DM Register backs Clinton, McCain
After considerable lobbying efforts, the sought-after Des Moines Register endorsement was announced tonight, and paper backed Hillary Clinton.
The editorial emphasized the same points the senator's campaign has pressed, touting "her knowledge and her competence."
The times demand results. We believe as president she'll do what she's always done in her life: Throw herself into the job and work hard. We believe Hillary Rodham Clinton can do great things for our country.
The Register's backing is certainly welcome at the Clinton campaign, thought it's probably worth noting that the paper's endorsement has not always translated to caucus victory -- the Register also backed Edwards in '04, Bradley in '00, and Simon in '88.
Among Republicans, the paper endorsed John McCain.
McCain has his flaws, too, of course. He can be hot-tempered, a trait that's not helpful in conducting diplomacy. At 71, his age is a concern. The editorial board disagrees with him on a host of issues, especially his opposition to abortion rights and gay marriage. McCain foresees a "long, hard and difficult" deployment of troops in Iraq. The Register's board has called for withdrawal as soon as it's safely possible.
But with McCain, Americans would know what they're getting. He doesn't parse words. And on tough calls, he usually lands on the side of goodness -- of compassion for illegal immigrants, of concern for the environment for future generations.
It's not exactly glowing praise, but one assumes McCain will take it.
--Steve Benen
'Worse than I anticipated'
Voting-machine problems haven't dominated the headlines much lately, but that doesn't mean the problem is a thing of the past.
All five voting systems used in Ohio, a state whose electoral votes narrowly swung two elections toward President Bush, have critical flaws that could undermine the integrity of the 2008 general election, a report commissioned by the state's top elections official has found.
"It was worse than I anticipated," the official, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, said of the report. "I had hoped that perhaps one system would test superior to the others."
At polling stations, teams working on the study were able to pick locks to access memory cards and use hand-held devices to plug false vote counts into machines. At boards of election, they were able to introduce malignant software into servers.
Ms. Brunner proposed replacing all of the state's voting machines, including the touch-screen ones used in more than 50 of Ohio's 88 counties.
The Secretary of State's office is seeking legislation and funding to ensure new machines, which will include paper trails, are in place for November 2008.
--Steve Benen
The 'Huckabee Panic'
It may be an exaggeration to say conservatives are having a major-league freak-out over the prospects of Mike Huckabee winning the Republican Party's presidential nomination, but only slightly.
In the new issue of the Weekly Standard, conservative Stephen Hayes highlights the many ways in which Huckabee seems to have a child-like understanding of international affairs. In the new issue of National Review, conservative Rich Lowry writes that Huckabee's nomination "would represent an act of suicide by his party," in large part because the Arkansan is "manifestly unprepared to be president of the United States."
This is hardly limited to the GOP establishment. John Cole, in a post headlined, "The Huckabee Panic," noted that several major far-right bloggers are "beginning to squirm in the face of Huckabee's surge."
It's pretty obvious why the left is frightened by the notion of a Huckabee presidency -- we've already seen the results of electing a nutty southern governor who doesn't know anything about policy, who runs on his charm, his evangelical religion, and his appeal to far-right activists -- but what's up the right's apoplexy?
I think Kevin Drum's reaction was spot-on.
[A]s with blogosphere conservatives, mainstream conservatives are mostly urban sophisticates with a libertarian bent, not rural evangelicals with a social conservative bent. They're happy to talk up NASCAR and pickup trucks in public, but in real life they mostly couldn't care less about either. Ditto for opposing abortion and the odd bit of gay bashing via proxy. But when it comes to Ten Commandments monuments and end times eschatology, they shiver inside just like any mainstream liberal. The only difference is that usually they keep their shivering to themselves because they want to keep everyone in the big tent happy.
But then along comes Huckabee, and guess what? He's the real deal. Not a guy like George Bush or Ronald Reagan, who talks a soothing game to the snake handlers but then turns around and spends his actual political capital on tax cuts, foreign wars, and deregulating big corporations. Huckabee, it turns out, isn't just giving lip service to evangelicals, he actually believes all that stuff.
The Republican Party's religious right base is supposed to be seen, not heard. Candidates are supposed to pander to this crowd, not actually come from this crowd.
Except it's clearly not working out that way this time. The panic is palpable.
--Steve Benen
Obama's, Bush's 'youthful indiscretions'
Thanks to Billy Shaheen's swipe at Barack Obama's teenaged drug use, some of the media establishment seems to enjoy having a new toy to play with. It's not that reporters didn't know about the issue before -- Obama has been forthcoming on the issue -- it's that now the story is a "campaign controversy."
With that in mind, CQ's Craig Crawford drew an analogy that doesn't seem to work.
Throughout the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush managed to dodge detailed questions about his partying past in the same way that Obama's team is now doing -- by calling foul against anyone who brings it up. But in the final weekend before the 2000 election a drunk driving arrest surfaced that Bush had never revealed. It almost cost him the race.
Democrats might want to be sure that nothing similar could happen to Obama, but only he can say for certain.
That's not how I remember 2000. The problem with Bush's DUI was that he lied about not having a criminal record. Few seemed to care about Bush having been arrested; the more salient issue was over his willingness to be deceptive about breaking the law. (In retrospect, it was a sign of things to come, wasn't it?)
In this sense, it's the opposite of the Obama issue. The senator hasn't lied at all -- he's written about experimenting with drugs as a teenager in his book, he's talked about it on Oprah Winfrey's talk show, and he's responded candidly to questions about it over the course of the presidential campaign. This week, David Axelrod took the extra step of telling reporters that Obama never sold or shared drugs with anyone.
Crawford urged Obama to "come clean now." Isn't that what's already happened?
--Steve Benen
Julia Carson (D-IN) dies at age 69
Rep. Julia Carson, the first African American and the first woman to represent Indianapolis in Congress, died today at age 69. Her death comes just three weeks after Carson announced that had terminal lung cancer.
"Julia Carson overcame much and accomplished much, and devoted her life to helping other people do the same," Sen. Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat, said in a statement. "She was elected to important public offices, but never forgot who she was, where she came from or who she was there to serve."
Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) will call a special election to choose a replacement for the last year of Carson's term.
--Steve Benen
Only off by 25
Back in October, in one of the debates for Republican presidential candidates, Mike Huckabee bragged that of the "56 brave people" who signed the Declaration of Independence, "most...were clergymen." As it turns out, Huckabee didn't know what he was talking about -- only one of the 56 was an active minister at the time. Huckabee later conceded his mistake.
Apparently, his new campaign chairman, Ed Rollins, missed the incident two months ago, because he offered a similar argument yesterday on CNN. (via Michael D.)
DOBBS: I have never, perhaps you have, but never in my experience have I seen so many candidates talking about God in a primary campaign and in a general election, I presume and it will remain there. How comfortable are you with that and is it appropriate for God to be in religion and faith to be this prominent in a secular campaign for president?
ROLLINS: You go back to the signing of the Constitution I think 26 of the people that signed it were ministers.
Granted, we've already seen plenty of more egregious errors of fact and judgment from the Huckabee campaign, but if they're going to keep throwing around these numbers, we might as well set the historical record straight.
There were 40 signers of the U.S. Constitution, and one -- not 26 -- was a minister.
Besides the response was a bit of a non-sequitur anyway -- the question was about the role of near-constant religious rhetoric in a presidential campaign. Rollins' ignorance of history is amusing, but it would have been far more helpful if he at least tried to answer a reasonable question.
--Steve Benen
'Anti-torture' Republican takes a pro-torture stand
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), has developed a certain reputation within the political establishment for being an independent-thinking "maverick." By all indications, the credibility is hollow and meaningless -- when push comes to shove, Graham has an annoying habit of dropping the facade and embracing a far-right agenda.
The latest example, regrettably, is torture. On Wednesday, 30 retired generals and admirals signed a joint letter to Congress, urging lawmakers to pass legislation requiring U.S intelligence agents to follow the Army Field Manual, which meets the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of war prisoners and prohibits torture. The House took the military leaders' advice, and passed a measure banning torture, despite the objections of 95% of the House Republican caucus.
The legislation moved to the Senate, where it was championed by a bipartisan group of lawmakers, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.).
It probably stood a good chance of passing, too, were it not for the hold placed on the legislation by Lindsey Graham, an alleged critic of torture policies.
As Spencer Ackerman asks, "[T]orture is counterproductive for the military but valuable for the CIA?" Apparently, to Graham, yes.
Update: Digby found this gem of a quote Graham offered just last year:
"The Army Field Manual as a one-stop shop to guide the way we handle lawful combatants and enemy combatants is absolutely necessary if for no other reason than to protect our own troops.... [I]f you want to torture people, the Army Field Manual says no and the President says no. It is now time for Congress to say no."
--Steve Benen
The climate change 'footnote'
For most of the week, the U.N.'s global-warming conference in Bali wasn't going well, in large part because of the Bush administration's obstinacy. The good news is, delegations reached a compromise early this morning. The bad news is, it's painful to realize what constitutes a climate-change "compromise" in Bush World.
A U.N. climate conference adopted a plan Saturday to negotiate a new global warming pact, after the United States lifted opposition to a call by developing nations for technological help to battle rising temperatures.
The adoption came after marathon negotiations overnight, which first settled a battle between Europe and the U.S. over whether the document should mention specific goals for rich countries' obligations to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
So, what was the problem? As delegations worked on a document outlining future goals, European countries included language in the preamble mandating that industrialized countries reduce emissions by 25% -- to 40% below 1990 levels -- by the year 2020. The Bush administration balked.
The breakthrough came after over-night negotiations, when an Indonesian official recommended that the emissions targets remain in the preamble, but only as a "footnote" to the preamble. Chief U.S. negotiator Harlan Watson was satisfied, saying the Bush administration's delegation could "live with" the footnote change.
I vaguely recall a time in 2001 when Republicans rejoiced that "grown-ups" would finally be in charge at the White House. In retrospect, their glee looks almost quaint.
--Steve Benen
Bush taking more authority over military lawyers
The Bush administration? Undermining the independence of military lawyers with a dubious power grab? You don't say.
The Bush administration is pushing to take control of the promotions of military lawyers, escalating a conflict over the independence of uniformed attorneys who have repeatedly raised objections to the White House's policies toward prisoners in the war on terrorism.
The administration has proposed a regulation requiring "coordination" with politically appointed Pentagon lawyers before any member of the Judge Advocate General corps - the military's 4,000-member uniformed legal force - can be promoted.
A Pentagon spokeswoman did not respond to questions about the reasoning behind the proposed regulations. But the requirement of coordination - which many former JAGs say would give the administration veto power over any JAG promotion or appointment - is consistent with past administration efforts to impose greater control over the military lawyers.
The former JAG officers say the regulation would end the uniformed lawyers' role as a check-and-balance on presidential power, because politically appointed lawyers could block the promotion of JAGs who they believe would speak up if they think a White House policy is illegal. (emphasis added)
Charlie Savage's piece, which is well worth reading, adds that the plan would direct broad new power over the JAGs to William "Jim" Haynes, the Bush-appointed general counsel at the Pentagon, best known for writing the Pentagon's infamous 2002 policies endorsing physical and mental duress on terror prisoners, and reportedly cutting top military lawyers out of the loop if they were likely to object.
--Steve Benen
Muckstorm Warning
It's another late Friday afternoon deluge of bad news and misdeeds.
Senate Republicans successfully maneuver to block the House-passed anti-torture bill.
The Attorney General refuses to provide the Senate with information on the CIA torture tapes and tells the CIA not to cooperate with the House investigation of the tapes.
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will allow telecom immunity to come up for a floor vote.
Another good day for democracy.
--David Kurtz
Does the Hillary campaign really want the Obama drug use flap to just go away?
--David Kurtz
Some Serious Chutzpah
Outstanding Achievement in Corruption-based Chutzpah is shaping up as a highly competitive catch-all category for the Golden Duke awards:
Karl Rove, for pointing to the Democrats’ rush to war in Iraq as the untold story of How We Got into This Middle East Debacle.
Deadline for entries is midnight ET.
--David Kurtz
Federal Election Commission denies Edwards matching funds for contributions collected for him by ActBlue.
--David Kurtz
Gonzo Sinks Farther Into Ignominy
After outcry over the naming of Alberto Gonzales as "Lawyer of the Year" in its new issue, the ABA Journal has retracted the headline and replaced it with "Newsmaker of the Year."
--David Kurtz
Poll: Rudy Down to Third in Florida
So much for Rudy's late primary strategy.
A new Rasmussen poll has him at 19% in Florida, behind Mike Huckabee's 27% and Mitt Romney's 23%.
If Rudy's not going to make his stand in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Florida, what's he banking on?
--David Kurtz
Bewitched and Bedazzled
Hey, how about this for a late contender for Outstanding Achievement in Corruption-Based Chutzpah:
As outlined in the Guardian, Ginger Cruz, an deputy at the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) and a wiccan has gone beyond earthly realms in her bid for a Golden Duke.Besides, and I quote, a "sustained patterns of inappropriate behavior", she threatened to "put hexes on employees". Add in a dash of "inappropriate sexual remarks" and "access(ing) without authorization employee e-mail messages stored on computers maintained by the U.S. Army", and you've got a lovely little Bush employee disaster in the works.
Outstanding work Ginger!
Oh, did I mention there's an investigation of overspending and mismanagement on top of it?
--David Kurtz
Lott Seat Stays Republican?
Former Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore, perhaps the leading potential Democratic contender, will not run for Trent Lott's Senate seat (via CQ Politics).
--David Kurtz
A Dark Horse Candidate?
A reader throws Scott Bloch's hat in the ring for a Golden Duke in the category of Outstanding Achievement in Corruption-Based Chutzpah:
Using a government credit card, U.S. Special Counsel Scott Bloch hired Geeks on Call to scrub the hard drives on his government issued laptop and those of two deputies, after the Inspector General, Office of Personnel Management requested access to them. By the time this obstruction of justice came to light, Bloch had already established his bona fides as a shameless hypocrite by instigating a widely publicized investigation of Karl Rove and other Bush Administration officials in an effort to neutralize the OPM IG’s ongoing investigation of Bloch himself. The latter investigation was looking into allegations by OSC staff that Bloch had purged career employees to replace them with his cronies; dumped thousands of whistleblower disclosures without adequate review; lied to Congress; and engaged in other misconduct directly contrary to OSC’s mission (which is to protect the merit–based civil service).Bloch’s latest ploy—wiping computer files on government laptops to avoid review by the OPM IG—while simultaneously demanding access to Karl Rove’s emails--clearly makes him a frontrunner for the Golden Duke for “outstanding achievements in corruption based chutzpah.” But what really seals the deal is Bloch’s completely implausible explanation for the scrubs: that he commissioned a DOD-level security wipe to kill a “virus” on his laptop. Missing, of course, is any explanation for bypassing OSC’s own IT staff to address the “virus” or for scrubbing his deputies’ laptops. Wonder if Karl Rove has the 800 number for Geeks. ...
Remember, today is the last day for nominations.
--David Kurtz
Trigger Happy
TPM Reader EL chimes in on the Tanner resignation:
The poor guy is so eager to pull the trigger that it threw his timing off a little: you're supposed to wait til Friday afternoon to resign.
--David Kurtz
BREAKING: Voting Rights Chief Resigns
John Tanner steps down as head of the Justice Department's voting section.
You can see a sampling of Paul Kiel's ongoing coverage of Tanner's controversial tenure at TPMmuckraker, where Paul has been on the case since last spring.
--David Kurtz
Hauling Out the Big Guns
DC lawyer Bob Bennett is representing the CIA's Jose Rodriguez in the torture tapes case.
--David Kurtz
Today is the Day!
Last chance to submit your nomination for the Golden Duke award.
Categories are:
Best Testimonial Trainwreck
Outstanding Achievement in Improbable Forgetfulness
Outstanding Achievement in Corruption-based Chutzpah
Best Scandal -- Local Venue
Best Scandal -- Sex and Generalized Carnality
Best Scandal -- General Interest
As we've shown you over the last few days, readers are having fun with this. So take a second to send us your entry.
--David Kurtz
Today's Must Read
Inspector general is quickly becoming the most investigated job in the Bush Administration. The Iraq IG alone is facing four of them--including a just revealed federal grand jury inquiry.
--David Kurtz
Dem Debate Iowa Panderfest!
Ahh, Iowa... where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average. Thursday was the final Democratic presidential debate before the January 3rd Iowa caucuses. Which means, you guessed it - panderfest end-of-the-year blowout sale! Everything must go!
--Ben Craw
Don't Expect a DOJ Press Conference
The Justice Department's kooky cult terrorism case against the "Liberty 7" in Miami ends in one acquittal and six mistrials.
--David Kurtz
The Prediction Markets
I mentioned the other day that we added new poll trend charts from Pollster.com at TPM Election Central. Today we added a couple of Intrade widgets as well, one for each party's nomination, so that readers can follow the prediction markets.
At the moment, Hillary is leading the Democratic field at a price of about 62 (which equates to a 62% chance of winning). On the GOP side, Rudy is at about 41. Both are down from their highs.
Scroll down the Election Central home page and you'll find the Intrade widgets in the middle column, below the Pollster.com widgets.
--David Kurtz
The Dickster
Is Dick Cheney eligible for a Golden Duke? On the merits, you'd have to say, yes. But the rules are that the bad acts in question had to occur principally in 2007 or be first discovered in 2007. With Cheney, that makes it a harder case, but one reader has narrowed the focus.
Without prejudging the final decision on eligibility, I'd say this nomination in the category of "Outstanding Achievement in Corruption-based Chutzpah" mostly fits into the 2007 parameter:
I nominate VP Dick Cheney for having the audacity to claim that he was not part of the Executive Branch, and therefore not subject to any Executive Order signed by the President. Not only did he get away with this excuse for 4 years - since 2003 - he even tried to abolish the Information Security Oversight Office despite having one of the worst records in history regarding leaks of classified information.This from an individual who still seeks to ensure that all communications (phone, e-mail, mail, etc.) between US citizens can be spied upon without any requirement of probable cause while simultaneously claiming "Executive Privilege" to avoid releasing his own correspondence or any other WH communications.
What better example of corruption and chutzpah, especially when you consider his active role in creating a Unitary Executive. Of course, [there's also] the amount of time it took for the MSM to catch on to this after TPM revealed the shocking truth and the appalling response from the WH (Dana Perino's statements were mind-blowingly bad). Never mind the 4 years this went unnoticed...
Let it be said that attempts at TPM flattery are unlikely to sway our fiercely independent contest judges.
--David Kurtz
Resistance is 'Futile'
The White House asserts that the Justice Department will not prosecute a contempt of Congress referral--against White House officials:
--David Kurtz
Deal Me Out
Hillary's New Hampshire co-chair, Bill Shaheen, steps down after his remarks yesterday about Obama's past drug use.
--David Kurtz
Zing!
Obama and Hillary had a particularly quick-witted exchange during the debate, cloaked in humor but laced with the testiness that comes from a hard-fought campaign.
--David Kurtz
Juiced
We quickly glanced through the several hundred page Mitchell Report (.pdf), and it doesn't seem to name names in a single concise list.
It also, somewhat surprisingly, appears to name names in some cases based on media reports of drug use as opposed to being independently verified by Mitchell's investigators.
Late Update: Here's the list of players.
Later Update: A muckraker (and Yankees fan) dabbles in steroid muck.
--David Kurtz
Competing Headlines
The last Democratic debate before the Iowa vote starts in about half an hour, but it's likely to be overshadowed by George Mitchell's press conference at the same time, at which he is releasing his report on steroids in baseball. From what we're hearing, Mitchell is naming some very big names in the sport. Stay tuned.
--David Kurtz
TPMtv: Last Call
With a stirring turn by novelty candidate Alan Keyes, you surely wouldn't have wanted to miss the Republican presidential debate from Johnston, Iowa Wednesday, the final one before the January 3rd Iowa caucuses. But in case you did, we've got the highlights for you ...
--Ben Craw
Not Straight Party Line
The final vote tally on the Senate Judiciary Committee's contempt citation against Karl Rove and Joshua Bolten was 12-7. The two Republicans to cross over were Arlen Specter (R-PA) Chuck Grassley (R-IA).
--David Kurtz
Rudy's "Lobbying" Biz
Paul Kiel is doing more digging on the work Rudy did, especially for Hank Asher's database company, Seisint.
Remember that Rudy's line for some time now, years actually, has been that he never lobbied. Hence, no need to register as a lobbyist, which would trigger reporting requirements like client and fee disclosure.
So what are we to make of this?
In January of 2003, just a month after Seisint hired Giuliani, Asher gave a presentation to Vice President Dick Cheney, FBI director Robert Mueller, Homeland Security director Tom Ridge, and Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL) in the Roosevelt Room at the White House on MATRIX, according to documents obtained by the ACLU back in 2004
That's an account first reported by Mother Jones three years ago.
You could (a) believe that a former drug runner from Florida just happens to have the ear of the Vice President and other top level officials; or (b) assume that Rudy's name got Asher into places where he could hawk his product that otherwise he never would have been able to go.
Or as a Seisint shareholder told Time, after Rudy came on board "the doors were wide open. It was almost a flood of business opportunities."
But no lobbying.
--David Kurtz
Same news outlets who said Bill would be liability to Hillary now say he'll need to "rescue" her.
--David Kurtz
Mystery Solved
That didn't take long. The producer of that Huckabee attack video I mentioned earlier has come forward, according to the Arkansas Times blog. He's a Republican politico from Arkansas named Keith Emis.
--David Kurtz
Golden Duke Deadline: Friday
The deadline for submitting Golden Duke award nominations fast approaches. At stake, a chance to have your nomination reviewed by our panel of distinguished judges and, if your nomination wins, a chance to show off Golden Duke contest swag--mug, T-shirt, whatever else we come up with--emblazoned with the prized Golden Duke trophy, seen at left. Do your friends and family proud. Send in your nomination today.
Here's an example of a nomination in the Testimonial Trainwreck category, so you get a feel for what this is all about:
I'd like to nominate Sara Taylor for this dubious honor. This video of Taylor being chastised by Senator Leahy for her failure to recall the oath of office she took and to what or who she owes her loyalty may be brief but, what better metaphor could you have for the Bush years? Here you have in technicolor what went wrong from the beginning. These Bushies gave their loyalty to a man and not the country.
A very strong candidate for a Dukey. Taylor started the day with what seemed a certain brashness, picked up perhaps from her then-boss Karl Rove, but as the day wore on and she wore down, she had the look of someone who knew they'd been beaten and just wanted the flogging to end.
Remember: Nomination deadline is Friday.
--David Kurtz
SJC Finds Rove and Bolten in Contempt
Senate Judiciary Committee votes to hold presidential Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove in contempt for their refusal to testify in the U.S. Attorney purge scandal.
--David Kurtz
The Mystery Anti-Huckabee Video
Someone has posted a devastating video about Mike Huckabee's role in the release of murder-rapist Wayne Dumond that includes footage of the mother of the woman Dumond killed in Missouri after his release.
It's a very professionally done piece of video, posted at a recently created site called HuckabeeFacts.com.
We're trying to figure out who's behind this. Can you help? Greg Sargent has the details.
--David Kurtz
Rudy's $30M Payday
Last week over at TPMmuckraker, Paul Kiel told you about Hank Asher, the confessed drug smuggler turned multimillionaire database guru who hooked up with Rudy Giuliani on a couple of different business ventures. Very mucky looking stuff, especially after Asher's name popped up in the public corruption indictment of the Orange County sheriff.
Now Time has a big new story out on the deal Rudy's firm had with one of Asher's database companies, Seisint. Turns out Giuliani Partners pulled down $30 million in one year on the Seisint contract.
And how exactly did Rudy's firm earn this money? Take a look:
In the first year, GP earned $6.5 million, Seisint records show, in part for what Brauser and Seisint's in-house lobbyist, Dan Latham, say were commissions for state and federal contracts. . . .But the Seisint deal wasn't as perfect as it seemed. One problem: the payment of percentages or commissions to "solicit or secure" government contracts is prohibited by federal law and laws of some states. . . . A GP official who refused to be named insists that the firm never received "commissions" from Seisint — despite what Brauser and Latham remember and despite the fact that payments to GP are labeled "commissions" in both the minutes of a Seisint board meeting and a key financial statement. Instead, says the official, GP earned "special bonuses" based on the achievement of corporate "milestones."
Funny, Rudy never registered as a lobbyist because even though he and his clients were using his name to advance their interests with the federal and state governments, he claimed he never actually lobbied. And now the commissions he got for securing government contracts through his savvy "not lobbying" aren't really commissions but "special bonuses."
Nice work if you can get it. Unless it all turns out to be illegal.
--David Kurtz
Today's Must Read
Think CIA interrogators will allow themselves to be made into the Lynndie Englands of the Black Sites? Think again.
--David Kurtz
The Follies of Youth
Going through the Golden Duke Award nominations, I'm struck again by how much the U.S. Attorneys purge scandal brought together so many of the venalities of the Bush Administration.
Many of those corrupt tendencies had already been on display for some time, but there was at least one largely unseen aspect of the Bush modus operandi that was revealed by that scandal, and it shows up in the nominations we've received so far: the presence of young Bush flunkies throughout the government, and at some of its highest levels, whose inexperience was not a hindrance to their appointments but the very reason for it, willing pawns in the GOP's politicization of the executive branch.
And so it is that many of our Golden Duke nominees come from this coterie of fresh-scrubbed cynics, including one of my favorites:
I’d like to nominate Rachel Paulose in the Best Scandal Local Venue Category.We have no royalty in the United States of America, but that didn’t stop former United States Attorney Rachel Paulose from throwing herself a coronation at taxpayer expense, complete with a processional, a professional photographer, a color guard and a choir.
The circumstances of her hiring are still murky at best, Tom Heffelfinger was on the list to be fired, then he wasn’t, but resigned anyway. Rachel was meant to be a USA PATRIOT Act appointment but received the support of local senator Norm Coleman and benefited from her friendship with Monica Goodling.
Shortly after, her top four assistants demoted themselves due to her overbearing, overly religious management style. Later there were formal complaints filed about how she treated employees, including allegations of bigotry that, along with mishandling classified information, resulted in a formal investigation by the Department of Justice. She was finally removed, less than two years into her “reign” when a new crop of top assistants were threatening to resign.
The kicker for her nomination, though, has to be the defenders who claimed that she was forced from office because she was too aggressive pursuing human trafficking cases.
No doubt that the heretofore-unknown pro-human trafficking clique within the Justice Department was one of the great straw men of the year.
Who's your favorite? Let us know. The deadline for nominations is Friday.
--David Kurtz
I guess I can't let this go without mentioning it. The disgraced Alberto Gonzales has been named Lawyer of the Year by the ABA Journal. Paul Kiel explains.
--David Kurtz
Budget battles . . . CIA torture tapes (no comment). . . and the Libby case (no comment), in today's White House press briefing:
--David Kurtz
Off Come the Gloves
Hillary's New Hampshire co-chair questions Obama's electability because of his past drug use.
--David Kurtz
Foiled Again
So much for getting anything out of the White House on the Plame leak.
When Scooter Libby dropped the appeal of his conviction, on Monday, the White House's reliable old excuse for not talking about its role in the case--that it was inappropriate to comment while criminal proceedings were still pending--seemed to vanish. Still, at the briefing that day, White House spokesperson Dana Perino told reporters she didn't have any comment because she hadn't talk to the President yet.
So back reporters went to Perino yesterday. Via Al Kamen:
At the press "gaggle" yesterday, Perino was asked if she had "had a chance to talk with the president about the Scooter Libby case.""I have not," she said, "but I did talk to our counsel's office because I forgot that there is a civil case that is pending on this issue. I did forget. The Wilsons have filed a case in civil court, it was dismissed, and they are on appeal."
The civil case? D'oh.
--David Kurtz
On the ground in Iowa, Obama and Hillary tangle over the out-of-state student vote.
--David Kurtz
You Thought Rumsfeld Was Bad
Who might be in President Mike Huckabee's cabinet? People like Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) as secretary of defense.
--David Kurtz
Dem AdStravaganza!
You may have caught our Republican AdStravaganza last week. Well if you thought we would let the Democrats skate without an AdStravaganza of their own, you better think again. Without further ado ...
--Ben Craw
As Spencer Ackerman reports, yet another State Department official resigns in the wake of the Blackwater fiasco.
--David Kurtz
Today's Must Read
Was the destruction of the CIA torture tapes facilitated by winks, nods, and turned heads throughout the Administration?
--David Kurtz
Bond Must Be a Really Bad Swimmer
As mentioned below, Kit Bond has quite the benign analogy for waterboarding. Here's the video:
Late Update: I should mention that Bond is the ranking Republican on the Senate intelligence committee.
--David Kurtz
Waterboarding = Swimming
Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO), last night on PBS' Newshour:
GWEN IFILL: I just would like to -- but do you think that waterboarding, as I described it, constitutes torture?SEN. KIT BOND: There are different ways of doing it. It's like swimming, freestyle, backstroke. The waterboarding could be used almost to define some of the techniques that our trainees are put through, but that's beside the point. It's not being used.
Late Update: Watch the video.
--David Kurtz
New Feature at TPM Election Central
We found ourselves smitten with the poll trend graphs that Pollster.com compiles, so in conjunction with the good folks there we've added Pollster.com widgets at TPM Election Central.
If you scroll down a bit below the fold, in the middle column, you'll see we've added charts tracking the national polls and the state polls in the first three primary states, on the Democratic and Republican sides, for a total of eight widgets.
With a quick glance, you can see the state of play in the various races. With a click, you can go to the larger format charts at Pollster.com.
--David Kurtz
TPMtv: No Nukes For You!
Are you an Iran war hawk dismayed by the recent National Intelligence Estimate revealing that Iran shut down its nuclear weapons program in 2003? Don't be sad. Now you can take a trip down saber-rattling lane with this wistful recap of some of the rhetorical highlights of those heady pre-NIE days ...
--Ben Craw
Vitteruvian Man for Golden Duke?
The deadline is fast approaching so get your nominations in now for our first annual (or last annual, depending on how things go) Golden Duke Awards.
As one reader points out, debauchery and licentiousness may make a nominee eligible for the award, but it's that little extra something that pushes them over the edge:
I don't doubt that Senator Vitter has already been proposed for Dukes in Sex and Generalized Carnality and General Interest. His admission that he was a long-term patron of a DC bordello and response to allegations of patronizing others in Louisiana could even put him in the running for the Testimonial Trainwreck Duke. The segue from denying a multi-year dalliance in New Orleans to the water bill is priceless.Then there was Vitter's attempt to pacify his religious base by earmarking $100,000 for a creationist group in Louisiana "to develop a plan to promote better science education." The group in question sends around an "addendum" to science textbooks which promotes the view that "the fossilization process requires a violent burial. … When the billions of fossils that are everywhere are considered in this light, the earth's history had some very violent floods in its past." Or just the one big flood, perhaps. He ultimately withdrew that earmark, denying "that its intention was to mandate and push creationism within the public schools" but withdrawing the earmark "to avoid more hysterics."
I have taken to thinking of Sen. Vitter as the "Vitteruvian man," one hand on the Bible, one in the public till, two arms draped over the shoulders of prostitutes, while under the table, his four legs are playing footsies with the girls and the religious right. I think he richly deserves his own Golden Duke.
A strong effort from the pro-Vitter crowd.
Can you do better? We want to hear from you.
--David Kurtz
Timeline of Destruction
Our muckrakers are compiling a timeline of the CIA torture tapes affair, a handy dandy reference for those following the story. We'll have that up shortly and welcome input from readers on things we may have missed. Stay tuned.
Late Update: In all its glory, our CIA torture tapes timeline.
--David Kurtz
Greg Mitchell, on David Brooks' claim that we're now in a "postwar" period.
--David Kurtz
Do We Have a Winner?
Last week, Josh mentioned the heated internal debate here at TPM over Judith Nathan's NYPD-escorted dog walking.
The question centered on what precisely it meant when it was reported that the cops providing security to Rudy's mistress-turned-wife "even helped to walk her dog." Was that actually walking the dog, walking with her as she walked the dog, or--as many readers suggested--scooping poop as she she walked the dog.
Well, we have visual evidence now, via Meet the Press, where Rudy made an appearance Sunday. Host Tim Russert broadcast this photo and IDed the gentleman behind Nathan as a NYC policeman:
Unless other evidence emerges, this means that our fearless muckraker Paul Kiel wins the debate, much to my chagrin.
--David Kurtz
The Washington Post is back on the Edwards $400 haircut beat, with two mentions today alone.
--David Kurtz
Pentagon Says Yes to Canadians, No to U.S. Senate
So the Pentagon ordered Col. Morris not to testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning, but it's okay for him to write an op-ed in today's LA Times and do an interview with CBC Radio One's The Current that aired this morning?
[Thanks to Canadian Reader GK for the tip.]
--David Kurtz
That's An Order!
The Pentagon blocked the former chief prosecutor at Gitmo, Col. Morris Davis, from testifying this morning to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here's how Sen. Dianne Feinstein explained it at the opening of the hearing:
"We assured the administration that Colonel Davis would not be asked about open and pending cases. But we were told simply that Colonel Davis was active duty military, and because he was active duty military, they could issue an order he had to follow."
I'm tempted to ask, Can they do that? But they just did. So, yes, apparently they can. But is it legally permissible for the Pentagon to order an officer not to testify to Congress. Is the key here that Morris was invited to testify and not subpoenaed?
We'll have more on this shortly.
--David Kurtz
Brian Katulis, at TPMCafe's Table for One, blogging from Pakistan on Pakistan.
--David Kurtz
Jury Deadlocked in Liberty 7 Trial
Remember those guys? They were the paintballers trash talking about bringing down the Sears Tower.
Turns out a jury is having a hard time with the case. Go figure.
--David Kurtz
Today's Must Read
The CIA official who ordered the destruction of the torture tapes apparently acted on advice of CIA counsel--though not the CIA's general counsel. Does that leave a paper trail for investigators?
--David Kurtz
The Book Tour Is Next
Doug Feith begins his quest for political rehabilitation by blaming Iraq's post-invasion morass on Paul Bremer.
--David Kurtz
Rudy Giggliani!
Ask and ye shall receive...
Late Update: The Rudy Giggle: the next Hillary Cackle?
--Ben Craw
White House Mum on CIA Tapes
Earlier we brought you a portion of today's White House briefing, focused on Scooter Libby questions. Here is the portion of the briefing on the CIA torture tapes:
The key takeaway is that the White House counsel, presumably at the direction of the Department of Justice, has ordered the preservation of all White House documents pertaining to the CIA tapes.
--David Kurtz
How do letters from members of Congress to the CIA wind up "classified"? Spencer Ackerman takes a look.
--David Kurtz
TPMtv: Let's (Not) Go to the Videotape!
We don't know what was on them, who knew about them, or why they were destroyed, but the CIA torture tapes provoked nearly universal outrage on the Sunday talk shows ...
--Ben Craw
Perino: I Got Nothing For You on Libby
With Scooter Libby's appeal abandoned, the White House can finally talk about the Plame leak, right?
--David Kurtz
TPMCafe Book Club: Ethan Brown
Ethan Brown joins us this week at TPMCafe's Book Club to discuss his new book, Snitch: Informants, Cooperators and the Corruption of Justice.
Brown gets us started with a review of how he came to the thesis of his book; namely, that the federal criminal justice system has been skewed by a "cottage industry" of informants that emerged following the introduction of the federal sentencing guidelines.
Participating with Brown in this week's discussion will be Professor Douglas Berman, Professor Alexandra Natapoff, Professor Mark Kleiman and John McWhorter, columnist for the New York Sun and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
Kleiman's first post is already up, suggesting that Brown "nearly chokes on his outrage and, as a result, fails to come to grips with the hard choices." That should get some discussion going.
--David Kurtz
Dana Dodges
Dana Perino punts on all Plame leak questions because she hasn't talked to the President about it. We'll have the video soon.
Late Update: Speaking of things Perino knows nothing about, Tim Grieve gives the rundown on Perino's admission on NPR over the weekend that she didn't really know what the Cuban Missile Crisis was when asked about it recently in a White House press briefing.
--David Kurtz
What Will Perino Say Now?
Paul Kiel has dug up the transcript of the White House press briefing in July where questions about the Plame affair were deflected by Tony Snow on the grounds that Scooter Libby's appeal was still pending.
What will the White House line be now? Dana Perino goes before the cameras in about an hour. We'll keep you posted.
--David Kurtz
U.S. No Longer Safe Haven
We flagged this story last week in our news section, but it has not gotten a lot of attention. A Canadian judge has ruled that the U.S. is not a safe refuge for those seeking political asylum. The ruling comes in a case involving whether an asylum seeker coming to Canada via the U.S. may still seek asylum in Canada, or whether they are presumed to have already gotten a fair bite at the apple in the U.S.
Adam Liptak takes a closer look at the ruling in a piece today for the NYT.
--David Kurtz
The WaPo's David Ignatius calls Bush's dissembling on the new Iran NIE a "non-story."
--David Kurtz
There Goes That Excuse
Scooter Libby drops the appeal of his conviction in the Plame case.
Wait a minute. With no pending legal proceedings, does that mean the White House can finally answer questions about the Plame leak?
--David Kurtz
Today's Must Read
Part of the pushback on those CIA torture tapes is that key Dems in Congress were briefed on and did not object to the CIA's enhanced interrogation (torture) techniques.
So exactly how much did those Dems--including Nancy Pelosi, who once was the ranking Dem on the House intel committee--know back in 2002-03?
--David Kurtz
Quote of the Day
Some observations could only have come from the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal. (via Yglesias)
"[T]he ultimate responsibility for this fiasco lies with Mr. Bush. Too often he has appointed, or tolerated, officials who oppose his agenda, and failed to discipline them even when they have worked against his policies."
The slide into self-parody is never pretty, is it?
--Steve Benen
None of the above?
Rudy Giuliani, the thrice-married serial adulterer who supported abortion rights, gay rights, gun control, and a liberal immigration policy, can't possibly win the GOP nomination. Neither can Mitt Romney, who's flip-flopped on practically every issue under the sun, whose religious faith is a regrettable deal-breaker for many Republican voters, and whose support in the polls is fading fast. John McCain certainly can't be the nominee, given that the party's base doesn't trust him (he was, after all, open to joining John Kerry's Democratic ticket just three years ago).
Mike Huckabee has no money, knows nothing about foreign policy, and is far to the right of the country on almost everything. Fred Thompson apparently isn't willing to work very hard for the nomination, and his own supporters fear his heart just isn't in the race. Ron Paul is far from the GOP mainstream, and is probably better suited for another independent run. Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter are just spinning their wheels.
Given this, Ross Douthat makes a compelling case that no one can win the Republican nomination.
So the latest polls have Mike Huckabee up an implausible nineteen points in Iowa and four points nationally. But he can't win, right? I mean, he's vulnerable on practically every non-social issue, he has a variety of skeletons in his closet, his policy team seems more or less nonexistent, he still doesn't have any money, and he has most of the GOP establishment united against him. He doesn't have a prayer -- or maybe that's all he has.
Except, of course, that none of his rivals can win either. If you look at the field, every candidate seems to have near-disqualifying weaknesses ... which helps explain why nobody seems capable of getting above 30-35 percent in any national or state-level poll. [...]
[I]deologically-speaking, none of the Republican contenders make nearly as much sense as candidates for the nomination of the present-day GOP as Obama, Clinton and Edwards do as candidates for the nomination of the present-day Democratic Party.
Now, some of Ross' points are more persuasive than others, but his broader point -- none of these guys can win -- sounds about right.
Of course, logically, that means one of two things is going to happen -- 1) one of the current far-from-ideal candidates will eventually emerge, battered and bruised; or 2) some other candidate who isn't running will somehow swoop in and get the nomination, which would be more likely in the event of a highly-improbable-but-incredibly-entertaining brokered convention.
Jeb? Cheney? Newt? A party turns its lonely eyes to you.
--Steve Benen
Wearing the pants in the family
In July, in one of the lower points for presidential campaign coverage, the Washington Post's fashion writer, Robin Givhan, wrote an odd, 746-word piece about an outfit Hillary Clinton wore on the Senate floor showing a very modest amount of cleavage. "With Clinton, there was the sense that you were catching a surreptitious glimpse at something private," Givhan wrote. "You were intruding -- being a voyeur.... Showing cleavage is a request to be engaged in a particular way."
It was an unusually silly article about a presidential candidate in one of the nation's most important daily newspapers, and it deserved all the ridicule it received.
Today, as Michael Froomkin noted, Givhan was at it again, with a piece titled, "Wearing the Pants: Envisioning a Female Commander-in-Chief." It is -- you guessed it -- an entire piece in the A section devoted to the senator's pantsuits.
The mind, so easily distracted by things mauve and lemon yellow, strays from more pressing concerns to ponder the sartorial: How many pantsuits does Hillary Clinton have in her closet? And does she ever wear them in the same combination more than once?
The pantsuit is Clinton's uniform. Hers is a mix-and-match world, a grown-up land of Garanimals: black pants with gray jacket, tan jacket with black pants, tan jacket with tan pants. There are a host of reasons to explain Clinton's attachment to pantsuits. They are comfortable. They can be flattering, although not when the jacket hem aligns with the widest part of the hips (hypothetically speaking, of course). Does she even have hips?
And because Clinton seems to prefer crossing her legs at the ankle -- in the way girls were taught when girls were still sent to finishing school -- there is less likelihood of any embarrassing straight-to-YouTube video.
Women have come a long way from the time when wearing a pair of pants was considered "borrowing from the boys." So it would be highly regressive to suggest that the candidate is using trousers to heighten the perception that she can be as tough as a man. And yet ...
Now, I try not to be a purist when it comes to articles about political trivia. Presidential campaigns are bound to include some coverage of the candidate's personalities, families, interests, etc. Voters care about some of these details when evaluating presidential hopefuls, so it's probably not realistic to expect major media outlets to be all-policy, all-the-time.
Having said that, this piece about Clinton's pantsuits is more than just silly; it's demeaning.
--Steve Benen
No laughing matter
In September, Hillary Clinton appeared on all five Sunday morning shows, but drew the most attention for laughing at some of the questions she was asked. As The Daily Show documented in a now-infamous clip, Chris Wallace asked the senator about "hyper partisanship," and Clinton laughed. Wolf Blitzer asked about some attack from Rudy Giuliani, and Clinton laughed. Bob Schieffer asked about healthcare, and Clinton laughed. It was pretty harmless, but campaign reporters quickly focused on almost nothing else.
With this in mind, I wonder if Giuliani's laugh-filled appearance on Meet the Press this morning might spark some media interest. I'm sure someone will have a video up fairly soon, but here's a transcript:
RUSSERT: Why would you do business with someone who helped Khalid Sheikh Muhammad?
GIULIANI: (Laughter) [...]
RUSSERT: People are calling into question your judgment, they also cite that your law firm did work for Hugo Chavez, the head of Venezuela.
GIULIANI: (Laughter)
RUSSERT: They've now quit that, but they did represent Citgo, which is run by Hugo Chavez.
GIULIANI: (Struggling to speak through enthusiastic laughter) Tim, that's a stretch.
RUSSERT: It's not. One more and then I'm going to give you a chance on this. One more, a Las Vegas developer that you worked with who had a close relationship with a Hong Kong billionaire who was close with Kim Jung Il.
GIULIANI: (Laughter)
RUSSERT: These are all accusations being made, in a very serious way, about your business. In order to deal with all of this, why not say to the American people, "These are all my clients, this is who I work for, so you can know who I've been involved with and who might be trying to influence me if I ever became president."
Giuliani seemed to find all of this hilarious, laughing and clapping as if Russert were Jerry Seinfeld.
I understand the point -- making light of a controversial subject is supposed to downplay its significance -- but here's a question for those who saw the interview: is it me, or was this genuinely creepy?
--Steve Benen
Huckabee spins himself in circles
Yesterday, the AP highlighted some absurd comments from Mike Huckabee, offered during his 1992 Senate campaign, when he advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public and warned that homosexuality could "pose a dangerous public health risk."
"If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague [from the general population]," Huckabee wrote at the time.
By any reasonable standard, Huckabee's comments were ridiculous and offensive, but at least for his sake they were made 15 years ago. Now, as a presidential candidate, he has an obvious course to take -- claim ignorance and explain how far his understanding has progressed since 1992. (It may not be the most accurate tack -- C. Everett Koop and the Surgeon General's office explained to the nation that the disease could not be contacted through everyday contact four years before Huckabee expressed support for a quarantine -- but it's still his best strategic option.)
But the candidate who's still surprisingly far from being ready for prime-time hasn't yet learned how to respond to these questions.
On Fox News Sunday this morning, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee denied that he ever called for quarantining AIDS patients in 1992, claiming that he "didn't say that we should quarantine," but that the onset of the AIDS epidemic "was the first time in public health protocols" that "we didn't isolate the carrier." [...]
Huckabee then asserted that he stands by his 1992 comments, saying he wouldn't "run from" or "recant" them.
Does this guy even have a staff? Is there no one around to help prep him for these TV interviews?
Huckabee didn't say we "should" quarantine AIDS patients, he only said we "must" isolate them from the public. It's hard to imagine even the conservative Republican base finding this coherent.
--Steve Benen
Bushies gain access to NBC airwaves
For quite a while, it seemed as if the only political ads that were rejected by television networks came from the left. Last week, for example, Fox News rejected an ad from the Center for Constitutional Rights about the administration's torture because, as Bill O'Reilly insisted, the ad was "anti-American." Last year, NBC refused to run an ad from MoveOn.org about alleged Republican corruption. Around the same time, all of the major TV networks rejected an ad by the United Church of Christ that told viewers, "No matter who you are or where you are on life's journey, you're welcome here."
The trend has been discouraging for a while. In November 2005, Fox News wouldn't run anti-Alito ads. Not long beforehand, MoveOn.org raised enough money to buy an ad during the Super Bowl, but CBS rejected it, noting its "long-term policy not to air issue ads anywhere on the network." Just a few weeks prior, CBS and NBC refused advertising from the UCC because the church's open, tolerant message of inclusion was labeled "too controversial."
With this background in mind, it came as a bit of a surprise last week when NBC rejected a political ad from Freedom's Watch, a right-wing group created to support the White House's policy agenda, concluding that the group's website, referred to in the ad, was "too political."
Alan Wurtzel, NBC's head of standards and practices, said the network decided not to run the Freedom's Watch ad because the group insisted that the spot contain the URL address of its Web site.The group's home page links to another Freedom's Watch Web page that lists nonprofit organizations that are sending care packages to soldiers and that suggests other ways of expressing support.
It also contains a welcoming message that states: "For too long, conservatives have lacked a permanent political presence to do battle with the radical special interests groups and their left-wing allies in government."
As much as I'm opposed to Freedom's Watch, I didn't necessarily perceive this as welcome news. The point isn't to block liberals and conservatives from the public's airwaves; I'd much prefer the networks allow both sides to advertise and reach the public.
That said, I was at least mildly encouraged that NBC was being even-handed -- the network rebuffed MoveOn.org, a message of tolerance from the United Church of Christ, and the loyal Bushies at Freedom's Watch.
Correction: In its original form, this post reported in error that the ad in question began with a political statement. In fact, the ad did not contain a political statement. We regret the error.
--Steve Benen
The song remains the same
Watching Rudy Giuliani on "Meet the Press" this morning, it was tempting to keep a bottle of Maalox in one hand, and a shovel to trudge through non-stop nonsense in the other.
One could probably write a short book about all the dissembling and dishonesty, but one exchange, early in the hour-long interview, at least gave viewers a sense of Giuliani's perspective on Iran.
Tim Russert quoted the NIE, which read in part, "Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs."
It led to this exchange:
RUSSERT: Seeing that, hearing that, learning that, doesn't this remove the option of a pre-emptive military strike against Iran?
GIULIANI: No, I don't think it does.... Of course we don't want to use the military option. It'd be dangerous; it'd be risky; but I think it would be more dangerous and more risky if Iran did become a nuclear power.
It must be great to work in the communications staff for a Republican presidential campaign -- you don't have to bother to change the talking points based on new information, you just repeat the old lines as if nothing ever changes.
Update: On a related note, I should mention that Giuliani very carefully distanced himself from Norman Podhoretz's demands for an immediate military strike on Iran, and subtly disagreed with Podhoretz's conspiracy theory that the NIE was the result of anti-Bush animus in the intelligence community. Given that Podhoretz is Giuliani's principal campaign advisor on national security, it's odd that the pupil would publicly disagree with his teacher.
--Steve Benen
Who knew what about waterboarding and when?
I'm hesitant to jump to conclusions, but I think there are a few lawmakers, including some Democratic leaders, who might want to comment on torture-policy briefings they received way back in 2002.
In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.
Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.
"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.
The WaPo report is more than a little disconcerting. Leading lawmakers -- including Democrats Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman, Bob Graham, and John Rockefeller -- received "about 30" private CIA briefings, some of which included descriptions of waterboarding "and other harsh interrogation methods."
Not only did these lawmakers generally fail to raise objections, officials at the briefings "described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support."
"In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic," said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. "But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.' "
If lawmakers could perhaps elaborate now on what they knew, and when, it'd be helpful.
--Steve Benen
