TPMDC Saturday Roundup
The GOP warns that Obama has made the United States fiscally ineligible for membership in the European Union -- not that we would want that sort of thing, because we're the United States of America. That and other political news in today's TPMDC Saturday Roundup.
--Eric Kleefeld
This IS Your Father's Pat Buchanan
No one who has followed Pat Buchanan over the years will be surprised by him using a questionable term like "scrub stock" to describe non-white foreigners. Well, no one outside of DC, at least. The real issue is why Buchanan's jingoistic nativism has not disqualified him as a member of the elite punditry who gets to spend hours each week playing the cranky old uncle on MSNBC.
Late Update: TPM Reader TL takes exception:
Why does David Kurtz let Pat Buchanan off so easily? Labeling him as merely a "nativist" is tantamount to a slap on the wrist, and in light of the over-the-top, inflammatory innuendo in his article could even be perceived as a strange nod of agreement. ...Pat Buchanan ... was born in 1938 and understands full well the meaning of "blood-and-soil" and "scrub stock." His article is an endorsement -- even embracing -- of full blown Naziism, and the worst of Naziism (if there can be such a thing).
It's not the "dip" into an "obscure racist phrase" (in TPM's words) that is so disturbing -- it's the use of three phrases and the ideology behind them, tied together in one article, that rise to a level I've never witnessed in recent mainstream political discourse: "blood-and-soil," "scrub stock," and "(m)ost Americans remain visceral patriots. It's in their DNA."
This rises to a level that would likely, ironically, put Buchanan in prison in today's more enlightened Germany, but might have earned him an officer's commission in the SS in 1938, the year he was born.
--David Kurtz
Self-Preservation
Right-wing extremist congresswoman denounces attacks on right-wing extremists.
--Josh Marshall
Tedisco
Say this for him: he didn't end up pulling a Coleman.
Went out with some dignity.
--Josh Marshall
What Makes Obama Tick?
TPM Reader JS:
Let's say that all of the sudden, due to the catastrophic onset of a once-in-a-generation crisis, it no longer becomes possible to deny that the elites at the head of a societally important institution have a record of rampant violation not just of the law, but of our most cherished American ideals. Do you:A) acknowledge that the institution itself has failed in fundamental ways, name and prosecute the true bad apples to the fullest extent of the law, and overhaul the system in a way that essentially wipes out many of the vested interests that have kept it going; or
B) attempt to patch up the existing system by agreeing to keep up various now-discredited fictions and illusions in exchange for a few hard concessions from the elites, all in the hope that the whole monstrosity can limp along until the crisis has passed, at which point it can recover and all of the elites can go back to business as usual
Obama is, by nature, a consensus seeker with inhuman levels of ambition and talent, which means that on both torture and on Wall St. bankster criminality he instinctively reaches for B), which is the (impossible) option that attempts to please everybody at least a little. But what we really need is A), which would seem to someone like Obama to be the most dangerous option, necessitating as it does the social trauma of genuine collective soul searching. You'd have to be able to gamble that America can tolerate this kind of huge rupture -- like the lancing of a boil -- and come through it all intact, and Obama is not a gambler.
I'm still withholding judgment, but I can't say this is an unreasonable reading of the evidence thus far.
--David Kurtz
BREAKING: WE HAVE A WINNER
Republican Jim Tedisco concedes to Democrat Scott Murphy in the razor-thin election in the NY-20. The concession came in a phone call from Tedisco to Murphy, Eric Kleefeld reports.
Murphy should send Al Franken flowers. The special election in New York was March 31, nearly five months after Franken's win in November, yet Murphy will be seated first.
--David Kurtz
Bachmann At It Again
The Minnesota congresswoman takes to the floor of the House to claim that the TSA is going to start picking pro-life, pro-gun conservatives out of the security line at the airport for extra scrutiny.
--David Kurtz
Buckley
An article I enjoyed -- though 'enjoyed' may not be the right word -- about Christopher Buckley's new memoir about his parents. Makes me interested to read the book.
--Josh Marshall
Heir to McCarthy
Check out Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) as she shamelessly pretends to be giving fellow Tennessean Al Gore a chance to "clear the air" while really impugning his integrity during today's hearing on the Hill -- a transparent effort that's not lost on Gore.
Have you no sense of decency, ma'am?
Late Update: Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) tries, but he can't top Blackburn for pure disingenuousness.
--David Kurtz
Deep Thought
If we can't get back to militarism and torture, we're going to become a Banana Republic.
--Josh Marshall
We're Not Worthy!
Which Republicans have given Rush the best apologies? The competition is fierce. But we've assembled a slideshow list of the top contenders.
--Josh Marshall
Past as Predicate
More on torture, from TPM Reader PB:
I think something else tends to get lost in the current arguments about torture. The whole issue has been framed as "moving forward" and looking to the future (good) versus doling out "retribution" and dwelling on the past (bad). This is not merely the Republican framing of the issue, as Obama and many Democrats seem to have accepted this framework.But this framing is entirely wrong. A better way to look at is that we can either choose to do something about the fact people were tortured by the United States government, or we can choose to ignore it. Either outcome will have a profound effect on what happens in this country "moving forward."
Choosing to ignore profound and systematic violations of international law creates a bad precedent that can (and no doubt will) be followed by future administrations. The current administration might be inclined to have a "no torture" policy, but the next one might think more like the Bush Administration. What expectation would members of future administrations have of being prosecuted for violating the law if we don't hold the past one accountable?
In many ways the decision to "move forward" and pardon Nixon set the stage for Iran-Contra and the Bush administration's myriad law breaking. What future horrors will ignoring the fact that the Bush administration codified torture as a "legal" interrogation technique set the stage for? This is not a can that can be kicked down the road because we have other problems we have to deal with. But no matter what we do now, this is about what might happen in the future as much as it is about what did happen in the past.
--David Kurtz
I'm So Proud
It seems that the Republicans have brought forth Newt Gringrich as their counter-expert to Al Gore in today's committee hearing. He's now explaining how people don't really understand what's happening with the polar ice cap. Proud moment for America.
--Josh Marshall
Bananas
McCain: Accountability for torture makes us no better than a Banana Republic.
--Josh Marshall
A Glimpse of the Dark Side
Dick Cheney apparently kept a file in his office marked "Detainees" (.pdf).
The document in question, obtained by Greg Sargent, is Cheney's request to the National Archives to declassify and release certain documents that he says "proves" that U.S. torture produced actionable intelligence.
In particular he requests two CIA reports: a 12-page report dated July 13, 2004, and a 19-page report dated June 1, 2005.
But note especially that Cheney's request identifies a specific folder marked "Detainees" kept in "OVP Cheney Immediate Office Files."
Late Update: I'll leave it to others more expert than I am in the timeline of the evolution of our torture policy to figure out where those two CIA reports fit in, but I'm a little surprised at first glance by how late those reports are dated, coming well after the 2002 capture of Abu Zubaydah and the 2003 capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Later Update: Ask and ye shall receive. Spencer Ackerman explains why those dates are significant. The point here is that by 2004-05, the Administration's self-justification for its torture policy was well underway. These reports are not contemporaneous accounts of what intelligence the torture yielded. Rather, the CIA and Cheney were papering the file well after the fact.
Now, I know some of you will say it doesn't matter whether torture worked or not. This is true, as far as it goes. But there's a large body of evidence not only that torture doesn't work generally, but that that it didn't work specifically when implemented by the U.S. (or didn't work any better than non-criminal methods would have worked). So while I've seen a lot of well-reasoned arguments about why the debate shouldn't be framed as did the torture work or not, I would say that is merely one part of a wide-ranging debate, and there's no reason to concede that point to Cheney's mendacity.
--David Kurtz
It's All About Us
From TPM Reader CR:
One odd thing about this torture debate is that it's all about *us.* Whether we committed a crime, how it affects our collective soul, how the wheels of justice ought to move (if at all). But nobody is talking about the victims--it's as if torture were analogous to smoking the marijuana you grew in the woods behind your house. Something technically illegal, but something that only hurts yourself, so everybody else should just butt out.But what nobody is talking about is who (apart from super-duper bad guys KSM and Abu Zubaydah) actually *was* tortured, how many people were tortured, whether any of them were children, what the physical and psychological results of that torture was, how many people died as a result of that torture, whether any of these people have since been recognized as harmless, and whether any of these people were American citizens.
Late Update: TPM Reader ZZ responds:
Following up on your post from CR, how has there not been more focus on OUR people who were actually asked to do these horrific things?! What becomes of the people who waterboard the same man 183 times?Asking American ... to commit these heinous acts was a crime against them, as well. And their voices should be a part of this story and our sense of collective outrage.
TPM Reader MB disagrees:
CR raises some questions that merit consideration, but I think miss the point. If all of those questions were answered, and it came out that none of the detainees died and none were harmless or children or American citizens, does that make the torture okay? Of course not. Having any of those questions answered the other way only raises the outrage level, but does nothing to change the fundamental facts about morality and the rule of law.In fact, I find it odd how few people are talking about the other ways this story *does* affect us. Give the government the freedom to torture, and they will someday use it on *us*, if they haven't already. Torture is a fine recruiting tool for Al Qaeda, which creates enemies for *us*. And so on.
TPM Reader CH wonders what became of justice for all:
I think there is a significant issue not being addressed in any sort of sufficient manner; namely, there were several people prosecuted and convicted as a direct result of the policies of the people who signed off on torture. These people were [I hate to say it] thrown under the bus as "a few bad apples". What is to happen to these folks? How come the policy makers, notably wealthy individuals, get off Scot free?Some folks have already paid a pretty hard price, deservedly so, but they were the small-fry scapegoats.
We need to move forward and demand accountability from those who actually were responsible for the policy of torture as high as that goes.
--David Kurtz
'08 Election Might End in June '09
Minnesota Supreme Court sets oral arguments on Norm Coleman's appeal of his loss for June 1.
--David Kurtz
Dawn Johnsen In Real Trouble?
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) cites her work for NARAL in saying he's unlikely to support Dawn Johnsen's nomination to head DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel.
--David Kurtz
TPMDC Morning Roundup
Al Gore will be on the Hill today testifying about climate change. That and the day's other news in the TPMDC Morning Roundup.
--David Kurtz
A Question We've Been Mulling
Even if all the 'charges' about Rep. Harman's phone conversations are accurate, is there any law she broke? More we look at it, it's less and less clear there's anything criminal (as opposed to unethical, wrong, etc.) about what happened.
--Josh Marshall
Quite a Thing to Say
The words may not be that surprising. But the speaker is. This is McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt on the Obama campaign ...
If you read history about Bobby Kennedy's unfinished race in '68, this was, in my view, the unfinished Bobby Kennedy campaign - the idealism, the passion, the inspiration he gave to people, it was organic and it was real and it wasn't manufactured at a tactical level in the campaign. It was a function of the president's unique skill set and presence, and it was really taken advantage of by a campaign that for the first time using the social networking technology....
--Josh Marshall
Okay, He Probably Won't Be Apologizing
Long-shot PA Senate candidate Larry Murphy (R) on Rush: "Rush Limbaugh is a racist, he's a cancer to the Republican Party and he should be excised."
--Josh Marshall
NY-20 Starts Gettin' Weird
Tedisco tries to make ballot-challenge roadkill of Air America radioman Sam Seder's vote.
--Josh Marshall
Can't Be
I must be mistaken. But I think Foxies Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly are on TV whipping each other up into a sudsy lather over NBC's alleged lack of news credibility because of its corporate ownership by GE.
--Josh Marshall
The Outlook for Peace
Can we now say that the Israelis, the Palestinians and the Texans are ready for a two-state solution?
--Josh Marshall
On the Books
Connecticut Governor signs gay marriage bill into law.
See more in our photographic feature of the progress of marriage equality in states across the country.
--Josh Marshall
Twisted in Knots
Does it make for a wobbly message to have the entire GOP program based around support for the government doing something which they simultaneously insist the government has never done?
--Josh Marshall
Deep Thought
We need to get back to bedrock American values like torture and secession.
--Josh Marshall
"Liberals' Verbiage"
House Minority Leader John Boehner's spokesman Michael Steel, explaining away his boss' use of the word "torture" to describe U.S. interrogation practices: "It is clear from the context that Boehner was simply using liberals' verbiage to describe these interrogation techniques. The United States does not torture."
--David Kurtz
Stretching It Out
Dem Scott Murphy is now up by 401 votes in the NY-20 as absentee ballots continue to be counted.
--David Kurtz
Breaking a Path to the Future
Texas Republicans equally divided over whether Texas should secede from the USA.
--Josh Marshall
Another View
From TPM Reader JB ...
Frankly, your "Junta Party" analogy looks to me like analysis designed to support an epithet. Not an epithet with that much potential, either, since the majority of Americans who do not follow foreign affairs closely aren't likely to know what a junta is.I know it's a little boring, but if you're looking for an analogy for today's Republican Party, the best one may be the most obvious: the GOP of the early 1930s, which suffered electoral disasters after a long period of electoral success, faced a popular Democratic President who succeeded a violently unpopular Republican one, and was unhealthily dependent on a base concentrated in one area of the country. In a historical irony, this area is now the South, from which the GOP of the 1930s was all but excluded as a legacy of the Civil War and Reconstruction.
Of the several things today's Republican Party has in common with its predecessor, one of the most striking is a leadership vacuum. After the political disasters of the 1930s, the most successful Republican Presidents tended to be outsiders: Eisenhower the career military officer, Nixon the loner, Reagan the actor. All these men, however popular they were with Republican voters, maintained a certain personal distance from the Republican political class. That meant it was always possible to find Republicans willing to speak up against Republican Presidents -- and it also meant that the party could quickly find new leaders once dominant Republican Presidents left the scene.
George W. Bush was different. He was completely of the modern GOP as his predecessors weren't, as a former President's son, an overtly (indeed somewhat ostentatiously) evangelical, nondenominational Christian, and a Southerner. Perhaps most importantly, Bush lived and breathed every aspect of permanent campaign politics, the foundation of the post-Reagan Republican Party's success since the elder Bush's 1988 elevation to the Presidency. There was no distance between Bush and other Republican politicians -- the closest thing to an anti-Bush Republican was John McCain, who only maintained that status for a couple of years. Twenty years ago the phrase Republican in Name Only (or RINO) was reserved for Republicans who voted with Democrats on most issues; during the younger Bush's Presidency it came to mean Republicans who voted with Democrats on any issue.
Now that Bush is gone, there is nothing and nobody else for the Republicans to turn to. They can either try to build a new identity for the party from scratch, or they can remain loyal to what they know, as so many 1930s-era Republicans remained loyal to the legacy left by Coolidge and Hoover. The latter course obviously doesn't offer much hope for the future (unless President Obama crashes and burns), but at least it promises safety for the present to the majority of Congressional Republicans representing safe Republican constituencies.
It's hardly necessary to look overseas for political analogies. Americans have been doing politics for a really long time, you know, and there aren't many things in our politics today that have never been seen here before.
--Josh Marshall
Clawback
Bloomberg: "The trustee liquidating Bernard Madoff's defunct money management firm told 223 investors to return as much as $735 million or face legal action, said a person familiar with the matter."
--David Kurtz
The Latest from Fox
If people care so much about torture, why aren't they looking at what they're doing in Iran and Cuba?
--Josh Marshall
Speaks for Itself
From Greg Mitchell ...
With each new revelation on U.S. torture in Iraq, Afghanistan and Gitmo (and who, knows, probably elsewhere), I am reminded of the chilling story of Alyssa Peterson, who I have written about numerous times in the past three years but now with especially sad relevance. Appalled when ordered to take part in interrogations that, no doubt, involved what we would call torture, she refused, then killed herself a few days later, in September 2003.
See the rest here.
--Josh Marshall
Right-Wing Wurlitzer Still Pumping
Brian Beutler updates on the concerted effort on the right to derail the nomination of Dawn Johnsen to head the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel.
--David Kurtz
Hard to Keep Track
TPM Reader MM is confused ...
Last week, conservatives were complaining Obama was establishing a socialistic fascist dictatorship.This week, conservatives are complaining Obama does not want to torture his opponents.
--Josh Marshall
Torturers For Hire
Former FBI supervisory special agent Ali Soufan, writing in an op-ed in the New York Times today, makes this parenthetical point regarding CIA torture:
(It's worth noting that when reading between the lines of the newly released memos, it seems clear that it was contractors, not C.I.A. officers, who requested the use of these techniques.)
I'm not sure if that puts a different gloss on Obama's decision not to prosecute CIA officers, but it's a point worth noting.
--David Kurtz
TPMDC Morning Roundup
House GOP trying to peel off industrial state Dems to oppose carbon regulation. That and the day's other news in the TPMDC Morning Roundup.
--David Kurtz
The Junta Party
This analogy isn't close to being complete. And it doesn't match up at every point. But where it does connect, it's so spot-on that I must share it with you.
In former Banana Republics, in their post-transition- to-democracy phases, you'll often have a Junta Party. It's an opposition party whose main goal isn't to get elected so much as to maintain the legacy of the former junta regime, defend its record of service to the state and most of all keep its former leaders from being put on trial or shipped off to the Hague. Often the party will be headed up by the former Generals themselves. But if they're dead or otherwise occupied in the slammer or abroad, maybe you'll have their relatives or the one-time cronies and lickspittles of this or that el jefe of the old regime filling the leadership roles.
And today, as we watched the on-going parade of Cliff Mays on TV or Dan Burton praising waterboarding as essential to the American dream, Eric Kleefeld pointed out to me that that really is pretty much the role the GOP -- at least for the moment -- has taken in our present politics.
Yes, Republicans have tried to distance themselves from President Bush's fiscal profligacy. But on the core value issues of militarism and human rights violations and keeping faith with the war criminals of the previous regime they really couldn't be more unified or on message. If you were plopped down on earth today in front of a TV set in the United States, on the testimony of the party members themselves, you might easily get the idea that state-sanctioned torture was the main policy legacy of the outgoing administration. Sort of like Democrats looked back on late 90s budget surpluses with a proud defiance in the aftermath of the Clinton years.
I can't be the only one who this resonates with. Who else has some examples?
--Josh Marshall
That'll Be So Cool
In what I guess you might call another sign that the GOP is getting back in touch with the grassroots, an outfit called the "Ohio Militia" is calling for a Million Armed Militia Members March on Washington.
The organizers hasten to point out that this will be a "peaceful demonstration. No shooting, no one gets hurt. Just a demonstration. The only difference from any typical demonstration is we will all be armed."
--Josh Marshall
When Larry Met Levi
Would-be Palin son-in-law Levi Johnston makes his historic debut on Larry King Live ...
I'm trying to think how this compares to the iconic McCain laying-on-of-hands ceremony with Levi on the tarmac in St. Paul just before the beginning of the Republican convention.
You can relive those powerful memories here.
--Josh Marshall
Ahh, Tedisco
From the Albany Times-Union ...
Schenectady County Assemblyman James Tedisco's closest staffer used more than $32,500 raised for Assembly Republican campaigns to pay his personal legal bills, according to documents obtained by the Times Union and confirmed Wednesday by newly installed Minority Leader Brian Kolb.Kolb said he was stunned to learn that William Sherman arranged for a check for $32,536 to be issued from the Republican Assembly Campaign Committee housekeeping account last July, under authorization from Tedisco.
And for the addicts, here's the latest vote count. (Basically looks like Tedisco is down for the count.)
--Josh Marshall
Becoming a Fad
New Ponzi schemer unearthed -- this one actually tried to scam the TARP fund.
--Josh Marshall
FYI
We've got a great book club conversation going on about Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State over at TPMCafe.
--Josh Marshall
Devil in the Details
A poll was released today showing that large majorities of Israelis and Palestinians are ready for a two state solution. But TPMCafe reader-blogger Armchair Guerrilla looks deeper into the polling data and finds a considerably less optimistic picture.
For anyone who's interested in this topic, it's a fascinating read -- both Armchair's analysis and picked out data and the entire poll report itself. The gist is that while both sides are ready for peace and a two state solution, both sides insist (or seem to insist) on things that are obviously entirely incompatible with a two state solution because they're non-starters for the other side. For instance, 74% of Palestinians are ready to live in peace in two separate states. And yet, according to poll, 59% said it was "essential" that all of all of the Occupied Territories and pre-67 Israel be an "Islamic Waqf". 71% seem to say it's "essential" that the final status result has to be the Palestinian state be all of historic Palestine, i.e., all of Israel and the territories. So there does seem to be some tension there. (This contradiction seemed the most glaring. But there are similar disconnects on the Israeli side. And, notably, the number of Palestinians who view a two state solution as "essential" or "desirable" is actually higher (53%) than the number of Israelis (45%) who answer in those two categories.)
Actually, the wording on those two questions is a bit ambiguous to me. It's possible that Armchair and I are misreading the questions -- and thus the contradiction isn't that stark. So I'd be curious what others think. Go to the actual data and look at the top questions on page 4 of the PDF. If there is one place where I think Armchair has a point about the authors of the poll having too rosy a read of the data, it is that at a few points in the discussion of the numbers they refer to things Palestinian respondents call "essential" as their "first choice", which is not quite my understanding of what those words mean, thought perhaps there is a translation issue.
In any case, both sides are willing to have a two state solution. But both sides expect it to include things that are entirely unacceptable to the other side, which is to say that they're ready for a two state solution on their own terms.
One take on this of course is a counsel of despair. But that's not quite where I am. I don't think it's that both sides really will only accept peace on their terms or that both sides are dishonest about wanting peace. I think it's more jumbled but also more pliable than that. It sort of comes down to a really bloody and tragic version of that Stones song: You Can't Always Get What You Want ... Both sides would like everything -- peace and also all the stuff they want. And the whole situation is so terribly stalemated that there's little force on either side or purpose to press down to painful trade offs between what you'd like and what you'd settle for. You just keep saying you insist on having your cake and eating it too. Because there's no cake to have or to eat. So it's all just a notional question. And why not insist on everything as long as you have nothing? And this, in different ways, on both sides.
One point the poll seems to make pretty clearly is that, contrary to what some say, support isn't slipping away from a two state and drifting toward a one state solution. Neither people wants to live in a one state with the other. And the poll does an interesting job finding the areas of overlap where one side's minimum demands find some overlap with the other side's maximal tolerances. And it is revealing to see where those points of overlap are.
I commend the numbers, whatever they mean, to everyone's attention.
--Josh Marshall
What Thinking Folks Are Up Against
This one just hurts to watch. And to make matters worse, a smug Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) actually thinks he "baffled" Energy Secretary Steven Chu, a Nobel laureate, during this exchange in a hearing today:
 |
--David Kurtz
The Onward March
A pictorial review of the progress of marriage equality in states around the USA.
--Josh Marshall
Just a One Time Thing?
U.S. torture apologists could learn a thing or two from the Interior Ministry in the United Arab Emirates.
ABC News obtained a videotape smuggled out the UAE showing the crown prince's brother torturing a man with whips, electric cattle prods, and wooden planks with protruding nails before pouring salt in the man's wounds and running over him with a Mercedes. A man in police uniform also appeared on the tape, aiding the sheik.
Confronted with the tape, the UAE had this peculiarly candid yet defiant response:
In a statement to ABC News, the UAE Ministry of the Interior said it had reviewed the tape and acknowledged the involvement of Sheikh Issa bin Zayed al Nahyan, brother of the country's crown prince, Sheikh Mohammed."The incidents depicted in the video tapes were not part of a pattern of behavior," the Interior Ministry's statement declared.
The Minister of the Interior is also one of Sheikh Issa's brother.
The government statement said its review found "all rules, policies and procedures were followed correctly by the Police Department."
This is the sort of response I'd expect if Monty Python were running a country's internal security force: Yes, the sheik did it, but it was merely a one time thing, so no need to be alarmed -- and our policeman followed all the rules, the first of which is do whatever the the sheik says. Carry on, now, carry on.
--David Kurtz
Kickin' Ass And Takin' Names
Must be nice for Obama to be able to dispatch Hillary to the Hill and have her mop the floor with the likes of Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA). Watch.
She does a number on Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), too.
--David Kurtz
Just By Lookin' at'Em
A Republican operative gets a little too candid about how we know the folks at Gitmo needed to be tortured -- and then gets an earful from Lawrence O'Donnell.
--Josh Marshall
Delay, Delay, Delay
Norm Coleman still running one-man guerilla war to keep Dems from getting their 59th Senate seat.
--David Kurtz
A Very Powerful Explanation
I'm not ready to completely discount the possibility that there were changes in Cheney's personality over the 1993-2001 period. But a number of readers have suggested a more Occam's Razor friendly explanation that I find pretty convincing. In all of Cheney's earlier assignments, he held powerful positions under strong, at least fairly competent executives. Under Bush, especially during the first term, Cheney was, and certainly saw himself, pretty much in charge.
TPM Reader JB makes the point ...
I've always been pretty dubious about the whole Cheney personality change theory, and not just because Bart Gellman doesn't seem to give it much credence. I think it overlooks a much simpler explanation.Dick Cheney acted as George W. Bush's Vice President in ways he did not as Gerald Ford's chief of staff or Defense Secretary under the elder George Bush because George W. Bush was not Ford and was not the elder Bush. I don't really think the matter is any more complicated than that.
During the younger Bush's first term especially, Cheney operated in ways that suggested he really didn't think his nominal boss was really up to the job. He treated associates not directly useful to him with contempt and disregard for their roles in the government -- something Ford would have discouraged and the elder Bush would have as well. George W. Bush barely noticed it, though he may understand it now.
Neither of the earlier Presidents Cheney served were giants. They were both career government men, sensitive about the prerogatives of their office and aware that their own success in public life was due to how well they worked within the rules, not how creatively they broke them. They also, in fairness to Cheney, did not experience anything like 9/11. Cheney earned his reputation for being smarter, shrewder and harder-working than most of the people he worked with in government. During the second Bush administration he had few checks on his authority, and after 9/11 especially felt an imperative to fill the vacuum left by his President's limited interest in the details of government.
Cheney could not have been Cheney if Bush had not been Bush.
--Josh Marshall
Collision Course
From the Post ...
The new Israeli government will not move ahead on the core issues of peace talks with the Palestinians until it sees progress in U.S. efforts to stop Iran's suspected pursuit of a nuclear weapon and limit Tehran's rising influence in the region, according to top government officials familiar with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's developing policy on the issue.
Also of note, Laura Rozen flags the fact that Netanyahu is considering appointing Michael Oren as Israel's new ambassador to Washington, notwithstanding the fact that Oren was a critic of Obama and booster of McCain during the last election. Also in contention for the post, it seems, is the odious Dore Gold.
--Josh Marshall
TPMDC Morning Roundup
NRSC chairman John Cornyn admits it's "going to be real hard" to keep the Democrats from claiming 60 Senate seats in 2010. That and the day's other political news in the TPMDC Morning Roundup.
--David Kurtz
The WORST YET?
Interrogators were under intense pressure from the Bush Administration to use harsh interrogation tactics to prove the fictional al Qaeda-Saddam connection, Jonathan Landay reports for McClatchy, relying on a combination of the Levin report (pdf.) and a former senior intelligence official.
The New Yorker's Jane Mayer notes that the Levin report also sheds new light on that crucial period between the capture of Abu Zubayda in March 2002 and the Bybee torture memo in August 2002 that sought to legally bless torture.
--David Kurtz
Time Marches Slowly
It still rankles me two decades after the fact that Bill Casey died before he could be held to account in the Iran-contra scandal. Here's hoping that Rummy and Cheney live long enough for the wheels of justice to finish grinding.
--David Kurtz
BREAKING
WUSA: David Kellerman, Acting CFO of Freddie Mac, found dead in apparent suicide.
--Josh Marshall
Just Out
The Senate Armed Services Committee's "Inquiry Into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody" has now been posted on the Committee's website.
--Josh Marshall
Apology-worthy?
Not sure what hang-time we're looking at here. But is Rep. John Shadegg yet another GOP rep. moth to the Rush flame, with this comment today in an interview with the Arizona Republic ...
Shadegg disagrees with radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, who has said he hopes Obama and his liberal policies fail."I sincerely hope he creates the strongest recovery possible," Shadegg said. "It is petty to worry about who gets the credit when people are losing their jobs and their homes."
As for Limbaugh, Shadegg said, "I think he is an entertainment personality who is an interesting factor in American politics. I agree with much of what he says on some issues, but not on other issues."
We do have the always perilous 'entertainment personality' description and the suggestion that Rush is "petty". On the other hand you have to thin gruel walk-back of saying Rush is an "interesting factor" and an expression of agreement on some issues. Really close to the line.
What say you? Do we have another self-criticism session coming?
--Josh Marshall
Fool Me Once ...
The National Archives confirms that Cheney formally requested the release of classified CIA documents to prove that the intelligence gathering ends justified the torture means.
Hmmm, Cheney using classified documents to buttress his political and rhetorical positions ... haven't we been here before? (see: Miller, Judy).
--David Kurtz
Into the Dark
A long time reader chimes in ...
My boss spent a lot of time working with Cheney when he was Sec. of Defense (**** redacted ****). Despite being a liberal Democrat he had a huge amount of respect for both Cheney's intellect and character before he became VP. I don't really buy it either, but he swears that Cheney underwent some sort of transformation, possibly due to a stroke.
It sort of baffles me too. I think a lot of people just fooled themselves about Cheney's politics. But I've had enough people (with sufficient proximity to speak with some authority) say things like this that I think it's possible that something characterologically changed about Cheney between 1993 and 2001.
--Josh Marshall
Been A While
Another Republican congressman has to issue apology to Rush. This time it's Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS).
Sometimes I wonder if Rush just gets one of these guys to stick his head above the parapet every month or so so he can ritually take them down and make sure everyone still knows who's boss.
--Josh Marshall
Your True Colors Shining Through
I guess at some point it was possible to think that Dick Cheney only 'lied' about things that his paranoid fantasies convinced him were true. Or that he only 'lied' about things that the higher Orwellian calling of the state convinced him needed to be lied about. But, alas, in cases like this, you see the guy is just a textbook example of what my beloved father used to call a real bulls**t artist.
Which is to say, that the guy just can't open his mouth without lying.
I've never been under the illusion, as a lot of people are, that there was a pre-late-1990s 'good' or at least sane Dick Cheney who was later replaced by the Strangelovian figure of the Bush era. But I do wonder whether he was always this whacked.
Late Update: Since I leaned so far forward in this post, I wanted to be sure to note for the record that the latest news is that Cheney did apparently petition the National Archives at the end of last month to declassify certain documents. Luckily for me, Cheney's record as a demonstrable serial liar is firm enough that I don't think any general retraction is in order. In that sense, he could be the namesake of that other Wyoming standby, Old Faithful.
--Josh Marshall
Stranger Than Fiction
Judge denies Blago request to head to Costa Rica to appear in the reality show, I'm A Celebrity... Get Me Out Of Here!
--David Kurtz
Harman: "Bring It On"
In a MSNBC appearance moments ago, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) gave a strong denial that she in any way intervened in the AIPAC case or sought to make a deal to intervene in return for support for her becoming chair of the intel committee.
|
--David Kurtz
Bring it On
Andrew Sullivan had an interesting point yesterday about the whole torture memo controversy -- and particularly Dick Cheney's claim that he wants the release of other documents which he says demonstrate the effectiveness of his torture tactics. Cheney's claim seems more than a little improbable since all the available information suggests that the administration's torture tactics -- whatever their legal and moral standing -- just didn't produce much information.
But why not take Cheney up on the offer? And not just the handful of documents he wants to cherry-pick but everything. Or perhaps more realistically, assemble a diverse and accountable panel of distinguished Americans who will review the most secret records, lean forward in the direction of disclosure while taking a due account of the need to protect genuine national secrets and simply get about the business of letting us know what happened.
What we really need is more light and disclosure, not less. In other words, the sort of Truth Commission that many of us have been calling for for years now. And if Dick Cheney wants to enlist and array the forces of darkness on behalf of this much-needed proposal, great. Call him on his bluff.
Late Update: It's looking more like a bluff. Cheney has apparently not requested that the CIA release the documents in question. An intelligence source tells Greg Sargent, "The agency has received no request from the former Vice President to release this information." --dk
--Josh Marshall
Disappearing the Historic Record
Via Spencer Ackerman, I see that former Bush State Department official (and 9/11 Commission executive director) Philip Zelikow now says that not only did the Bush torture architects solicit terrible legal advice from the likes of Bybee, Yoo and Bradbury -- but they actively worked to erase any evidence that dissenting legal advice was given:
At the time, in 2005, I circulated an opposing view of the legal reasoning. My bureaucratic position, as counselor to the secretary of state, didn't entitle me to offer a legal opinion. But I felt obliged to put an alternative view in front of my colleagues at other agencies, warning them that other lawyers (and judges) might find the OLC views unsustainable. My colleagues were entitled to ignore my views. They did more than that: The White House attempted to collect and destroy all copies of my memo. I expect that one or two are still at least in the State Department's archives.
Can we see the Zelikow memo, please?
Late Update: We may not be seeing the memo anytime soon. Zelikow tells TPMmuckraker that it was highly classified, and any remaining drafts or copies should be in a government safe.
--David Kurtz
Dare Not Speak Its Name
The word "torture" has all but vanished from the Obama White House lexicon.
--David Kurtz
First as Tragedy, Then as Farce
TPM Reader DP:
If only Saddam Hussein had been smart enough to solicit a legal opinion from his government lawyers that gassing people was within the law, he could have been playing golf in Myrtle Beach right now.
--David Kurtz
TPMDC Morning Roundup
Christopher Hill, Obama's pick as ambassador to Iraq, won a crucial Senate cloture vote last night. That and the day's other political news in the TPMDC Morning Roundup.
--David Kurtz
Did You Hear There Was An Election?
Matt Cooper looks at what was missing in this year's Pulitzers.
--Josh Marshall
As One Might Have Expected
Obama not ruling out legal consequences for the lawyers for provided the legal arguments for torture. That would be BYB -- Bybee, Yoo and Bradbury.
--Josh Marshall
Another Conservative In Search of a Life
The notorious Otto Reich on the baleful consequences of the the Obama/Chavez handshake and book acceptance ...
"I worked for three presidents. I don't think that would have happened with President Reagan or either one of the President Bushes. They should not have put President Obama in that embarrassing situation because this is very much an anti-U.S. book. Anti-Europe as well. It's a book that's about 30 years old, written by a far-left Latin American, a very unknown author. And now Chavez has put this book on top of, I'm told, the Amazon sales list."
How will we show our faces again on Amazon?
--Josh Marshall
The Shocking Truth
Fresh off our earlier national humiliation, we just received a note from TPM Reader SR. And SR points out that in the second image of our Obama at the Summit of the Americas slideshow we see President Obama shaking hands with the dog of the President of Mexico. He even seems a bit to be bowing to the dog.
You can see the awful truth here.
--Josh Marshall
Comical Nonsense
A bit of follow-up on right-wing paranoia about the Obama/Chavez meeting. I'm just watching Andrea Mitchell interview Michael O'Hanlon about whether President Obama showed some sort of dangerous weakness in happily shaking hands with Hugo Chavez. Mitchell played a clip of the always cartoonish Newt Gingrich and then noted that conservatives are drawing the analogy to John Kennedy's famous meeting with Nikita Krushchev in which the latter sized Kennedy up as a lightweight and -- so the argument goes -- thus believed he could push Kennedy around during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Now, Kruschev? Really? I'm not sure I can imagine a better illustration of the sort of parodic paranoia I'm talking about. We do realize that the US has the most powerful military in the world and Venezuela has little ability to project military power beyond its own borders. It's a non-entity militarily, even compared to Iran and North Korea. Will he be emboldened into calling Obama el Diablo? Maybe provocatively give away more books?
Late update: Here's the video:
--Josh Marshall
Symbol and Substance
To trim (the budget) or not to trim (the budget)? Robert Reich answers the question.
--Josh Marshall
Inside the Febrile 'Winger Mind
First line from a promo for the new issue of Newsmax magazine: "In these deeply troubled times, the question rises to the fore: Is Jesus Christ about to come back?"
That and a profile of Glenn Beck.
Maybe the two stories overlap?
--Josh Marshall
They Got Issues
We keep the chat shows running through the day at TPM HQ. And I've been listening to a constant stream -- mainly but not only on Fox -- of talk through the day about whether we should feel weak or ashamed or tarnished or any other number of things because President Obama had a friendly handshake with Huge Chavez of Venezuela.
The whole idea seems so deeply silly to me that it's hard to know how exactly to even comment on it. But I'm struck once again by the sort of psychologically arrested mentality and extreme emotional insecurity that seems at work in the minds of many foreign policy conservatives -- or more specifically, so as not to paint with too broad a brush, those of the neo-conish flavor.
Sure, a lot of this is just political posturing -- trying to sound the story out for possible political vulnerabilities on Obama's part. Throw a bunch of mud up against the wall and see what sticks. What's striking to me though is that a lot of it seems like a very genuine, gut-level emotional response. (A related example is what Matt Yglesias pointed out a few days ago -- how many right-wingers seem to have convinced themselves that North Korea, a borderline failed state on the possible brink of economic collapse somehow has the US over a barrel.)
In the course of our normal lives, few of us have much difficulty identifying habits of defensiveness or a penchant for histrionic or petulant interactions as signs of weakness, not strength. Really powerful people don't need stunts and usually signal their power by a certain graciousness and indifference in such interactions. They have nothing to prove. But American power, respect, command of public opinion -- however you want to define it -- must be in these people's minds an extremely brittle thing. They really do seem like extremely insecure people.
--Josh Marshall
Jackie Chan on Democracy
Not our normal fare. But this comes from John Pomfret at the Post ...
Jackie Chan believes that the Chinese people need to be controlled! He's beffudled about democracy. He doesn't know about freedom.Speaking at the Boao Forum in southern China, Chan said this: "I'm not sure if it is good to have freedom or not. I'm really confused now. If you are too free, you are like the way Hong Kong is now. It's very chaotic. Taiwan is also chaotic."
And this: "I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we are not being controlled, we'll just do what we want."
The Chinese audience loved it.
Pomfret follows with an interesting interpretation of what it means.
--Josh Marshall
More on that "Suspected Israeli Agent"
Let me follow up on my earlier post which asked just who that "suspected Israeli agent" was who Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) was talking to. Some quick TPM staff research shows that the original Time article on this story from 2006 identified Harman's interlocutor as Haim Saban.
(See my correction at the bottom of this post. It's less clear than I originally thought that we know Saban was the person on the other end of the phone call. Time notes that Saban did lobby Pelosi on Harman's behalf and seems to suggest this as a possible part of the quid pro quo. But a closer look leaves the identity of Harman's interlocutor an open question.)
Saban is a major entertainment industry mogul, who's a big contributor to the Democratic party and a major supporter of Israel. If you're interested in some fun trivia, I think a big chunk of his fortune comes from creating the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers. In any case, Saban was born in Alexandria, Egypt, was I believe raised in Israel and then became a naturalized US citizen.
The key here is that the premise of the investigation into AIPAC was precisely whether people around AIPAC were not just big boosters of Israel but in some sense acting as agents of a foreign power -- obviously, an extremely explosive question. So the intel sources appear to be referring to him as a "suspected Israeli agent."
There are obviously a lot of facts we don't know here. But if Saban is the interlocutor, it seems to me that any legal case against Harman would likely be very shaky since the claim that Saban was an agent of a foreign power would quite likely be legally unsustainable.
Late Update: Ron Kampeas has more on this at the JTA blog.
Important Late Update: A closer look at the original Time article says that Saban was the one who lobbied Pelosi, but not necessarily that Saban was the "agent" in the conversation with Harman. However, Ron Kampeas's update at JTA says that Saban was in fact the person on the call. So I think this idea is more than likely correct. But let's make the identification more tentative than I originally suggested. What's not clear to me is whether Kampeas was doing more than drawing an inference from the Time reporting. So for the moment, let's say that the identity of Harman's interlocutor is an open question.
--Josh Marshall
Walking and Chewing Gum
In my comments on the Harman story, you'll see I'm giving probably as much focus to the hows and whys of the government's role surveilling Harman as I am to what she's accused of. So let me early on make this point clear -- one issue does not override or trump the significance of the other. I think both are critical. And I think it's deeply important to keep that fact in mind.
There've been a number of hints and examples over recent months and years of the national security apparatus wiretapping or otherwise surveilling members of Congress. In each case, there's some explanation. In some cases, we're told it was inadvertent. But what jumps out at me in the Stein's Harman story is the suggestion that Alberto Gonzales protected Harman because the administration needed her out there spinning the warrantless wiretap story on their behalf.
Now, Jeff's reporting seems to suggest that this was something Harman was going to do anyway. And Gonzales didn't want to let this controversy get in her way. But it does not take too big a leap to see this going down rather differently -- seeing Harman, fairly or unfairly, compromised by these wiretaps and thus beholden to the administration.
Whether or not there's anything to that hypothetical about Harman, this issue of wiretapping members of Congress gets into extremely dangerous territory. And I think we're at the point where we need some clearer explanation of how many times this happened under the tenure of the previous (and for that matter the present) administration.
--Josh Marshall
TPMDC Morning Roundup
Obama heads to Langley to address CIA employees this afternoon. That and the day's other political news in the TPMDC Morning Roundup.
--David Kurtz
TPMtv: Sunday Show Roundup: The Tools Necessary
A crucial break from the past or a move that makes America less safe? We take to the Sunday shows for a heated debate about the Obama administration's recent decision to reveal Bush administration memos regarding the interrogation of terror suspects ...
Full-size video at TPMtv.com.
--Ben Craw
Another Key Question
Swirling between Jeff Stein's blockbuster reporting on the Harman story is another question: Jeff's reporting refers to an unnamed "suspected Israeli agent", as the person Harman made the alleged deal with. Stein uses that phrase in quotations and says he was not able to determine the identity of the person. So presumably that was the description provided to him by one or more of his sources.
So my question is: what's the nationality of that person? In spy talk, an 'agent' doesn't necessarily mean a formal agent of the foreign power in question, as in a member of Israeli intelligence or a diplomat. In this context it just as likely -- in some ways, given the nature of the underlying investigation, perhaps even more likely -- means an American citizen who the investigators believed was acting as an Israeli agent -- a complicated evidentiary and legal question.
And here's where it gets sticky. The whole legal question would then depend largely, perhaps entirely, on whether that suspicion was legally provable.
To see what I mean, let's come at this from another hypothetical read of the facts. What if US citizen A comes to Harman and says, this AIPAC spy case is a total set up, an end-run around the first amendment (the argument the defenders have subsequently made, with some legal success). US citizen A asks Harman to weigh in with Gonzales (who she has lots of pull with) in exchange for help lobbying Pelosi to make her head of the intelligence committee.
To be clear, I'm not speaking to the wisdom, ethics or morality of such a deal. But if the person on the other end of the call is a US Citizen and the government can't sustain the charge that they were acting as the agent of a foreign power, it's really hard for me to see what criminal statutes that agreement would violate.
--Josh Marshall
Must Read
This story is so radioactive it's hard to know which of fifty different directions to go with it. In brief, Jeff Stein at CQ has a much, much more detailed account of that story, first reported in 2006, of Rep. Jane Harman getting caught on a wiretapped phone call allegedly discussing a quid pro quo with "a suspected Israeli."
There are a lot of hairy details on this one. But the gist is that an NSA wiretap recorded Harman in a conversation with a "suspected Israeli agent" in which Harman allegedly agreed to use her influence with the DOJ to get them to drop the AIPAC spy case in exchange for help lobbying then-Speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi to make Harman 
chair of the House Intelligence Committee -- a position she ended up not getting.
(Remember, this was back when Rep. Alcee Hastings was the next person in line in terms of seniority. But there was intense opposition to his appointment because Congress had earlier impeached and removed him from a federal judgeship over bribery allegations. Pelosi eventually gave the nod to Silvestre Reyes rather than Harman.)
The story suggests that the tapes show Harman crossed the line. And the gears were in motion to open a full blown investigation. But then Alberto Gonzales intervened and shutdown the whole thing.
Why? Here's where it gets into the realm of bad novel writing: because Gonzales (and the White House) needed Harman to go to bat for them on the warrantless wiretaping story that the New York Times was then on the brink of publishing.
It's late. And we'll dig more into this tomorrow. But definitely give it a look yourself. Among the many questions the story raises are some that Harman should probably answer, but not all. High on my list would be finding out more about the circumstances under which a member of Congress ended up having her phone conversations recorded by the NSA. The article suggests it was a by-the-books wiretap -- part of a highly-classified probe of Israeli agents in the US, which led to the indictments of two AIPAC employees -- and not one of the 'warrantless' ones. But we've seen so much funny business on that front that I'm not sure that's enough information.
Next, is it possible Harman knew these tapes existed and was compromised vis a vis the administration? That's purely speculation on my part. Nothing in the article suggests that. But hearing it alleged that Gonzales protected her because he knew she'd be so helpful -- that really makes me wonder.
This raises lots and lots of questions -- not least of which is why this is coming out right now. Any particular reason people in the intel community would want to start talking to the press right now?
--Josh Marshall
Don't Push Too Hard
Rick Hertzberg chimes in on Norm Coleman's long twilight struggle.
--Josh Marshall
TPMDC Sunday Roundup
John Boehner declares: "the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you've got more carbon dioxide." That and other political news in today's TPMDC Sunday Roundup.
--Eric Kleefeld
