American Politics Archives

What London Reads

December 19, 2006 03:04 AM

I'm often told that in order to get the "real news" about America - and particularly the Bush administration - you have to go to sources like the Guardian of London, which can bravely report the truths that American news bureaus dare not utter, presumably from fear that some third-tier policy dork at the Labor Department will no longer speak to them. So here goes.

Bush accused of gagging critic of Iran policy

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Monday December 18, 2006
The Guardian

The White House yesterday faced fresh accusations of tailoring intelligence to suit its political viewpoint from a former CIA analyst barred from publishing a critical newspaper commentary on American policy towards Iran.

Flynt Leverett, a former Middle East analyst at the CIA and the National Security Council who has criticised the Bush administration for going to war with Iraq and for its handling of Iran, accuses the White House of pressing the CIA to demand sweeping cuts to an opinion piece he wrote for the New York Times on Washington's policy towards Tehran....

Mr Leverett said he was ordered to drop references to Iran's cooperation with the US on Afghanistan in the aftermath of the September 11 2001 attacks. He claims the White House has had no objections to similar assertions by less critical analysts.

Uh huh. The administration - no, I'm sorry, "Bush" - has not objected to other people saying the same thing Flynt Leverett wants to say, maybe because these other people are "less critical" of its/his policies.

So basically, Flynt Leverett believes that there's a gag order on Flynt Leverett (if that is his real name). News to me!

More news to me: The administration - or "Bush" - spends time trying to prevent negative portrayals of its/his policies from appearing on the New York Times op-ed page. I'll say it: Mr. President, this war is lost and forces must be redeployed immediately - to PBS!

GWEN IFILL: Is that at the root of the lot of this, just basic, old-fashioned lack of trust?

FLYNT LEVERETT: I think that's an inaccurate reading of the record. I think that Iranian cooperation with the United States on Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks was critical to the success of our efforts to get rid of the Taliban and stand up the Karzai government in its stead.

From an Iranian perspective, their reward for that was to be labeled part of the "axis of evil" in President Bush's January 2002 State of the Union address.

There is considerable distrust and historical baggage on both sides; that's part of what makes this a difficult issue to move forward. But to say that that baggage and that mistrust is a reason for not trying, when it is manifestly in U.S. interest to try, I think is a real strategic misjudgment.

Clear and hold, Mr. President. Clear and hold.

Link · American Politics | Iran | Iraq | Journalism | News Media | War on Terror

American Politics Archives

Secrets and the Single Rogue

November 29, 2006 02:01 PM

There was no way Alcee Hastings would be permitted to chair the intelligence committee. Nevertheless, I always found him to be a superb gentleman - a tad grandiose - despite his unsavory past. If some have the impression that Hastings is a cynical and pernicious personality, it is a mistaken impression.

The Hastings affair calls up a larger issue, which is that Congress is entitled to whichever Members and staff it wishes to have on the intel committee. Because of the separation of powers principle, Congress - not the FBI - does the vetting. And as the Hastings matter demonstrates, this is not a fail-safe process. Although Hastings would surely be denied clearance to review intelligence in the executive branch, his election to Congress suffices to qualify him in the legislature. Even if he were not seated on intel, Hastings - as well as any other Member of the House or Senate* - is entitled to receive classified briefings and to review material that is withheld from the public. Now, having known Hastings, I have no doubt he can be trusted, in spite of his history. But that conclusion is separate and apart from the question of whether he - or perhaps others in Congress - should be permitted access to this information. To choose an extreme example, let's imagine that former KKK wizard and implacable Jew-hater David Duke is somehow elected to Congress (he didn't miss the governor's mansion by much). Is that really enough to justify his access to the nation's secrets? Maybe. But one can also see how this arrangement might conceivably place the country's security in the hands of a deluded voting majority in one Congressional district.

*Some Members in the House, including Dennis Kucinich, Jim McDermott and Pete Stark have refused over the years to sign the official secrecy pledge, and are thus excluded from reviewing classified material or receiving classified briefings.

Link · American Politics | Congress | War on Terror

American Politics Archives

The Nancy I Knew

November 29, 2006 04:59 AM

I spent more than four years covering Nancy Pelosi as she advanced through the leadership ranks. The impressions I took away from that experience can be found here.

Link · American Politics

American Politics Archives

Made to Measure

November 6, 2006 07:31 AM

Love this post from the comments section at pollster.com (scroll down):

I've also been called repeately, by Zogby and many others. I'm in Loretta Sanchez's district (Orange County, CA) and it's not bad this election - we're only getting called a couple of times a week. During the primary this year we were getting poll calls 2-3 time PER DAY. A lot of them were message testing, but a healthy percent were straight preference polls. Once I was talking to one pollster, another beeped in on call waiting, I confrenced them together and we had a 3 way. THAT was fun.

I also make them tell me about themselves before I'll talk with them - where they're calling from, if they're paid by the response and how much, how long they've been doing this, that kind of thing.

Posted by: Richard R | November 5, 2006 6:04 PM

Link · American Politics

American Politics Archives

The Big Chill

October 27, 2006 06:21 PM

NOTE: If you are reading this report, it's because you have been authorized to receive transmissions on my encrypted samizdat network.

America shares 53rd place with Botswana, Croatia and Tonga in the latest "press freedom" index, compiled by Reporters Without Borders and released this week.

The United States (53rd) has fallen nine places since last year, after being in 17th position in the first year of the Index, in 2002. Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of “national security” to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his “war on terrorism.” The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 US states, refuse to recognise the media’s right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism. [My italics]

Yup, that sounds accurate. I'm sure they're anxiously shredding files over at Salon and The Nation as they wait for the FBI's elite anti-criticism squad to raid. That'll teach them not to place scare quotes around "War on Terror"! (Nice touch: "[H]is 'war on terrorism.'" It's like "His Lionel train set hobby-kit with scale-model villages in the basement.")

According to RSF, journalists would be much better off in Finland, which ranked at the top of the survey. The downside, I guess, is that they'd be limited to reporting about wood crafts and suicides. In terms of your country's press freedom score, it helps if the country doesn't have much that is pressing for the press to report. Not to take anything away from Finland, of course - or Iceland (tied at No.1), which also appears to have discovered the correct balance between press freedom and national security.

And of course there's always France.

France (35th) slipped five places during the past year, to make a loss of 24 places in five years. The increase in searches of media offices and journalists’ homes is very worrying for media organisations and trade unions. Autumn 2005 was an especially bad time for French journalists, several of whom were physically attacked or threatened during a trade union dispute involving privatisation of the Corsican firm SNCM and during violent demonstrations in French city suburbs in November. [My italics]

Sounds ideal. What's a few government raids, when you might otherwise be suspiciously regarded in the U.S.? But remember, when you travel to Europe, bring along due respect for the The Prophet:

A French high school philosophy teacher and author who carried out a scathing attack against the Prophet Muhammad and Islam in a newspaper commentary says he has gone into hiding under police protection after receiving a series of death threats, including one disseminated on an online radical Islamist forum.

The teacher, Robert Redeker, 52, wrote in the center-right daily Le Figaro 10 days ago that Muhammad was “a merciless warlord, a looter, a mass-murderer of Jews and a polygamist,” and called the Koran “a book of incredible violence.”

The Redeker case is the latest manifestation in Europe of a mounting ideological battle that pits those who believe Islam and the Prophet Muhammad can be criticized in the name of free speech against those in the Muslim community who believe no criticism can be tolerated...

... “I can’t work, I can’t come and go and am obliged to hide,” Mr. Redeker told Europe 1 radio in a telephone interview from an undisclosed location on Friday. “So in some way, the Islamists have succeeded in punishing me on the territory of the republic as if I were guilty of a crime of opinion.”

Mr. Redeker, who has kept in contact with news agencies by cellphone and e-mail, said that his wife and their children had also been threatened with death. He told Europe 1 that his wife was in hiding with him, but he was less clear about his three children, saying that one of them had been forced to move and that another was in a boarding school.

Asked to describe the sort of threats he had received, Mr. Redeker replied, “You will never feel secure on this earth. One billion, three hundred thousand Muslims are ready to kill you.” [NYT]

Unbelievable. A high school with a philosophy teacher? Only in France....

Link · American Politics | Europe | News Media

American Politics Archives

End the Search

October 21, 2006 05:18 PM

Decades may pass before the world is gifted a graf of pitch-perfect self-parody to compare with the following from Mrs. Norman Lear, posted in the HuffPo (where else?). Savor it.

When I asked Gore Vidal at dinner why the White House seemed so serene and at ease about the vote, he replied that, this time around, the Bush-Cheney henchmen could simply call on martial law. He glumly noted that we are so far down the road toward totalitarianism that, even if Democrats do win back the Congress, it would take at least two generations before the last six years of damage to the nation could be reversed. Gore frankly despaired that any amount of time could ever return the country to where and what it previously was. This prediction left me reaching for some Fernet Branca.

Link · American Politics | Humor

American Politics Archives

Secretary of Dense

October 11, 2006 08:17 AM

In the Washington Post, former Defense Sec. William Perry reminds us that we haven't properly thanked the Clinton administration for the "major delay" it caused in North Korea's nuclear program.

The most important such limit would have been on reprocessing spent fuel from North Korea's reactor to make plutonium. The Clinton administration declared in 1994 that if North Korea reprocessed, it would be crossing a "red line," and it threatened military action if that line was crossed. The North Koreans responded to that pressure and began negotiations that led to the Agreed Framework. The Agreed Framework did not end North Korea's aspirations for nuclear weapons, but it did result in a major delay. For more than eight years, under the Agreed Framework, the spent fuel was kept in a storage pond under international supervision.

Then in 2002, the Bush administration discovered the existence of a covert program in uranium, evidently an attempt to evade the Agreed Framework. This program, while potentially serious, would have led to a bomb at a very slow rate, compared with the more mature plutonium program. Nevertheless, the administration unwisely stopped compliance with the Agreed Framework. In response the North Koreans sent the inspectors home and announced their intention to reprocess. The administration deplored the action but set no "red line." North Korea made the plutonium. [My italics]

Oy. Maybe, in 1994, one could believe that the threat of "military action" drew the North Koreans to the bargaining table. But really: At what point does it become seriously delusional to believe the ensuing talks were an example of successful bilateral diplomacy, and not a rather crafty diversionary tactic by a rogue regime that never had any intention of halting its nuclear program and played the U.S. government for fools?

I say 2002 is the cut-off point.

P.S. A "red line" is only a red line if a plausible military option exists on the other side of it. Show us that Clinton "military" plan! I could use a good laugh.

Link · American Politics | Diplomacy | North Korea | Nukes | Nukes

American Politics Archives

My two cents

October 3, 2006 06:37 AM

Let me say a word or two about Mark Foley, since I knew him well - professionally, never socially - for most of the 10 years I spent covering Congress in Washington.

Our association began in the mid-to-late '90s, when I was writing articles for the Hollywood Reporter and Foley was elected to chair the House entertainment caucus. The caucus is mainly a policy group - some would say a mutual suck-up society - that serves as the main point of contact between Congress and Hollywood. (Like the constituents they represent, lawmakers are basically star-struck in the presence of celebrities. With all the competing issues, you wouldn't believe the attention a John Travolta could bring to German government policy on Scientology, which it treats as a scam.) Foley relished the job. It seemed like each day would bring a new press release or phone call from his office, announcing some new initiative or event. Piracy was probably the main issue at the time. It might still be. I recall at one point spending the better part of a day with Foley as he shepherded various entertainers from meeting to meeting in the Capitol. If for no other reason, I am grateful to him for my introduction to EmmyLou Harris.

As many, including Andrew Sullivan, have already remarked, it was an open secret in Washington that Foley was "gay." He never hit on me, though. Perhaps I was too old. (Andrew, for one, seems confused over whether Foley was gay - a tragic victim of "the closet" who was forced to extremes by his secret - or a "sexually predatory creep," which is today's depiction on his blog.) I also never got the impression that Foley was making a great effort to hide his "secret." The last time I saw him, a couple of years ago, he was driving an ostentatious, light-blue BMW convertible, top down - not the kind of car you drive when you're trying to keep your head down and stay out of trouble. And there was a young man in the passenger seat. Presumably an aide. But I recall one of my colleagues remarking at the time that the young fellow was probably Foley's most recent quarry.

In any case, his secret - at least the one people believed he was hiding - was hardly a secret at all. For one thing, it was widely known on Capitol Hill that Foley was "outed" by a small newspaper in his district before the 2004 elections. I recall that at Roll Call, where I worked at the time, we struggled over the question of whether and how this matter should be reported. If he was "outed," it would presumably be a factor in his bid for re-election. But did a piece in a free paper with a small circulation qualify as an "outing"? And even so, weren't we really looking at a personal matter that ought to be no one's business? There were external efforts to force the issue into print. At one point, I recall one of our reporters receiving a press release from the "Gay Democrats of Broward County," a putative political organization, announcing its "endorsement" of Foley for re-election. Efforts to locate the Gay Democrats of Broward County came up empty, of course.

Foley was deeply, obsessively involved in child endangerment issues. I doubt that anyone who encountered him on Capitol Hill in the last four years came away without some kind of update on the progress of this or that initiative. There's a sickening foreboding about those encounters now. But at the time none of this struck me as odd, even after taking into account his supposed homosexuality. For one thing, I've known a lot of gay people, and they're fiercely insistent about the distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia. For all I knew, Foley's legislative crusade was part of an effort to underscore that distinction - as if to say, to all those who "knew" his secret, that he was gay, not a child molester. But he was also from Florida, where the battle against child abuse really took shape due to the activism of John Walsh, father of Adam, the namesake of the legislation that recently cleared Congress. Covering Congress, you often find that lawmakers are obsessive about two or three things that really ping the radar back home. Take a look at farm-state lawmakers and ethanol, for instance. Because of the Walsh saga, I assumed that child endangerment was just one of these things - basic constituent service. And, of course, I remembered the intensity with which he worked as chairman of the entertainment caucus. He was an intense guy - always friendly, but intense.

It is inconceivable that Speaker Hastert was unaware of the rumors that Foley was "gay." It wouldn't have made a difference: There was no ostracism or banishment of Jim Kolbe, from Arizona, when he came out years ago. But the business about the pages - I, for one, never heard anything about that. And I don't know what Hastert might have "known," or felt that he knew. Hastert might have thought Foley's associations with pages - including the emails and messages he saw - were of a piece with Foley's more general weirdness. He should clearly have ordered the contacts to cease. But, one can also imagine the Speaker telling himself: Foley is the obsessive sponsor of legislation to protect kids. What are the chances he was abusing those he was working to help? A House Speaker isn't a psychiatrist.

I hope Foley never took advantage of an opportunity to abuse minors, though I suspect that is a vain hope. Experience tells us that people with deep-set perversions are nothing if not resourceful. It is likely that he has destroyed some lives. Foley undoubtedly went on a number of Congressional delegations (CODELS) abroad, and probably to some places where American money can buy just about anything. It's not only the Justice Department that has some investigating to do.

Link · American Politics | Congress | Journalism

American Politics Archives

The Scholar's Lament

September 14, 2006 02:36 PM

The New York Times ran a story this week about contributions from the Wal-Mart family's foundation to conservative think-tanks, some of whose scholars have written favorably about Wal-Mart. Why this ought surprise the editors of a publication that relies on advertising dollars, I do not know.

In any case, my father is a scholar at AEI, and he has written or delivered much of the material at issue. He detests rent-seeking, and has argued thusly[$] as banking interests try to block competition in their sphere from Wal-Mart. (You can find an example of the banking industry's measured response to his views here. Scroll down to "The Orwellian World of Mr. Wallison.") So last week he fielded queries from one of the Times reporters as we rode the train to my grandmother's funeral. With his permission, I have posted the full text of the email exchange below, in reverse chronological order.

From: Peter J. Wallison To: 'barbaro@nytimes.com' Sent: Thu Sep 07 11:24:09 2006 Subject: Re: New York Times Inquiry

Michael: I have tried to answer your questions below. Peter

1. No.

2. I am not involved in fundraising, and with few exceptions don't know who contributes to AEI. In general, the scholars at AEI, in my experience at least, have no role in the fundraising efforts. I have been told by Chris DeMuth, the President, that my job is to think, write and develop policy ideas; his is to raise funds to support AEI.

3. Although I was not aware of any contributions by Wal-Mart, even if I were I would not have disclosed it. AEI, I believe, also gets contributions from banks and others who oppose Wal-Mart. These contribuitions come from people who believe in AEI's efforts to influence the public policy debate in Washington. They don't agree with everything the scholar says, just as they may contribute to political officials whose views they generally support without agreeing on every issue. Will you, or the editorial pages of the Times, inconnection with this article, disclose how much advertising the Times receives from banks each year? Do you doubt that this article will increase that advertising? After all, these banks, the largest in NY, are opponents of wal-Mart's application. If you believe AEI should disclose, don't you have the same obligation? I for one will be very surprised if I see such a disclosure in your piece.

4. The funding hasn't influenced me, not only because I was not aware of it but also because the views I expressed have always been my views. I never write an op-ed for payment of any kind, and have turned down requests to do so because I don't want any implication that my views are for sale--not because I think it's wrong to be paid for expressing my views. Many of my articles are likely to be opposed or favored by AEI contributors, and it has never occurred to me or any other AEI scholar, I would guess, that this should be a consideration. Certainly, no one in the management of AEI has ever said anything to me about pulling my punches or favoring a particular company or idea, and I would be amazed if one of them ever did.

If I may make an editorial comment here, I think it is destructive to debate on important policy issues that the press, and particularly your newspaper, tries to demean substantive positions by implying that they are infleuenced by contributions. Even if they were, the positions should be debated on their substantive merits, not impugned by suggestions of bias.

Peter J. Wallison

Sent from my Blackberry

----- Original Message -----
From: barbaro@gmail.com
To: Peter J. Wallison
Sent: Thu Sep 07 09:54:04 2006
Subject: Re: New York Times Inquiry

Peter,

I am so very sorry to be pestering you on a day when you are attending a funeral. But in the interest of fairness, I do want to ask you these questions.

Our story will focus on the Walton Foundation's giving to think tanks, which has increased in recent years, and the disclosure -- or lack thereof -- of this funding stream from scholars at those think tanks who write about Wal-Mart. AEI has received significant funding from the Walton Foundation and so I am reaching out to several people there who have written about the company.

Here is what I would like to know (mind you these are thematic, sort of boilerplate questions; this story does not focus on you or AEI exclusively.)

(1) Were you aware that AEI has received funding from the Walton Foundation ($80,000 in 2003; $30,000 in 2004)
(2) If not, why?
(3) If so, why did you not disclose this fact in your op-ed pieces, interviews with reporters and testimony before the FDIC? (Or did I overlook such disclosures?)
(4) Do you feel this funding has influenced your thinking -- or that of any AEI employee?

Many thanks,

Michael Barbaro
The New York Times



On 9/7/06, Peter J. Wallison wrote:

It will be difficult for me to contact you today. I am on the way to a family funeral. If you have specific questions, I would be pleased to answer them with my blackberry between events. If you have seen my writings, you know that I believe the attack on Wal-Mart--like the idea of separating banking and commerce-- is an effort to fend off competition. In this case, it is the banking industry that is seeking protection. In other cases, such as the realtors, it's an industry trying to fend off the banks. Regards, Peter Wallison


Peter J. Wallison

Sent from my Blackberry

----- Original Message -----
From: barbaro@gmail.com < barbaro@gmail.com >
To: Peter J. Wallison
Sent: Thu Sep 07 09:17:14 2006
Subject: New York Times Inquiry

Peter,

I am working on a story with my colleague here at The Times about Wal-Mart and its relationship with think tanks. We plan on touching upon several of your writings -- and testimonies -- in the story and would like to speak with you as early as possible today. I know you are on the road but please give me a call. My work phone is 212-556-XXXX and my cell is 202-321-XXXX. [X's mine]

Many thanks,

Michael Barbaro
The New York Times
barbaro@nytimes.com

None of this discussion was included in the Times article. Dad is not even mentioned in the piece, though it's his work that's being attacked by Wal-Mart's opponents.

On the contrary, the Times quotes another scholar from AEI who says he might disclose Wal-Mart's support for the think-tank in an upcoming book about the company. This, of course, leaves the impression that there might in fact be something to disclose here - a notion my father explicitly rejects and addresses directly in his correspondence with Barbaro.

So why, if it's his work at issue, and he directly rebuts the canard raised by his critics, did the Times leave Dad out of the story? I emailed Barbaro on Thursday to find out. (I accidentally called him "David" in the message. As my late grandmother might have said - Hey, if they didn't want him called David on occasion, his parents shouldn't have named him Michael.) I received an auto-reply saying that he would be out of the office, and unreachable, through Friday.

So let me hazard a guess: I think the Times started with the idea that conservative scholars were guilty of having "failed" - the Times' word - to disclose the Walton Foundation's sneaky effort to buy them; the only question was the degree to which they would acknowledge their awareness and culpability. The editors were not interested in answers that upset this premise. My father's point - which ought to have been obvious - was that AEI probably collects funding from Wal-Mart's opponents in the banking sphere as well. This was inconvenient to the theme of the article. As was the point that news outlets don't find it necessary to disclose their relationships with advertisers who are cited in the editorials they publish.

Intellectual slovenliness of this caliber befits, well, Paul Krugman.

In fact, there's a base absurdity to the whole premise of the Times article. It is embedded in the suggestion that free-market scholars who would likely pull far greater salaries in the corporate world are instead grubbing for Wal-Mart dollars at think-tanks. One wonders which is the greater offense: The suggestion that they could be bought - or the suggestion that they would sell so cheaply.

Link · American Politics | Journalism | News Media

American Politics Archives

The Clock's Ticking

September 8, 2006 01:20 PM

Bionically earnest press nanny Jack Shafer has yet to comment on the denouement of the Plame affair. Isn't this time for another scolding lecture on the responsibilities of journalists?

Link · American Politics | News Media

American Politics Archives

The Devil's Workshop

September 5, 2006 03:28 PM

The Washington Examiner:

WASHINGTON - Something almost without precedent in America will happen Thursday. That’s the day when McCain-Feingold — aka the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 — will officially silence broadcast advertising that contains criticism of members of Congress seeking re-election in November. Before 2006, American election campaigns traditionally began in earnest after Labor Day. Unless McCain-Feingold is repealed, Labor Day will henceforth mark the point in the campaign when congressional incumbents can sit back and cruise, free of those pesky negative TV and radio spots. It is the most effective incumbent protection act possible, short of abolishing the elections themselves.

I have nothing useful to add to this, nor to Glenn's succinct, though appropriate response. This law is a disgrace. Shame on them.

Link · American Politics | Congress

American Politics Archives

CAIR-bears

August 29, 2006 10:33 AM

Milbank at his best, reporting Monday's CAIR-sponsored press event, where "Israel" critics Mearsheimer and Walt obligingly went that extra mile for their hosts.

When the two professors finished, they were besieged by autograph- and photo-seekers and Arab television correspondents. Walt could be heard telling one that if an American criticizes Israel, "it might have some economic consequences for your business." [My emphasis]

You might suddenly thrive! I think that's what he means....

[Hat tip: Glenn]

Link · American Politics | Islam | Israel | Jews | News Media

American Politics Archives

Cat Nips

August 19, 2006 06:19 PM

Jimmy Carter is hawking a book, and that means reconnecting with his core constituency - Europe. Recently he sat for an interview with Der Spiegel - and, from the sounds of it, Der Spiegel sat on his lap, nuzzling its wet little nose against the former president's neck and purring softly, as they shared an understanding known only to effete Europeans and our creepiest ex-president. A sampling of the, uh, questions:

SPIEGEL: You also mentioned the hatred for the United States throughout the Arab world which has ensued as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Given this circumstance, does it come as any surprise that Washington's call for democracy in the Middle East has been discredited?

SPIEGEL: What makes you personally so optimistic about the effectiveness of diplomacy? You are, so to speak, the father of Camp David negotiations.

SPIEGEL: One main points of your book is the rather strange coalition between Christian fundamentalists and the Republican Party. How can such a coalition of the pious lead to moral catastrophes like the Iraqi prison scandal in Abu Ghraib and torture in Guantanamo?

SPIEGEL: You've been called the moral conscience of your country. How do you look at it yourself? Are you an outsider in American politics these days or do you represent a political demographic that could maybe elect the next US president?

SPIEGEL: Does America need a regime change?

Just keep the hat out, Jimmy. They'll keep cranking the organ.

Link · American Politics | Europe | News Media

American Politics Archives

Well, that's one way to put it

July 9, 2006 09:31 AM

From the 7/6 interview, aired on CNN.

LARRY KING: First things first and first thing obvious. What's going on? Were you surprised by the missiles?

G. BUSH: You know, I wasn't sure what to expect. Obviously, we knew the missile was teed up. We rallied our partners in the six- party talks to make clear statements about not firing a missile.

Link · American Politics · TrackBack (2)

American Politics Archives

The Lady Doth Protest

June 29, 2006 11:49 AM

Split decision (5-3) on Guantanamo from the Supremes. But you wouldn't know that from the rhetorical effusions coming from one Europe-based human rights group. (My highlights)

The ruling, a strong rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and international Geneva conventions....

The court's ruling was a resounding loss for the Bush administration. Justices also rejected the administration's claim that the case should be thrown out on grounds that a new law stripped their authority to consider it.

I know, I know - it's the job of these groups to seek to influence public perception by hyping the impact of favorable developments. Fair enough. Only, the two grafs above weren't written by a European human rights group; they come from a report on the ruling from the AP's Gina Holland.

Link · American Politics | Journalism | News Media | War on Terror · TrackBack (11)

American Politics Archives

Conyers: Paradise Postponed

May 18, 2006 07:50 AM

Being in the House minority has been good for John Conyers. Bewildered but powerless, he is free to howl impotently into the cosmic void about all and sundry Bush administration malfeasances, without any danger of being taken seriously. It's been a good bargain for Democrats, too. Conyers provides them with valuable outreach to the nuttier segments of the party base, while colleagues are never forced to acknowledge that he's a nitwit.

Trouble is, Conyers and the Democrats may not remain in the minority much longer, if the polls are to be believed. And while the specter of Conyers as Judiciary chairman may not be enough to rouse the GOP's disenchanted base, the specter of Conyers beginning impeachment proceedings following a Democratic takeover probably would. Although I personally would get a real kick out of these Conyers-chaired hearings, the Democratic leadership in the House is probably wise to suspect that the Republican base would feel otherwise. So, undoubtedly with some prodding from the higher-ups, Conyers today placed an op-ed in the Post disavowing any plan to "immediately" start the impeachment process. Where would anyone have gotten the idea that he might? Perhaps from the mock impeachment proceedings that Conyers has hosted in the Capitol basement, featuring the usual assortment of muttering cultists and conspirators.

Now, though, Conyers says he can't start "immediately," because lawmakers won't know enough about the seriousness of their own charges until the Bush administration starts answering questions.

Fair enough -- Congressional Republicans have been shamefully indulgent on matters of oversight. Bringing a few checks and balances back to Capitol Hill is not a bad reason to back the Democrats this November. (Though if Nancy Pelosi continues to mistake the Supreme Court for God, one imagines oversight in the House may continue to lag.) So fine, then. What does Conyers have in mind?

For example, to know whether intelligence was mistaken or manipulated in the run-up to the Iraq war, we need to know what information was made available to -- and actually read by -- decision makers and how views contradicting the case for war were treated.

We need to know the extent to which high-ranking officials approved of the use of torture and other cruel and inhumane treatment inflicted upon detainees. We need to know whether the leaking of the name of a covert CIA operative was deliberate or accidental, as well as the identity of those responsible.

Now, I know what you're thinking: Isn't most of this stuff dealt with in the reports from the Robb-Silberman commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into pre-war intelligence on Saddam's WMD programs? Yes. But who really takes that kind of stuff seriously? Or has the time to read it? Or -- you know -- whatever.

It was House Republicans who took power in 1995 with immediate plans to undermine President Bill Clinton by any means necessary, and they did so in the most autocratic, partisan and destructive ways imaginable. If there is any lesson from those "revolutionaries," it is that partisan vendettas ultimately provoke a public backlash and are never viewed as legitimate.

So, rather than seeking impeachment, I have chosen to propose comprehensive oversight of these alleged abuses. The oversight I have suggested would be performed by a select committee made up equally of Democrats and Republicans and chosen by the House speaker and the minority leader.

Wait -- did he say comprehensive oversight? My God, this man is drunk with power and malice!

The committee's job would be to obtain answers -- finally. At the end of the process, if -- and only if -- the select committee, acting on a bipartisan basis, finds evidence of potentially impeachable offenses, it would forward that information to the Judiciary Committee. This threshold of bipartisanship is appropriate, I believe, when dealing with an issue of this magnitude.

Yeah, I see his point. Why have independent commissions deal with this kind of stuff when you could have the full complement of preening lawmakers exchanging inanities and making Congress look ridiculous?

One-party rule has dug our nation into a deep hole over the past six years. The Judiciary Committee needs to fully implement the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, strengthen laws against wartime fraud, ban trade with state sponsors of terrorism, increase funding for community policing and protect government whistle-blowers. Most important, before we have another presidential election, I believe we need to pass laws protecting the integrity of our electoral system -- the very foundation of our democracy.

Oh well, I guess we won't get to read the rest of the op-ed, as Conyers seems to have trailed off into some other business about community policing and the Electoral System (peace be upon it).

But, based on what I read, I think he's probably allayed some of his leadership's concerns. Now if only they can fit "Vote Democrat for a full, bipartisan inquiry and potential impeachment referral over the Iraq War and Valerie Plame who was a covert CIA operative you better believe it" on a bumper sticker....

Link · American Politics | Congress | Iraq · TrackBack (15)

American Politics Archives

Covert Auction

May 14, 2006 08:56 AM

Better question: Did she ever shut up? From the Sunday Washington Post story on former CIA official Mary McCarthy:

McCarthy became convinced that "CIA people had lied" in that briefing, as one of her friends said later....

McCarthy became disenchanted, three of her friends say....

In addition to CIA misrepresentations at the session last summer, McCarthy told the friends....

McCarthy also told others she was offended that the CIA's general counsel....

She dissented from Bush administration policy, and she let others know....

McCarthy, in e-mails to friends, has denied leaking anything classified....

She has not denied [in e-mails to friends] speaking to Priest but....

It left her frustrated, and in articles published [by McCarthy] in a small-circulation intelligence journal....

The exchanges...helped harden McCarthy's view that "the CIA is just very insular," a former colleague said....

McCarthy...felt "underutilized," according to one friend....

McCarthy "was seeing things in some of the investigations that troubled her," said one of her friends....

"She had the impression that this stuff has been pretty well buried," another friend said....

In McCarthy's view and that of many colleagues, two friends say, torture was not only wrong....

Link · American Politics | Congress | War on Terror · TrackBack (6)

American Politics Archives

The Wages of Fear

May 8, 2006 05:26 AM

UPDATE 5/11: Reference to Georgia clarified from original post.

The Vilnius Summit is turning into a potential watershed in East-West relations. Last week, VP Cheney chided Russia for its backsliding on democracy and human rights. Georgia is poised to leave the Russia-led Commonwealth of Independent States. And now Ukraine looks poised to follow, reports the AP:

The press service of Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko organized a special briefing on the future of the CIS by the head of the foreign relations service of the president's secretariat Konstantin Timoshenko. Mr. Timoshenko reported that the Ukrainian leadership is not satisfied with the effectiveness of the organization's functioning and that the president is seriously considering Ukraine's withdrawal from it.

“Unless something changes, the question of Ukraine's withdrawal from the CIS will become a practical plan, if not tomorrow, then in the near future,” Timoshenko said.

The presidential adviser's appearance was the apotheosis of a series of anti-CIS moves by Ukrainian authorities. For a week, various officials have been harshly criticizing the CIS. Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister Vladimir Ogryzko set the tone when he stated during a visit to Moscow that Kiev is disappointed the CIS has turned from an organization of action to an organization of conversation.

He said that Ukraine has repeatedly made specific proposals within the CIS and none of them were developed by the organization.

Ogryzko cited the example of President Yushchenko's proposal to set up common border protection for the CIS countries, which was ignored. “Will there be any desire to make new proposals after that? The question arises as to why we need that shell? For business or as a club?”

The Ukrainian Security Council followed the Foreign Ministry. Its secretary Anatoly Kinakh hit at a sore spot when he said that the CIS has lost its economic meaning. “Hundreds of documents have been passed by the CIS, but they are not implemented. The procedure for creating a free trade zone between member states has not been completed,” he recalled.

Yushchenko did not touch on the topic of the CIS directly at the Vilnius summit. But it was clear from his speech at the forum that the CIS is not the future Kiev has in mind. Yushchenko called maximum closeness to NATO and the European Union the main goals of his presidency. “It will be a great honor for me to solve those problems,” he said.

No the honor's ours, Vik. Meanwhile, top Bush administration officials are working on oil agreements with countries like Azerbaijan and Equatorial Guinea -- presumably in an effort to lessen reliance on Russian oil. There's a chill in the air, no?

Link · American Politics | Middle East | Russia | Ukraine · TrackBack (6)

American Politics Archives

The Apple Falls on the Tree

May 5, 2006 06:21 AM

It's May. The flowers are blooming, the birds are singing, and a Kennedy is capturing the attention of law enforcement.

Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy crashed his car into a security barrier near the Capitol early yesterday, and officers at the scene suspected that he might have been intoxicated, a police union official said.

Kennedy (D-R.I.) issued a statement late last night -- his second in several hours -- saying he had been disoriented after taking prescription drugs: Phenergan for gastroenteritis, an inflammation of the stomach and intestines, and Ambien, a sleeping medication....

"The timeliness of the statement says everything," [a police union official] said. "It took up to 10 o clock," or 19 hours after the 2:50 a.m. incident, to offer the expanded explanation.

I sure could have used that kind of time in high school.

Note to Patrick: The story is headlined, "Rep. Kennedy's Car Crashes Near Capitol." There's an alibi in there if you've got the nerve to seize it....

Link · American Politics | Congress · TrackBack (5)

American Politics Archives

Progress?

April 27, 2006 02:58 AM

"The New York Times reported Friday that in addition to possible charges directly involving the revelation of Valerie Wilson's identity and related perjury or conspiracy charges, Fitzgerald is exploring other possible crimes. Specifically, according to the Times, the special counsel is seeking to determine whether anyone transmitted classified material or information to persons who were not cleared to receive it -- which could be a felony under the 1917 Espionage Act....[snip]

All such speculation about criminal indictments must be tempered with caution. Nobody outside Fitzgerald's office can be certain what charges he is considering or whose fate he is mulling over. Even the highest-ranking figures in the Bush White House, which would deprive others of their constitutional rights and has already done so, deserve the presumption of innocence.

But certain persons in this government committed a serious offense against the national security of the United States to serve political partisan ends -- and they don't deserve to get away with it." - Joe Conason, Salon.com 10/7/05

***

"The Justice Department has warned that its leak investigations may result in subpoenas to reporters, seeking to force them to expose their sources. Leading Republicans on Capitol Hill have urged that anyone who discloses or publishes classified information should be hauled before a grand jury.

And certain figures in the media have amplified those threats, notably including the virtue guru, superpatriot and degenerate gambler William Bennett. He thinks Ms. Priest and James Risen, the New York Times correspondent who broke the story of warrantless wiretapping by the National Security Agency, should be given prison sentences, not prizes.

Despite such confident denunciations from the right, however, determining which leaks are bad and which are good can be a murky process." - Joe Conason, NYO 5/1/06

Link · American Politics | Journalism | News Media · TrackBack (18)

American Politics Archives

Fool's Paradise

April 25, 2006 11:45 AM

Hop on over to Larry Johnson's blog to see how a sophisticated ex-spook handles complex information, presents arguments -- and responds to criticism. Then take a few moments to contemplate the dangerous ineptitude and hackery our intelligence services have demonstrated over the last couple of decades. Suddenly it's all becoming a bit clearer, isn't it? I think you'll find yourself in agreement with Miss Scarlett....

P.S. If "LJ" seems like such a buffoon, why are you the one driving up his Web traffic? Hah Hah! The joke's on you, see? See? No?

P.P.S. Like any highly trained intelligence professional, LJ deploys casual misogyny and small-dick insults like verbal tear-gas. It burns! Proceed with caution.

[Hat tip: Tom McGuire]

Link · American Politics · TrackBack (3)

American Politics Archives

The Good Fight

April 22, 2006 04:04 AM

One-time Army enlistee Markos "Daily Kos" Moulitsas explains why the military is a terrific opportunity for young folks, just as long as it isn't asked to do, you know, military things.

The military is perhaps the ideal society -- we worked hard but the Army took care of us in return. All our basic needs were met -- housing, food, and medical care. It was as close to a color-blind society as I have ever seen. We looked out for one another. The Army invested in us. I took heavily subsidized college courses and learned to speak German on the Army’s dime. I served with people from every corner of the country. I got to party at the Berlin Wall after it fell and explored Prague in those heady post-communism days. I wasn’t just a tourist; I was a witness to history.

The Army taught me the very values that make us progressives -- community, opportunity, and investment in people and the future....

Lest this sound like an ad for the Army, those were different times, when our men and women weren’t treated as expendable pawns in a neoconservative’s game of Risk. One of the many tragedies of the Iraq War is that the military is no longer a viable option for those needing a boost up the socio-economic ladder, making college a possibility, granting people the confidence and experience that has paid such huge dividends for countless veterans.

Daily Kos and Crashing the Gate, my co-authored book, would not exist without the confidence and experience I gained in the military. Yet I wouldn’t enlist in today’s world. I look forward to the day that military service is once again a viable alternative for people like the person I used to be.

Oh, but that military does exist. It's currently defending Canada from an American invasion.

Link · American Politics | War on Terror · TrackBack (1)

American Politics Archives

They love not to know

April 17, 2006 03:59 AM

The NYT officially enters the farce era of its narrative arc with yesterday's editorial endorsement of, well, ignorance.

Mr. Bush did not declassify the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq — in any accepted sense of that word — when he authorized I. Lewis Libby Jr., through Vice President Dick Cheney, to talk about it with reporters. He permitted a leak of cherry-picked portions of the report. The declassification came later....

Obviously, we do not object to government officials talking to reporters about important matters that their bosses do not want discussed. It would be impossible to cover any administration, especially one so secretive as this, unless that happened. (Judith Miller, who then worked for The Times, was one of the reporters Mr. Libby chose for this leak, although she never wrote about it.) But the version of the facts that Mr. Libby was authorized to divulge was so distorted that it seems more like disinformation than any sincere attempt to inform the public. [Emphases mine]

Oh dear. So the Times would prefer no information at all to "cherry-picked" information that is not declassified in an "accepted sense of that word." Even when the information would otherwise be kept secret, or could shed new light on a president's decision to go to war. The Times will just curse the darkness, thank you very much.

Let's put aside the question of accuracy. (The information, cherry-picked or otherwise, was in fact an accurate reflection of the intelligence community's consensus on Iraq at the time. The NIE just happens to have been wrong.) Does the Times really believe there are disinterested sources in the political world who, out of the goodness of their hearts (presumably), set aside time to leak complete, unbiased and otherwise secret information to reporters? Perhaps the editorialists consult an oracle. Or manatees! (link to video)

The unhappy reality is that there are sources who basically give you the full picture... and then there is the source who doesn't reveal that he was recommended for an intelligence mission by his wife, who works at the CIA in the very area he was sent to investigate. He also doesn't tell you that he serves as an unpaid adviser to one of the incumbent president's potential challengers in the next election, and uses your credulity to press his agenda. And when he is later revealed to have all the credibility of a carnival barker, your decision to believe him makes you look foolish. Yes, that's the type of source that can really burn you. At least reporters knew where Libby was coming from....

Link · American Politics | Iraq | Journalism | News Media · TrackBack (3)

American Politics Archives

lindbergh et al

April 12, 2006 09:01 AM

Yesterday, James Taranto of Opinion Journal noted [first item] that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette had published a defense, by former ambassador Edward Peck, of the much-disparaged Mearsheimer-Walt "working paper." That document, as you will recall, argues that insidious Jews and the Israel Lobby control the U.S. government and have steered policymaking away from American interests in order to serve Israel's. So it should come as no surprise that a "Holocaust revisionist" named Mark Weber, the author of an anti-Semitic flyer posted recently on Harvard's campus [second Taranto item], says its content "makes some of the same points as are made in the 81 page paper by [Kennedy School Academic Dean M. Stephen] Walt and [University of Chicago professor John J.] Mearsheimer."

All of which leads me to ask: Is there anything to the fact that all these gentlemen have Germanic surnames?

Link · American Politics | Europe | Israel | Jews | Middle East · TrackBack (5)

American Politics Archives

could these events be unrelated?

April 4, 2006 07:21 AM

On March 29, a vast segment of humanity, from Brazil to Mongolia, witnessed a rare total eclipse of the sun.

Meanwhile in Washington, just three days later, a similar orbital alignment took shape. (My emphases to follow.)

[Rep. Cynthia] McKinney, speaking at a news conference where she was joined by singer Harry Belafonte and actor Danny Glover, said she understands that a case against her may be referred for prosecution, but declared she will be exonerated.

Let's see: Total eclipse occurs, then Belafonte, Glover and McKinney appear at the same podium all at once.... We've been shown two of the Seven Seals! We're doomed!

But hey, at least McKinney hasn't signed the Congressional oath for access to classified information, which would enable her to view highly sensitive national security intelligence and thus hasten the apocalypse.... Update: Noooooooo!

I leave at nightfall for my small, fortified cabin in the mountains, where I will await the Resurrection of Tupac....

Link · American Politics | Congress · TrackBack (29)

American Politics Archives

BDS: The Dumberator

March 4, 2006 09:19 PM

Not really interested in the Katrina hype. The AP has clarified that "topping" and "breaching" are not the same thing. Score one for the English language. Still, there's an angle yet missing from the denouement of this latest tempest: the kinetic, maniac ignorance caused by Bush Derangement Syndrome. Really, is there anyone beside Chimpy W. Bushitlerburton who could cause ordinary denizens of the Anglosphere to miss the distinction between these two words? I suspect that if the situation were reversed, and it was Bush who confused "topping" and "breaching," we'd be hearing a lot about someone being an idiot....

Link · American Politics | News Media · TrackBack (2)

American Politics Archives

A special day

February 22, 2006 09:07 AM

Today I clicked the link to a column by "Joe Conason" -- the name given the IBM supercomputer that spits out predictably artless calumnies with assembly-line regularity -- without having any idea in advance of what it would argue. A fool I was! I should have gone with my first hunch, which was that "Joe Conason" sees the port deal as a sign that President Bush is sucking up to autocratic Arab regimes on behalf of his oil buddies. My misstep was in assuming that "Joe Conason" would have condemned President Bush for "Islamophobia" if he had blocked the deal -- ergo, by not standing in the way, Bush was playing admirably "against type," as they say. In such an instance, I reckoned, the computer might opt to follow a strategy of considered misdirection in order to make its next move less predictable. But in choosing this assumption, I neglected to take into account the basic flaw in "Joe Conason's" design: It will always take the shortest route to condemnation. Of course, it's possible that I am being misdirected by this lack of misdirection....

Link · American Politics | Middle East | News Media | War on Terror · Comments (0) · TrackBack (3)

American Politics Archives

What precedent, exactly?

February 21, 2006 06:51 AM

The people's search engine, Google, fails to penetrate the distinguished editorial offices of Vanity Fair.

192 | DRESSED TO KILL Breaking precedent, George W. Bush has used military audiences, backdrops, and costumes to sell his war. James Wolcott probes the commander in chief's armed-forces fetish. Photo composite by Michael Elins. -- Vanity Fair [My Emphasis]

Hey, y'all. Can I ask you to keep a secret from James Wolcott?

Beneath this hat I am invisible to James Wolcott

So, lookit. A priest, a rabbi and James Wolcott walk into this bar...

Oh, her? We're just friends

If Wolcott asks, that is not a fighter jet behind me, and none of you are in the military

Your first mission is to get. me. re-elected

Anyway, I told Wolcott y'all were gondoliers

Checkit. This flight jacket deflects Wolcott's editors

Link · American Politics | News Media · Comments (0) · TrackBack (8)

American Politics Archives

Your tax dollars at play

February 16, 2006 11:31 PM

Sure, the EastCoast/WestCoast rivalry in hip-hop may help explain the murders of prominent rappers such as Tupac Shakur and Biggie Smalls. But what explains the EastCoast/WestCoast rivalry? The voters of Georgia's 4th Congressional District sent Cynthia McKinney (D-EastCoast) to Congress to find out.

(Note: The following exchange is excerpted from a real interview. Seriously. No, I'm not kidding.)

ThugLifeArmy.com - After the records are released then what would be the next course of action by you and others?

Rep. Cynthia McKinney - Some records are already released that throw doubt on the officially unsolved murder of Tupac and the police version of the death. It seems clear that Tupac, who came from a family of very militant Black Panther activists, would himself have been followed and surveilled if not attacked by the FBI and their counter-gang programs. In the past this sort of surveillance was called COINTELPRO or Counter-Intelligence Program and aimed at peace, civil rights and militant activists who were working for social change. It not only surveilled people but it infiltrated groups with informants and provocateurs, created fights within groups, spread rumors about leaders, and created the conditions that led to political assassination, framing and imprisonment or destruction of progressive organizations. Senator Frank Church and others held hearings in the 1970s that exposed and made illegal some of the excesses of the FBI, CIA and military intelligence agencies. Soon Church and others on his committee were voted out of office with the help of intelligence agency support for other candidates. Even before 9/11 ongoing programs against Central America activists and youth culture musicians and leaders that looked exactly like COINTELPRO were exposed. After 9/11 Atty General Ashcroft and others called to renew the powers of COINTELPRO and even tried to pretend 9/11 happened because the CIA. FBI and DIA had their hands tied behind their backs the the Church committee rules. If the released records reveal that federal, state and local government agencies and police were violating Tupac's rights or setting the stage for his murder, there should be an outcry for a full investigation, criminal charges, demotions or firings of intelligence agents involved, and a change in the power of intelligence agencies to continue these practices. [Emphases mine]

Yes, indeed. How many more rappers must die before we clean up our intelligence services?

Of course, when "setting the stage" for a political assassination, it helps to have for a target a loud-mouthed, pistol waving jackass with the words THUG LIFE tattooed across his belly. Hell, I'd whack him, and without any prodding from the government.

Side note: Can you imagine being demoted for your role in the Tupac Shakur murder? Can you imagine joining the intelligence services only to find that you've been assigned to the Gangsta Rappers desk? Can you imagine that Tupac Shakur must be killed, but Chuck D still walks the streets? Has Chuck D complained?

You might ponder these questions as you fill out your application for the Citizens Advisory Committee -- but only if you're black! The rest of you just wouldn't understand....

Link · American Politics | Congress | History | News Media · Comments (0) · TrackBack (87)

American Politics Archives

An American Rebel in London

February 11, 2006 09:52 AM

George Clooney reveals his newest screenplay to the Guardian of London:

INT: SUMPTUOUS MALIBU MANSION -- NIGHT

Cocktail party at the home of a very wealthy and powerful industrialist. The finest of everything: LOUIS XVI would not feel out-of-place here. WE CAN HEAR the buzz of noisy conversation, punctuated by sudden bursts of galing laughter. Men clad in tuxedos stand in small clusters about the room, smoking long cigars and chatting amiably. Gorgeous, kittenish women in extravagant floor-length evening gowns weave among the guests, stopping here and there for air-kisses with old acquaintances. White-gloved waiters deliver trays of hors d'oevres and flutes of champagne. OUR ATTENTION IS DRAWN to a photograph, perched prominently on a lamp table, that shows GEORGE W. BUSH shaking hands with a MAN IN A TUXEDO who is presumably this party's host. CAMERA PANS UP from the photo to reveal CLOONEY, surrounded by a knot of inquisitors.

CLOONEY (V.O.)

I was at a party the other night and it was all these hardcore Republicans and these guys are like...

FAT CAT #1

C'mon big Hollywood star, Why do you hate your country?

CLOONEY (WITH SMIRK)

I love my country.

The inquisitors erupt with laughter. WE CAN HEAR scattered mutterings such as "Oh, come on, Clooney" and "Let's be serious here."

FAT CAT #2 (BREAKING IN)

Why, at a time of war, would you criticise it then?

The smirk disappears. Suddenly, CLOONEY looks deadly serious. He wheels to address FAT CAT #2 directly, his eyes flashing rage.

CLOONEY (POINTING AT MAN)

My country right or wrong means women don't vote, black people sit in the back of buses and we're still in Vietnam. My country right or wrong means we don't have the New Deal.

FAT CAT #2, feeling uncomfortable now, looks down at the floor.

CLOONEY (CONT.)

I mean, what, are you crazy? My country, right or wrong? It's not your right, it's your duty. Where was I wrong, schmuck?

A GASP rises from the group. The lecture begins drawing the attention of other guests, who step closer or crane their necks to hear.

CLOONEY (WITH PASSION)

In 2003 I was saying, where are the ties between Iraq and al-Qaida? Where are the ties to 9/11? I knew it. Where the fuck were these Democrats who said, 'We were misled'? That's the kind of thing that drives me crazy: 'We were misled.' Fuck you, you weren't misled. You were afraid of being called unpatriotic.

Silence falls over the group, but only for a moment. As the din of conversation begins to build again in the room, WE CAN HEAR affirmative murmurs, along with phrases such as "He's right, you know," and "It makes sense when he says it," and "If only we had listened."

CUT TO:

EXT: STREETS OF MALIBU -- NIGHT

Still wearing his tux, Clooney roars off into the darkness aboard his Harley, a beautiful gal (CLEARLY REPUBLICAN - luxuriant red hair; fur stoll; diamond earrings) draped over his shoulders. Neither is wearing a helmet....

Link · American Politics | Humor | News Media | War on Terror · Comments (1) · TrackBack (48)

American Politics Archives

The 'P' is for Pedant

January 29, 2006 05:43 PM

Charles P. Pierce reviews the new Carville/Begala effort in The American Prospect, and somehow manages to out-gasbag his subjects. His point seems to be that many Democrats are Catholic and too cozy with Republicans who are "bad people" and that includes Tucker Carlson but especially Bob Novak and Pericles lived in the Ozarks not Greece and Pythagoras was maybe not Catholic but abused crystal meth with Don Imus and Eric Alterman will somehow be able to explain these things to people who are too thick to understand what Charles is trying to say. (Where do I get on line?) And then there's homework:

However, you will be interested to know [from Carville/Begala], for example, that, "Many liberals share the conceit that they are intellectually superior." Really? Who? Name one.

Ooh, this is going to be tough. But I like a challenge! I guess I'll start with the folks commuting in from Bethesda with "Vote Republican: It's Easier Than Thinking" affixed to the rear bumper of their Volvo S-Series. Then I'll begin making my way west to Aspen.... Is there a prize?

Link · American Politics | News Media · Comments (0) · TrackBack (1)

American Politics Archives

Picture. Thousand Words.

January 12, 2006 08:21 AM

Link · American Politics · Comments (0) · TrackBack (9)

American Politics Archives

Investigative Reporters Defined Out of Existence

November 13, 2005 07:45 AM

Jack Shafer in Slate:

Last night on Larry King Live, [Judy] Miller once again blamed "faulty intelligence" for her "handful" of flawed stories, neglecting to explain that real investigative reporters aren't passive conduits for intelligence but skeptical analysts of it. [Emphasis added]

This is patent nonsense. If this were in fact the case, we'd lose every investigative reporter who took Joe Wilson's word about what he "found" (but, alas, didn't find) in Africa. Skeptical analysts? Journalists such as The Nation's David Corn, in spite of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, still covers the Wilson/Plame affair as if its protagonist has not been roundly discredited, and as if his wife was still some kind of top-secret foreign operative, rather than a CIA bureaucrat who did in fact recommend her husband for the Niger assignment. (Corn now wants to know whether VP Cheney "outed" her. Oy vey!) Given Corn's penchant for nitpickery in all other matters (witness this bit of pedantry), he's awfully generous with a source who has taken him for a fool.

Like it or not, the disclosure of raw intelligence is often both the sum and substance of investigative reporting in Washington. I don't recall there being much "skeptical analysis" after "United States intelligence officials" (hmmmm) revealed that Ahmad Chalabi had betrayed important intelligence to Iran. In spite of this apparent misdeed, Chalabi went to Washington last week to meet privately with top Bush administration officials, who evidently let the whole Iran thing slide. (Hey, what's one intelligence leak to a theocratic state with nuclear ambitions between friends?) If you're a betting man, would you wager that those initial Chalabi reports were accurate? I'll take that bet.

Yet there's a glaring logical absurdity to Shafer's argument, as well. Here's Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA man who was the Clinton administration's Iraq expert on the National Security Council:

US analysts were not alone in these views [that Iraq had WMD capabilities]. In the late spring of 2002 I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly 20 former inspectors from the UN Special Commission (Unscom), established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did.

Other nations' intelligence services were similarly aligned with US views. Somewhat remarkably, given how adamantly Germany would oppose the war, the German Federal Intelligence Service held the bleakest view of all, arguing that Iraq might be able to build a nuclear weapon within three years. Israel, Russia, Britain, China, and even France held positions similar to that of the US; Jacques Chirac told Time magazine last February: "There is a problem - the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq." No one doubted that Iraq had WMD. [Emphasis added]

So let's see. One investigative reporter at the New York Times is supposed to know more about Saddam's WMD capabilities than Pollack and Unscom, to say nothing of Jacques Chirac? Those suspicions were built on decades of accumulated context, including actual use of poison gas and rampant, repeated deceitfulness on WMD matters. On what basis, then, would Miller dispute the veracity of the reports? Better yet, suppose Miller had instead cast doubt on reports that Saddam's Iraq was pocked with mass graves and jails filled with children? CNN kept a reporter in Baghdad for years without even a whisper of atrocity. Last time I checked, Jane Arraf was still working.

My guess is that Miller believed she had cultivated sources who could -- and, to her mind, did -- get her inside the story that everyone in the world knew to be true: that Saddam had continued on with his WMD programs in spite of international sanctions. Anyhow, I suspect her real crime is being hated. She works at a job where jealousies are rich and egos are big, and where Miller has always, in one way or another, been despised by her colleagues. She made a perfect scapegoat for those who wish to believe that, but for this lone reporter, Saddam could still be on his throne, and we could still be wringing our hands in dismay over what to do about it. Now she's out of a job, and perhaps Shafer and her other pursuers are on their way to Reportopia. But the only people who are being truly dishonest in this matter are those who now suggest that evidence of Saddam's malfeasance -- with or without Judy Miller -- was not overwhelming.

Link · American Politics | News Media

American Politics Archives

Thinking out loud

October 4, 2005 02:01 AM

The Miers nomination seems so perfectly ill-conceived that one suspects it must be designed to fail. The perfect winning strategy! (hlm: You mean Bush wins by losing? No, Bush wins by appearing to want to lose. Democrats won't give him the satisfaction! hlm: That's too clever by half. Here, I'll let them tell you. Hey fellas, come over and explain your secret winning strategy on the Miers nomination to my friend hlm here! Uh, fellas? Fellas? hlm: By the way, you know this narrative device is a shameless rip-off of Kausfiles, don't you? Hey, martial artists still repeat the movements first practiced by the ancient Shaolin masters. Must each new generation invent karate?)

Link · American Politics

American Politics Archives

The Hammer Comes Down

September 29, 2005 01:08 PM

I think John Dickinson, in Slate, has this about right. Several years ago I asked a high-ranking House Republican why the party was providing only meager resources to the GOP candidates challenging Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia and then-Rep. Earl Hilliard of Alabama. At the time both were contending that their opponents were stalking horses for a powerful and well-organized Jewish cabal in Washington -- yes, kind of like the one that later forced President Bush to invade Iraq in order to protect Israel and blah blah blah. Since I figured that nutters make good targets for the opposition, I wondered why the Republicans had made no effort to unseat them. The GOP lawmaker explained, basically, that Hilliard and McKinney were less useful to the party on the outside than they were on the inside. Along with a few other culprits, McKinney and Hilliard were enabling the GOP to make its first serious inroads in the Jewish community, the lawmaker pointed out. I expect the Democrats will hate to lose Tom DeLay (though, of course, he'll be cryogenically preserved in the party's direct-mail appeals to contributors).

But here's something to watch.... Some will recall that a few years ago the House Democrats, through their campaign committee, filed a civil RICO suit against DeLay, alleging illegal coordination with various political entities. They eventually withdrew the suit. Here's the thing, though: As any Democrat involved in that affair will tell you -- if he is being honest -- DeLay wasn't the real target of the suit. The actual target was the so-called donor community -- the people who give the big money in Washington and across the country. DeLay had cultivated (if that's the word) this community -- comprised mostly of corporate representatives and lobbyists -- to the point where many in the donor comunity felt obligated to support to GOP and its key candidates (and at the same time shun the Democrats). The Democrats reckoned that a civil suit against DeLay -- or, more precisely, the discovery phase of that suit -- would spook this community of givers. As with anything that might rile shareholders, Corporate America would naturally be concerned by the prospect of being dragged into a court proceeding that might reveal vulnerabilities to competitors, and perhaps even some unsavory activity in the political sphere. I assume DeLay is now radioactive to these givers, for the reasons given above. But if that's the case, Republicans would likely lose millions of dollars DeLay would otherwise raise for their campaigns. And that -- his ability discipline contributors -- is the real source of his power. So what happens if and when the money dries up? If House Republicans stick with him then, we'll know he's holding their children hostage somewhere.

Link · American Politics

American Politics Archives

Can't...resist...cheap shot. Arghh!

September 7, 2005 08:12 PM

Assurances from some quarters that all federal spending is divided between two mason jars marked "Iraq War" and "Urgent Priorities" have unleashed my quarrelsome Inner Scoundrel.

As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Landrieu is a strong and effective voice for Louisiana.... In addition, she serves on several appropriations subcommittees of great importance to Louisiana, including Agriculture, Labor, Health and Education, and Military Construction. Senator Landrieu is ranking member [senior Democrat] of the District of Columbia Subcommittee and works to be a voice for so many who have no vote in Congress. [Emphasis mine] link

Bully for her! As it happens, the Senator's subcommittee managed to ready a bill for a vote in the full Senate long before Katrina hit. Shall we have a look at the report language?

The Committee recommends $3,000,000 to continue to implement the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative, which is $24,000 below the fiscal year 2005 enacted level and $2,000,000 below the President's budget request. These funds will support the construction of a multi-use hiker and biker trail system along both sides of the Anacostia River in the District of Columbia. This recreational amenity and transportation alternative will help connect neighborhoods and transform the Anacostia River into a great civic center for the city. The Committee understands that the 20-mile interconnected trail network will provide pedestrian and bicycle-friendly access to the shores of the Anacostia River and will serve to connect the regional trail system in Maryland to the National Mall. With alternative corridors and loops to choose from, users of the trail will find a variety of experiences and connections to other regional and national trails, including Fort Circle Trail, Bladensburg Trail, the East Coast Greenway and the Potomac Heritage Scenic Trail. [Emphasis mine]

So there's $3 million right there that won't go toward building levees in New Orleans -- or to the Iraq War, for that matter. There's more:

The Committee recommends $5,000,000...to implement the Combined Sewer Overflow Program. This is $238,000 more than the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2005. The President requested no funds for this purpose.... Because of its age and capacity contraints, the system discharges sanitary waste and storm-water into the surrounding rivers approximately 60-75 times per year during heavy rains. [Emphasis mine]

Okay, make that $8 million. But of course, we all know about those violent D.C. storms....

Link · American Politics

American Politics Archives

The Purse-String's Pockets

September 7, 2005 05:33 AM

In Slate, Hitchens makes an important point that seems to have gotten lost in the debate over the federal government's culpability in the Katrina disaster.

The Constitution is clear on this point: The president doesn't control the purse. An administration cannot spend money that has not been voted. A huge sum of money was voted by Congress, almost unanimously as I recall, for the reconstruction of Iraq. It was felt that we had a national interest in preventing an important state in another Gulf from collapsing into beggary and terror and anarchy. If you want a scandal to investigate, ask yourself why so little of that money has actually yet been spent. But if it had been, or was being, don't delude yourself for one moment that those dollars were stolen from Bourbon Street.

I guess I'd put this more simply: Congressional appropriations is not a particularly enlightened process. (In fact, if it were, computers would probably do a better job of it than elected lawmakers....) In a nutshell, the spending process is controlled by Members of Congress who have been selected by colleagues to set priorities and make decisions about where the money goes. With this comes an enormous amount of power -- including the power to overrule every single spending recommendation made by the president's administration. This is why the military is routinely provided with equipment it says it doesn't need (while being denied equipment it wants), and why rural West Virginia has pristine highways no one uses. You can bet that while New Orleans has been denied money it has needed for the levees, most every half-baked plan that could be devised by Alaska or West Virginia -- homes to former approps chair Ted Stevens and the committee's top Democrat, Robert Byrd, respectively -- has been getting the funding it's needed.

Which brings up another significant point, I think. If Lousiana Senator Mary Landrieu, who sits on the Appropriations Committee, couldn't make her case to these chumps -- even as she remains one of the Democratic Party's most vulnerable incumbents -- that's her problem, not the administration's. Maybe she ought to punch herself.

Link · American Politics

American Politics Archives

Congressional Mystery Theater

August 28, 2005 10:02 AM

I'm not completely sure what to make of this. But there are a few superficially striking aspects to it. The first is that iGate's contributions are limited to just two lawmakers -- William Jefferson and Loretta Sanchez -- in one election cycle ('04), according to the Center for Responsive Politics. None of the company's four U.S. offices is located in either Member's district. And neither lawmaker sits on a committee whose agenda would overlap with the company's needs in the natural flow of Congressional business. Not that it makes much difference anyhow: The company is not registered to lobby Congress. In my experience, corporate political action committees don't ordinarily contribute to lawmakers who are outside their "zone": districts where the company operates; committees where the company has specific needs; the Congressional leadership. (PACs are built on employee contributions, and are thus expected to act in employee interests.) And PACs certainly don't leave the zone to contribute to two Members of the minority party in the House. As a wise House Speaker once said (and I paraphrase), "The role of the minority in the House is to make a quorum and draw a paycheck." And one more odd thing about iGate: The company never seems to have registered a PAC, which would make the Jefferson and Sanchez gifts ($8,000 apiece) illegal. If anyone can find information to dispute this, I'd be happy to make a correction, but I've looked everywhere. One possible lead... Jefferson and Sanchez are both active in minority outreach for the Democrats; iGate is a federally certified Minority-Owned Business. This might at least explain how they all know one another.

Link · American Politics

American Politics Archives

Anarchist Puppy Slayer Attacks!

August 27, 2005 08:10 AM

The New Zealand Herald shows America's "controversial new ambassador" to the United Nations, five seconds before he chewed the leg off a nearby buffet table at the commissary.

Link · American Politics

American Politics Archives

Bush Rebukes Robertson, Says Original Recipe Beats Extra Crispy

August 24, 2005 07:07 AM

The AP's Anne Gearan discovers that even two kooks can disagree now and then.

WASHINGTON - There's an old Southern saying that you dance with the one that brung ya, but as the Bush administration found out this week, sometimes you don't want to dance too close. The administration quickly distanced itself Tuesday from the suggestion by religious broadcaster and Bush backer Pat Robertson that the United States assassinate a leftist Latin American head of state. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called Robertson's remarks about Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez "inappropriate," but stopped short of condemning them.

"This is not the policy of the United States government," McCormack said. "We do not share his views."

The Bush administration does share many of Robertson's views on other matters, such as stem cell research, and Robertson's largely conservative, evangelical audience overlaps with the core of Bush's political base....[snip]

In other AP news, Bush may not believe that a witches' brew of pagans, homosexuals and ACLU lawyers doomed the country to terrorist attack on Sept. 11.

Link · American Politics · TrackBack (66)