SMILING THROUGH OUR TEARS

Well, it looks like Bush will be able to crow tonight over his new Supreme Court member, Sam Alito – and put his weepy wife next to the First Lady in the SOTU audience. Hey Martha, turn those tears into a smile

The Democrats' attempt at a filibuster falls ‘way short (two votes, huh?). So, now here’s the debate – was it a good thing or not to have tried?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008114.php
[Kevin Drum] The lefty blogosphere has spent the last week trying to fire up support for a filibuster of Samuel Alito. This campaign was never likely to succeed, and today it failed as expected. But that's not all: it failed by the embarrassingly lopsided margin of 72-25. . . I'm glad the filibuster took place, because even in failure it puts a marker down for future court fights. Still, even given the amateurish way that Senate Dems handled it, I expected it to get more than 25 votes. So here's today's assignment: In 5,000 words or less, what does this say about the influence of the lefty blogosphere?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_29_digbysblog_archive.html#113867908339927928
[Digby] I didn't expect it to get more than 25 votes and I'm frankly stunned that we did as well as we did. Indeed, something very interesting happened that I haven't seen in more than a decade.

When it became clear that the vote was going against the filibuster, Diane Feinstein, a puddle of lukewarm water if there ever was one, decided to backtrack and play to the base instead of the right wing. That's new folks. Given an opportunity to make an easy vote, until now she and others like her (who are legion) would always default to the right to prove their "centrist" bonafides. That's the DLC model. When you have a free vote always use it to show that you aren't liberal. That's why she was against it originally --- a reflexive nod to being "reasonable."

Obama had to choke out his support for a filibuster, but he did it. A calculation was made that he needed to play to the base instead of the punditocrisy who believe that being "bold" is voting with the Republicans. Don't underestimate how much pressure there is to do that, especially for a guy like Obama who is running for King of the Purple. The whole presidential club, including Biden joined the chorus.

The last time we had a serious outpouring from the grassroots was the Iraq War resolution. . .

I keep hearing that it's bad that these Senators "pandered" to the blogosphere and I don't understand it. We want them to pander to the blogosphere. . . It isn't actually pandering. It's responsiveness. I believe that there is finally a recognition that the Party has hit the wall. We have moved as far to the right as we can go and we have been as accommodating as we can be without thoroughly compromising our fundamental principles. Most of us are not "far left" if that means extreme policy positions. Indeed, many of us would have been seen as middle of the road not all that long ago. We are partisans and that's a different thing all together. The leadership is recognising this.

I know it hurts to lose this one. I won't say that I'm not disappointed. But it was a very long shot from the outset and we managed to make some noise and get ourselves heard. The idea that it is somehow a sign of weakness because we only got 25 members of the Senate, including the entire leadership, to vote to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee is funny to me. Two years ago I would have thought somebody was on crack if they even suggested it was possible.

. . . This is a dramatic moment for the netroots. Get ready for marginalization, evocations of 1968 and 1972, calls for purging us from the party, the whole thing. That's what happens when the citizens rise up. Don't let it shake your will. We are the heart of the Democratic party and we can make a difference.

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2006_01_29_firedoglake_archive.html#113867195405228177
[Jane Hamsher] The Judiciary Committee hearings on Alito were a real eye opener for me and I think for many others as well. Not so much because the members of the committee were in such disarray -- that's been going on for a long time -- but because as we sat here together and watched them collectively I got a sense in reading the comments that some seismic shift was happening, that people finally realized that enough was enough. Something had to be done, someone had to start agitating for change and it wasn't going to come from within the Democratic establishment. . . [read on]

More post-mortems: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/30/18174/0900

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/30/175352/650

The 25: http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_29_atrios_archive.html#113867351946273278

One bit of SC hope (an article for fee, unfortunately, unless you are an Atlantic subscriber): guess who is the most influential SC judge, and the best at forging five-vote coalitions? It isn’t Roberts, and it sure isn’t Scalia. . .

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200601/john-roberts

“Kick Me, I’m a Democrat”

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_29_digbysblog_archive.html#113869134217892362

Perhaps Bush could spend his State of the Union address explaining all the broken promises of his previous SOTU addresses

Broken promises: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0601310163jan31,1,7365261.story?page=2

What you WON’T hear: http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&refer=columnist_sperling&sid=afEwQxAXRHv4

Ten things Bush won’t tell you about the State of the Union: http://www.juancole.com/2006/01/top-ten-things-bush-wont-tell-you.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/01/30/BL2006013000603.html
[Dan Froomkin] No one in Washington seems to be expecting much new substance from President Bush's State of the Union address tomorrow night. So the big questions have more to do with tone. . . Will the speech consist mostly of optimistic swagger -- or will there also be humility about the things that have gone awry?

Deficits to come

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/30/143420/259
[Heritage Foundation] The deficit will reach $394 billion in 2006;
$412 billion in 2007;
$428 billion in 2008;
$436 billion in 2009;
$458 billion in 2010; and
$805 billion in 2015.

Well, you have to give them credit. The Bush/Cheney administration follows through on one of its major campaign promises

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0601310159jan31,1,1265817.story
Largest. Profit. Ever.
Exxon Mobil Corp.'s announcement Monday that it amassed a stunning $36.1 billion profit in 2005--the biggest single-year profit ever for a U.S. company--could complicate Republicans' efforts to maintain control of Congress because of their longstanding ties to the oil industry. . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/31/business/31exxon.html
Exxon Mobil, aided by strong energy prices, disclosed Monday that it had set a record for profits among American companies, reporting $36 billion in annual income. But while most companies would be proud to trumpet record profits, Exxon Mobil did everything it could to play down the news. . .

Reporting from Iraq: Christiane Amanpour

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002729.html
"The Iraq war has been a disaster. It's a spiraling security disaster," Amanpour explains to Larry King. "It just gets worse and worse."

The Bush gang has put out the story that the NSA debate is a “winner” for them, and the media dutifully echoes that he has already “won” the argument on illegal spying. I say, “bring it on”

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601300005

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/30/133828/230

[NB: Classic Rovean politics – embrace your failures and spin them as successes]

More: http://www.ericumansky.com/2006/01/the_whs_nsa_blu.html
[Anonymous Liberal] Why bluff so aggressively? [G]iven the weakness of its legal position, you would expect the administration to be making some attempt to mitigate the long term fallout of this scandal, perhaps by attempting to moot the issue by seeking congressional authorization for the program. Sure, the administration would take some lumps in the short term by implicitly admitting that it overstepped its authority, but better that than a stinging judicial rebuke down the road.

[Eric Umansky] Answer: They know they're going to lose in court; they are just trying to keep the public on the side on the meantime to avoid the Armageddon scenario: having the Dems gain control of Congress, after which the subpoenas would start flying.

February 6: the NSA hearings start, and Glenn Greenwald has really done his homework

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/questioning-attorney-general.html
The focus of the questioning will be the legal justifications for the Administration’s decision to eavesdrop on Americans without the judicial oversight and approval required by FISA. The operational aspects of the eavesdropping program -- i.e., what type of eavesdropping was engaged in, the reasons why it was necessary to eavesdrop outside of FISA, etc. -- will be investigated by the Senate Intelligence Committee, in as-yet-unscheduled hearings to take place in both opened and closed session. . .

The Senate Judiciary Committee did not exactly display great skill and acumen in questioning witnesses during the Alito hearings. As a result, there is substantial concern about whether its members will ask the necessary and relevant questions of the Attorney General, and more importantly, whether they will do so in a way (including with follow-ups and documentation) which will elicit and reveal the Administration’s real theories of its own power, and highlight the contradictions underlying those theories, as opposed to simply allowing the Attorney General to breezily recite pre-prepared talking points without really being challenged.

I believe we should not leave it up to the members of the Judiciary Committee -- again -- to decide for themselves which questions will be asked. . .

Ten questions

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/questions-1-5.html

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/questions-6-10.html

There’s no question about it: Gonzales lied during his confirmation hearings

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/30/AR2006013001318.html

You know, sometimes “conspiracy theories” are correct – when there IS a conspiracy

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2006/01/conspiracy_theories_are_made_of_stuff_like_this.html
[Secrecy News] The Mystery of the Two James Baker Statements: In a 2002 statement presented to the Senate Intelligence Committee, James A. Baker of the Justice Department Office of Intelligence Policy and Review questioned the constitutionality and the necessity of a proposal by Senator Mike DeWine to lower the legal threshold for domestic intelligence surveillance of non-U.S. persons from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion."

But for yet unknown reasons, Mr. Baker's remarkable statement is found in two distinct versions.

"If we err in our analysis and courts were ultimately to find a 'reasonable suspicion' standard unconstitutional, we could potentially put at risk ongoing investigations and prosecutions," Mr. Baker said in the more expansive version of his statement.

Moreover, "If the current standard has not posed an obstacle, then there may be little to gain from the lower standard and, as I previously stated, perhaps much to lose."

Yet even as Mr. Baker was expressing concerns about lowering the probable cause threshold, the government was doing precisely that in the NSA domestic surveillance activity.

Baker's testimony was highlighted last week by blogger Glenn Greenwald and cited in the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Strangely, however, the testimony in which Mr. Baker presented those concerns cannot be found anywhere on the public record except for the Federation of American Scientists web site.

The testimony that is posted on the Senate Intelligence Committee web site does not contain the three paragraphs in which Mr. Baker questions the propriety of going beyond the probable cause standard as proposed by Senator DeWine.

Likewise, only the truncated version of Mr. Baker's testimony was archived in the Nexis database and published by the Government Printing Office in its printed hearing record.

Molly Ivins misses one

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_29_digbysblog_archive.html#113863053768848303
[Molly] I am confounded by the authoritarian streak in the Republican Party backing Bush on this [extensive, illegal spying on Americans]. To me it seems so simple: Would you think this was a good idea if Hillary Clinton were president? Would you be defending the clear and unnecessary violation of the law? Do you have complete confidence that she would never misuse this 'inherent power' for any partisan reason?

[Tristero] Molly, you're assuming that sooner or later there actually will be a Democratic president. Republicans assume that will never, ever happen again. And they're doing everything possible - controlling voting machines, gerrymandering, fraud, blackmail, buying the media - to make sure it doesn't. . .

The next big debate: Health Savings Accounts – another debate we can win

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6483.html

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/1/30/111926/424

WH release of Abramoff information “inevitable”

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/01/30/will_white_house_release_abramoff_docs.html

Let’s see: the 9/11 attack was something that “could not have been anticipated” (even though it was). The insurgency in Iraq “could not have been anticipated” (even though it was). The flooding in New Orleans “could not have been anticipated” (even though it was). You might think these people would have learned to stop using this formulation; but you would be wrong

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2578

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/30/121217/238

Clear as mud: http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2584

FEMA: how stupid can they be?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/30/katrina.fema/index.html
Federal emergency officials failed to accept offers of possibly life-saving aid from the Department of Interior immediately after Hurricane Katrina. . . The Interior Department offered the Federal Emergency Management Agency the use of personnel who were experienced in water rescues and also offered boats, helicopters, heavy equipment and rooms, the documents say.

If the Bush gang insists on covering up Katrina documents to hide their failures, there is only one alternative

http://billsrants.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/01/time_for_an_ind.html
[Bill Kavanagh] It’s time for an independent commission to investigate and report to the nation on the emergency, relief, and recovery effort before, during, and after Hurricane Katrina.

The media seems overly eager to find signs of a Bush “rebound” in popularity (you can be sure they will trumpet one right after the inevitable SOTU “bounce”). But the simple fact is that despite occasional blips, his pattern has been one of overall and steady decline. Yet still we keep hearing about Bush’s great personal popularity

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/30/115325/736

Just read it

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/01/index.html#008989
Over at Huffington Post, Arianna imagines what would happen if Tim Russert grilled members of the Bush administration with the kind of heat Oprah used to fricassee James Frey. . .

Bonus item: Missing your Paul Krugman fix?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/30/51343/5489
"How does one report the facts," asked Rob Corddry on "The Daily Show," "when the facts themselves are biased?" He explained to Jon Stewart, who played straight man, that "facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda," and therefore can't be reported. . . Mr. Corddry's parody of journalists who believe they must be "balanced" even when the truth isn't balanced continues, alas, to ring true. The most recent example is the peculiar determination of some news organizations to cast the scandal surrounding Jack Abramoff as "bipartisan."

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:56 AM

 
LOOKING FOR A MIRACLE

Two votes shy on the filibuster? (according to Buzzflash)

http://www.annatopia.com/archives/001567.html

[NB: This doesn’t fit with what else I’m reading, but there is some sense of a shift within influential quarters – Feinstein, for example. Maybe this could happen after all]

Update: http://www.democrats.com/blog/6

More phone numbers of key swing votes

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/1/29/175612/513

A reasoned case AGAINST the filibuster

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/why-i-oppose-filibuster.html

Making it personal

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_29_digbysblog_archive.html#113859167959664067
[Robert Parry] These insults added a personal element to the decision facing Democratic senators. With Republicans hooting down the Democrats’ last presidential nominee, as well as a longtime Senate colleague, crossing the aisle to support Bush’s Supreme Court nominee suddenly had the bitter taste of an act of political treason. . . [read on]

Three Republicans break ranks, tell Bush to fess up on Abramoff connections

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/politics/29cnd-policy.html

Trouble: http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/1/29/163348/663

What the NSA scandal is (and isn’t) all about

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/29/172323/502
[Larry Johnson] I suppose the average American, one who has never held a security clearance or handled NSA intelligence, is inclined to cut George W. Bush some slack. Only a crazy person would argue that Al Qaeda terrorists have a right of privacy in the United States. But that, my friends, is a canard. The issue is not about giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Instead, does this President, hell, any President, have the right to unilaterally decide what does and does not constitute a threat to national security?. . . .

So what is Bush up to? I see at least two possibilities. First, they may be allowing unfettered data mining on domestic targets without probable cause. An old fashioned "fishing" trip. You cast out a net and pull it in, picking over the contents, and hoping you snared the oyster with the big pearl. This nonsense works in a Tom Clancy novel but not in the real world. Even with the most robust computer power you have no simple way to find "actionable intelligence".

Second, the source of the intel tips is tainted. If you are generating leads from persons being held in secret prisons or if the info is obtained thru torture, then it makes it difficult to make a truthful declaration before a judge. Why not lie to the FISA court? That's called perjury. I suspect this explains the real motive for the refusal of the Bush Administration to go the FISA route.

More: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/29/hagel-criticism/

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/29/84435/0481

Yet another example of perverse mis-framing

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_29_digbysblog_archive.html#113862189880009186

Is the “war on terror” the greatest threat to American security in its history? According to one eminent historian, not even close. . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/28/opinion/28ellis.html

More: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/putting-terrorist-threat-into.html

A very important Newsweek story: how the totalitarians in the Bush admin (Cheney, Addington, etc) overrode the concerns of DOJ professionals about the legality of their policies. Good to be reminded that there were committed people at the Justice Dept, ideology aside, who really did care about the rule of law (and, of course, you can guess what happened to them)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11079547/site/newsweek/

[NB: Also, more evidence of what a useless hack Alberto Gonzales is]

An emerging tendency in the Bush admin: invoke the support of other agencies and laws when they reinforce their policies – even when they are perfectly prepared to ignore and override them if they don’t

http://www.juancole.com/2006/01/bombings-of-churches-bush-and-blair.html
[Juan Cole] Who woulda thunk it? Bush and Blair plotted to go to war against Iraq even if the UN Security Council declined to authorize it. . .

Still more evidence of how the Bush admin is ruining the military – and isn’t it strange (to someone coming of age in the 60’s) that progressives are now the ones pointing this out?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008108.php

Fight the fear

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001210.php

SOTU: no one’s listening

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008109.php

The likeability factor

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_29_atrios_archive.html#113856368973581570

Nationalizing the 2006 election: the Democrats CAN win

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/1/29/183345/698

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/29/112957/952

Let’s be Blunt: will the House leadership race just extend their scandal troubles?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/29/AR2006012900779.html

Bill Frist: not just a liar, but a stupid liar

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013863.html

Bonus item: “A miracle for progressive politics”

http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2006/01/feingold_calls_.html

Bloggers vs reporters: http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/29/17236/8788

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:50 AM

 
WORKING THE REFS

The grassroots push to filibuster Alito: interesting as an example of the political impact of blogs, and very revealing in showing how “democratic” the Democratic party thinks itself to be

The filibuster movement: how to help

http://www.democrats.com/we-can-stop-alito

Phone numbers: http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/1/28/163221/054

[NB: No, I don’t expect that it will happen, but I do believe that pressing the issue is the right thing to do. Is that still relevant to our politics? “Doing the right thing?”]

Jim VandeHei, reliable conduit for GOP talking points, frames this in terms of that tired old chestnut: how the Dems are torn between their radical base and their need to appeal to “moderate” and “crossover” voters (because, you see, Alito is such a “moderate” Supreme Court candidate). But this time the cliché has an intriguing new spin: it’s the bad old bloggers who are pushing the party dangerously to the left

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012701505_pf.html

[NB: Of course, the Post is still stinging over the mean vicious blog attack launched against their ombudsman, Deborah Howell, just a few days ago. I expect to see a lot more “dangerous blogger” stories in the future]

Here’s how cynical our political discourse has become

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_22_digbysblog_archive.html#113847779166787755
[Digby] I just saw a very interesting exchange on FOX News. The designated Democrat was Bob Beckel, the other two were typical faceless wingnut gasbags and I can't remember their names.

When asked how the Democrats could make such a stupid mistake by allowing Kerry to call for a filibuster (the two wingnuts giggling like schoolgirls at the question) Beckel replied something like this (I'm paraphrasing)

"Now you know that in this environment if a Democratic president nominated a pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, pro-government secrecy judge to the high court that many Republicans would want to filibuster. Sometimes politicians do things out of conviction and many Democrats are supporting a filibuster because they really believe that he should not be on the Supreme Court."

The wingnuts were very taken aback by that statement, one of them replying: "Well, that's putting the best possible face on it." . . . [read on]

Some really interesting reactions from those mean old bloggers

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/28/10530/4735

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/28/165811/315

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/1/28/1527/04347

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/1/28/12115/1563

The media narrative: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/28/173240/728

Of course, there are right-wing blogs too: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_22_digbysblog_archive.html#113840480202253520
[Digby] How can that be, we wonder? Why, after all these years of being called every name in the book by the conservatives, can the "so-called liberal media" be upset when the liberals use very mild tactics in comparison to what has been happening on the right? . . . [read on]

[NB: There is something fascinating and important going on here. The press expects, and has gotten accustomed to, attacks from the right. As copiously documented here and in Media Matters and elsewhere, they are continually bending over backwards to accommodate conservative perspectives – CNN’s recent transformation being a case in point. They EXPECT to be attacked as the “liberal media”: they think they ARE the liberal media, and as individuals most of them may be. So they expect these criticisms and are prepared at some level to accept them. After all, liberals (unlike conservatives) really do believe in representing a range of alternative views fairly, so they can always be bullied from the right. What’s the old story, attack a liberal and their response will be, “You may have a point.”

Now, to their shock and disbelief, they are being pressed from the other side. The pendulum has gone ‘way too far in the other direction, and the dialectic is at work. But because the criticisms are coming from the left, they CONFLICT with the media’s view of itself, and this is proving very difficult for them to accept: “Us? Allies and enablers of the Bush administration? That’s ridiculous.”]

Now, THIS I like. A lot

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/006654.php
[Steve Soto] What can be done? Well, every afternoon there should be a DNC press conference aimed specifically at 1) debunking whatever Scottie McClellan said that morning; and 2) restating the Democratic talking points for the week in time for the afternoon and evening news and cable shows so that the media has a coordinated Democratic pushback they can include in their stories that night. And if the Democratic pushback and counter-narrative isn’t included in what the NYT, the WaPost, MSNBC, CNN, and the major news networks said that night or the next day, Democrats should make an issue of that as evidence of bias, every time it happens. Remember, work the refs, but do it with facts.

And yes, every week there should be a Democratic version of the Grover Norquist message coordination sessions that take place now within the GOP’s right wing. Democrats will not agree on everything, but Norquist doesn’t force agreement either. He seeks areas of common ground from which talking points and coordinated messages can be developed, and then between him and the White House and RNC the script is blasted far and wide for that week and the weekend cable and news shows, and aimed right at Fox. Democrats can do the same thing, and still ignore Fox by calling it repeatedly for what it is: a right wing propaganda outlet.

It is entirely possible for a DNC media operative, and media operatives from the DCCC, DSCC, Reid and Pelosi’s offices, and the supportive think tanks to meet by phone every morning for an hour to do this, and then to have the pushback press conference every afternoon to point out the lies, spin, and framing attempts by this administration in time for the evening news and the cable shows. And doing these meetings with framing experts like Dr. Jeffrey Feldman or George Lakoff would help as well. All I ask is that you don’t do it with Beltway pollsters and consultants, who have already done enough damage to the party for a lifetime. Deal with the facts and turn that focus through framing into messages that can reach people through a media that will be challenged every day to cover both sides of the day’s stories, and not just what the White House peddles to a lazy and co-opted media without a daily counter-programming from the Democrats. The goal is to stay on message, and hammer both the GOP as well as the media with an alternate narrative that challenges the White House and GOP on their efforts to write their own history to their liking. For example, Juan Cole’s piece from yesterday laying out the case against Bush and the right wing bedwetters on Iraq and the war on terror debacle should be Exhibit A of a counter-narrative.

Unless you give the media an alternate storyline to cover, and pressure them and specifically their bosses to cover it, we are wasting our time. Democrats cannot break through the media blackout because we are not disciplined and aggressive enough. Now is the time to start working the refs ourselves. It can’t be left to center-left bloggers to do what the party and Beltway politicians have heretofore been too self-interested and unfocused to do themselves.

Another lesson in the cowing of the media

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_22_atrios_archive.html#113846228706900812
From 1994 New York Times editorial:

Attorney General Janet Reno seems hellbent on sacrificing her reputation to the White House's effort to contain the Whitewater Development flap. Not only has she continued to refuse, on insultingly specious grounds, to appoint an independent counsel. It now emerges that by so refusing, she has bought time for Justice Department and White House lawyers to cook up a deal to keep the Whitewater records under wraps. . .

[Atrios] The issue I want to highlight is not independent (law expired) or special prosecutors, but the very concept that the attorney general should him/herself be independent. That is entirely gone from our media conversation. Every knows Gonzales is Bush's tool, and it isn't remarkable. It's just the state of affairs. The very idea that he should be independent has been stricken from contemporary discourse.

Hope? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012701413.html
There are any number of matters of legitimate inquiry and public concern involving Mr. Abramoff and his White House dealings that might not rise to the level of a criminal prosecution. . . The president himself attended a White House meeting with some of Mr. Abramoff's clients. How did that get set up? The White House acknowledges that Mr. Abramoff had some "staff-level meetings" there. With whom, and about what?

Republicans didn't tolerate this kind of behavior from the Clinton White House in the midst of its fundraising scandal. "At every turn, they are stonewalling, covering up and hiding," Haley Barbour, then the head of the Republican National Committee, said as the Clinton administration tried to brush off questions about its fundraising before the 1996 election. Mr. Barbour complained of the administration's "utter contempt . . . for the public's right to know."

Such obstructionism is no more acceptable now. The public understands this: Three-fourths of those surveyed in a new Washington Post/ABC poll said the White House should disclose the contacts. "This needs to be cleared up so the people have confidence in the system," Mr. Bush said. Our point exactly.

Josh Marshall has a contest for the first reader who can find a GOP politician on record saying that the Bush gang should release information on their entanglements with Abramoff. We may have a winner

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_22.php#007553

More on the “bipartisan scandal” debate

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6471.html
[Steve Benen] The Republican defense for the Jack Abramoff scandal is basically one phrase: Dems took Abramoff money too. Those five words have been repeated by every GOP activist and lawmaker, and regurgitated by reporters striving for some kind of fact-free "balance," but the truth remains that Abramoff was a Republican operative, who donated to Republican candidates and office-holders, which makes this a Republican scandal.

But wait, the GOP says, some Abramoff clients contributed to Dems. True? Yes, but the context makes all the difference. . .

More: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008099.php

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_22_atrios_archive.html#113846317938149684

Good thing the House Democrats have been holding to the “ethics truce” and not filing charges against obviously crooked Republicans

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/01/28/house_republicans_seek_ethics_investigations.html
"House Republicans, wounded by lobbyist scandals, have called on the House Ethics Committee to investigate more than 10 Democratic members headed by Jan Schakowsky of Illinois and Nydia Velazquez of New York," Robert Novak reports.

The must-read of the day: the Times says what must be said

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/opinion/29sun1.html
A bit over a week ago, President Bush and his men promised to provide the legal, constitutional and moral justifications for the sort of warrantless spying on Americans that has been illegal for nearly 30 years. Instead, we got the familiar mix of political spin, clumsy historical misinformation, contemptuous dismissals of civil liberties concerns, cynical attempts to paint dissents as anti-American and pro-terrorist, and a couple of big, dangerous lies. . . [read on!]

Bush’s broken promises

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/28/AR2006012800466.html

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/wash-post-documents-bush-failings-in.html
[Joe] The Washington Post examines the lack of progress in New Orleans compared to what Bush promised. If we all didn't know how incompetent Bush was, this article would be shocking. Instead, it's expected. . .

And more broken promises to come. . .

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-outlook29jan29,0,1615739.column

How the Bush gang utterly failed in coping with Katrina: the full story starts to emerge

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/28/national/nationalspecial/28katrina.html

FEMA? Bribery? Horrors!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/28/politics/28fema.html

CBO: tax cuts are hurting, not helping, the economy

http://www.cbpp.org/1-27-06bud.htm

The anti-Robin Hood (thanks to Susan Madrak for the link): http://redsoxville.blogspot.com/2006/01/bizarro-robin-hood_28.html

Well, we know what Bush thinks about the importance of National Guard duty, don’t we? But even from him this is a bizarre move

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/bush-cutting-army-reserve-national.html
[Rob] As Katrina showed, the National Guard is already stretched thin in doing the job that it was designed for - protecting the nation. War abroad may be protecting the nation by proxy, but it leaves you short-handed at home. So after years of war in Iraq and nothing but more of the same to come, what does George Bush decide? He decides, I kid you not, to cut the size of the Army Reserve AND National Guard. . .

The Pentagon’s massive psy-ops and propaganda program – and its strategy for controlling (or destroying) the Internet. Paranoid and hyperbolic, you say? Read for yourself

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm

WHAT???!!!????

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/28/AR2006012800833.html
Congress has granted unusual authority for the Pentagon to spend as much as $200 million of its own budget to aid foreign militaries, a break with the traditional practice of channeling foreign military assistance through the State Department. . .

“Chaotic misuse”

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0127/dailyUpdate.html
US audit finds 'spectacular' waste of funds in Iraq

Andrew Sullivan. Read on

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/01/getting_their_w.html

Daniel Ellsberg on Iraq and Vietnam

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/28/20658/6235

Another Bush foreign policy disaster: Haiti

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/international/americas/29haiti.html

Exhibit #472 in the destruction of science-based policy by the Bush gang

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/28/2208/28740

Ooops. Global warming is real. Really? Good to know. What? It’s getting too late to do anything about it? Oh-oh

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008104.php

Ann Coulter, serial killer

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6469.html
[A]s Paul Waldman noted, Coulter seems to call for the deaths of people she doesn't [like] all the time. . .

Stop her before she kills again! http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/28/121249/002

Sunday talk show line-up

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/29/0288/06821

Bonus item: Enjoy

http://crookedtimber.org/2006/01/27/ten-second-posts/
[Ted] I was reading the back pages of Kung Fu Monkey when I came across this, in response to Rove’s old speech that accused liberals of treason:

Did you know that the definition of treason is quite specifically defined in the Constitution? Did you know it’s the only crime actually spelled out in the Constitution? DO. YOU. KNOW. WHY?

No. Of course you don’t. Nobody ever bothers to read the goddam thing.

Because the Founding Fathers had seen the charge of treason used too many times against the political opponents of the British Government. They knew, when the government gets nervous and breaks out the Big Evil Golf Bag of Shutting Up Questions, the first club out is the Treason Charge. They knew the first guy to yell treason was the bastard.

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:01 AM

 
A MERE OVERSIGHT

A mere oversight: one of the recurring lies from the Bush gang about the illegal wiretap policy is their claim that it was “reviewed” by relevant Congressional authorities. That is, of course, completely untrue

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/27/13468/3663
[Georgia10] Thanks to the non-partisan Congressional Research Office, we already know that those "briefings" to Congress weren't about oversight as much as a pre-emptive CYA measure which likely violated the law. As for oversight from the Department of Justice, recall that deputy Attorney General deputy Attorney General James B. Comey refused to sign off on the program because of "concerns about its legality and oversight." Even then-Attorney General John Ashcroft refused to sign off on the program. Only after the program was revised in 2004 did the Department of Justice again sign off on it. . .

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/administrations-humiliation-of.html
[Glenn Greenwald] Since the NSA scandal began, one of the most bizarre aspects of the story is that the Administration has been claiming that Congress authorized it to eavesdrop in violation of FISA, but the Congress which is said to have done so had no idea that the Administration was engaged in warrantless eavesdropping and had no idea that it had authorized eavesdropping in violation of FISA. Beyond that fact, the actions of the Congress throughout 2002 make undeniably clear that Congress was not only completely unaware that the Administration was eavesdropping outside of FISA, but also that Congress was deliberately misled by the Administration into believing that FISA continued to govern the Administration's eavesdropping activities. . .

Nothing could have mattered less than what the Senate decided to do with FISA because the Administration -- obviously unbeknownst to the Senate -- had already decided that it could eavesdrop however it wanted no matter what the Senate said and no matter what FISA allowed. Despite this, the Administration allowed the Senate to go through the embarrassing spectacle of acting as though it had authority with regard to the Administration’s eavesdropping and, worse, even encouraged that illusion by participating in the Senate hearings and pretending that it mattered what the Senate did with FISA.

An institutional humiliation greater than this is difficult to imagine. . .

Additionally, the Administration should not be able to get away with claiming with a straight face that Congress was not only aware of its FISA-violating eavesdropping activities, but also that Congress had actually somehow "authorized" it. . . It should be very difficult for Senators – or for anyone who actually still believes in representative democracy and the basic governing principles of our country – to read the transcript of these Senate hearings without cringing with embarrassment for these Senators who were so plainly misled by the Administration. . .

Evidence that the Bush gang knew that circumventing the FISA law was illegal, and they didn’t want people to find out about it

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/27/23056/0066
[Georgia10] This draft legislation sought to amend that section and expand its application to authorizations for the use of force, not just formal declarations. . . My suspicion is that the language was ultimately dropped because the administration feared the debate that would have resulted. I suspect the administration balanced the odds. Option #1: Kill the amendment, continue without the cover of law, and hope no one would find out about the program. Option #2: Proceed with the amendment, and hope it passes for legal cover. But if it failed to pass, then the administration would truly be screwed. If Congress rejected this amendment, it would have explicitly rejected the very conduct the administration was engaged in. Perhaps the administration went with Option #1 and rolled the dice. . .

While the Justice Department dismisses the proposed legislation as being drafted by a few low level staffers, it stands as a key indicator of the concerns which permeated the DOJ about this program. Recall that the deputy Attorney General would not sign off on the program. This is a critical fact which must be repeated as often as possible. Doubts about the legality of the program reached the very top of the DOJ.

More lies

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6464.html
[Steve Benen] When it comes to his warrantless-search program, Bush's honesty has been in short supply. He's misrepresented his legal authority, his predecessors' decisions, Congress' authorizations, and his administration's congressional briefings. But there's one particular distortion Bush has emphasized that's more annoying than the others.

"In the weeks following September the 11th, I authorized a terrorist surveillance program to detect and intercept al Qaeda communications involving someone here in the United States…. We know that two of the hijackers who struck the Pentagon were inside the United States communicating with al Qaeda operatives overseas. But we didn't realize they were here plotting the attack until it was too late."

It's been a favorite White House talking point all week. Scott McClellan has repeated it; Gen. Michael Hayden, the principal deputy director of national intelligence, emphasized it on Monday; and the president defended it in his press conference yesterday.

As it turns out, of course, the claim is completely wrong. . .

Seeing that their first pack of lies and distortions didn’t convince anyone, Bush’s Justice Dept now issues a NEW set of arguments to defend their warrantless spying (uh, you think there’s a reason why this isn’t taking hold, guys?)

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013844.html

Whitewater coverage vs NSA coverage

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601280002

Yet again, the Bush gang embraces a policy that they savaged when a Democrat was advocating it

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6463.html

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_22_digbysblog_archive.html#113839743550485435

McCain still concerned about interrogation methods (gee, John, did you think that your amendment, which Bush signed and then promptly said he intended to ignore, would stop these people?)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012700538.html

Oh, christ

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003579.html
US military seizing Iraqi women -- and holding some for months -- to lure in their fathers and husbands, Knight-Ridder's Nancy Youssef reports. . . Reader TS reminds us this is against the Geneva Conventions.

Why the long silence from Patrick Fitzgerald in the Plame investigation? A bit of hopeful speculation

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2571

What more does it take for the Dems to filibuster Alito?

http://wilsonhellie.typepad.com/for_the_record/2006/01/so_just_what_wo.html

What more does it take for the Dems to take the lead on ethics reform and cleaning up the House?

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/01/index.html#008979

Democratic prospects in the fall elections

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008097.php

A clear Abramoff/Bush admin link: Tyco and insider trading

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012701685.html

Turning up the heat on Bush admin/Abramoff entanglements: the people want to know

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012700335.html
76% !!!!!

I found one of the photos! (fake, unfortunately)









Sometimes the Bush gang’s lies are complex matters of spin and nuance: “misrepresentations” might be a better word. But sometimes, they are simply lies, blatant unbelievable falsehoods, and anyone looking at them with the simplest of human experience knows that they are lies

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_22.php#007542
[Josh Marshall] Whether there are one or five or a hundred pictures of President Bush and Jack Abramoff is really beside the point. What is the point is this line from President Bush from yesterday's press conference: "You know, I, frankly, don't even remember having my picture taken with the guy. I don't know him.". . . Even discounting for the inherent squishiness of the language, that's just a lie. . .

More: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=20286

More Bush policies to channel public funds into the pockets of their donors and cronies: it is so open and blatant now that people have forgotten how to be outraged by it

http://scoutprime.blogspot.com/2006/01/canizaro-bollinger-bush-boys-in-nola.html

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/01/index.html#008977

If you ever read Molly Ivins on Texas politics, you know it can be as wild as a pack of hound-dogs chasin’ a squirrel ‘round the barn in the middle of a hurricane. But this is just too much to hope for: Tom DeLay! Jack Abramoff! Governor Rick Perry! Scotty’s mom!

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5070

(By the way: Molly Ivins is battling breast cancer. Send a kind thought her way)

http://susiemadrak.com/2006/01/27/07/16/my-hero-4/

This makes me really angry: it shows what happens once the simple-minded media wonks get a trope implanted in their heads (Kerry the Elitist, Cheese-Eating Euro-Lover)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601270009
CNN's Ed Henry said that Sen. John Kerry's call for a filibuster of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s nomination to the Supreme Court reinforced the "elitist" label given to Kerry by the GOP during the 2004 presidential campaign because he made the statement from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. However, when CNN later interviewed Sen. Saxby Chambliss about the potential filibuster, there were no "elitist" comments to be found, even though Chambliss was also commenting from Davos. . .

Katie Couric, America’s sweetheart, sort of apologizes for repeating for the umpteenth time the lie that Democrats are embroiled in the Abramoff scandal too – then NBC goes on to make it worse (with a big assist from Tim Russert)

http://susiemadrak.com/2006/01/27/12/05/clear-as-mud/
LAUER: Katie pressed him (Howard Dean) on that and we did some research. We went to the Center for Responsive Politics and found out that technically speaking, Howard Dean may be correct. But here’s what we found. That 66 percent of the money in this situation went to Republicans, but 34 percent of the money — not from Abramoff, but from his associates and clients — went to Democrats. So, can Democrats wash their hands of this?

RUSSERT: No, they will say it is a primarily a Republican scandal because the personal money of Abramoff went only to Republicans. But Matt, the issue is broad and wide. Democrats also understand that they accept trips from lobbyists and meals and so forth, and that’s why in order to reform all this, it has to be a bipartisan approach. But Democrats get raging mad when you suggest this is a bipartisan scandal.

[Susan Madrak] Do you suppose it’s just too complicated for them to understand? Indian tribes continued to give to the same Democratic representatives from their states as they always did – but the amount they contributed actually decreased, as per Abramoff’s direction. . . They directed that money to the Republicans instead

More on the “bipartisan scandal”: http://billmon.org/archives/002351.html

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_digbysblog_archive.html#113632625570231458

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_digbysblog_archive.html#113656860422010723

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/3/19250/55196

“Non-partisan”? NON-PARTISAN???!?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601270012
O'REILLY: Time now for "The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day." Appearing on the Today show this morning, DNC chairman Howard Dean challenged an assertion that lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who was charged with a variety of money-related crimes, was a nonpartisan offender. . . . Well, according to the Federal Elections [sic] Commission, Mr. Abramoff did funnel almost $2 million to Democrats. So is Dean lying? Well, it depends on how you view spin. Abramoff personally did not give any of his own money to Democrats, but he's charged with giving them other people's money. That's what Dean's hiding behind. He's quite a guy, isn't he? Ridiculous? I think so. But as always, I could be wrong.

This study should be the end of the “Bipartisan Scandal” debate (but of course it won’t be, because it is much easier for the media to seem “even-handed” than to point out the UNDENIABLE FACT that one party is neck-deep in corruption)

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_22.php#007554
New study by non-partisan research firm says no dice to claims Jack Abramoff was steering tribal money to Dems like he was to Republicans. In fact, the study suggests opposite. . .

More: http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/1/27/223617/476

The study: http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10924

By the way, speaking of Tim Russert. . . .

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/1/27/10496/2796

Fair and balanced

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_22_atrios_archive.html#113839116738225885
Hardball: Republican Tucker Carlson, Republican Joe Scarborough, and Republican Rita Cosby will discuss the issues of the day with Republican Chris Matthews.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_22_atrios_archive.html#113839358538961745
Meet the Press: Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist, Washington Post's David Broder, Bloomberg's Roger Simon, and National Review's Byron York.

I have had just about enough from this woman

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/01/27/coulter/index.html
[Tim Grieve] Here's the ever-charming Ann Coulter, speaking Thursday night about her hopes that George W. Bush will get to nominate a replacement for Associate Justice John Paul Stevens. "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," Coulter said.

Coulter insisted it was "just a joke, for you in the media."

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 115, anyone who "threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder . . . a United States judge . . . with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with" that judge's duties is guilty of a felony.

That's just a joke for you, Ann. Sort of.


Bonus item: “The Idiot Deity”

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2569

Extra bonus: A preview of the SOTU (pretty funny)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/1/27/11451/1587

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:18 AM

 
NOT RELEVANT

Joe nails it: for evidence that they consider “not relevant,” the Bush people are going to a heck of a lot of effort to hide the Bush-Abramoff photos

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/bushabramoff-photo-cover-up-continues.html

A HECK of a lot of effort. . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_22.php#007536
[Josh Marshall] Earlier this month, we were alerted to the existence of a series Abramoff photos at the website of Reflections Photography, a studio that does photo shoots for many Republican political events and sells copies to the individuals who attended the events and other members of the public through an online photo database. . .

When we went to the page for the photograph of President Bush and Abramoff, the page in question had disappeared from the site. Indeed, in the sequence of photographs from the event in question, each had a unique identification number in perfect consecutive order. All were there on the site, in sequence, with the exception of the one that was apparently that of President Bush and Abramoff.

I called back Reflections Photography and spoke to the woman who had earlier sold us the licensing rights to the other image. I told her there was another photograph we wanted to purchase the rights to publish but that it appeared no longer to be on their website. . . I told her that as far as we knew the photograph had been available on the site until quite recently. Then I asked if the photograph in question were available in their offline archives and whether I could purchase it that way.

She said that it was and that the CD in question was available for purchase. . . I asked her if it would be possible for her to pull the CD. Then I could describe the photograph with the identification number in question to her to verify that it was the same picture. . . The woman, who was helpful and friendly throughout, said she could and asked me to wait a few minutes while she retrieved the CD in question.

After a few minutes, she returned and proceeded to pull up the photo in question on the CD. Then, to her audible surprise, she told me the "photo was deleted" from the CD.

That, as you'd imagine, caught my attention. So I asked what that meant. The woman from Reflections told me that that this sometimes happened when the White House wanted to prevent the public from accessing certain photographs of the president.

When I asked her when this had happened she told she didn't know and wouldn't be at liberty to tell me even if she did. . . This was back on January 11th. From what we could tell, the photograph had been removed from the site roughly a week earlier. . .

But early this afternoon, I decided to take one more go at Reflections. I talked to company president Joanne Amos. We went back and forth over various questions about whether photographs at the site were available to the public and why some had been removed. When she, at length, asked me who it was in the picture with the president. I told her we believed it was Jack Abramoff.

Amos very straightforwardly told me that the photographs had been removed and that they had been removed because they showed Abramoff and the president in the same picture. The photos were, she told me, "not relevant."

[NB: And what a quaint coincidence that her excuse is exactly the same as the WH talking point]

When I asked her who had instructed her to remove the photos, she told me she was the president of the company. She did it. It was "her business decision" to remove the photographs. She told me she had done so within the last month. . .

Did the White House send out the word to deep-six those Bush-Abramoff pics? . . . Scott McClellan won't answer our questions. But this mystery would not be difficult to solve by a press outlet with sufficient juice to get a question answered by Scott McClellan. Has the White House or anyone working at the White House's behest instructed Reflections Photography to destroy or remove from its archives photographs of President Bush and Jack Abramoff?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_22.php#007537
[Josh Marshall] David Donnelly points out that the owner of Reflections, Joanne Amos, is a maxed out Bush-Cheney '04 contributor.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_22.php#007540
[Josh Marshall] When I was speaking with Reflections President Joanne Amos, our conversation started with my pressing her about the disappearance of the single photograph. . . But as we got into that second part of the conversation I noticed that Amos spoke repeatedly not of removing a photograph but of removing photographs -- i.e., in the plural. So it seems like more than one picture of Bush and Abramoff swirled down the memory hole.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007541.php
[Josh Marshall] TPM Reader FL started poking around the Reflections Photography website this afternoon and even managed to find one of the key gaps. . . I just heard back from him and he told us that just over the last hour or more whole sections of the company's archives have been pulled down off the web. Sure enough, when we checked, big chunks of the site had already bit the dust . . [T]he folks at Reflections already seem to have pulled a whole event from which one of Bush/Abramoff photographs had earlier been erased. . . So the digital shredding party seems to be underway.

Just so

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008087.php
Over at The Corner, Kathryn Jean Lopez comments about George Bush and Jack Abramoff:

The Abramoff picture stuff is so ridiculous. Of course he has a ridiculous number of pictures taken all the time. That members of the press — who bring relatives to the White House for pictures with the president as a matter of form — would make such a ridiculous deal out of it is nonsense.

[Kevin Drum] Normally I'd sort of agree with this. Even the fact that the White House is so assiduously keeping us from seeing all these routine pics doesn't necessarily mean much. . . . But when photo agencies go to the trouble of deleting pictures of Bush and Abramoff from their website, then deleting them permanently from their own CDs, and then claiming that they did it all on their own with no direction from the White House or anyone else — well, that just starts to sound a little suspicious, doesn't it? If the White House isn't guilty of anything, why are they skulking around in shadows so much?

And here’s an interesting new rationale for not releasing them

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012601228.html
Bush said the photos, if released, "will be used for pure political purposes. . .“

[NB: In other words, we KNOW they’re controversial and will make us look bad, and that’s why we won’t let you see them. And the press nod their heads and write it all down in their little spiral pads. Does no one understand what an audacious cover-up this is?]

Here’s how to get rid of an aggressive prosecutor

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013835.html
Noel Hillman has been leading the Abramoff lobbying investigation for two years. He's about to leave it because President Bush has nominated him for a federal judgeship. . . Democrat Senators Chuck Schumer and Ken Salazar and two Congressman say this is even more reason to appoint a special prosecutor. . .

More: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_22_digbysblog_archive.html#113834805693472017

How Bush dodges questions

http://www.slate.com/id/2134917/fr/rss/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012601961.html

Sound familiar? http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/bush-still-maintains-hes-not-crook.html

(By the way, I REFUSE to say anything here about Oprah and James Frey, except this: wouldn’t it be interesting if this pop-culture dust-up actually had a wider political impact on Bush?)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/01/27/BL2006012700334.html

Only one of these two Bush statements on NSA spying is accurate

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012600757.html
[T]here's no doubt in my mind it is legal. . .

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013813.html
I'm not a lawyer. . .

It IS illegal

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/01/index.html#008974
[Sam Rosenfeld] The president's press conference this morning showed how weirdly difficult it is for journalists to discuss the wiretapping issue with administration officials using plain English. That's because the debate over whether the program is illegal isn't actually a debate at all. . . George W. Bush answers every question on the matter by asserting that the NSA program is absolutely legal -- and then explains why he needed to violate the FISA statute to implement it. Forget for a minute that the administration refused to revise FISA when legislative action was proposed; instead, just consider his explanation (elaborated by Al Gonzales) on its own terms. There simply isn't an actual dispute between the administration and its critics about the legality of the spying program. The president himself says, in so many words, that FISA was inadequate to the task at hand, so they broke that law. To be sure, he then hammers the podium and yells out a meaningless "This program is legal!" But the substance of what he's saying doesn't even dispute that the program is, in fact, technically illegal. It's a bit odd. The only possible way to construe the logic of the administration's argument for the legality of the NSA program is to interpret it as an argument that the original FISA statute, still on the books, is simply unconstitutional. Either FISA is illegal or the NSA program is. As Richard Posner puts it succinctly in his otherwise problematic TNR article, "The administration and its defenders have responded that the program is perfectly legal; if it does violate FISA (the administration denies that it does), then, to that extent, the law is unconstitutional.". . .

But of course, Bush never actually says that. In so many words, his argument is that the NSA program may be illegal, but it's the right thing to do, and as the president he has an obligation to do it. And yet, invariably, what you read in the press is that "some critics have even questioned the program's legality."

A case in point

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5063
QUESTION: Mr. President, though -- this is a direct follow-up to that -- the FISA law was implemented in 1978 in part because of revelations that the National Security Agency was spying domestically. . . What is wrong with that law that you feel you have to circumvent it. . . ?

BUSH: You said that I have to "circumvent" it. Wait a minute, that's a -- it's like saying, "You know, you're breaking the law." I'm not. . .

I looked. I said, "Look, is it possible to conduct this program under the old law?" And people said, "It doesn't work in order to be able do the job we expect to us do." And so, that's why I made the decision I made.

And, you know, "circumventing" is a loaded word. And I refuse to accept it, because I believe what I'm doing is legally right.

[NB: “Circumventing” is a loaded word because it is the EXACTLY CORRECT word]

By the way, the very same “reasoning” is being applied to torture

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6449.html
Q: Could you call on your Texas straight talk and make a clear and unambiguous statement today that no American will be allowed to torture another human being anywhere in the world at any time –

Bush: Yes. No American will be allowed to torture another human being anywhere in the world. And I signed the appropriations bill with the McCain amendment attached on because that's the way it is. I know some have said, well, why did he put a qualifier in there? And one reason why presidents put qualifiers in is to protect the prerogative of the executive branch. . .

[. . . to violate those laws if they think they have to!]

And under this all, a seismic shift in the relations between the President, Congress, and the law (signing statements, etc). This is the point that puts many erstwhile Republican allies in a tough spot: they support the President’s conduct of the “war on terror,” but they’re furious that he’s just said that anything that Congress passes is just advisory to him. He invokes it (the war resolution) when he thinks it reinforces his inclinations, and ignores it (FISA) when it doesn’t

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/01/26/bush_suggests_war_with_congress.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012601943.html

More evidence for this: even now that Congress is willing (god knows why) to expressly GIVE him this authority, Bush says he doesn’t want (or NEED) it

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/politics/27bush.html

Why the Greenwald scoop is so devastating to the WH “defense” of warrantless spying – and why their response to that story makes it even worse

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6442.html
It's entirely contradictory that the standard the administration rejects as overly burdensome now is the same standard the administration wanted to keep in place in 2002. But it also completely undermines the notion, argued by the administration repeatedly for the last month, that Congress implicitly authorized the president to conduct warrantless searches.

The administration argued against DeWine's proposed changes to FISA — and Congress followed suit, voting down DeWine's amendment in committee. In other words, lawmakers had an opportunity to expand the administration's power, but specifically decided not to. When the White House insists, as it does often, that Bush's warrantless-search authority derives in party from Congress, it's demonstrably false, not just because of the wording and intent of the 9/11 resolution, but also because of what happened with the DeWine proposal.

Which leaves us at an interesting point. The president circumvented FISA because he wanted to and he claimed legal powers that the legislative branch specifically said he does not have. This isn't a gray area — Bush knowingly and willfully took a step that Congress said he could not take.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/26/administration-response-greenwald
[Judd] Here is Justice Department spokesperson Tasia Scolinos:

The FISA “probable cause” standard is essentially the same as the “reasonable basis” standard used in the terrorist surveillance program. The “reasonable suspicion” standard, which is lower than both of these, is not used in either program.

There are two fundamental problems with this argument:

1. It completely contradicts what the administration said earlier this week. Scolinos claims “reasonable basis” is pretty much the same as “probable cause.” On Monday, Michael Hayden – former NSA director and currently Deputy Director of National Intelligence – said that Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance program was started precisely because it lowered the standard in a significant way.

2. The legal analysis is wrong. Scolinos falsely claims that “reasonable suspicion” is a “lower” standard than “reasonable basis.” The term “reasonable basis” has no real meaning in 4th Amendment jurisprudence. To the extent that “reasonable basis” does have meaning, it’s used interchangeably with “reasonable suspicion.” For example, in the Supreme Court case of Florida v. L.J., Justice Ginsburg wrote: “The officers, prior to the frisks, had a reasonable basis for suspecting J. L. of engaging in unlawful conduct: The reasonableness of official suspicion must be measured by what the officers knew before they conducted their search.”

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/significance-of-administrations-july.html
[Glenn Greenwald] But in addition to being false, the Administration’ explanation is also irrelevant -- really besides the point of this whole story. Certain media stories have effectively conveyed some of the issues raised by this matter but have not quite grasped the most significant part of it, and the Administration's response does not, as a result, address the real issue. What matters most here is not that the Administration refused to support the DeWine legislation (although that does matter), but what the Administration said in July, 2002 when explaining their refusal to support it. . .

[E]ver since this scandal arose, the glaring question has always been: given how permissive FISA is and how rubber-stamping the FISA court has always been, what possible reason could the Administration have for deciding to eavesdrop without complying with the law and obtaining judicial approval under FISA? In short, what was their motive for breaking the law?

The Administration finally provided a coherent explanation for the first time on Tuesday when Gen. Hayden claimed that the "probable cause" requirement for getting a warrant under FISA was too restrictive and therefore did not allow them to engage in the eavesdropping they wanted. But the important point here is that Gen. Hayden's excuse for why the Administration decided to eavesdrop outside of FISA is transparently false, and -- in several different ways -- the Administration’s own statements from DoJ official James A. Baker made in connection with the DeWine legislation directly contradict the explanation it is now giving for its conduct. . . [read on!]

What is the real reason the Administration chose to eavesdrop in violation of FISA -- i.e., in secret and with no oversight -- rather than within FISA and with oversight? There is still no viable answer to that question from the Administration. Whatever the real reason is, the Administration still has not disclosed it. One thing is clear: the explanation given by Gen. Hayden this week simply is untrue.

More: http://waroncorporateevil.blogspot.com/2006/01/new-evidence-reveals-that-bush-knew-he.html

General Michael Hayden: no credibility

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/26/hayden-broke-law/
The Bush administration has pulled out all the stops in attempting to defend the NSA’s warrantless domestic spying program. After speeches by President Bush and Attorney General Gonzales, Deputy Director of National Intelligence and former NSA Director General Michael Hayden took another crack at the defense in a speech on Monday. He’s not exactly the ideal choice to restore the administration’s credibility.

As Think Progress documented back in December, Hayden misled Congress. In his 10/17/02 testimony, he told a committee investigating the 9/11 attacks that any surveillance of persons in the United States was done consistent with FISA. . . At the time of his statements, Hayden was fully aware of the presidential order to conduct warrantless domestic spying issued the previous year. But Hayden didn’t feel as though he needed to share that with Congress. . . . The Fraud and False Statements statute (18 U.S.C. 1001) make Hayden’s misleading statements to Congress illegal.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_22_atrios_archive.html#113830012187781389
[Atrios] I remember when members of Congress didn't like being lied to. I remember when members of the press thought lying was a bad thing.

The news media just don’t get it

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601270002

Let’s see. Yesterday we saw a major pushback that surveillance on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil by tapping into U.S. phone carriers isn’t “domestic” spying if they’re talking with someone overseas. What’s next? It isn’t domestic spying if you’re from another country? It isn’t domestic spying if you’re talking with someone in the U.S. who comes from another country? It isn’t domestic spying if you’re talking about an international topic? Read on

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5063
QUESTION: Members of your administration have said that the secret eavesdropping program might have prevented the September 11th attacks. But the people who hijacked the planes on September 11th had been in this country for years having domestic phone calls and e- mails.

So how specifically can you say that?

BUSH: Well, Michael Hayden said that because he believes that, had we had the capacity to listen to the phone calls from those from San Diego elsewhere, we might have gotten information necessary to prevent the attack.

BUSH: And that's what he was referring to.

QUESTION: But they were domestic calls...

BUSH: No, domestic -- outside -- we will not listen inside this country. It is a call from Al Qaida or Qaida affiliates either from inside the country and out or outside the country in, but not domestically.

[NB: And remember, from all accounts they WERE listening to domestic/domestic calls too]

Well, we said we wanted democracy in the Middle East, and we’ve certainly gotten it. Now what?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_22_digbysblog_archive.html#113834680024832148

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2568

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/01/26/BL2006012601068.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2134920/fr/rss/

Polls

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aKSlfaIwdI6w&refer=us
Fifty-two percent of adults said Bush's administration since 2001 has been a failure. . . Fifty- eight percent described his second term as a failure. . .

Take his promise to cut the deficit, for example. . .

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-deficit27jan27,0,5116696.story

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012601964.html

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/pork-spending-goes-wild-under-gop.html
[Chris] The GOP has tripled the number of projects and almost doubled the spending since they took control of the House. I guess when you make so many promises to wealthy donors there's going to be a price and the bill is left with the American taxpayer. I always hear about the fiscal conservatives in the GOP but they sure as hell don't seem to be around.

Republicans (rightly) worried

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003565.html
A House Republican "Dear Colleague" letter. . .

Simply put, the current climate we [the Republican conference] face is the worst it has been since we seized the majority in 1994. Any Member of Congress who fails to understand that should read the polls. If we do not understand voters' anger and respond, we will suffer the consequences in November. . .

Fairly or unfairly, the recent scandals are tarnishing our party's image, and threatening our majority in the House of Representatives. We must make a clean break and support real reform.

The recent scandals are taking a toll. Three times as many voters say corruption is a bigger problem among Republicans than Democrats. Of voters who associate Jack Abramoff with one party or the other, 15 times as many associate him with the Republicans Party (30 percent Republicans, 2 percent Democrats). According to a CBS News poll released on January 9, more than twice as many Americans believe that Republicans are more corrupt than Democrats (36 percent say Republicans are more corrupt, 16 percent say Democrats).

More: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9183313/the_harder_they_fall

Another attempt to rewrite history: the Republicans are trying very hard to pretend that nothing like the K Street project ever existed. Point man for this ridiculous pack of lies: the desperate (and losing) junior Senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_22_atrios_archive.html#113831150052985788
Santorum also told the Morning Call that he hadn't seen Grover Norquist "in years." When, in fact, Norquist spoke at a Santorum press conference last June. . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_22.php#007535
[Josh Marshall] Sen. Santorum categorically denies any ties to so-called 'K Street Project'. "I had absolutely nothing to do -- never met, never talked, never coordinated, never did anything -- with Grover Norquist and the -- quote -- K Street Project," Santorum said yesterday.

Last November he told the same paper: "The K Street project is purely to make sure we have qualified applicants for positions that are in town. From my perspective, it's a good government thing."

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502240.html

“Get This Party Started”

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/1/26/19431/2819

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/1/26/211626/242

The dangers of Democrat-bashing

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_22_digbysblog_archive.html#113833086097594905

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_22_digbysblog_archive.html#113830836795411909

http://susiemadrak.com/2006/01/26/13/06/the-dowds-crowd/

But sometimes, it’s so damn tempting. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012601955.html
Several prominent Democratic senators called for a filibuster of Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s Supreme Court nomination yesterday, exposing a deep divide in the party even as they delighted the party's liberal base. . .

Lazy reporting on the “nuclear option”

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_22_atrios_archive.html#113830969448209860
[Atrios] One of the best examples of collective media whoring for Republicans has been the discussion about the "nuclear option." As RNC parrot boy/CNN reporter Ed Henry just explained, as I'm sure he's done many times, the "nuclear option" involves something so simple as "changing the senate rules." Of course it isn't about changing the Senate rules. It's about cheating. It's about bypassing the established process for changing the Senate rules. . . There's no way to describe it correctly without calling it cheating. So they don't describe it correctly at all.

Aaron Brown knows what he’s talking about (thanks to Buzzflash for the link)

http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/content/news/brown0126.html
"Truth no longer matters in the context of politics and, sadly, in the context of cable news," said Aaron Brown, whose four-year period as anchor of CNN's NewsNight ended in November. . .

At this point, is there ANY journalist in the country who doesn’t understand the difference between saying “Abramoff gave money” and “groups who had hired Abramoff as a lobbyist gave money”? One at least. . .

http://susiemadrak.com/2006/01/26/11/47/cute-katie-incompetent/

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/01/26/couric/index.html

Ominous poll numbers for Hillary

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/01/26/clintons_challenge_in_2008.html
A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll finds that among registered voters, 48% would consider voting for Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) for president in 2008, including 16% who say they would "definitely" vote for her. However, 51% say they would "definitely" not vote for Clinton.

Bonus item: Shouldn’t the Second Amendment have an exception for stupidity?

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5067
A Virginia lawmaker accidentally discharged a handgun in his General Assembly office Thursday morning, firing a bullet into a bulletproof vest that was hanging on the wall of his office. No one was hurt. . .

[Holden Note: He accidentally discharged his pistol into a bulletproof vest he happened to have in his office? Gimme a break, I bet he was testing the vest to see if it really could stop a bullet.]

Del. John S. "Jack" Reid (R-Henrico) apologized to his colleagues on the floor of the House of Delegates Thursday afternoon, saying that "everyone has a right to feel safe here." . . . Reid said he has a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon and regularly brings his gun to the legislative session. . .

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:25 AM

 
WHAT WORDS MEAN

It matters what you call it

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6438.html
[Steve Benen] In its continuing quest to debate the president's warrantless-search program without actually addressing the substance of the controversy, the White House released another campaign-style "Setting the Record Straight" document yesterday. This time, the issue was "domestic spying" — not the policy, mind you, but the wording. . .

Definition: Domestic Vs. International.

* Domestic Calls are calls inside the United States. International Calls are calls either to or from the United States.
* Domestic Flights are flights from one American city to another. International Flights are flights to or from the United States.
* Domestic Mail consists of letters and packages sent within the United States. International Mail consists of letters and packages sent to or from the United States.
* Domestic Commerce involves business within the United States. International Commerce involves business between the United States and other countries.

Yes, the arrogant, condescending attitude of the White House comes out nicely in print, doesn't it? You can almost hear Karl Rove's voice saying, "If I explain this to you as if you were a child, maybe you'll understand."

A few thoughts in response. First, the reason the program is frequently referred to as "domestic spying" is because the spying is happening here. We have a domestic agency tapping into domestic calls featuring at least one domestic caller. Some wacky people consider this reason to call it a domestic program. Sheer madness, I know.

Second, the White House may be factually wrong. According to officials at the NSA, some of the monitored calls were purely domestic, featuring one person inside the U.S. calling someone else inside the U.S.

And third, the semantics debate over the meaning of the word "domestic" may be important to the White House, but for Bush critics, Rove, McClellan, Gonzales & Co. are missing the point. Let me put this in a way the White House may understand . . .

Definition: Legal Vs Illegal.

* Legal programs are programs that follow the law. Illegal programs are those that circumvent the law.
* Oversight refers to some level of accountability through checks and balances. Autocratic government is when one branch believes it can do as it pleases.
* Accountability addresses a process through which one is responsible for his or her behavior. Lawlessness is when the rule of law no longer matters.
* A law-abiding president is a chief executives who believes we are a nation of laws, not men. The current president is confused about these subtle constitutional nuances.

If we explain this to the Bush gang as if they were children, maybe they'll understand.

More: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/25.html#a6862

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/01/25/domestic/index.html

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/mccain-wont-say-bush-didnt-break-law.html
[MSNBC] Asked if the program should be referred to as domestic spying or terrorist surveillance, McCain said: “I don't know, that’s why I'm glad the president said he welcomes hearings.”

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2562
[Fubar] The President's attempt at renaming the NSA spying program to a more palatable Terrorist Surveillance Program made me think what other acts might benefit from such a euphemistic face lift. Here are a few others the administration may want to consider:

• Torturing Prisoners: Terrorist Truth Gathering Initiative.

• Civilian Bombings: Terrorist Hideout Eradication Program.

• Republican Lobbyist Scandal: Anti-Terrorism.

• Revealing identity of undercover operatives: Clear Desks Initiative.

• FEMA failures: Government Competence Misinformation Program.

• Record Deficits: Cold War II - The Reckoning.

• Medicare Prescription Program: WMD Purchase Reduction Plan.

• Osama On The Loose: Voluntary Terrorist Relocation Plan.

• War on Terror: The Winning War On Terror.

“Data-mining”?

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/01/index.html#008952

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008076.php

Will the press do anything with the blockbuster story, broken by Glenn Greenwald yesterday, that Congress gave the Bush gang an opportunity to modify the FISA law in just the way they now say they need it, and the Bush gang refused – by saying that such a change would be unconstitutional!

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/follow-up-on-dewine-issue.html

[Hey, look! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502270.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-spy26jan26,0,4753392.story

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13712090/13712090.htm]

[NB: They even give Greenwald credit – imagine, a mere blogger!]

More: http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003553.html
[Laura Rozen] This just gets more absurd:

[Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales told his audience: “You may have heard about the provision of FISA that allows the president to conduct warrantless surveillance for 15 days following a declaration of war. That provision shows that Congress knew that warrantless surveillance would be essential in wartime.”

So, in essence, Gonzales is citing the FISA law to defend evading the FISA law?! The FISA law had flexibility built in -- so we broke it?

And more: http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003548.html
[Matt Yglesias] Meanwhile, I would add that talk of changing the burden of proof from "probable cause" to "reasonable basis" is largely a red herring. The important thing that changed was that the NSA shifted from a position where they needed to convince a judge that they had probable cause to one where they had to decide for themselves that they had a reasonable basis for initiating some wiretapping. There's a world of difference between a self-enforced standard and an externally-enforced one.

Asked and answered

http://www.slate.com/id/2134845
The Power-Madness of King George
Is Bush turning America into an elective dictatorship?
[Jacob Weisberg] . . . According to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, the putative author of the white paper, the president's powers as commander in chief make him the "sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs." This status, which derives from Article II of the Constitution, brings with it the authority to conduct warrant-less surveillance for the purpose of disrupting possible terrorist attacks on the United States.

That power already sounds boundless, but according to Gonzalez, this sole organ has garnered even more authority under the congressional authorization for the use of military force, passed in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. This resolution is invariably referred to by the ungainly acronym AUMF—the sound, perhaps, of civil liberties being exhaled by a democracy. In the language of the white paper, the potent formula of Article II plus AUMF "places the president at the zenith of his powers," giving him "all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate."

This somewhat daffy monarchical undertone accompanies legal reasoning that recalls Alice's conversation with the March Hare. AUMF is understood by the Justice Department to expressly authorize warrant-less surveillance even though the resolution that Congress passed neither envisioned nor implied anything of the kind. The president's insistence that he alone can divine the hidden meaning of legislation is of a piece with his recently noticed practice of appending "signing statements" to bills—as in, "by signing this anti-torture bill into law, I pronounce it to signify that it has no power over me." Similarly, in his white paper, Bush as much as declares: "I determine what my words mean and I alone determine what yours mean, too." . . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6439.html
[Steve Benen] [T]he WaPo's Ruth Marcus touched on one of my favorite topics today: the fact that Bush hates Congress. . .

Deja-vu all over again. . .

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/25.html#a6858

Two must-reads today

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/24/AR2006012401163.html
Bush the Incompetent
[Harold Meyerson] Incompetence is not one of the seven deadly sins, and it's hardly the worst attribute that can be ascribed to George W. Bush. But it is this president's defining attribute. Historians, looking back at the hash that his administration has made of his war in Iraq, his response to Hurricane Katrina and his Medicare drug plan, will have to grapple with how one president could so cosmically botch so many big things -- particularly when most of them were the president's own initiatives. . .

http://daoureport.salon.com/synopsis.aspx?synopsisId=59f92c44-e7ec-48c4-91c7-b51768df79a3
THE TRIANGLE
[Peter Daou] What's the common thread running through the past half-decade of Bush's presidency? What's the nexus between the Swift-boating of Kerry, the Swift-boating of Murtha, and the guilt-by-association between Democrats and terrorists? Why has a seemingly endless string of administration scandals faded into oblivion? Why do Democrats keep losing elections? It's this: the traditional media, the trusted media, the "neutral" media, have become the chief delivery mechanism of potent anti-Democratic and pro-Bush storylines. And the Democratic establishment appears to be either ignorant of this political quandary or unwilling to fight it. . .

A case in point. . .

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-civil25jan25,0,7339226.story
Democrats May Argue Liberties to Their Peril

[NB: This kind of piece, by the normally sensible Ron Brownstein, drives me CRAZY]

Rejoinders: http://susiemadrak.com/2006/01/26/05/35/find-yourself-in-hole-stop-digging/

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/terrorism_and_its_control_/2006/01/framing_the_wiretaps_might_we_actually_win.php

Watch out!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/01/25/BL2006012501071.html
[Dan Froomkin] President Bush's last attempt to reengineer the country's social safety net didn't go so well. No amount of presidential razzle-dazzle could persuade the public to abandon Social Security as they knew it.

But now signs are that in his State of the Union address next week, Bush will be back with some more ideas. These at least initially sound much more innocuous -- what's not to like about Health Savings Accounts? -- but on closer examination they bear many of the same hallmarks of his failed Social Security bid. . .

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/01/index.html#008953
[Matt Yglesias] As I see it, the way this issue works is that there are only two genuinely possible outcomes in the long-run -- either the country will adopt a system of universal, government-funded health care or else we need to adopt a system wherein people are left to die in hospital waiting rooms when they run out of money. . .

Here are a few things Scotty understands: Aside from Helen Thomas, the WH press corps doesn’t view their relationship to the WH as adversarial any more (though the WH certainly treats it as adversarial from THEIR side). Reporters are so concerned to get “their” question answered that they generally refuse to follow-up on one another’s questions, allowing Scotty to shift topics whenever a line of questioning gets hot. They will never accuse him of lying, no matter what tripe he is dishing out. And they don’t spend nearly as much time planning and honing their questions as he and his staff spend planning and honing their responses (and then sticking to them like a litany). Hence, we get things like this:

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5050

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5056

[NB: NO Abramoff questions yesterday – what’s the problem, press corps? Scandal fatigue?]

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6435.html
[Steve Benen] It sounds as if the Washington Post editorial board is officially sick of Stonewall Scottie. . . McClellan is counting on the idea that reporters will grow tired of asking him these questions and he'll be able to stop avoiding them. If the WaPo editorial is any indication, McClellan better wear comfortable shoes because he'll be dancing for a while. As the piece explained, "[A]sking about Mr. Abramoff's White House meetings is no mere exercise in reportorial curiosity but a legitimate inquiry about what an admitted felon might have been seeking at the highest levels of government." . .

The stonewalling at yesterday's press briefing was fairly routine, except McClellan did add one minor twist, which was even less coherent than usual.

Q: But if there was nothing improper about contacts with him, why not open up records about any visits or meetings Mr. Abramoff might have had?

McClellan: Well, I've already talked to you about that information and responded to questions that you have. There's a difference between responding to questions like that and engaging in a fishing expedition that has nothing to do with the investigation.

What a bizarre standard. McClellan won't answer questions about matters relating to the investigation and he won't answer questions that have "nothing to do with the investigation."

Don’t bother me with facts!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012501070.html
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday disputed reports suggesting that the U.S. military is stretched thin and close to a snapping point from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, asserting "the force is not broken.". . . Rumsfeld spoke a day after The Associated Press reported that an unreleased study conducted for the Pentagon said the Army is being overextended, thanks to the two wars, and may not be able to retain and recruit enough troops to defeat the insurgency in Iraq. . .

[NB: It’s HIS OWN PENTAGON’S REPORT, for crying out loud!]

Denial: http://www.juancole.com/2006/01/pipeline-blasted-again-sunnis-want.html

10,000 military careers ruined (and now they complain about shortages)

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/10000-careers-ended-by-dont-ask-dont.html

Finally! An issue that can bring the U.S. and Iran together

http://www.ericumansky.com/2006/01/breaking_initia.html
In a reversal of policy, the United States on Monday backed an Iranian initiative to deny United Nations consultative status to organizations working to protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people.

Oh my, oh my, this is getting good. . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_22.php#007530
[New York Post] Jack Abramoff's partner Mike Scanlon admitted to digging up former Congressman Robert Livingston's private life. Set to become speaker, Livingston then got sidelined for Tom DeLay's man Denis Hastert. Prosecutors now checking if Abramoff and Scanlon took Livingston down at DeLay's behest. . .

Impeachment: it IS being seriously talked about

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/01/index.html#008959

I didn’t know this, did you?

http://susiemadrak.com/2006/01/25/10/47/blue-states-do-your-duty/
Our colleague Kagro X over at The Next Hurrah informs us articles of impeachment may be initiated by a state legislature. . .

Little Ricky is showing every sign of coming unglued

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/santorum-blows-his-stack-at-reporter.html

Today’s Hillary wrap-up

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/01/index.html#008961

Action alert: the growing Chris Matthews boycott

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/hardballs-advertiser-contacts-and.html

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_22_digbysblog_archive.html#113822376076164651

http://openlettertochrismatthews.blogspot.com/

Bonus item: civil wrongs

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_22_digbysblog_archive.html#113822225329774875

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 5:53 AM

 
OUTRAGEOUS

Due warning, my friends. Don’t read today’s issue with a mouthful of any beverage that can be spewed or choked on. This is going to be upsetting. . .

A follow-up to General Michael Hayden’s humiliating mistake in defending NSA spying yesterday (when he said, “believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth,” and then denied under direct questioning that the Fourth Amendment included a “probable cause” requirement, which it plainly does). If you can believe it, it gets worse. This is a long posting, but trust me, it is worth every word

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/administrations-new-fisa-defense-is.html
[Glenn Greenwald] In light of Gen. Hayden's new claim yesterday that the reason the Bush Administration decided to eavesdrop outside of FISA is because the "probable cause" standard for obtaining a FISA warrant was too onerous (and prevented them from obtaining warrants they needed to eavesdrop), there is a fact which I have not seen discussed anywhere but which now appears extremely significant, at least to me.

In June, 2002, Republican Sen. Michael DeWine of Ohio introduced legislation (S. 2659) which would have eliminated the exact barrier to FISA which Gen. Hayden yesterday said is what necessitated the Administration bypassing FISA. Specifically, DeWine's legislation proposed:

to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to modify the standard of proof for issuance of orders regarding non-United States persons from probable cause to reasonable suspicion. . . .

In other words, DeWine's bill, had it become law, would have eliminated the "probable cause" barrier (at least for non-U.S. persons) which the Administration is now pointing to as the reason why it had to circumvent FISA.

During that time, the Administration was asked to advise Congress as to its position on this proposed amendment to loosen the standard for obtaining FISA warrants, and in response, they submitted a Statement from James A. Baker, the Justice Department lawyer who oversees that DoJ's Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, which is the group that "prepares and presents all applications for electronic surveillance and physical search under the Act to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court or Court)." If anyone would be familiar with problems in obtaining FISA warrants, it would be Baker.

And yet, look at what Baker said in his Statement. He began by effusively praising the Patriot Act on the ground that the 72-hour window provided by the Patriot Act had given the Administration the speed and flexibility it needed in order to engage in eavesdropping:

The reforms in those measures (the PATRIOT Act) have affected every single application made by the Department for electronic surveillance or physical search of suspected terrorists and have enabled the government to become quicker, more flexible, and more focused in going "up" on those suspected terrorists in the United States.

One simple but important change that Congress made was to lengthen the time period for us to bring to court applications in support of Attorney General-authorized emergency FISAs. This modification has allowed us to make full and effective use of FISA's pre-existing emergency provisions to ensure that the government acts swiftly to respond to terrorist threats. Again, we are grateful for the tools Congress provided us last fall for the fight against terrorism. Thank you.

And then, regarding DeWine's specific proposal to lower the evidentiary standard required for a FISA warrant, Baker said that:

The Department of Justice has been studying Sen. DeWine's proposed legislation. Because the proposed change raises both significant legal and practical issues, the Administration at this time is not prepared to support it.

So, in June, 2002, the Administration refused to support elimination of the very barrier ("probable cause") which Gen. Hayden claimed yesterday necessitated the circumvention of FISA. In doing so, the Administration identified two independent reasons for opposing this amendment. One reason was that the Justice Department was not aware of any problems which the Administration was having in getting the warrants it needed under FISA:

The practical concern involves an assessment of whether the current "probable cause" standard has hamstrung our ability to use FISA surveillance to protect our nation. We have been aggressive in seeking FISA warrants and, thanks to Congress's passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, we have been able to use our expanded FISA tools more effectively to combat terrorist activities. It may not be the case that the probable cause standard has caused any difficulties in our ability to seek the FISA warrants we require, and we will need to engage in a significant review to determine the effect a change in the standard would have on our ongoing operations. If the current standard has not posed an obstacle, then there may be little to gain from the lower standard and, as I previously stated, perhaps much to lose.

So as of June, 2002 -- many months after the FISA bypass program was ordered -- the DoJ official who was responsible for overseeing the FISA warrant program was not aware (at least when he submitted this Statement) of any difficulties in obtaining warrants under the FISA "probable cause" standard, and for that reason, the Administration would not even support DeWine's amendment. If - as the Administration is now claiming - they had such significant difficulties obtaining the warrants they wanted for eavesdropping that they had to go outside of FISA, surely Baker - who was in charge of obtaining those warrants - would have been aware of them. And, if the Administration was really having the problems under FISA, they would have supported DeWine's Amendment. But they didn't.

The second concern the Administration expressed with DeWine's amendment was that it was quite possibly unconstitutional:

The Department's Office of Legal Counsel is analyzing relevant Supreme Court precedent to determine whether a "reasonable suspicion" standard for electronic surveillance and physical searches would, in the FISA context, pass constitutional muster. The issue is not clear cut, and the review process must be thorough because of what is at stake, namely, our ability to conduct investigations that are vital to protecting national security. If we err in our analysis and courts were ultimately to find a "reasonable suspicion" standard unconstitutional, we could potentially put at risk ongoing investigations and prosecutions.

By that time, the Administration had already been engaging in eavesdropping outside of the parameters of FISA, and yet the DoJ itself was expressing serious doubts about the constitutionality of that eavesdropping and even warned that engaging in it might harm national security because it would jeopardize prosecutions against terrorists. Put another way, the DoJ was concerned that it might be unconstitutional to eavesdrop with a lower standard than probable cause even as the Administration was doing exactly that.

Two other points to note about this failed DeWine Amendment that are extremely important:

(1) Congress refused to enact the DeWine Amendment and thus refused to lower the FISA standard from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion." It is the height of absurdity for the Administration to now suggest that Congress actually approved of this change and gave it authorization to do just that -- when Congress obviously had no idea it was being done and refused to pass that change into law when it had the chance.

(2) DeWine's amendment would have lowered the standard for obtaining a FISA warrant only for non-U.S. persons -- whereas for "U.S. persons," the standard would have continued to be "probable cause." And, DeWine's amendment would not have eliminated judicial oversight, since the Administration still would have needed approval of the FISA court for these warrants.

That means that, in 2 different respects, DeWine's FISA amendment was much, much less draconian than what the Administration was already secretly doing (i.e., lowering the evidentiary standard but (i) eliminating judicial oversight, and (ii) applying these changes not just to non-U.S. persons but also to U.S. persons). Thus, Congress refused to approve -- and the DoJ even refused to endorse -- a program much less extreme and draconian than the Administration's secret FISA bypass program.

This has extremely significant implications for the Administration's claims made yesterday through Gen. Hayden as to why it was necessary to bypass FISA. The Administration's claim that the "probable cause" component of FISA was preventing it from engaging in the eavesdropping it needed is the opposite of what it told Congress when refusing to support the DeWine Amendment. And its claim that Congress knew of and approved of its FISA-bypassing eavesdrop program is plainly negated by the fact that the same Congress was debating whether such changes should be effectuated and then refused to approve much less extreme changes to FISA than what the Administration secretly implemented on its own (and which it now claims Congress authorized).

The Administration is stuck with the excuse given by Gen. Hayden yesterday as to why it had to eavesdrop outside of FISA, but that excuse is plainly contradicted by these events and by the Administration's own statements at the time.

More: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013810.html

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/24/181225/664

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_22_atrios_archive.html#113813103827044930
[Atrios] Let's recap the Bush talking points as they've been shot down.

The program was some super-technology thing! Not true.

The program was necessary because the FISA court doesn't allow them to act fast enough. Not true.

The program was necessary because Congress wouldn't let us lower the necessary burden. Not true - they opposed a similar measure themselves.

Once again, all we're left with is:

They wanted to spy on whoever they wanted to without any oversight or accountability.

And if you still have any doubts that we are in the midst of one of the most momentous and terrifying struggles over governmental surveillance authority, read this

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008071.php
[Kevin Drum] I'm still confused about a number of things, but as near as I can tell here's the state of play on the NSA's domestic spying program:

1 The administration has acknowledged that the NSA program violated the FISA act. However, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales argues that the Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed shortly after 9/11, superseded FISA.

2 Yesterday, General Michael Hayden said that the reason they had to bypass FISA was because it required a showing of "probable cause" that the target of a wiretap request was a foreign power (i.e., either a terrorist organization or a foreign state). That standard was apparently too difficult to meet in many cases.

3 As Glenn Greenwald reports today, in 2002 congressman Mike DeWine introduced an amendment to FISA that would have retained probable cause as the standard for U.S. persons (i.e., citizens or foreigners with permanent residency) but lowered it to "reasonable suspicion" for non-U.S. persons.

4 Congress refused to pass DeWine's amendment. This makes it plain that Congress did not intend for AUMF to loosen the restrictions of FISA.

So this leaves only the argument that the president's inherent constitutional powers give him the authority to order wiretaps of U.S. citizens even when Congress has passed laws forbidding it. There is, as near as I can tell, no case law that supports this view.

It's worth noting, by the way, that the administration has been adamant that calls are only monitored if one end of the call is outside the United States. But why not also monitor calls within the United States? Last month General Hayden said simply that "that's where we've decided to draw that balance between security and liberty" — in this case "we" meaning the president and the NSA. This rather strongly implies that George Bush believes there's nothing stopping him from ordering 100% domestic wiretapping if he feels like it, and nothing Congress can do about it if he does. So much for Article I Section 8.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/bad-law-defense.html
[Glenn Greenwald] When Hayden says that the President’s Executive Order allows eavesdropping using a standard that "is a bit softer than it is for a FISA warrant," what he’s saying, of course, is that the President ordered eavesdropping which FISA prohibits. FISA makes it a criminal offense to eavesdrop without a warrant from a FISA court, and Bush ordered eavesdropping without those warrants. Thus, Hayden claims that when NSA now wants to eavesdrop, it does not need to comply with FISA. . .

More: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_22_digbysblog_archive.html#113814599074563473

Will the media tell this story?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601250001

Nooooo!!!!!!

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5047
Helen Thomas asked Scott McClellan if the President is planning to go to Congress to ask for the authority to legally eavesdrop on telephone calls. McClellan responded, "The President has the authority to act within the Constitution to do this to protect the American people and that is exactly what he intends to do". McClellan explained the wiretapping program as a terrorist surveillance program aimed at detecting and preventing attacks focused on al-Qaeda communications. He said the President has briefed Congress a number of times and the administration continues to brief Congress about it. According to McClellan, members of Congress agreed to continue the program the way it is instead of moving ahead with legislation that reflects the President's authority.

[NB: As Holden asks, can this possibly be true? WHO agreed to this? When?]

What Bush thinks

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013813.html
I'm not a lawyer, but I can tell you what it means. It means Congress gave me the authority to use necessary force to protect the American people, but it didn't prescribe the tactics. It's an--you've got the power to protect us, but we're not going to tell you how. . .

U.S. Army “stretched to the breaking point”

http://makeashorterlink.com/?S5225178C
[AP] Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a "thin green line" that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon.

Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon's decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended.

More: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013814.html

Audit of U.S. funds in Iraq: guess what it found?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/25/international/middleeast/25reconstruct.html

Outsourcing torture in Europe

http://makeashorterlink.com/?E5622578C
[AP] The head of a European investigation into alleged CIA secret prisons in Europe said Tuesday there was evidence the United States outsourced torture to other countries and it was likely European governments knew about it. . .

Why the Democrats MUST engage the national security debate

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6429.html

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/01/index.html#008941

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/01/index.html#008946

More on Paul Wolfowitz’s disastrous tenure over at the World Bank

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001203.php

WH refuses to release “about a dozen” Bush-Abramoff photos, and listen to the excuse (better swallow that sip of coffee first!)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/23/AR2006012300333.html
Several White House officials have been briefed about pictures of President Bush and Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff taken since 2001 but will not release them on grounds that they are not relevant to the ongoing money-for-favors investigation, aides said yesterday. . .

[NB: “Relevance” is not for them to decide, of course. But if they WERE relevant, then they would withhold them so as not to influence “an ongoing investigation”!

How these people must sit around in private laughing at the DC press corps. Their contempt is apparent. Reporters should be camped out, demanding that these photos be released, as well as the details of these meetings WHICH SCOTTY PROMISED THEM. Get a spine, people!]

VERY interesting. . . . as discussed here yesterday, the five photos shopped to Time magazine DID come from Abramoff’s people. Hmmmmm….why?

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013811.html

Do you want more evidence of the Bush gang’s utter contempt for the public’s right to know?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/25/politics/25katrina.html
The Bush administration, citing the confidentiality of executive branch communications, said Tuesday that it did not plan to turn over certain documents about Hurricane Katrina or make senior White House officials available for sworn testimony before two Congressional committees investigating the storm response. . .

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-katrina25jan25,0,5631796.story
The White House is crippling a Senate inquiry into the government's sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina by barring administration officials from answering questions and failing to hand over documents, senators leading the investigation said Tuesday. . .

Welcome back Dan Froomkin!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
How can a president of the United States talk for almost two hours, unscripted, and be so fundamentally unrevealing? . . . Promising his Midwestern audience insights into his worldview and decision-making process, Bush yesterday made a little news here and there, but mostly killed time with stale sound bites and folksy banter. . .

[NB: And this little dig at his own ombudsman, Deborah Howell]

"MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not aware of anything that has anything to do with the investigation. I know that there's some Democrats that want to try to make this -- try to engage in partisan attacks. But what we do know from media reports is that Mr. Abramoff gave directly or indirectly to Democrats and Republicans. . ."

But McClellan's continued attempt to portray the Abramoff scandal as bipartisan doesn't exactly help his credibility on the question of White House meetings. His assertion flies in the face of the facts and is a Republican talking point espoused only by the most partisan or most credulous.

More Scotty-bashing: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013812.html

A preview of Bush’s State of the Union (another howler, I’m afraid)

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_22.php#007511
[Josh Marshall] As is now being widely reported, the policy centerpiece of the president's state of the union address next week will be so-called HSAs, Health Savings Accounts. You can find out more about what a ridiculous idea they are here in a post from Ezra Klein. . . But, policy particulars aside, isn't the president moving into a bit of a policy headwind on this one?

What's the slogan? "Bush Health Savings Accounts! Because the Bush Medicare Drug Bill is Working Out So Well!"

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008063.php
[Kevin Drum] President Bush's Bold Proposal™ for 2006 is apparently going to be Health Savings Accounts, a half-baked pseudo-solution to the healthcare crisis that sounds intriguing primarily to people who are young and healthy and therefore don't think they're going to need much healthcare. That's just the right target audience for a healthcare plan, isn't it?. . . The debate over HSAs is going to get mighty wonky over the next few months, but always keep this explanation in mind as you're trying to make sense of the charges and countercharges. The fundamental idea behind HSAs is not to provide better healthcare, it's to provide less healthcare. Conservatives want you to think twice before spending a hundred bucks for your regular pap smear.

More: http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/01/index.html#008934

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/24/123321/980

K Street

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/01/index.html#008942
[Ezra Klein] For those of you routinely depressed by mealy-mouthed, cowardly reporting on important stories, The Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman has a blistering expose on industry machinations to reverse cuts in Medicare reimbursements. If you're looking to see congressional corruption in action, the shell-game of reconciliation committees, the spinelessness of the "moderates,” the dominance of industry, and all the other moving parts of the K Street Project operating as a coherent whole, you could do no better than to follow Weisman's story. . .

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6427.html

DeLay + Cunningham (+ Blunt!)

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/another-delay-scandal.html

Rick Santorum (R-PA): a never-ending source of outrage (but come the fall election, he’ll be gone we hope)

http://santorumexposed.com/serendipity/archives/123-Ask-Not-What-Santorum-Can-Do-For-You.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a5ou7AWCWtd8&refer=us
The most recent poll taken in the Santorum-Casey contest showed Casey ahead by a margin of 50 percent to 34 percent. . . “This is a very unusual set of circumstances, for an incumbent to be double-digits behind,'' Madonna said. “This is a pretty substantial, deep hole.''

This will be an ongoing theme over the next couple of years: the pros and cons of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for President (for the record, I’m leaning con)

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_22.php#007519

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/01/index.html#008945

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/01/index.html#008947

Bonus item: Could this be true?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/01/23/conservative-mag-bush-ad_n_14340.html
[Insight Magazine, a publication of the ultra-conservative Washington Times] The Bush administration is bracing for impeachment hearings in Congress. . .

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:21 AM

 
CAUGHT IN A LIE

Well, some light is finally being shed on why the Bush gang didn’t want to go to the FISA court – not, of course, for the totally bogus reasons that they first gave (it’s too slow, etc)

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6417.html
[Steve Benen] Why did the White House avoid oversight and warrants when implementing its warrantless-search program? One possible answer came by way of the New York Times in late-December, when the paper explained that the administration worked with telecommunications companies to trace and analyze large volumes of telephone and Internet communications, without warrants, after 9/11. It suggested an explanation as to why the administration couldn't get a warrant — it was data mining and there was no specific target for which a warrant could be issued.

But Gen. Michael Hayden, the principal deputy director of national intelligence, said today that this explanation is wrong. . .

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008065.php
[Kevin Drum] Hayden is saying that the NSA program isn't some kind of large-scale data mining operation that the authors of the FISA act never could have foreseen. Rather, it's "targeted and focused" and involves "only international calls and only those we have a reasonable basis to believe involve al Qaeda or one of its affiliates." . . . In other words, it's precisely the kind of monitoring that the FISA court already approves routinely and in large volumes. Another few hundred requests wouldn't faze them in the least.

So if (a) NSA's lawyers are allegedly convinced that the program is legal, and (b) we're talking about monitoring a specific and limited number of conversations, why not get FISA warrants? Because they knew FISA wouldn't approve them:

[NYT] The standard laid out by General Hayden — a "reasonable basis to believe" — is lower than "probable cause," the standard used by the special court created by Congress to handle surveillance involving foreign intelligence. . . General Hayden said that the difference in the legal standards...played an important role in determining whether to go to the FISA court or not. . .

So what do you do if the FISA court won't approve a lowered standard, Congress won't change the law, and even the attorney general refuses to play ball? Answer: You go ahead and do what you want anyway.

More: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008067.php

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_22.php#007516

http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/23/225716/465

Gen. Hayden: caught

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/23/18342/1340
QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I'd like to stay on the same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use --

GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure. That's what it says.

QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.

GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But does it not say probable --

GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure. . . believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. . .

[Fourth Amendment] The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_22_atrios_archive.html#113804607015912827
[Atrios] [T]his also means they're completely changing their story. Previously they lied and said that the FISA courts just couldn't act fast enough. Now we find out that they hate the US constitution and federal laws.

More: http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5039

Bush: caught

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/23/17115/7374
"You know, it's amazing that people say to me, 'Well, he was just breaking the law.' If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?"

[NB: Well, clearly Bush – under the advice of his legal lackies – didn’t think he WAS breaking the law. But he was.]

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_22_digbysblog_archive.html#113804286022555906
[Digby] I'm feeling down right now. I know I shouldn't. The fact that Tom DeLay has stepped down is such a huge victory for humanity all by itself that I should be dancing a jig for the next six months. But, I'm down in the dumps, mostly because I am watching George W. Bush repeat his patented mantra for the 514,346th time. It's filled with lies, mischaracterizations and simple-minded gibberish, as always, and I'm watching it go out unfiltered, in its entirety, unchallenged by the media, no Democrats in sight, on every cable channel. I think they are personally trying to drive me crazy. . .

Dan Bartlett: caught

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/blood-in-water-dan-bartlett-trotted.html
[Rob] You know there is blood in the water when the White House trots out Dan Bartlett to do their bidding at 7:15 AM. I watched him on CNN with Miles O'Brien. . . Bartlett basically said he can't talk about anything of substance (national security of course!) and lied his way through the rest. He said they consulted the "highest levels" of Congress and they approved of the program. (Certainly Jay Rockefeller didn't.) He said they are using FISA and everything is fine. (Then why are the FISA judges saying that they think that the program was used to illegitimately gain wiretapping warrants?)

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_22_atrios_archive.html#113804141375085012
[Atrios] "Terrorist Surveillance Program". . . So that's what they're calling it now. So, has every American citizen they've illegally spied on been a terrorist or been talking to one? Wow, that's a lot of terrorists. If all the people we're spying on are terrorists why couldn't they have gotten FISA warrants?

Rove: caught

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/white-house-in-overdrive-to-sell-their.html
[NYT] Mr. Bush and Mr. Rove, his chief political adviser, have systematically presented arguments in accessible if sometimes exaggerated terms. . . Mr. Rove's speech on Friday to the Republican National Committee was a classic example. "Let me be as clear as I can be: President Bush believes if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why," Mr. Rove said. "Some important Democrats clearly disagree." . . .

A number of Republicans have joined Democrats in challenging the surveillance program, pointedly reminding the administration that precedents established today will be in place whenever a Democrat returns to power.

"A lot of Democrats?" said one prominent Republican supporter of Mr. Bush, who did not want to be identified while being critical of a White House that famously does not brook criticism. "Democrats, Karl? Republicans, too."

David A. Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, said: "A lot of conservatives are very skeptical about it. It is not as clean-cut a political win as the administration thinks that it is."

Conyers hearing transcript: http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002321.htm

Scotty: caught

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6416.html
[Steve Benen] Scott McClellan, when answering questions about Jack Abramoff's White House access, has been unusually evasive and non-committal for weeks, but today he got careless. . . At this morning's press gaggle, a reporter noted that McClellan encouraged the press corps to get back to him if they had "something specific." The pictures, in the reporters' minds, qualify as something specific. It didn't matter; McClellan still dodged.

"I indicated to you exactly what I just told you. I indicated to you that there were a few staff-level meetings that he attended at least — he attended two holiday receptions, in 2001 and 2002. There are some 400 to 500 people at each of those gatherings. And of course there's a photo line at those holiday receptions. The President has participated in tens upon thousands of photo lines or pictures in photo lines over the course of the last five years. He's taken pictures with many of you. . . Trying to say there's more to it than the President taking a picture in a photo line is just absurd."

Actually, it's not absurd at all. Journalists for Time, who've seen the pictures, reported that one of the several Bush-Abramoff shots also featured Raul Garza Sr., an Abramoff client who was then chairman of the Kickapoo Indians, which owned a casino in southern Texas.

We're still waiting for details, but it's worth noting that Bush met with the Kickapoo Indians in May 2001, thanks to the lobbying efforts of Abramoff and Grover Norquist. Indeed, at this gathering, the president met with Garza and Abramoff — though the White House now insists that Abramoff wasn't at the meeting. (Everyone in attendance seems to say otherwise.) It's likely where the Bush/Abramoff/Garza picture was taken.

This wasn't just "a picture in a photo line". . .

And for those keeping score at home, we're up to 19 days since McClellan promised the press corps a "thorough report" on Jack Abramoff's White House contacts "very soon."

More: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/23/white-house-abramoff-meeting-lie/

http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/06/01/ale06008.html

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/01/23/photo/index.html

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5038

Who’s shopping these photos?

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/23/abramoff-shopping-photos/

[NB: Could it be Abramoff’s people? Firing a little warning shot to the WH about the trouble he can cause them if they don’t support him?]

Scrubbed?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_22.php#007518
[Josh Marshall] A company called Reflections Photography handles photography and photo sales for many Republican political events. . .

Here's their online catalogue. You can view and purchase thousands of photos of Bush campaign and other GOP events. . .

Now, Time recently reported that: "Bracing for the worst, Administration officials obtained from the Secret Service a list of all the times Abramoff entered the White House complex, and they scrambled to determine the reason for each visit. Bush aides are also trying to identify all the photos that may exist of the two men together."

Did the White House, earlier this month, order Reflections to remove a photograph of a smiling President Bush and Jack Abramoff from its archive?

Bush’s Katrina lies: caught

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/bush-caught-in-lie-once-again.html
[NYT] A Homeland Security Department report submitted to the White House at 1:47 a.m. on Aug. 29, hours before the storm hit, said, "Any storm rated Category 4 or greater will likely lead to severe flooding and/or levee breaching."

The internal department documents, which were forwarded to the White House, contradict statements by President Bush and the homeland security secretary, Michael Chertoff, that no one expected the storm protection system in New Orleans to be breached.

"I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees," Mr. Bush said in a television interview on Sept. 1. . . .

Other documents to be released Tuesday show that the weekend before Hurricane Katrina made landfall, Homeland Security Department officials predicted that its impact would be worse than a doomsday-like emergency planning exercise conducted in Louisiana in July 2004.

More: http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003540.html

More Bush admin lies: caught

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/23/21232/2957

DeLay cronies: caught

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_22.php#007514

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6409.html

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_22.php#007517

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_22.php#007507

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0106/296507.html

Fitzgerald’s still in business

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013800.html
[Jeralyn Merritt] Reporter Jason Leopold has new details of the current focus of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into PlameGate, many of which were provided to him by those with personal knowledge of the investigation and who have appeared before the grand jury. He writes that the Niger documents are an issue, as are the activities of the White House Iraq Group and Karl Rove. In other words, a conspiracy investigation is very much underway.

Rove first:

All of the sources interviewed separately for this story said they were told that Karl Rove was the person who first suggested using the media to "turn the tables on Wilson." The officials wouldn't identify the person who told them this. The decision, however, was made during a meeting that took place between the White House Iraq Group. . . Lawyers close to the leak case said Fitzgerald seems to be pursuing conspiracy charges against some of the higher-profile suspects in the leak, such as Rove. . .

They said the questions Fitzgerald asked them about the Niger documents suggested to them that the special prosecutor was putting together a timeline. They said they believe Fitzgerald wants to show the grand jury how some people in the Bush administration may have conspired to retaliate against former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, an outspoken critic of the administration’s pre-war Iraq intelligence.

Libby’s lawyers angling for a pardon?

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/01/23/scooter/index.html

Bush back in the 30’s in approval

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/economy/
George W. Bush's overall job approval rating has returned to its lowest point in Bush's presidency as Americans again turn less optimistic about the national economy according to the latest survey from the American Research Group. Among all Americans, 36% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 58% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 34% approve and 60% disapprove. . .

Glenn’s must-read of the day

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/rules-for-political-discourse.html
It’s always worthwhile to review the rules of political debate just to make sure that we’re not overstepping the bounds of propriety. After all, as the Commander-in-Chief helpfully reminded us just recently, there is a "difference between responsible and irresponsible debate" and we must "demand a debate that brings credit to our democracy -- not comfort to our adversaries." With that admonition in mind, let’s take a look at how these standards play out.

The Great Outrage among Bush followers these last couple of weeks is that Harry Belafonte called George Bush the "greatest terrorist." This is an example of "irresponsible" debate which fails to "bring credit to our democracy," but rather, brings "comfort to our adversaries."

Thus, we have learned that Belafonte’s comments constitute "sabotage and treachery," and they show that he is "demented." Good people everywhere must shun and stigmatize Belafonte, and it is evidence of great societal corruption that he is invited to speak on college campuses. As one patriotic commentator noted, Belafonte’s comment "sounds to me like giving 'aid and comfort' to the enemy. Yes, folks, I'm talking about the "t" word: treason" (emphasis in original). Accordingly, it would be best if Belafonte just renounces his American citizenship and stays in Venezuela with Hugo Chavez, where he belongs.

So just to recap: it renders someone a despicable untouchable loon if they call George Bush a terrorist. Now let’s look at some of the things we have learned in the recent past about Democrats.

We know that, when it comes to Iraq and the fight against terrorism, former President Jimmy Carter is "on the other side" (that would be the side of the terrorists). And how about DNC Chair Howard Dean? He’s a complete "traitor" who, according to Ronald Reagan’s son, "should be arrested and hung for treason or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq War."

Jay Rockefeller? Guilty of treason. How about Dick Durbin? According to Karl Rove, he's on the side of the terrorists, a total traitor. John Kerry? Yawn. Need you even ask? A real traitor to his country, and guilty of treason.

And then, of course, we just spent this last weekend hearing from countless pundits and "journalists" that Democrats sound so very much like the mass murdering Unprecedentedly Evil Terrorist Osama bin Laden -- so much so that it seems clear that bin Laden is getting his talking points from Dean, Kerry and the New York Times.

So let’s review: It is a despicable act of deranged hatred to call George Bush a "terrorist." But it is perfectly acceptable, even common, to accuse Bush's political opponents of being traitors, committing treason, being on "the other side" (i.e., with the terrorists), and pronouncing that they should hang. And there’s one last rule you don’t want to forget about. It’s from Newt Gingrich, announced on Hannity & Colmes:

"I think it's quite clear as you point out, Sean, that from this tape, that bin Laden and his lieutenants are monitoring the American news media, they're monitoring public opinion polling, and I suspect they take a great deal of comfort when they see people attacking United States policies."

So, according to Newt, anyone who is "attacking United States policies" -- what we in the United States used to call "criticizing the Government" -- is now guilty of giving "a great deal of comfort" to Al Qaeda.

These rules seem very fair and evenly applied and I think we owe it to the country to be a little more diligent in complying with them. After all, if we don’t stop with all of this criticism of the Commander-in-Chief, we might lose our freedoms.

Progress in Iraq?

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2552
[USAT] The number of attacks against coalition troops, Iraqi security forces and civilians increased 29% last year, and insurgents are increasingly targeting Iraqis, the U.S. military says. . . Insurgents launched 34,131 attacks last year, up from 26,496 the year before, according to U.S. military figures released Sunday.

[Swopa] But, as you might guess, according to our military geniuses in charge of the war, this is good news:

Insurgents are widening their attacks to include the expanding Iraqi forces engaged in the fighting, said Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, a coalition spokesman. . . He added, "It tells me the coalition and the Iraqi forces have been very aggressive in taking the fight to the enemy."

Sadly, Gen. Alston didn't explain how putting oneself in the the path of car bombs and improvised landmines (the use of which, in both cases, doubled last year) constitutes "taking the fight to the enemy."

Progress?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/23/104640/751
[Georgia10] While the United States government has ratcheted up its rhetoric with respect to Iran, Iraq has come to Iran's defense. Yesterday, the New York Times reported that one of Iraq's most influential clerics vowed to use militias to protect Iran against foreign intervention. . . Well, you say. That's a cleric, not a formal representative of Iraq. The Iraqi government still has our back, right? Not quite. The official Islamic Republic News Agency reveals that Iraq's Foreign Minister has been meeting with leaders in Iran in order to strengthen the relationship between the two countries. As recently as this week, in the midst of international fury over Iran's actions, the Iraqi Foreign Minister called for a closer Iran-Iraq relationship. . .

Progress?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/international/middleeast/24reconstruct.html
The first official history of the $25 billion American reconstruction effort in Iraq depicts a program hobbled from the outset by gross understaffing, a lack of technical expertise, bureaucratic infighting, secrecy and constantly increasing security costs, according to a preliminary draft.

The document, which begins with the secret prewar planning for reconstruction and touches on nearly every phase of the program through 2005, was assembled by the office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction and debated last month in a closed forum by roughly two dozen experts from outside the office. . .

The inspector general's office, whose agents and auditors have been examining and reporting on various aspects of the rebuilding since early 2004, declined to comment on the report other than to say it was highly preliminary. . . "It's incomplete," said a spokesman for the inspector general's office, Jim Mitchell. "It could change significantly before it is finally published."

In the document, the paralyzing effect of staffing shortfalls and contracting battles between the State Department and the Pentagon, creating delays of months at a stretch, are described for the first time from inside the program. . . The document also recounts concerns about writing contracts for an entity with the "ambiguous legal status" of the Coalition Provisional Authority. . .

Seemingly odd decisions on dividing the responsibility for various sectors of the reconstruction crop up repeatedly in the document. . . "It almost looks like a spoils system between various agencies," said Steve Ellis, a vice president and an authority on the Army corps at Taxpayers for Common Sense, an organization in Washington, who read a copy of the document. "You had various fiefdoms established in the contracting process."

One authority on reconstruction who attended the session last month, John J. Hamre, said the report was an unblinking and unbiased look at the program. . . "It's gutsy and it's honest," said Mr. Hamre, president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a public policy group based in Washington. . .

[NB: Well, in that case you can be sure it WILL “change significantly before it is finally published”]

More on Iraq: http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_22_atrios_archive.html#113807405246654918

Well, I guess this IS progress

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-military24jan24,0,706286.story
The U.S. military has long been accused of always planning to fight its last war. But as the Pentagon assesses threats to national security over the next four years, a major blueprint being completed in the shadow of the Iraq war will do largely the opposite.

The military went into Iraq with a vision that a small, agile, and lightly armored force could win a quick preemptive war. Although the U.S. easily crushed Saddam Hussein's army, the subsequent occupation has proven far costlier in lives, money and international standing than most expected.

As a result, the U.S. military has no appetite for another lengthy war of "regime change." . . . Iraq "is clearly a one-off," said a Pentagon official who is working on the top-to-bottom study, known as the Quadrennial Defense Review. "There is certainly no intention to do it again."

Top ten Bush mistakes on Al Qaeda

http://www.juancole.com/2006/01/top-ten-mistakes-of-bush.html

Advice for Democrats

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/23/AR2006012301261.html
[E.J. Dionne] By not engaging the national security debate, Democrats cede to Rove the power to frame it. Consider that clever line about Democrats having a pre-Sept. 11 view of the world. The typical Democratic response would be defensive: "No, no, of course 9/11 changed the world." More specifically, there's a lot of private talk among Democrats that the party should let go of the issue of warrantless spying on Americans because the polls show that a majority values security and safety.

What Democrats should have learned is that they cannot evade the security debate. They must challenge the terms under which Rove and Bush would conduct it. Imagine, for example, directly taking on that line about Sept. 11. Does having a "post-9/11 worldview" mean allowing Bush to do absolutely anything he wants, any time he wants, without having to answer to the courts, Congress or the public? Most Americans -- including a lot of libertarian-leaning Republicans -- reject such an anti-constitutional view of presidential power. If Democrats aren't willing to take on this issue, what's the point of being an opposition party?

Democrats want to fight this election on the issue of Republican corruption. But corruption is about the abuse of power. If smart political consultants can't figure out how to link the petty misuses of power with its larger abuses, they are not earning their big paychecks.

And, yes, the core questions must be asked: Are we really safer now than we were five years ago? Has the Iraq war, as organized and prosecuted by the administration, made us stronger or weaker? Do we feel more secure knowing the heck of a job our government did during Hurricane Katrina? Do we have any confidence that the Department of Homeland Security and other government agencies will clean up their act if Washington remains under the sway of one-party government?

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013794.html
[Jeralyn Merritt] It's happening again. Everytime the Democrats come close to scoring, they drop the ball. They fall for the Republican rhetoric, try to play the middle and end up sounding like Republican-lites.

Here's what you will see in the next few days. All of the points made over Bush's warrantless NSA electronic monitoring program being illegal are about to go down the drain. Scared off by Karl Rove, and Bush's agenda of talking heads this week, the Democrats are now saying they are in favor of increased surveillance just as much as the Republicans. Their opposition is about to be reduced to accusing Bush of a technical violation they would only have been to happy to fix had he asked.

Susie has her fingers crossed

http://susiemadrak.com/2006/01/23/19/15/rumor-central-3/
I’m seeing things all over the place indicating the Dems are (yes, I swear, I’m not making this up) actually going to filibuster Alito. Nothing absolute, but the signs are there. Keep your fingers crossed.

More: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_22_digbysblog_archive.html#113807952631602093

Bonus item: Loyalty is a one-way street

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2553

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:34 AM

 
THIEVES AND SCOUNDRELS

The Bush-Abramoff photos: they exist, and Time magazine has seen them (when will the rest of us?)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1151784,00.html
As details poured out about the illegal and unseemly activities of Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, White House officials sought to portray the scandal as a Capitol Hill affair with little relevance to them. Peppered for days with questions about Abramoff's visits to the White House, press secretary Scott McClellan said the now disgraced lobbyist had attended two huge holiday receptions and a few "staff-level meetings" that were not worth describing further. "The President does not know him, nor does the President recall ever meeting him," McClellan said.

The President's memory may soon be unhappily refreshed. TIME has seen five photographs of Abramoff and the President that suggest a level of contact between them that Bush's aides have downplayed. While TIME's source refused to provide the pictures for publication, they are likely to see the light of day eventually because celebrity tabloids are on the prowl for them. And that has been a fear of the Bush team's for the past several months: that a picture of the President with the admitted felon could become the iconic image of direct presidential involvement in a burgeoning corruption scandal. . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6405.html
[Steve Benen] McClellan has stonewalled the press now for 18 days. A White House official told Time, "The decision was made — don't put out any additional information." But when it comes to these pictures, Rove & Co. don't have control anymore. It's not up to the Bush gang to put out anything, except maybe some kind of explanation for why the president was tight with the most corrupt lobbyist in town.

In retrospect, the White House couldn't have handled this much worse. (I don't mean the access they gave Abramoff; I mean the media strategy now.) Once they knew there were pictures, the Bush gang should have released them and gotten it over with. Instead, they've built up the significance of the pics and alerted the entire political establishment, including every political reporter in town, to the fact that the pictures' existence is embarrassing and damaging. Whatever happened to the leak-at-5-on-a-Friday scheme?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008061.php
[Kevin Drum] But the power of images is so great that the White House is nearly white with fear that pictures of Bush and Abramoff will eventually show up on the evening news. As well they should be.

The Director

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/23/12534/0111

More: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013787.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008060.php

Bush’s judges

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/01/23/payne/
A judge nominated by President Bush to one of the highest courts in the nation apparently violated federal law repeatedly while serving on the federal bench. Judge James H. Payne, 64, who was nominated by Bush in late September to join the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Denver, issued more than 100 orders in at least 18 cases that involved corporations in which he owned stock, a review of court and financial records shows. . .

Lobbyist put in charge of intelligence over at Homeland Security (nope, I’m not making it up)

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003522.html

Uh. . . .oops

http://susiemadrak.com/2006/01/22/18/36/dept-of-propoganda/
[CNN] Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz on Sunday ridiculed as “bizarre” a U.S. report that senior al Qaeda leaders were killed in a CIA attack on a home along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

“There is no evidence, as of half an hour ago, that there were any other people there,” Aziz said on CNN’s “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer.”

http://www.slate.com/id/2134649/
[Jay Dixit] The Washington Post leads with news of problems in the three-way alliance among the United States, Pakistan, and Afghanistan . . . The WP reports that as militants have become more aggressive, and the U.S. has responded in kind, relations among the three countries in the anti-terrorism alliance have frayed. The partnership was strained when the U.S. launched Hellfire missiles at a Pakistani village in an attempt to take out al-Qaida's deputy leader, and again when a suicide bomber blew himself up in a crowd in an Afghan village. The Mexican standoff goes something like this: The Pakistanis see the missile strike—and the ensuing collateral damage—as a sign that the U.S. doesn't respect their sovereignty; the Afghans blame Pakistan for training suicide bombers who kill Afghans; and the U.S. is frustrated because its soldiers are stuck in Afghanistan while militants hole up in Pakistan.

An inside look at U.S. prison abuse and torture

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/22/AR2006012200928.html

Halliburton

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/cheneys-company-refused-to-tell-us.html
[AP] Troops and civilians at a U.S. military base in Iraq were exposed to contaminated water last year and employees for the responsible contractor, Halliburton, couldn't get their company to inform camp residents, according to interviews and internal company documents. . .

Bush’s awful health care plan

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-health23jan23,0,1261630.story

The end of Voting Rights enforcement

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/22/AR2006012200984_pf.html

Diebold

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/21/AR2006012101051.html
Questions about the security of electronic voting machines have been circulating widely in recent years. But many of the concerns have been dismissed as the fantasies of Internet conspiracy theorists or sore-loser partisans who could not accept that their candidates simply got fewer votes. Critics have not demonstrated that any real elections have had returns altered by the manipulation of electronic voting systems. . . But the questions raised by Sancho, who has held his post since 1989, show how the concerns are being taken more seriously among elections professionals. . .

Creeping Fascism (there is no other word for it)

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/politics/13675006.htm
While the White House defended domestic surveillance as a safeguard against terrorism, a Florida peace activist and several Democrats in Congress accused the Bush administration on Friday of spying on Americans who disagree with President Bush's policies. . .

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965509/site/newsweek/
The demonstration seemed harmless enough. Late on a June afternoon in 2004, a motley group of about 10 peace activists showed up outside the Houston headquarters of Halliburton, the giant military contractor once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney. They were there to protest the corporation's supposed "war profiteering." The demonstrators wore papier-mache masks and handed out free peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches to Halliburton employees as they left work. The idea, according to organizer Scott Parkin, was to call attention to allegations that the company was overcharging on a food contract for troops in Iraq. "It was tongue-in-street political theater," Parkin says.

But that's not how the Pentagon saw it. To U.S. Army analysts at the top-secret Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), the peanut-butter protest was regarded as a potential threat to national security. . . A Defense document shows that Army analysts wrote a report on the Halliburton protest and stored it in CIFA's database. It's not clear why the Pentagon considered the protest worthy of attention. . .

But there are now questions about whether CIFA exceeded its authority and conducted unauthorized spying on innocent people and organizations. A Pentagon memo obtained by NEWSWEEK shows that the deputy Defense secretary now acknowledges that some TALON reports may have contained information on U.S. citizens and groups that never should have been retained. The number of reports with names of U.S. persons could be in the thousands, says a senior Pentagon official who asked not be named because of the sensitivity of the subject.

CIFA's activities are the latest in a series of disclosures about secret government programs that spy on Americans in the name of national security. In December, the ACLU obtained documents showing the FBI had investigated several activist groups, including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Greenpeace, supposedly in an effort to discover possible ecoterror connections. At the same time, the White House has spent weeks in damage-control mode, defending the controversial program that allowed the National Security Agency to monitor the telephone conversations of U.S. persons suspected of terror links, without obtaining warrants.

Last Thursday, Cheney called the program "vital" to the country's defense against Al Qaeda. "Either we are serious about fighting this war on terror or not," he said in a speech to the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. But as the new information about CIFA shows, the scope of the U.S. government's spying on Americans may be far more extensive than the public realizes. . .

More: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013786.html

http://susiemadrak.com/2006/01/22/09/37/the-royal-guard/
[Mark Crispin Miller] “A permanent police force, to be known as the ‘United States Secret Service Uniformed Division,’” empowered to “make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence” (what is “an offense against the United States?), “or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony” (what are “reasonable grounds”?).

More: http://makeashorterlink.com/?I25E1638C

McCain, Lieberman, call Bush’s domestic spying illegal

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/22/14195/3783

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_012206.pdf

Rove 101: when you have a weakness, call it a strength

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/23/politics/23spy.html
Whether the White House can succeed depends very much, members of both parties say, on its success in framing a complicated debate when the country is torn between its historic aversion to governmental intrusion and its recent fear of terrorist attacks at home. . . But as the White House and Democrats are well aware, the issue can draw very different reactions depending on how it is presented. These next few days could prove critical, as both Mr. Bush and Congressional Democrats move aggressively to define what is at stake.

http://www.slate.com/id/2134649
[Jay Dixit] A NYT news analysis argues that the White House views its secret warrantless wiretap program as an asset, not a liability. Americans may support the program if it's put in terms of protecting the country, but may not if it's put in terms of the president breaking the law. The administration has proved deft at using "simplicity and repetition" to frame issues in its favor, and is already claiming that Democrats believe al-Qaida calls should not be tracked. Still, this may be a tough issue to spin, says the NYT, especially since many Republicans oppose the program.

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6404.html

I’m just saying . . .

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/saddam-copying-bushs-talking-points.html
[Glenn Greenwald] See, pro-Bush commentators didn't mean anything bad at all by this comparison, and they certainly did not mean to imply -- where would anyone possibly ever get that idea? -- that Democrats are al Qaeda supporters. It's just that bin Laden sounds a lot like Democrats and all they're doing is pointing that out. What's the problem?

In that case, I'm sure they won't mind at all if it's pointed out that Saddam Hussein's defense theory at his war crimes trial in Baghdad sure does sound an awful lot like the Bush Administration's theories as to why they have the right to violate the law. . .

When journalists don’t do their jobs

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/medias-distorted-understanding-of.html
[Glenn Greenwald] Here is what Karl Rove, the President’s top advisor, said in his speech on Friday regarding the NSA law-breaking scandal, as reported by The New York Times' Adam Nagourney:

"Let me be as clear as I can be: President Bush believes if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why," Mr. Rove said. "Some important Democrats clearly disagree."

This statement is factually false, and Rove has to know that it’s false. Nobody of any note – let alone "some important Democrats" – disagree that it’s "in our national security interest to know" who Al Qaeda is calling and why. Nobody opposes eavesdropping on Al Qaeda, and Rove knows that. And yet, here he is, claiming, falsely, that the NSA scandal is based on a disagreement about whether the Government should be eavesdropping on Al Qaeda, even though no such disagreement exists.

This is not about claiming a little poetic license with flamboyant political rhetoric, nor is this a dispute over how one characterizes the viewpoints of one’s political opponents. This is just false propaganda, pure and simple, with no goal but to mislead. . . Karl Rove is peddling transparent falsehoods about the scandal because he knows we have a neutered media that will simply pass them along . . .

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_22_atrios_archive.html#113798464165223557
[Jay Rosen] So if you're a responsible reporter and you call up the RNC spokesman and get the response to Gore's speech, you're just going to have to accept that when the spokesman tells you something kinda sorta plausible but fundamentally untrue you're going to attribute it, quote it accurately, and run it. Now you're involved in the propaganda machine yourself, but it happened as a result of trying to be balanced and responsible and 'avoid the impression of...'

[Steve Lovelady] Unless, of course, you write the follow-up paragraph, based on a little research easily accessed in these days of digital databanks, which says, basically, "The RNC response is fundamentally untrue."

[Atrios] It's weird that they don't get it because in the mind of readers it essentially makes the reporters liars. Despite how some like to think of themselves, reporters are not passive conduits of information. They choose their sources. They choose the quotes. They decide when a source has been full of shit so many times that, if they care, they stop going to them for information.

More than that, from the perspective of the reader when the journalist passes on the quote without question or any rebuttal or refutation, the journalist is implicitly putting his/her stamp of authentication on it. This is doubly true for those "anonymous senior administration official quotes" where no sensible (hah!) reader assumes that a reporter would pass off information under cover of anonymity without doing at least a modest bit of verification.

This is different from, say, CNN running some of a Bush speech live and not doing an instant fact check. TV news, in part, is a passive conduit for live events. But print reporting should never simply be, uh, what was that word? Oh, yes, stenography.

More: http://susiemadrak.com/2006/01/22/22/54/informed-opinion/

Tim Russert’s race-based questioning

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013793.html

While DC dithers over Roe v Wade, the real action is in the states

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1151788,00.html

More: http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/22/151945/084

Thinking like winners

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060206/alterman
[Eric Alterman] Among the most egregious offenders against journalistic standards and simple honesty for the purpose of abusing liberals is Time's Joe Klein, who is, amazingly, the most liberal commentator currently employed by America's highest-circulation newsweekly. . . Klein writes, "The latest version of the absolutely necessary Patriot Act, which updates the laws regulating the war on terrorism and contains civil-liberties improvements over the first edition, was nearly killed by a stampede of Senate Democrats." In fact, this "stampede" was led by four Republicans.

[NB: Remember Klein’s attack on bloggers yesterday: “Well I bow to nobody in, in my disdain for bloggers. They're all opinions and very little information.”]

So here, apparently, is the punditocracy argument in a nutshell: Never mind that liberals are constitutionally correct. Never mind that their view is supported by a majority of Americans. And never mind that the Bush Administration has repeatedly lied to the American people on exactly these issues. Never mind, most of all, the truth.

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/112291
[Molly Ivins] What kind of courage does it take, for mercy's sake? The majority of the American people think the war in Iraq is a mistake and we should get out. The majority (65 percent) of the American people want single-payer health care and are willing to pay more taxes to get it. The majority (86 percent) favor raising the minimum wage. The majority (60 percent) favor repealing Bush's tax cuts, or at least those that go only to the rich. The majority (66 percent) want to reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending, but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes. . . The majority (77 percent) think we should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment. The majority (87 percent) think big oil companies are gouging consumers and would support a windfall profits tax. That is the center, you fools. Whom are you afraid of?

http://www.topplebush.com/oped2486.shtml
[Frank Rich] Democrats who go berserk at their every political defeat still don't understand this. They fault the public for not listening to their facts and arguments, as though facts and arguments would make a difference, even if the Democrats were coherent. It's the power of the story that always counts first, and the selling of it that comes second. Accuracy is optional. The Frey-like genius of the right is its ability to dissemble with a straight face while simultaneously mustering the slick media machinery and expertise to push the goods. It not only has the White House propaganda operation at its disposal, but also an intricate network of P.R. outfits and fake-news outlets that are far more effective than their often hapless liberal counterparts. . .

How we could lose the Internet

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/21/AR2006012100094.html
The changes may sound subtle, but make no mistake: The telecommunications companies' proposals have the potential, within just a few years, to alter the flow of commerce and information -- and your personal experience -- on the Internet. For the first time, the companies that own the equipment that delivers the Internet to your office, cubicle, den and dorm room could, for a price, give one company priority on their networks over another. . .

At the end of the day, Google's Davidson says that his biggest worry is not for Google but for the prospect of bringing fresh innovation to the Internet. After all, if worse comes to worst, Google can pay AT&T or BellSouth to maintain its role as the Internet's dominant search engine. But the bright young start-up with the next big innovative idea won't have that option.

Bonus item: Yesterday was a holiday. . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/22/162019/125
Today is the 33rd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade. You can read the Court's opinion here. Bush has declared today "National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2006". . .

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:43 AM

 
BALANCE OF POWER

In Iraq, the Sunni’s call for a coalition govt

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060121/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
Official returns released Friday from the Dec. 15 national election confirmed that the coalition of Shiite religious parties that dominates the outgoing government again won the biggest number of seats in the new parliament — but not enough to govern without partners.

The Shiite alliance took 128 of the 275 seats, the election commission said. An alliance of two Kurdish parties allied with the Shiites in the outgoing government won 53 seats. . .

Two major Sunni Arab groups took a total of 55 seats. Only 17 Sunni Arabs serve in the outgoing parliament. . .

After the results are ratified in about two weeks, Talabani has 15 days to convene parliament, which must choose a new president within a month. The new president designates a prime minister from the Shiite bloc, who must present his Cabinet to parliament for approval within a month.

The Shiites need only a majority in parliament to approve their prime minister, but a higher threshold to elect a president means they need more partners to govern smoothly. . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/22/international/middleeast/22iraq.html
But for all the expressions of solidarity, most of the political factors now in play seem weighted against a broad-based government. Many Iraqis suggest that the most likely government will be an alliance between the Shiites and the Kurds, with the Sunnis cut out altogether.

In the vote totals announced Friday, the Shiite coalition and an alliance of the two largest Kurdish parties fell just three seats shy of the two-thirds parliamentary majority needed to form a government.

With 181 seats in all, the Shiites and Kurds would need to pick up just three additional seats from the 10 other groups that won seats in the election. If they can do that, they will not need the Sunnis to form a government or to pass laws.

It seems clear that the Shiite leadership is considering going ahead without the Sunnis. Shiite leaders are petitioning the Iraqi election commission for a re-interpretation of the vote counting rules that would, if it were accepted, grant the Shiites 10 additional seats.

The same arithmetic would also come into play in the mechanism to amend Iraq's new Constitution. The Constitution, which would create a weak central government and give the state an Islamic cast, was approved by a majority of Iraqis in October but rejected by most Sunnis. The Sunnis were coaxed into the democratic process by the promise that the new government would consider amending the Constitution.

More: http://www.juancole.com/2006/01/2-marines-killed-uia-picks-up-some.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008058.php

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2547

So Rove wants the next election to be over putting our trust in the Republicans to keep breaking the law so they can keep us safe? I say, bring it on!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/21/165738/106
[Georgia10] So we know that terrorism has increased dramatically under the Bush presidency. But surely, we must be making some progress on the War on Terrorism? The PATRIOT ACT, taking off our shoes at the airport, the Department of Homeland Security--all of that has to have a major impact in reigning in the terrorists, right? Well, not quite. Let's take a look at the numbers. . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6403.html
[Steve Benen] A few random thoughts in response…

* The man who is touting the GOP on national security issues is the same man who is under a criminal investigation for his role in outing an undercover CIA agent, who specialized in WMD monitoring, to help cover up war-related lies. None of the media outlets I saw noted the irony.

* Rove insisted the Republicans avoid "ossified" thinking when mapping a political agenda. His innovative solution: tell voters that the GOP is tough and will cut taxes, which happens to be the same GOP message of the last couple generations. None of the media outlets I saw noted the irony of this, either.

* A few years after the president vowed not to politicize the war on terrorism, Rove "vowed Friday to make the war on terrorism a central campaign issue in November."

* If Dems are looking for a message to use in response to Rove's broadside, I'd recommend this one: If the Bush White House went after Osama bin Laden with the same passion they go after Democrats, the nation would be better off.

More: http://www.trueblueliberal.com/?p=3061

Al Qaeda “stronger than ever”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/22/international/asia/22pakistan.html

Treason talk: better get used to it, we’ll be hearing it a lot more

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/posting-today.html

[NB: This is the oldest McCarthyite trick in the book – our enemies criticize us, you criticize us, therefore you are an ally of our enemies. But a much stronger case for treason could be built upon: secretly violating the law and the Constitution; channeling public funds to political cronies on a massive scale; lying to the people in order to provoke and justify an unnecessary and hugely expensive (and deadly) war; approving and hiding war crimes that violate international law and decency, and make us a worldwide pariah, etc.]

Please don’t cry (thanks to Atrios for the link)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601210001
News organizations devote little attention to NSA spying story . . .

Pat Leahy (D-VT) to sponsor Senate resolution putting them on record against Bush’s illegal spying

http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102~8860~3210091,00.html

John Conyers is trying too

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5032

He won’t be President forever: the charges that could come later. . . (thanks to Buzzflash for the link)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/01/21/MNGNEGQPIR1.DTL

[NB: I know, I know – but we can dream, can’t we? Imagine what will happen if a Democratic administration gets into power and starts revealing some of these secret documents and executive decisions]

Republicans “worried”

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-republican-angst,0,2369022.story

Conrad Burns (R-MT) should be very worried

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2006/01/21/news/mtregional/news06.txt

Ha, ha, ha: DON’T MISS this web site (thanks to Kevin Drum for the link)

http://www.republicansorthemafia.com/

What the Democrats CAN do (but will they?)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/1/21/175136/265

Is the GOP really afraid of Hillary, or is this “please don’t throw me in the briar patch”?

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2548

Visit your local recruiter now! (thanks to Atrios for the link)

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/2006/01/progressive-americans-support-military.html
On January 30, the College Republicans will sponsor "Finish the Job: Support Our Troops" Rallies in Washington DC and All Over America to support President Bush's January 31 State of the Union address. . . Cindy Sheehan said it best: If you support the war, I think you should join it. I hear recruiting numbers are low.

Another GOP no-bid contract rip-off

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/katrina-evacuation-bus-company-rips.html

The FACTS on Abramoff donations

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_atrios_archive.html#113785663341585791

The Bush-Abramoff photos

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013784.html

Oooh, those mean and nasty posters at the WP web site (who forced them to shut it down)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/21/11010/7038

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_22.php#007501

Deborah Howell finally says what she should have said in the first place, which would have saved us all a lot of trouble

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/21/AR2006012100907.html
I wrote that he gave campaign money to both parties and their members of Congress. He didn't. I should have said he directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties. . . My mistake set off a firestorm. I heard that I was lying, that Democrats never got a penny of Abramoff-tainted money, that I was trying to say it was a bipartisan scandal, as some Republicans claim. I didn't say that. It's not a bipartisan scandal; it's a Republican scandal, and that's why the Republicans are scurrying around trying to enact lobbying reforms.

More: http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/21/235152/306

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_firedoglake_archive.html#113788268900162398

More on Bill Frist’s Alito hypocrisy

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013781.html
Frist, while giving a Senate tour to Republican activists last night:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist told Republican Party activists on Friday night that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito was the "worst nightmare of liberal Democrats."

Frist's spokesman afterwards:

Frist spokesman Bob Stevenson said that Alito "is a thoughtful mainstream conservative jurist who is well respected by his peers, by Democrats and Republicans alike."

So much for “loyalty.” You might wonder, as I did, why Ted Olson, the man who MADE Bush president in 2000; the right-wing’s point man on Clinton’s impeachment; and a conservative with more experience arguing before the SC than almost anybody, has never been seriously considered for a SC seat. Here’s why

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013783.html

Sunday talk show line-up, and a photo essay

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/22/04310/5384

Bonus item: On the political impact of blogs

http://beltwayblogroll.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/01/the_rise_of_blo.php

http://crookedtimber.org/2006/01/21/the-rise-of-blogs/

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/21.html#a6805
[Joe Klein] “Well I bow to nobody in, in my disdain for bloggers. They're all opinions and very little information.”

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:19 AM

 
FRIENDS AND ENEMIES

In Iraq, the votes are in. . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/21/international/middleeast/21iraq.html
The first official results in Iraq's landmark December elections showed Friday that the Shiite and Kurdish coalitions once again dominated the voting, but came up just short of the two-thirds majority needed to form a government on their own.

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/01/index.html#008922
[Matt Yglesias] The counting is done, and Iraq's elections turned out to change nothing at all. It's worth noting that the people in charge of Iraq policy in the Bush administration continue to understand the country so poorly that they called this one completely wrong. . . The strategy they're pursuing of trying to cajole the Shiite coalition into making concessions to the Sunni parties is the right one. The problem is that it isn't working, because the Shiite parties don't want to do it.

http://www.slate.com/id/2134640
[Andrew Rice] Despite the heartening Sunni showing, an LAT analysis says U.S. officials were "disappointed" by the results—they had hoped secular parties would do better—but have now turned their focus toward the "more modest goal" of convincing the religious and nationalist parties who won to play together nicely.

What next? http://www.juancole.com/2006/01/iraqi-election-results-shiites-near.html

Chalabi out (for now?)

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_atrios_archive.html#113776892104732391

Why Bush’s warrantless spying IS illegal

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18650

A devastating, point-by-point critique of the DOJ “justification” memo

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/justice-department-tries-again_20.html

Hey, I thought we got rid of this guy!

http://susiemadrak.com/2006/01/20/17/18/lets-all-just-curl-up-in-the-fetal-position/
[AP] “Republicans have a post-9/11 view of the world. And Democrats have a pre-9/11 view of the world,” Rove told Republican activists. “That doesn’t make them unpatriotic, not at all. But it does make them wrong — deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong.”

The politics of fear

http://makeashorterlink.com/?R2CC3218C

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/rove-is-back-at-it.html

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_digbysblog_archive.html#113780052674048404

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6397.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008054.php

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/20/175350/320

Dems respond

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/dean-blasts-rove-and-dems-have-to-keep.html

An unusual usage of the term “educate”

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2544
[AP] The Bush administration is opening a campaign to push back against criticism of its domestic spying program, ahead of congressional hearings into whether President Bush has the legal authority to eavesdrop on Americans. . . "We are stepping up our efforts to educate the American people," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

Hateful bastards

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/20/95722/4607
[John Gibson] That's the basis for bin Laden's truce offer. He is talking to America's far left and saying, "You know what. We're on the same side. So why don't you work on that hardhead George W. Bush?". . . Bin Laden told us Thursday that our far left has been working for him. It's their poll results he quotes.

[Georgia10] Darksyde wrote yesterday about Chris Matthews who stated bin Laden "sounds like an over the top Michael Moore here, if not a Michael Moore." And Joe Scarborough had an orgasmic experience with Tucker Carlson yesterday: they gushed over clips juxtaposing statements of John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Murtha, and Ted Kennedy with bin Laden's words. The GOP talking point saturated the air waves: bin Laden and liberals are on the same side, ergo, liberals are aiding the terrorists.

Let’s remember whose creation Bin Laden actually is (hint: it ain’t the Left)

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/20/20296/8049

Good and bad journalism

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/two-times-articles-two-different.html

This is significant, I think: progressive criticism of supposedly “liberal” media outlets seems to be driving them into the arms of conservative defenders

http://www.radioblogger.com/#001326
[Hugh Hewitt] HH: Moving from an interview with the Vice President to an interview with Jim Brady, executive editor of Washingtonpost.com, the phenomenally successful online edition of the Washington Post. . .

HH: Jim Brady, you had a meltdown...A) congrats on going online today and answering your critics, and congrats for coming here. Explain to the audience what happened yesterday.

JB: This actually all started on Sunday when the ombudsman of the newsman, Deborah Howell wrote a column about the Abramoff scandal, and in that column, made a reference to both Republicans and Democrats being the beneficiary of Abramoff donations. And what she should have said, and what she put up on the blog on Thursday was that he directed...he did direct contributions to Democrats, which is undeniable. There's lot of documents that show that. But when she wrote it in the column, it was phrased in a way that made it seem like he was personally giving money to the Democrats, of which there isn't proof of that at this point. So on Thursday, she put a clarification up, and we had already been getting hundreds and hundreds of comments about her column, and they were very, very nasty, using words that I didn't even know existed. And after she put the clarification up yesterday, it just got worse and worse, to the point where we just felt like we were not able to keep...we were unable to get rid of the offensive comments faster than they were coming. And so we decided, you know, to take the comments in that blog down for a little while, just to let things cool off. . .

HH: And this has become quite a controversy on the blogosphere for some...not for me. I think you did the right thing. But some are accusing you of censorship, for example, correct?

JB: Yeah, they are. I mean, and censorship is a pretty strong word to use. . .

HH: The central fact which seemed to upset the critics of the column, is that the Post has reported that between 1999 and 2004, Jack Abramoff's Indian clients contributed to 195 Republicans and 88 Democrats, tens of millions of dollars to both, correct?

JB: Correct.

HH: And so, why do people object to your publishing that fact?

JB: Well, they...they objected originally to the fact that she...that when she stated it, she made it seem as if he personally was donating to Democrats. . .And like I said, the fact that they weren't happy about the column, if that's all they were saying, would have been fine. But it went way beyond that, and they were calling her...

HH: Jim Brady, who do you think these people are?. . .

JB: Well, I mean in this case, there was very much a concerted effort to...when Deborah wrote her column on Sunday, a lot of the bloggers on the left side of the spectrum really...they got together and they said let's go to the Post blog and tell them how unhappy we are with this column.

HH: Was there an epicenter of that effort?

JB: It looked like it was in a bunch of different blogs. I mean, it certainly was getting a lot of attention on Atrios and Daily Kos, and some other places. So I mean there did seem to be...you know, it wasn't a campaign in the sense of a really organized campaign, but it was kind of a grass roots campaign to...

HH: Well, you've just named the two central islands in the fever swamps. So I'm not surprised. . .

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_atrios_archive.html#113780104980391231
[Lou Dobbs]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601200014
[Kyra Phillips]

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_digbysblog_archive.html#113780052674048404
[Chris Matthews]

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/1/21/11011/8959
[More Matthews]

Analysis http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/21/6393/16873

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_atrios_archive.html#113781574645093540

“A declaration of media war”

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/20/192934/651

Alito vote (so far) – a filibuster probably would be sustainable

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/19/122718/496

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/20/134551/227

Have the Democrats blown it?

Yes http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008047.php

No http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/20/103643/001

Frist sticks his foot in it again: nice way to keep the Alito nomination from appearing “partisan,” Bill

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/21/7169/63753
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist told Republican Party activists on Friday night that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito was the "worst nightmare of liberal Democrats."

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/frist-says-alito-is-democrats-worst.html
[John Aravosis] Okay, this is the kind of talk that just might get Alito's nomination sunk.

Five photos (reportedly) of Bush chumming it up with Abramoff – and the WH will do anything necessary to keep them off the cover of Newsweek

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_15.php#007495
Washingtonian adds: "Sources say the photographs are being kept safe. Abramoff would tell prosecutors, if asked, that not only did he know the President, but the President knew the names of Abramoff’s children and asked about them during their meetings. At one such photo session, Bush discussed the fact that both he and Abramoff were fathers of twins."

Another fake front company for laundering Abramoff money (with an intriguing name)

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007497.php
"Rose Garden Holdings."

The Abramoff Stonewall continues

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6389.html

Republicans snapping at each other like rabid dogs: this is getting to be good. . .

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_atrios_archive.html#113778445922881312
Asked if Ney planned to step down if Bennett urged him to do so, Ney said: "I would say if he asked me to step down that he'd better look in the mirror because glass houses break easily. . .

They’re worried

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/01/index.html#008930

http://makeashorterlink.com/?G2AB2118C

In the D.C. world the GOP has created, even crooks never have to worry about future employment

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008053.php

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/20/9221/83044

The Democrats’ choice to respond to Bush’s SOTU address, and what it tells us about their view of the political scene

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10844

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_digbysblog_archive.html#113777863872068935

Evil geniuses, or just evil? Are the Repubs intentionally implementing bad policy in order to undermine support for “big government”? Or. . .

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/01/index.html#008924
[Sam Rosenfeld] The whole thing was just a huge screw-up. Ordinary Republican malevolence, ordinary Republican policy idiocy, and ordinary Republican corruption produced it. The notion of some hidden long-range master strategy underlying all the madness only serves to provide conservatives with a bit of post-hoc justification for plainly unprincipled lawmaking and bad governance.

[NB: I’m with Rosenfeld on this one]

More: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-medicare21jan21,0,5438634.story

Wolfie brings the same tactful management style and balanced global vision to the World Bank that Rumsfeld brought to the Pentagon, Goss brought to the CIA, and Bolton brought to the UN: i.e., they HATE him (thanks to Joyce Atkinson for the link)

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001196.php

The ridiculous (and totally fabricated) firestorm over Hillary’s “plantation” comments – and of course the news coverage keeps overlooking the myriad right-wing uses of the same trope

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_digbysblog_archive.html#113753229485883566

Libby’s (P)Lame defense

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013777.html

Larry Franklin gets a 12-year sentence, and we STILL haven’t learned the whole story (have they promised him a pardon?)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/politics/20cnd-franklin.html

Remembering the Pentagon Papers

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/20/11124/6198

Google says no to Bush’s attempt to exploit its database; but Yahoo says okay

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2002169,00.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008050.php
[Kevin Drum] Since the Department of Justice has previously gained access to search records from Yahoo and Microsoft, shouldn't they already have plenty of data to help them make their case about porn searches on the internet? Why then are they still going after Google?

More: http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2545

ABC caves to Christian Right pressure

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008055.php
[Kevin Drum] Remember "Welcome to the Neighborhood," the ABC reality series that was cancelled before it aired last year? It starred six couples — African-American, Hispanic, Korean, tattooed, Wiccan, gay — who competed to win a house in a neighborhood whose residents "overwhelmingly identified themselves as white, Christian and Republican."

The New York Times has a story today suggesting that the series was cancelled because Disney, ABC's parent, was worried about a backlash from conservative Christian groups . . .

Damn. When I first heard about it, this show sounded like just another piece of crass reality TV Babbittry that I was just as happy we'd been spared seeing. But maybe I was wrong. It sounds like it might have been a worthwhile show after all. . . And it makes me wonder: for all we hear about how the Christian right is practically a fourth branch of government these days, is it really true?. . .

Bonus item: Molly Ivins explains why she won’t support Hillary

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=20250

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 9:15 AM

 
IN YOUR FACE

The Bush admin formally lays out its legal case for why it’s okay for the President to break the law

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/politics/19cndnsa.html
In a 42-page white paper, the Justice Department expanded on its past arguments in laying out the legal rationale for why the N.S.A. program does not violate federal wiretap law and why the president is the nation's "sole organ" for foreign affairs. . .

In its white paper, it turned time and again to the congressional authorization of Sept. 14, 2001, even though the Congressional Research Service study was particularly skeptical of this line of defense.

The white paper "is not a blank check that says the president can do whatever he wants," said Steven G. Bradbury, an acting assistant attorney general at the Justice Department. But at the same time, he said, the president must use all the tools available to him to fight terrorism. . .

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/01/index.html#008920
[Ezra Klein] I do like this new policy of honest arguments from the White House. Used to be that they'd do bad things and lie, distort, and spin their way out. Now they just suggest their critics are traitors helping the other side, respond to allegations of domestic spying by saying, essentially, "damn right we're spying on you," open McCarthyesque investigations into whoever leaks their illegal secrets, and justify their actions on the theory that the president can do as he damn well pleases. It's refreshing. And so's the paper, which simply reprises arguments the Congressional Research Service report demolished weeks ago.

The CRS: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6381.html

More: http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_atrios_archive.html#113771398351669009

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_atrios_archive.html#113771116468742111

What can Congress do about it?

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013770.html

Bush’s “signing statement” on the torture bill means that we do torture (or outsource it via rendition) and we plan to continue doing it: there’s no other way to spin it

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6377.html

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013769.html

British docs put illegal “rendition” of prisoners back into play

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/060118/1/3y02l.html

Bush wants to turn Google into another engine of government surveillance – so far, Google says no

http://makeashorterlink.com/?R5A145F7C
Google Inc. has been subpoenaed by the U.S. Justice Department to turn over a database of search terms as part of a government probe of online pornography but Google rejected the demand as overreaching by the government.

Court documents: http://news.com.com/2300-1028_3-6028780-1.html

More: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/bush-justice-dept-demands-google-give.html

Hey, George: you can lie to us, but don’t lie to yourself

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6387.html
"I take great comfort in having people around who can walk in my office and tell me what's on their mind. Part of my job is — they say, 'what's your job?' My job is decision-maker. I make a lot of decisions. Obviously, some of which you've seen, and a lot of them you don't. And they're big ones and little ones. But you make a lot of decisions. And if you don't — if you're uncertain about all the facts surrounding a decision, you've got to rely upon people. And you've then got to create an environment in which people are willing to come in and say, 'here's what's on my mind.'

"It's important at the presidential level. It's important in business. You've got to have people comfortable about saying, 'Here's what I think you ought to do, Mr. CEO.' You've got to listen and have a — I've always believed in a flat organizational chart. I think the worst thing that can happen for decision-makers is to get a filtered point of view."

[Steve Benen] Seriously. He really said that. Of course, such a sentiment stands in stark contrast to this:

[Newsweek] It's a standing joke among the president's top aides: who gets to deliver the bad news? Warm and hearty in public, Bush can be cold and snappish in private, and aides sometimes cringe before the displeasure of the president of the United States…. Bush can be petulant about dissent; he equates disagreement with disloyalty.

I'm also reminded of a Time interview with a "youngish" White House aide, described as a Bush favorite, who said, "The first time I told him he was wrong, he started yelling at me. Then I showed him where he was wrong, and he said, 'All right. I understand. Good job.' He patted me on the shoulder. I went and had dry heaves in the bathroom."

We're talking, after all, about "Bubble Boy," who goes out of his way to make sure he's never exposed to anyone who might challenge him with dissent or disagreement. Bush thinks he created an environment in which people are willing to come to him directly and say, "Here's what's on my mind"? Could he possibly believe this?

The Abramoff Stonewall: pressure starting to build for the WH to fess up about secret meetings

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6376.html
White House press secretary Scott McClellan brought this upon himself. He said he'd investigate what kind of access Jack Abramoff had to the White House. He said just last week that he wants to make sure he offers reporters "a thorough report…hopefully very soon." . . And now he's also the one who doesn't want to talk about it.

More: http://www.slate.com/id/2134512/fr/rss/

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_15.php#007482

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/19/stonewall-day-15/
Here is a specific question for an enterprising White House reporter: Did President Bush meet with Jack Abramoff in May 2001? (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/07/abramoff-bush-2001/)

http://www.slate.com/id/2134555/fr/rss/
[Eric Umansky] Paul Krugman wonders about the White House's insistence on keeping mum about fallen lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Co.'s contacts with the White House. Then Krugman throws a follow-up flame:

So I have a question for my colleagues in the news media: Why isn't the decision by the White House to stonewall on the largest corruption scandal since Warren Harding considered major news?

Don't know about that Harding reference, but Krugman has a point: Apart from the wires, TP has seen two stories on the silence—and they weren't in the LAT, NYT, Journal, or Post.

You couldn’t make up quotes like this

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_15.php#007490
Ed Rogers, GOP lobbyist, from last night's Hardball: "Look, this is going to come out. Nobody is going to keep it a secret. Jack Abramoff is so radioactive—I've got Jack Abramoff fatigue already. I mean, good grief, he didn't kill anybody. Maybe that one guy in Florida."

If this story pans out about insider trading taking place out of GOP offices, I think you finally have the poison pill that will drive them out of office. This is very, very big

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Democrats_want_ethics_committee_to_probe_0119.html

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_atrios_archive.html#113771876263206841
[Atrios] Josh Orton lays out pretty well the issue of "congressional insider trading." Short version: Congressional staffer knows what goodies are in a bill being voted on in the middle of the night, leaks it to someone on the outside, they make a killing on the stock market.

More: http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/19/17445/7449

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_15.php#007485

Damn it, Harry: are you going to fight, or not?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_15.php#007488

Another missed opportunity by the Dems: losing the body armor issue

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/body-armor-another-issue-democrats-let.html

Rove re-emerges: but does this mean he’s out of trouble?

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/01/20/rove_returns.html

The DC press corps: enablers of GOP corruption

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/19/11268/0046

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008044.php

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008043.php

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_15.php#007489

The coming Medicare meltdown

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_atrios_archive.html#113769206730646828
[Atrios] As Kevin rightly points out, this first stage of the Bush/Delay Medicare Drug Scam is just the warmup for round two. . . Once total spending on drugs hits $2250, the scam plan stops paying for drugs until total spending hits $5100. Anger and chaos to follow. . .

More: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008040.php

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_atrios_archive.html#113773244486131682

Hoo-hoo-hoo, fun. You knew this GOP fight to succeed Delay was going to get ugly. . .

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/01/index.html#008914
[Roll Call] The House Majority Leader race has turned into mudslinging city. In one of the latest examples, a supporter of Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) really stirred the pot when he declared at the crowded bar of Bobby Van’s steakhouse the other night that Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) is the “freaking bride of Frankenstein.”

Let’s just say, that was too blunt for the Blunt camp.

We’re not sure who exactly heard the insult. But the offending party, who requested to remain anonymous in hopes of keeping both of his legs, says he’s certain somebody in the Blunt camp heard him. Because on Wednesday, he says, “they had somebody call me.”

The Boehner supporter, a former GOP aide who works in the private sector, says somebody who called him on his cell phone “threatened” him. Allegedly, the caller, whose identity was marked “unavailable” on caller ID, asked whether the Boehner supporter really wanted to be “out there if Roy Blunt becomes Majority Leader.”

The Boehner guy said the caller also added, “I just wanted to let you know ... you have to be careful.” Once the Boehner guy demanded to know who was calling, the line went dead...

In another sign of the mudslinging -- by Republicans themselves and Democrats anxious to watch them implode -- old rumors have resurfaced over the past week or so about a titillating story involving Shadegg and [former Rep. Jon] Christensen’s ex-wife, a story based on a false rumor. . .

And isn’t this the perfect time to have K Street lobbying firms trying to influence the outcome of the selection

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6384.html

I have been getting a flurry of messages about the UCLA “turn in your leftist professor” program – seeing it as just another David Horowitz project. But now it has taken a bizarre turn. They are PAYING students to do it!

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/republican-group-paying-college.html

More: http://crookedtimber.org/2006/01/19/radical-professors-exposed-woo/

http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/weblog/mister_answer_man_special_ucla_edition/

Scotty’s new trick

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5019

Scotty explains our Middle East policy (and it doesn’t make any more sense after the explanation than it did before)

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5025

Iraq election results expected today, govt braces itself for violent reaction (so, you know what THAT means)

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2541

The Goofus Files (this may have to become a new department)

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5024

Chris Matthews, slimeball

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/19/21915/2345

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/1/19/2158/23948

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_digbysblog_archive.html#113772990196606438

Bonus item: In a follow-up to yesterday’s item, the Washington Post continues to demonstrate what it thinks about criticism of its ombudsman (Deborah Howell) and its news policies generally

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001882066
Jim Brady, the executive editor at washingtonpost.com, notified users of the post.blog that the public comment feature had been suspended "indefinitely" after "a significant number of folks" posted personal attacks, profanity, and hate speech. . . It seems likely the move is related to controversy in recent days over Sunday’s Post column by ombudsman Deborah Howell. She has been heavily criticized by some political Web sites and bloggers for writing that indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff gave money to both political parties, when most research shows he only gave directly to Republicans.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/wash-post-deletes-hundreds-of-comments.html
[John Aravosis] But an initial look at the deleted comments, all of which are conveniently archived by Democratic Underground, doesn't show a lot of hate speech or profanity. The only swear word I could find, for example, was "bullshit.". . . The Washington Post is treading into dangerous territory here with regards to its reputation with an entire generation of pundits, opinion-makers, and readers. It's one thing for our president to try to skew the facts and stifle debate, it's quite another for what used to be one of the nation's greatest newspapers to start showing the same immature anti-intellectual qualities.

http://blogs.salon.com/0000014/2006/01/19.html#a971
[Scott Rosenberg] CBS News blogger Vaughn Ververs reports that the many comments he read were angry or disrespectful and many called for Howell's head, but they weren't "hate speech" or explicitly personal attacks. Of course, maybe we never saw those: A "late update" to Post Web editor Jim Brady's discussion of the decision suggests that Post editors were already pounding the "delete" key like mad, and getting tired.

What's obvious is that, like the L.A. Times before it, the Post was sadly clueless about how to deal with the situation. If, in 2006, you're an iconic media institution that's seeking to give the public a platform to vent its disagreements and complaints, you should plan for a certain volume of problems. You should expect some disrespect. You should state what standards you intend to enforce, and you should have a plan for how you expect to enforce them.

Instead, we have the repeat spectacle of newspapers naively opening their doors -- imagining, it seems, that they are going to have a little tea party with their readers -- and then, shocked at the volume and the vitriol, slamming the same door shut again.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_atrios_archive.html#113768971841748537
[Atrios] I miss the old Deborah Howell. The one who said. . . .

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/19/165443/946

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_atrios_archive.html#113771004997198346

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_firedoglake_archive.html#113769777387132278

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:57 AM

 
A TEAM OF MONKEYS

There are a lot of hard-working journalists out there, and I link to excellent investigative stories every day. But sometimes. . .

Hillary Clinton calls the GOP-led congress a “plantation,” and the GOPers scream bloody murder. Here is typical coverage

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/17/clinton.plantation/index.html
Sen. Hillary Clinton drew criticism Tuesday for a Martin Luther King Jr. Day speech in which she told a mostly black audience at a Harlem church that Republican leaders have run the House "like a plantation". . . Responding to the speech, House Speaker Dennis Hastert called her remarks "a little bit over the top."

"I've never run a plantation before. I'm not even sure of what kind of association she's trying to make," said the speaker, a Republican from Illinois. "If she's trying to be racist, I think that's unfortunate, but I'm not going to comment any further on that." . . . One of Clinton's Republican congressional colleagues from New York, Rep. Peter King, said . . . "It's definitely using the race card. It definitely has racist connotations. She knows it," King said. "She knew the audience. She knew what she was trying to say, and it was wrong. And she should be ashamed.". . .

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-hillary19jan19,0,2022732.story
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's description of the Republican-dominated House of Representatives as a "plantation" continued making political waves Wednesday, with Laura Bush joining the fray. . . "I think it's … a ridiculous comment," the first lady told reporters. . .

Laura Bush became the latest Republican to take her White House predecessor to task. The day before, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan called the New York Democrat's comments "way out of line."

She said this, they said that. A monkey with a typewriter could do as much. But anyone with five minutes to spare and access to Google could find some interesting background and context that MIGHT be considered relevant to the story. . .

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/slew-of-republicans-refer-to.html
Townhall.com
The National Review
The Wall Street Journal
Rush Limbaugh Show
Newsmax
The Washington Times
Bob Novak

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/17/gingrich-plantation/
Newt Gingrich

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601180010
Ann Coulter

More: http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_atrios_archive.html#113753298994887523

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/17/181357/556

[NB: This is why we have bloggers]

More on this theme. As we enter Day Two of the White House Abramoff Stonewall, the only question is whether the press will make them pay for refusing to disclose the “staff meetings” where Rove and others huddled with Abramoff. I say, hey, guys, don’t get frustrated, get even. Run headlines and editorials: “What is the White House Hiding?” Put a box in the corner on the front page: “Day Two of the White House Abramoff Stonewall.” Remind us again and again that we have a RIGHT to know about who was meeting with this crook and what arrangements were made. Don’t let them pull another Energy Taskforce ploy, where they just refused to answer until you got tired of asking

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_atrios_archive.html#113760094248934806
[Atrios] Look, back during the Clinton administration this kind of thing would've dominated cable news every night. Howell Raines would've been writing thunderous editorials demanding that we knew every detail of Abramoff's White House connections. Tweety would be cranking out spittle at a record rate, screeching about the "culture of corruption" in the White House. Nightline would've put up a little "X days since White House refused to disclose information about Abramoff contacts with the president" graphic on its show.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/how-long-will-media-let-bush-hide.html
Everyone who attended a coffee at the White House during the Clinton Administration had their name printed in the Washington Post and New York Times. The press DEMANDED that information. But, we know the Bush White House repeatedly welcomed Jack Abramoff -- who is both a major GOP fundraiser (a Bush Pioneer, no less) and a convicted felon in part because of his GOP-related shenanigans -- yet, the Bush White House doesn't have to provide details. Is the traditional media really that weak? If they ask too many questions or push too hard, maybe they won't get a Presidential nickname...that would really suck for them.

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/corruption_in_washington_/2006/01/what_are_they_hiding.php
[Mark Kleiman] Scott McClellan promises reporters a list of Jack Abramoff's meetings at the White House. The White House prepares the list. McClellan then refuses to show it to reporters. Do you think there might be something embarrassing there? Something named "Rove," for instance?

. . . McClellan says Bush only met with Abramoff at a couple of Hannukah parties. That's not what Abramoff's own billing records show. And Think Progress has a little nugget I haven't seen elsewhere: Abramoff was officially a member of the Bush transition team, working on the Interior Department.

[NB: On the transition team story, and substantial other links to the Bush administration, see PBD, January 5: http://pbd.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_pbd_archive.html#113647036093818753. But Mark is right – this should be front and center in news reports, not just cycling through the blogosphere]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_15.php#007467
[Josh Marshall] The individual facts are all out there, sure. Grover Norquist is one of the two or three top Republican political operatives in Republican Washington. He's a close advisor to President Bush. Among other things he used his organization, Americans for Tax Reform, as a pass-through to hide the fact that Ralph Reed was getting his money for 'anti-gambling' activism from Washington's top Indian casino lobbyist.

I don't know about the law of non-profits and 501c3s. But that's got to be an abuse of some sort.

On front after front these scandals go right into the White House. A top official at the OMB arrested? The Deputy Secretary of the Interior Department under criminal investigation? Abramoff's former chief assistant a top White House aide?

Why the unwillingness to pursue this?

More: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_15.php#007468

THIS stinks

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_15.php#007476
Bush nominates Grover Norquist's brother David to be new Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Homeland Security.

BUSH - Abramoff links (yes indeed)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/18/132512/821

http://susiemadrak.com/2006/01/18/13/54/love-for-sale-2/

Ah, this is more like it – the news media grabs a story about a major scandal and refuses to let it go. . . uh. . .

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2539
[NYT] After the longest independent counsel investigation in history, the prosecutor in the case of former Housing Secretary Henry G. Cisneros is finally closing his operation with a scathing report accusing Clinton administration officials of thwarting an inquiry into whether Mr. Cisneros evaded paying income taxes.

The legal inquiry by the prosecutor, David M. Barrett, lasted more than a decade, consumed some $21 million and came to be a symbol of the flawed effort to prosecute high-level corruption through the use of independent prosecutors.

. . . Mr. Barrett kept his office open more than six years after the law that created the independent counsel system was allowed to die. Lawmakers in both parties had wearied of the many inquiries that had failed to achieve the goal of removing political influence from criminal investigations of administration officials.

. . . A copy of the report was obtained by The New York Times from someone sympathetic to the Barrett investigation who wanted his criticism of the Clinton administration to be known.

[Swopa] And the Times, regrettably, chose to oblige them, even though the article half-heartedly acknowledges that Barrett's accusations lack any substantial supporting evidence.

Scotty puts his foot in it (big time)

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/18/mcclellan-extraordinary-rendition/
QUESTION: There are allegations that we sent people to Syria to be tortured…

MCCLELLAN: To Syria?

QUESTION: Yes. You’ve never heard of any allegations like that?

MCCLELLAN: No, I’ve never heard that one. That’s a new one.

QUESTION: Syria? You haven’t heard that?

MCCLELLAN: That’s a new one.

QUESTION: Well, I can assure you it’s been well publicized. My question is…

MCCLELLAN: By what, bloggers?

[Think Progress] Actually it was reported on page A1 of the Washington Post more than two years ago:

A Canadian citizen who was detained last year at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York as a suspected terrorist said Tuesday he was secretly deported to Syria and endured 10 months of torture in a Syrian prison.

It’s also been reported by the New York Times, the Associated Press, New Yorker Magazine and just about every other major news source in the country.

McClellan himself was asked about in on 2/28/05:

Q Has the President ever issued an order against torture of prisoners? And do we still send prisoners to Syria to be tortured?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President has stated publicly that we do not condone torture and that he would never authorize the use of torture. He has made that –

Q But has he issued an order?

MR. McCLELLAN: — statement very publicly, and he’s made it clear to everybody in the government that we do not torture. . .

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_atrios_archive.html#113762121120116073
[Atrios] For quite awhile McClellan would do this little dance with the press corps such that whenever they questioned his honesty he'd emphasize and re-emphasize that he'd always been honest with them, and they seemed, for the most part, to buy that. . . But lately he's just been so full of shit.

More: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013746.html
Unbelieveable. Literally.

[NB: Oh, if we only had a room full of Helen Thomases: http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5014]

Scotty’s right: damn bloggers

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/national-reviews-new-blog-vile-case.html

Republicans running scared (and with good reason)

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_15.php#007472

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003498.html

How the Republicans do lobbying reform

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_atrios_archive.html#113759523410679303
This is hilarious. Their "lobbying reform" just makes the bribery explicit by requiring a campaign donation with every free trip.

More: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_15.php#007475

How the Democrats do it

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/18/politics/18cnd-congress.html
With a stinging attack on Republican ethics, Congressional Democrats today proposed a lobbying overhaul they said far exceeds new Republican proposals in limiting the influence of monied special interests on Capitol Hill. . . The high profile Democrats gave to unveiling their ethics plan made clear that the party intends to make its portrayal of Republican corruption a central theme in the coming mid-term elections and showed that Democrats do not intend to easily strike a deal with anxious Republicans on an ethics overhaul.

Republicans mounted a fierce counteroffensive, highlighting the ties Democrats have to lobbyists, pointing out past resistance to ethics changes, circulating Library of Congress regulations that say the facility should not to be used for political events and accusing Mr. Reid of using his Senate office to prepare political documents.

More: http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/01/index.html#008907

http://www.nrsc.org/newsdesk/document.aspx?ID=1482

[NB: This is a hilarious piece – the NRSC “response” to Reid. Most of it reads like an extension of Reid’s own attack. Is this the best they can come up with?

Reid’s Taxpayer-Subsidized Rant Begins With A Scathing Attack Against Republicans, Comparing GOP Reform Efforts To Organized Crime. “The idea of Republicans reforming themselves is like asking John Gotti to clean up organized crime.” (Senator Harry Reid. . .)]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008036.php
[Kevin Drum] I'll get around to commenting on the official Democratic plan for battling congressional corruption eventually, but in the meantime I want to draw your attention to what may be the lamest criticism ever of an elected official:

Republicans mounted a fierce counteroffensive....accusing Mr. Reid of using his Senate office to prepare political documents.

"Does Mr. Reid think that using an official government office for political purposes is ethical?" asked Brian Nick, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Do Republicans really think they're going to score points by accusing Reid of the dastardly sin of using his office to prepare attacks on the opposition? Lee Atwater would be ashamed.

Yeah, using your office for POLITICAL purposes is a real scandal. Then what does that make this?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/breaking-rep-slaughter-says-bill-frist.html
Rep. [Louise] Slaughter says Bill Frist and Tom Delay had day-traders working out of their offices. . .

How to REALLY do lobbying reform

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0603.carville.html
[James Carville and Paul Begala] This is shaping up to be the biggest political scandal in a decade, and the GOP knows it. And so Republicans have been jumping on the same “lobbying reform” bandwagon that many (though alas not all) Democrats have been driving for months. Each party has its laundry list of worthy procedural changes, from making retiring politicians wait an extra year before becoming lobbyists to ending the free lunches, dinners, and football tickets politicians accept from K Street.

Many of these ideas are fine, as far as they go. But we think they don't go anywhere near far enough. . . There's a vast need for bolder reform, and the Abramoff scandals provide the opportunity of a lifetime. Voters aren't going to be fooled by procedural tinkering. What's needed is total root-to-branch reform. As any average person will tell you, the heart of the problem is that elected officials take money from interested parties. Whether it's technically legal or not, accepting money as a public servant is a form of bribery, and it serves to fundamentally corrupt democracy. We don't let cops, customs agents, or federal judges take money from the people they're serving. We should hold elected officials to the same standards. They should be out of the fundraising business altogether. . . [read on]

Bamboozlepalooza II: Bush to undertake a major PR push to sell his unsellable Medicare plan. Boy, it’s like pushing a button – develop a policy, find out it’s not working, then rather than admit a mistake and fix it, redouble your efforts at convincing people that it really is good for them

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_15.php#007469

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_15.php#007471

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/01/index.html#008904

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_atrios_archive.html#113759831437083875

(Damn, I thought I had a hilarious comparison, but OF COURSE Billmon had it first)

http://billmon.org/archives/001735.html
Cautiously, Milo worked himself around in a half circle so that he could face Yossarian. He unwrapped tissue paper from something soft, round and brown and handed it out to Yossarian. "Please taste this and let me know what you think. I'd like to serve it to the men."

"What is it?" asked Yossarian, and took a big bite.

"Chocolate covered cotton."

Yossarian gagged convulsively and sprayed his big mouthful of chocolate-covered cotton right out into Milo's face. "Here, take it back!" he spouted angrily. "Jesus Christ! Have you gone crazy? You didn't even take the goddamn seeds out."

"Give it a chance, will you?" Milo begged. "It can't be that bad. Is it really that bad?"

"It's even worse."

"But I've got to make the mess halls feed it to the men."

"They'll never be able to swallow it."

"They've got to swallow it," Milo ordained with dictatorial grandeur. . .

Joseph Heller
Catch-22

Why is this story buried?

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2535
[WP] The U.S. Agency for International Development paints a dire and detailed picture of the Iraq security situation in its request for contractors to bid on its $1.32 billion, 28-month project to help stabilize 10 major Iraqi cities.

. . . To prepare potential bidders for the task, USAID included an annex with the contractor application. It describes Iraq as being in the midst of an insurgency whose tactics "include creating chaos in Iraq society as a whole and fomenting civil war." Many of the attacks are against coalition and Iraqi security forces, the annex says, and they "significantly damage the country's infrastructure and cause a tide of adverse economic and social effects that ripple across Iraq."

Although President Bush and senior administration officials tend to see the enemy primarily as Saddam Hussein loyalists and foreign terrorists, the USAID analysis also places emphasis on "internecine conflict," which includes "religious-sectarian, ethnic, tribal, criminal and politically based" violence.

. . . "It is increasingly common for tribesmen to 'turn in' to the authorities enemies as insurgents, this as a form of tribal revenge," the paper says.

. . . The paper describes how in the southern part of Iraq, which is dominated by Shiites, "social liberties have been curtailed dramatically by roving bands of self-appointed religious-moral police." In cities, women's dress codes are enforced and barbers who remove facial hair have been killed, and liquor stores and clubs have been bombed.

. . . The breakdown of Iraqi society and "the absence of state control and an effective police force" have let "criminal elements within Iraqi society have almost free rein," the paper states. Iraqi criminals in some cases "have aligned themselves with most of the combating groups and factions to further their aims" and Baghdad "is reportedly divided into zones controlled by organized criminal groups-clans," it states. . .

More on how great things are going: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/18/AR2006011802562.html

ANOTHER independent assessment shows the illegality of Bush’s warrantless wiretapping policy

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5017

All the right-wing wants Condi to be a Presidential candidate, and she keeps saying no. I believe her – she is utterly unwilling to put herself before the public in campaign mode (she’s never had to in her fast-rising career), and she would be terrible at it, as most any academic would be. But she is certainly working on her chops as a professional liar

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5011

CNN, having added Blowhard Bill Bennett and Madman Glenn Beck, decides they haven’t done enough to remake themselves into Fox News Lite. So, they’re adding ANOTHER conservative commentator

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6375.html

Bonus item: the Washington Post ombudsman needs an ombudsman

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601180006
Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell has reportedly posted a comment on the Post's internal message board announcing that she has learned the following "lesson" from exchanges with Media Matters for America: "From now on, I don't reply." Howell's language did not make clear whether she meant that she would no longer reply to any criticism, or only to that registered by Media Matters.

More: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/washington-post-ombudsman-says-she.html

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:11 AM

 
ASSISTED SUICIDE

Attorney General Gonzales goes on the hard-hitting news show Larry King Live to peddle the latest Bush lies in response to Gore’s scathing attack on illegal wiretapping

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/gore-got-under-their-skin-yesterday.html
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales defended the administration's actions and said Gore's criticism is inconsistent with Clinton administration policy. . . On CNN's "Larry King Live," Gonzales said, "It's my understanding that during the Clinton administration there was activity regarding physical searches without warrants."

His “understanding” is ridiculously false: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/17/gonzales-smears-gore/

If the case Gonzales made is the best they can offer, those hearings will be pretty interesting

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/administrations-nsa-playbook-is-empty.html
[Glenn Greenwald] If last night’s CNN interview by Larry King of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez is any indication, there simply are no justifications for it. The Administration is still incapable of answering the very first question which arose when this eavesdropping was first disclosed: why couldn’t the Administration comply with the extremely permissive provisions of FISA when eavesdropping? This CNN interview also demonstrates that the country’s most prominent "journalists" are still incapable of asking any probing or meaningful questions of our Government with regard to this scandal. . . [read on]

Gore comes right back at them

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_atrios_archive.html#113753561557301703
The Administration's response to my speech illustrates perfectly the need for a special counsel to review the legality of the NSA wiretapping program.

The Attorney General is making a political defense of the President without even addressing the substantive legal questions that have so troubled millions of Americans in both political parties.

There are two problems with the Attorney General's effort to focus attention on the past instead of the present Administration's behavior. First, as others have thoroughly documented, his charges are factually wrong. Both before and after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was amended in 1995, the Clinton/Gore Administration complied fully and completely with the terms of the law.

Second, the Attorney General's attempt to cite a previous administration's activity as precedent for theirs - even though factually wrong - ironically demonstrates another reason why we must be so vigilant about their brazen disregard for the law. If unchecked, their behavior would serve as a precedent to encourage future presidents to claim these same powers, which many legal experts in both parties believe are clearly illegal. . .

More: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/gore-vs-gonzales-feud-grows.html

Stop the presses! AP revises its story, calls out Gonzales lies

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/17/ap-reports-facts/

Will anyone else? http://mediamatters.org/items/200601170014

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6362.html

Amazing: coalitions from left to right are challenging the administration over illegal spying, including major conservative leaders

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/01/18/aclu_lawsuit/

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/18/25820/4474

I have no opinion here on the “assisted suicide” issue – but the SC decision wasn’t on that question. It was on the issue of Executive authority; and look how they voted

http://www.slate.com/id/2134442
[Eric Umansky] Everybody leads with the Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling against the administration's attempt to put the kibosh on Oregon's assisted-suicide law. Justice Roberts joined Justices Scalia and Thomas in the dissent. The White House had opposed the law and said it was "disappointed at the decision."

The court wasn't ruling on the Oregon law itself but rather on whether the Bush administration had the power to overrule it. . .

More: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/assisted-suicide-case-shows.html
[Glenn Greeenwald] The far more interesting aspect of this case is its factual background -- the way in which this whole dispute arose as a result of the Bush's Administration's attempts in the weeks after 9/11 to overturn Oregon's assisted suicide law. How this whole thing came about presents some interesting and truly disturbing insight into what the Bush Administration is really all about. . . [read on]

WH knew the story on the Niger uranium sale to Iraq was probably bogus

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/18/politics/18niger.html

More Iraq lies: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20060113/proof_bush_deceived_america.php

More on “Curveball” (a primary source of bad pre-war intelligence)

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003492.html
[Laura Rozen] How did Curveball's fabrications get through? Newsweek reports that a source put forward by Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress vouched for his intelligence, and a "burn notice" on Curveball mysteriously got mislaid. Wonder who was responsible for that? And it turns out that Curveball is related to one of Chalabi's bodyguards. . .

[NB: Gee, a Chalabi connection -- what a surprise!]

In Iraq, Sunnis get bupkis

http://www.juancole.com/2006/01/guerrillas-kill-18-sunnis-offered-only.html
[Juan Cole] The newly elected Iraqi government is planning to offer Iraqi Sunni Arabs only 6 cabinet posts. They had 17 MPs in the last parliament, and also 6 cabinet posts. They have 51 MPs in the new parliament. The Sunni Arabs are going to greet this announcement with howls of rage. . .

On signing statements and “strict constructionism”

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_15.php#007465
[Josh Marshall] Congress makes laws. The president has all sorts of power invested in him by the discretion he has in enforcing the laws. But what the laws are, what they mean, is entirely beyond his purview.

Parsing this out can just be an exercise in high school civics. And at the margins it may be a fine point. But there's something big going on here.

Will the press let this stand?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060117-3.html
Q Another topic, if you would. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and others sent a letter to the President today regarding Abramoff, asking for the President make public any contacts that he had with Abramoff, as well as senior administration officials. . .

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, this President expects everybody in his administration to adhere to the highest ethical standards. I've already talked to you all about this matter. If you have anything specific to bring to my attention, please do. . .

Q So would the White House be open to complying with the Democrats' request to go ahead and provide that kind of information, the contacts Abramoff had with senior staff, that type of thing?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I've already indicated to you a general description of any contacts that were there.

Q Can you be more specific about the contacts with the senior staff? You said you were going to get back to us on that. Can you give us --

MR. McCLELLAN: I did check. There were a few staff-level meetings. . .

Q Specific staff? You were going to get back to us on the specific staff --

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, my understanding from the check that we did was that there are just a few staff-level meetings in addition to those.

Q Who was in the staff meetings?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't get into discussing staff-level meetings.

Q Why not?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if you got something to bring to my attention, Elisabeth, I'll be glad to look into it. If you've got something specific, I'll be glad to take a look into it.

Q Did he meet with Karl Rove, for example?

MR. McCLELLAN: We don't -- we don't ever tend to get into those staff-level meetings. . .

Q Scott, what was the subject matter when Jack Abramoff met with staff here?. . .

Q Can you say who Mr. Abramoff was representing when he came in here?. . .

Q What got him in the door here? How did he qualify for meetings here?. . .

Q Would you qualify it as senior staff that he met with here?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm just saying staff-level meetings is the way I would describe it. And if you have anything specific, I'll be glad to take a look into it.

Q Well, we're counting on you for the specifics --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if there's any reason for me to check into it, please bring it to my attention.

Q He's pled guilty to some serious charges.

MR. McCLELLAN: And so are you insinuating something?

Q We're just trying to find out the facts.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if you've got something to bring to my attention, do so, and then I'll be glad to look into it.

Q Scott, that's not a fair burden to place on us. This is a guy who is a tainted lobbyist, and he has connections -- we want to know -- with whom in the White House. You shouldn't demand that we give you something specific to go check it out. I mean, this guy is radioactive in Washington. And he knows guys like Karl Rove. So did he meet with him or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: I know of nothing that --

Q Don't put it on us to bring something specific. It's a specific question about a specific individual.

Q Can you tell us if he met with Karl Rove?

MR. McCLELLAN: Because we don't discuss staff-level meetings --

Q Of course you do, whenever you want to discuss staff-level meetings. And if Karl Rove, who has ties to Ralph Reed, which he does, we want to know if he has ties to Jack Abramoff, and if they met –

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I can answer that.

Q Oh, great. Well, before you said --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I mean, about if he knows -- yes, he knows -- he knows Mr. Abramoff. They are both former heads of the College Republicans. That's how they got to know each other way back, I think it was in the early '80s. And my understanding is that Karl would describe it as more of a casual relationship, than a business relationship. That's what he has said.

But if you've got specific matters that I need to look into, it's my point that I think it's your obligation to bring that to my attention and I'll be glad to take a look into it. . .

Q -- no, no, but I don't think it's our obligation to do anything. If we want to know whether there was pending business that Abramoff represented to members of the staff here at the White House, what do we need --

MR. McCLELLAN: There's been no suggestion of anything like that out of this White House.

Q -- some kind of an affidavit to bring you to --

MR. McCLELLAN: There's been no suggestion of anything like this in this White House. . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_15.php#007462
[AP] The White House is refusing to reveal details of tainted lobbyist Jack Abramoff's visits with President Bush's staff. Abramoff had "a few staff-level meetings" at the Bush White House, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday. But he would not say with whom Abramoff met, which interests he was representing or how he got access to the White House.

[Josh Marshall] Drip, drip, drip. . .

Bob Ney tries frantically to talk himself out of an indictment

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013728.html

House Repubs propose “reforms” that would change absolutely nothing (besides, it ain’t the rules that need to be changed, but the rule-breakers). This presents a massive opening for the Dems: will they take advantage of it?

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13648033.htm

The loopholes: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/17/AR2006011701311.html

The problem: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/18/politics/18lobby.html
In embracing measures to revamp lobbying rules, Mr. Santorum, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, joined a growing list of prominent Republicans, including the House speaker, J. Dennis Hastert, and the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, who are in the delicate position of trying to reorganize the very system that has helped their party maintain power.

Mr Magoo: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_15.php#007460
HASTERT: Well, you know, a year ago most people around Congress couldn't tell you who Jack Abramoff was and didn't know who his associates were or what connections there are. . .

[Josh Marshall] That's great. People on Capitol Hill didn't know who Jack Abramoff was or who his associates were? The guy was one of the biggest lobbyists in DC, moved huge amounts of money around Capitol Hill, was close to most of the key Republican power-brokers in and out of Congress. But no one knew who he was. And no one knew who his associates were?

This is a deeper vein than it looks like on the surface. Denny Hastert is like the Mr. Magoo of DC Republican corruption. The DeLay Machine was the muscle and sinew of the House on his watch. The Abramoff clique ran deep tentacles all through the institution. But Hastert didn't know anything about it. It's all news to him.

The Dems: http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=DAAC0E9E-FBE0-E20A-C9A77D2144721160
The Associated Press asked the four lawmakers who lead the ethics committees whether they would make a commitment to investigate ethical wrongdoing if, as expected, the information Abramoff supplies exposes misconduct by a number of lawmakers. Each of the four - two Republicans and two Democrats - declined, through his spokesmen, to do so. . . [read on]

More: http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/001365.php

CNN adds another right-wing commentator. Okay, representing a range of diverse opinions is fine – but in what world do opinions like this deserve a national platform?

http://susiemadrak.com/2006/01/17/16/25/cable-nutty-news/
Clear Channel radio host Glenn Beck said he was “thinking about killing [filmmaker] Michael Moore” and pondered whether “I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it,” before concluding: “No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out—is this wrong?”

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6361.html

Blogs: the unwashed masses vs. the journalistic elite

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/invasion-of-dirty-masses.html

Bonus item: K What?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_15.php#007463
November Santorum: "The K Street project is purely to make sure we have qualified applicants for positions that are in town. From my perspective, it's a good government thing."

January Santorum: "Well, I don't know what you mean by Senate liaison to the, quote, 'K Street Project.' I'm not aware of any Senate liaison job that I do for the K Street Project."

More: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_15.php#007461

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:28 AM

 
GORED

Bush reassured everyone that the NSA program was very limited, only monitoring calls with known Al Qaeda sources, and protecting the rights of innocent Americans. (And, of course, like all Bush programs it has been “highly effective.”) We knew none of that was true, didn’t we? Well, now we KNOW it wasn’t true

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17spy.html
In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month. . . But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans. . .[read on]

More: http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/16/231610/535

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/16/225120/141

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_atrios_archive.html#113746959547459116

Lawsuits coming: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/nyt-two-groups-plan-lawsuits-against.html

Al Gore gives a speech, and the reviews are in

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013723.html
Al Gore rose to the occasion today and blasted Bush's warrantless NSA surveillance program as illegal. . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6353.html
I expected today's speech from Al Gore to be good, but I didn't appreciate what a sweeping and powerful condemnation it would be of the White House, Congress' perfidy, and what Gore described as a wholesale rejection of constitutional principles. It was, in a word, devastating. . .

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2006/01/where_was_this_guy_hiding_during_the_elections.html
Al Gore gave a great speech. . . I sure would like to know why he didn't do stuff like this when he was running for President. . .

http://susiemadrak.com/2006/01/16/18/32/draft-al-gore/
The speech? Goddamn, it was spine-tingling. . . It took Al a little while to wind himself up, but by the end of the speech, I was ready to grab a pitchfork and storm the castle. . .

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/16.html#a6730
Al Gore delivered an exceptional and potent speech today. . .

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_digbysblog_archive.html#113744283814166991
Al Gore has become the conscience of the Democratic Party. . .

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/gores-speech.html
Al Gore gave an astoundingly good speech today, attacking the Bush Administration's lawless eavesdropping in a very reasoned but still clear and principled way. I never liked Al Gore when he was a politician - he was calculating, self-serving and programmable. But he was always interested in ideas and has clearly been emancipated as a result of his loss from the forces which suffocated him forever. . .

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008020.php
There's plenty to highlight from Al Gore's speech today, but here's an excerpt that probably won't get the attention it deserves. . .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060116/ap_on_re_us/gore_domestic_spying_3
Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, shot back: "Al Gore's incessant need to insert himself in the headline of the day is almost as glaring as his lack of understanding of the threats facing America. While the president works to protect Americans from terrorists, Democrats deliver no solutions of their own, only diatribes laden with inaccuracies and anger. "

Text: http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Text_of_Gore_speech_0116.html

Video: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/16.html#a6728

News coverage: http://susiemadrak.com/2006/01/16/21/31/barometer/

Hillary takes a break from fundraising for her Presidential campaign to add. . .

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_atrios_archive.html#113745872815939097
"We have a culture of corruption, we have cronyism, we have incompetence," she said. "I predict to you that this administration will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country."

Making it up as you go. . . Now the U.S. is strongly and openly backing Sunni claims for power in Iraq (I guess this means the insurgency is winning, right?)

http://www.ericumansky.com/2006/01/losing_our_leve.html

Hey! We found an Islamic country that DOES have a nuclear program, DOES have chemical and biological weapons, and DOES have clear links with terrorist groups. What are we waiting for?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_15.php#007446
[Josh Marshall] Do you trust this White House's good faith, priorities or competence in dealing with this situation?

Based on everything I've seen in almost five years the answer is pretty clearly 'no' on each count. To my thinking that has to be the starting point of the discussion.

Iran isn’t Iraq

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2534

More Ralph Reed/Karl Rove links (thanks to reader David for the reminder)

http://www.gwinnettcitizen.com/wwwboard/messages/10071.html

http://www.therealralphreed.com/html/enron.html

On the constitutionality of signing statements

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013724.html

Arlen Specter’s credibility gap

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_digbysblog_archive.html#113746964159283569

Why this is not a CONSERVATIVE administration

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/bush-followers-are-not-conservatives.html

The Republicans’ Medicare failure – let’s remember how it all started

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_15.php#007450
[Josh Marshall] Along those lines, what about the increasing signs that the implementation of the new Medicare prescription drug plan -- and probably the underlying program itself -- appears to be more or less an unmitigated disaster?

This clunker embodies the whole story. It was conceived in sleaze, midwifed with lies and saw its first light of day in a burst of incompetence and corporate handouts.

Remember Nick Smith getting bribed on the floor? It was to cast his vote for this new program. Remember how Thomas Scully, former director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (now Scott McClellan's brother has the job), threatened to fire chief Medicare actuary Richard Foster if he told Congress the actual estimated cost of the program?

These are not, admittedly, the choicest examples. The biggest is too broad and thorough to capture in a single nugget: the fact that the entire bill was written as a pay-off to big ticket campaign contributors from the pharmaceutical industry. But they make a start at description why public corruption has a more direct effect on people's lives than whether Bob Ney gets to jet over to Scotland to play a game of golf.

More: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_15.php#007451

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_15.php#007452

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008021.php
[Kevin Drum] I don't know if this was the worst bill ever written, but it's certainly in the top ten.

It’s been a month since the much-touted elections in Iraq. Wondering why we haven’t seen any vote totals yet? And, as in Iraq, the House Republicans’ fight over leadership is all being carried out behind closed doors, as they stall deadlines until they can come forth with a supposedly unified position

In Iraq: http://www.juancole.com/2006/01/only-1-of-dec.html

In D.C.: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6345.html

Ney’s “temporary” relinquishing of his committee chairmanship won’t get him off the hot seat

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/01/16/democrats_keep_ney_in_hot_seat.html

More: http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/16/9351/47315

Oops!

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/GOP_website_appears_to_flout_law_0116.html
The Republican National Committee has revised their website in the wake of a RAW STORY article revealing that the Party had listed nonprofit organizations as "GOP groups.". . . An article this morning revealed that the Party listed non-partisan, tax-exempt nonprofits as "GOP groups." By this afternoon, the RNC had changed their website to list nonprofits and other groups illegally listed as Republican Party groups as "Other Organizations.". . .

Happy MLK day

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_digbysblog_archive.html#113745868071565877
[Digby] There really is nothing more sickening than seeing the right wing suck up on Martin Luther King Day after all the years they demonized him and how hard they fought to keep this day from becoming a national holiday. . .

Not ALL the right wing, apparently. . .

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2006/01/mlk_wikipedia_bio_vandalized.html
Martin Luther King, Jr.’s biographical entry on the free online publicly-edited encyclopedia Wikipedia has been repeatedly vandalized today, an ongoing attack, forcing volunteer editors to monitor the page constantly throughout this day of remembrance. . .

I saw a link on this a few days ago, and didn’t use it because the story is pretty outrageous and it wasn’t corroborated anywhere else. Now my attention has been drawn to the story again by a couple of PBD readers, and with a little digging we were able to find the actual rule change in the Federal Register. Judge for yourselves

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/15/MNG2NENN801.DTL
[SF Chronicle] The Environmental Protection Agency's new rules on human testing, which the agency said last week would categorically protect children and pregnant women from pesticide testing, include numerous exemptions, such as one that specifically allows testing of children who have been "abused and neglected.". . .

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-18010.htm

Bonus item: A loyal reader responds to my diatribe against the Dems yesterday

Hey, Nick, I usually like your editorial comments, but if you start attacking my Democrats, I have to respond to that. Republicans must love this kind of logic -- "Yeah, everything bad that happens is the Democrats' fault, because they were such an ineffective opposition!" About all you need to add to this is, "Why doesn't everybody boycott the Democrats in the next election because they just didn't do a good enough job of stopping all the evil [done by the Republicans]!"

Doesn't your complaint basically take the form, "Why aren't there more Cynthia McKinney Democrats willing to commit political suicide for their principles?" It seems to me that if someone is willing to criticize the Democrats for what the Republicans are doing, they have to be specific about what exactly they think the Democrats should be doing. Can the Democrats force Congressional Hearings without Republican support? Even if they somehow could do so, wouldn't Republican control of the hearing process produce a rubber stamp of Bushie's belief that he's only doing the torture that Jesus wants him to do in order to prevent the next 9-11? How much good did John McCain do in standing up to Bushie on the torture issue, when Rumsfeld rewrote the Army Field Manual so he could still do anything he wanted to do in the way of torture and when Bushie issued his bill-signing statement that he'd pay token attention to the new law as long as it didn't conflict with his role as the unitary executive who can torture whenever he wants?

What are the Democrats supposed to do about the lobbying corruption scandal -- take it to the congressional ethics committee? Have you forgotten that the committee was "fixed" with pro-DeLay partisan Republicans before its activity was suspended? I say it's better to leave Republicans like DeLay twisting in the wind, rather than let them used a neutered committee to somehow "clear" themselves. (Remember, the Republicans used to claim that Newt Gingerich had been cleared of any "serious" ethical lapses in his ethics committee hearings, even though the actual final report documented a number of sins -- and the mainstream media downplayed the whole thing as a partisan attack on Newtie, just the way the Republicans wanted them to.)

In my opinion, that's the whole problem right there – we have a really corrupt corporate mainstream media in this country that endlessly recycles (and invents on its own) Republican talking points, in order to please their large corporate clients. In going to war against Republicans, I think its important for Democrats to remember that they're not only battling the Republicans, but they're usually battling the media as well.

More on the media: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-daou/the-gore-example-does-th_b_13913.html

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:54 AM

 
LOSERS

Let’s review. Bush steals one, probably both elections through vote fraud, but the Democrats won’t make an issue of it because that would undermine faith in the democratic process. Bush fails to react to copious pre-9/11 warnings, before the attack, but the Democrats won’t make an issue of it because that would undermine national unity at a time when we need to pull together. Bush makes a decision to go to war, then lies repeatedly to fool the country into supporting it, but the Democrats won’t make an issue of it because that would undermine our troops and war effort. Secret Bush policies condone and cover-up prisoner torture, but the Democrats won’t make an issue of it because they suspect that people basically don’t mind torture (really) as long as the victims “deserve it” and it is in the service of “protecting” us. The Bush gang hands them the biggest gift imaginable in the Plame scandal, but the Democrats won’t make an issue of it because they don’t want the investigation to appear “partisan.” Bush breaks the law, illegally eavesdrops on innocent Americans, then says openly that he thinks its just fine and plans to keep doing it, but the Democrats won’t make an issue of it because they are afraid of appearing “soft” on national security. Bush appoints a Supreme Court nominee who is openly supportive of the worst of these Executive policies, and who is explicitly committed to overturning abortion rights, but the Democrats won’t make an issue of it because they are afraid of a fight over the filibuster. Congressional Republicans have created the biggest corruption scandal in decades, but the Democrats won’t make an issue of it because a couple of them might be caught up in the net. Do these people WANT to win?

The disaster that is Bush’s vaunted Medicare drug plan

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_atrios_archive.html#113725544696472168

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2528

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/16/politics/16drug.html

The latest “strategy for success” in Iraq

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2532

http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2006/01/iraq_reconstruc.html

More signs of progress

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2525
[WP] [I]n the days after American forces and the Iraqi brass band pulled out of the circular palace drive on a bluff overlooking the Tigris River, local officials now say, looters moved in, ripping out doors, air conditioners, ceiling fans and light-switch plates from some of the compound's 136 palaces, leaving little more than plaster and dangling electric wires.

The culprits are some of the same Iraqi security forces and officials to whom Americans transferred control, police and the governor say. . .

U.S. military spokesmen, some expressing surprise, said this month that they had not known of the alleged looting spree after the handover. They stressed that the Tikriti palaces, after Baghdad's Green Zone the most prominent U.S. installations eventually slated for return to Iraqi authority, were no longer U.S. troops' concern.

"I think what we're seeing as we're able to leave the areas and turn them over to the Iraqi government, we're giving more responsibility back to the Iraqi government," said Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad. . . Johnson said he could appreciate the symbolism of the alleged looting taking place immediately after the much-ballyhooed handover.

Another Bush success: the coming war against Iran

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_atrios_archive.html#113726243140279477

George Tenet the source of Downing Street disclosures?

http://susiemadrak.com/2006/01/14/17/00/the-facts-were-fixed-around-the-intelligence/

Paul Bremer: uber-hack

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/15/15464/6284

Arlen Specter: NSA wiretapping potentially “impeachable”

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/15/specter-impeachment/

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6342.html

Fascinating story: the “Swift Boat” attack on Murtha, research-paid-for-hire, and a case study in the growing corporate-thinktank-media linkage -- “Cybercast News Service”

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/14/213030/258

Background: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/15/131258/767

John Ashcroft cashes in, big-time

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/14/92332/4522

Bob Ney “temporarily” steps down from leadership post

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/gop-congressman-ney-temporarily-steps.html
[Chris] Uh huh..."temporarily" just like Tom DeLay.

More Ney shenanigans: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_15.php#007444

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003476.html

Tom Delay might not even get re-elected

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/delay-losing-badly-in-his-own-district.html

Here come the Republican “reformers”

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_digbysblog_archive.html#113736998616861537

“Ethics” committees: what a joke

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-5547759,00.html

Abramoff, Reed, and Rove

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_digbysblog_archive.html#113737880613628401

An Abramoff primer

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007441.php
[Josh Marshall] I think you'll see over the course of the next year that these federal 'hard' money contributions -- either from Abramoff or his clients -- aren't where the real game was being played. The real action was in money funnelled or laundered through various DC-based non-profits or de facto cash payments to members of Congress or their staffs.

Dems back away from Alito fight. How pathetic

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/15/202540/074

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/just-fire-democrats-please-all-of-them.html

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/politics/politicsspecial1/15alito.html

How they play it: a case study of GOP efforts to suppress unfavorable news coverage

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/13602646.htm

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 8:03 AM

 
ORGANIZED CRIME

Unbelievable

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/12/AR2006011202340.html
The Bush administration took the unusual step yesterday of asking the Supreme Court to call off a landmark confrontation over the legality of military trials for terrorism suspects, arguing that a law enacted last month eliminates the court's ability to consider the issue. . .

More: http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4977

There was strong opposition within the Defense Dept to new rules allowing torture

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4983

What does John McCain think about Bush’s claim that he can sign an anti-torture law, but not be bound by it?

http://www.ericumansky.com/2006/01/mccain_sends_ki.html

Alito finally makes clear that he does believe Presidents can break the law

http://makeashorterlink.com/?R12B2177C

Legal scholar Chris Matthews agrees

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_digbysblog_archive.html#113718642807451055
TICE [a former NSA official]: Well, you'd be breaking the law.

MATTHEWS: Yeah. Well, maybe that's part of the job.

Another half-wit (Neil Cavuto)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601130007
CAVUTO: Well, you know, it's a typical Hollywood plot, the villain versus the hero. But, yesterday, the plot moved east, maybe to Washington, D.C. The wife of Supreme Court nominee, as you heard once or twice, Samuel Alito, crying and walking out of the hearings, after some pretty tough attacks on her husband's character. So, have the Democrats now become the villains? . .

You're -- you are a very good producer, George. And I'm -- here's where you can offer advice to your Democrats. Do you think that they're so focused on the issues and all of that, that they lose sight of these things like emotion -- just plain emotion?

[NB: Yeah, “issues and all of that”]

What do you call a supposedly “pro-choice” Republican who says he will vote for a judge who will likely be the swing vote to overturn abortion rights?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/13/142743/754

http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2006/01/the_myth_of_the.html

A great point: after their performance in the Alito hearings, can we really trust the Judiciary committee to investigate NSA abuses?

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/only-select-committee-can-investigate.html

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_digbysblog_archive.html#113718327277520017

More: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_digbysblog_archive.html#113719909015645732

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/01/index.html#008881

Every now and then, Harry Reid does impress

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/3584174.html
In 1977, I was appointed chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission. It was a difficult time for the gaming industry and Las Vegas, which were being overrun by organized crime. To that point in my life, I had served in the Nevada Assembly and even as lieutenant governor, but nothing prepared me for my fight with the mob.

Over the next few years, there would be threats on my life, bribes, FBI stings and even a car bomb placed in my family's station wagon. It was a terrifying experience, but at the end of the day, we cleaned up Las Vegas and ushered in a new era of responsibility.

My term on the gaming commission came to an end in 1981, and when it did, I thought I had seen such corruption for the last time. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. It is not quite the mafia of Las Vegas in the 1970s, but what is happening today in Washington is every bit as corrupt and the consequences for our country have been severe.

Our nation's capital has been overrun by organized crime — Tom DeLay-style.

The gangsters are the lobbyists, cronies and lawmakers who have banded together and abused their power to serve their own self-interest. The casinos are the Capitol, which has had its doors thrown open for special interests to waltz in and help themselves, and the victims, of course, are the American people. . . [read on]

More: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_digbysblog_archive.html#113717925683941273

A new alternative to Boehner and Blunt for House leadership

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/01/index.html#008877

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/14/politics/14cong.html

More on the K Street Project

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/13/16918/4682

Denny Hastert asks Bob Ney to step down as committee chair

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/01/breaking_haster.html
A source close to Hastert said the Speaker does not want to unveil lobbying reform legislation with Ney still in possession of a senior House position. . .

[NB: See? We really can trust them to clean up themselves]

Dems get serious

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/01/13/democrats_may_seek_total_gift_ban.html
"Congressional Democratic leaders have rallied behind an ethics reform package that would completely eliminate all gifts from lobbyists, covering everything from sports and entertainment tickets to meals," Roll Call reports.

That was then, this is now

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008000.php
October 2005:

Four days before Iraqis are to vote on their country's proposed constitution, Shiite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish power brokers reached a breakthrough late Tuesday that revived hopes of winning Sunni support for the charter and defusing the Sunni-led insurgency by political means, Iraqi political leaders said. . . The major concession from Tuesday's talks was agreement by the Shiites and Kurds that a committee be created early next year to consider amendments to the constitution. . .

January 2006:

Abdul Aziz Hakim, the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the most powerful Shiite party in the ruling coalition, appeared to back away from the constitutional compromise Wednesday. . . "The first principle is not to change the essence of the constitution," Hakim said in a speech given during the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha, according to the Associated Press. . .

Sunnis press for constitutional change

http://www.juancole.com/2006/01/sunnis-insist-on-trying-to-change.html

“NCLB’s Poison Pill”

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/13/154821/128

More from Goofus

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4982

Bonus items: A woman’s place

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/13.html#a6694

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/13/news/merkel.php
"She's smart," he said. "She's plenty capable. She's got kind of a spirit to her that is appealing. . .”

[That’s Bush, talking about the German Chancellor. I expected him to add, “I like her – she’s got spunk”]

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 3:32 AM

 
STAGE CRAFT

OK, so here’s the trick: you get a spokesperson to predict outrageously high deficit numbers, then a few weeks later, when the actual numbers come in, high as they are, they are “less than predicted,” so you can claim it as some sort of success. You might think the media would fall for this once, but three straight times??!

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/bush-white-house-really-does-lie-about.html

Why Bush wants congressional hearings on his illegal spying

http://www.slate.com/id/2134206/fr/rss/

There is no veteran these people won’t smear

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/01/12/bush-admin-launched-secr_n_13713.html

Oh, those spontaneous and unscripted questions at Bush’s public events

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4971

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/bush-courageously-confronts-tough.html

Goofus (c/o Holden over at First Draft)

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4972
Brownie Watch

Before I begin I do want to say I married well. I'm sorry the First Lady isn't with me. She is a heck of a person.

King of Irony, Part I

You know, no President ever wants to be President during war.

We Hold These Truths to be Self-Evident, Part I

But Saddam Hussein was a sworn enemy of the United States. He was on the nations that sponsor terror list for a reason. I didn't put him on the list; previous Presidents put him on the list. And the reason why is because he was sponsoring terrorism.

Let's Forget Those Inspections, Shall We?

We gave the opportunity to Saddam Hussein to open his country up. It was his choice. He chose war, and he got war.

He Understands from His Days in Combat in the Alabama Delta

I understand that full -- firsthand: War is brutal.

Getting a Little Action

Secondly, this is a country, obviously, that has got brutal action -- this enemy we face has got no conscience.

Suicider Watch, Part I

It's hard for me to believe that there is such brutality in the world where people going to a funeral to mourn the dead, and a suicider shows up and kills people.

Adjusting Your Strategery

And, listen, the training hasn't gone smoothly all the time. I mean, this is a war. And you're constantly adjusting your strategies and tactics -- not strategies -- tactics on the ground to meet an enemy which is changing.

Brain Lock! Hit Override!

I can't tell you how good the caliber of our military brass -- and those in the field, by the way, all the way up and down the line, are good, they are good people -- (applause) -- better trained, not just numbers, I'm talking about capacity to take the fight and stay in the fight.

Can We Get Some of that Training at the White House?

There's a national police force, kind of like a swat team, a national swat team, that can move -- they're pretty well trained. They need some human rights training.... You can't have a democracy in which the police don't enforce the rule of law, but enforce their view of revenge. And so you got ethics training, rule of law training -- all done by good troops who are embedded -- who are side-by-side with this Iraqi police force.

Suicider Watch, Part II -- Borderline Stupid Edition

The reason why the border is necessary is because there's suiciders coming in from Syria into Iraq.

We Hold These Truths to be Self-Evident, Part II

And thirdly, you've got local police, and we're lagging in the local police. And the local police -- it's just that, local.

Unless I Am

Now, having said that, they got these surveys -- and I must confess I'm not much of a survey guy, but they got them, and most Iraqis are optimistic about the future.

Can't Even Win A Debate With Himself

If Osama bin Laden were the top guy, and Mr. Zawahiri -- he was the person that put out the strategy, by the way, for al Qaeda, for everybody to see. I don't think he put it out for everybody to see. It just happened to be exposed for everybody to see eventually.

Brain Lock! Whoop-Whoop-Whoop!

That's the short-term strategy. There's also the strategy of making it clear, if you harbor a terrorist -- the short-term strategy of dealing with threats before they come to hurt us -- I say, before they fully materialize.

There's the Executive Branch, the Executive Branch, and the Executive Branch

It's been authorized, reauthorized many times. We got lawyers looking at it from different branches of government.

King of Irony, Part II

We are a rule -- a country of law.

But You Doesn't Have to Call Me Chimpy

There will be a lot of hearings and talk about that, but that's good for democracy -- just so long as the hearings, as they explore whether or not I have the prerogative to make the decision I made doesn't tell the enemy what we're doing.

Because He Broke His Crayon

There's a lot of investigation, you're right, in Washington -- which is okay. That's part of holding people to account in a democracy. But at one point in time the government got accused of not connecting the dots. You might remember that debate -- we didn't connect the dots.

We Hold These Truths to be Self-Evident, Part II

Generally, when you're smuggling something it's against the law.

When Life Gives You Lemons...

Now, some of you all may be old enough to remember the days of Prohibition. I'm not. But remember, we illegalized whisky, and guess what? People found all kinds of ways to make it, and to run it. NASCAR got started -- positive thing that came out of all that.

Wyllie, I Presume

We've got people being smuggled by what they called coyotes into the deserts and asked to walk across.

Brain Lock! Hit Eject!

Step five is -- on the accountability system is what we call disaggregate results. Do you realize in the old accountability systems, they didn't bother to look at the African American kids stand-alone.

Fine is Lousy, and That's a Problem

Now, we've got a problem when it comes to math and science. Our kids test fine. Math and science 8th grade test lousy, math and science in high school, and that's a problem.

Uncharacteristic Honesty

I'm pandering, I know...

More: http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4973

Cheney STILL lying about Saddam/Al Qaeda links

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_08.php#007424

Who helped Alito prep

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/12/alito-murder-board/

Why being a member of CAP is a problem (whether Alito “remembers” it or not)

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/gop-senator-lindsey-graham-and-why.html
[John Aravosis] Senator Graham is on CNN right now talking about how Judge Alito is being accused of bigotry using "guilt by association" simply because he belonged to an organization that may have said some bad things.

Well, here's a newsflash Senator Graham. When an organization is formed expressly to kick women and minorities out of your university, and you join that organization, pray tell what else are we to conclude? . . . [T]o suggest that it's only guilt by association when you choose to join a group whose main purpose is to embrace and promote bigotry, then you render the definition of bigotry meaningless.

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/alito_/2006/01/the_cap_flap.php

Whether Alito’s wife’s crying was spontaneous or staged, there’s no doubt that the subsequent use of it has been 100% political

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/12/115054/013

http://susiemadrak.com/2006/01/12/15/34/tracks-of-her-tears/

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_digbysblog_archive.html#113708704276622789

How the Dems (and allies) have misplayed the Alito nomination

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/01/index.html#008861

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-daou/the-broken-triangle-pr_b_13691.html

Will they still fight it?

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2523

Another Abramoff/WH connection

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Documents_show_extent_of_ties_between_0112.html

Houston tv stations back down in the face of DeLay’s threats, won’t run critical ads

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/12/1159/54704

Bonus item: Bush wired? I’ve been assuming so ever since the great debate debacle during the 2004 campaign – where photos SHOWED the wire – as well as numerous other instances. Apparently I’m not the only one

http://www.democrats.com/bush-earpiece-alito

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 2:02 AM

 
GOOD QUESTIONS

In the convoluted code that typifies these hearings, Alito comes as close as he ever will to saying he plans to overturn Roe v. Wade

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/11/95029/2383
[Armando] Durbin asks "John Roberts stated unequivocally that Roe v. Wade was the settled law of the land. Do you, Judge Alito, believe that Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land?"

Unlike, John Roberts, Alito refuses to say that Roe is the settled law of the land.

It is very simple. Alito will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and anyone who supports his confirmation; any SENATOR who votes for his confirmation, has no excuse -- they are voting for the overturn of Roe v. Wade.

More: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/wash-post-alito-leaves-door-open-to.html

Alito recap

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/nl/newsletter2.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=917053

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/12/opinion/12thur1.html

CNN’s awful coverage

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601110007

More: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/cnns-blitzer-again-accused-democrats.html




The Democrats’ questioning has been inconsistent at best. At worst (Joe!), an ego-inflating waste of time. How sad. A real cross-examiner would have had Alito in trouble by now, especially on his CAP lies

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/11/politics/politicsspecial1/11senators.html



Mean old Dems make Alito’s wife cry (except that it was a Republican asking the questions when she broke down). Look, it hasn’t been handled very well, but the issue isn’t whether Alito is personally a bigot – it’s why he joined a bigoted organization, why he remained a member even after people like Bill Frist (!) had quit, and why he trumpeted the fact in his job application. He may not “remember” anything about the organization, but doesn’t he remember his job application and why he went out of his way to brag about being a member?

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/being-mean-to-alito.html

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/gops-fun-and-games-with-bigotry.html

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/12/85440/7654

http://www.slate.com/id/2134055/entry/2134198/fr/rss/

Get the documents!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/11/16149/5598
Those records and others at Mudd Library at Princeton give no indication that Judge Alito, who sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, was among the group's major donors. He was not an active leader of the group, and two of his classmates who were involved and Mr. Rusher said they did not remember his playing a role.

[NB: “Major” donor? “Active” leader?]

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6312.html

Update this morning: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/12/91041/4685

What’s that line about “if you keep repeating a lie often enough”?

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_atrios_archive.html#113700546916356330
[Atrios] Bush is on TV claiming that his illegal wiretapping program involved only incoming calls from phone numbers in the Al Qaeda phone tree which apparently we have. Even Marshall Wittman isn't too stupid to understand that there's no reason he couldn't have gotten warrants from the FISA court to do so.

I remember when lying to the American people was thought to be a bad thing. . . silly me.

Russell Tice, NSA whistleblower: millions, not just a few, affected by illegal surveillance

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/nsa-whistleblower-speaks-publicly.html

U.S. viceroy Paul Bremer “repeatedly” asked for more troops in Iraq

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/007979.php

More: http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/01/index.html#008856

A great question

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_atrios_archive.html#113704263848430904
[Atrios] Um, just asking, but it's been almost a month since the Iraq election and we still don't know what the final outcome is?

[NB: Because it take a 2/3 coalition to govern (is there any parliamentary system in the world that requires 2/3?), you can be sure that the numbers are being finagled to force the Shiites and Kurds to include Sunni participants]

More on the budding democracy we have created

http://www.juancole.com/2006/01/al-hakim-warns-sunni-arabs-on-changes.html
[Juan Cole] Shiite clerical leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim on Wednesday warned Sunni Arabs not to attempt to make substantive changes in the new Iraqi constitution. The charter was narrowly approved in an October 15 referendum, but was rejected by all three Sunni-majority provinces. US ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad worked out a promise to the Sunni Arabs that they would have four months to attempt to introduce amendments into the constitution. . .

More: http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2516

The true costs of the war: at least a trillion dollars, probably much more (thanks to Peg Kovacic for the link)

http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/Cost_of_War_in_Iraq.htm

Whoa! General who “migrated” interrogation policies from Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib now takes the fifth

http://www.slate.com/id/2134201
[Eric Umansky] The Post fronts a general at the center of the prisoner-abuse scandal invoking his right to not incriminate himself. Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller had been transferred from Guantanamo Bay to Abu Ghraib where he reportedly intended to "Gitmo-ize" operations. He took the Fifth (or, actually, the military's version of it) in court-martial proceedings for two soldiers who used dogs to terrify prisoners. The men say that they were ordered to do so. A former colonel at Abu Ghraib is reportedly cooperating with prosecutors and, presumably, pointing the finger up the chain of command. "It would seem in light of General Miller's invocation that there's more fire than smoke in terms of whether or not there was an authorized use of unlawful force," said one military defense lawyer.

Another good question: Abramoff “raised” (bilked) over $80 million. Where is it?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_08.php#007415

Thank goodness for that “Defense Fund.” DeLay threatens to sue tv stations that run an ad linking him to the Abramoff scandal

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_08.php#007411

Welcome back, Billmon!

http://billmon.org/archives/002351.html
A Bipartisan Scandal. . .

The K Street project

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/007986.php

A classic, if you haven’t read it: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0307.confessore.html

Bonus item: Tom Coburn really IS a big fat jerk (there you go, Cookie!)

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6315.html

More: http://tomcoburnisabigfatjerk.blogspot.com/

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 8:54 AM

 
LIES

Here’s a round-up of commentary on the Alito hearings so far. A brief recap: he is lying about his membership in CAP, he is refusing to answer whether he still “believes strongly” that the Court should overturn Roe v Wade (as he once wrote), and he has given a completely implausible excuse for why he broke his promise to recuse himself on cases involving companies he had investments with. On unlimited Executive power, he has said the right thing (no one is above the law), but the problem is that he believes that when the President renders certain extra-legal decisions that MAKES IT legal. But by the weird hypocritical calculus of the confirmation process, he is “doing well” – because the problem isn’t whether you are lying or stonewalling (even when people know you are doing it), but whether you are doing so effectively while maintaining a calm, sincere demeanor. This is how we pick jurists for the most powerful court in land

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/10/10304/4048
[Armando] Judge Samuel Alito acknowledged that the 1985 memo where he stated that he supported the goal of overturning roe v. Wade expressed his personal views at the time. . . He did not clarify whether he still believes it but implicitly seemed to accept that when he argued that as a judge he would put his personal feelings aside and determine whether the doctrine of stare decisis compelled upholding Roe.

This makes it clear, Alito would vote to overturn Roe UNLESS the doctrine of stare decisis compelled otherwise. . . As for stare decisis, Alito stated repeatedly that it "is not an inexorable command."

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_atrios_archive.html#113690415538312106
[Atrios] We all know the wingnut code, Specter/Alito. Specter gets Alito to say stare decisis is important. Alito says overturning precedent requires special circumstance. We all know what that means.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/10/104130/326
[Armando] So Alito's story on CAP is that 'he didn't do it, and if he did do it, he doesn't remember, and if he did do it and does remember, then he had a good reason for doing it.'

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/alito-appears-to-be-lying-about-his.html
[John Aravosis] Funny, had I joined an organization whose primary reason for coming into being was to demand that women and minorities not be allowed on my college campus, I think I'd remember that.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/1/10/143750/585
[Chris Bowers] Alito is lying about his involvement with Concerned Alumni for Princeton, and the reason he is lying is because membership with such an organization demonstrates an embarrassing level of opposition to civil rights in this country that should disqualify someone from being a Supreme Court Justice. That he is unwilling to be truthful during his confirmation hearings further demonstrates just how unqualified he is.

http://www.progressivedailybeacon.com/commentary.php?id=929
Russ Feingold, the only Senator to truly probe Alito's responses, forced Alito to admit that his failure to recuse himself from the Vanguard case was not due to a computer glitch. CNN, which has been doing its best, as are all the nation's media, to ensure Alito is shown in the best possible light, almost immediately left the hearing for a commercial break.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/10/172753/143
Some have questioned the propriety of Senator Graham participating in the so-called murder boards (the mock hearing sessions) for Alito, but Senator Feingold just raised an interesting series of questions. The transcript's not out yet, but this is the nub of it. . . Did Administration officials participate in your murder boards, did the question of the limits (or lack thereof) on Executive power come up especially as regards the NSA wiretapping American citizens at home, and to what extent did Administration officials advise you on how to answer those questions?

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/10/93319/1223

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/01/index.html#008840

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/alito-hearings.html

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/nobody-is-above-law.html

More live-blogging: http://www.liberaloasis.com/

Full transcripts: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013661.html

Borked

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/10/204411/273
"I think [Bork] was one of the most outstanding nominees of this century," Alito told Michael Aron of NJN News's "Front Page New Jersey" in a little-noticed 1988 interview. "He is a man of unequaled ability, understanding of constitutional history, someone who had thought deeply throughout his entire life about constitutional issues and about the Supreme Court and the role it ought to play in American society."

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/if-bork-was-too-radical-for-court-why.html
If Bork was too radical for the Court, why isn't Alito?. . .

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/10/212630/383

The weirdest moment in the hearings: Lindsey Graham (who reportedly helped coach Alito) praises the judge for not saying so, then jokes about Abramoff

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/01/joking_about_ja.html

Why the Democrats should fight this

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/democrats-cannot-meekly-accept-alitos.html

The terrible press coverage

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/11/02320/1375

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2515

http://www.slate.com/id/2134141
[Eric Umansky] The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal world-wide newsbox, and New York Times all lead with Judge Alito's vague, non-committal answers on abortion; he promised to keep an "open-mind." Alito was just as firm and illuminating when it came to questions of executive power and other topics. . . The papers all flag Alito's hedging on Roe. As the NYT puts it, "He did not commit himself to upholding or overturning the right to an abortion, and he did not address whether he might support further incremental restrictions on abortions." Indeed, as the NYT adds, Alito "provided no substantive new insights into his judicial philosophy or background." In other words, he spoke but didn't really say anything. Perhaps the papers should have headlined that instead of the P.R.-friendly pablum most ended up with. Example: The Post, "ALITO SAYS HE'D KEEP AN 'OPEN MIND' ON ABORTION."

Alito was aided in his efforts by the numerous Republican and Democratic senators who contracted broadcast-itis and couldn't shut up. Sen. Biden had a particularly nasty case, spending nearly his entire 30-minute allotment flapping his lips about, among other things, Princeton, his son (who didn't seem to get in), and Sen. Feinstein's fine glasses. . . The Post's Dana Milbank quantifies the combined effect of the senators speechifying and Alito's lengthy legal evasions: "By midafternoon, only 28 of the 130 seats in the press section were occupied, and not all of those seated had their eyes open."

The NSA reportedly bugged that well-known terrorist organization, the Quakers

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/National_Security_Agency_spied_on_Baltimore_0110.html

For the umpteenth time, Bush repeats that, while fair and open debate in a democracy is OF COURSE a good thing, any PARTICULAR questioning of his Iraq war policies is irresponsible and treasonous

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/politics/10cnd-prexy.html
In some of his most combative language yet directed as his critics, Mr. Bush said Americans should insist on a debate "that brings credit to our democracy, not comfort to our adversaries.". . .

But it was Mr. Bush's warning to Democrats that ventured into new territory. . . "There is a difference between responsible and irresponsible debate and it's even more important to conduct this debate responsibly when American troops are risking their lives overseas," he said without specifically naming his critics.

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2514
[Swopa] It's not like we couldn't see this coming, is it? But as helpless as Democrats have been in responding to this kind of browbeating, Dubya may still find himself dealing with gradually diminishing returns as yet-another-speech-about-Iraq competes with fresher issues in the public's mind. . . The "solution," I suppose, will be that he'll keep getting nastier about it.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_digbysblog_archive.html#113693358620881336
[Tristero] George W. Bush's latest thoughtful speech was, as usual, boldly audacious. With his demand that responsible debate over Iraq must be limited entirely to arguments over exactly how much praise he deserves, The President's speech will go down in history as among the most remarkable utterances ever.

The American people know the difference between responsible and irresponsible debate when they see [sic] it. They know the difference between honest critics who question the way the war is being prosecuted and partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people. And they know the difference between a loyal opposition that points out what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.

[NB: And people also see the difference between an administration that refuses to admit ANY errors or dishonesty, despite the plainest evidence otherwise, and one that is truly interested in open debate]

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/10/165530/603

http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2006/01/bush_accuses_us.htm

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/why-doesnt-bush-just-arrest-us-all-and.html

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/10/215152/850

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4951

Watch Scotty duck the question of just who these “irresponsible” critics are

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4953

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6294.html
[Steve Benen] It's an interesting White House take on political dissent. Critics of the president and the war, McClellan suggests, should feel free to oppose Bush policies. (How generous of him.) These same critics should not, however, feel free to oppose Bush in a way that "sends the wrong message." Who decides when criticism of the White House shifts into the danger zone? The White House does.

I'm trying to figure out what, exactly, might constitute legitimate criticism in the Bush gang's eyes. Discussion of redeploying or withdrawing troops "sends the wrong message," so that's clearly off limits. Talking about pre-war misstatements of facts also "sends the wrong message," so that's out too. We're also not supposed to acknowledge failures relating to casualties, torture, financial cost, oil, Iraqi security forces, and the Iraqi constitution. But don't worry, the White House has no quarrel with a "loyal opposition" that wishes to express a "different view."

Why is this so hard for other people to write? “Bush lied”

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/10/75333/6598

And I think this qualifies as a lie too (from Ed Gillespie)

http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=5566
[Yesterday] Asked about Abramoff, Gillespie pleaded ignorance. "He's not someone I dealt with on any basis," Gillespie said. "I have not been in meetings with Jack Abramoff so I can't tell you anything about him from a personal perspective."

[October 2003] Mr. GILLESPIE: I know Jack Abramoff and I know Wayne Berman. They are Republicans; they were Republicans before they were lobbyists. They're lobbyists. . . I know Wayne Berman and, like I said, I know Jack Abramoff, and I know they represent their clients. It's all publicly--they publicly disclose who they represent.

Rich Lowry, National Review, surprises us all by admitting the obvious: the Abramoff scandal is a REPUBLICAN scandal

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/national-review-editor-says-abramoff.html

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_digbysblog_archive.html#113692934924382482
[Digby] I admire Rich Lowry's intellectual integrity in pointing out that no matter how much the Republicans might wish to portray the Abramoff scandal as bi-partisan it just isn't. But his prescription just won't do. . . The Republican party has no standing to reform itself now. It's like the mafia saying they promise to clean up their act once Sammy the Bull blew the whistle.

The Abramoff scandal is about corrupt lobbying and money laundering, which was coordinated at the highest levels of the party, run by the majority leader of the House of representatives. But that's just one of many corrupt GOP practices. There are the perjury and obstruction cases in the CIA leak investigation. And the SEC investigation into the majority leader of the Senate. There are the numerous payola and propaganda schemes. Bribes on the floor of the House. Crooked Pentagon appropriations and missing billions in Iraq. Dirty tricks in New Hampshire. Hiding the real cost of the prescription drug program (and Billy Tauzin being on Pharma take when he got it passed.) The list goes on and on. . . [read on]

Another trumped-up and partisan charge against poor Tom DeLay

http://makeashorterlink.com/?G2F42537C

And now, Roy Blunt and John Boehner (vying to be his successor) come under the microscope too

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/potential-gop-house-majority-leader.html

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4958

http://www.slate.com/id/2134141
[Eric Umansky] A front-page Post piece notices that the two candidates vying to become House majority leader have both been plenty tight with lobbyists. Rep. Roy Blunt, R.-Mo., current substitute House Majority Leader, once tried to sneak into a bill a provision that would have benefited Phillip Morris, which his then girlfriend was a lobbyist for. The other guy, Rep. John A. Boehner, R.-Ohio, once gave legislators checks from the tobacco industry while on the House floor.

The final word on this back-and-forth story: Cunningham DID wear a wire, but not against “public officials” – boy, when lawyers start talking you can never take statements at their plain face value

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003452.html

Tim Russert’s excuse for why he didn’t testify on Plame (even when he knew Libby was lying to the government) has to be seen to be believed

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_atrios_archive.html#113690152439183575

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_firedoglake_archive.html#113694286046454331

Libby’s defense strategy: attack the press

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013653.html

According to this story (which I haven’t seen corroborated anywhere else), Rove turned down the plea deal Fitzgerald offered him – and is still under serious investigation

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jason_le_060110_fitzgerald_maintains.htm

How the IRS screws the poor

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/business/10cnd-tax.html

Bonus item: NY school test isn’t on a level playing court

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0601/S00074.htm

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:25 AM

 
DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING

Alito has one little problem with all of his disclaimers that he has no agenda, blah blah. He’s a proven liar (on his broken recusal promise as well as other matters)

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/is-alito-even-honest.html

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/08/opinion/08sun1.html

One more reason to hate Alito (in case you didn’t already)

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_digbysblog_archive.html#113686627487472753
And after I graduated from high school, I went a full 12 miles down the road, but really to a different world when I entered Princeton University. . . Both college and law school opened up new worlds of ideas. But this was back in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

It was a time of turmoil at colleges and universities. And I saw some very smart people and very privileged people behaving irresponsibly. And I couldn't help making a contrast between some of the worst of what I saw on the campus and the good sense and the decency of the people back in my own community.

[NB: In case you don’t get the implication, he’s trashing civil rights and anti-war protestors on campus – or at least that’s the coded hint he means for his supporters to infer. Read on]

Guess who’s helping to coach Alito

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/09/graham-ethics/
Coaching a judicial nominee behind-the-scenes is not the proper role for a Judiciary Committee member who must subsequently sit in judgment on that nominee. Indeed, it could be a violation of the ethical duties of a senator. Here’s what Senate Rule 37 (Conflicts of Interest) in the Senate Ethics Manual says. . .

The case against Alito, part two

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/9/14450/02203

A handy “field guide” (thanks to Kos for the link)

http://biz.yahoo.com/law/060109/90ed6a7c57fbf3480765b6405f7134ab.html?.v=1
[Tony Mauro] The style thing. Nothing in the Constitution requires a Supreme Court nominee to be telegenic, but style and aplomb have been important factors ever since Reagan nominee Bork displayed neither quality and got clobbered. Roberts' movie-star looks raise the bar even higher for Alito.

That is why Alito's advocates try at every turn to lower expectations about his personal charisma. In a recent C-SPAN interview, longtime friend Carter Phillips -- who said that Alito asked him to speak on his behalf -- allowed that Alito is "not the most comfortable one-on-one conversationalist in the world." And Alito supporter Levey of the Committee for Justice says the nominee comes across as "a little mousy." Those who are familiar with the murder boards (or rehearsals) that Alito has gone through to prepare for the hearings say the same thing.

So how does an awkward man who seems to have little need to hear his own voice handle three days of televised testimony? Sidley Austin Brown & Wood partner Phillips and others note that despite his reticence one-on-one, Alito was nimble and persuasive on his feet when he argued before the high court in the solicitor general's office. If he can display that skill enough to keep the conversation going, his shy, even nerdy manner probably won't hurt him. If he suddenly finds an eloquent voice and displays some humor, he might hit home runs after all. "Sam will be home free when his most ardent political opponent cannot resist genuinely sharing in Sam's dry, laserlike humor," says Douglas Kmiec, a Pepperdine University Law School professor who has known Alito for years.

Only if he appears unhelpful, evasive, or dismissive will Alito's style become a negative. "Bork came across as combative and arrogant," says Levey. "But that's not Alito."

Executive power. Alito is Roman Catholic, but don't be surprised if he is accused of being a Unitarian this week -- not of the Protestant sect, but an advocate of the theory of the "unitary executive." In a November 2000 speech before the Federalist Society, Alito expounded on this theory, which holds that the Framers of the Constitution wanted all executive power to be in the hands of the president and not to be shared with administrative agencies or with Congress. The Framers advocated this approach not only for efficiency and accountability, he said, but "to balance the huge power of the legislature and the factions that may gain control of it."

In the wake of revelations about Bush administration domestic eavesdropping, Alito has also been taken to task for a 1984 memo he wrote in the solicitor general's office suggesting that government officials deserved immunity from liability for authorizing illegal wiretaps.

In a rare untelevised media briefing Thursday, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., underscored the executive-power issue as one that looms large for him in the run-up to the Alito hearings: "Especially when we have a president who wants to stretch his powers to and beyond constitutional limits, we need judges who can be independent of the president and act to preserve the balance of powers that provides a strong and fair foundation for our free society."

If this issue gains traction with the public and with Republicans -- some of whom, such as Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, Pa., are concerned about the erosion of congressional powers -- then it could spell trouble. But Alito might try to neutralize the issue by insisting that he cannot comment on separation-of-power questions that might come before him on the Court.

Sucking up. Alito supporters appear divided over how he should handle the recently released 1985 job application in which he sought a position in the Reagan Justice Department by stating, "I am and always have been a conservative." That may be no surprise, but he went on to disparage abortion rights and rulings of Chief Justice Earl Warren's Court on everything from criminal procedure to reapportionment. Civil rights advocates have picked up on the reapportionment issue in particular because the Warren Court's "one man one vote" rulings helped end rural domination of Congress and led to the election of minorities in urban districts.

Some say that Alito can chalk the statements up to job-application hyperbole that can be expected from someone applying for a political position. "The best thing he can say is that he was sucking up," says Rutgers' Baker.

But Alito supporter Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute says, "He can't back away from the 1985 statements, nor should he."

Abortion. Before last week, Alito's abortion views, as revealed in the 1985 memo and elsewhere, seemed likely to cause the most trouble at his hearings. But David Garrow, a Cambridge University professor and expert on the Court's abortion jurisprudence, says that Alito will likely be able to defuse them. "I actually expect that the abortion part of the colloquies will be among the most scripted and predictable," says Garrow, adding that Alito can pay homage to stare decisis and the Court's 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld Roe v. Wade and overruled Alito's own views as an appeals judge who supported a Pennsylvania law that restricted the right to an abortion. Garrow said that Alito can also explain away the 1985 memo as views expressed as an advocate and staff lawyer for the Reagan administration.

In the Vanguard. Alito's failure to recuse himself as a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in cases involving Vanguard companies, when some of his money was in Vanguard mutual funds, is a nothingburger for most judicial ethics experts, since mutual fund investments create different interests from stock ownership.

But the issue has developed into a lingering low-grade fever for Alito because, whatever the merits, his opponents have cast it -- in the words of People For the American Way -- as "Judge Alito's troubling credibility gap." When he was confirmed as an appeals judge, in 1990, he promised the Senate he would recuse in Vanguard cases. Alito has offered various explanations for his lapse, and Democrats are sure to insist that he pick just one -- and convince them that he did not ignore or violate the Senate pledge. The lawyer for Shantee Maharaj, whose Vanguard-related case is at issue, will testify against Alito this week.

If Alito gets defensive about it, the issue could grow in importance, says Cambridge University's Garrow. "If he's going to get visibly angry, I'd expect that's the context in which it would occur.”

Overall strategy. If Alito is dogged with questions about positions he took before joining the 3rd Circuit in 1990, says former Justice Department official Dinh, he should point to his judicial record instead. "He has to give some granularity to his views now and then," he says. "But rather than focusing on stray comments that by their nature reflect his personal professional views, his record as a judge speaks for itself to show his evenhanded application of the law. And he is not going to back down on his views as a judge."

But that is exactly what some opponents hope Alito does. "We don't need to just talk about those memos. He has 15 years of decisions to defend, and he can't not talk about them," says Smeal of the Feminist Majority Foundation. "In so many of those cases, he was a minority voice. He is so far to the right of the mainstream. That is what he will have to explain."

MSNBC’s coverage of the hearings: Democrat-free zone

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_atrios_archive.html#113684954044511007
[Media Matters] MSNBC political analyst and former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan; former Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie, who has served as a White House adviser for Alito's nomination process; and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN)

Live-blogging the hearings

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/1/9/1127/08717

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013641.html

The hearings in haiku (thanks to Kos for the link)

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/01/alito_opening_h.html

More on signing statements and the Unitary Executive Theory (if you aren’t worried already, this will do the trick)

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_digbysblog_archive.html#113683114732242472

Oh-oh. This could be very, very big

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4946
China has resolved to shift some of its foreign exchange reserves -- now in excess of $800 billion -- away from the U.S. dollar and into other world currencies. . .

I think this is HILARIOUS

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/9/15336/16099
[John Yoo – yes, THAT John Yoo] The Patriot Act changed the warrant standard from "primary purpose" to "significant purpose" in order to eliminate the wall of separation between foreign threats and domestic crimes, and to allow law enforcement to be used as a weapon against terrorism. Civil libertarians would have us believe that this allows intelligence agents to roam freely through the country. Nothing could be further from the truth Under the law as it existed both before and after the Patriot Act, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is forbidden from carrying out intelligence activities within the United States. That Patriot Act did nothing to change that. The Patriot Act represents a modest retrenchment from an overcautious interpretation of FISA, but nothing like the practice of executing warrantless searches without judicial supervision, as occurred before 1978. . . In fact, Section 215 [FISA] offers more protection than was previously afforded under the old law. . . Section 215, unlike grand juries, requires prior review of the demand by a federal judge. The Patriot Act actually raises the procedural protections when the government demands such information.

The latest conventional wisdom is that it’s a mistake for the Dems to go after Bush on warrantless spying because it makes them look wimpy on national security. I think that’s ridiculous: people DO want the government to protect them, but DON’T want wide-scale surveillance of personal conversations and DEFINITELY want the government – especially this administration – to have to go to the courts for permission. Because of WMD lies, etc, people DON’T trust the Bush gang any more to wield this power unilaterally, even if in general they accept that the government must do some things in secret. What is so complicated about that?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_digbysblog_archive.html#113684137451866895

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/007965.php

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/_/2006/01/presidential_lawbreaking.php

Constitutional scholars agree: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013650.html

You can tell how much this worries the Republicans from the volume and absurdity of the lies they are telling to try to deflect the issue

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/if-this-isnt-lying-what-is-it.html

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/law-is-too-annoying-to-obey.html

Tom DeLay keeps saying that the charges against him are utterly without merit, trumped-up and politically motivated trivialities that never should have been brought to court in the first place. Uh, Tom? I think the court doesn’t agree with you

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060109/ap_on_go_co/delay_indictment

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_08.php#007391
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is made up of nine judges. Each one elected. Each one a Republican.

Lobbying firm with DeLay/Abramoff ties shuts down operations, heads for the hills

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_08.php#007394

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013652.html

Duke Cunningham’s lawyers deny reports that he wore a wire against others

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_08.php#007399

The Dems go on offense in the corruption scandal: but the problem isn’t changing the rules – it’s changing the people who chose to ignore the rules!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/9/124321/4363
[Roll Call] Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will join with other Congressional Democrats at a Jan. 18 event to introduce their "Honest Leadership Act." Reid and Pelosi plan to use it as the main component of the Democrats' ethics agenda for 2006. . . "We long ago identified the Republican soft spot, which is this culture of corruption that pervades every aspect of government in Washington," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley.

[Kos] This is fine, and politically probably a good move. But I'm afraid this package will get lost in "dueling legislation" between whatever crap the GOP proposes and the Democratic legislation. Suddenly, everyone will be reformers. . . The problem with Abramoff and the rest of the myriad of GOP scandals isn't that the laws weren't stringent enough. It's that no one was enforcing existing law. . . [read on]

More: http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Leaked_memo_indicates_Democrats_will_focus_0109.html

Going after DeLay, Ney, et al. is fine, but let’s not forget Abramoff’s ties to the Bush gang

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_08.php#007397
I'm looking at a list of who was on President Bush's 2000-2001 Department of Interior transition team. It's not just Jack Abramoff who's on the list. Deputy Secretary of the Interior James Steven Griles is on there too. He's also apparently a target of the Abramoff investigation. And there's David Safavian on the list. He was the first guy indicted in the Abramoff scandal, the top procurement official at the Office of Management and Budget until a couple of days before he was arrested at his home in Alexandria, Virginia.

More: http://rockthrower.blogs.com/rockthrower/2006/01/abramoff_pleads.html

http://rockthrower.blogs.com/rockthrower/2005/11/abramoff_to_fed.html

http://rockthrower.blogs.com/rockthrower/2005/11/is_karl_rove_th.html

http://rockthrower.blogs.com/rockthrower/2005/11/scanlon_abramof.html

Bush Co. scrambling to find (and bury) any photos of Abramoff with Bush and others

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Bush_trying_to_round_up_all_0108.html

IRS now refuses to disclose who they are auditing, despite a law that requires them to do so (national security, no doubt)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/politics/10irs.html

How the GOP used Christian conservatives

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/using-christian-conservatives-for-fun.html
In thinking about how to induce the Texas government to act against the Texas casinos, Abramoff realized that he could cynically exploit Christian conservatives in Texas -- who strongly oppose gambling on religious and moral grounds -- and use that religious opposition to gambling in order to help the Louisiana casinos who were paying him. The Christian conservatives both in Texas and nationally would be the dupes. They would think that they were crusading against gambling by demanding that the Texas casinos be shut down. In reality, the entire spectacle was a grand deceit which was about nothing other than working to serve the interests of the Louisiana casinos by attacking their competitors.

To implement this scheme, Abramoff turned to Ralph Reed, who has long been the most politically influential Christian conservative in the country. Ever since he left Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition in 1997, Reed has been in the business of getting paid to influence Christian conservatives to do whatever serves the political and financial interests of his clients. Reed was also a top advisor to the Bush campaign in 2000 and its Southeast Regional Director in 2004. Abramoff hired Reed and paid him to drum up religious opposition to the Texas casinos in order to protect the Louisiana casinos.

Reed went to work and, when he was done, the targeted Texas casinos ended up being shut down as a result of a lawsuit brought against them in the name of Texas by then-Attorney General Jon Cornyn. Thereafter, Reed claimed in one of his e-mails to Abramoff that all of that happened because Reed had arranged for a meeting between anti-gambling Christian activists and Cornyn where the activists would demand that Cornyn act against the Texas casinos. In that e-mail, Reed advised Abramoff that he had "choreographed" Cornyn’s response. . .

[Read on! Cornyn gets his revenge]

More about Reed: don’t miss it

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/10/096/27598

Holden does the gaggle as usual: Gout! Paul Bremer! And other swollen appendages!

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4942

We are teaching the Iraqis SO MUCH about the subtle workings of democracy – and I’m sure they are taking notes

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1682208,00.html
American troops in Baghdad yesterday blasted their way into the home of an Iraqi journalist working for the Guardian and Channel 4, firing bullets into the bedroom where he was sleeping with his wife and children.

Ali Fadhil, who two months ago won the Foreign Press Association young journalist of the year award, was hooded and taken for questioning. He was released hours later.

Dr Fadhil is working with Guardian Films on an investigation for Channel 4's Dispatches programme into claims that tens of millions of dollars worth of Iraqi funds held by the Americans and British have been misused or misappropriated.

More: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/007968.php

The Bush admin brings all its finely-honed legal sensibilities and respect for civil liberties into censoring the Internet

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6024695.html
Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

[NB: Well, my intent is to annoy THEM. Does that put me in trouble?]

More: http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/01/index.html#008827

Bonus item: Smoking is good for you!

http://www.worlded.org/us/health/docs/tobacco/Unit2/3analyzing_ads.html
Cigarette ads give the impression that smokers are "Alive with pleasure" and that smoking is good for you.

http://www.courses.rochester.edu/foster/ANT226/Spring01/papers/savage_Health%20Hazards.html
Some companies also took filters to another level as they advertised for "better" filters or "recessed tips," which supposedly were "healthier" even though recent studies have showed otherwise.

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/conduct/html/tobexpld5.html
"Manufacturers are concentrating on the low TPM [total particulate matter] tar and Nicotine segment in order to create brands ...which aim, in one way or another, to reassure the consumer that theses brands are relatively more "healthy" than orthodox blended cigarettes."

[NB: No, that’s not the joke – it’s just a lead-in for this item]

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6284.html
[Boston Globe] Climbing his way out of low public ratings and facing a bruising battle to maintain Republican control of Congress, President Bush is seeking to resurrect his early reputation as a compassionate conservative who reaches across the aisle, according to officials close to the White House. . . ''He's made a commitment to have this ongoing dialogue with Democrats and Republicans," said White House communications director Nicolle Wallace. ''It's a sustained effort."

But critics who remember Bush's days on the 2000 campaign trail, presenting himself as a compassionate conservative, only to govern as a pure conservative, view the president's latest overtures with suspicion. . . ''I view this not as a serious engagement with Congress in the hopes of passing legislation but as part of a public relations strategy to improve his standing and minimize damage in the November election," said Brookings Institution political analyst Thomas E. Mann. . . ''The soft rhetoric of compassionate conservatism sits better with ordinary citizens than the big changes he wants," said Mann.

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:17 AM

 
MORE TO COME

Black Hawk down: 17 more U.S. soldiers dead in Iraq, after 11 the day before

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/deadly-weekend-in-iraq-for-us.html

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4930

Reality check: http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2507

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_atrios_archive.html#113673696610600115
[Atrios] Bush and his defenders have defined leaving Iraq as losing. Period. It's one reason crazy people like me think that may having some sort of arbitrary timetable or rough events-triggered withdrawal is a good idea - because there will never be some magical day when the Iraq security situation suddenly improves. There will never be a day when George Bush can wake up in the morning and decide, again, "Mission Accomplished!" without some arbitrary guidelines for when that is. There will never be a day when George Bush can credibly say "things are better today than yesterday" and therefore we can start to leave. . . We will never leave Iraq while George Bush is president, because they've decided that leaving is losing.

Kurdish government unifies while the Iraqi government fragments

http://www.juancole.com/2006/01/kurdistan-government-unifies-two-major.html

How we’re pressuring the Shiites to form the kind of government we’d like

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2509

Frank Rich asks the question: What is Bush’s furious defense of warrantless spying trying to hide?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/frank-rich-dissects-bush-domestic.html
[NYT] Given that the reporters on the Times story, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, wrote that nearly a dozen current and former officials had served as their sources, there may be more leaks to come, and not just to The Times. Sooner or later we'll find out what the White House is really so defensive about. . . Perhaps it's the obvious: the errant spying ensnared Americans talking to Americans, not just Americans talking to jihadists in Afghanistan. . .

The highest priority for the Karl Rove-driven presidency is instead to preserve its own power at all costs. With this gang, political victory and the propaganda needed to secure it always trump principles, even conservative principles, let alone the truth. Whenever the White House most vociferously attacks the press, you can be sure its No. 1 motive is to deflect attention from embarrassing revelations about its incompetence and failures.

More: http://makeashorterlink.com/?D5802507C

Confirmation of the Downing Street Memos, and more

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/007963.php
[Kevin Drum] One of those memos quoted Sir Richard Dearlove, head of MI6, as reporting after a visit to Washington DC that military action against Iraq was inevitable as early as July 2002:

Therefore, one of the most important questions about the Downing Street Memo has always been who exactly Dearlove met with in Washington. This would go a long way to answering why Dearlove believed "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Pundits wishing to play down the important of the memo, such as Michael Kinsley, opined that Dearlove may have just been talking to "the usual freelance chatterboxes" and perhaps was simply reporting on the "mood and gossip of 'Washington.'". . .

Read the rest to find out who Dearlove was really talking to. Hint: it wasn't a bunch freelance chatterboxes.

Howard Dean at his best

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_atrios_archive.html#113675532288836327
BLITZER: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who has now pleaded guilty to bribery charges, among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington, should the Democrat who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back?

DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.

BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.

DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence...

BLITZER: What about Senator Byron Dorgan?

DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.

Video: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/08.html#a6627

On Republican corruption: don’t we have disclosure requirements? (Well. . . )

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/8/112327/7561

Listen to Mark Schmitt: this is not a “lobbying scandal”!

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/9/14932/78999

Those lawless Republicans

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_08.php#007386

Tom DeLay, a fine, fine man

http://makeashorterlink.com/?F4A05207C

DeLay’s decision to step down creates as many problems as it solves

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-assess8jan08,0,5490484.story

More to come: http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/1/8/102618/8450

Former DeLay aide cooperating

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003440.html

Tom Who? The WH starts to pretend they barely ever heard of him – and reveals their class bigotry along the way

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_atrios_archive.html#113673576133477458
Of the former exterminator, a Republican close to the President's inner circle says, "They have always seen him as beneath them, more blue collar. He's seen as a useful servant, not someone you would want to vacation with."

More: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1147135,00.html

Funny: http://susiemadrak.com/2006/01/09/06/48/spin-cycle-3/

And Abramoff? Errr. . . uh. . . we hardly know him either

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_01_08.php#007387

As goes Guam, so goes the nation

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/_/2006/01/bush_rove_abramoff_and_guam.php

CNN wakes up and smells the coffee

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_atrios_archive.html#113677168916385409
[CNN] This could be a big change and it could well be that these new leaders could include some who are not particularly loyal to the White House and the White House agenda with an unpopular president. . .

Mort Halperin on Presidential “signing statements”

http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2006/01/while_signing_t.html#more
Presidential signing statements were, in fact, invented by Judge Alito, whose hearings for a Supreme Court seat starts on Monday. The original purpose was to enable the President to participate in creating legislative history. Now President Bush uses the statements to identify some of the provisions he plans to ignore. . . [read on]

More: http://159.54.227.3/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060108/NEWS/60108008

It isn’t just war powers or national security laws: Bush applies this reasoning to ANY law he doesn’t like

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_atrios_archive.html#113677074091952288

Unprecedented? Unfortunately, no

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_digbysblog_archive.html#113676130931679724

Welcome, Madame Chancellor!

http://wb42.blogspot.com/2006/01/germans-dont-like-guantanamo.html
The new Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, will be making her first official U.S. visit later this week. She is scheduled to meet with President Bush on Friday, during which she will ask that Guantanamo be closed down. . .

Why it’s no longer just control of Congress at stake in the next election

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/8/204534/2589

Questions for Alito

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/8/18515/23200

The case against him

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/8/213317/2314

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-alito8jan08,1,932560.story

Who’s a “judicial activist”?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/8/131534/0208

Who’s a “conservative”?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_digbysblog_archive.html#113675914766474084

The John Birch Society! (thanks to Susan Madrak for the link)

http://www.jbs.org/poll.php?vo=1
Should George Bush be impeached and removed from office?

Yes, because he lied us into war, has used the NSA to eavesdrop on the conversations of Americans without a court order, and has violated the Constitution in other ways. (68%)

Bonus item: you too can work for the NSA!

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001183.php

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:16 AM

 
A TIME TO LAUGH, A TIME TO CRY

Let’s start off with a good laugh. . .

Tom DeLay ducks a fight he knows he will lose, gives up Leader post

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/7/13710/68171
[AP] Embattled Rep. Tom DeLay decided Saturday to give up his post as House majority leader, clearing the way for new leadership elections among House Republicans eager to shed the taint of scandal, two officials said.

[Ha, ha, ha!]

[McJoan] Perhaps it was the Abramoff flip. Perhaps it because prosecutors have identified a second lobbying firm that appears to have been set up primarily to rake in the bucks for DeLay.

[LAT] In a letter to rank-and-file Republicans, DeLay said, "I have always acted in an ethical manner."

[Oh, ho ho ho ho ho!!]

In a separate letter to Speaker Dennis Hastert, DeLay said he intends to seek re-election to his House seat in November "while I work to clear my name of the baseless charges leveled against me."

[Whee! Haw haw haw haw haw!!]

White House pressure http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/01/07/white_house_tried_to_push_delay.html

What next? http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6278.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2133980
[Jesse Stanchak] With DeLay out of the way, the papers agree House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo. is the frontrunner to take up the majority leadership permanently. Blunt's held the position on a temporary basis since DeLay stepped down last September, due to an indictment in a money laundering scandal in his home state. House Republicans have been unusually factious since Blunt took over, however, suggesting Blunt just can't marshal the troops well enough to be a permanent leader. The Los Angeles Times has the best take on Blunt's chances, explaining the delicate balance the party needs to strike between efficient political operator and squeaky-clean face of the party. The LAT concludes that Blunt (as well as his primary challenger, Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio) may prove to be neither. Only the New York Times points out that if Blunt wins, the majority whip position opens up, necessitating further leadership shuffling and possibly hurting renewed efforts to press the party agenda in an election year.

DeLay still expects to be a power broker http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/7/153452/4923

“Distilling DeLay” (for people who say, “it’s all much too complicated, and everybody does it anyway”)

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4927

http://www.slate.com/id/2133980
The NYT fronts a look at another K Street firm with ties to both DeLay and the Abramoff scandal. The LAT fronts news that DeLay helped put the kibosh on a 1999 FDIC investigation into a Texas businessman, who had incidentally given campaign money to DeLay. Inside, the WP runs a retrospective on the rise and fall of DeLay.

Newt Gingrich (thanks to Buzzflash for the link)

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/nataffdaily/story/9104743
The Abramoff scandal has to be seen as part of a much larger and deeper problem. It's not about lobbyist corruption. You can't have a corrupt lobbyist without a corrupt member or corrupt staff. This was a team effort.

There are a series of behaviors, a series of attitudes, a series of crony-like activities that are not defensible, and no Republican should try to defend them. The danger for Republicans is to pretend this isn't fundamental or to pretend that they can get by passively without undertaking real reform.

One more post on the ultra-cynical roundtable in which the greatest minds of defense and diplomacy are brought together to advise Bush on Iraq policy – and given five minutes to do it

http://wilsonhellie.typepad.com/for_the_record/2006/01/bushcorp_we_don.html

Times vs Post coverage: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/01/why_oh_why_cant.html

No laughing matters. . .

Pentagon covering up Iraq war documents

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/007957.php

Another casualty in the war over who controls U.S. intelligence

http://makeashorterlink.com/?F10F22E6C

Welcome to the New Iraq: U.S. is blamed by Shiite groups for backing Sunni leaders

http://www.juancole.com/2006/01/shiite-crowds-protest-bombings-us.html

Getting to 2/3

http://www.juancole.com/2006/01/kurdish-shiite-parties-may-lack-23s.html

Is the President a King?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/8/0186/84098

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/several-matters.html

More on the “treasonous” revelation by the NYT that Bush was illegally spying on Americans

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_digbysblog_archive.html#113667115851992472
[Digby] The NY Times story revealed nothing that would give a terrorist pause because the fact is that everyone in the world assumed that we were monitoring terrorists' electronic communications. I assumed that. So did Osama bin Laden. I further assumed that American friends of terrorists and their friends would be monitored, too. And I have no doubt that Osama bin Laden assumed the same. . . .

Therefore, the only logical reason that the administration believed that it had to secretly and illegally spy on Americans is because they knew that Americans would not approve of which Americans they were monitoring. As Glenn says, the only security threatened by the revelations in the NY Times story is the Republican Party's political security.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/sharing-our-secrets-with-osama.html
[Glenn Greenwald] What has become un