series of appropriations bills. Polarization is exactly what the voters hate, Cole said; they are looking for cooperation and agreement.
It's not surprising that Cole would offer this take on the landscape; a more accurate one would be too dejecting for his party. What is surprising is that Broder would pass along such nonsense without criticism.
First, the poll numbers Cole cites show ample public discontent, but it's primarily directed at Republicans, not "Washington." Democrats enjoy a significantly higher approval rating than the GOP, and while Americans are frustrated by the lack of progress in DC, by a 2 to 1 margin, they blame Bush and Republicans for the inaction, not the congressional majority.
Second, Cole argues, and Broder passes along uncritically, the notion that voters are looking for "cooperation and agreement." According to the same poll Cole cites, that's wrong, too -- Congress' approval rating is suffering because Americans want to see lawmakers challenge the president more, not less.
Third, Cole's argument that Dems are inviting vetoes with "partisan bills" is transparently ridiculous. Dems worked with Republicans, and drew bipartisan majorities, on everything from children's healthcare to rest for the troops to stem-cell research to the minimum wage. In some instances, GOP obstructionism blocked passage; in other instances, Bush vetoed the bills. But where are all of these "partisan bills"? Broder's column didn't point to any examples, in large part because they don't exist.
Indeed, one almost assumes Broder should be praising the congressional majority -- they're doing exactly what he usually says he wants. They're reaching out to Republicans, striking bipartisan compromises, sticking to major agenda items, following through on campaign promises, and offering policy proposals that enjoy broad public support. For reasons that aren't entirely clear, Broder characterizes this as Democrats "looking like dogs."
It's easy to understand why Cole is desperately spinning a bad situation. It's much harder to understand why Broder is buying it.
--Steve Benen
Barnes: Being right = being weak
I've been enjoying pearls of wisdom from The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes for quite a while, but this might be the single most entertaining thing he's ever said. (via Atrios)
On the October 6 edition of Fox News' The Beltway Boys, co-host and Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes claimed that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is "not in quite as strong a position on the war in Iraq as he really thinks he is." He explained that when Obama delivered his 2002 speech against going to war with Iraq, "it was back in a time when the entire world believed Saddam Hussein in Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that he would probably be willing to use them himself at some time or pass them along to terrorists who would use them. And yet, Barack Obama was against going to the war at that point." According to Barnes: "I don't think that shows that he is very strong on national security, which he needs to be."
It's almost impressive in its absurdity. In 2002, Barnes was wrong about Iraq; Obama was right. That Obama didn't follow the mistaken judgment of the DC establishment, Barnes said, necessarily means that Obama isn't strong on national security.
What's more, Barnes believes this insightful criticism of Obama's accurate judgment would be "used against him... by Republicans in a general election," should he win the Democratic nomination.
Oh, things one learns from Fox News....
--Steve Benen
A new 'Gang'?
Progress on most major policy initiatives has been difficult in the Senate this year, due entirely to the fact that the chamber's Republicans have decided to filibuster practically everything that moves. Indeed, the Senate GOP is on track to block more legislation in the 110th Congress than any in history -- filibustering at triple the usual rate.
According to a report in Roll Call the other day, some of the same Republicans who've been blocking bills are working on a plan to improve the way the Senate does business.
In what could be a new incarnation of the successful bipartisan "Gang of 14," Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) hosted a meeting this week with a handful of the Senate's most notable compromisers to figure out how to unclog the gridlock that has slowed the chamber's progress this year.
About half a dozen moderate and independent-minded Republicans and at least one Democrat -- Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.) -- participated in the Members-only huddle, which was held quietly in Lott's Capitol office Tuesday morning. Afterward, few Senators offered much detail, but several said there's a feeling among them that the narrowly divided chamber no longer can operate at an impasse and they want to find ways to avoid the growing number of filibusters sidelining Senate legislation this year.
I don't doubt that this is the kind of initiative that will make David Broder swoon, but this whole endeavor strikes me as kind of silly. If Senate Republicans want to help unclog the gridlock they can stop blocking legislation. It's not rocket science.
Indeed, it's kind of ironic that Trent Lott would even be involved in this. In April, he was the one boasting, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail ... and so far it's working for us."
All of a sudden, though, they're interested in starting to move legislation again. Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), who has supported nearly all of the GOP filibusters, said, "We're all impacted by the failure of being able to do the things that people sent us here to do." Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) added, "We need to get back to being a deliberative body."
It's mystifying. These guys are making it sound as if there's some kind of mysterious hurdle standing in the way of legislative progress. There isn't. They don't want popular, progressive legislation to pass, and they don't want to generate dozens of presidential vetoes, so they're blocking legislation on everything from Iraq to habeas to voting rights.
If they want to stop, they should stop. If they're tired of the gridlock, they can end the filibusters. If they want to deliberate, they can debate the merit of legislation and then vote, up or down, on whether they support the bills or not.
There's no need for a new "gang" or "working group." There's simply a need for the Senate minority to stop standing in the way of every important bill that comes to the floor.
--Steve Benen
Jonah hearts Limbaugh
It would appear that Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" flap has largely run its course. When the National Republican Congressional Committee tries to raise money off an incident in which a right-wing blowhard blasted U.S. troops who dare to disagree with him about Iraq, it's safe to assume Limbaugh isn't going to lose his audience over this.
But before the controversy fades, Jonah Goldberg, in a New York Post piece attacking Media Matters, offers one last defense for Limbaugh.
The press didn't care much about the Limbaugh "phony soldiers" story in which Limbaugh was referring to one anti-war activist who pretended to be a military veteran. Journalists for the most part saw it for what it was: a phony story.
Greg Sargent explains just how wrong Goldberg is.
--Steve Benen
When an embassy becomes a metaphor
The U.S. embassy in Baghdad, nowhere near complete, is a 21-building, 104-acre compound, a chunk of prime real estate two-thirds the size of Washington's National Mall. It is, according to the International Crisis Group, the largest embassy any country will have anywhere on earth -- a fact that has not gone unnoticed by frustrated Iraqis, who not only resent the ongoing U.S. presence, but who also lament the failures of the American-financed rebuilding program in Iraq.
And just to add insult to injury, the entire project grows more embarrassing all the time.
The massive U.S. embassy under construction in Baghdad could cost $144 million more than projected and will open months behind schedule because of poor planning, shoddy workmanship, internal disputes and last-minute changes sought by State Department officials, according to U.S. officials and a department document provided to Congress.
The embassy, which will be the largest U.S. diplomatic mission in the world, was budgeted at $592 million. The core project was supposed to have been completed by last month, but the timetable has slipped so much that the State Department has sought and received permission from the Iraqi government to allow about 2,000 non-Iraqi construction employees to stay in the country until March.
Two key office buildings, including the new chancery, will not be finished until early 2009, according to the document.
How serious a boondoggle is this project? Now, even the sprinkler systems meant to contain a fire do not work. Given that the electrical system in the kitchen facilities recently malfunctioned -- the wires melted -- a working sprinkler system seems rather important.
As Sullivan put it, "The Baghdad embassy is a metaphor for this administration's re-colonization of Iraq."
--Steve Benen
Latest numbers from Iowa
New data from the Des Moines Register offers poll watchers plenty to mull over. Here's how the Dems rank in the first caucus state:
Hillary Clinton -- 29% (up from 21% in May)
John Edwards -- 23% (down from 29%)
Barack Obama -- 22% (down from 23%)
Bill Richardson -- 8% (down from 10%)
Joe Biden -- 5% (up from 3%)
Chris Dodd -- 1% (up from less than 1%)
Dennis Kucinich -- 1% (down from 2%)
Mike Gravel -- less than 1% (down from 1%)
And among Republicans:
Mitt Romney -- 29% (down from 30% in May)
Fred Thompson -- 18% (up from N/A)
Mike Huckabee -- 12% (up from 4%)
Rudy Giuliani -- 11% (down from 17%)
John McCain -- 7% (down from 18%)
Tom Tancredo -- 5% (up from 4%)
Ron Paul -- 4% (up from less than 1%)
Alan Keyes -- 2% (up from N/A)
Sam Brownback -- 2% (down from 5%)
Duncan Hunter -- 1% (unchanged)
--Steve Benen
GOP leaders lend Jerry Lewis a hand
About a month ago, during a debate for Republican presidential candidates, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) was asked about Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and some of the other scandal-plagued members of the GOP caucus. "[T]hat's one thing about our party: When our guys have problems like this, they leave -- they leave the Senate or they leave the House," Hunter said. "When the Democrats have problems like this, they often make them chairman of -- of their respective committees."
It was an odd thing to say, given that reality points to the opposite being true. For example, consider the latest report from Bob Novak.
In a secret meeting Wednesday of the House Republican leadership, Minority Leader John Boehner ruled that Rep. Jerry Lewis of California will continue as the party's ranking member of the Appropriations Committee while under federal investigation on ethics charges.
That widened the gap between Boehner and reform-minded House Republicans, including members of the leadership. Under investigation for sponsoring questionable earmarks, Lewis remains a major Republican spokesman in Congress. He led the Republican debate Wednesday on Democratic procedures for handling President Bush's veto of the expanded State Children's Health Insurance Program.
The culture of corruption lives on.
--Steve Benen
Loyal Bushies go soul-searching
The caricature of the president's aides suggests a West Wing full of loyal Bushies who believe their boss is always right, embrace an unnerving denial, and who make their own reality. But what about when some of these staffers leave the White House bubble?
The WaPo's Peter Baker took a lengthy look today at some longtime Bushies who recently joined the exodus out of the White House, and are now in the midst of some painful soul-searching. Not surprisingly, the disaster in Iraq appears to weigh heavily on their minds.
Meghan O'Sullivan, the former deputy national security adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan, and former Bremer aide, admits that she has nightmares about conditions in Iraq. Peter Wehner, who was White House director of strategic initiatives, says his role in shaping Bush's war policy has led some of his former friends to stop speaking to him.
More dramatically, Baker quotes one former senior official as saying that "nearly everyone who has left the administration is angry in some way or another -- at the president for making bad decisions, at his staff for misguiding him, at events that have spiraled out of control."
And then there's Karl Rove.
The truth, he said, is that he really did leave to spend more time with his wife and college-age son, even if that has left him feeling guilty about leaving Bush. "I told the boss, 'I feel like I'm deserting you in a time of war,' " he said. "But you know, my wife is right. My wife is a two-time cancer survivor. How much time can I ask her to wait? I don't feel sorry for myself."
This was a recurring theme in the course of an hour-long conversation. He is not depressed, he said more than once. "Hey, man, that was my life," he said. "It's not my life now. One of the reasons I don't think I'm depressed is I'm always looking forward."
Rove probably didn't mean it as a concession, but it's interesting that he avoids depression by not reflecting too much on his White House service. If I were in Rove's shoes, and I shared in the responsibility for shaping this presidency, I suspect I'd feel the same way.
--Steve Benen
