L’ETAT, C’EST MOI

A nation of laws? Not for Bush

http://makeashorterlink.com/?C2B052A0D
[Boston Globe] President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution. . .

An obsession with secrecy

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0604300395apr30,1,5984422.story
As the Bush administration has dramatically accelerated the classification of information as "top secret" or "confidential," one office is refusing to report on its annual activity in classifying documents: the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.

A standing executive order, strengthened by President Bush in 2003, requires all agencies and "any other entity within the executive branch" to provide an annual accounting of their classification of documents. More than 80 agencies have collectively reported to the National Archives that they made 15.6 million decisions in 2004 to classify information, nearly double the number in 2001, but Cheney continues to insist he is exempt.

Explaining why the vice president has withheld even a tally of his office's secrecy when such offices as the National Security Council routinely report theirs, a spokeswoman said Cheney is "not under any duty" to provide it. . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/29/144655/101
In yet another late Friday sneak attack, the Bush administration threw up another stonewall to an investigation into its illegal warrantless wiretapping of American citizens. As Jeffery Feldman diaried last night, they will invoke the little used "State Secrets Privilege" to demand that the lawsuit brought by the Electronic Frontiers Foundation against AT&T be dismissed. The suit alleges that AT&T collaborated illegally with the NSA in its surveillance program. . .

More: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/04/building-secrecy-wall-higher-and.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0429-01.htm
The FBI secretly sought information last year on 3,501 U.S. citizens and legal residents from their banks and credit card, telephone and Internet companies without a court's approval, the Justice Department said Friday.

It was the first time the Bush administration has publicly disclosed how often it uses the administrative subpoena known as a National Security Letter, which allows the executive branch of government to obtain records about people in terrorism and espionage investigations without a judge's approval or a grand jury subpoena. . .

The Bush gang is threatening to prosecute reporters under espionage laws

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/washington/30leak.html
[T]he Bush administration is exploring a more radical measure to protect information it says is vital to national security: the criminal prosecution of reporters under the espionage laws.

Such an approach would signal a thorough revision of the informal rules of engagement that have governed the relationship between the press and the government for many decades. Leaking in Washington is commonplace and typically entails tolerable risks for government officials and, at worst, the possibility of subpoenas to journalists seeking the identities of sources.

But the Bush administration is putting pressure on the press as never before, and it is operating in a judicial climate that seems increasingly receptive to constraints on journalists. . .

The Bush gang doesn’t want to release some of the Gitmo prisoners because . . . ahem, cough, cough, cough. . . they’re afraid they’ll be mistreated by their own governments

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/world/30gitmo.html

Where do the ironies end? http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/us-claims-it-cant-release-gitmo.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2140819
[Lea Geller] Military officials claim that of the almost 500 suspects being held at Guantánamo, 150 are ready for repatriation as soon as their return can be negotiated with their home countries. Talks with these countries, especially Saudi Arabia and Yemen which account for almost half of the detainees, have been "complex, time-consuming and difficult." The State Department's human rights bureau is insisting on guarantees that prisoners will not be tortured upon their return and will be treated in accordance with international humanitarian law. Enforcement seems to be the sticking point – officials have no way of monitoring the prisoners. One proposal had the Red Cross visiting prisoners but when the Saudi government refused to allow the Red Cross access to its prisons, the proposal was scrapped.

Of course, the irony of the officials' fears for the safety of the detainees is not lost on well, anyone. A diplomat from an unnamed Middle Eastern country involved in the talks said, "It is kind of ironic that the U.S. government is placing conditions on other countries that it would not follow itself in Guantánamo or Abu Ghraib.”

Rumsfeld linked directly to authorizing prisoner abuse

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2006/04/further_evidence_rumsfeld_implicated_in_war_crimes.html

Mission Accomplished

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/weekinreview/30filkins.html
[T]he democratic process, seen as the main hope for ending the violence, has been unable to stop it. Two constitutions, two elections and a referendum later, Iraq is reeling toward more chaos, not less. . .

Do the Republicans MIND tagging themselves as the party of scandal? They seem to be working hard at it

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/29/133758/893
[SusanG] While we're wallowing in the Republican Whorefest at the Watergate it's easy to lose sight of plain old-fashioned, money-based GOP corruption stories clicking across the news wires at a NASCAR pace. As a public service, I bring you three separate stories about shenanigans - and keep in mind, these are all articles from just this morning. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/29/AR2006042901040.html
The day before the Republican House leadership struggled for five hours to bring lobby reform legislation to the floor, Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) declared that voters have little or no interest in ethics legislation.

"Do I think they care about it? No, I don't," Doolittle told a reporter. Doolittle said that during the April 7-23 recess, he did not hear "anything about Jack Abramoff," the central figure in a lobbying scandal. . .

[V]oters appear to be interested in the ethics issues. A number of polls show the Abramoff lobbying investigation and the guilty plea by former representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.) to bribery charges appear to be having a negative effect on the public's view of the Republican Party in general, as well as on legislators, such as Doolittle, who have been linked to Abramoff.

For three years, Democrats have pounded on the theme of a Republican "culture of corruption." Some political strategists have questioned whether the corruption issue has much traction with voters, but the surveys suggest the Democrats may have tapped into something that could boost their prospects in the November elections. . .

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/29/washington/29fda.html

http://susiemadrak.com/2006/04/29/10/23/fda-friends-of-drug-associations/

Yesterday, we had the news that the limo company that allegedly transported prostitutes for Republican congressmen was also the recipient of a multimillion dollar Homeland Security contract! No, you couldn’t make it up. . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/29/94323/1995
[WP] The Homeland Security Department said it awarded Shirlington Limousine, one of three bidders, another one-year contract for $21.2 million in October.

Homeland Security spokesman Larry Orluskie said the department does not routinely conduct background checks on its contractors. . .

[Georgia10] So, Homeland Security does not thoroughly vet its contractors, even if they are given the highly sensitive task of driving around high-level members of our government. And it doesn't thoroughly vet its contractors before it awards them millions of dollars in contracts. This incompetence at DHS should be a scandal in and of itself. . .

What this scandal tells us about the CIA

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/004069.html

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/004071.html
[Laura Rozen] What was Charlie Wilson about? He was about implementing the policy inside the policy, the secret policy that a faction inside the White House and the intelligence services and the right (and in Wilson's case, a hawkish wing of the nat'l security Democrats) wanted to be run, even as it officially didn't exist, wasn't approved, evaded oversight until long after the fact. It wasn't about the money for Wilson, it was about the cause. And from what I've heard of the very large contract Wilkes was in discussions to potentially receive from the CIA, to set up an off the books plane network for the Agency, and Wilkes and Foggo's earlier activities, for instance, supporting covert US efforts to arm and fund the contras, that fits right into the paradigm, the off-the-books secret policy that the tough guys run steering under the radar of a democratic system, with an informal network of friends, profiteers, true believers and wanna-bes on the inside and the outside. Was it just about the money? Or was it about the semi deniable policy within the policy, run by those who had proved themselves over time, from Central America and Afghanistan to cigar-smoke filled Watergate suites, to be reliable members of the club that doesn't overly concern itself with the law? More than that: it's about this club's conviction that the law is an impediment to the national security cause, that the way to run things is through these informal networks. One can imagine over time the kind of arrogance, recklessness and contempt for the law, democratic governance and just simple standards of morality that might breed among those who have operated in this milieu. It's hardly a surprise that people who have done business for years with those who share these convictions would use prostitutes, pay bribes and take bribes; in a deeper way, they have been the go-to guys for policies that were incompatable with the law and democracy all along, from arming the mujahedeen to Iran contra to extraordinary renditions, but which they may have believed were worthy.

Jeralyn Merritt has been highlighting the newly released emails as a factor in the renewed pressure on Karl Rove in the Plame case. Here she connects some dots

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014697.html

And a question: http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/004072.html

Limbaugh and his lawyer have the audacity to represent his plea bargain for doctor shopping as a “not guilty” decision

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm

More: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008328.php

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_04_23_atrios_archive.html#114631609392551114

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7278.html

John McCain (former “maverick”) keeps cozying up to the hard right (thanks to David N for the link)

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1880630&page=1

Speaking of tacking rightward, could Joe Lieberman lose the Democratic primary in Connecticut?

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/4/29/22144/5888

Sunday talk show line-ups

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/29/AR2006042901038.html
FOX NEWS SUNDAY: White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and incoming White House press secretary Tony Snow.

THIS WEEK (ABC): Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), actor George Clooney and former senator J. Bennett Johnston (D-La.).

FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Rice.

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), American Petroleum Institute President Red Cavaney, TheStreet.com co-founder Jim Cramer and author Daniel Yergin.

LATE EDITION (CNN): Sens. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), former CIA director R. James Woolsey, former Israeli intelligence director Efraim Halevy and Rice.

Bonus item: The GOP war plans for the coming election (revealed)

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7262.html

Extra bonus: Stephen Colbert at the WH Correspondents dinner (“reality has a well-known liberal bias”)

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002425363

Video: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/29.html#a8104

***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 @ 8:43 AM

 
SEQUELS

Sometimes they’re better than the original, sometimes not as good. . . an unbelievable day of scandal, corruption, and failure

Watergate II

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060428/news_1n28duke.html
[Brent] Wilkes, whom federal prosecutors have identified as a co-conspirator in the bribery case of former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, rented hospitality suites in the capital on behalf of his flagship company, ADCS Inc.

As The San Diego Union-Tribune reported in December, the suites – first at the Watergate Hotel and then at the Westin Grand Hotel – had several bedrooms where lawmakers and other guests could relax.

Federal investigators are trying to determine whether Cunningham and other legislators brought prostitutes to the hotels or prostitutes were provided for them there, according to a report in yesterday's Wall Street Journal and confirmed by the Union-Tribune. . .

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/28/prostitutes-six-members
‘As Many as a Half a Dozen’ Members of Congress May Be Involved. . .

[NB: Nothing says “fat cats” quite like liquor, “hospitality suites,” and prostitutes. . . Thanks GOP]

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/004065.html
[Laura Rozen] A lawyer/reader writes, "This may prove to be the most important paragraph in today's San Diego Tribune story about hookergate":

Two of Wilkes' former business associates say they were present on several occasions when Shirlington Limousine & Transportation Service of northern Virginia brought prostitutes to the suite. They say they did not see lawmakers in the suites on those occasions, though both had heard rumors of congressmen bringing women to the rooms.

"The limousine company was in Virginia and, it appears, it transported prostitutes across state lines into the District of Columbia. That's a federal crime. . .”

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/28/10539/3881
[Harper’s] Shirlington Limousine is also a Department of Homeland Security contractor; according to the Washington Post, last fall it won a $21.2 million contract for shuttle services and transportation support. . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/28/94455/5569
Ken Silverstein at Harper's blog dropped a bombshell last night about just how far-reaching the scandal may be, revealing that the FBI is investigating former lawmakers, including "one person who now holds a powerful intelligence post." TPM Muckraker points out that CIA Director Porter Goss fits that description perfectly. Silverstein also disclosed that there are pictures. . .

Porter Goss?!?? http://billmon.org/archives/002411.html
[Billmon] It doesn't bring Goss into the picture -- at least not yet -- but it gets pretty close

People who were present at the games said one of the regular players was Kyle Dustin “Dusty” Foggo, who has been Wilkes' best friend since the two attended junior high school in Chula Vista in the late 1960s. In October, Foggo was named the CIA's executive director -- the agency's third-highest position.

It was Porter, of course, who did the naming -- plucking Foggo from deep within the bowels (there's that metaphor again) of the agency's procurement bureaucracy and dragging him up to the director's office. . . But it's at least possible that the intersection of sex, money and official secrecy will turn this story into something much more special. Who knows? Depending on how high the guest list goes for Wilkes's poker-and-prostitution soirées, this might even become the redneck equivalent of the Christine Keeler affair -- a reference British readers will probably recognize and American ones can find out more about by reading this article or renting this movie. . .

Porter Goss responds: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000505.php

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7264.html

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000497.php

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_23.php#008324

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/28/AR2006042802345.html

But that’s not even the WORST scandal reported yesterday (!)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/28/123534/903
The Washington Post reports on another scandal today, one more along the usual lines of Republican chicanery, this one dealing with money. Lots and lots of taxpayers' money. . .

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/04/post_230.html#002160
[Matt Yglesias] "Of the total war spending, the CRS analysis found $4 billion that could not be tracked. It did identify $2.5 billion diverted from other spending authorizations in 2001 and 2002 to prepare for the invasion." I'm fairly sure you're not allowed to "divert" money from other spending authorizations, and you're certainly not supposed to lose $4 billion in untrackable spending. Nor does it sound entirely appropriate for the Pentagon to be running its operation in such a way that the CRS can't discern the causes of 50 percent spending increases. All the sort of thing a real congress would hold some hearings on, and, once again, I won't be holding my breath. . .

Dubai II

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060428/pl_nm/security_dubai_bush_dc_4

State Dept Terrorism Report II

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/3000-terrorist-attacks-worldwide-in.html
[John Aravosis] 3,000 terrorist attacks worldwide in 2004, 11,000 in 2005. . . If this is success, I have a civil war in Iraq I'd like to sell you.

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5886
[Holden] The State Department's annual terrorism report finds that Iraq is becoming a safe haven for terrorists and has attracted a "foreign fighter pipeline" linked to terrorist plots, cells and attacks throughout the world. . .

April is the cruelest month

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/april-is-now-deadliest-month-in-2006.html
[AP] An American soldier was killed in a roadside bombing north of Baghdad, the U.S. military said Friday, as April became the deadliest month for U.S. forces in Iraq this year. . .




Bush (again) uses a national crisis as an excuse to try to expand his personal power

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_23.php#008325
Isn't there something more than vaguely pathetic about the president trying to position himself as the champion of raising fuel efficiency standards? . . .

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7274.html

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604280010


Rice and Rummy’s dog and pony show

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5884
[WP] A full 10 seconds of silence passed after a reporter asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld what the intense secrecy and security surrounding their visit to Iraq signified about the stability of the country three years after the U.S.-led invasion. Rice turned to Rumsfeld to provide the answer. Rumsfeld glared at the reporter. . . [read on!]

Karl Rove: big trouble?

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0428nj1.htm
[Murray Waas] It has been widely reported that Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fizgerald has been trying to determine whether Rove tried to mislead the FBI and the grand jury in the early stages of the leak probe when he failed to disclose that he had talked to Cooper about Plame three days before she was outed as a CIA officer. But it has not been previously known that much of the questioning of Rove on Wednesday also focused on the contradictions between Cooper's and Rove's accounts of their crucial July 11 conversation. . .

Rove also testified to the grand jury that when he told Cooper that Plame worked at the agency, he was only passing along unverified gossip.

In contrast, Cooper has testified that Rove told him in a phone conversation on July 11, 2003, that Plame worked for the CIA and played a role in having the agency select her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, to make a fact-finding trip to Niger in 2002.

Cooper has also testified that Rove, as well as a second source -- I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, then-chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney -- portrayed the information about Plame as accurate and authoritative. . .

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/28/rove-legal-trouble-more-extensive/
Rove’s in even more trouble than we thought. . .

More: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014691.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/04/28/BL2006042801119.html

Ney, Harris, NH phone jamming, and Schmidt: the gifts that keep on giving. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/28/AR2006042801879.html
Federal prosecutors signaled this week that they have decided to pursue a wide range of allegations about dealings between Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) and lobbyist Jack Abramoff, rather than bringing a narrowly focused bribery case against the congressman. . .

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060427/NEWS/604270414/1004
There is growing concern among Republicans that Katherine Harris not only can't beat Sen. Bill Nelson this November, but she could drag other Republicans down with her. . .

http://medianeedle.blogspot.com/2006/04/more-republican-corruption.html
The latest Republican to be implicated in the telephone scandal, in which Democratic phone banks were jammed, and that may have links to Ken Mehlman, is Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour. . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_23.php#008326
Cincy Enquirer: "A unanimous Ohio Elections Commission voted to issue U.S. Rep. Jean Schmidt a public reprimand Thursday for "false statements" - claiming she had a second undergraduate degree from the University of Cincinnati that she never received."

More: http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/4/28/142247/890

Oh, my!

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_23.php#008330
FBI opens investigation into Missouri Governor Matt Blunt's administration. Blunt is the son of Roy Blunt, House Majority Whip. . .

The kind of people they are (Part 1)

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/04/28/hastert_caught_switching_cars.html
After holding a press conference at a local gas station in Washington, D.C., House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) was photographed several blocks away getting out of the hybrid automobile he used at the event and getting back into his gasoline-powered SUV. . .

The kind of people they are (Part 2)

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7269.html
A few weeks back, I mentioned a campaign ad so bizarre, it was hard to believe it was true. The candidate is North Carolina's Vernon Robinson, and if you weren't paying close attention, you'd swear the guy was a parody of a loony right-wing candidate. . . This month it's a hilarious radio ad. Here's the link to the audio and here's the transcript. . .

Had Enough?

http://susiemadrak.com/2006/04/29/08/16/had-enough/

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001373.php

Rush Limbaugh cuts a deal, turns himself in

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/29/us/29limbaugh.html
Rush Limbaugh, the conservative talk-radio host, was charged yesterday with prescription drug fraud and turned himself in to Florida authorities as part of a deal to resolve a lengthy inquiry into whether he improperly obtained painkillers. . .

http://billmon.org/archives/002413.html
[Billmon] Liberal Prosecutors Let Known Drug Offender Go Free . . . Boy, you gotta imagine law-and-order conservatives are going to be up in arms about this latest outrage by our morally depraved, bleeding heart, revolving door criminal justice system. . . I bet Rush will REALLY give 'em some hell on his next show.

More: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014694.html

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_23.php#008328


Is Bob Woodward “retiring” from the Washington Post?

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/27/is-woody-out/

The traditional media notices blogs

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/04/28/BL2006042800543.html
[Howard Kurtz] Why are the best blogs sometimes more compelling than the "Senator Jones said yesterday" style of too much newswriting?. . . .

Bonus item: Bush not praying hard enough!

[Satire from the Onion: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46938]

Extra bonus: funny headline

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/29/sports/football/29nfl.html
Opting for Defense, the Texans Pass on Bush. . .

[NB: It’s a football story. . . but, no, I don’t think it’s an accident]

***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 @ 7:59 AM

 
ANTICIPATION

Put that champagne on ice. . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/washington/28leak.html
Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case, is expected to decide in the next two to three weeks whether to bring perjury charges against Karl Rove. . .

More: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aiAZnz8gavJM&refer=top_world_news

Hints

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014684.html
MSNBC's David Schuster will report on Keith Olbermann's show tonight that Karl Rove described his grand jury appearance yesterday as "hell" and is more worried he will be indicted. . .

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/MSNBC_reports_Rove_believes_he_in_0427.html
Karl Rove has described his three and a half hour meeting with a grand jury as grueling, and is more worried about being prosecuted than ever, MSNBC is reporting. . .

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/rove-is-still-on-hot-seat.html
[NYT] A lawyer with knowledge of the case said that Mr. Rove had known for more than a month that he was likely to make another appearance before the grand jury, and that he had known since last fall that he would be subject to further questions from Mr. Fitzgerald before the prosecutor completed his inquiry.

[Joe] Yes, Karl knew a month ago that he'd be back for appearance number 5 before the grand jury. What a coincidence, then, that he was "demoted" just last week. . . .The White House is clearly worried. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/04/27/BL2006042701058.html
[Dan Froomkin] Karl Rove has a long history of doing his best work when he's facing disaster, and that's where he was again yesterday as he made a startling fifth appearance before grand jurors investigating the leak of a CIA agent's identity. . . The tea-leaf reading is at a fever pace. . .

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014690.html
[Jeralyn Merritt] It seems inescapable to me that Karl Rove will be charged with making at least one false statement to federal officials . . .

More: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014691.html

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/27/late-nite-fdl-plame-a-thon/

http://billmon.org/archives/002409.html

We had this yesterday, but the consensus is in: Rove’s excuse for lying in his previous testimony makes NO sense

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/27/roves-defense
[WP] Rove’s testimony focused almost exclusively on his conversation about Plame with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in 2003 and whether the top aide later tried to conceal it, the source [close to Rove] said. Rove testified, in essence, that “it would have been a suicide mission” to “deliberately lie” about his conversation with Cooper because he knew beforehand that it eventually would be revealed, the source said.

[Faiz] Rove wants the grand jury to believe that he wouldn’t have lied in 2003 about his role in the Plame affair because he knew journalists would ultimately tell the truth. But in fact, President Bush and the White House believed in 2003 that journalists would remain silent about the case and would refuse to name their sources. . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7258.html
[Steve Benen] That really doesn't make a lot of sense. . . It's such an odd argument, and it's so easily disproved, I can't imagine why "sources close to Rove" would even make it. . .

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000480.php
Here's how Rove's story goes: Rove testifed in February 2004 that he hadn't spoken with Cooper. Sometime around then (after Rove's testimony, one would assume), another Time reporter, Viveca Novak, told Rove's lawyer Robert Luskin that she'd heard Rove had spoken with Cooper. Luskin was "surprised," according to Novak, because Rove hadn't remembered that conversation. This sparked a search of Rove's emails, unearthing one which showed Rove writing about his conversation with Cooper. So then Rove went back and told prosecutors that he'd spoken with Cooper. . . Prosecutors seem to be skeptical of all this and are said to be contemplating perjury/obstruction of justice charges.

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/04/post_221.html#002148
But wait. At the time of his earlier testimony -- the testimony being examined by Patrick Fitzgerald -- Rove is supposed to have forgotten about his conversation with Cooper. In other words, he was then supposedly unaware that it had happened. So how could he have at that time worried that it would eventually be revealed, as he reportedly said yesterday? If he didn't remember it having occurred at all, how could he fear that it would come out later?

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2006/4/27/8143/65665
[BooMan] On December 1, 2005, the New York Times reported "Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, spoke in the summer or early fall of 2004 with Viveca Novak, a reporter for Time." That would have placed the meeting well after Rove's original testimony and not too far prior to his October testimony. But Ms. Novak testified that the meeting happened "anywhere from January 2004 to May 2004, although she believed that the conversation more likely took place in May."

In the past, it was assumed that Rove's defense relied on his not having heard of the Novak-Luskin meeting prior to his February 2004 testimony. But now it appears that his defense is that he did hear of the meeting and would therefore have had to be 'suicidal' to lie to the Grand Jury. If this is hard to follow, it is because it doesn't make any sense.

This is what it appears Rove is saying. Prior to his February 2004 testimony, his lawyer informed him that everyone in the Time newsroom was under the impression that Matt Cooper had used Rove as a source for his Plame article. But Rove dismissed that chatter as a mere rumor because he didn't remember talking to Cooper about Plame. He says it would have been suicidal to lie about it if it were true because of all the chatter and the fact that Cooper would certainly have to talk about it at some point. But Cooper (as well as Judith Miller) were defying subpoenas and the matter was tied up in the courts. Soon after Cooper agreed to testify, Rove and Luskin discovered an email to Hadley that confirmed Rove had spoken to Cooper about Niger. Rove now knew that a conversation must have taken place and after he realized that Cooper had sent a contemperaneous email to his editor mentioning Plame, he realized his recollection must be wrong. At that point, he turned over the email and voluntarily returned to the Grand Jury to correct the record.

If you believe that, I got a bridge to sell you. If anything, this testimony is even more damning . . .

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_04_23_atrios_archive.html#114614378317160953
[Atrios] Rove's defense is that of course he knew that everyone at Time thought he spoke to Matt Cooper, but he didn't remember doing so and how could have been so stupid as to lie about such a thing. . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_23.php#008315
[Josh Marshall] Rove tells the grand jury that he didn't lie to prosecutors, because it would have been foolish of him to do so. . .

More: http://www.slate.com/id/2140678/fr/rss/

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/04/27/rove/index.html

Annals of government secrecy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042602387.html
The CIA and other agencies wrongly kept secret about a third of the records they pulled from public shelves at the National Archives during reclassification efforts that were far more extensive than previously disclosed . . .

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0427nj1.htm
The CIA has imposed new and tighter restrictions on the books, articles, and opinion pieces published by former employees who are still contractors with the intelligence agency. According to several former CIA officials affected by the new policy, the rules are intended to suppress criticism of the Bush administration and of the CIA . . .

More: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/499ab500-d55a-11da-93bc-0000779e2340.html

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/bush-tells-former-cia-employees-theyre.html

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001371.php

Pat Roberts, Bush puppet

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008700.php
[Kevin Drum] Greg Sargent has more on the delaying game being played by Senate Intelligence Committee chair Pat Roberts. He's confirmed that Roberts quietly allowed a key deadline for his committee's investigation into intelligence manipulation to slip weeks ago, with no indication of when, if ever, Roberts plans to meet it. Now that the subject of the committee is possible misconduct by President Bush, Roberts obviously has no intention of ever allowing anything to see the light of day. . . .

More: http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/04/post_218.html#002142

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7259.html
In February, a New York Times editorial asked rhetorically, "Is there any aspect of President Bush's miserable record on intelligence that Senator Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is not willing to excuse and help to cover up?". . .

Arlen Specter (again) making noises of outrage over Bush’s illegal spying: but will he do anything about it?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/27/20256/0995

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/27/AR2006042700977.html

The GOP legislative record

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/04/post_215.html#002134
[Sam Rosenfeld] The collapse of the Republicans' once-formidable legislative machine in Congress is fairly bracing to behold. While immigration reform remains bogged down, intra-GOP squabbling over earmarking and appropriations are hampering the prospects for passing a budget resolution, an emergency supplemental bill, and lobbying reform. . .

The GOP take on high gas prices (in their typically disingenuous fashion)

http://www.slate.com/id/2140740/
[Joshua Kucera] The New York Times and Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal world-wide newsbox all lead with Republican senators proposing a package of measures aimed at reducing the burden of high gas prices, including cutting taxpayers a $100 check. . . No one takes the proposals seriously, especially not the editorial pages, where words like "silly," "pander," and "stunt" are used liberally. . .

Now THAT’S chutzpah (thanks to Josh Marshall for the link)

http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2006/04/27/news/state/29-lawyer.txt
Sen. Conrad Burns said Wednesday he hasn't decided how he will pay for a white-collar criminal defense lawyer he has hired. . . Jason Klindt, a Burns spokesman, told the Associated Press on Tuesday that Burns had hired Caccia to "review the facts" in the Jack Abramoff matter. Klindt said Wednesday that Burns has hired Caccia's firm as his personal lawyer but may choose to have his re-election campaign pay the bill "due to the partisan nature of it” . . .

Sex, sex, sex! (now maybe the press will pay attention)

http://makeashorterlink.com/?N3591670D
[WSJ] Federal prosecutors are investigating whether two contractors implicated in the bribery of former Rep. Randall "Duke" Cunningham supplied him with prostitutes and free use of a limousine and hotel suites, pursuing evidence that could broaden their long-running inquiry.

Besides scrutinizing the prostitution scheme for evidence that might implicate contractor Brent Wilkes, investigators are focusing on whether any other members of Congress, or their staffs, may also have used the same free services . . .

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7250.html

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/04/27/investigation/index.html

Porter Goss (ex-congressman, now Bush’s head of the CIA) hooked up with Cunningham’s prostitutes?!? Don’t tease me

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000494.php

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114619020508170972

http://billmon.org/archives/002410.html

With monstrous oil company profiteering, wouldn’t this be a good time to revisit the Cheney energy task force records?

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5879

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001372.php

http://rockthrower.blogs.com/rockthrower/2006/04/bush_republican.html

The kind of people they are (don’t miss it)

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2905

Why we lose

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/27/115346/713
[Kos] I wrote yesterday how [Republican] Lincoln Chafee repayed the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters for their endorsement by failing to block the nomination of a polluter lobbyist to handle clean air issues at the EPA. And this polluter lobbyist is really, really bad.

I emailed the Sierra Club's national press secretary, David Willett, and asked him if the Sierra Club was still happy with the Chafee endorsement despite the vote, and the response. . .

More: http://grist.org/news/muck/2006/04/27/little/

Good news: Democrats show some spine, challenge illegal Bush budget law

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/breaking-house-dems-file-lawsuit.html

Maybe now that ex-Fox News anchor Tony Snow is the Bush press secretary, they can begin channeling all government news directly through Fox and just bypass all the other networks

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/04/not_a_good_sign.html

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5880

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0322061cheney1.html

Joe Klein gets an owie

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-frank/joe-kleins-turnip-day_b_19801.html
Joe Klein is the flower of American political journalism. . . Today, at the very peak of his profession, he's a columnist for Time magazine and emblematic of all that's smug and clueless in the mainstream press. . .

Bonus item: It’s well-known by now that many in the media try to shape news in the most favorable light for Bush, but this is ridiculous

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604270007
NBC Today host Katie Couric asked Tim Russert if "in a strange way, the White House is breathing a sigh of relief" because President Bush's approval rating in a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll was "down just one point.". . . Bush's new approval rating of 36 percent is his lowest ever recorded in that poll. . .

Mission Accomplished: http://mediamatters.org/items/200604270005

Extra bonus item: Neil Young

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014692.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 @ 7:14 AM

 
WHISTLING IN THE DARK

Rove back before grand jury for the fifth time: does this mean big trouble, or just wrapping up a few details? No one knows, but. . .

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008696.php
[Kevin Drum] Karl Rove testified today for the fifth time before the grand jury investigating the Valerie Plame case, and it appears that his testimony revolved around former Time magazine reporter Viveca Novak (no relation to Robert Novak). Here's a recap:

1 Rove originally testified that he had never spoken to Time reporter Matt Cooper about Plame.

2 Later, Rove admitted that he had, in fact, spoken to Cooper. His excuse for his earlier testimony was that he had had a simple memory lapse and had forgotten about the conversation.

3 However, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald (or so it was rumored) didn't buy the "I forgot" story and was ready to indict Rove for perjury. But then he held off. This was apparently due to a last-minute conversation he had with Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin.

4 What Luskin told Fitzgerald was that Rove really had forgotten about his conversation with Cooper — and what jarred Rove's memory was a conversation Luskin had with [Viveca] Novak, who told him offhandedly that Cooper had spoken to Rove and everyone in the Time newsroom knew it. Luskin immediately went to Rove, initiated a massive search of Rove's email, and eventually discovered that, yes, Rove really had spoken to Cooper. That was what caused Rove to go back to the grand jury and correct his testimony.

5 But is that really true? The reason nobody knew about the phone call in the first place is that it wasn't entered in Rove's phone log, and Raw Story claims that Rove's secretary has testified that Rove specifically told her not to log it. Needless to say, that's mighty incriminating behavior. However, no other news account that I know of has confirmed this.

So: did Rove really forget? Or did he lie and then correct his testimony only when he knew he was about to get caught? . . .

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/04/26/rove2/index.html
[Tim Grieve] Rove's leaks: Although White House press secretary Scott McClellan insisted in September and October 2003 that Rove wasn't involved in Plame's outing, we now know that that's not true. Rove has reportedly admitted to the grand jury that he leaked Plame's identity to Bob Novak, and Time's Matthew Cooper has testified that Rove leaked to him, too. We don't know whether Rove leaked to other reporters; a spokesman for Rove has said that he didn't leak Plame's identity to Bob Woodward, who says that someone in the administration leaked to him in June 2003.

Rove's testimony: Rove failed to mention his leak to Matthew Cooper when FBI investigators first interviewed him about the Plame case back in the fall of 2003. He also apparently failed to mention it when he first testified before Fitzgerald's grand jury back in February 2004.

The Viveca Novak episode: Sometime in early 2004 -- after Rove made his first appearance before the grand jury -- Time reporter Viveca Novak had a drink with her friend Robert Luskin. Luskin, who is Rove's lawyer, told Novak that Rove didn't leak Plame's identity to Cooper. Novak told Luskin that she had heard otherwise at Time. Novak says that Luskin seemed genuinely surprised by her news and that he followed up by searching again through White House e-mails for evidence of a Cooper-Rove conversation. He apparently found it in a message Rove sent to Stephen Hadley at the National Security Council right after Rove got off the phone with Cooper. In the message, Rove wrote that Cooper had asked him about Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger but that Rove had warned him from making too much of the story.

The spin: Rove returned to the grand jury room in October 2004 -- five months or so after Novak's conversation with Luskin -- and he reportedly admitted then that he'd talked with Cooper about Plame. Rove's camp argues that he'd simply forgotten about the conversation before and that Novak's conversation with Luskin -- and the e-mail message discovered as a result -- refreshed his recollection. That's one way to spin it. The other is that Rove, knowing that his call with Cooper wasn't on the White House phone logs, simply chose to hide the fact that he'd talked with Cooper until he was confronted with evidence to the contrary and with the knowledge that Cooper was being held in contempt of court for his own refusal to testify about the conversation.

Rove's October escape: In October 2005, as Washington waited day in and day out for news of indictments, Luskin met with Fitzgerald, and Rove went before the grand jury again. At the time, it seemed likely that Rove was trying to clear up the inconsistencies and omissions in his own story; Luskin was apparently arguing that additional e-mail messages Rove sent in the summer of 2003 suggested -- through their silence on the Plame matter -- that the outing wasn't a big deal to Rove and that therefore he really might have simply forgotten about his conversation with Cooper. But Murray Waas was reporting then that Rove would also be asked about conversations he had with Libby in the week before Robert Novak outed Plame, and the indictment the grand jury handed down at the end of October seemed to confirm as much: Only Libby was indicted, and Rove got away with just a mention as the mysterious "Official A" who told Libby that Novak would be writing a column in which he mentioned Plame.

The tea leaves: When Fitzgerald announced Libby's indictment, he was asked whether Rove was off the hook. He declined to answer, but Luskin acknowledged that the investigation into his client was continuing. Public developments in the case have been few and far between since then. We heard revelations from Bob Woodward in November and Viveca Novak in December, and Fitzgerald met with a new grand jury then, but most of the press focus has remained on the White House official the grand jury indicted rather than the one it didn't. That began to change last week amid speculation that Karl Rove's job change might be a sign that an indictment was near. Rove supporters are telling CNN that today's grand jury testimony could lead, once and for all, to a happy resolution for him. Others, like the Huffington Post's Lawrence O'Donnell, are wondering whether an indictment isn't imminent. We've heard both kinds of predictions a whole lot of times over the course of the last year. We'll be standing by.

You want more? We got more: http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/26/rove-and-fitzgerald-a-recap/

The latest development

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042600849.html
In his fifth appearance before the grand jury, Rove spent considerable time arguing that it would have been foolish for him to knowingly mislead investigators about his role in the disclosure of the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame to the media, the source said. . .

Rove for the first time partly waived his attorney-client privilege to detail conversations he had with his attorney, Robert Luskin, about the leak and his knowledge of it, the source said.

Rove's testimony focused almost exclusively on his conversation about Plame with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in 2003 and whether the top aide later tried to conceal it, the source said. Rove testified, in essence, that "it would have been a suicide mission" to "deliberately lie" about his conversation with Cooper because he knew beforehand that it eventually would be revealed, the source said. . .

[NB: That last line reeks. How could Rove have known that it would be revealed when he was doing everything he could to cover up the conversation? And given that he had “forgotten” the Cooper conversation, how is it that he remembers so much now about his state of mind when he talked about it?]

Target?

Jason Leopold, yes: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042606I.shtml
Karl Rove's appearance before a grand jury in the CIA leak case Wednesday comes on the heels of a "target letter" sent to his attorney recently by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, signaling that the Deputy White House Chief of Staff may face imminent indictment . . .

Rove’s lawyer, no: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002955867_leak27.html
"In connection with this appearance, the special counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target of the investigation," Luskin said in a statement. "Mr. Fitzgerald has affirmed that he has made no decision concerning charges." Regarding Rove's testimony, Luskin said it centered on information that has surfaced since he last testified, in October.

Jason Leopold, YES! http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/4/26/155410/765
My sources maintain that Rove is a target and that Luskin understood that. I called Luskin again to get his statement. But he did not return the call. Rove's spokesman at the White House also weighed in, specifically denying my report that Rove received a target letter. This is the same White House that has refused to discuss this case for more than two years but decided on Wednesday to break its silence and respond to my story and deny that it's true. That seems odd. . .

More:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114607707516090272
[Digby] Odd lawyerly sentence, ripe for parsing:

In connection with his appearance, the special prosecutor has advised Mr Rove that he is not a target of the investigation.

Why not just say the prosecutor has advised Mr Rove that he is not a target?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008696.php
[Kevin Drum] That's pretty weaselly language, so it's hard to know what to make of it. Luskin doesn't say that Rove isn't a target, only that he's not a target "in connection with this appearance." As for bringing charges, there's no telling what "no decision" means. Maybe he's waiting to see if Rove cooperates in testimony against someone else. Maybe that's just boilerplate stuff that prosecutors say until the day they hand down an indictment. Who knows?

Did Rove ask to see Fitz, or vice versa? Why it matters

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_04_23_atrios_archive.html#114607587067336766

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/who-asked-rove-to-return_b_19858.html

Wild and irresponsible speculation: enjoy

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014674.html

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014676.html

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/26/yeah-i-got-your-spin-right-here/

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/26/breaking-back-in-the-grand-jury-saddle-this-morning/

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sidney_blumenthal/2006/04/white_house_snow_job.html

Conservative pundits start flailing wildly

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_04_23_atrios_archive.html#114608409816719534
[Bill Bennett] We are talking about the name of an agent that was not covert . . . She was not covert. . .

US to pull out 30,000 troops from Iraq?

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001369.php
[Steve Clemons] ABC News is reporting that the Pentagon hopes to pull 30,000 troops out of Iraq if conditions are right on the ground.

The condition that most matters most to the White House and our President, "the decider," is the proximity to election day on November 7, 2006.

War crimes

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5858
[AP] The CIA has conducted more than 1,000 undeclared flights over European territory since 2001 — a clear violation of an international treaty, European Parliament investigators said Wednesday. . .

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/27/01949/8588

http://www.ericumansky.com/2006/04/how_widespread_.html

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114612028006419827

George Bush, the pusher (thanks to Billmon)

http://billmon.org/archives/002408.html
[George Bush, 2006] The prices that people are paying at the gas pumps reflect our addiction to oil. Addiction to oil is a matter of national security concern . . . These countries know we need their oil, and that reduces our influence, our ability to keep the peace in some areas.

[Ari Fleischer, 2001] The President believes that it's an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policy makers to protect the American way of life. The American way of life is a blessed one . . . The President also believes that the American people's use of energy is a reflection of the strength of our economy, of the way of life that the American people have come to enjoy.

Yep, time to start praying: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7246.html
Clergy in the nation's capital and across the country pray for lower gas prices . . .

Republicans put Bush in an impossible spot: to veto, or not to veto?

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5862
The Senate voted Wednesday to divert some of the money President Bush requested for the war in Iraq to instead increase patrols against illegal immigrants on the nation's borders and provide the Coast Guard with new boats and helicopters. . .

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7247.html

FEMA worked fine for more than 20 years. Bush and Brownie destroyed it

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-fema27apr27,0,7340341.story

History: http://www.fema.gov/about/history.shtm

Republicans are no longer worried about the corruption issue (yeah, you just keep thinking that way)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042602416.html

Polls hit another new low – and the most ominous number of all for impending regime change

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/bush-and-congress-hit-new-lows-again.html
[O]nly 24% think the country's moving in the right direction . . .

Rick Santorum, Senator from PENNSYLVANIA, says he doesn’t live in Pennsylvania any more (thanks to Atrios for the link). Boy, is this guy stupid

http://santorumexposed.com/serendipity/archives/163-Ah,-the-Good-Old-Days.html

What they’re doing with our public school data

http://makeashorterlink.com/?D2A93260D
[AP] The Defense Department is violating the privacy of millions of high school students nationwide with a detailed database it uses for military recruitment, a federal lawsuit filed Monday claims.

The New York Civil Liberties Union sued on behalf of six high schoolers, saying the department is ignoring privacy rules set by Congress regarding the collection and distribution of students' personal information. . .

Poor baby

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/04/27/BL2006042700420.html
[Howard Kurtz] Tony Snow hadn't so much as walked into the briefing room to thank the president for appointing him when the liberal bloggers started ripping him apart.

Welcome to the White House, dude.

The libs were having the most fun rounding up past columns where the Fox News commentator took potshots at the prez (while ignoring the 90 percent of verbiage in which Snow was supportive). . .

[NB: Yeah, why didn’t we focus on all those times when the new Press Secretary DIDN’T call his new boss “impotent,” a “wimp,” and “an embarrassment”?]

Progressive blog demographics

http://mydd.com/story/2006/4/26/11425/2563

Bonus item: An essay on the Bush regime’s “hubris” and “tragic flaws.” Hubris, yes, but not the latter. Tragic flaws only appear in basically good, noble characters who have a trait that brings them to catastrophe (that’s what makes them “tragic”). Othello has a tragic flaw. Iago doesn’t . . .

http://www.crisispapers.org/essays6w/drama.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 @ 7:04 AM

 
SNAKE OIL

When Bush claims to be trying to shrink oil companies’ profits, all you can do is shake your head – does he really think we are that stupid?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/25/us/25wire-bush.html
President Bush on Tuesday ordered a temporary halt to deposits to the nation's strategic petroleum reserve to make more oil available for consumer needs and relieve pressure on pump prices. . . Bush also announced steps to ease environmental standards governing fuel grades. . .

[NB: So, let’s see – allowing the oil companies to convert even more oil to high-priced gasoline and releasing them “temporarily” from environmental requirements. Ohhh, that’s getting tough with them. I’ll bet they’re just howling in agony.

Here’s the good thing: prices always go up over the summer. Now, by grasping the nettle, Bush has allowed himself to be blamed all the more when prices go up, because these measures won’t do anything to prevent it.]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/25/123512/610
[SusanG] Any bets on how long a "temporary suspension" will last?

And is anyone else detecting a pattern here?

In the wake of Katrina, Bush suspends prevailing wage laws.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush basically suspends the Fourth Amendment and, at Gitmo, the right to a fair trial.

There is no tragedy, crisis or concern in this country that will go unmet by this administration. . . with a boon to cronies or a bolstering of executive power.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/25/125111/787
[Georgia10] So President Bush woke up today and suddenly gave a damn about gas prices. Mr. 32% spent this morning calling for a investigation into possible cheating, price gouging or illegal manipulation in the gasoline markets. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/04/25/BL2006042500851.html
[Dan Froomkin] President Bush's challenge this morning was to address the problem of skyrocketing gas prices in a way that would telegraph to the public that he is concerned and is on the ball. . . Whether he succeeded or not will depend on how his speech gets covered today and tomorrow. But by any reasonable measure, he was short on substance. . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7236.html
[Steve Benen] Republicans must have done some internal polling and found gas prices to be their biggest vulnerability this year, because the moves to do something about it have been fast and furious. Yesterday, it was Hastert and Frist. Today, it's Bush. . .

http://www.slate.com/id/2140610/fr/rss/
[Eric Umansky] The NYT announces, "BUSH TAKES STEPS TO EASE INCREASE IN ENERGY PRICES." And exactly how big are those steps? The Times leaves such picayune issues to the 15th paragraph and instead focuses on more important concerns, such as gauging a pollster's reaction.

USA Today's lead gets to the point just a bit quicker: "EFFECT OF GAS PLAN MAY BE LIMITED." The Washington Post says (up high) that the moves "at best are likely to shave a few cents per gallon off the cost of gasoline." It's "more or less like prescribing aspirin to take care of prostate cancer," said one oil consultant.

The Los Angeles Times is ruthlessly direct and skips the rhetoric: "BUSH'S PROPOSALS VIEWED AS DROP IN THE OIL BUCKET." Then there's the frontpage sidebar: "WHY GAS PRICES WON'T GO DOWN."

Putting more oil on the market by capping the oil reserve would be helpful if there were an immediate oil crunch, which there isn't. "Crude oil supplies are at an almost eight-year high," one analyst told the LAT. "The price is obviously not reflecting that. . .”

Nancy Pelosi: when she’s good, she’s good

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_04_23_atrios_archive.html#114599492383745032
“If you want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and therefore improve our national security situation, you can't do it if you're a Republican because you are too wedded to the oil companies. We have two oilmen in the white house. The logical follow-up from that is $3 a gallon gasoline. There is no accident. It is a cause and effect. A cause and effect. How dare the president of the United States make a speech today in April, many, many, many months after the American people have had to undergo the cost of home heating oil. A woman told me she almost fainted when she received her home heating bill over this Winter. And when so many people making the minimum wage, which hasn't been raised in eight years, which has a very low purchasing power have to go out and buy gasoline at these prices? Where have you been, Mr. president? The middle class squeeze is on, competition in our country is affected by the price of energy and of oil and all of a sudden you take a trip outside of Washington, see the fact that the public is outraged about this, come home and make a speech . . .”

One of the best weapons the Democrats have in hoping to retake the Senate is the head of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee, Elizabeth Dole

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/speaking-for-senate-republicans.html
Sen. Elizabeth Dole, chairwoman of the Republican Senate campaign committee, issued a statement that said, "Democrats have decided to play partisan politics with gas prices in a flailing attempt to distract from the growing economy." . . .

GOP: party of failure

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/26/61225/9453
How long will Americans put up with the endless excuses and Republican blame game? About as long as it takes for a GOP screw-up to impact their own pocketbook or lives. And that's exactly what is happening right now with energy prices. Understandably then, Republicans are terrified that their jig is up. High gas prices knocked Jimmy Carter out of office . . .

Pat Roberts (R-KS) divided his committee’s investigation into prewar intelligence abuses into a “Phase One” and a “Phase Two,” with all the important questions put off to Phase Two. Then he diddled around until after the 2004 elections without ever getting around to Phase Two (surprise, surprise). Lately he has been promising to finish the job. But wait! He’s dividing Phase Two into two sections. . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_23.php#008298

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7231.html

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/25/103549/897

Pat Roberts, traitor? http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/004052.html
[Murray Waas] Three years ago on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, [Senate Intelligence committee chair Pat] Roberts himself was involved in disclosing sensitive intelligence information that, according to four former senior intelligence officers, impaired efforts to capture Saddam Hussein and potentially threatened the lives of Iraqis who were spying for the United States. . .

Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) enabler: http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/04/post_204.html#002112
An aide to Sen. Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), the panel’s ranking Democrat, said that Democrats are aware Roberts is mulling a decision on whether to divide the inquiry and that Rockefeller is unlikely to oppose such a move if Roberts goes through with it. . .

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/04/post_208.html#002121
“a wimp. . . not confident of his own judgments”

The Bush gang likes to use polygraphs – so of course now they will use them to get to the bottom of the Plame leak, right? Right?

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001365.php

“Frozen Scandals”

http://www.ericumansky.com/2006/04/frozen_scandal_.html
[Mark Danner] "The great problem in this new age is that revelation is followed by nothing but more revelation," says Danner. There are no overarching investigations, and no punishment of those most responsible, so that "it's as if we're this spinning wheel, constantly confirming facts that we already knew" and "the revelations become less and less effective in causing public outrage.". . . .

Will the Dems hold hearings if they retake one or both houses of Congress? Which scandal to pick first? (there are so many to choose from). Some advice

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114601952378591472

Larry Wilkerson, national conscience (thanks to Joyce for the link)

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001364.php
In January 2001, with the inauguration of George W. Bush as president, America set on a path to cease being good; America became a revolutionary nation, a radical republic. If our country continues on this path, it will cease to be great . . . [read on]

John Negroponte: a barrel of laughs

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/24/AR2006042401524.html

Fox News breaks the story (get used to it – they’ll be getting lots of exclusive scoops now)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193093,00.html
Tony Snow [Fox News anchor] will be named new White House press secretary on Wednesday morning. . .

http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29212
[Matt Yglesias] I thought this notion that Tony Snow might be made White House press secretary was, you know, a joke. A joke about Fox News being a GOP propaganda outlet, about Snow's lack of ethics, etc. Apparently, no one was kidding. It's honestly pretty surreal. . .

Yes, surreal: http://www.slate.com/id/2140610/fr/rss/
Said Bill Kristol, "It will be good to have a fair and balanced press secretary." . . .

This is a strange and interesting choice for press secretary, because it’s someone with an independent career and reputation to protect. Will he lie when they ask him to? Will he just repeat robotic formulations of the message of the day?

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/04/25/snow2/index.html
[Tim Grieve] When we heard that Tony Snow has been describing the job of White House press secretary as being part of "an inner White House circle, where you've got to make decisions," we thought he was mis-overestimating just a little what it would mean to be a flack for George W. Bush. . . But maybe not . . .

Not that lying comes hard for him: http://mediamatters.org/items/200604220001

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/04/25/snows_demands.html
The Hotline has more on the likely new White House press secretary: "Tony Snow is said by Republicans familiar with the negotiations to have asked for guaranteed access to the president's ear and to an unusually large degree of latitude to reconfigure the WH press operation. . . But Snow, not content to be a herald, also wants near-complete control over what he says from the podium, be it bromides, platitudes or substance. That would encroach on the broad portfolio of responsibilities that Dan Bartlett claims for himself."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/04/25/snow_likely_to_take_white_house_post.html
David Gergen: "Tony Snow does have the leverage that neither of his predecessors would have had. And that is, if he walks out on them because they're not open enough, it would be hugely devastating to the administration, so, that he, unlike Scott McClellan, can go in and say, gentlemen, this isn't good. The press has a legitimate need here. We have got to give it to them. And they know that the moment he walks out the door and disgusted, if they are really totally closed or they lie or whatever, that is a bleak, bleak day at the White House. His predecessors never had that leverage."

THAT Tony Snow?

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/25/snow-on-bush/
– Bush has “lost control of the federal budget and cannot resist the temptation to stop raiding the public fisc.” [3/17/06] . . .

– “George Bush has become something of an embarrassment.” [11/11/05] . . .

– Bush “has given the impression that [he] is more eager to please than lead, and that political opponents can get their way if they simply dig in their heels and behave like petulant trust-fund brats, demanding money and favor — now!” [9/30/05]

– “When it comes to federal spending, George W. Bush is the boy who can’t say no. In each of his three years at the helm, the president has warned Congress to restrain its spending appetites, but so far nobody has pushed away from the table mainly because the president doesn’t seem to mean what he says.” [The Detroit News, 12/28/03]

– “The president doesn’t seem to give a rip about spending restraint.” [The Detroit News, 12/28/03] . . . [More!]

Some questions for Tony on Day One: http://mediamatters.org/items/200604250008
Do you still think President Bush is a "wimp" and looks "impotent" for not "veto[ing] a single bill of any type"? . . .

Class consciousness

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2006/04/this_is_amazing.html
The multimillion-dollar lobbying effort to repeal the federal estate tax has been aggressively led by 18 super-wealthy families, according to a report released today by Public Citizen and United for a Fair Economy . . .

The IRS isn’t interested in investigating illegal political activities by tax-exempt churches

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/irs-still-not-investigating-right-wing.html

Bush’s war against a free press

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/using-leaks-as-pretext-bush-wants-to.html

Air Force reportedly blocking progressive web sites, while leaving conservative sites alone

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/25/03133/7597
[AmberJane] Attempts to load any of the "forbidden" sites causes a very scary screen to pop up, warning the user that a regulation or policy or some such has been violated and the address of the computer has been logged. . .

***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 @ 7:14 AM

 
THE NEW McCARTHYISM

Turns out Mary McCarthy, fired CIA officer, wasn’t the main source of the WP story on secret US torture prisons. So why WAS she fired?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12466719/site/newsweek/
A former CIA officer who was sacked last week after allegedly confessing to leaking secrets has denied she was the source of a controversial Washington Post story about alleged CIA secret detention operations in Eastern Europe . . .

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008679.php

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/bush-administration-lied-about-reason.html

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/04/administration-accusations-are-not.html

Democrats in the CIA (oh my!) http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7217.html
In case you missed it over the weekend, the WaPo reported that the CIA is responding to the Mary McCarthy leak on secret prisons by doing a little more digging — into partisan affiliations . . . Don't forget the context here. The White House has leaked classified information for political purposes with no consequence. Indeed, as far as the Bush gang is concerned, the president can leak whatever he wants, whenever he wants. When a senior CIA official apparently decides to expose a legally dubious scheme, however, the White House wants to know if there are any Democrats at the agency that Bush needs to worry about. . .

The inner war at the CIA over secret torture policies: http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/004045.html

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/004043.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008678.php

The role of the media: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/04/25/BL2006042500484.html

The NYT caves: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/23/42010/8780
[Armando] The New York Times changed the earlier accurate version of a story on testimony on secret CIA prisons in Europe (a story first reported in depth by Dana Priest and for which she won the Pulitzer Prize) by the EU counterterrorism chief Gijs DeVries, to an inaccurate version that favored the Bush Administration. . .

The bottom line

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_04_23_atrios_archive.html#114588967140695630
[Matt Yglesias] But, of course, if you think that leaking classified information in order to expose illegal conduct by high government officials is the same thing as high government officials selectively releasing classified information in order to bamboozle the public into supporting a strategically daft invasion, then you're out of your mind. The issue, though, is that a certain number of people think that bamboozling the public into supporting the Iraq War was a good and noble thing to do, and a largely overlapping group of people think that arbitrary detention and torture are so vital to American national security that a little lawbreaking and secrecy is a small price to pay to ensure that the job gets done. Others of us hue to an anti-bamboozlement, anti-torture line and, naturally, don't think the president should be able to cover up his illegal conduct by slapping a "classified" label on all the evidence.

[Atrios] This is something we all forget from time to time, those of us who have a knee-jerk faith in general human goodness and decency. Whether it's the administration, elite pundits, or blogospheric idiots, we are dealing with liars who support torture. Once we understand that, it all makes a bit more sense.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_23.php#008293
[Larry Johnson] "There is a fundamental moral and ethical difference between someone who leaks information in order to serve the public good and someone, like George Bush, who authorizes leaks only for the purpose of saving his sorry political ass."

How the right-wing blogosphere has tried to slant the story

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/torture_/2006/04/secret_prisons_red_blogistan_decompensates.php
[Mark Kleiman] A Technorati search shows that much of Red Blogistan is repeating as fact that the secret prisons are now known not to have exist, and that Priest just won a "Pulitzer for a lie." . . . [read on!]

More: http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/04/post_188.html#002092

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/04/political-movement-built-on-rage.html

Tyler Drumheller’s blockbuster revelations on WMD lies. He testified to the committees reviewing prewar intelligence manipulation: why didn’t they listen to him?

http://www.ericumansky.com/2006/04/kabuki_commissi.html

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/04/post_194.html#002100

More: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008284.php

And they’re doing it again

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_23.php#008292

This Chicago Tribune story deserved bigger play than it received

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-060423pipeline-story,1,3771631,print.story
The top U.S. commander in Iraq has ordered sweeping changes for privatized military support operations after confirming violations of human-trafficking laws and other abuses by contractors. . .

More: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114590691438440147

Bush’s “do-over” in Iraq

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_23.php#008291
[Josh Marshall] Marx tells us that history happens first as tragedy, and then a second time as farce. But he leaves us entirely at sea when it comes to the seventh or eighth time. So, really, what are we to make of the news that James A. Baker is leading an elder-statesman fact finding mission to Iraq to "generate new ideas on Iraq." . . .

The NH phone-jamming scandal really has the GOP nervous. How nervous?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/24/104559/889
[Georgia10] I love the smell of panic in the morning . . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_16.php#008282
[Josh Marshall] The RNC and the NH GOP have spent almost $6 million on lawyers in the phone-jamming case. . .

Non-reformist reform: how the GOP keeps watering down their already-anemic attempts to limit lobbying

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/04/post_197.html#002104

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7220.html

What the Rove “shift” in responsibilities tells us: all the Bush gang cares about right now is saving the Republican congress. Democratic control means investigations, subpoenas, and two more years of paralysis

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/20/AR2006042001351.html

More: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_23.php#008270

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/4/23/212459/948

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008674.php

The New Democratic Agenda

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/22/194453/855

Bush: 32%, and steadily dropping

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/24/bush.poll/index.html

More: http://billmon.org/archives/002405.html

Bush’s anchor (thanks to Buzzflash for the link)

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Rumsfeld2.htm
GOP sources said many in the congressional leadership have warned that growing opposition against Mr. Rumsfeld could result in the loss of the Republican Party’s majority in the 2006 elections. . .

General #8 calls for his resignation: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/24/eighth-general/

Falling Snow

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/04/24/is_snow_resigning_this_week.html

Making the Fox News/WH communications office merger complete

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/24/snow/index.html
Sources close to the White House said Monday that Fox anchor Tony Snow is likely to accept the job as White House press secretary, succeeding Scott McClellan. . .

We could lose the Internet (really!)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/24/201526/948

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_23.php#008289

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7226.html

What to do: http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/4/24/0579/25253

Contrary opinions: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008682.php

http://crookedtimber.org/2006/04/24/norms-networks-and-neutrality/

Atrios replies: http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_04_23_atrios_archive.html#114596726044778822

Theocracy watch (Ohio edition)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/24/AR2006042401432.html
In a challenge to the ethics of conservative Ohio religious leaders and the fairness of the Internal Revenue Service, a group of 56 clergy members contends that two churches have gone too far in supporting a Republican candidate for governor.

Two complaints filed with the tax agency say that the large Columbus area churches, active in President Bush's narrow Ohio win in 2004, violated their tax-exempt status by pushing the candidacy of J. Kenneth Blackwell, who is the secretary of state and the favored candidate of Ohio's religious right. . .

***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 @ 7:48 AM

 
DOUBLE STANDARDS

[NB: No postings for the next couple of days while traveling: back on Tuesday]

CIA officer fired for revealing the existence of secret U.S. torture prisons in eastern Europe. This was “leaking classified information.” But is this a precedent the Bush gang wants to be setting right now?

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/3812038.html

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_04_16_atrios_archive.html#114571705256999820
[Atrios] As journalists receive classified leaks from senior administration officials quite regularly, at some point it will be appropriate for them to reveal this fact to the public. If the administration continues to go after leaks it doesn't like, while continuing to defend and continue the practice of leaks it does like, journalists will have to call them on it.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29098
[Larry Johnson] I am struck by the irony that Mary McCarthy may have been fired for blowing the whistle and ensuring that the truth about an abuse was told to the American people. There is something potentially honorable in that action; particularly when you consider that George Bush authorized Scooter Libby to leak misleading information for the purpose of deceiving the American people about the grounds for going to war in Iraq. . .

More: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/cia-fires-agent-for-doing-same-thing.html

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7212.html

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/04/selectively-punishing-politically.html

What about Condi?!?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/21/AR2006042101648_pf.html
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice leaked national defense information to a pro-Israel lobbyist in the same manner that landed a lower-level Pentagon official a 12-year prison sentence, the lobbyist's lawyer said Friday. . .

More: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008665.php

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/21/212832/336

The last straw (as if we needed one) on pre-war Iraq lies

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7213.html

On the Plame story: the grand jury meets to discuss Rove. More or less to this than meets the eye?

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/04/post_187.html#002088

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/04/21/rove/index.html

Will the new choice for PM in Iraq (al-Maliki) make a difference?

Maybe: http://www.juancole.com/2006/04/al-maliki-acceptable-say-kurds-sunni.html

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2880

Maybe not: http://www.ericumansky.com/2006/04/iraqs_new_pm_sa.html

Katherine Harris’s (R-FL) clown show campaign

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014624.html
[TChris] The funniest political race this year has to be Katherine Harris' inept campaign for a Senate seat. Despite pledging to spend $10 million of her own money to resurrect her sinking campaign, every day seems to bring more bad (but comical) news for Harris. . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_16.php#008271
[Josh Marshall] I really don't think I've ever seen a political train wreck quite like the Harris for Senate campaign. . .

Still, she’s using EVERYTHING she’s got . . .

http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/archives/003989.php

Bonus item: They even lie about the little things

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/cheney-claims-he-didnt-sleep-through.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 @ 12:06 PM

 
CH-CH-CH-CHANGES

Why the Bush staff “shake-up” means nothing

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7188.html

It’s all about Bush: http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/04/post_171.html#002058

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/04/20/BL2006042001040.html
[Dan Froomkin] In retrospect, the perils of merging politics and policy seem clear. Rove-directed policies have contributed to a deeply unpopular presidency, increasingly accused of being not only divisive but incompetent. . .

Rove losing power? Dream on

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/rove-is-all-ugly-politics-all-time.html

Indictment coming for Rove?

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/21/msnbcs-shuster-signs-point-to-rove-indictment

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001360.php

Xymphora: don’t hold your breath (thanks to Jan Pieterse for the link)

http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2006/04/groundhog-day.html

Novak: Feds know who the leaker was

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/04/20/novak_says_feds_know_source_of_leak.html

The person Bush thought was the “most qualified person in the country” to become the next Supreme Court justice, may be about to be fired

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5813
Joshua B. Bolten, the new White House chief of staff, has raised the possibility of moving Harriet E. Miers from her job as President Bush's counsel . . . Mr. Bolten is said by a number of Republicans in Washington to feel that Ms. Miers is indecisive, a weak manager and slow in moving vital paperwork through the system. . .

Fire Rumsfeld? Never (thanks to Joyce for the link)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0604200016apr20,1,3472176.column
[Steve Chapman] Should the president fire Donald Rumsfeld? That's like asking if Disney should retire Mickey Mouse. Why get rid of someone who represents everything important about an institution--particularly if doing so leaves those things unchanged? No, President Bush should keep Rumsfeld as a perennial symbol of the administration's essential characteristic: hubris. . . [read on!]

Cost of the Iraq War approaching one TRILLION dollars

http://www.juancole.com/2006/04/cost-of-war-heading-toward-one.html

The Bush gang has NO IDEA of what to do about Iran

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008657.php

Intelligence Director’s budget: $1 billion

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/19/AR2006041902381_pf.html

Wasted money: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008659.php
[WP] You would have thought it was impossible to make our intelligence problems even worse, but the Bush administration has accomplished that. . .

FOX NEWS (!) has Bush at 33%, and that’s being generous

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192468,00.html

Could he drop into the 20’s? http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7197.html

Bonus item: Hey George, how that WH staff morale coming along, after all these big changes?

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5809

***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 @ 11:45 AM

 
EXIT STRATEGIES

Scott McClellan is O-U-T. I suppose this is the time to extend the hand of a gracious farewell, and wish him godspeed on life’s journey, but. . . . naaaah

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/19/95931/2940
[Georgia10] Will anyone be able to fill Scotty's shoes? Who can master the art of "we don't comment on ongoing investigations?" Who has the stamina to repeat day after day, week after week, that Saddam "was a grave threat"? Who has the skill to weave the words "terrorists flew planes into buildings" into at least one question per briefing? The nomination floor is open.

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/04/post_156.html#002036
[Matt Yglesias] Scott McClellan's tenure as White House press secretary has been objectively disastrous -- a giant step down from the psychopathically smooth lying of Ari Fleischer who's turned the briefing room into a perennial train wreck. . . I have to say that McClellan arguably did handle his assignment with class, once you control for the fact that the assignment was, basically, to stand up and dissemble on a daily basis. Integrity, though, not so much.

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/04/post_158.html#002034
[Sam Rosenfeld] The hapless Scott McClellan resigned this morning as White House press secretary. The conventional rap on McClellan has long been that, in stark contrast to the near-sociopathic unflappability with which his predecessor Ari Fleischer could lie and stonewall on behalf of the president, he always showed the flop sweat and strain when doing the same. If that reflects a bit better on McClellan's personal humanity, I suppose we can all wish him well.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7179.html
[Steve Benen] McClellan's announcement hardly comes as a surprise. McClellan has enjoyed few real allies anywhere outside the West Wing. The reporters don't like him (he's evasive and dishonest); Republicans don't like him (he's neither articulate nor persuasive); and Dems don't like him (he routinely lies and attacks their patriotism).

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sidney_blumenthal/2006/04/walking_the_white_house_plank.html
[Sidney Blumenthal] McClellan is a flea on the windshield of history. On the podium, he performed his duty as a slow-flying object swatted by a frustrated and flustered press corps. Inexpressive, occasionally inarticulate and displaying a limited vocabulary, his virtue was his unwavering discipline in sticking to his uninformative talking points, fending off pesky reporters, and defending the president and all the president's men to the last full measure of his devotion. Inside the Bush White House, he was a non-player, a factotum, the instrument of Karl Rove, Bush's chief political strategist and deputy chief of staff. McClellan played no part in the inner councils of state. He was the blank wall erected in front of the press to obstruct them from seeing what was on the other side. McClellan's stoic façade was unmatched by a stoic interior. He was a vessel for his masters, did whatever he was told, put out disinformation without objection, and was willing to defend any travesty. He is the ultimate dispensable man.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/04/19/questions/index.html
[Tim Grieve] White House press secretary Scott McClellan is on his way out the door, but there are more than a few questions we'd still like to ask him. . .

Scotty’s replacement? Would you believe Tony Snow (Fox News anchor)?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7175.html

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/04/19/snow/index.html

Beat me to the joke: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/fox-news-anchor-tony-snow-may-be-new.html
FOX News anchor Tony Snow may be new White House spokesman
[John Aravosis] I thought he already was.

More Snow jobs: http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/search_results?qstring=tony+snow

Dan Bartlett, auditioning for the job?

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/19/bartlett-caught-in-lie/
MATTHEWS: [W]e’ve been struck by higher gas prices. That was another promise made, that this war would help us get cheaper gas —

BARTLETT: I don’t think —

MATTHEWS: None of these promises come through.

BARTLETT: That’s not correct, Chris. The president or no one else ever said that this war was going to result in cheaper gas prices…

MATTHEWS: Ok, so just to make it official, Dan, no one in the administration has ever said that we would have cheaper gas because of war in Iraq, just to make it official?

BARTLETT: I don’t recall anybody ever saying that, Chris.

[TP] As Matthews noted later in the broadcast, Laurence Lindsey – President Bush’s senior economic advisor at the time — argued in 2002 that the Iraq war would increase oil supplies and lower prices. . .

My bet: Dan Senor

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5795
[Holden agrees]

Reshuffling the deck chairs

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_16.php#008253
[Josh Marshall] In all seriousness, I think the real story here continues to be that things are so bad at the White House, the level of denial and secrets to be kept, the self-bamboozlement and bad-faith so profound, that they just can't manage to bring in any new blood.

With Rumsfeld, or any other cabinet secretary, there's a related problem -- the importance of which has, I think, not been fully appreciated or aired. If Rumsfeld goes, you need to nominate someone else and get them through a senate confirmation. That means an open airing of the disaster of this administration's national security policy. Every particular; all about Iraq. Think how much they don't want that ...

Finally, can they find anyone on the outside who wants in? This, remember, seems to be the problem with Treasury Secretary Snow. He has already, in essence, been fired. But they can't come up with anyone crazy enough to take the job.

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7186.html

Don’t believe for a second that Karl Rove has been seriously demoted or reprimanded in any way for his misconduct. With him, EVERYTHING is done for political advantage, even this apparent “demotion”

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/04/19/rove2/index.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/04/19/white-house-perceptions-and-reality/

http://www.slate.com/id/2140292
[Eric Umansky] The Times may be convinced Rove is out of the policy biz, but the other papers aren't so sure. The LAT says "many people familiar with White House operations" (such as the LAT) predict "little change in Rove's influence in an administration that melded policy and politics." The WP's lead piece generally echoes that, adding, "White House officials made clear yesterday that no major shifts in policy are envisioned."

The new guy in the WH policy apparatus, Joel Kaplan, broke onto the national scene as one of the GOP hired guns flown into Florida to pose as locals and disrupt the vote-counting process in the 2000 election

http://susiemadrak.com/2006/04/19/15/30/truth-in-labeling-2/

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7187.html

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000416.php

Does any of this matter?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/19/AR2006041902517.html
“Survival mode”

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/04/19/will_white_house_shake_up_alter_public_opinion.html
[Stuart Rothenberg] Will this help President George W. Bush as he and his party head to the ’06 midterm elections? . . . The answer is no.

Did Rove lose his security clearance? (Answer: no way)

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/19/rove-security-clearance/

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5801

Is Rove now a “subject” of the Fitzgerald investigation?

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sidney_blumenthal/2006/04/walking_the_white_house_plank.html
Rove's attorney has suggested that Rove is simply a witness. But that is untrue. He is a subject. A subject is someone the prosecutor believes may have committed a crime and is under investigation. If the prosecutor decides he has accumulated sufficient evidence to prove guilt, he will change the designation of that person from subject to target and then indict him or her. . .

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014608.html
[Jeralyn Merritt] I'm hearing rumors that Fitz met with the Valerie Plame grand jury this morning. and Rove was the topic of discussion. . .

More: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=78126

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2872

In Iraq, the Kurds take another step toward secession

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2870

Iraq War costs have doubled since 2003

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/War_costs_doubled_since_invasion_of_0419.html

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/19/AR2006041902594.html

“CIA increases data mining of blogs”

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014605.html

The FBI wants to go through journalist Jack Anderson’s files (now that he’s dead). Bad enough – but look at how they’re trying to get access

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2006/04/j_edgar_would_be_proud.html

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000413.php

The weakness of the GOP

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114551216946639979

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008654.php

A philosophy for the Democrats

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11424

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/19/115711/273

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114549479637487586

The Democrats respond to GOP lies on immigration policy

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/19/21413/6093

The kind of people they are (Part one)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604190001
[Michael] Savage also referred to the alleged Duke rape victim as "a drunken slut stripping whore accusing men of raping her when there is absolutely no evidence of such a rape other than what comes out of that filthy mouth of hers." He later asked: "What kind of system do we have that anyone can scream rape and not have to show her face?" adding, "This is all the product of the out-of-control lesbian feminist movement." Echoing previous comments he has made about the alleged rape victim, Savage said, "The Durham dirt-bag case disgusts me to my core." . . . Savage has also previously referred to the alleged victim as a "dirty, verminous black stripper."

Part two: update on the story about Michelle Malkin posting the personal phone numbers of college kids who were protesting against campus military recruiters. Here is a sampling of what they received. . .

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/top-republican-blogger-posts-phone.html

No, no, no – BAD, Sierra Club, bad!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/20/1152/35605



Bonus item: Worst ever

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_04_16_atrios_archive.html#114546942474324068

***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 @ 4:17 AM

 
THE KIND OF PEOPLE THEY ARE

This has become a regular feature of PBD, but today it is the theme of the day: a recounting of how arrogant, self-righteous, and vindictive the gang of people running this country are

Bush blows a gasket when questioned (“I’m the decider and I decide what is best”)

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114538368729748650
HENRY: Mr. President, you make it a practice of not commenting on potential personnel move.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Of course, I did.

HENRY: Calling it speculation.

BUSH: And you can understand why. Because we've got people's reputations at stake. And on Friday I stood up and said I don't appreciate the speculation about Don Rumsfeld. He's doing a fine job. I strongly support him. . .

Don Rumsfeld is doing a fine job. He's not only transforming the military, he's fighting a war on terror. He's helping us fight a war on terror. I have strong confidence in Don Rumsfeld. I hear the voices and I read the front page and I know the speculation, but I'm the decider and I decide what is best and what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense. . .

[Digby] At which point he stomped off in a huff. Seriously. . .

Once again, I am stunned that the Republicans had the gall to foist this manchild on the United States of America --- and that so many Americans accepted it for so long. There's a lot of talk in the wingnutsphere about "Bush Derangement Syndrome" which says that we are all suffering form irrational hatred of Dear Leader. But it's not accurate. Bush is just a spoiled, deluded little boy, pushed into a job that was obvious to any sentient being would be too much for him . . . He's just a pathetic loser who believed his own hype --- responsible for his actions, of course, but not the mastermind.

From his little tirade today, it appears that he's feeling like his authority is being questioned. That's just funny. It took his this long to figure out that he's not really in charge?

Watch it: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/18.html#a7958

Donald Rumsfeld explains why so many are calling for his resignation

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7172.html
[Rumsfeld] I think we just have to accept it, that people have a right to say what they want to say, and to have an acceptance of that and recognize that the terrorists, Zarqawi and bin Laden and Zawahiri, those people have media committees. . . They are actively out there trying to manipulate the press in the United States. They are very good at it.

[Steve Benen] It certainly sounded like Rumsfeld believes that those in the national media who cast the war effort in a negative light are somehow cooperating with the agenda of terrorists.

More: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/18/rumsfeld-limbaugh/

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/rumsfeld-i-wont-quit.html
Rumsfeld: "I won't quit". . .

[John Aravosis] As much as it pains me to say this: Good! . . . I hate the thought of Rumsfeld, the chief architect of the quagmire in Iraq, being the man planning President Pee-Wee's next big adventure, the nuking of Iran. That's not good. That's idiotic. . . The only virtue we can find in this latest news is that Bush will continue to sink in the polls as he grabs on for dear life to the heaviest anchor in sight.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_04_16_atrios_archive.html#114541709725695134
[Maureen Dowd] He suggested invading Iraq the day after 9/11. He didn't want to invade Iraq because it was connected to 9/11. That was the part his neocon aides at the Pentagon, Wolfie and Doug Feith, had to concoct. Rummy wanted to invade Iraq because he thought it would be easy, compared with Iran or North Korea, or compared with finding Osama. He could do it cheap and show off his vaunted transformation of the military into a sleek, lean fighting force. . . [read on]

Dick Cheney’s guys (thanks to David N for the link)

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=11401
They terrorize other government officials, and they’re so secretive that their names aren’t even revealed to a harmless federal employee directory. And they’ve helped ruin the country. Meet Dick Cheney’s staff. . .

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7165.html

Cheney apparently took Katrina tax breaks for non-Katrina charitable contributions (thanks to Scout Prime for the link)

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2006/04/kirsch_cheney_t.html

Tom DeLay raised a half millions dollars (“for his re-election campaign”) in the weeks just before dropping out of the race. So now he can use the money for his defense fund. You heard this before – but wait, that’s not all

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3800125.html

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5787
[Holden] Tom DeLay solicited "campaign contributions" even after he decided to end his campaign. Hell, he still has a "Contribute" link up on his campaign website. . .

Safavian to Abramoff (April 2002)

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_16.php#008248
"My gut is telling me to take the GSA job before joining up with you and your band of merry men."

The bizarre Russian connection: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_16.php#008249

In Iraq

http://www.juancole.com/2006/04/political-crisis-worsens-as-sectarian.html
[T]he parliamentary crisis got even worse on Tuesday. . .

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2867
[Newsweek] The armed men who held them were from an obscure security force called the Facilities Protection Services, which now apparently numbers a staggering 146,000 men. . . The FPS, as it turns out, is a mutant security agency that has grown from a 4,000-man group of "night watchmen" -— the description given to them last year by Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, who is in charge of training all Iraqi security forces -— into a large, amorphous force that seems to lack any centralized control. Not one ministry contacted by NEWSWEEK would accept overall responsibility for the FPS. The Americans don't oversee them either: "We really don't get anywhere near them," says Tim Keefe, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad. . . Facility Protection cops are suspected of committing at least some of the sectarian killings that have plagued the country in recent months. "The FPS have the same uniforms, weapons and vehicles [as regular police], and they are not controlled by either the Ministry of Interior or Defense," Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr told NEWSWEEK recently. "And they are doing some bad." . . .

“Open civil war” http://makeashorterlink.com/?E38325BFC

The one thing everyone agreed led to the failure to prevent 9-11 was the fact that different govt agencies didn’t share information with each other. All the information was there to know that terrorists were in the country and planning something, but the left hand didn’t know what the right hand was doing. Every committee who reviewed the catastrophe said that priority number one was better information sharing. So now, four and a half years later?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/18/AR2006041801629.html
Despite more than four years of legislation, executive orders and presidential directives, the Bush administration has yet to comprehensively improve sharing of counterterrorism information among dozens of federal agencies. . .

Bush “concerned” about high gas prices (uh-huh)

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/did-you-hear-one-about-bush-being.html
[Reuters] President George W. Bush said on Tuesday he is "concerned" about high gasoline prices, and pledged that the government will keep a close watch out for profiteering. . . "I'm concerned about higher gasoline prices," Bush said. "The government has the responsibility to make sure that we watch very carefully and investigate possible price-gouging, and we will do just that."

The Dems respond: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/18/213355/222

Rising gas prices, falling poll numbers

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5792

Two million children left behind

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/17/national/main1505118.shtml
States are helping public schools escape potential penalties by skirting the No Child Left Behind law's requirement that students of all races must show annual academic progress.

With the federal government's permission, schools aren't counting the test scores of nearly 2 million students when they report progress by racial groups, an Associated Press computer analysis found.

Minorities — who historically haven't fared as well as whites in testing — make up the vast majority of students whose scores are being excluded, the AP found. And the numbers have been rising. . .

More hypocrisy on education: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/19/6171/70232

I’m glad this long-awaited White House shake-up is bringing in so many new people with new ideas

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_04_16_atrios_archive.html#114536701165824312
Bush is taking the guy who was US Trade Representative (Portman) and putting him in as head of OMB, because that seat became open when the head of OMB became the chief of staff . . .

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/04/post_145.html#002005
[Matt Yglesias] The president's effort to shake up the White House staff without actually changing anything took another step forward today. . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7170.html
[Steve Benen] Bush has replaced one long-time Bush ally, loyal to the same ol' agenda, with another. Replacing Josh Bolten with Rob Portman is not unlike replacing Andy Card with Josh Bolten. We're dealing with the same small circle of people Bush likes and his comfortable with — and who won't do anything drastic to shake up the status quo. (Indeed, Portman was immediately replaced as Trade Rep. with Susan Schwab, who used to work for first President Bush.)

Second, Portman, as the Trade Representative, has been about as effective as his administration colleagues. After less than a year on the job, Portman saw the U.S. trade deficit grow considerably, reaching over $720 billion last year, the largest ever. . .

What this means for the latest round of WTO negotiations, which Portman was overseeing: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001351.php

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/18/AR2006041801488.html

Now, thanks to the Bush gang, we have not only “instant declassification” – we also have instant (and secret) UN-declassification

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/18/washington/18archives.html
The National Archives signed a secret agreement in 2001 with the Central Intelligence Agency permitting the spy agency to withdraw from public access records it considered to have been improperly declassified . . .

Theocracy watch

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014598.html
Fundamentalists Disrupt Another Soldier's Funeral. . .

Fred Hiatt, WP editorial page writer, weighs in with yet another dishonest effort in defense of Bush’s indefensible war policies

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/18/111140/392
[WP] The president's signal failure to hold his defense chief accountable no doubt has helped to produce the extraordinary -- and troubling -- eruption of public discontent from the retired generals. . . . Much of their analysis strikes us as solid -- but the rebellion is problematic nonetheless. It threatens the essential democratic principle of military subordination to civilian control -- the more so because a couple of the officers claim they are speaking for some still on active duty. . . . If they are successful in forcing Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation, they will set an ugly precedent. Will future defense secretaries have to worry about potential rebellions by their brass, and will they start to choose commanders according to calculations of political loyalty?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/another-day-another-fred-hearts-george.html
[John Aravosis] At this point, Fred, you're starting to sound a little desperate. . . I mean, seriously, it's like you're writing 3 or 4 editorials a week pleading with us to support Bush in spite of his being a liar and a failure . . .

Bill Bennett (“mainstream commentator”) says that three Pulitzer Prize winners belong in jail

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002345921

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_04_16_atrios_archive.html#114538329498786282
[Atrios] I hope CNN's on board with their paid commentator's desires to jail journalists for reporting on the illegal actions of their government. . . let me add that this is really the kind of thing our respectable elite journalists need to figure out a way to deal with. . .

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7174.html

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/04/pulitzer-prize-for-treason.html

Bonus item: The kind of people they are

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2006/04/billboard_liberation_front_strikes.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 @ 6:57 AM

 
KEEP SHOVELING

This is the Rumsfeld we have all come to know. A major revolt by his generals, widespread criticism of his failed war policies (even from political allies) – and his response?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/04/17/national/w140744D96.DTL
"Well, you know, this, too, will pass," he told Rush Limbaugh's nationally syndicated radio show. . .

Wrong again, Rummy: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aArn_6Xuk0A8&refer=us
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will be permanently damaged by failed U.S. planning for the aftermath of the Iraq invasion even if he survives calls for his resignation . . .

In Iraq, no progress on forming a government: so now. . .

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2865
[LAT] Allawi, a onetime CIA protege and leader of a secular coalition with 25 seats in parliament, said in a statement broadcast on Iraqi television that political leaders might have to create an emergency government "that is capable of bringing Iraq to its feet and save it from its current deadly crisis."

Such a government could include political groups that didn't win seats in the election and be based on a political agreement rather than the constitution, said Adnan Pachachi, a leading politician in Allawi's coalition. . .

More: http://www.juancole.com/2006/04/shiites-stick-with-jaafari-26-dead.html

On Iran, more echoes of a familiar past. . . including a pliant, distracted media

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/04/lucy-charlie-brown-football.html
[Glenn Greenwald] But what is really most alarming -- although, I know, it shouldn't be surprising at all -- is that the American media seems not just willing, but tongue-waggingly pleased, to be exploited and used again, in the best tradition of Pravda, as the principal mechanism for venerating governmental claims as though they constitute "news," without even pretending to subject those claims to the slightest bit of skepticism or scrutiny. This Washington Post article by John Pomfret, entitled "Iran Has Raised Efforts to Obtain U.S. Arms Illegally, Official Says," is really a museum-worthy model for the type of mindlessly trustworthy "journalism"which convinced most Americans that Saddam had WMDs (and even that he personally participated in the planning of the 9/11 attacks), which, in turn, led us right into the invasion of Iraq. . .

Congress is more unpopular than it’s been in decades (70% disapproval!) – and we always have to remind people: it’s a REPUBLICAN Congress

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/17/93732/6646

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/04/17/congress/index.html

More polls: http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5774
[Holden] There's a new Gallup poll out this afternoon pegging Chimpy's job approval rating at 36%, down 1% from last week's USAToday/Gallup poll. . . Handling of Iraq - 32%

In a surprise, the new poll found that 44% of Republicans now back withdrawing some or all troops from Iraq. The number for all Americans, 64%. . . In another finding, 57% of Americans say it was a mistake to send troops to Iraq . . . 57% say that the US "will not win in Iraq"

Pat Roberts (R-KS): poster boy for Bush’s lapdog Congress. It doesn’t even OCCUR to him that independent intelligence oversight might be part of their responsibility

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7157.html
[US News] Kansas Republican Sen. Pat Roberts, the committee chair, warns that "we have not made the progress on our oversight of Iran intelligence, which is critical." The panel has done only piecemeal scrutiny of the spy agencies' work on Iran. "There is no organized committee staff effort to look at Iran right now," says majority staff director Bill Duhnke. "It's all sort of on hold.". . . Roberts blames it on Democrats who are "more focused on intelligence failures of the past." Committee staffers who would conduct the Iran inquiry are instead tied up with the long-awaited second phase of the panel's review of prewar intelligence on Iraq (which covers how the Bush administration used the intelligence).

[Steve Benen] Roberts was supposed to have finished the infamous "Phase 2" report in 2004, before the presidential election, so the public would understand whether the administration manipulated intelligence before the war in Iraq began. Roberts broke his word, dragged his feet, and the report is still pending. . . Now, Roberts would rather give up on Iraq-related accountability altogether and blame Dems for distracting him from Iran. Sure, the Senate Cover-up Intelligence Committee could begin an inquiry into Iran-related intelligence while it finishes up a report that was supposed to have been done two years ago, but Roberts apparently prefers inaction on both.

Roberts is once again proving himself to be uniquely unsuited for the job he's been given. He doesn't want to learn necessary lessons from his Iraq mistakes and he's failing to do his duty as the situation with Iran grows more serious. . . . In February, a New York Times editorial asked rhetorically, "Is there any aspect of President Bush's miserable record on intelligence that Senator Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is not willing to excuse and help to cover up?" The answer, unfortunately, is obvious.

The State Dept memo that started the whole Plame mess: now available after a FOIA request

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014587.html

How an obscure little story about dirty tricks in a New Hampshire election could become the Last Straw for the national Republican Party’s era of dominance

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/17/opinion/17mon4.html

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/17/14456/9015

I don’t usually quote Dick Morris, that corrupt blowhard, but this is too good to pass up

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008640.php
Bush has truly become the Republican equivalent of President Jimmy Carter, out of control, dropping in popularity, unable to resume command . . . Yet Bush, like his father, fails to invent issues to give his presidency a new lease on life. Is he too tired or lazy to do so?

More: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0410.wallace-wells.html

The kind of people they are

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114530882638237101
Crooks and Liars has a story up about Michelle Malkin posting phone numbers of college students who protested recruiters on the UCSC campus. Predictably, her readers are harrassing them, as she knew they would. . .

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/17.html#a7943
[John Amato] Whatever your beliefs are regarding military recruiting at colleges, Michelle Malkin crosses the line of decency by printing the telephone numbers of the students that formed the protest. They have been receiving death threats non-stop. . .

More: http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2006/04/future_imperfec.html

You won’t believe it (except that you will). Not content to impose the ridiculously ineffective approach of “abstinence only” sex education on schools across the country, the sanctimonious (and hypocritical) moralizers who have appointed themselves the Theocratic Sex Police have now announced that a ban on “sexual stimulation” should extend to ALL UNMARRIED PEOPLE

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_04_16_atrios_archive.html#114529399253168526
[Atrios] Given that this is the case it's more than legitimate to ask unmarried members of the Bush administration if they are, in fact, saving it.

Of course, it’s another anti-gay policy in thin disguise: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/17/busy-abstinence-policy/

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7162.html

Our first ever link to “Field and Stream”

http://susiemadrak.com/2006/04/17/22/33/it-depends-on-what-you-mean-by-wet/
The Bush Administration announced last week that the nation is no longer losing wetlands–as long as you consider golf course water hazards to be wetlands. . . . Really.

Someone needs to teach the WP ombuds(wo)man that the purpose of her job is to be an internal critic and watchdog, not an external rationalizer and defender

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/washington-post-ombudsman-yet-again.html
[John Aravosis] You see, according to Howell, the concept of truth doesn't exist in journalism - or rather, truth is not an absolute . . .

More: http://mediamatters.org/items/200604170001

Bonus item: with enough buckets. . .

http://www.slate.com/id/2140133/fr/rss/
[Eric Umansky] Yesterday's LAT noticed that a principal at an elementary school in Inglewood [CA] was so worried her students might attend pro-immigration rallies that she barred some from even going to the bathroom, forcing them to use buckets in class.

Now the odd part: The school district defended the principal. They explained that the super-lockdown, bucket routine is indeed allowed, albeit only in a slightly more extreme scenario, namely nuclear Armageddon. "When there's a nuclear attack, that's when buckets are used," said a district official. "She made a decision to follow the handbook. She just misread it."

***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 @ 6:36 AM

 
WHOPPERS

Oh, christ

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2136297,00.html
THE American military is planning a “second liberation of Baghdad” to be carried out with the Iraqi army when a new government is installed. . .

Have military operations already begun in Iran?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114521373818890276

More: http://makeashorterlink.com/?M361128FC
[AFP] The United States began planning a full-scale military campaign against Iran that involves missile strikes, a land invasion and a naval operation to establish control over the Strait of Hormuz even before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq . . .

http://billmon.org/archives/002390.html
[Billmon] What we are witnessing (through rips in the curtain of official secrecy) may be an example of what the Germans call the flucht nach vorne – the "flight forward." This refers to the tendency of both individuals and institutions to seek a way out of a crisis by becoming ever more daring and aggressive (or, as the White House propaganda department might put it: "bold") A familiar analogy is the gambler in Vegas, who tries to get out of a hole by doubling down on each successive bet. . . . For Bush, or the neocons, or both, regime change in Iran not only may appear doable, it may also look like the only way out of the spectacular mess they have created in Iraq.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2136638,00.html
IRAN has formed battalions of suicide bombers to strike at British and American targets if the nation’s nuclear sites are attacked. According to Iranian officials, 40,000 trained suicide bombers are ready for action. . .

The Pentagon’s “fact sheet” defending Rumsfeld appears to be full of lies. Here’s a whopper

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/16/144426/422
[Rumsfeld] I was very careful. I never predicted any number of deaths or the cost or the length because I've looked at a lot of wars, and anyone who tries to do that is going to find themselves wrong, flat wrong…I don't know anybody who had any reasonable expectations about the number or the length of the war or the cost of the war. I just don't — no one I know went out and said these are how those three metrics ought to be considered. . . [read on]

General Myers got his copy

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/16/214242/439

Though Myers did defend Shinseki: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/17/washington/17military.html

More: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2136300,00.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008636.php

[NB: Wait until active duty generals start to speak out and resign]

Why Bush has to fire Rumsfeld

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/004024.html
[Richard Holbrooke] Put simply, the failed strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be fixed as long as Rumsfeld remains at the epicenter of the chain of command. . .

Why he won’t: http://www.ostroyreport.blogspot.com/#41606

If this analysis is right (and it makes complete sense to me), Bush and Cheney’s legal problems aren’t limited to the Plame leak any more

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/has-patrick-fitzgerald-finally-caught.html

At least one of these people is lying

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014574.html
Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, who has been cooperating with Fitzgerald in the Valerie Plame leaks investigation, has witnesses to support his claim that he told Libby in June, 2003 that Valerie Plame Wilson worked for the CIA. . . Libby has claimed in his latest filing. . . that he doesn't remember the conversation, that it might not have happened, that Grossman may have confused him with someone else or that Grossman may be biased.

More on Abramoff/Safavian (they all deserve each other)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/15/AR2006041500790.html
Federal prosecutors released hundreds of e-mails on Friday evening to support charges that Safavian lied to federal officials by failing to disclose Abramoff's business dealings with GSA. . . Safavian's lawyer, Barbara Van Gelder, charged that the public filing of the e-mails amounted to a "press release" designed to pressure her client to cooperate with the Justice Department.

Whether or not the e-mails are allowed into evidence, they document a collapse of traditional borders separating lobbyists seeking favored treatment and the government officials, including members of Congress, empowered to make decisions with millions of dollars riding on the outcome. . .

In Iraq, could an Iranian (!!) be chosen to lead the unification government?

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2861

More: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/17/ap/world/mainD8H1E0E80.shtml

Teaching Iraqis the virtues of capitalism

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/16/us_firms_suspected_of_bilking_iraq_funds/

Remember when it was a stunning shock that oil hit $50 a barrel? Guess what it is now

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1A6238FC

Where did the idea of criminalizing undocumented immigrants come from? (hint: it WASN’T the Democrats)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/4/17/25718/4311

WH Easter egg hunt: they couldn’t exclude the gay and lesbian families, so they just hid them

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/16/121126/860

http://www.republicoft.com/index.php/archives/2006/04/15/easter-egg-roll-delay-for-gay-families/

Heh heh heh

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060424/24bush.htm
Things aren't getting any easier for President Bush. Even his good-old-boy personality, which once was so appealing to so many Americans, seems to be wearing thin. His underlying problem, pollsters say, is that growing numbers of Americans question his competence and credibility. Only 38 percent of Americans approve of Bush's job performance, and--just as important--only 39 percent have positive feelings about him. . .

How it all fell apart (fun to read): http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=77789

What a scam!

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_16.php#008227
Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) and his wife have a special arrangement, of dubious legality, in which they get to personally pocket 15% of the campaign contributions to John's reelection campaign and leadership committee. . .

In defense of the Democrats’ strategic passivity

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0605.sullivan1.html

Joe Klein (Time magazine), considered by some to be a liberal – considered by others to be. . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/16/182052/539
“insane”

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_04_16_atrios_archive.html#114522642711165221
“bugshit crazy”

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/4/16/22758/0088
“self-delusional”
“so out of touch he doesn't even know what touching means”
“angry, petulant, and megalomaniacal”

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114522803140209516
“the object of ridicule among everybody who observes the punditocrisy”

More: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114524323875004517

Is Rush Limbaugh a shameless liar, or what?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604140001
Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed that after "the left-wing fringe threw a hissy fit" about The Washington Post's hiring of Ben Domenech to write for a conservative weblog on the newspaper's website, the Post "concocted some phony excuse that the guy that they had hired was a plagiarist" and "he was gone inside of two weeks." In fact, on the day of his resignation -- four days after his blog for the Post began -- Domenech admitted to using other writers' work "inappropriately and without attribution.". . .

More: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/rush-limbaugh-now-says-washington-post.html

Why didn’t I think of this?

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/corruption_in_washington_/2006/04/right_right_right.php
[Mark Kleiman] Martin Manley has a beautifully elegant solution to the problem of corruption-by-campaign-contribution: allow contributions, but require that they pass through a blind trust. With suitable aggregation and lags, that would make it possible for anyone to give money to any candidate (thus avoiding any impingement on rights of speech or association) but impossible for anyone to prove to the candidate that he had done so (thus avoiding the pay-to-play problem).

Of course, there are problems . . .

Bonus item: A useful concept (GFI’s)

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/_/2006/04/on_gfis.php
[Mark Kleiman] A friend in the Army in Iraq introduces me to a wonderful new (to me) military acronym: GFI. (G stands for "good" and I for "idea.")

A GFI is the opposite of an appropriate technology: it's something that would be a good idea under different conditions and with more resources, but which makes no sense whatever in the actual circumstance.

***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 @ 6:40 AM

 
WAR FOOTING

Just don’t tell us what you’re doing in our name

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-060415security-story,1,4307400.story
U.S. officials are doling out millions of dollars of arms and ammunition to Iraqi police units without safeguards required to ensure they are complying with American laws that ban taxpayer-financed assistance for foreign security forces engaged in human-rights violations. . . The previously undisclosed review shows that officials failed to take steps to comply with the laws over the past two years, amid mounting reports of torture and murder by Shiite-dominated Iraqi security forces. . .

[NB: Read on to see David N’s item on death squads in Iraq]

Reader David N is working overtime: a few items from him, and a comment

[David N] Here's an article from yesterday's Guardian that I got around to reading today:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1753653,00.html
US allies are behind the death squads and ethnic cleansing

While the article was very interesting in itself, one of the reader comments (by Ogun) made me think back to a question you raised not too long ago, about why death squads always seem to follow Negroponte around everywhere he goes:

[Ogun April 14, 2006 09:58 AM]

These are not "US allies": the death squads were trained by US intelligence under Negroponte as a deliberate attempt to apply the "Salvador option" -- ie a strategy of covert mass murder via local proxies as used in El Salvador. . . whereby a deathsquad pretends to be insurgents or "Al Qaeda" and then either sucks in and exposes real insurgents, or commits some terrible atrocity (like blowing up a Shiite temple or pilgrims?) in an attempt to discredit the insurgency or to promote civil war. This was all written about by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker over a year ago:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0117-11.htm
"The new rules will enable the Special Forces community to set up what it calls “action teams” in the target countries overseas which can be used to find and eliminate terrorist organizations. “Do you remember the right-wing execution squads in El Salvador?” the former high-level intelligence official asked me, referring to the military-led gangs that committed atrocities in the early nineteen-eighties. “We founded them and we financed them,” he said. “The objective now is to recruit locals in any area we want. And we aren’t going to tell Congress about it.” A former military officer, who has knowledge of the Pentagon’s commando capabilities, said, “We’re going to be riding with the bad boys.”

[David N] Here's an interesting article from Robert Parry that discusses Bush repeatedly uttering the falsehood that Sadaam "wouldn't allow the weapons inspectors back into Iraq":

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/041306.html

[David N] I guess it all depends on how you characterize a felony. The Washington Post ran an April 14th story on the 2002 New Hampshire phone jamming scandal:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/13/AR2006041301673.html

Slate.com, in its brief review of current breaking stories, gives a link to this story, but describes the story in half a sentence as a "PR mess in New Hampshire." (!!!!) Yep, that's all it is to Slate.com, a "PR mess"

[David N] In your blog, you have a reference to dailykos.com, in which the following question to Bush appears: “And, why did you tell the American people on October 13, 2003, that you "don't know of anybody in (your) administration who leaked classified information"?

This question is one that's meant to be asked Bush, apparently as a serious question, but it turns out that it can be easily answered, because it has a trick answer. The trick answer is this: Bush wouldn't know of anybody in his administration who had leaked classified data, because it would no longer be classified once they had leaked it, by virtue of his supposed ability to immediately de-classify anything that he wanted to leak. Thus, the only thing that to Bush would be considered a leak of classified information would be the leaking of something that Bush didn't want to have leaked. To sum up, Bush is basically saying that nobody in his administration has leaked anything that he didn't want to have leaked.

[Now back to NB]

Billmon, back with a vengeance, looks into his crystal ball on Iran

http://billmon.org/archives/002389.html
[T]here isn't going to be a congressional resolution this time – in fact I'd be very surprised if the administration gives the leadership of either party more than 24 hours notice before the bombing begins. No marketing campaigns, no debates, no arms twisted in the Oval Office. Just a fait accompli. (That's French for: "Choke on it, suckers.")

It's already obvious: This one's going to be a unitary executive special – right down the line. The administration's vanished political capital leaves it no other way. When you've got nothing, you've got nothing to lose. . .

Fool me once, fool me twice

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604140006
On Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney purported to "lay out a campaign today that will take Iran down very quickly," agreeing with host Bill O'Reilly that the military strategy for this "would be all air, no infantry, and maybe some Special Forces trying to help." But in 2002, McInerney promised that the military campaign in Iraq, which has now lasted longer than three years, would be "shorter" than the 42 days it took to complete the Persian Gulf War in 1991."

The Union of Concerned Scientists explain why using nuclear “bunker buster” bombs against underground Iranian sites wouldn’t even work

http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2006/04/why_a_nuclear_b.html

I now have a new explanation for the rampant cronyism of the Bush administration: they can’t trust anyone but True Believers and family members to implement their stupid and ineffective policies any more

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/15/washington/15diplo.html
As the Bush administration confronts the Tehran government over its suspected nuclear weapons program and accusations that it supports terrorism, a newly created office of Iranian affairs in the State Department is poring over applications for a rapidly expanding program to change the political process inside Iran. . .

The effort, overseen by Elizabeth Cheney, a deputy assistant secretary of state who is a daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, has been denounced by Iran's leaders as meddling in their internal affairs. . .

The NYT editorial page (“A Bad Leak”) smacks down the WP editorial page (“A Good Leak”)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/opinion/16sun1.html
Mr. Bush did not declassify the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq — in any accepted sense of that word — when he authorized I. Lewis Libby Jr., through Vice President Dick Cheney, to talk about it with reporters. He permitted a leak of cherry-picked portions of the report. The declassification came later. . .

This messy episode leaves more questions than answers, so it is imperative that two things happen soon. First, the federal prosecutor in the Libby case should release the transcripts of what Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney said when he questioned them. And the Senate Intelligence Committee must report publicly on how Mr. Bush and his team used the flawed intelligence on Iraq. Senator Pat Roberts, the committee chairman, says the panel will meet this month to discuss three of the report's five sections. That's a step. And it has taken only two years to get this far.

Bush wants his fiscally disastrous tax cuts made permanent, and of course the GOP will oblige (better do it now while they still have the majority)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/15/141220/670

How Bush is screwing with seniors over Medicare Part D

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/4/15/16468/5105

The Republicans, losing on every other major issue, will try to run the 2006 campaign on social issues (because these days gay marriage and flag burning are the most pressing issues confronting America)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/4/15/141519/253

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/15/AR2006041500536.html

There’s only way to describe this: http://billmon.org/archives/002386.html
Obsessive Compulsive Disorder . . . [don’t miss it!]

They don’t really have any choice, do they?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/15/192455/200
[AP] Four groups representing evangelical Christians said an internal survey found that 63 percent of "values voters" -- identified as evangelical Christians whose priorities include outlawing abortion and banning same-sex marriage -- "feel Congress has not kept its promises to act on a pro-family agenda.". . .

They’re unbelievable liars

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7151.html

Tom Coburn (R-OK): six congressman, plus a senator, are going to jail

http://www.kten.com/Global/story.asp?S=4773216

Antonin Scalia’s injudicious temperament

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/wash-post-looks-at-scalias-erratic.html

Rumsfeld’s Pentagon issues a one-page memo defending their boss from the criticism of retired generals

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/washington/16rumsfeld.html
One retired general who regularly attends the Pentagon meetings said Saturday that he found it unusual for the Pentagon to send such a memorandum in the middle of a heated debate, because it was almost certain to appear politically motivated. . .

How deep does the blind hatred of Bill Clinton go? You wouldn’t believe how deep

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114510770552236835

Katherine Harris trails in Florida by 30 points!

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/04/14/in_florida_nelson_crushes_harris_in_latest_poll.html

The Washington Post decides to profile a “left wing blogger.” Who do they pick, and how do they portray her?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401648.html
In the angry life of Maryscott O'Connor, the rage begins as soon as she opens her eyes and realizes that her president is still George W. Bush. The sun has yet to rise and her family is asleep, but no matter; as soon as the realization kicks in, O'Connor, 37, is out of bed and heading toward her computer.

Out there, awaiting her building fury: the Angry Left, where O'Connor's reputation is as one of the angriest of all. "One long, sustained scream" is how she describes the writing she does for various Web logs, as she wonders what she should scream about this day.

She smokes a cigarette. Should it be about Bush, whom she considers "malevolent," a "sociopath" and "the Antichrist"? She smokes another cigarette. Should it be about Vice President Cheney, whom she thinks of as "Satan," or about Karl Rove, "the devil"? Should it be about the "evil" Republican Party, or the "weaselly, capitulating, self-aggrandizing, self-serving" Democrats, or the Catholic Church, for which she says "I have a special place in my heart . . . a burning, sizzling, putrescent place where the guilty suffer the tortures of the damned"? . . .

"WAKE THE [expletive] UP," she writes next, and this time, instead of pausing, she keeps going, typing harder and harder on a keyboard that is surrounded by a pack of cigarettes, a dirty ashtray, a can of nonalcoholic beer, an album with photos of her dead father and a taped-up note -- staring at her -- on which she has scrawled "Why am I/you here?" . . .

More: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/04/mistaking-caricature-and.html
[Glenn Greenwald] The article's principal tactic -- really, its sole tactic -- is to search through hundreds of comments on O'Connor's site and sites like Eschaton, pick out the most extreme ones, and then feature them as representative of the blogosphere generally. . .

The tactics in the article are as intellectually lazy and empty as they are transparently deceitful and trite. There is no cheaper or emptier form of argumentation than to isolate a specific individual, describe her, and then, without any basis, ascribe those attributes generally to some larger group -- in this case, a much, much larger and more diverse group -- of which she is ostensibly a part.

UPDATE: O'Connor has posted on her blog an account of the experience she had with Finkel, and it contains two revealing though unsurprising facts. First, before writing this article, Finkel "had never been to a blog before." Gee, what a surprise -- more journalists who have no idea what blogs are writing articles on the blogosphere like they are experts. Second, before writing the article, Finkel hilariously said that he "didn't have in mind any angle." But "[h]e did have a phrase weaving in and out of his mind: 'The Angry Left.'" To recap: Finkel had no angle in mind for the article beforehand - merely a phrase floating around in his mind (where, I suspect, there is plenty of room for phrases to float comfortably): "The Angry Left."

More: http://billmon.org/archives/002387.html

Sunday talk show lineup

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/sunday-talk-shows-open-thread_16.html

Bonus item: “My Pet Duck”

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/my-pet-duck.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 @ 9:25 AM

 
GENERAL DISCONTENT

Coverage of the calls for Rumsfeld’s resignation by generals typically falls into the trope that “well, six generals have called for his resignation, but hundreds more haven’t, so. . . ." This misses some key facts: (1) these generals are Big Names, not just piddling mid-level discontents; (2) the fact that ANY AT ALL are making this call is almost unprecedented; and (3) the frequently repeated excuse that if they were really unhappy with Rumsfeld they should have said it before they retired ignores the fact that it was a firing offense for them to do so while still in uniform (and by some lights would have been called treasonous).

Besides, the real question underlying the news coverage shouldn’t be counting noses pro and con – it should be whether the criticisms from these generals (that Rumsfeld micromanages, that he doesn’t listen to feedback, that he overrides military judgments on tactical issues, etc) are TRUE or not

http://www.alternet.org/story/34937/
[Steve Pizzo] Those who have never served in the military don't understand how extraordinary it is for career military officers to say the things they're saying. . .

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/check-out-just-who-generals-are.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2139847/fr/rss/

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008627.php

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7138.html

http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28849

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/04/resolute-fantasy-world.html

(Of course, Bush has NO CHOICE but to support Rumsfeld)

http://www.slate.com/id/2140040
[Michael Brus] The Post portrays Bush's statement as an attempt by the White House to defend a central pillar of his presidency; history will judge both Rumsfeld and Bush by the success or failure of Afghanistan and Iraq, the thinking goes, so if Bush cuts Rummy loose he effectively cuts himself loose. . .

More: http://billmon.org/archives/002384.html

Rumsfeld hasn’t just brought civil war to Iraq – he’s brought it to the Pentagon. The criticism from generals has split the Pentagon into Rumsfeld opponents and supporters, says Tim Russert (NBC News)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/

More trouble for Rummy

http://www.ericumansky.com/2006/04/rumsfelds_other.html

Bush can always depend on Tommy Franks

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/general-tommy-franks-lies-on-hardball.html

In Iraq for the long haul. . .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060414/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_new_embassy_2
The fortress-like compound rising beside the Tigris River here will be the largest of its kind in the world, the size of Vatican City, with the population of a small town, its own defense force, self-contained power and water, and a precarious perch at the heart of Iraq's turbulent future. . .

Are we ALREADY at war in Iran?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114504674614060703
Colonel Sam Gardiner is the retired colonel who taught at the National War College, the Air War College and the Naval Warfare College and who found more than 50 instances of demonstrably false stories planted in the press in the run up to the war, back in 2003. He was just on CNN:

CLANCY: Well, Colonel Gardiner, from what you're saying, it would seem like military men, then, might be cautioning, don't go ahead with this. But what are the signs that are out there right now? Is there any evidence of any movement in that direction?

GARDINER: Sure. Actually, Jim, I would say -- and this may shock some -- I think the decision has been made and military operations are under way. . .

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114504197724915416
[Digby] It's obvious to me that this call for Rumsfeld's resignation by six generals is about stopping this operation in Iran first and foremost. . .

How long will “war on terror” detainees be kept in secret US prisons without trial? Short answer: forever

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014560.html

More declassification trouble: what did Cheney tell Libby to leak?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7138.html
[Murray Waas] The previously unreported grand jury testimony is significant because only hours after Cheney reportedly instructed Libby to disclose information from the CIA report, Libby divulged to then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper that Plame was a CIA officer, and that she been involved in selecting her husband for the Niger mission.

[Kevin Drum] The implication of the third paragraph is that perhaps Cheney instructed Libby to leak Plame's identity at the same time he instructed him to leak the contents of the trip report. However, I'm not sure this makes sense, since the leak Waas is writing about happened on July 12, 2003, and Miller says Libby had already mentioned Plame's employment twice before that. I'm open to correction or clarification on this point, though. . . . In any case, the obvious question this raises is: Just how many reports did Cheney hastily "declassify" in order to get back at Wilson? Perhaps President Bush should direct his vice president to give us a full tally.

Data mining on a massive scale

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/13/us/nationalspecial3/13nsa.html
Mr. Klein and a few company documents he saved have emerged as key elements in a class-action lawsuit filed against AT&T on Jan. 31 by a civil liberties group, the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The suit accuses the company of helping the security agency invade its customers' privacy.

Mr. Klein's account and the documents provide new details about how the agency works with the private sector in intercepting communications for intelligence purposes.

The documents, some of which Mr. Klein had earlier provided to reporters, describe a mysterious room at the AT&T Internet and telephone hub in San Francisco where he worked. . .

Hey, waddya know? Brownie was right: it WAS mostly DHS’s fault

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/15/us/15katrina.html

More from DHS: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008219.php
[Josh Marshall] Thank God they're on the case! The Department of Homeland Security hasn't sent out any security "bulletins" on white supremacist organizations, whack-job militias, or violent anti-abortion groups. But they have prepared a new brand new security bulletin on how to protect yourself against animal rights groups and 'eco-terrorists'.

One form of eco-terror attack, according to the bulletin has eco-terrorists "sending continuous faxes in order to drain the ink supply from company fax machines." . . .

Abramoff: the gift that keeps on giving and giving

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/e-mails-demonstrate-that-mr-safavians.html

The New Hampshire phone-jamming scandal reaches the White House

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/13/AR2006041301673.html

Cheney’s tax refund: $1.9 million

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060414/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_income_taxes_6

The Republicans are desperate to distance themselves from their own racist, hateful immigration proposals. The latest plan: blame the Democrats

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_09.php#008221
The RNC is running Spanish-language ads against Harry Reid arguing that Democrats were behind the bill the House passed to treat illegal aliens as felons. . .

More lies: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_09.php#008224

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7139.html
Two days after congressional Republicans complained that Bush has been a no-show in the immigration debate, the president decided to mix it up a little bit by blaming Harry Reid . . .

The GOP’s brilliant new election strategy: the Dems can’t beat us on ideas or the issues, so they are relying on trivial irrelevancies, like corruption!

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_09.php#008216

Bonus item: I like it!

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2854

New slogans for the Democratic party (a sampler)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/4/14/25422/8445
“People are our only 'Special Interest.' "

"Working for millions of people, not millions of dollars."

"Government led by people who believe good government is possible."

"Common sense for the common good."

***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 @ 7:33 AM

 
WINNING ISSUES

How the Democrats should frame the Iran issue

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-scher/reframing-the-iran-debate_b_19041.html
[Bill Scher] How can we reframe the discussion? Our arguments should flow from the following framework. . . [read on]

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/04/index.html#009819
[Matt Yglesias] If liberals want to push this country's foreign policy in a better direction over the next five-to-ten years, we need to attack the whole network of ideas (including a non-trivial number of ideas whose origins are inside the Democratic coalition) that gave us the Iraq War and that threaten to give us the Iran War.

Bush's poor leadership skills have made and continue to make things worse than they might otherwise be, but the basic problems here are much bigger than the man himself.

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/04/index.html#009825
[Greg Sargent] So: Is there such a message? My first nomination would be one of John Avarosis's suggestions: "George Bush is the wrong man to be launching yet another war." His whole list is worth a read, but that one seems particularly potent. It dovetails with the incompetence argument, reminds voters of the Iraq fiasco and Bush's central role in creating it and promising easy victory, and raises the specter of Bush as reflexive warmonger, which could make voters less willing to listen to the White House's pro-war rationale. And recent polls -- including this eye-opening one -- suggest the electorate may be ready to question the wisdom of GOP militarism and the arguments undergirding it. Yes, yes, I know, Dems can't possibly win an argument about national security, right? But things change -- sometimes even for the better. Maybe GOP hegemony on these issues is coming to an end. And not a moment too soon.

More: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/here-is-democratic-message-on-iran.html

And don’t forget Iraq!

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2852
[AP] U.S. troops have sharply increased patrols in Baghdad since the spike in sectarian violence, a U.S. general said Thursday, raising questions about the capabilities of Iraqi forces. . . [read on]

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/34870/
[Rachel Neumann] I can't be the only one flabbergasted that the Bush administration would even think of invading Iran right now, when we've made such a bloody mess of Iraq and it's only getting bloodier each day. . . The news that 36 U.S. soldiers have been killed this month alone should put to final rest any administration claims that things are getting better. . .

In Iraq, they know what to call it: civil war

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0604140103apr14,1,1200285.story

Generals are LINING UP now for the chance to criticize Rumsfeld

http://www.slate.com/id/2139922
[Telis Demos] The New York Times leads with two new public calls for Rumsfeld's resignation by retired U.S. generals, bringing the total to six. Even more retired generals have anonymously expressed similar opinions in the past few days, according to the NYT. . .

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7127.html

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/04/sinking-to-new-lows-attacking-motives.html

http://billmon.org/archives/002384.html

The Pentagon’s secret police

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12290187/site/newsweek/

More: http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2006/04/rummys_secret_p.html

Yeah, they’re terrorists, but they’re OUR terrorists

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/US_outsourcing_special_operations_intelligence_gathering_0413.html

Another security-related Dubai deal

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/12/lawmaker_upset_by_silence_on_another_dubai_deal/

Fiscal mismanagement on a massive scale

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7132.html
[David Broder] One of the most important lasting legacies of the Bush years will no doubt be the astonishing debt he'll leave behind. . .

The Alternative Minimum Tax, the perfect metaphor for Bush domestic policy: dishonest, unfair, and ineffective

http://www.slate.com/id/2139778/fr/rss/

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/4/13/15249/2095

http://blogs.salon.com/0000014/2006/04/13.html#a1020

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114501054910408954

Plame: the return of Ari Fleischer

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014510.html

Retaking Congress

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/13/225836/192
[Georgia10] The GOP is weak, without message, out of ideas, and steeped in corruption. . . [read on]

The Goofus Files

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5756

Scotty always calls his replies to reporter questions “responses,” not “answers” (because they rarely answer the question). But increasingly, his “responses” don’t even relate to the question. Here’s an example

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5757
Q Does the President think that he can continue to conduct a war without end, without raising taxes, which money -- the cost of this war is expected to go up -- almost $2 trillion. Guns and butter, you cannot -- who is going to pay for this? . . .

MR. McCLELLAN: You bring up a good point. We are a nation at war, and that's why it's important that we keep our -- that we make sure we meet our priorities --

Q Who is paying for it?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's what I'm getting to. It's important that we meet our most important priorities during this time of war, and it's also important that we work extra hard to hold the line on spending elsewhere in the budget. . .

Q That will handle the cost of the war?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's absolutely critical to keeping our economy strong. Our economy is strong. The President talked about that earlier today. . .

Q You can have the guns and butter --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- many Democrats want to raise our taxes. And the President has pointed back to what they said a few years ago, when they said that tax cuts would do nothing to create jobs. Well, more than 5.1 million times, they have been proven -- they have been proven wrong.

And we are engaged in a global war on terrorism. And the cost of inaction is far higher -- we are laying the foundations of peace for generations to come. But we're going to make sure that our troops and our military has everything they need to complete the mission and do the job when it comes to prevailing in the war on terrorism. And that's why the President has outlined budgets that meet our most important priorities and hold the line on spending elsewhere.

The writers at the Washington Post editorial page don’t seem to read their own newspaper

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2860

Theocracy watch

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/3788245.html
DeLay recently told one of his pastors that God wanted him to leave Congress in part because He has bigger plans for DeLay. . . DeLay may be leaving Congress, but he will be back with a vengeance, in a new and potentially more powerful role, because he is a ferociously determined man who believes he is on a politico-religious mission from God.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7130.html
[Steve Benen] An elected lawmaker wants Congress to support a resolution that says all of us have an "irrefutable" trust in the "God of the Bible," and, more specifically, we've also always trusted the "Christian Deity." . . . I know it frustrates a lot of conservatives when liberals talk about the "Taliban wing of the Republican Party," but we'll stop using the phrase just as soon as these guys stop acting like they want to a establish a theocracy.

Bonus item: another reason to drop AOL service

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/4/13/165253/179

***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

 
PROVE IT

A new “pushback” approach on accusations of Iraq war lies? Scotty demands an APOLOGY for story saying Bush lied about “mobile bio weapon labs”

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/white-house-demands-media-apologize.html
[John Aravosis] Now that really takes chutzpah to demand an apology from the media for reporting the truth. . .

More: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/white-houses-latest-spin-on-bush-lying.html

Just one little problem there. . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7125.html
McClellan: And I think it's reckless reporting for ABC to go this morning and say that The Washington Post says that the President knew at the time what he was saying was not true.

Q: So was the President made aware of the fact –

McClellan: And are you all going to apologize?

Q: Was the President made aware of the faxed field report?

[NB: The one that said the mobile lab story was bogus]

McClellan: Are you all going to apologize for that?

Q: Was the President aware of the faxed field report? . . .

Q: Scott, was the President made aware of the field report that was faxed?. . .

Q: — President have access to material before it's declassified, so the question is, was he aware of this report on May 27th?

McClellan: I just told you — you shouldn't make any assumptions. . .

Q: You can tell us if the President had this information. Did he have this information?

McClellan: Jessica, this — I just saw this report. I'll come back with more information if there is. But this is reckless reporting.

Well, a couple more little problems. . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/12/143710/613
[Georgia10] It was President Bush who told us just two days ago that he declassified intelligence information because he "wanted people to see the truth and thought it made sense for people to see the truth." So I'm sure he will have no problem declassifying that 2003 field report so we can see the truth, right? Or does declassification to "set the record straight" apply solely to conspiracies to smear and discredit war critics?

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7123.html

Why won’t they declassify the field report? http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_09.php#008208
[Scotty] I think the CIA will tell you -- and I spoke to them earlier today -- that a finished product like this, a white paper like this, takes coordination, it takes debating, it takes vetting, and it's not something that they will tell you turns on a dime. It's a complex intelligence white paper and it's ... one derived from highly classified information takes a substantial amount of time to coordinate and to run through a declassification process. And they will tell you this. And the intelligence comes in many different forms -- human intelligence, signals intelligence, open source -- and it's not a trickle, it's a constant flood, is what they told me this morning. And weighing and assessing it is something that takes a lot of time and is a technology-intensive process.

[NB: Gee, you mean it’s a complex and time-consuming process to declassify something? Really? Now where did we get the impression that the President can just “instantly declassify” things whenever he wants?]

More: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060412_molly_ivins_weapons/

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_09.php#008212
[Josh Marshall] When did the administration let Congress in on the fact that those mobile weapons labs weren't bio-weapons labs at all and that we'd just been conned by some emigres on the make?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_09.php#008210
[Josh Marshall] I guess the folks at the Pentagon didn't get the Pentagon memo on the phony bio-labs either. . .

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114492680065598644
[Tristero] There's a lot of hoo-hah regarding the trailers found in northern Iraq and claimed as WMD labs by Bush during the spring of '03. Josh Marshall thinks the trailer stuff wasn't publicly debunked definitively until after July 17, 2003. Not quite. True, "administration heavies" kept on lying, but serious doubts surfaced in the American press about a week after Bush's lie, and the British press reported on a study a week after that. No reporters bothered to keep the story in the news or follow up with some hard questions. . . [read on!]

By the way, as long as Bush is inclined to release documents to “get the truth out,” how about these?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/12/165141/817
[Harry Reid] As long as the defense of "ongoing legal proceedings" is used by the White House to deny critical facts to public, the American people will not "see the truth" you pledged to provide. In fact, the White House strategy only raises further questions. For example, in addition to Mr. Libby, have you directed anyone else in your Administration to disclose classified information to reporters? Was any other highly classified data, beyond that contained in the National Intelligence Estimate, selectively leaked to reporters or other persons outside of your Administration, and if so, why? And, why did you tell the American people on October 13, 2003, that you "don't know of anybody in (your) administration who leaked classified information"?

These and other questions are best addressed by following the advice of the Republican Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who said that "there has to be a detailed explanation precisely as to what Vice President Cheney did, what the President said to him, and an explanation from the President as to what he said so that it can be evaluated." A good interim step, if you are unwilling to come forward now, would be for you and the Vice President to immediately release the transcripts of your interviews with investigators. Perhaps this would give the American people some insight into your motivations until you and the Vice President are prepared to speak openly to the American people.

Another war lie: Colin Powell on Dick Cheney

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008614.php
[Robert Scheer] I queried Powell at a reception following a talk he gave in Los Angeles on Monday. Pointing out that the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate showed that his State Department had gotten it right on the nonexistent Iraq nuclear threat, I asked why did the president ignore that wisdom in his stated case for the invasion?

“The CIA was pushing the aluminum tube argument heavily and Cheney went with that instead of what our guys wrote,” Powell said. And the Niger reference in Bush’s State of the Union speech? “That was a big mistake,” he said. “It should never have been in the speech. I didn’t need Wilson to tell me that there wasn’t a Niger connection. He didn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know. I never believed it.”

When I pressed further as to why the president played up the Iraq nuclear threat, Powell said it wasn’t the president: “That was all Cheney.”

Myth and reality on Iran

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/the-facts-about-irans-uranium-enrichment/
[Bloomberg] Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/13/world/middleeast/13iran.html
[NYT] Analysts Say a Nuclear Iran Is Years Away

More: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/washington-posts-fred-hiatt-fails-to.html

A Democratic response: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/here-is-democratic-message-on-iran.html

Iran/Iraq: Déjà vu all over again

http://billmon.org/archives/002379.html

http://billmon.org/archives/002380.html

Old news

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_04_09_atrios_archive.html#114485158944473530
[Atrios] Is it just me or has CNN just stopped talking about Iraq? There's talk about the politics of Iraq, but no actual news of what's going on there. Including, you know, more dead soldiers. . .

[NB: Well, why should they? It’s all so repetitive: another Shiite shrine bombed, more troops blown up, more civil war, a collapsing government. BORRRR-ring! Let’s cover NEW news, like a kid who wins a spelling bee or a goat born with two heads!]

What U.S. generals REALLY think about Donald Rumsfeld

http://www.slate.com/id/2139777/fr/rss/

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/12/AR2006041201114.html

The kind of people they are

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/12/AR2006041201905.html
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Wednesday called his 2004 decision not to recuse himself from a case involving Vice President Cheney, who is a friend of his, the "proudest thing" he has done on the court. . .

Bonus item: the traditional news media against the blogs

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/04/index.html#009814

***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 @ 8:24 AM

 
GOING DOWN

Another key part of the case for war in Iraq that they KNEW was a lie when they were spreading it

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_04_09_atrios_archive.html#114481175343562336

Why does Newt Gingrich hate America?

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/4/11/115351/394
So Newt Gingrich now comes out against the occupation of Iraq, saying that the last 34 months have been a mistake. . .

“Wild speculation”

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114477930524847497
[Bush] I know there is this kind of intense speculation that seems to be going on, a kind of a -- I don't know how you would describe it. It's kind of a churning. . .

[NB: Yep, Bush. . . . in August 2002, denying that war in Iraq was inevitable (even after they had already decided to do it). Sound familiar?]

The “idiocy” of attacking Iran (don’t read this if you are prone to suicidal depression)

http://billmon.org/archives/002375.html

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114483693983751628

The Plame leak, and other leaks

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114479063185238872

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/06/04/ana06020.html

http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2006/04/the_cheney_cons.php

http://www.ericumansky.com/2006/04/plugging_away_a.html

An excellent question: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/question-for-bush.html

Background: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/14311374.htm

Where the Plame case is headed

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/11/13548/1053

Polls: can it get any worse?

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_04_09_atrios_archive.html#114476918579625633

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/accept-it-hes-amazingly-unpopular.html

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/004012.html
[Charlie Cook] The continuing gloomy numbers in national polls have raised the question of whether President Bush's problems, and by extension, his party's, have not only jelled but have hardened. . .

45% support Bush censure (do they still think this is an idea from the hairbrained Far Left?)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/10/AR2006041000259_2.html

63%!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/11/11343/0488
Gallup: 63% Believe Bush Acted Illegally Or Unethically

Man, the Republicans are getting CREAMED over this immigration issue. Could they have handled it any worse?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101643.html

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604110002

GOP also going down in flames over Abramoff ties

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5746

The Goofus Files

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5743

Joe Klein, the house “liberal” over at Time magazine

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12251928/#Time
[Eric Alterman] That is right up until the very last moment when, after someone brought up the question of the whether the Democrats will be able to present an effective alternative to Bush in the next election, Joe Klein shouted out, “Well they won’t if their message is that they hate America—which is what has been the message of the liberal wing of the party for the past twenty years.”. . .

Bonus item: Boo!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/12/12046/5862

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/washington-post-whitewashes-story.html

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/11/here-we-go-again/

***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 @ 7:34 AM

 
YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH

Getting “the truth” out

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/ap-prints-bushs-spin-on-libby-leak.html
[AP] President Bush said Monday that he declassified sensitive prewar intelligence on Iraq back in 2003 to counter critics who claimed the administration had exaggerated the nuclear threat posed by Saddam Hussein. . . "I wanted people to see the truth and thought it made sense for people to see the truth," Bush said . . .

[John Aravosis] Okay, and do you think it might be relevant to include in the AP story the fact that the information that Bush leaked in order to supposedly "spread the truth" was in fact information that had already been proven wrong months BEFORE Bush authorized it to be leaked? . . . In other words, Bush wasn't spreading the truth, he was intentionally spreading lies. . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7104.html
[Steve Benen] Bush now believes it "made sense for people to see the truth"? Does he even know what the truth is?

http://www.alternet.org/story/34752/
[Elizabeth de la Vega] There's really just one question the media should be asking about the President's involvement in the CIA leak affair . . .

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/11/83341/0919

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/10/AR2006041001049.html

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/04/bushs-catch-22.html

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/004009.html

They need to be called on this

http://www.slate.com/id/2139668/
[Eric Umansky] Dana Milbank wraps up a presidential chat with some grad students yesterday. When one student asked about the leak investigation, Bush answered, "Yes, no, I, this is, there's an ongoing legal proceeding which precludes me from talking a lot about the case." The answer, writes Milbank, "neatly encapsulated the White House's response to the CIA leak imbroglio: No comment and non sequitur."

Milbank is onto something. Of course, the White House has been talking about the leak; they're just only offering their side of the story and not allowing their names to be used when they do. Take the "senior administration official," apparently speaking with their boss's permission, who tried to explain to yesterday's NYT how the president was not really involved. So, perhaps the Times and others' leak stories should quit simply repeating the wink-and-a-nod, rote explanations for anonymity, such as, "The official declined to be named, because of an administration policy of not commenting on issues now in court."

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/04/10/BL2006041000588.html

Well, isn’t this new “frank and candid” George Bush a refreshing change? Here’s how he responds to a simple, factual question at his latest event (don’t miss it)

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/10.html#a7868
Q Thank you, Mr. President. It's an honor to have you here. I'm a first-year student in South Asia studies. My question is in regards to private military contractors. Uniform Code of Military Justice does not apply to these contractors in Iraq. I asked your Secretary of Defense a couple months ago what law governs their actions. . .

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/04/03/BL2006040300708.html
[Dan Froomkin] So "let Bush be Bush" appears to be the new rallying cry at the White House. But if this is the "real" President Bush then who has the answers to our questions? Because folksy bantering Bush is as fundamentally unforthcoming as his old scripted self. . .

“Wild speculation” on Iran?

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5729

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114473908377335866

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7101.html

http://blogs.salon.com/0000014/2006/04/10.html#a1015
[Scott Rosenberg] Meanwhile, the White House calls the talk "wild speculation" -- a phrase that will ring a bell for those with memories longer than, say, a few months, since the same term was used in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Josh Marshall makes the obvious but necessary case that Bush's credibility is utterly, irremediably shot on this matter.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/04/11/BL2006041100453.html
[Howard Kurtz] So President Bush says these stories about contingency plans to bomb Iran are just "wild speculation."

In other words, they are not authorized leaks. . .

NH phone jamming scandal now linked directly to WH

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/4/11/1335/03255
In 2002, high-level Republican operative James Tobin, working with the New Hampshire Republican Party, hired a phone-banking company to crash the phones of the state's Democrats and Manchester's firefighters' union while both groups were working on get-out-the-vote efforts. . .

More: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060410/ap_on_go_pr_wh/election_phone_jamming

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000336.php

Alberto Gonzales, while refusing to answer questions directly, has been hinting pretty consistently that there are other domestic spying programs underway that also violate current laws

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/11/opinion/11tue2.html

Massive immigration protests, coast to coast

http://www.slate.com/id/2139668

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/on-immigration-public-hates-bush-and.html

Ha ha ha

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2006/04/rude-question-was-commerce-secretary.html
The Rude Pundit does not have an answer to this question: When Secretary of Commerce and former CEO of Kellogg's Carlos Gutierrez was a young boy, were he and his family in the United States illegally during the early 1960s? . . .

Another Bush war ally voted out?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/11/world/11cnd-italy.html

The Goofus Files

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5728

Lobbyists unhappy that their contributions to DeLay’s re-election campaign are now being used as defense funds (Don’t they KNOW the man?)

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/04/index.html#009789

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7098.html

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Some_DeLaylinked_lobbyists_want_their_money_0410.html

The Washington Post versus the Washington Post: nicely done

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604100008

Bonus item: phony blogger “Grandma in Iraq” turns out to be a military PR spokeswoman

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5735

***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 @ 9:04 AM

 
DAMAGE CONTROL

The Washington Post plants a big wet smooch on Bush’s posterior

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800895.html
PRESIDENT BUSH was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. Presidents are authorized to declassify sensitive material, and the public benefits when they do. But the administration handled the release clumsily, exposing Mr. Bush to the hyperbolic charges of misconduct and hypocrisy that Democrats are leveling.

Rather than follow the usual declassification procedures and then invite reporters to a briefing -- as the White House eventually did -- Vice President Cheney initially chose to be secretive, ordering his chief of staff at the time, I. Lewis Libby, to leak the information to a favorite New York Times reporter. The full public disclosure followed 10 days later. There was nothing illegal or even particularly unusual about that; nor is this presidentially authorized leak necessarily comparable to other, unauthorized disclosures that the president believes, rightly or wrongly, compromise national security. Nevertheless, Mr. Cheney's tactics make Mr. Bush look foolish for having subsequently denounced a different leak in the same controversy and vowing to "get to the bottom" of it. . .

[NB: This is, of course, an absurdly credulous recounting of events. The actual reason why the current Bush/Cheney excuses appear “clumsy” or “look foolish” is because they are completely untrue and do not fit the facts. This post facto reconstruction of events is not how (or why) things actually happened]

More comment: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/editor-publisher-destroys-washington.html
[E&P] No wonder the Post, in today’s editorial, calls Wilson’s trip to Niger “absurdly over-examined.” This is what people say when they want to change the subject instead of having to renew an indefensible position. The Post's editorial page has been wrong from the start on Iraq so we must at least applaud its consistency. . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_09.php#008176
[Josh Marshall] the Washington Post's editorial page has skidded outside the boundaries of journalistic legitimacy on any number of issues but most glaringly on our involvement in the Middle East. Today's editorial on the Bush-Cheney-Libby leak of classified portions of the Iraq National Intelligence Estimate is a case in point.

One might simply say that presidents play hardball; and they play politics. And President Bush or his untethered vice president played hardball against a prominent critic by releasing information the law allowed them to release. And get over it. Politics, like life, isn't fair. And if you swipe at the president, expect to get hit back.

You may not agree with that. But it's an opinion. And it contains an uncomfortably large element of fact.

But the authors of this editorial don't appear to read the news pages of their own paper or their best competitors. The clock has simply run out on any attempt to claim the president and his key advisors weren't acting in bad faith with their constant advocacy of an alleged traffic in uranium between Iraq and Niger. It's over.

As consistent reporting both from within the executive branch and the intelligence agencies has shown, the only reason this canard ever caught any life outside the vice president's office was not because of its credibility but rather its irrelevancy. By the time Libby came to leak more information about it months after the war, it had been still further discredited within the administration.

The Post also sticks to the up-is-down claim that Wilson's trip to Niger supported rather than undermined the Niger-uranium claim. That is a viewpoint that can only be maintained if you are willfully ignorant of the backstory to the Niger canard. Wilson's report didn't add a lot to what most in the intelligence community already thought about the pretended Niger story. But that was because it tended to confirm the reasons why most in the intelligence community didn't find the story credible in the first place.

For whatever reason, the Post has chosen to throw in its lot with the flurry of mendacious rhetoric and the white-washed investigations, all of which amount to a grand pen and paper and word game truss barely holding together the body of official lies that is still barely governing the capital.

They've made their deal with power. They should justify it on those grounds rather than choosing to mislead their readers.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/9/183753/9094
[Georgia10] Reading today's Washington Post editorial, I had to double check to see if they cropped the RNC logo off of the press release before publication. Throwing facts to the wind (including investigations by its own reporters) the editorial board calls the selective leaking of classified information as "a good leak" meant to counter Ambassador Wilson's "twisting of the truth." . . .

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/9/114828/4742

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/09/does-fred-hiatt-even-read-the-washington-post/

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114463145961982539

Better

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-04-09-edit-cia-bush_x.htm
[USAT] President Bush's quest to muzzle leakers in his administration has always looked a bit odd. In the most charitable interpretation, it's a naïve waste of time and resources. Leaks are part of every administration, and Bush's claims that national security has been undermined appear dubious at best.

In a less forgiving light, the effort can be cast as a Nixonesque attempt to intimidate anyone who dares interfere with administration policy by disclosing facts that it is hiding. Among the leaks that angered Bush most have been disclosures that the administration was engaging in wiretaps without court approval and that someone in the administration leaked the identity of a CIA operative.

The latest news from the leak front, if true, just makes the whole effort look foolish.

After two unproductive years, the federal investigation into the 2003 leak of the operative's identity has finally come full circle to wound the instigator of the probe himself — the president.

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's top aide before being indicted in the leak probe in October, pointed the finger at Bush in grand jury testimony, according to an account filed last week by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. Libby testified that in the summer of 2003, Cheney told him that Bush had personally approved disclosing parts of the classified National Intelligence Estimate — though not the operative's name — to bolster one of the administration's key claims for going to war — Iraq was trying to buy uranium to produce nuclear weapons. That, like the administration's other rationales for war, proved false.

Presidents can and do declassify such data, and 10 days after Libby's disclosure, that's precisely what Bush did, giving the public information it had a right to know. But first, the White House cherry-picked pieces to prop up its case and leaked them to a favored reporter.

There's nothing unusual about the White House spinning facts to make itself look good. But leaking classified information, then decrying other leaks and sending prosecutors to hunt down the leakers just underscores the absurdity of the entire exercise.

The White House has neither confirmed nor denied Libby's claims. Instead, it noted Friday that the president is authorized to declassify information whereas others are not, which is true but off-point.

Just about everyone touched by this CIA leak investigation looks bad, including now the president.

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003997.html
[Laura Rozen] If you make a big show of being against leaks, and have taken to threatening news organizations for publishing leaks, and your credibility has become a major issue, on a subject as important as a war, you probably don't want to get caught personally authorizing a leak of distorted classified information to a news organization. Especially if you are the President of the United States. But now he's been caught. And I don't think when he's been caught with his hand so very deep in the cookie jar like that, that there's much he and his handlers can do to stop the continued erosion in his credibility with the American public. People were at first wondering if Bush was in a bubble, then thought he was incompetent, and now they can see plainly that the president is a phoney and a hypocrite, who has actively misled the public on several occasions. And Bush now has a real problem, because when he opens his mouth, whether on Iraq or terrorism or the economy or warrantless domestic spying, it's hard to imagine that much of the public would be terribly inclined to believe him -- or trust his judgment. (Can you still picture the ads of Bush's father mouthing the words "no new taxes"? Now we have W as the poster child for the leaker in chief who condemns leaks. Hypocrisy is something people understand). Two words this administration can't say again: trust me. That trust between the public and this administration has been broken.

A hint of a new line of defense

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/washington/10leak.html
A senior administration official confirmed for the first time on Sunday that President Bush had ordered the declassification of parts of a prewar intelligence report on Iraq in an effort to rebut critics who said the administration had exaggerated the nuclear threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

But the official said that Mr. Bush did not designate Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., or anyone else, to release the information to reporters. . .

[NB: Poor George, ill-served by his minions . . .]

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7094.html
[Steve Benen] The NYT added that this line of argument suggests Bush had a "peripheral role" in the release of classified information. He engaged in a little automatic declassification, but didn't order anyone to leak materials to the media. The Times said this new argument characterizes Bush as "uninformed" about the leak scheme, including the fact an effort was underway to "dispatch Mr. Libby to discuss the estimate with reporters."

The implication of the article is that this is all Cheney's fault. Libby got the go-ahead from the VP on leaking, Libby initially balked, and Cheney told him it was all kosher because Bush gave the green light. Under this scenario, however, Bush was out of the loop — he declassified Iraq intelligence, but had no idea his VP and top aides would run around leaking the information.

At a minimum, I give the White House bonus points for creativity. . .

More: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/bush-official-leaking-or-lying-to-spin.html

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5726

A pardon to come?

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003996.html
[LAT] The special prosecutor signaled in his court filing last week that he intended to call several former Bush aides as witnesses against Libby, including former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer — raising the specter of court proceedings that could lay bare the inner workings of the White House.

"I can't imagine this case going to trial," [former Reagan era prosecutor Joseph E.] DiGenova said. "You'll see a pardon first."

A memo we all need to see

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008587.php
[Kevin Drum] In other words, well before the 2003 State of the Union Address, when George Bush stated unequivocally that "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," his own intelligence experts had told him unequivocally and in writing that the story was bogus. . .

A new low

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=1825264
President Bush's job approval rating is at a career low in this latest ABC News/Washington Post poll amid continued broad public skepticism about the Iraq war. . .

A party in denial

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/09/AR2006040900107.html
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said Bush was correct in declassifying the information because the administration believed that Wilson, in his statements in July 2003, had "gone public with half of the story." Kyl, who believes Britain had intelligence about Iraq seeking uranium from Niger that the United States could not confirm, said the administration had mishandled the matter.

[NB: Gee, sounds just like the Washington Post, doesn’t he?]

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114462485854785706
[Digby] So William Kristol has reluctantly come to the conclusion that Fitzgerald is on a partisan witch hunt . . .

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7095.html

Arlen Specter (R-PA) firmly straddles the fence

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7096.html

How Bush and Rumsfeld have ruined our military

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA040806.17A.retention_bump.12f4345e.html
The Army expects to be short 2,500 captains and majors this year, with the number rising to 3,300 in 2007. These officers are the Army's seed corn, the people who 10 years from now should be leading battalions and brigades.

"We're ruining an Army that took us 30 years to build," Republican maverick Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., told a group of reporters at a recent conference. . .

***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 @ 9:23 AM

 
“GET IT OUT”

I complain often about lazy, craven news coverage by the mainstream media, but today they have really done their jobs: story after story that unravel the Bush gang’s strategy of leaking and lying to sell their war plan (and to punish their opponents)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800916.html
As he drew back the curtain this week on the evidence against Vice President Cheney's former top aide, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald for the first time described a "concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" -- using classified information -- to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" a critic of President Bush's war in Iraq. . .

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060409/D8GS7G7G3.html
President Bush declassified sensitive intelligence in 2003 and authorized its public disclosure to rebut Iraq war critics, but he did not specifically direct that Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, be the one to disseminate the information, an attorney knowledgeable about the case said Saturday.

Bush merely instructed Cheney to "get it out" and left the details to him, said the lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case for the White House. The vice president chose Libby and communicated the president's wishes to his then-top aide, the lawyer said.

It is not known when the conversation between Bush and Cheney took place. The White House has declined to provide the date when the president used his authority to declassify the portions of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. . .

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014503.html
[Loven] also points out the timing discrepancies in the declassification. There were two: the instant declassification by Bush and Cheney, and then the official one on July 18. Libby leaked to Miller on July 8. He also leaked to Bob Woodward in June.

Bush and Cheney are staying mum as to when the instant declassification took place.

More: http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/4/8/212742/5802

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003994.html

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114453820914478656

They weren’t just leaking classified information, but information they KNEW was false and misleading

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/washington/09leak.html
President Bush's apparent order authorizing a senior White House official to reveal to a reporter previously classified intelligence about Saddam Hussein's efforts to obtain uranium came as the information was already being discredited by several other officials in the administration, interviews and documents from the time show. . .

According to Mr. Fitzgerald's motion, Mr. Libby testified that he was directed by Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush to describe the uranium allegations to Ms. Miller of The Times as a "key judgment" of the National Intelligence Estimate. Citing intelligence as a "key judgment" in such estimates carries great weight with policy makers, because the reports are meant to highlight the most important and solid judgments of the government's intelligence agencies. . . In fact, the estimate's key judgments, which were officially declassified 10 days after Mr. Libby's meeting with Ms. Miller, say nothing about the uranium allegations. . .

More: http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003995.html

Part of a pattern. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800916.html
But according to Libby's grand jury testimony, described for the first time in legal papers filed this week, Cheney "specifically directed" Libby in late June or early July 2003 to pass information to reporters from two classified CIA documents: an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and a March 2002 summary of Wilson's visit to Niger. . . One striking feature of that decision -- unremarked until now, in part because Fitzgerald did not mention it -- is that the evidence Cheney and Libby selected to share with reporters had been disproved months before. . .

More: http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28690

http://makeashorterlink.com/?V2EA52EEC

The Leaker in Chief

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LEAK_POLITICS
President Bush insists a president "better mean what he says." Those words could return to haunt him.

After long denouncing leaks of all kinds, Bush is confronted with a statement - unchallenged by his aides - that he authorized a leak of classified material to undermine an Iraq war critic.

The allegation in the CIA leak case threatens the credibility of a president already falling in the polls, and it gives Democrats fresh material to accuse him of hypocrisy.

"In politics, what gets bad gets worse," said GOP strategist Ed Rogers. "And we've been on a a bad roll for quite some time. We're in an environment now where every mistake is a metaphor."

Critics were quick to portray the Bush-leak report as a fresh sign of a failed Iraq policy, manipulated intelligence and a lack of presidential veracity. Honesty was once seen by Americans as one of Bush's strongest character traits, but polls show that perception has waned in Bush's second term.

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/valerie_plame_/2006/04/secrets_and_lies.php
Tom Maguire makes a point which he correctly says is obvious: when George W. Bush says that he's against leaks of classified information, he means that he's against the revelation of information that might damage him politically.

And what light does this scandal cast on the issue of warrantless domestic spying?

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003991.html
[Laura Rozen] Knowing what we now know as hard fact about how petty and politicized the White House national security operation is, how the President and Vice President themselves authorized the leaking of classified information for purely partisan political purposes and self protection, to counteract a critic, it is hard when reading articles like this to ignore the past evidence that they lack the self-discipline, the self-restraint to limit their oversightless, warrantless domestic spying from targeting their perceived political enemies. When have they shown the self-restraint not to? As we now know as fact, when they've had the chance to play dirty with intelligence, they've done it, and then lied and dissembled about it. What evidence is there to conclude this time is different?

More: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/04/reductio-ad-dictatorem.html

In Iraq. . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/8/125226/0916
[BBC] "Iraq has actually been in an undeclared civil war for the past 12 months," Deputy Interior Minister Hussein Ali Kamal told the BBC's Arabic Service. . . [read on]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/world/middleeast/09report.html
An internal staff report by the United States Embassy and the military command in Baghdad provides a sobering province-by-province snapshot of Iraq's political, economic and security situation, rating the overall stability of 6 of the 18 provinces "serious" and one "critical." The report is a counterpoint to some recent upbeat public statements by top American politicians and military officials.

Next up: Iran?!?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040801082.html
The Bush administration is studying options for military strikes against Iran as part of a broader strategy of coercive diplomacy to pressure Tehran to abandon its alleged nuclear development program, according to U.S. officials and independent analysts. . . Although a land invasion is not contemplated, military officers are weighing alternatives ranging from a limited airstrike aimed at key nuclear sites, to a more extensive bombing campaign designed to destroy an array of military and political targets.

Preparations for confrontation with Iran underscore how the issue has vaulted to the front of President Bush's agenda even as he struggles with a relentless war in next-door Iraq. Bush views Tehran as a serious menace that must be dealt with before his presidency ends. . .

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/wash-post-bush-wants-to-deal-with-iran.html
[Joe] Because the invasion of Iraq was such a stunning success, the failure that is our President is now going to take care of Iran before he leaves office. . .

But wait, there’s more!

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact
The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Curren and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups . . .

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”. . .

In recent weeks, the President has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of Congress, including at least one Democrat [NB: Joe Lieberman?]. A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues, told me that there had been “no formal briefings,” because “they’re reluctant to brief the minority. They’re doing the Senate, somewhat selectively.”. . . “There’s no pressure from Congress” not to take military action, the House member added. “The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it.” Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, “The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.”. . .

One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. . .

More: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/seymour-hersh-bush-already-decided-on.html

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114453623718306417

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003992.html

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7093.html

Polls, polls, polls

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/bushs-popularity-has-been-dropping.html
[John Aravosis] Something I've been noticing for a while, but I haven't seen mentioned much, is that Bush's popularity has been steadily dropping from the day he got elected. Every day he's been president is another day the American people like George Bush less and less. . .

Check out the Gallup poll results (via Slate) of Bush's popularity from 2000 to today. There has been a steady decline in his popularity from day one.

There have been a few major spikes in the positive direction, mostly when Bush declared war in Afghanistan and then again in Iraq. But shortly thereafter, each time, his popularity started to sink again. Just look at the chart, it's been one steady decline since election day 2000. That's bad. Real bad. And it's a point the media has missed.

Bush is not just an unpopular president, he's been an increasingly unpopular president from day one. The more the public knows about this man, the more they dislike him. Period.

Meanwhile, over in Congress. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040801031.html
The Tom DeLay era is ending much as it began. An entrenched majority, battered by ethical scandals involving its top leaders, is running what many see as a politically polarized and profligate House of Representatives.

What is most remarkable, according to more than a dozen GOP lawmakers and aides, is that it took a little more than a decade for DeLay and House Republicans to succumb to many practices they railed against in the 1990s. . .

Bonus item: Scotty’s Newspeak dictionary

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7092.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 @ 8:52 AM

 
SPLITTING HAIRS

A really interesting development in the Plame/classified leak scandal. Rather than respond to the latest round of questions with denials, “no comment,” “won’t discuss an ongoing investigation,” etc., on THIS issue they have decided to embrace their inner leaker and openly acknowledge and defend the fact that Bush did in fact authorize the leak of classified information (“for the public good,” don’t you know). As you will see, this embroils them in making a number of tendentious, tortured distinctions (like, “It’s different when the President does it”).

This may prove a suicidal strategy – because now they have to answer at least three pretty sticky questions:

1. In what way was an all-out attack on Joe Wilson (and his wife) a defense of the public good?

2. If Bush authorized the leak and the information was for the public good, why didn’t he or one of his spokesmen report the information in an open briefing? Why was the method of dissemination to get a second-level staffer to sneak it sub rosa to a friendly NYT reporter?

3. If Bush authorized the leak and there was nothing wrong with it, why did he spend months condemning leakers and vowing to get to the bottom of who did it? He knew who did it, and why. Why not just say so?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008576.php
[Kevin Drum] Did George Bush authorize Scooter Libby to disclose classified information to the New York Times in 2003, as Libby alleges? Oddly enough, it turns out the White House isn't denying it. . . So Bush did know about the leak, and he did authorize it. What's more, his excuse is a simple one: he wanted to defend himself against attacks on his war policy, so it was OK.

That's exactly what happened, but it's remarkable that he's willing to admit it. Basically, Bush is saying that it's all right for him to selectively leak classified information whenever he feels it would help him politically.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114443153130096794
[Digby] Scotty is having a fit trying to make a distinction between the president leaking classified information and the NSA whistleblowers leaking classified information by saying that the first leak was in the public interest and the second harmed national security. He's getting very hot under the collar trying to make that case. Clearly, they are very worried about this and they should be.

Here's the problem. The president pretended that he was disturbed by the leaks in the Plame case and said he wanted the perpetrator to come forward. Now we find out that he was personally authorizing the leak for political purposes. Scotty can call it "in the public interest" but everyone knows it was in the political interest of the president. . . [read on]

Watch Scotty squirm: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060407-3.html
Q Back when the NIE was released on July 18, 2003, you were asked that day when that had been actually declassified. And you said in that gaggle that it had been declassified that day. And if that's the case, then when the information was passed on to the reporter 10 days earlier, then it was still classified at that time.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you're referring -- a couple of things. First of all, it was publicly released that day, so that's when a portion of the National Intelligence Estimate that we were making available to the public was released. The second part of your question is referring to an ongoing legal proceeding, and referring to a filing in that legal proceeding. We have had a policy in place, going back to the October time period of 2003, that we are not going to comment on an ongoing investigation or an ongoing legal proceeding. That policy remains unchanged.

But let me point out a couple of facts, step back from this legal proceeding. The President of the United States has the authority to declassify information. I also indicated to some reporters earlier today that the President would never authorize the disclosure of information that he felt could compromise our nation's security. . .

Q I understand the reason why you thought it needed to be declassified, because of the debate at the time. The question was, when was it declassified. And you were asked that day, when -- the question was, "When was it actually declassified?" And you said, "It was officially declassified today."

If it had been officially declassified on July 18, 2003, then 10 days before, when the information was given out, it was still classified at the time. . .

MR. McCLELLAN: -- that was when it was publicly released at the time. I haven't looked back at exactly what was said at that time.

Q Well, let's be really clear about this. It says right here on July 18th, "When was it actually declassified?" Mr. McClellan, answer, "It was officially declassified today." Is that correct?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're asking me to get into the timing. I'm not backing away from anything that was said previously -- that's when the document was released, so that's when it officially --

Q They don't say "released." They say "declassify."

MR. McCLELLAN: I know, Jim. Let me tell you. That's when it was officially released. So I think that's what I was referring to at the time. I'd have to go back and look at the specific comments, but I'm not changing anything that was said previously, so let me make that clear. . .

Q Can I just -- one more here. In terms of releasing information and leaks, you know the President has been highly critical of people who leak --

MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely.

Q -- not just classified material. He has said in the fall of 2003, "I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks." Now, whether the argument from the administration is he declassified this, so it wasn't classified information -- I know you're not going the get to the legal issues here -- but he has criticized people who leak, not just classified information. And there were clearly leaks coming out of this White House --

MR. McCLELLAN: What was the context of my comments -- about leaking of classified information, I believe.

Q He was asked about leaking classified information, but the President said, "I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks." Not just classified information. He says "particularly leaks."

MR. McCLELLAN: The President believes the leaking of classified information is a very serious matter. And I think that's why it's important to draw a distinction here. Declassifying information and providing it to the public, when it is in the public interest, is one thing. But leaking classified information that could compromise our national security is something that is very serious. And there is a distinction. . .

Q Scott, can I follow on that for a second. Because in December of 2003, to follow on this, he says, "If there's a leak out of the administration, I want to know who it is." Now, is there a question -- we're not talking about legality here -- while he's saying that, according to the court filing -- which I know you can't get into the specifics of -- but as he's saying it, he certainly is aware who would have allowed the information to be disseminated. So, at best, isn't the statement "If there's a leak out of the administration, I want to know who it is" -- at best, isn't that just inconsistent, if not misleading?

MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely not. That's referring to the leaking of classified information.

Q Only the leaking of classified information. He doesn't --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that in the context of what that question was responding to --

Q So what about if it's a political? And if it's in political -- if there's a political purpose to it, then it's fine?

MR. McCLELLAN: If it's in the public interest, it's another matter. And the National Intelligence Estimate was declassified because it was in the public interest to provide portions of that National Intelligence Estimate to the American people. . .

Q I understand that. My only question is --

MR. McCLELLAN: And this information, too -- and another distinction. This was pre-war intelligence we're talking about. So it was historical context that was being provided, not information that could compromise our nation's security.

Q My only question is looking ahead, when he then says, "I want to know who the leaker" was -- doesn't he know, since he authorized the disclosure of the information? . . .

Can I just go back to this original statement that the President said about, "I constantly express my displeasure with leaks, particularly leaks of classified information" -- leaving the impression he doesn't like any leaks. Can you give us an idea how the President feels about leaking information, since if this information --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think we have to draw distinctions here, and what specifically you're referring to. I mean, if people are going out there talking about a potential policy decision-making process that is still in development and that the President hasn't come to a decision on, then that's not helpful information, and of course we'd look down on something like that.

Q But otherwise, if it's helpful to you and it's declassified, leaks are okay?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, if it's in the public interest.

Q Leaks are okay?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I didn't say that. What I'm saying is that the issue here is the National Intelligence Estimate --

Q No, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about leaks.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and the declassifying of the National Intelligence Estimate.

Q I'm talking about a statement the President made in the fall of 2003.

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to try to draw a broad conclusion, or make a broad statement. If you've got specific instances you want to refer to --

Q No, you seem to be saying it's bad to leak classified information that will hurt the country --

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me give you a specific instance --

Q -- but it's not bad to leak declassified. . .

Short version: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_02.php#008158
Bush's leaks of classified information in national interest, non-Bush leaks hurt America.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_02.php#008159
[Josh Marshall] Sitting here watching the McClellan early afternoon briefing. Here's another question. The White House argument is that President made a decision that such-and-such information needed to be heard by the American people. McClellan just said it was "provided to the American people." But he didn't provide it to the American people. He provided it to Judy Miller. Legal or not, it was by definition a 'leak' since it was revealed anonymously to a single reporter. How does that wash? What is the rationale? . .

http://www.slate.com/id/2139583/
[Andrew Rice] Scott McClellan, Bush's perennially embattled press secretary, actually avoided using the L-word to describe what his boss did, arguing that the president couldn't improperly disclose classified information since once he discloses it, it's considered declassified. He drew a distinction between the kind of disclosure Bush authorized—releasing intelligence about Iraq's prewar weapons programs in an attempt to defuse criticism—which McClellan said was "in the public interest," and revelations that "could compromise our national security," such as reports about the existence of a domestic wiretapping program that is probably illegal. Critics questioned whether Bush was confusing the public interest with his political health.

More on Scotty: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/04/07/leak_gaggle/index.html

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7086.html
If McClellan wasn't ready to quit before. . .

A hard sell

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114445285942607512
[Digby] If it was a legitimate disclosure of sensitive information in the public interest, why didn't the president just call a press conference? Why all the cloak and dagger stuff?

http://www.slate.com/id/2139469/
[John Dickerson] It's one thing to declassify information; it's another thing to present information to a reporter as though it were classified to preserve the shadow authenticity that comes with a leak. Bush wanted to have the information out there but not have to account for it or explain it.

All presidents engage in this hypocrisy, but Bush has made it Texas-sized by putting on such a show about leaks during his time in office. He's done everything short of forming a Department of Anti-Leaking.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/04/07/BL2006040700544.html
[Howard Kurtz] So I thought George W. Bush was against leaks.

And that he was especially against leaks of classified information.

"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," the president said a couple of years ago.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_02.php#008151
Bush: When I do it, it's not a leak.

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/04/index.html#009755
[WP] A senior administration official, speaking on background because White House policy prohibits comment on an active investigation, said Bush sees a distinction between leaks and what he is alleged to have done. . .

[Greg Sargent] In other words, a leak isn't really a leak. Or it isn't really a leak when President Bush authorizes it. Or it isn't really a leak when President Bush is caught authorizing it. Or something.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7085.html
[ABC] But a senior administration official insisted to ABC News. . . "By definition, the president cannot leak"

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7084.html
[Steve Benen] Let's take a moment to consider the landscape. Bush authorized leaking part of the NIE, to help push a bogus claim about Iraq's aluminum tubes. The president did so, not because of "the public interest," but because he thought it would be to his political advantage. He then proceeded to denounce leaks of any kind and pretend he had no idea who in his White House could possibly be involved with such an insidious practice.

And the best defense the White House can come up with is to admit that all of this happened, but a) Bush is literally incapable of leaking classified information because he's the president; and b) the leaks are justifiable because Bush had a war to sell.

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/07/what-has-the-president-declassified-and-why-did-he-leak-it/
[Christy Hardin Smith] What else has been selectively declassified for public manipulation purposes?

How many times has the Bush Administration used its declassification power for their own, personal political gain — how many times have they lied to the public by omitting the whole truth? How many media-planted lies have then been used by Administration officials in public interviews as justifications for their actions? Did Condi know when she was prattling on about mushroom clouds that she was flat out lying to the public?. . .

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003986.html
[Andrew Sullivan] This is an interesting insight into the president's character. It simply shows his willingness to use the prerogatives of his office as the guardian of our national security to play political hardball against opponents. It shows a conscious capacity to mislead people by selectively disclosing data that skews - for a while - the public's understanding of the facts. It proves that this president is capable of deliberately misleading the American people as a gambit in a Beltway spat, or even just to keep ahead of the news cycle. It wasn't Karl Rove's dirty tricks or David Addington's Schmittian ideology or Dick Cheney's "dark side" here. It's George W. Bush -hard-assed political fighter, micro-managing press coverage of a minor matter, using the privileges of his constitutional position as commander-in-chief to play Washington hardball at a time of war. This is what we know. And it helps round out the picture of who this man is, doesn't it?

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014496.html
Knights Ridder reporters say that Bush/Cheney's authorization to Scooter Libby to declassify and divulge classified information about Iraq "fits a pattern of selective leaks of secret intelligence to further the administration's political agenda." . . .

K-R: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/14291966.htm
The revelation that President Bush authorized former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to divulge classified information about Iraq fits a pattern of selective leaks of secret intelligence to further the administration's political agenda.

Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other top officials have reacted angrily at unauthorized leaks, such as the exposure of a domestic wiretapping program and a network of secret CIA prisons, both of which are now the subject of far-reaching investigations.

But secret information that supports their policies, particularly about the Iraq war, has surfaced everywhere from the U.N. Security Council to major newspapers and magazines. Much of the information that the administration leaked or declassified, however, has proved to be incomplete, exaggerated, incorrect or fabricated.

More: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/406719p-344359c.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/08/washington/08assess.html

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2006/04/07/libby_case/index.html

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/04/index.html#009757

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/04/index.html#009773

Did Bush lie to Fitzgerald?

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/040706.html
Despite Bush’s deceptive public pronouncements, the more important legal question is what Bush told Fitzgerald when the President submitted to a 70-minute interview – not under oath – on June 24, 2004. . .

Bush never disclosed that he himself had a hand in planting information to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson for accusing the administration of having “twisted” the pre-war intelligence to justify invading Iraq. . .

If Bush misled the prosecutor about authorizing Libby to brief a reporter, then Bush himself could be open to charges of making false statements or obstructing justice, potential felonies and possibly impeachable offenses.

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/7/12164/54548

Bush’s blue dress

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7080.html

More on Bush’s outrageous claim that he can declassify material simply by telling people to go leak it whenever it suits his political interests

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_02.php#008157
[Josh Marshall] It's not too soon to start calling this for what it is: the Bush administration's creeping monarchism. . .

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7076.html

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7077.html

Jason Leopold (consume with caution)

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040606Y.shtml
The officials, some of whom are attorneys close to the case, added that more than two dozen emails that the vice president's office said it recently discovered and handed over to leak investigators in February show that President Bush was kept up to date about the circumstances surrounding the effort to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

The sources indicated that the leak probe is now winding down, and that soon, new information will emerge from the special counsel's office that will prove President Bush had prior knowledge of the White House campaign to discredit Plame Wilson's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who accused the administration of "twisting" intelligence on the Iraqi threat in order to win public support for the war.

Oh, and by the way. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/07/AR2006040700190.html
The revelation of former White House official I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's involvement in authorized disclosures of sensitive intelligence information does not undermine Libby's contention that he innocently forgot about conversations he may have had with reporters regarding covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, Libby's attorney said yesterday. . .

Libby’s still hanging out at the White House?!?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/is-indicted-scooter-libby-still.html

You think something hasn’t shifted?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/military-lawyer-says-rumsfeld-messed.html
[Reuters] Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his appointees set rules that violate President George W. Bush's order to hold fair trials for prisoners charged with terrorism in the Guantanamo tribunals, a military defense lawyer said on Friday.

"We can't help it that the secretary of defense and his delegees (sic) have messed this thing up, but they have," military lawyer Army Maj. Tom Fleener told the presiding officer at one of the hearings.

"If the rules don't provide for a full and fair trial, then they violate the president's order."

Immigration bill may be D.O.A. – and that’s a good thing

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014497.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060407/ap_on_go_co/immigration

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/04/index.html#009767

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/immigration_/2006/04/why_guest_workers.php

John McCain (now that he’s a national candidate) no longer likes his own McCain-Feingold campaign finance law

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/john-mccains-gutting-of-campaign.html

The bottom is falling out

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/4/7/181428/2768
[Jonathan Singer] There was a point last month at which it appeared President Bush had arrested his fall in the polls. Though still stuck in the high 30s or low 40s, the White House could at least claim that the bleeding had stopped. No longer.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_04_02_atrios_archive.html#114441404361432555
[AP] By a 49-33 margin, the public favors Democrats over Republicans when asked which party should control Congress.

That 16-point Democratic advantage is the largest the party has enjoyed in AP-Ipsos polling.

On an issue the GOP has dominated for decades, Republicans are now locked in a tie with Democrats - 41 percent each - on the question of which party people trust to protect the country. Democrats made their biggest national security gains among young men, according to the AP-Ipsos poll, which had a 3 percentage point margin of error.

The public gives Democrats a slight edge on what party would best handle Iraq, a reversal from Election Day 2004.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/7/125551/3410
[MSNBC] "These numbers are scary. We've lost every advantage we've ever had," GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio said. "The good news is Democrats don't have much of a plan. The bad news is they may not need one."

Bonus item: Quote of the day

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/broder-takes-swipe-woodward.html
[WP] Clearwater, Fla.: What is your opinion about Bob Woodward's comments last year about the Valerie Plame case. . . When "all of the facts come out in this case, it's going to be laughable because the consequences are not that great."

[NB: Woodward knew about the Plame story but sat on it to protect his access to WH sources]

David S. Broder: Subsequent events do not appear to be supporting that forecast.

***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 @ 6:20 AM

 
BIG TROUBLE

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/06/AR2006040600333.html
A former top aide to Vice President Cheney told a federal grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA agent's identity that President Bush authorized him to disclose classified intelligence information about Iraq as a way of rebutting criticism from the agent's husband, according to court papers filed by prosecutors. . . The document says Libby "testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller on that occasion because it was thought that the NIE was 'pretty definitive' against what Ambassador Wilson had said and that the Vice President thought that it was 'very important' for the key judgments of the NIE to come out. Defendant further testified that he at first advised the Vice President that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE. Defendant testified that the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/6/13131/93233
[CNN] Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on information and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

[Georgia10] The testimony is being picked apart throughout the blogosphere. Did the President personally authorize the selected release of classified information meant to manipulate public opinion about Iraq? Or did Cheney lie? If Cheney corroborates Scooter Libby's story, he implicates the President. If he denies it, he calls his former Chief of Staff a liar.

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/washington/06cnd-leak.html

Extensive analysis: http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0406nj1.htm

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/04/something-doesnt-add-up-here.html

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/007296.php

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/06/bush-authorized-libby-nie-release-to-press/

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/04/06/libby_party_two/index.html

Here's the gist of what is going on, I think: Libby wants a pardon, and this is a shot across the bow of what will happen if he doesn't get it.

But he and his lawyers are playing fast and loose with 2 different things here.

We always knew that the Bush gang was selectively leaking classified information wherever and whenever they thought it would help buttress their case for going to war. I'm sure this was a coordinated (and approved) program, authorized by Bush, Cheney, or both. But this has nothing to do (a) with the Plame leak, which was surely NOT authorized and (b) with the charges of PERJURY and deceiving investigators, which is what Libby is charged with. So even if all the leaks were hunky dory to begin with, he lied about them and that is why he is in trouble now.

http://www.juancole.com/2006/04/bush-leaker-in-chief-bush-as-johnson.html
[Juan Cole] David Corn had speculated that Libby would graymail the government to stop his prosecution, by demanding all sorts of classified information that the Bush administration would not want to turn over. But I'd say that Libby has gone from graymail a step further to blackmail. He has signalled that he is not going down by himself, is not going to be a good soldier, and will drag Bush himself down with him if he can. . . I predicted this "every man for himself" scenario last November. It seemed to me that the loyal thing to have done would have been to plead guilty, take three years of jail, and then have Bush pardon Libby just as he was going out of office. Libby is loyal to no one but himself, obviously. . . [more]

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2816
[Fubar] Libby has decided to take the nuclear option. . . On the surface you might think that this shuts down the case. Hey, he had authorization. From the top, no less. But consider that a) he made this statement before his indictment to the grand jury and that b) Fitzgerald went ahead and indicted him anyway. For those just tuning in: Libby was not indicted on leaking secrets but on lying to the grand jury. So he could have just as easily been lying about the whole "Bush authorized me via Cheney" thing. But far more importantly, unless Bush authorized him to lie to the grand jury, even Libby producing a signed authorization form from God almighty should not make a whit of difference in the perjury case. . . I'm no legal strategist but this sure looks like a flash grenade -- a lot of bang and a lot of smoke but not much real damage -- designed to defer attention from the fact that Libby's on trial for lying to the grand jury not revealing state secrets, or being a partisan hack, or even committing treason (all counts which -- knowing what we know now and if this had been the Clinton era -- would have been thrown at him with the specific gravity of a pretty solid law book).

This also raises the interesting metaphysical question of when and how the President can declassify information and allow its release. (It's not clear if the VP can, although there was that story a while back that Cheney got granted similar "executive" powers.) Of course, there is a formal procedure for doing so. But if Bush can declassify something just on his say-so, then they can say he WASN’T ordering the leak of classified information, since the moment he orders it to be leaked, it becomes no longer classified (a neat trick).

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008143.php
[Josh Marshall] Here's a key question that comes up in regards to the president's alleged ability to make a classified leak not a classified leak just by virtue of giving it the thumbs up. . .

Even with the president, there are procedures he needs to go through. He probably needs to make a finding and I would assume sign some document. Set that aside though. What we appear to have here in the Libby case is a one-off declassification. The president didn't really declassify anything. He authorized Libby to show classified material to Judy Miller or whomever else.

Here's the way to find out. After the president authorized Libby, did anyone else in the government know that the Iraq NIE was no longer classified? Was there any change in the NIE's official status?

Late Update: Okay, Paul Kiel found the part of the new court papers that answers part of the question. This was a declassification that only President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Scooter Libby were allowed to know about.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_04_02_atrios_archive.html#114435406557446566
[Atrios] It's probably reasonable that the president can declassify whatever he wants, or at least I haven't really seen an especially strong argument to the contrary, but that doesn't mean that the president can declassify stuff, show it to Judy Miller, and then turn around claim the stuff is still classified. That's where this argument falls apart.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/libby-bush-told-me-to-leak-classified.html
[John Aravosis] And Bush himself is directly responsible for leaking classified informationt to - whom? - why REPORTERS! The very people who Bush now has the Justice Department investigating for receiving leaks of classified information regarding secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe.

So, Bush authorized leaks of classified information to reporters, yet he's investigating people in his administration for leaking classified information to reporters. It's good to be king.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008572.php
[Kevin Drum] I'd just like to highlight the following timeline from 2003:

1 July 8: Based on Addington's assurances, Libby discloses information from a classified 2002 National Intelligence Estimate to Miller. This information helps Libby make the case that Joseph Wilson was wrong to say that Iraq wasn't seeking uranium from Africa before the war.

2 July 11: Time reporter Matthew Cooper speaks with Karl Rove. Rove assured him that "material was going to be declassified in the coming days that would cast doubt on Wilson's mission and his findings." Rove is almost certainly talking about the NIE here.

3 July 18: The NIE is officially declassified.

So: Cheney and Bush and Addington all supposedly believed they could declassify the NIE on Bush's say-so, but for some reason they continued with the normal declassification process anyway. In fact, "Defendant testified in the grand jury that he understood that even in the days following his conversation with Ms. Miller, other key officials — including Cabinet level officials — were not made aware of the earlier declassification even as those officials were pressed to carry out a declassification of the NIE." It was just a private little declassification between the three of them that even Karl Rove didn't know about.

Needless to say, this doesn't make sense. Documents are either declassified or they're not, and the president can either declassify them with a mere verbal flick of his wrist or he can't. Which is it?

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_04_02_atrios_archive.html#114436871883161625
[Atrios] Whatever the legal issues, the president bypassed normal declassification procedures - put in place to ensure that revealing information does not threaten national security - in order to wage a political battle. Whether strictly legal or not, it's an act of a man who puts himself above the country.

What the declassification law requires: http://wilsonhellie.typepad.com/for_the_record/2006/04/what_does_order.html

And then there’s this. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/06/AR2006040602062.html
[Michael Fletcher] Until now, the investigation had been about aides to Bush and their alleged efforts to attack the credibility of a vocal administration critic, including by possibly leaking classified information. Bush cast himself as a disinterested observer, eager to resolve the case and hold those responsible accountable. . .

http://www.slate.com/id/2139511
[Eric Umansky] In any case, Libby said a White House lawyer had assured him before he leaked that the leak wasn't really one, since if the president ordered it that amounted to declassification, a notion legal experts backed up. But Bush has long portrayed himself as an anti-leak purist. "I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks, particularly leaks of classified information," he once said regarding Plame. "If there's a leak out of the administration, I want to know who it is."

A "senior White House official," speaking anonymously because s/he can, patiently explained to the Post that there's a difference between what Bush did and a leak: "The official said Bush authorized the release of the classified information to assure the public of his rationale for war as it was coming under increasing scrutiny.”

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003975.html
[Laura Rozen] If Libby was "authorized" to leak the classified NIE to selected reporters, by Cheney who allegedly got the OK from Bush, why wasn't the White House response to the Fitzgerald investigation: We authorized this leak?

Why did they act like it was not authorized at all? Why did they deny Libby and Rove's involvement? Why did they spend months obfuscating about who might have been involved?

Why the cover up?. . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_02.php#008150
[Josh Marshall] Here's a question. If I understand this right, Scooter Libby has sworn under oath that Vice President Cheney told him that President Bush had authorized him to disclose classified information.

Let's set aside the whole question of whether the president can do that or whether there's a specific procedure he has to follow. Just set that issue aside.

If it isn't true that Vice President Cheney told him that, then Vice President Cheney must know that Libby has again perjured himself. I would think the Vice President has an affirmative duty to come forward and say that Libby's testimony is false.

I just overheard Jeff Toobin on CNN saying that the White House will probably be able to squelch this story simply by 'no commenting' it. But can we not fairly draw the inference from Cheney's silence that he did in fact tell Libby this?

By a slightly looser logic -- and one in which sworn testimony doesn't come into play in the same fashion -- doesn't President Bush's silence tell us that Cheney was telling the truth?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7074.html
[Steve Benen] The White House's claim is, not surprisingly, that if the president leaks something, it's no longer classified. Bush, in other words, is one-man declassification machine.

The argument is odd, but even if it's taken at face value, it's worth noting the way in which the new revelations conflict with the president's own previous comments on leaks.

As Faiz noted, the president has repeatedly suggested that he disapproves of leaking classified information and didn't have any knowledge on the leaks coming from his administration.

There's just too many leaks, and if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is." [Bush, 9/30/03]

"I want to know the truth…. I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is, partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers." [Fox News, 10/8/03]

"I'd like to know if somebody in my White House did leak sensitive information." [Bush, 10/28/03]

In addition, this was also a memorable exchange, from October 2003:

Q: Mr. President, how confident are you the investigation will find the leaker in the CIA case?

Bush: . . . Randy, you tell me, how many sources have you had that's leaked information that you've exposed or have been exposed? Probably none. I mean this town is a — is a town full of people who like to leak information. And I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials. I don't have any idea. I'd like to. I want to know the truth.

More: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002313561

Chutzpah

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/06/libby-pressured-mcclellan/
Scooter Libby “implored White House officials to have a public statement issued exonerating him” even though “had in fact played in disclosing Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment.”

More: http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003980.html

Finally, is this all laying the groundwork for a pardon because Libby was “acting under orders” (even though his orders did not extend to outing Plame and then lying about it to investigators and the grand jury)? Will this all get buried into another morass of Bush’s claims of expansive war powers, and neglecting the issues of illegality? It’s up to the news coverage, isn’t it?

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/06/press-corps-fails
[Judd] When the White House press corps had an opportunity this morning to ask Press Secretary Scott McClellan questions, they didn’t ask him about it. At 9:30AM, on route to Bush’s speech in North Carolina, reporters asked McClellan about immigration, terrorism, Katrina and Iran. But there wasn’t a single question about President Bush authorizing Scooter Libby to share highly classified information with reporters.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604060005
CNN's David Ensor, reporting on the revelation that President Bush "authorized" the disclosure of classified portions of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate pertaining to Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction, simply asserted without elaboration that unnamed "experts" say Bush's actions were "legal," and that the president has "the right" to declassify such information. Similarly, Fox News' Brit Hume said that both Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney "have the legal authority under an executive order signed by the president to make public classified information. So that takes the unauthorized out of it." Neither Ensor nor Hume challenged the notion that the president has the authority to leak classified information, questioned whether Bush -- assuming he has that authority -- properly declassified the information, or made any effort to explore the ramifications of the president's exercise of that alleged authority.

The pundits respond

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114435699111849023
[Bill Schneider, CNN (bellweather of mainstream conventional wisdom)] I think is it very damaging for the president to be seen here to have come out after his political enemies by authorizing -- no crime -- by authorizing the leak of classified information from the National Intelligence Estimate.

Again, we don't know what classified information that was, it's only described in the special prosecutor's report as certain information, key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate, relevant portions that were aimed at discrediting the published views of Ambassador Wilson, who criticized the administration's intelligence-gathering efforts.

He was out to get his political enemy, to discredit Joe Wilson. And he did it by authorizing intelligence information to be leaked. I think most Americans would say that's a very dangerous and very foolish thing to do. . . [read on]

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003985.html
Slate's John Dickerson: "We've found the leaker in the White House! It's the president." . . . [read on]

Haw

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Ranking_Democrat_on_House_Intelligence_Committee_0406.html
Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. . . "If the disclosure is true, it's breathtaking. The President is revealed as the Leaker-in-Chief.”

And isn’t this a lovely day for Alberto Gonzales to tell Congress that, despite the Bush gang’s earlier claims that warrantless spying was “carefully limited to direct contacts between people in the US and known Al Qaeda associates outside the US” (uh-huh) – if Bush wanted to order widespread domestic spying, he could do that too

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/06/AR2006040600764.html
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales today left open the possibility that President Bush could order warrantless wiretaps on telephone calls occurring solely within the United States, dramatically expanding the potential reach of the National Security Agency's controversial surveillance program.

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003977.html
[Laura Rozen] The NPR reporter covering the House Judiciary committee hearing today on the NSA warrantless domestic eavesdropping program just reported that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales indicated pretty clearly that the program the president has described as the "terrorist surveillance system" is not the only such surveillance program of US persons and specifically, is not the program that caused such consternation inside the Justice Department. Then he said he couldn't tell them any more. More here:

. . . The attorney general acknowledged that there had been disagreement about the monitoring inside the administration. But he took issue with published reports that detailed some of those disputes.

"They did not relate to the program the president disclosed," he said. "They related to something else and I can't get into that."

“The simmering frog” http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008575.php

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/6/195710/6690

More from Gonzales

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003983.html
[NY Sun] At a previously scheduled oversight hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, two Democratic congressmen from New York, Jerrold Nadler and Anthony Weiner, interrogated Attorney General Gonzales about Mr. Bush's authority to order the release of classified information.

"Is the president covered under the same law that you and I are?" Mr.Weiner asked.

"No, he's not," Mr. Gonzales replied. "I think the president has the inherent authority to decide who, in fact, should have classified information. And if the president decided that a person needed the information, that he could have that information shared."

"Can he do it for political reasons?" Mr. Nadler asked.

"The president has the constitutional authority to make the decision as to what is in the national interest of the country," Mr. Gonzales answered.

Mr. Weiner said the defense reminded him of President Nixon's explanations of his conduct during Watergate. "Your answer seems to be when the president does it, that means it is not illegal. That is exactly what President Richard Nixon said," the congressman said.

In Iraq, more Keystone Kops

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/world/middleeast/06iraq.html
A top adviser to Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said Wednesday that the visit this week by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of Britain had backfired, prolonging a deadlock over a new government and strengthening Mr. Jaafari's resolve to keep his post.

"Pressure from outside is not helping to speed up any solution," said the adviser, Haider al-Abadi. "All it's doing is hardening the position of people who are supporting Jaafari."

He added, "They shouldn't have come to Baghdad."

His comments were echoed by several political leaders on Wednesday, including Kurds and Sunni Arabs.

The Goofus Files

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5702

McCain undermines the campaign finance requirements of the “McCain-Feingold” bill

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/mccain-agress-to-gut-campaign-finance.html

DeLay dispatches goon squad to disrupt Democrat’s campaign event: photos

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/6/17227/40399

Bonus item: Bush gets an unscripted audience question!

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7075.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 @ 7:03 AM

 
TRY ANYTHING

Whatever it is the Bush gang thinks they’re doing in Iraq, it isn’t working

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/04/index.html#009718
The latest Iraq policy gambit has the US and UK getting behind efforts to remove Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jafari from office and replace him with someone presumably more congenial to Kurdish and Sunni Arab opinion. . .

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2811
[AP] Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari says he is refusing to abandon his bid for a second term to break the deadlock over a new government, and more than 1,000 of his supporters called Wednesday for an end to "U.S. interference" in Iraqi politics. . .

More: http://www.juancole.com/2006/04/21-killed-dozens-wounded-jaafari.html

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114431472091219732

Amateur hour

http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2006/04/karen_hughes_vi.html
[Heather Hurlburt] Last week, Karen Hughes gave an interview on National Public Radio's Morning Edition in which she described two "discoveries:" one, that much negative foreign opinion is driven by perceptions of the US role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; and two, that Americans and foreigners must stand in separate lines in airport immigration, and that the process as a whole is not very "welcoming."

I guess I should be pleased that she is open-minded enough to learn on the job. . . not everyone is. . .

What we elected them for

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7062.html
[NYT] The first data to document the effect of President Bush's tax cuts for investment income show that they have significantly lowered the tax burden on the richest Americans . . .

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/04/nsa-endgame.html
NSA endgame
[Anonymous Liberal] In theory, Congress could re-assert its powers by making life very difficult for the president. It could threaten impeachment. It could hold the executive branch hostage by withholding funding for key initiatives. But there's simply no way that Congress is going to take these measures. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/05/AR2006040501902.html
The House approved campaign finance legislation last night that would benefit Republicans by placing strict caps on contributions to nonprofit committees that spent heavily in the last election [NB: which helped the Democrats] while removing limits on political parties' spending coordinated with candidates. . . [NB: which helps the Republicans]. . .

http://www.slate.com/id/2139451
[Eric Umansky] The Los Angeles Times leads with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist endorsing a "compromise" immigration bill. . . As the LAT details, Frist blocked a vote on more liberal legislation that had been sponsored by Sens. McCain and Kennedy. In the bill now endorsed by Frist—more lenient than what he had originally supported—illegal immigrants who've been in the country for between two and five years would have to cross over the border again but could come back and get visas along with a chance at citizenship. Anybody becoming a citizen would need to pay a fine and back taxes, prove their work history, and learn English. Those here less than two years would be SOL. Anyway, the deal is far from done. Support for it is still shaky in the Senate. And if it passes there, it would still have to be reconciled with the harsher version passed by the House. . .

A litany of GOP corruption: quite a list

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/6/6530/13927

The kind of people they are

http://www.channelcincinnati.com/politics/8466260/detail.html?taf=cin
U.S. Rep. Jean Schmidt can't seem to outrun controversy. . . The freshman congresswoman is facing a complaint about the truthfulness of her education and her endorsements. . .

http://www.tampatrib.com/MGBEOW9PLLE.html
Changing locks on her campaign headquarters and accusing her staff of disloyalty and her own party of spying on her are signs of erratic behavior that some Katherine Harris staff members say has worsened since her father's death. . .

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/politics/14271801.htm
The Democratic challenger [Joe Sestak] to Rep. Curt Weldon said Wednesday that any criticism of his family's decisions on medical treatment for his 4-year-old daughter, stricken with a malignant brain tumor, was unacceptable. . . A story published Wednesday in The Hill said Weldon, R-Pa., suggested in an interview that Sestak should have sent his daughter to a hospital in Philadelphia or Delaware instead of one in Washington.

More: http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Campaign/040506_sestak.html

John McCain sucking up shamelessly to the Right, but you know what? They don’t really believe him

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/04/05/how_conservatives_hope_to_derail_mccain.html

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7061.html

Pentagon investigates its own illegal domestic spying, tells us “oops!”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/05/AR2006040501423_pf.html
The Pentagon said on Wednesday a review launched after revelations that it had collected data on U.S. peace activists found that roughly 260 entries in a classified database of possible terrorist threats should not have been kept there.

But the review reaffirmed the value of the so-called Talon reporting system on potential threats to Pentagon personnel or facilities by international terrorists, said Bryan Whitman, a senior Pentagon spokesman. He said the Pentagon was putting in place new safeguards and oversight intended to prevent improper information from going in the database. . .

Benzene???!!?? Why the hell do we even HAVE an FDA any more?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/little-benzene-with-your-soda.html

The Goofus Files

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5690

More fake news

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/business/media/06video.html

Mainstream media keep ripping off blogs, without acknowledgment

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/04/index.html#009733

Bonus item: poor Scotty

http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060404fege01
[Michael Wolff] The briefing room exists, frozen in amber, in another time. The moment is somewhere after Richard Nixon tried to accommodate—and control—the burgeoning press corps by converting F.D.R.'s pool house, sauna, rubdown rooms, and dog kennel into press offices and a small auditorium (it's still, basically, a pool house, with a door that flaps open directly onto the White House lawn, allowing in gusts of hot or cold air). And somewhere well before the advent of personal computers and the digital age (there is no Wi-Fi in the briefing room).

A kind of daily Socratic dialogue, or at least an attempt at one, continues to take place in the briefing room in a method of inquiry initiated by Joseph Tumulty, Woodrow Wilson's primary aide and, effectively, the nation's first press secretary: a ritual Q&A that leads to both what the White House wants you to know and away from what it doesn't want you to know. Only, now the dialogue is led by something of a knuckleheaded Socrates, each day struggling and failing to talk his way out of a paper bag.

It's this verbal haplessness that has made Scott McClellan—a pleasant, low-wattage, old-before-his-time young fellow, with, at 38, a wife, no children, and "two dogs and four cats"—the living symbol of this White House's profound and, perhaps, mortal problem with language and meaning. McClellan himself, as though having some terrible social disability, has, standing miserably in the press briefing room every day, become a kick-me archetype. He's Piggy in Lord of the Flies: a living victim, whose reason for being is, apparently, to shoulder public ridicule and pain (or, come to think of it, he's Squealer from Animal Farm). He's the person nobody would ever choose to be. . .

Case in point: http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5688

***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 @ 7:34 AM

 
ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIER

DeLay begins his next career: spokesman for the theocracy

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7050.html
[Steve Benen] The man who's been up to his ears in political corruption and ethical transgressions throughout his political career seems to believe that it's not his lawyers who'll get him through the next several months; it's his faith. And he's milking it for all it's worth. . .

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/04/04/delay-to-pat-robertson-i_n_18455.html
Later on CBN with Pat Robertson, DeLay talked about how he'd thought long and hard and fasted for spiritual help in making his decision. . .

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114417395089222628
DeLay: I made a speech last week, and that pretty much cinched it for me. A good friend of mine, Dr. Rick Scarborough, who started—and I urged him, and we've worked together over the years—an organization called Vision America, which is out recruiting pastors to get involved in the political arena. He asked me to come speak. He was having a conference on the war on Christianity. So I made a speech on Wednesday. It was covered by C-Span and, frankly, a bunch of cameras. I felt very good, very free about giving that speech. The reaction was incredible—just an outpouring of love and support from the audience. It was probably the one single event that convinced me: I can DO this. I could keep fighting for the things I believe in, outside of Congress. . . My main point was that this country was built on morals and religion. Our greatest leaders were very strong believers. There is a connection between religion and politics, and religion and government. There has to be for this country to have accomplished all it's accomplished and for its future. How many times have the great leaders—Ronald Reagan, Roosevelt, Lincoln, George Washington—have said there is a connection between morals and religion. And there has to be. The people that go to church understand that a country has to be based on some sort of religion and fear of God because they understand that.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7047.html
[Steve Benen] Last week, at the bizarre "War on Christians" conference, pastor Rick Scarborough presented Tom DeLay as a martyr, compared DeLay to Jesus, and designated DeLay God's official lawmaker. . .

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008552.php
[Kevin Drum] In an effort to buck up Tom DeLay's spirits last week, Christian Right leader Rick Scarborough assured DeLay that he was nothing less than a martyr to the conservative cause. "God always does his best work right after a crucifixion," he said, and DeLay himself seems to agree. Last year he told the Family Research Council last year that attacks on him were actually "a huge, nationwide, concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in." . . .

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114418387008028162
[Tristero] There is so much money to be had in the rightwing christianist racket, and so much potential for power trips and money scams that it would be a miracle - a genuine miracle - if DeLay doesn't reinvent himself as the Second Coming of Chuck Colson.

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/04/index.html#009701
[Sam Rosenfeld] DeLay goes on to indicate that it will be these Christian right causes he'll be championing the most out of office. It's rather hard to imagine a money man like DeLay focusing solely on social conservative activism in retirement, though the man is born-again and these activists were certainly the last ones standing with him as the heat came down last year.

More: http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=63493

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114419132709593091

The rehabilitation of a shameless liar

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040400787.html
[FOX] DELAY: I know that the left has used it to try to brand me with guilty by association, but I have always served, I think, honorably and ethically. I've never broken a law nor the spirit of the law nor a House rule. In fact, I'm the most investigated man in Washington and they still have not been able to charge me with anything because there is nothing there.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7042.html
[Steve Benen] I've seen several news outlets note today that Tom DeLay has been rebuked "three times" by the House Ethics Committee for improper conduct. That's just not so. . . Tom DeLay has been admonished by the House Ethics Committee five times. . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_02.php#008119
[Josh Marshall] [A] main reason for DeLay to stay in the race this long was to raise legal fees under the guise of raising money to run a political campaign. . .

More, more more: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/04/deposing-ronnie-earle/

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114416957007332267

Don’t try this at home

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_02.php#008109
[Josh Marshall] Can DeLay change his residency from Texas to Virginia while he's currently out on bond and set to stand trial in Texas? Apparently so.

Awful press coverage

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008115.php
Hmmm. Just watched Candy Crowley doing her sum-upper on Tom DeLay. And to hear her tell it, the K Streeters just came to Tom after he got all the power. They just sort of importuned him, almost took advantage of him. Maybe she hasn't heard of the K Street Project.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/04/taking-over-k-street/
DeLay is especially proud of the K-Street Project, the pay-to-play system where the success of lobbyists would be dictated not by how compelling a case they could make, but rather by how willing they would be to line the pockets of DeLay and his colleagues. . .

More: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_02.php#008110

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003964.html

Republicans want to claim that now that DeLay is gone the GOP corruption issue is over

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_02.php#008106

Don’t bet on it: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/5/63049/84027

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/04/05/is_a_political_storm_coming.html

Annals of great post-war planning

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401626.html
Democracy In Iraq Not A Priority in U.S. Budget

Uncovering the real Plame cover-up

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014463.html

Homeland Security press secretary, online predator

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114421888406127065

The Goofus files

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5672

The devolution of John McCain

http://www.topplebush.com/oped2650.shtml

http://www.topplebush.com/oped2637.shtml

More: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_02.php#008121

Charlie Cook on “Crashing the Gates”: advice for Democrats

http://nationaljournal.com/cook.htm

Is it working? http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1179973,00.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 @ 7:14 AM

 
WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY

Tom DeLay drops out of race for re-election, will quit House soon

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/04/washington/04delay.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/03/AR2006040301787.html

Of course, he can’t even do this honestly

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_04_02_atrios_archive.html#114411895032601068
[Time] He said he will change his legal residence to his condominium in Alexandria, Va., from his modest two-story home on a golf course here in the 22nd District of Texas. "I become ineligible to run for election if I'm not a resident of the state of Texas," he said, turning election law to his purposes for perhaps on last time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/04/washington/04delay.html
In an interview Monday night, Richard Cullen, Mr. DeLay's principal criminal defense lawyer, said that his client had been pondering a withdrawal from the race for some time and that "it had nothing to do with any criminal investigation.". . .

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/04/03/delay_blog/index.html
[Farhad Manjoo] To the Galveston News, DeLay admitted one regret -- that other people had not lived up to his high expectations. "I regret having people on my staff who I trusted who have disappointed me," DeLay said. (Two former DeLay associates, Tony Rudy and Michael Scanlon, have pleaded guilty in the corruption scandal connected to lobbyist Jack Abramoff.). . .

http://blogs.salon.com/0000014/2006/04/03.html#a1007
[Scott Rosenberg] DeLay makes the usual noises about how he's doing it for the good of his party. Time says: "He decided last Wednesday, after months of prayer and contemplation, to spare his suburban Houston district the mudfest to come.". . . Oh, come on. Tom DeLay has never been one to shun a mudfest. He lives for the mudfest. Le mudfest, c'est DeLay. . .

More lies:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1179857,00.html

The real reasons

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/14250359.htm
The latest plea deal in the GOP lobbying corruption scandal has moved the investigation to Rep. Tom DeLay's inner circle, congressional insiders said. . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008100.php
[Josh Marshall] DeLay's lawyers must have sat him down over the last 72 hours and explained to him that he needs to focus on not spending most of the rest of his life in prison.

http://www.slate.com/id/2139231
[Eric Umansky] In another plus for DeLay pulling out now, he can take all the cash from his campaign war-chest and drop it into his defense fund, which as the Post notes has so far been "financed largely by corporations with business before Congress.". . .

What next for his House seat?

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/04/04/delay_short_faq/index.html

Where did it all go wrong?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/03/AR2006040302184.html

Where are all those Republican defenders now?

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_04_02_atrios_archive.html#114412015684301266
[Hugh Hewett, September 2005] A Texas prosecutor with a history of abuse of his office, Ronnie Earle, has indicted Tom DeLay. Earle is a sort of Jim Garrison without the integrity. Soon to follow: Giant MSM coverage, show trial, acquittal and exoneration, DeLay's return to Majority Leader for another 20 years.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114412775144236851
[March 2005] Conservative leaders are crafting plans to launch a public campaign to defend House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas). . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_04_02.php#008101
[Josh Marshall] So DeLay is out. But it's DeLay's House. DeLay's Republican DC machine. They built and fortified it with the money he brought in. The great majority of them voted for the "DeLay Rule" custom tailored for Majority Leader DeLay to avoid stepping down even after indictment. The current Republican membership of the House ethics committee was hand-picked to provide protection for DeLay and the old membership was purged. He's their guy. Their rule rests on his machine. They can run but they can't hide. . .

Supreme Court ducks Padilla case

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/03/us/03cnd-scotus.html

More: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014451.html

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/supreme-court-avoids-dealing-with.html

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7037.html
On the other hand, as the indispensable Lyle Denniston explained, the high court did not close the door altogether. . .

Where was Justice John Paul Stevens? http://billmon.org/archives/002369.html

“Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it”

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/3/143621/3020

More: http://ahistoricality.blogspot.com/2006/03/ahistoricality-alert-rumsfelds.html

http://ahistoricality.blogspot.com/2006/04/response-on-rumsfelds-ahistoricality.html

More WH changes (except the people who really need to go)

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/04/03/bush_shakeup_to_continue.html
Presidential press secretary Scott McClellan and Treasury Secretary John Snow "could be next in a shake-up in the Bush administration," CNN reports. "The possible departure of both men could be among 'several senior-level staff' announcements to come within the next couple of week." . . . Said one insider: "You're going to have more change than you expect."

Scotty? http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5661

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7034.html

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5666

If Rove leaves, then you know they’re expecting an indictment (and it could be)

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014453.html
Jason Leopold breaks more news in the Valerie Plame investigation, confirming John Hannah cooperated early with Fitz and rolled on Libby and Rove. He also writes that Fitz is close to presenting an Indictment to the grand jury for Karl Rove. . .

More: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040306Z.shtml

Confirmation? http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001326.php

“A man of no talent whatsoever”

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/man-of-no-talent-whatsoever.html
[Joe] The New York Times profiles Bill Frist...poor Bill Frist. He wants to be President, but his current job is hard work. Frist is basically a puppet for Bush and Rove. The whole piece paints a picture of a hapless, pathetic, failed Majority Leader. The most accurate assessment was from beltway insider Charlie Cook: "The most classic case of the Peter Principle I've ever seen in American politics," Mr. Cook said, in an uncharacteristically brutal assessment. "In a business where eloquence and rhetoric is important, he is a man of no talent whatsoever."

Republicans abandoning Bush wholesale

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/REPUBLICAN_ANGST
From Iraq to deficits, from immigration to port security, some of the most pointed criticism leveled at President Bush is coming from within his own party. Republicans these days are almost sounding like perennially divided Democrats.

The rising GOP angst stems from Bush's deep slump in the polls and the growing unpopularity of the Iraq war.

But it also reflects a political reawakening as Republicans follow their own political interests in this midterm election year and as would-be 2008 presidential contenders seek ways to set themselves apart - from each other and from Bush.

"It's open season on him. George Bush has lost trust on too many issues," said presidential historian Thomas E. Cronin of Colorado College. "We saw it happen with Johnson, we saw it with Nixon.

“Let Bush be Bush”

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7039.html

[NB: I say, “right on.” This is just what got them into this situation]

GOP accomplishments in 2006? Zilch

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/02/AR2006040200721.html

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/03/30/DI2006033000904.html

Democrats, marking time

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/4/3/183958/3937

Harry Reid slams GOP

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008545.php
[US News] Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, makes no bones about disliking most of his GOP colleagues. "Republicans in the Senate," he says, "do not represent mainstream Republicans in this country. Mainstream Republicans in this country are more moderate and more thoughtful than the people I work with who are in the majority in the Senate." Ouch. Well, of the 55 GOP-ers, he's gotta like a few, right? "Someone asked me the other day," he says, "'Who are the moderate Republicans?' Hmm. Well, you've got Lincoln Chafee [of Rhode Island], sometimes the two senators from Maine [Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins], and Arlen Specter [of Pennsylvania] whenever you don't need him. That's it." Double ouch.

Barack Obama slams Bush

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/sns-ap-obama,1,3219313.story

Where is the Social Security Trustees report?

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_04_02_atrios_archive.html#114407592173989327

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_04_02_atrios_archive.html#114408563152262656

http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28508

Why aren’t they metering oil production in Iraq? (thanks to Atrios for the link)

http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1255

[NB: Never quantify your bad news -- see above]

Ohio GOP: more corrupt than you can imagine. Get this

http://susiemadrak.com/2006/04/03/20/41/now-pretend-his-name-is-hillary/
Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell [NB: who oversaw the e-voting shenanigans in Bush’s tainted 2004 Ohio “win”] revealed Monday he accidentally invested in shares of voting-machine manufacturer Diebold Inc. last year, a period when he was sued by other manufacturers over contracts that Diebold was up for.

[NB: “accidentally” -- I love it!]

John McCain’s new buddy Jerry Falwell: the quintessence of intolerance

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7029.html
[Steve Benen] We're talking about a hateful televangelist who said America "deserved" the attacks of 9/11, blamed the terrorism on Americans, and has lashed out with virulent rhetoric against Jews, gays, Muslims, and women. I'm curious — if McCain doesn't think Falwell is an agent of intolerance, who is?. . .

Theocracy watch: Gen Jerry (“My God is bigger than your God”) Boykin

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/george-allen-pushing-promotion-of.html

Bonus item: 2005 Koufax award winners announced -- great ones, all deserving. No PBD though. Like any good Cubs fan, I say “maybe next year”

http://wampum.wabanaki.net/vault/2006/04/002603.html

Digby on the love of blogging

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114412625277043449

***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 @ 6:38 AM

 
MAKING THINGS WORSE

Smells like victory

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/opinion/02sun1.html
[NYT] Iraq is becoming a country that America should be ashamed to support, let alone occupy. The nation as a whole is sliding closer to open civil war. In its capital, thugs kidnap and torture innocent civilians with impunity, then murder them for their religious beliefs. The rights of women are evaporating. The head of the government is the ally of a radical anti-American cleric who leads a powerful private militia that is behind much of the sectarian terror. . .

Making things worse. . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/03/world/middleeast/03iraq.html
Iraq's dominant Shiite political bloc fractured Sunday when its most powerful faction publicly demanded that the incumbent Shiite prime minister resign over his inability to form a unified government. The split came as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Jack Straw, the British foreign minister, paid an urgent visit to Iraqi leaders here to convey in the most forceful terms yet that their patience for the country's political paralysis was wearing thin. . . It was not clear whether the joint visit by Ms. Rice and Mr. Straw, the top emissaries of the two countries that led the invasion of Iraq three years ago, played a direct role in the splintering of the Shiite bloc. . .

The GOP budget

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/31/AR2006033101706.html

No accountability, chapter #658

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0604030234apr03,1,1855420.story
When a privacy-rights group requested records to show how many times a secretive presidential oversight board had asked the Justice Department to investigate possible violations of intelligence-gathering laws since 2001, the answer that came back last month was as simple as it was startling. . . Zero.

The wreck of the “Straight Talk Express”

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/2/114832/7526

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/02/mccain-falwell/
This morning on Meet the Press, Sen. John McCain declared that right-wing Rev. Jerry Falwell is no longer an “agent of intolerance,” as McCain described him in 2000. . .

RUSSERT: Do you believe that Jerry Falwell is still an agent of intolerance?

MCCAIN: No, I don’t. I think that Jerry Falwell can explain to you his views on this program when you have him on. . .

More: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/mccain-now-embraces-jerry-falwell-says.html

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_04_02_atrios_archive.html#114399354803444958

With friends like this. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/02/AR2006040200377.html
After meeting Putin for the first time in June 2001, Bush said he had been able to gain "a sense of his soul" and had found Putin to be "very straightforward and trustworthy.". . . Recalling Bush's assessment just months after taking office, McCain said: "Look, we all say things that are stupid. . .”

Tom Noe link to Hastert, WH, US Mint

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060402/NEWS24/60402016
In the months before Tom Noe came under scrutiny for his state-funded rare-coin venture, he used a federal appointment to forge relationships with U.S. Mint officials that opened doors for him on Capitol Hill. . .

In May, 2003, the White House and House Speaker Dennis Hastert recommended that Mr. Noe get a seat on the influential 11-member committee. Treasury Secretary John Snow appointed Mr. Noe . . . Mr. Noe’s appointment and eventual chairmanship of the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee enabled him to expand his reach into the federal government. . .

Documents and interviews reveal that Mr. Noe — who has pleaded not guilty to a 53-count felony theft and corruption indictment for his handling of Ohio’s rare-coin fund and not guilty to federal charges that he laundered money to President Bush’s re-election campaign — courted Mint officials at high-price restaurants in Washington, sought information on behalf of fellow coin dealers about future coins to be minted, and pushed the Mint and lawmakers to use higher-grade metals in the nation’s coins.

The WH war against journalists

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008540.php

Heh heh heh: Bush tries to remake his image, with humor

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/01/AR2006040101004.html

Bonus item: Laugh at this. . .

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/gutsy-cartoon.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 @ 7:29 AM

 
APRIL FOOLS

“Thousands of mistakes”? Never mind, says Condi, I didn’t really mean it

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/04/01/uk.rice.straw/index.html
One day after Condoleezza Rice said the United States made possibly "thousands" of tactical mistakes in the war against Iraq, the secretary of state says she was speaking "figuratively, not literally."

More: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/no-condi-you-were-right-first-timeyou.html

It’s becoming a trope: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/1/112612/6145
[K-R] One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally. . .

The struggle for leadership in Iraq: a complete mess (and we’ve made it so)

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2800

http://www.juancole.com/2006/04/uia-member-calls-for-jaafari-to-step.html

Whatever else has happened in Iraq, at least the insurgency attacks have occurred there – with shocking horror and destruction that show no signs of abating. One of the biggest mistakes the Bush gang made was not anticipating this consequence of their vainglorious invasion. But at least it hasn’t triggered retaliatory attacks around the world and in the US (yet). Lucky thing for the Bush gang: support for the war would plummet if they did. Not satisfied with this good fortune, they are now contemplating an attack on Iran. And what would happen then?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?M130255EC
[Telegraph, UK] The Government is to hold secret talks with defence chiefs tomorrow to discuss possible military strikes against Iran.

A high-level meeting will take place in the Ministry of Defence at which senior defence chiefs and government officials will consider the consequences of an attack on Iran.

It is believed that an American-led attack, designed to destroy Iran's ability to develop a nuclear bomb, is "inevitable" if Teheran's leaders fail to comply with United Nations demands to freeze their uranium enrichment programme.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/01/AR2006040100981.html
As tensions increase between the United States and Iran, U.S. intelligence and terrorism experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide. . .

More: http://www.slate.com/id/2139160/fr/rss/
Knight Ridder talked to some U.S. intelligence officials who say that insurgents in Iraq are providing training to Taliban and al-Qaeda members from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Some of these militants went to Iraq to fight but after training they were urged to go back to their countries and use what they had been taught.

An interesting and contrarian analysis of the Feingold censure proposal: while it has divided the Democrats and put many of them in an awkward spot, it has been even worse for the Republicans, forcing them to align themselves with Bush at a time when his popularity couldn’t be any lower

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/1/131629/0619

No accountability

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/washington/02missile.html
A senior Congressional investigator has accused his agency of covering up a scientific fraud among builders of a $26 billion system meant to shield the nation from nuclear attack . . . The investigator, Subrata Ghoshroy of the Government Accountability Office, led technical analyses of a prototype warhead for the antimissile weapon in an 18-month study, winning awards for his "great care" and "tremendous skill and patience."

Mr. Ghoshroy now says his agency ignored evidence that the two main contractors had doctored data, skewed test results and made false statements in a 2002 report that credited the contractors with revealing the warhead's failings to the government. . .

NSA blocking access to documents that would indicate extent of domestic spying

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2006/04/eff_blocked_from_making_public_evidence_of_nsa_domestic_monitoring.html

Halliburton: FRAUD

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-halliburton29mar29,1,1061635.story
The 15-page report cites findings by auditors that Halliburton overcharged — "apparently intentionally" — on the contract by using hidden calculations, and attempted in one instance to bill the government for $26 million in costs it did not incur. Auditors also challenged $45 million in other costs, labeling them as "unreasonable or unsupported," the report said.

The report blamed the Department of Defense for awarding the contract despite warnings from auditors that Halliburton's cost estimating system had "significant deficiencies." Although federal officials have criticized the company and threatened to cancel its contracts, Halliburton remains the largest private contractor in Iraq.

[NB: You wonder what would happen if their former chief exec wasn’t the VP]

Dubya: the plan for a “comeback”

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7027.html

WH shake-up, or snow job?

http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28468
[Matt Yglesias] I guess I missed the initial stories while I was on vacation, but intimations of a Bolten-led shake-up in the West Wing sound pretty pathetic to me. Calls to reorganize the legislative liaison office and a focus on "rebuilding ties with Congress" are the mid-course correction steps of fools. . .

Talk of replacing John Snow is just sad. There's been talk about this for forever. Credible sources indicate that they tried to fire him over a year ago and didn't because they couldn't find anyone who wanted to be Treasury Secretary in an administration that's shown no inclination to listen to what the Treasury Department has to say or to try and make economic policy in a serious way. . .

Katherine Harris (R-FL): the WH never wanted her as their candidate in the first place, and now that she’s slipping they are actively distancing themselves from her candidacy. This is the woman who helped PUT them in office in 2000 – but of course you know that for these guys loyalty is only a one-way street

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-harris0106apr01,0,1888059.story
The last of U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris' key staffers appear ready to abandon her campaign for the U.S. Senate in a wave of resignations expected to start this weekend. . .

Harris. . . is likely to lose her chief political strategist, her campaign manager, her spokeswoman, her director of field operations and even a traveling aide who helps hand out stickers at campaign appearances.

More: http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/4/2/44654/23571

Yet ANOTHER fake Kaloogian photo

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_03_26.php#008084
God, you just can't make this stuff up. . .

The kind of people they are

http://mediamatters.org/items/200603310005
On the March 31 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Neal Boortz said that Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) "looks like a ghetto slut.". . .

Adam Nagourney, NYT writer and favorite blog target, crosses the boundaries of “reporting” into gratuitous commentary

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/nyts-adam-nagourney-editorializes-in.html
[Ad Nags] “Bloggers, for all the benefits they might bring to both parties, have proved to be a complicating political influence for Democrats. They have tugged the party consistently to the left, particularly on issues like the war, and have been openly critical of such moderate Democrats as Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut.”

[NB: “And me,” he should have added, in the interests of full disclosure]

More: http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_03_26_atrios_archive.html#114392235688773319

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/4/1/154448/2044

Sunday talk show lineups

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/01/AR2006040101115.html
FOX NEWS SUNDAY: Sens. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Philip Mudd, deputy director of the FBI's National Security Branch.

THIS WEEK (ABC): Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and George Allen (R-Va.) and Jimmy Rollins, Philadelphia Phillies shortstop.

FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.).

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and retired Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, former head of the U.S. Central Command.

LATE EDITION (CNN): Sens. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.); Mexico President Vicente Fox; Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency; and Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari.

Bonus item: Character reference

http://www.slate.com/id/2139160/fr/rss/
The WP's Reliable Source, got a hold of the 262 character reference letters written about disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and delivered to the judge that was presiding his trial. "Whatever it is that Abramoff is guilty of, it certainly wasn't violent crime," wrote one. . .

***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 @ 8:11 AM

 
THEY DON’T CARE

They don’t care. Three stories about major Bush lies – not marginal disagreements, but clear distortions and deceptions. The mainstream media says, “Yawn”

Exhibit A http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/03/31/BL2006033100695.html
[Dan Froomkin] Slowly but surely, investigative reporter Murray Waas has been putting together a compelling narrative about how President Bush and his top aides contrived their bogus case for war in Iraq; how they succeeded in keeping charges of deception from becoming a major issue in the 2004 election; and how they continue to keep most of the press off the trail to this day. . .

More: http://www.ericumansky.com/2006/03/im_with_froomki.html
[Eric Umansky] If--as seems to be the case--President Bush really was warned of dissenting opinions about the aluminum tubes he and other top officials later claimed were (unequivocally) intended for Saddam's supposed nukes programs, and then top officials went about trying to cover up that warning...shouldn't there be sorta a big story and merit more than silence from the papers?

Exhibit B http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7020.html
[Steve Benen] Salon's Joe Conason picks up on what may be the most breathtaking line in the president's rhetorical quiver. Specifically, Conason noted that Bush, at his most recent press conference, insisted that Saddam Hussein, before the March 2003 invasion, "chose to deny inspectors [and] chose not to disclose."

[H]ave the rest of the reporters in the press room become so accustomed to presidential prevarication that they literally cannot hear a stunning falsehood that is repeated over and over again?

For the third time since the war began three years ago, Bush had falsely claimed that Saddam refused the U.N. weapons inspections mandated by the Security Council. For the third time, he had denied a reality witnessed by the entire world during the four months when those inspectors, under the direction of Hans Blix, traveled Iraq searching fruitlessly for weapons of mass destruction that, as we now know for certain, were not there.

But forget about whether the weapons were there for a moment. The inspectors definitely went to Iraq. They left only because the United States warned them to get out before the bombs started to fall on March 19, 2003. But for some reason the president of the United States keeps saying — in public and on the record — that the inspectors weren't there.

Exhibit C http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_03/008532.php
[Kevin Drum] As Bob Somerby and Peter Daou and Media Matters have all pointed out, it really is remarkable how little attention the confirmation of David Manning's explosive prewar memo has gotten in the past week. Here's what the New York Times reported on Monday:

During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second [UN] resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons...."The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."

And this is in addition to the news that Bush was brainstorming ideas for deliberately provoking a war since it didn't appear that Saddam Hussein had any actual WMD to give him a legitimate reason for invasion.

The Fourth Estate, our guardians of democracy

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2006/03/coronation.html
[Fred Clark] It's hard to imagine a lead sentence more perversely undemocratic than this, from Gina Holland of the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON -- His wartime powers undercut once before by the Supreme Court, President Bush could take a second hit in a case in which Osama bin Laden's former driver is seeking to head off a trial before military officers.

Oh, that meddlesome Supreme Court, always going about undercutting the wartime powers of our wartime president. Those whiny justices, always worrying about whether or not the executive branch's claims of unchecked, absolute power are constitutional. It's always "blah, blah, blah, rule of law, blah, blah, blah" with them.

Heel! Fetch! Sit up! Roll over!

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/wash-post-dutifully-reports-that.html
The White House is continuing to spoon feed the Post reporters their spin and the Post dutifully reports. . .

Condi Rice: “Thousands of errors” in Iraq. Okay, let’s talk about some of them

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/31/105618/546

More: http://www.fcnp.com/406/thomas.htm
[Helen Thomas] President Bush told his news conference that he couldn't think of any mistakes he has made since he was inaugurated. . .

Republicans with selective memories

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114385273553920713
[Digby] In the Feingold hearings today, Orrin Hatch said that censure is unconstitutional. Like all the rest of the hypocritical weasels of the Eunuch Caucus, he has a very short memory . .

Bad faith

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/04/presidents-good-faith-defense.html
[NYT] Several Republicans argued that whatever the legal status of the spying program, it did not deserve punishment because, unlike Nixon, Mr. Bush had acted in good faith. . . [read on]

The Republican campaign theme for 2006

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/31/195549/716
[Georgia10] The GOP released a web ad today warning Americans that a Democratic Congress would vote to censure and impeach the President during a time of war. Yes, folks, this is their brilliant GOTV strategy. Vote Republican, or Bush gets the boot. . .

Former DeLay aide pleads (and you know what that means)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/01/washington/01lobby.html

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014428.html

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_03_26.php#008067

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000245.php

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_03_26.php#008073
Tom DeLay has a new nickname, Representative #2. . .

A good use of Homeland Security money

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/03/under-bush-dept-of-homeland-security.html
[Joe] The Bush DHS is using tax dollars to subsidize a Fortune 500 oil company. . .

More of the same. . .

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_03/008529.php
[Kevin Drum] Hey, guess who President Bush has nominated to head up the Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division? That's right: the guy who represented Wal-Mart in trying to prevent a class of 1.5 million women from suing the company for discrimination in pay and promotions! He also appears to oppose pretty much every regulation related to wages and hours ever passed. . . What a perfect nominee. If he didn't exist, the Republican Party would have to have invented him.

Slandering Jill Carroll

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/03/index.html#009661
[Ezra Klein] Got to love the American right. When a hostage gets kidnapped and killed in Iraq, they blast the left for insufficient outrage. When a hostage gets kidnapped and not killed, they speculate "something stinks," predict that she'll going to become a suicide bomber, and wonder if she's not already carrying "Habib's baby." Classy stuff.

More: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014435.html

Chain gangs

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2797

Kaloogian: another fake photo

http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28448

Kaloogian: his endorsements

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_03_26.php#008083
I couldn't help but notice that one of his endorsers is Gabrielle Reilly, who Kaloogian's site identifies as an "International Political Activist & Swimsuit Model."

[NB: I LOVE that career description: click through for photos, if you must]

Another Bush bulge

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2006/03/31/it’s-time-to-play-what’s-under-bush’s-shirt-again/

Bonus item: Remember when?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/03/email-making-rounds.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 @ 9:13 AM