LOST

It’s good to see someone say it so clearly: Bush’s “surge” can’t fix the war, save the war, or win the war. It’s a “change” that allows them to buy time by saying we have to let the new policy work, hoping to run out the clock until the end of their term. But the war in Iraq has ALREADY been lost

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19950
[Peter Galbraith] Bush's strategy is the polar opposite of that proposed by James Baker and Lee Hamilton in their Iraq Study Group report. Where they recommended the withdrawal of combat troops, Bush announced an escalation. Where they urged a diplomatic opening to Iran and Syria, Bush issued threats.

Bush's plan is laden with ironies. Four years ago, military and diplomatic professionals warned that the US was embarking on a war with insufficient troops and inadequate planning. President Bush never listened to this advice, choosing to rely on the neoconservative appointees who assured him that victory in Iraq would be easy.

In devising his new strategy, Bush again turned to the neoconservatives. The so-called surge strategy is the brainchild of Frederick Kagan, a military historian at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute who has never been to Iraq. And once again, President Bush dismissed the views of his military advisers. General George Casey and General John Abizaid, the commanders in the field, doubted that additional troops would make any difference in Iraq. They were replaced by surge advocates . . .

In his speech and in interviews that followed, Bush said he would take responsibility for the mistakes made in the Iraq war. But when asked if he owed the Iraqi people an apology for not doing a better job of providing security after the invasion, he quickly deflected the responsibility to the Iraqis . . . Bush's obliviousness to his own failure contributed to the overwhelmingly negative public and congressional reaction to his plan. . . .

President Bush's plan has no chance of actually working. At this late stage, 21,500 additional troops cannot make a difference. US troops are ill prepared to do the policing that is needed to secure Baghdad. They lack police training, knowledge of the city, and requisite Arabic skills. The Iraqi troops meant to assist the effort are primarily Kurdish peshmerga from two brigades nominally part of the Iraqi army. These troops will have the same problems as the Americans, including an inability to communicate in Arabic.

Bush's strategy assumes that Iraq's Shiite-led government can become a force for national unity and that Iraqi security forces can, once trained, be neutral guarantors of public safety. There is no convincing basis for either proposition. The Bush administration's inability to grasp the realities of Iraq is, in no small measure, owing to its unwillingness to acknowledge that Iraq is in the middle of a civil war.

As everyone except Bush seems to understand, Iraq's Shiite-led government has no intention of transforming itself into an inclusive government of national unity . . .

Bush's strategy depends on the Iraqi police and army eventually taking over from US forces. Somehow the President imagines that Iraq's army and police are exempt from the country's sectarian and ethnic divisions. In reality, both the army and police are as polarized as the country itself. US training will not make these forces neutral guarantors of public security but will make them more effective killers in Iraq's civil war. . . .

At best, Bush's new strategy will be a costly postponement of the day of reckoning with failure. But it is also a reckless escalation of the military mission in Iraq that could leave US forces fighting a powerful new enemy with only marginally more troops than are now engaged in fighting the Sunni insurgency. The strategy also risks extending Iraq's civil war to the hitherto peaceful Kurdish regions, with no corresponding gain for security in the Arab parts of the country. . . .

So far, the Kurds have largely sat out Iraq's civil war. . . But Bush's plan could change that. . . .

George W. Bush has said he will leave the problem of Iraq to the president elected in 2008. Rather than acknowledge failure in Iraq—and by extension a failed presidency—Bush has chosen to postpone the day of reckoning. It is a decision that will cost many American and Iraqi lives, will leave the United States weaker, and will prolong the decline in American prestige abroad caused by the mismanaged Iraq war. And it will not change the truth that the President so desperately wishes to escape: George W. Bush launched and lost America's Iraq war.

So, what’s the good news?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022700790.html
Top U.S. intelligence officials told a Senate committee today that Iran is likely to develop a nuclear weapon by the early to middle part of the next decade and that security and political trends in Iraq are moving in the wrong direction, with Iraqi leaders facing nearly impossible challenges in curbing sectarian violence that has become "self-sustaining."

Delivering the intelligence community's annual threat assessment at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the officials also painted a grim picture of developments in Afghanistan and in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan near the Afghan border, where they said a resurgent Taliban is gearing up for a spring offensive and the al-Qaeda terrorist network continues plotting to kill large numbers of Americans. . .

George Bush’s clearly has a deep grasp of the complexity of these difficulties. Here’s his solution

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10057.html
“Just win, baby.”

Is the “regional conference” with Iran and Syria anything to get excited about?

Maybe: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010822.php

Probably not: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_25.php#012687

Condoleezza Rice gained a little win in North Korea – but in general, she’s been relegated to the task of legitimating Bush’s policies more than shaping them

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/27/condi-rice-booted/

http://time-blog.com/middle_east/2007/02/us_secretary_of_state_bandar_b.html

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/27/144657/960

Stay away from the historical analogies, Condi. They just don’t work for you

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10047.html

More: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17351284/

Here’s an historical analogy: Our “Desaparecidos”

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/2/27/11491/0592

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022702214.html

This shouldn’t surprise us AT ALL

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/27/175440/811
[USAT] Rushed by President Bush's decision to reinforce Baghdad with thousands more U.S. troops, two Army combat brigades are skipping their usual session at the Army's premier training range in California and instead are making final preparations at their home bases.

Some in Congress and others outside the Army are beginning to question the switch, which is not widely known. They wonder whether it means the Army is cutting corners in preparing soldiers for combat, since they are forgoing training in a desert setting that was designed specially to prepare them for the challenges of Iraq. . . .

The bombing near VP Cheney in Afghanistan. Since his visit was a hush-hush secret, how did the Taliban find out about it? Not good

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_25.php#012671

The Iranian weapons story isn’t holding up very well

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_25.php#012679
[Josh Marshall] It turns out this makeshift factory in Iraq was making those super-IEDs that we were told could only be made in Iran. And the parts the Iraqis were using to make the bombs? Shipped from factories from around the Middle East, but not Iran. . .

More: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002629.php

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010821.php

Joe Lieberman thinks we’re being too suspicious about the Bush gang, their motives, and their uses of intelligence. Nope, can’t see any reason why we should be suspicious

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10056.html
[Think Progress] Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) said today that he is upset that critics have been questioning the administration’s intelligence on Iran, calling the reaction “unwarranted.” Lieberman said the “danger point” learned from the criticism is that the media and politicians reacted with “suspicion.” “I wouldn’t start with suspicion,” Lieberman said. . .

[Steve Benen] Lieberman has it exactly backwards. For one thing, the administration, by its own admission, already experienced one of the greatest intelligence failures in American history in the lead-up to the war in Iraq. Now the same administration officials are coming forward with even more dubious claims about Iraq’s next door neighbor. Lieberman not only wants us to suspend doubt, he wants the intelligence community to be even more aggressive in jumping to conclusions.

Lieberman has been awake and in the country the last four years, hasn’t he? . . . [read on]

A double dose of Baghdad Bob today

http://www.first-draft.com/2007/02/today_on_holden_15.html
Q How was the suicide bomber able to get within range of the base where Vice President Cheney was?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. . .

Q What does this attack say about the strength of the Taliban in Afghanistan?

MR. SNOW: I'm not sure it says anything. . .

Q Tony, no matter who was responsible for this, to what extent does it underscore the very reason that the Vice President was sent there to begin with?

MR. SNOW: I'm not sure -- again, it's -- I don't think -- Peter, I don't know. It's an interesting -- again, the Vice President was there to consult with allies in the war on terror. . .

http://www.first-draft.com/2007/02/today_on_holden_14.html
Q You said this morning that you hadn't had a chance to talk to with the Vice President or his people about what he said to General Musharraf. Have you been briefed on that?

MR. SNOW: Well, actually, what I said, too, is that the precise nature of his comments and the tenor of comments to the President would be the sort of things that would be confidential. . .

Q Do you think that General Musharraf is keeping his commitments to go after the Taliban --

MR. SNOW: I'd frame it in a different way, he is doing --

Q Well --

MR. SNOW: Well, I'm not sure how exactly one would -- the question, "keeping commitments," it is not something where he lays out goals and timetables . . .

Q Tony, results matter . . .

Q . . . There's been a deal that Musharraf made with some of the tribal leaders there. Why doesn't the United States military, in concert with its allies, if it thinks that al Qaeda is reconstituting, take direct military action?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, I would leave that -- I would let military officials answer a question like that.

Q But why -- I'm sorry, just one more. Why dance around so much on this issue when you're certainly not doing anything to knock down the idea that this administration, this White House, is sending a tough message to the Musharraf government today, correct?

MR. SNOW: Well, no, I just -- I'll let others characterize. We have not been saying it's a tough message. . .

Q Does the President feel that President Musharraf has been aggressive enough in living up to the commitments that he made?

MR. SNOW: Again, I think -- Jim, you act as if -- a question like that seems to presume that everything is predictable . . .

Q But the question --

MR. SNOW: No, the question -- I'm sorry, then I'll let you go back at me. I think the appropriate question is, is he doing what he can . . .

Q The question is, is the President satisfied?

MR. SNOW: The President -- as long as you have terrorists at large in the world, the President is not going to be satisfied. And I daresay President Musharraf is not satisfied.

Q The question is, Dick Cheney --

MR. SNOW: What you're trying to do -- I'm not going to answer a question --

Q I have a very simple question; there's no trick question to this. The Vice President was in Pakistan, he was meeting with President Musharraf. There are media reports that he was saying, expressing the administration's dissatisfaction with the way that President Musharraf has conducted incursions or overseen the border regions. Is that the message that the Vice President was delivering?

MR. SNOW: Again, I'm not going to try to convey precisely what the Vice President said. . .

Q But you give out report cards on Mr. Maliki all the time.

MR. SNOW: Well, no, quite often you guys will ask us, are you satisfied with X, Y, and Z, and we talk about how we're working with them. . . .

Q Can you talk about the aid . . .

MR. SNOW: No, I'm not going to speculate about that, nor am I going to talk about the tone, tenor, or precise content of what the Vice President had to say to President Musharraf. . . .

Q Tony, you seem to make a differentiation between what Musharraf is doing in going after al Qaeda and the Taliban. Do you think he has done more in going after the al Qaeda than he has in going after Taliban? Which is more difficult --

MR. SNOW: I can't -- Martha, that's a much better for you to pose to military authorities or intelligence authorities.

Q No, it isn't, Tony.

MR. SNOW: No, it is.

Q You keep saying this to me. I know you love to kind of blow me off by saying that, but you said it. I didn't say it; you said he's going after al Qaeda. Going after Taliban is a much more difficult problem for Musharraf, given the political situation there.

MR. SNOW: No, I think, again, if you take a look at what I just referred to -- and I'm not blowing you off, and this is not an attempt to dismiss the question. . .

Q How about this, Tony -- the deal that President Musharraf signed with the tribal leaders last year, did that lead to a strengthening of al Qaeda? Did it do the opposite that we wanted it to?

MR. SNOW: Hard to say. . .

The Bush gang is still doing all it can to keep the “Plan B” emergency contraception out of the hands of women

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2007/02/post_2939.html

The Republicans decide to keep Alishtari’s money (of course)

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/house-republicans-keeping-terror.html

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10052.html

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_25.php#012692

The Dems just can’t figure out how to frame their Iraq war bill – and it seems to be getting worse. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022701650.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070228/ap_on_go_co/democrats_iraq;_ylt=AsqxzL6jd2Qf4Wn.lIlo_vWs0NUE

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/27/23844/2691

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/28/7850/39875

Opposition to the war IS the mainstream view. So why do we keep hearing about the “antiwar left”?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/02/27/BL2007022700671.html

You don’t think those US Attorney firings are suspicious?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/02/us_attorneys.html
The Congressional Research Service report indicates that between 1981 and 2006 a total of 464 U.S. Attorneys received Senate confirmation, of which only two were known to have been fired and only three forced to resign. In all five instances clear breaches of conduct sparked the dismissals. . . .

John Solomon, Washington Post, is everyone’s favorite whipping boy for his breathless, under-researched “scandal” stories about Democrats. Here’s his latest

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010818.php

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/evergreen-slime-by-digby-i-wrote-couple.html

Yeah, but who’s counting?

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_02_25_atrios_archive.html#117260202597828977
[Atrios] It's been almost two months since [Fox News] updated their list of American troops killed in Iraq.

The New Republic, once a venerable forum of political reporting and analysis, has fallen on hard times under Martin Peretz. Publishing an article calling for the acquittal of Scooter Libby won’t help them with their dwindling readership, I expect

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2007/02/post_2940.html

Steel Cage Death Match: Glenn Beck, Keith Olbermann. Fun

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/27/beck-attacks-olbermann/

Bonus item: Tin foil hat time: there’s a conspiracy afoot, people, and the WEATHER CHANNEL is part of it

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10053.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 @ 7:19 AM

 
THE MYTH OF COMPETENCE

Quote of the day

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_25.php#012651
[Josh Marshall] "The reason our mission in Iraq has proven to be so disastrous and corrupt is very simple -- the advocates and architects of that war are completely corrupt, inept, and deceitful." The words are Glenn Greenwald's. And though many others have said the same thing in slightly different words, it bears repeating again and again. The corruption and ineptitude aren't unfortunate add-ons to the effort. They're at the heart of it. It's a stain like original sin. And the same goes for the democratizing element of the mission. Even among critics of the war, it's often accepted as granted that a key aim of this effort was democratization -- only that it was botched, like so much else, or that the aim of democracy, in a crunch, plays second fiddle to other priorities. Not true. The key architects of the policy don't believe in democracy or the rule of law. The whole invasion was based on contrary principles. And the aim can't be achieved because those anti-democratic principles are written into the DNA of the occupation, even as secondary figures have and continue to labor to build democracy in the country.

Why Al Qaeda is winning

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_25.php#012644
[Josh Marshall] Okay, it seems we need more updates on why Dick Cheney is too dangerously incompetent to have in any position of authority, let alone the vice presidency. You'll see for instance that this morning Cheney showed up in Islamabad warning President Musharraf that al Qaeda is "regrouping" along the Pakistani border. Musharraf must be a little confused since, didn't we sign off on the armistice his government signed with the jihadists and their protectors just a few months ago?

More to the point, last week Cheney claimed that Nancy Pelosi's position on Iraq would validate al Qaeda since al Qaeda's goal in Iraq is to show that our will can be broken. Reed Hundt chimed in and pointed out that it's far more likely that al Qaeda's goal is to bait us into ridiculous and unwinnable wars that will sap our military strength and financial power.

Now, as it happens, in response to Reed's post, commenter Tom Hilton flagged this passage from the article James Fallows wrote last year in which he wrote ...

Documents captured after 9/11 showed that bin Laden hoped to provoke the United States into an invasion and occupation that would entail all the complications that have arisen in Iraq. His only error was to think that the place where Americans would get stuck would be Afghanistan.

Bin Laden also hoped that such an entrapment would drain the United States financially. Many al-Qaeda documents refer to the importance of sapping American economic strength as a step toward reducing America’s ability to throw its weight around in the Middle East.

In other words, the actual intelligence we have about what al Qaeda wants -- not the usual stuff Dick Cheney makes up or gets from Ahmed Chalabi or his butler or whoever -- suggests we're playing right into their hands.

How many American deaths is this goof responsible for? And who in this country has done more to advance the al Qaeda agenda and make the US more vulnerable to attack?

More failures: http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/26/while-were-waiting/

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/that-other-war-by-digby-does-everyone.html

Let’s see, Cheney’s overseas, threatening Iran and bullying Pakistan. I guess this is all they have left

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/crazy-man-by-digby-us-vice-president.html
[Digby] US Vice-President Dick Cheney has raised the possibility of military action to stop Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/world/asia/26cnd-pakistan.html
Just hours after Vice President Dick Cheney delivered a stiff private message to President Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan, the Pakistani government lashed out today with a series of statements insisting that “Pakistan does not accept dictation from any side or any source.” . . .

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/02/26/BL2007022600635.html

Here’s what’s interesting: Cheney finds it convenient to use the DEMOCRATS’ growing impatience as his leverage – the same Democrats he accuses of treason for daring to question their policies

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_25.php#012655
[NYT] "Vice President Dick Cheney made an unannounced trip to Pakistan on Monday to deliver what officials in Washington described as an unusually tough message Gen. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, warning him that the newly Democratic Congress could cut aid to his country unless his forces become far more aggressive in hunting down operatives with Al Qaeda."

[DM] This is Dick Cheney. The hardest of hardcore Republican terror scaremongers. Of all those who have tarred Democrats as weak on terror, nobody's done it like Dick. Cheney wasn't playing the good cop or bad cop role before. He simply wasn't walking the beat. This is a tacit acknowledgement that the Democratic Congress is more serious about fighting Al Qaeda than the White House. He's essentially saying, "look, we've let you slide on this, because, well, you know us..." Other things were more important.

Dick Cheney has acknowledged that the Democratic Congress is more intent than the White House on hunting down Al Qaeda operatives.

More: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002620.php

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10039.html

Do they have ANY plan for Pakistan?

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/02/what_nobody_wants_to_talk_abou/

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002626.php

Making friends everywhere

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10041.html
[Sunday Mail] U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney insisted [Australian] Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd be sworn to secrecy about the details of their meeting before their talks in Sydney on Friday.

According to senior Labor sources, Mr Cheney would not meet Mr Rudd until the conditions of secrecy had been met. . .

This is the new emerging theme: Cheney isn’t the wise elder statesman who provides gravitas and a steady hand to Dubya’s foreign policy – he’s the hot-headed extremist who has been wrong at every turn and whose hand is in every major Bush failure

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/26/chs-speaking-of-swearing/
[Jim Fallows] Even if all those things were true, there could be no less effective spokesman for American concern or for the interests of international order than Cheney. This is the man who has refused to answer to his own public for — well, for anything. For his insistence that everything has gone just as planned in Iraq. For his claim before the war that “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” For his claim after the war that the Iraqi insurgency was in its “last throes.” For his role, as described in prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s closing statement, as the central, unindicted malefactor in the Scooter Libby case. Even for shooting his friend in the face. . . .

Dick Cheney, the man who is accountable for nothing, is the person who will tell other countries what is “consistent” with a peaceful image in the world? . . . [read on!]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010816.php
[Kevin Drum] It's hard to remember now, but during the first few years of the Bush administration Dick Cheney was widely viewed as a wise old man, the steady hand at the Bush tiller. As we've been reminded repeatedly in the past few weeks, that conventional wisdom is laughable now . . . [read on]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012665.php
[Josh Marsall] This so deserves a contest. Because there are so many possibilities.

Send us your entry for the most idiotic, dishonest or just plain ridiculously wrong quote from our vice president, Dick Cheney. You can go all the way back to January 2001. . . .

The coming constitutional conflict(s)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/26/12049/3183
[Kagro X] As we move ever closer to the inevitable Constitutional showdown between Congress and the Bush "administration," it becomes increasingly important that we understand to what lengths this gang will go to claim the "right" to do as they please.

When Condoleezza Rice declared on Sunday that the president would defy legislative constraints on the war in Iraq, she was reiterating a belief held throughout this "administration" that the president is unconstrained and unconstrainable by both the courts and Congress in his conduct.

I pointed you to John Yoo's explanation of this bizarre interpretation of the Constitution yesterday. Today, it's time to examine some of Darth Dick Cheney's views on the matter.

The relevance of Cheney's long-held views on executive power have been ably illustrated in profiles such as Frontline's "The Dark Side", and The New Yorker's profile of his longtime aide, David Addington. But with each passing day, Americans grow more and more frustrated with the manner in which the "administration" exercises the powers it imagines itself to have. . . .

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/26/sitroom.02.html
SEYMOUR HERSH, "NEW YORKER" MAGAZINE: We have been pumping money, a great deal of money, without Congressional authority, without any Congressional oversight. Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia is putting up some of this money for covert operations in many areas of the Middle East where we think that the -- we want to stop the Shiite spread or the Shiite influence.

FOREMAN: The accusation is this -- to keep Iran, the big Shiite power, under control, money is being secretly funneled to groups who oppose Iran. Those groups would certainly include Sunnis, even though Sunni insurgents have been the major opponents to U.S. forces in Iraq and al Qaeda is Sunni. . . .

One member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, however, wants a hearing on it.

SEN. RON WYDEN (D-OR), SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: The suggestion in the article that the administration is planning various covert activities in the Middle East without telling the Congress is extremely troubling.

FOREMAN: The U.S. government can fund groups overseas, as long as it follows certain procedures.

BRUCE RIEDEL, FMR. NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AIDE: It has to get a presidential finding. That is, a piece of paper in which the president certifies that this is in the national interest. And that finding has to be notified to the Congress of the United States.

FOREMAN: All of this can be kind of difficult to follow from time to time, but it comes down to a simple accusation. Is the U.S. covertly giving money to people to oppose Iran? And in doing so, possibly giving money to the U.S.'s own enemies?

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3834
[Fubar quotes from 1984] Oceania was not after all at war with Eurasia. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Eurasia was an ally. . . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_25.php#012669
[Josh Marshall] As you've probably seen, there's been a flurry of articles over the last week about Vice President Cheney, possible plans for war against Iran and murmurs from within the upper echelons of the US armed forces of possible resignations if the White House opts for that new adventure. But beyond all the scary predications and wild tales, Kevin Drum and Andrew Sullivan have picked out the real nugget: Cheney and the rest of the crew at the White House can't even seem to get clear on what side they're on or even what war it is they're fighting.

That takes strategic incoherence into truly uncharted territory. . .

More from Seymour Hersh

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/26/sitroom.02.html
BLITZER: And joining us now from Cairo, Sy Hersh. . . Based on all your reporting, how far along are U.S. military plans for a war with Iran?

SEYMOUR HERSH, NEW YORKER MAGAZINE: Well, of course, they're very far along. They have been studying this forever. They're constantly redesigning, retooling, but right now, as I wrote, look, it's pretty obvious what's going on.

In the last month or so, the president has been talking more and more about cross-border attacks and more and more about Iranian interference in threatening American lives. So it's not surprising they would fine-tune the targeting to after suspected training sites, et cetera, across the border and inside Iran. That's just normal, I think.

BLITZER: And you write that already, some special operations forces, some U.S. intelligence forces have crossed the line and have gone into Iran. Is that right?

HERSH: Oh, yes, that's been happening for months. There's been a lot of very aggressive cross-border activity. It's more than just casual. There has been a lot of jumping over the border, chasing bad guys, or people we think are bad guys. That's been going on quite a bit.

BLITZER: Here is what another line you write about division within the Bush administration over these plans. You say this: "The former senior intelligence official said that the current contingency plans allow for an attack order this spring.

"He added, however, that senior officers on the Joint Chiefs were counting on the White House as not being foolish enough to do this in the face of Iraq and the problems it would give the Republicans in 2008."

Talk a little bit about the divisions you see happening within the administration.

HERSH: Well, I don't think there's any question but much of the senior military leadership do not think it's the wise thing to do. Of course, if the president orders it, it will happen. But they are very skeptical. . . .

BLITZER: The Pentagon on Friday released a statement, even before your article was released, saying this: "The United States is not planning to go to war with Iran. To suggest anything to the contrary is simply wrong, misleading and mischievous.

"The United States has been very clear with respect to its concerns regarding specific Iranian government activities. The president has repeatedly stated publicly that this country is going to work with allies in the region to address those concerns through diplomatic efforts."

And this is what the new defense secretary, Robert Gates, said on February 15th. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DEFENSE SECRETARY ROBERT M. GATES: We are not, you know, for the umpteenth time, we are not looking for an excuse to go to war with Iran. We are not planning a war with Iran.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right, what do you say?

HERSH: Well, I guess Mr. Cheney, the vice president, didn't get that message, because the other day, in Australia, he once again publicly renewed the fact that all options are on the table and pretty much made another strong threat against the Iranians.

It's very possible, Wolf, that some of this is simply games being played by the administration that is simply designed to increase the political pressure on Iran, to jack it up. And a lot of this may be agitprop, propaganda.

But inside the military, they are planning very seriously, at the president's request, to attack Iran. And as I wrote in the article, one of the assignments they'd been given, contingency assignments -- there is no operational order, no order to hit anything -- but one of the contingency assignments would enable the president to at 2:00 in the afternoon say, "I want to hit," and within 24 hours, targets would be struck -- a 24-hour package.

Shut UP!

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/laura-bush-its-that-one-bombing-day.html
[Laura Bush] Many parts of Iraq are stable now. But, uh, of course, what we see on television is the one bombing a day that discourages everyone. . . .

Two VP’s have a close call

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/world/asia/27cnd-cheney.html

http://iraqvp.notlong.com

Breaking the military

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070227/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_military_strains
Strained by the demands of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a significant risk that the U.S. military won't be able to quickly and fully respond to yet another crisis, according to a new report to Congress.

The assessment, done by the nation's top military officer, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, represents a worsening from a year ago, when that risk was rated as moderate. . . .

Senate to review Walter Reed scandal

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002621.php

Joe Galloway, one of the most respected military journalists in this country, has had enough (thanks to Manny and AG for the link)

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003548374
There’s a great deal more to supporting our troops than sticking a $2 yellow ribbon magnet made in China on your SUV. There’s a great deal more to it than making "Support Our Troops" a phrase that every politician feels obliged to utter in every speech, no matter how banal the topic or craven the purpose.

This week, we were treated to new revelations of just how fraudulent and shallow and meaningless "Support Our Troops" is on the lips of those in charge of spending the half a trillion dollars of taxpayer's money that the Pentagon eats every year.

The Washington Post published a probe, complete with photographs, revealing that for every in-patient who's getting the best medical treatment that money can buy at the main hospital at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, there are out-patients warehoused in quarters unfit for human habitation . . .

Our shame

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/dogging-gitmo-by-digby-i-have-been.html
[Digby] I have been remiss in failing to highlight this series of interviews with lawyers and others who are involved with Guantanamo and other issues pertaining to the military commissions over at The Talking Dog. He's talked to a variety of people who offer great insight into the miscarriage of justice and moral blight that is our system of military detentions in the Great GWOT. I recently read them all again as a piece and the big picture that emerges is just horrifying . . .

Joe Lieberman, sanctimonious phony, calls for a “truce in the political war” over Iraq. Given the fact that he has been a key player in making that political war more nasty and vicious, that’s hard to stomach – but worse, isn’t it convenient that now that the popularity of the war is at low tide, and they can’t use it to bash their opponents any more, they suddenly want a truce?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10043.html

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_02_25_atrios_archive.html#117249692299398739
[Thers] The trouble with politics, they argue, is that people disagree. Their brilliant solution to this problem is to agree on everything, thus ending all disagreement. Shazam! It is truly a wonder that nobody has ever thought of this before.

But this is more complicated than Atrios and Kos suggest: yes, people overwhelmingly oppose the war and want the Dems to force an end to it, but they ALSO are uneasy with anything that looks like it’s undermining the troops – and any tough bill against the war will be spun as pulling the rug out from under our brave men and women over there. Schizophrenic? Well, there you go

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_02_25_atrios_archive.html#117250688147672610
Republicans want to continue the war and Democrats want to end it. It's that simple.

Any other debate is about what the best method to get George Bush to end the war is. I think even now too many Democrats are a bit stupid about the political reality - people hate George Bush and people hate the war - and are scared they're going to be painted as traitors by the wingnut noise machine. . . .

Make it partisan. The Republicans are. Let them have their war.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/26/112537/448

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10042.html

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/americans-overwhelmingly-disapprove-of.html

http://partisanwar.notlong.com

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/26/205610/742

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/2/27/0132/46144

More b.s. from Lieberman

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/02/26/lieberman/index.html
[Glenn Greenwald] Lieberman has stood up today to assure us that we now have a great, brand new strategy in Iraq, that the fundamental problems with our prior tactics have been fixed, and that it is therefore our duty as Americans (still) to keep our mouths shut and be led to Victory . . .

This is rank deceit of the lowest order. Lieberman wrote almost exactly the same Op-Ed, on the same Wall St. Journal page, more than a year ago. Whereas today he is pretending that the problem has been one of insufficient troop strength and a lack of a coherent military strategy, he said exactly the opposite in his November, 2005 Op-Ed. Back then, he assured Americans that we did have an effective strategy for preserving order and also had a sufficient military force, and not only that, he insisted that we were succeeding in our mission to bring security to Baghdad and that conditions in Iraq were rapidly improving . . .

So whereas Lieberman is claiming now that everything is different today because we had no real strategy before for ensuring security, it was Lieberman himself who promised Americans in 2005 that we did have exactly such a strategy and that it was working so well that "we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007." . . .

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/26/215533/415

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/2/26/125619/292

Let’s review. Friend of the Libby defense Victoria Toensing publishes a tendentious anti-Fitzgerald editorial given prominent play in the Washington Post. The WP ombudsperson says, no problem, the jury has been told to ignore the media so they won’t see it – and now. . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/washington/26cnd-libby.html
A juror in the perjury trial of I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, was dismissed from the panel today after acknowledging that she had had outside contact with information related to the case. . . .

[NB: Was it the same editorial? We don’t know that, yet. But what if it was?]

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/26/art-curator-dismissed-from-libby-trial/
[Jane Hamsher] The juror who was dismissed was the art curator who wouldn't wear red on Valentine's day. Wells is reportedly quite happy with the results, and we hear Mr. Fitzgerald came as close to losing that poker face as he has — he was evidently quite pissed.

CW has it that things are going to be a bit nutty from hereon in. . .

More: http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/26/going-forward-with-11-jurors/

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/feb/26/crickets_at_the_washington_post

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/26/ethics-anyone/

Bush approval drops to 38% -- in the South!

http://www.first-draft.com/2007/02/southerners_dum.html

Putting Bush on the couch (again)

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/02/26/new-york-magazine-puts-bush-on-the-couch/

The Goofus Files

http://www.first-draft.com/2007/02/your_president__17.html

Theocracy watch: more from Henry Jordan

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10040.html
“This nation was founded to worship, honor and glorify Jesus Christ, not Mohammed, not Buddha,” Jordan said. . . [read on!]

Fox “News”

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/02/26/gibson/index.html
[Tim Grieve] Think the wall-to-wall coverage of Anna Nicole Smith is a little obscene, especially when, you know, there's a war going on? If you do, then you're a "snob." Or so sayeth Fox's John Gibson, who declares that journalists who wish the media focused more on Iraq and less on Smith are guilty of telling Smith-starved viewers, "I'm better than you."

More from the Book of Knowledge

http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2007/02/conservapedia.html

http://jackandjillpolitics.blogspot.com/2007/02/conservapedia-has-racist-agenda.html

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/watching_conservatives_/2007/02/the_stupid_party_and_its_online_encyclopedia.php

Bonus item: Cartoon of the day

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_25.php#012662

***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 @ 6:58 AM

 
MY ENEMY’S ENEMY IS MY FRIEND

Familiar indications that Iran is on the Bush gang’s target screen. But, if you can believe it, it’s even worse than that. Another must-read from Sy Hersh:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070305fa_fact_hersh
[Seymour Hersh] In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

One contradictory aspect of the new strategy is that, in Iraq, most of the insurgent violence directed at the American military has come from Sunni forces, and not from Shiites. But, from the Administration’s perspective, the most profound—and unintended—strategic consequence of the Iraq war is the empowerment of Iran. . . .

The new American policy, in its broad outlines, has been discussed publicly. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that there is “a new strategic alignment in the Middle East,” separating “reformers” and “extremists”; she pointed to the Sunni states as centers of moderation, and said that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah were “on the other side of that divide.” (Syria’s Sunni majority is dominated by the Alawi sect.) Iran and Syria, she said, “have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize.”

Some of the core tactics of the redirection are not public, however. The clandestine operations have been kept secret, in some cases, by leaving the execution or the funding to the Saudis, or by finding other ways to work around the normal congressional appropriations process, current and former officials close to the Administration said.

A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee told me that he had heard about the new strategy, but felt that he and his colleagues had not been adequately briefed. “We haven’t got any of this,” he said. “We ask for anything going on, and they say there’s nothing. And when we ask specific questions they say, ‘We’re going to get back to you.’ It’s so frustrating.”

The key players behind the redirection are Vice-President Dick Cheney, the deputy national-security adviser Elliott Abrams, the departing Ambassador to Iraq (and nominee for United Nations Ambassador), Zalmay Khalilzad, and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national-security adviser. While Rice has been deeply involved in shaping the public policy, former and current officials said that the clandestine side has been guided by Cheney. . .

The policy shift has brought Saudi Arabia and Israel into a new strategic embrace, largely because both countries see Iran as an existential threat. They have been involved in direct talks, and the Saudis, who believe that greater stability in Israel and Palestine will give Iran less leverage in the region, have become more involved in Arab-Israeli negotiations.

The new strategy “is a major shift in American policy—it’s a sea change,” a U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel said. The Sunni states “were petrified of a Shiite resurgence, and there was growing resentment with our gambling on the moderate Shiites in Iraq,” he said. “We cannot reverse the Shiite gain in Iraq, but we can contain it.” . . .

The U.S. military also has arrested and interrogated hundreds of Iranians in Iraq. “The word went out last August for the military to snatch as many Iranians in Iraq as they can,” a former senior intelligence official said. “They had five hundred locked up at one time. We’re working these guys and getting information from them. The White House goal is to build a case that the Iranians have been fomenting the insurgency and they’ve been doing it all along—that Iran is, in fact, supporting the killing of Americans.” The Pentagon consultant confirmed that hundreds of Iranians have been captured by American forces in recent months. But he told me that that total includes many Iranian humanitarian and aid workers who “get scooped up and released in a short time,” after they have been interrogated.

“We are not planning for a war with Iran,” Robert Gates, the new Defense Secretary, announced on February 2nd, and yet the atmosphere of confrontation has deepened. . . . [read it all]

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html#8747982565398600258
[Digby] After you watch a presidential administration for a while you begin to see shifts in policy or different phases of the old ones by the way the officials all speak. In the case of the Bush administration, it's remarkably easy because they robotically and fanatically follow talking points. They are, as we've seen many times, more concerned with marketing than substance and place a very high premium on properly "rolling out their product."

So, when president Bush used the phrase "protect our troops" followed by everyone from Gates to Rice, my antennae were way up; it was obvious that it was a potential cassus belli for an attack on Iran. . . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_25.php#012636
[David Kurtz] In the "been there, done that" category comes news today about the faulty intelligence the U.S. has been providing to the IAEA about Iran's nuclear program. . .

[NB: Short version: the Saudis are running our Middle East policy, and we’re covertly backing Sunni jihadists linked to Al Qaeda, because they help us against Hezbollah]

More: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/2/25/143652/930

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/2/25/152657/671

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010809.php

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/02/resigning_in_protest/

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html#5334181826041381692

From the folks who brought us Iran-Contra

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010809.php
New Yorker columnist Sy Hersh says the “single most explosive” element of his latest article involves an effort by the Bush administration to stem the growth of Shiite influence in the Middle East (specifically the Iranian government and Hezbollah in Lebanon) by funding violent Sunni groups.

Hersh says the U.S. has been “pumping money, a great deal of money, without congressional authority, without any congressional oversight” for covert operations in the Middle East where it wants to “stop the Shiite spread or the Shiite influence.” Hersh says these funds have ended up in the hands of “three Sunni jihadist groups” who are “connected to al Qaeda” but “want to take on Hezbollah.”

Hersh summed up his scoop in stark terms: “We are simply in a situation where this president is really taking his notion of executive privilege to the absolute limit here, running covert operations, using money that was not authorized by Congress, supporting groups indirectly that are involved with the same people that did 9/11.”

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/005709.html
[New Yorker] The Bush Administration’s reliance on clandestine operations that have not been reported to Congress and its dealings with intermediaries with questionable agendas have recalled, for some in Washington, an earlier chapter in history. Two decades ago, the Reagan Administration attempted to fund the Nicaraguan contras illegally, with the help of secret arms sales to Iran. Saudi money was involved in what became known as the Iran-Contra scandal, and a few of the players back then—notably Prince Bandar and Elliott Abrams—are involved in today’s dealings.

Iran-Contra was the subject of an informal “lessons learned” discussion two years ago among veterans of the scandal. Abrams led the discussion. One conclusion was that even though the program was eventually exposed, it had been possible to execute it without telling Congress. As to what the experience taught them, in terms of future covert operations, the participants found: “One, you can’t trust our friends. Two, the C.I.A. has got to be totally out of it. Three, you can’t trust the uniformed military, and four, it’s got to be run out of the Vice-President’s office”—a reference to Cheney’s role, the former senior intelligence official said.

I was subsequently told by the two government consultants and the former senior intelligence official that the echoes of Iran-Contra were a factor in Negroponte’s decision to resign from the National Intelligence directorship and accept a sub-Cabinet position of Deputy Secretary of State. (Negroponte declined to comment.)

The former senior intelligence official also told me that Negroponte did not want a repeat of his experience in the Reagan Administration, when he served as Ambassador to Honduras. “Negroponte said, ‘No way. I’m not going down that road again, with the N.S.C. running operations off the books, with no finding.’ ” (In the case of covert C.I.A. operations, the President must issue a written finding and inform Congress.) Negroponte stayed on as Deputy Secretary of State, he added, because “he believes he can influence the government in a positive way.” . . . .

“This goes back to Iran-Contra,” a former National Security Council aide told me. “And much of what they’re doing is to keep the agency out of it.” He said that Congress was not being briefed on the full extent of the U.S.-Saudi operations. And, he said, “The C.I.A. is asking, ‘What’s going on?’ They’re concerned, because they think it’s amateur hour.” . . .

More madness

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/world/middleeast/25cnd-iraq.html
A female suicide bomber wearing a vest packed with explosives and ball bearings blew herself up at a Baghdad university today, killing at least 40 people, and strewing fingers, pens, purses and bloody textbooks all over the ground.

The blast, at a campus of Mustansiriya University, was one of several bombs and explosions to hit Baghdad, making today one of the worst days of violence since Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki announced a new security crackdown.

An hour after the blast, a new challenge emerged for the prime minister and the Baghdad security plan he has helped devise and has repeatedly called a success.

The radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr condemned the security plan in a signed statement, declaring that it had no hope of success as long as American troops were involved. Read aloud to 1,000 shouting supporters in Sadr City, the large Shiite area near the site of the university blast, the statement called on Iraqi security forces to stop cooperating with the United States military. . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012634.php
[David Kurtz] This morning's headlines are about a suicide bomber killing more than 30 people near a college in Baghdad. But you can't get a sense of the mind-numbing insanity of the situation until you read this post written by one of the Iraqis on McClatchy Newspaper's staff in Baghdad, presumably before today's bombing, who fears constantly for his daughter, a college student, who like her classmates is a sitting duck during midterm exams.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_25.php#012640
[New Straits Times] An exhausted Iraqi President Jalal Talabani fell ill on Sunday at the end of another day of mayhem in strife-torn Baghdad that saw at least 40 people die in a suicide attack. The 74-year-old president flew to Jordan from the northern Iraqi city of Sulaimaniyah for medical tests after he was overcome by the unrelenting pressure of recent work, his office said.

http://www.juancole.com/2007/02/university-bombing-casts-doubt-on.html
[Juan Cole] The Arabic press generally saw the bombing as a significant setback to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's security plan. . . .

The al-Maliki government may in any case be collapsing. KarbalaNews.net alleges in Arabic that fair numbers of cabinet ministers and parliamentarians have fled abroad, going AWOL with no permission. It says that a couple of weeks ago a web site published a list of 360 names of Iraqi officials that the US military is determined to detain, without any permission from the Iraqi government. The list contained both Sunni and Shiite names, and those listed are accused either of administrative corruption or of ties to death squads. Many of those who went abroad were on the list. Personally, I can't understand on what grounds US troops can arrest elected Iraqi officials. Force majeure? In any case, you can't run a government if dozens of its officials are living in Amman and Jordan . . .

Sound familiar?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/02/23/ahmadinejad/index.html
[Reuters] President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Friday Iran should not show weakness . . . "If we show weakness in front of the enemy the expectations will increase but if we stand against them, because of this resistance, they will retreat” . . . [read on!]

NOW what?

http://www.slate.com/id/2160586/fr/rss/
[Daniel Politi] The New York Times leads with word from senior administration officials that President Bush has decided to send "an unusually tough message" to the president of Pakistan. Bush will warn Gen. Pervez Musharraf that Congress could cut aid if Pakistan doesn't start to pursue Al Qaeda operatives more aggressively. . . .

The administration decided a tough warning to Pakistan's president is in order because previous promises to get tough on terrorists have not materialized and Al Qaeda continues to get stronger and more prominent in the country. But as the NYT makes clear, despite any tough words, the administration knows it can't push its luck with Musharraf because it can't risk seeing his government fail. It is this concern for the stability of Musharafff's government that has led officials to decide that unilaterally striking the training camps in Pakistan would not be a good idea.

Despite their renewed calls for “bipartisanship,” the Bush gang’s basic m.o. remains the same: any questioning of their policies is micromanaging the war and undermining the Commander in Chief’s authority

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAQ?SITE=FLPLA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Will the Dems do it? http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/25/162751/270
MR. RUSSERT: What are you going to do?

SEN. LEVIN: Hopefully, we’re going to come up with a resolution which is going to modify, in effect, the previous resolution, which was very broad, told the president that he had authority to do basically whatever he wanted to in Iraq, and to come up with wording which would modify that broad resolution and broad authority so that we would be in a supporting role, rather than in a combat role, in Iraq. Things have changed in Iraq. We don’t believe that it’s going to be possible to remove all of our troops from Iraq because there’s going to be a limited purpose that they’re going to need to serve, including a training, continued training of the Iraqi army, support for logistics in the Iraqi army, a counterterrorism purpose or a mission because there’s about 5,000 al-Qaida in Iraq. So we want to—we want to transform, or we want to modify that earlier resolution to more limited purpose. That is our goal. We hope to pick up some Republicans; we don’t know if we will. But the final drafting is going on this weekend. . .

MR. RUSSERT: But if Congress passes this and says, OK, most U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2008, and the president says, “I’m sorry, I disagree,” and he just ignores you, what happens?

SEN. LEVIN: Well, then we have a constitutional battle on our hands because this is a binding resolution. Remember, our resolution, which you had up on the screen there, authorizing the president to go to war, something that he surely welcomed, he doesn’t have much standing, if we can get this passed, to say that our modified resolution, which has a more limited mission, is not effective. It would be very difficult, I think, for him to sustain that position given the fact that he has relied so heavily on our resolution authorizing him to go to war in the first place. . .

MR. RUSSERT: Aren’t you tying the hands of the commander in chief?

SEN. LEVIN: Well, we hope to put a cap on the number of troops. If I had my way, I would cap them. Of course, if I had my way, we never would have gone there to begin with. But, of course, we’re trying to tie the hands of the president and his policy. We’re trying to change the policy. And if someone wants to call that tying the hands instead of changing the policy, yeah, the president needs a check and a balance. This president hasn’t had one, hasn’t listened to others, including his top military commanders, and it’s about time he did.

Will Bush ignore it? http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/25/194442/220

Criminal neglect

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/25/levin-walter-reed/
On NBC’s Meet the Press today, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) argued that the Senate Armed Services Committee did not conduct oversight of the treatment at military facilities in recent years because “they did not want to embarrass the President.” . . .

More: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17316437/site/newsweek/
“How the U.S. is Failing its War Veterans”

“Support Our Troops” – the last refuge of scoundrels

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/26/0620/96614

Sooner or later, the Justice Dept is going to have to answer on those US Attorney firings – you can smell the stench from here

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/005708.html

The Off the Record Club

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/25/pioneering-corruption-and-political-payback/

“Dusty” Foggo, indicted CIA official, plans to hide behind classified documents (thanks to Josh Marshall for the link)

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/02/25/news/sandiego/16_02_822_24_07.txt

The White House is scrubbing its web site of embarrassing quotes and interviews – but the Internet remembers all (thanks to Buzzflash for the link)

http://www.unbossed.net/index.php?itemid=1345

Avedon Carol piles on the Washington Post’s ombudsperson – who deserves it

http://sideshow.me.uk/sfeb07.htm#02251302

The Book of Knowledge

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/02/deism_debunked/
[Matt Yglesias] The Conservapedia really is a priceless work. It's too bad that the open source model threatens to someday undermine this crucial cultural artifact. One amusing endeavor is to stroll through the pages for various Founding Father types. You'll see that the sole preoccupation of the entries about such men as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson is assessing the extent of their Christian faith and trying to make the best available case that the person in question did, indeed, subscribe to religious views that a 21st Century American Evangelical would find congenial . . .

Theocracy watch, part 1: The Council for National Policy

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/02/still_waiting/

Theocracy watch, part 2: I think Mitt Romney’s Mormonism, fairly or not, is going to be a big problem for him with the Christian Right. But THIS is a bum criticism: his ANCESTORS were polygamists?

http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2007/02/fake-scandal-republican-edition.html

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/02/reason-2675932-why-i-hate-media.html

Joe Conason: “It Can Happen Here: Authoritarian Peril in the Age of Bush”

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/25/10266/7021

Bonus item: The first and only time Shaquille O’Neal will ever appear in PBD

http://www.ericumansky.com/2007/02/shaq.html
Shaquille O'Neal, on being an All-Star starter after playing just 10 games:

"I'm like President Bush. You may not like me, you may not respect me, but you voted me in."

[NB: Well, not really, in Bush's case]

Extra bonus item: the line of the night, from the Oscars

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/arizonaliving/articles/0226oscar0226goody.html
In her opening monologue, DeGeneres pointed out Jennifer Hudson, nominated for a best-supporting-actress award for Dreamgirls, noting that she was on American Idol and "America didn't vote for her, and here she is with an Academy Award nomination. Al Gore is here. America did vote for him. Very complicated."

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

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 5:50 AM

 
SHELL GAME

Watch carefully. When critics predict that Bush’s war policies will fail, we are told that they “want to see the US defeated.” When those policies DO fail, we are told that it was because the predictions weakened national resolve and undermined the troops. When critics say, “we told you so,” and seek accountability, we are told that they are dwelling on the past when the point should be to focus on the future. Support for Bush’s war is what Karl Popper called an unfalsifiable thesis.

The latest version: when the Dems put forth a nonbinding resolution to try to stop the war, and Republicans oppose it, this shows that the Dems are simply playing politics to force the Republicans onto the record in support of Bush’s war. When they try to put forth more substantive bills that actually do try to stop the war, we are told that they are playing politics by putting up bills that they know the Republicans will filibuster – so why bother doing it?

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/02/for_senate_dems.html

Angry yet?

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_02_18_atrios_archive.html#117232667703309227
John Roberts: Even some fierce critics of the war feel it's far too early, that the troop increase should at least be given a chance.

Michael O'Hanlon: It seems to me the logical thing is to wait 4 to 6 months, and use that 4 to 6 months to evaluate that surge, and then to develop some plan B proposals. . . .

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_02_18_atrios_archive.html#117233555069794122
[Atrios] I think, probably, people have mostly come around to my way of thinking. Leaving is losing. The Bush administration will not leave Iraq unless they are forced, at best, and at worst will leave their successor with a regional war with Iran and who knows who else.

Still, the Elite Consensus by the Wise Men of Washington is that we need to give it another chance, and then another, and then another. In other words, it's a good thing that Bush isn't leaving.

So we've (The Wise Men) gone from thinking Bush will leave Iraq at some point and that's a good thing to thinking that Bush will not leave Iraq at some point and that's a good thing. I'm not sure that's progress, but at least we understand that Bush isn't leaving.

When we get attacked by Al Qaeda, will people remember this sequence of events?

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/17/bush.powell.terrorism/
[Bush, September 17, 2001] Osama bin Laden is the "prime suspect" in last Tuesday's terrorist attacks in New York and Washington and the United States wants to capture him, President Bush said Monday.

Speaking with reporters after a Pentagon briefing on plans to call up reserve troops, Bush offered some of his most blunt language to date when he was asked if he wanted bin Laden dead.

"I want justice," Bush said. "And there's an old poster out West I recall, that said, 'Wanted, Dead or Alive.'" . . . "We're going to find those evildoers, those barbaric people who attacked our country, and we're going to hold them accountable," Bush said.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
[Bush, March 13, 2002] Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. . . . So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_1013.html
[Bush, October 13, 2004] Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations. . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/world/asia/19intel.html
[February 18, 2007] Senior leaders of Al Qaeda operating from Pakistan have re-established significant control over their once-battered worldwide terror network and over the past year have set up a band of training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border . . . American officials said there was mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, had been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of North Waziristan. . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301799.html
[February 24, 2007] The Army's highest-ranking officer said Friday that he was unsure whether the U.S. military would capture or kill Osama bin Laden, adding, "I don't know that it's all that important, frankly."

"So we get him, and then what?" asked Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the outgoing Army chief of staff, at a Rotary Club of Fort Worth luncheon. "There's a temporary feeling of goodness, but in the long run, we may make him bigger than he is today.

"He's hiding, and he knows we're looking for him. We know he's not particularly effective. I'm not sure there's that great of a return" on capturing or killing bin Laden.

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/24/13123/3419

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/top-pentagon-official-says-getting-bin.html
[Joe Sudbay] Bush and Cheney only invoke Bin Laden and al Qaeda for their own warped political purposes. Just this week, Dick Cheney had the audacity to bring up al Qaeda in yet another partisan political attack on Democrats. What a fraud. If Bush and Cheney had done their jobs, al Qaeda wouldn't be a force anymore. Instead, the Bush Administration has enabled and emboldened the terror network. . .

http://roziusunbound.blogspot.com/2007/02/frank-rich-where-were-you-that-summer.html
[Frank Rich] [T]he entire debate about the Iraq “surge” is as much a sideshow as Britney’s scalp. More troops in Baghdad are irrelevant to what’s going down in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The surge supporters who accuse the Iraq war’s critics of emboldening the enemy are trying to deflect attention from their own complicity in losing a bigger battle: the one against the enemy that actually did attack us on 9/11. Who lost Iraq? is but a distraction from the more damning question, Who is losing the war on terrorism?

The record so far suggests that this White House has done so twice. The first defeat, of course, began in early December 2001, when we lost Osama bin Laden in Tora Bora. . . .

That mistake — dropping the ball on Al Qaeda — was compounded last fall when Mr. Bush committed his second major blunder in the war on terror. The occasion was the September revelation that our supposed ally, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, president of Pakistan, had negotiated a “truce” with the Taliban in North Waziristan, a tribal region in his country at the Afghanistan border. This truce was actually a retreat by Pakistan, which even released Qaeda prisoners in its custody. Yet the Bush White House denied any of this was happening. “This deal is not at all with the Taliban,” the president said, claiming that “this is against the Taliban, actually.” When Dana Priest and Ann Scott Tyson of The Washington Post reported that same month that the bin Laden trail was “stone cold” and had been since Mr. Bush diverted special operations troops from that hunt to Iraq in 2003, the White House branded the story flat wrong. “We’re on the hunt,” Mr. Bush said. “We’ll get him.”

They just don’t learn, do they?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022302049.html
In Diyala, the vast province northeast of Baghdad where Sunnis and Shiites are battling for primacy with mortars and nighttime abductions, the U.S. government has contracted the job of promoting democracy to a Pakistani citizen who has never lived or worked in a democracy.

The management of reconstruction projects in the province has been assigned to a Border Patrol commander with no reconstruction experience. The task of communicating with the embassy in Baghdad has been handed off to a man with no background in drafting diplomatic cables. The post of agriculture adviser has gone unfilled because the U.S. Department of Agriculture has provided just one of the six farming experts the State Department asked for a year ago. . . .

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10031.html

A very good question

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/the_war_in_iraq_/2007/02/ingratitude_mixed_messages_and_the_fog_of_war.php
[Mark Kleiman] Our Ambassador to Iraq apologizes for the detention of the son of the largest Shi'a political party, on his way back from Iran with weapons. The President of Iraq demands that the soldiers be punished. Our military spokesman says the troops were just doing their job.

Would it be too much to ask for our Ambassador in Iraq and our military spokespeople there to get their stories straight? And would it be unreasonable to ask the President of Iraq, on behalf of whose government we are currently sending another 20,000 people into harm's way, to help calm things down rather than stirring them up?

Dick Cheney: the Iraq war a “remarkable achievement”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/asia_cheney;_ylt=AgXv6HVHVyNFXUyOC8FPOzvMWM0F
Vice President Dick Cheney, in a series of blunt and sometimes biting statements during a visit to Asia, defended the Iraq war, attacked administration critics at home and warned that the U.S. would confront potential adversaries abroad.

[In] a series of public appearances and media interviews, Cheney's tone was typically feisty. . . Answering growing criticism in the U.S. and Australia, he defended the Iraq war as a "remarkable achievement" in one speech, and dismissed suggestions his influence in Washington is waning. . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_18.php#012619
[Jimmy Carter] "If you go back and see what Vice President Cheney has said for the last three or four years concerning Iraq, his batting average is abysmally low," Carter says of Cheney in an interview with George Stephanopoulos that will be shown on ABC News' This Week.

"He hasn't been right on hardly anything, in his prediction of what was going to happen . . . He's just been almost completely wrong on just about everything he's said." . . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_18.php#012625
[David Kurtz] We all know intuitively that Dick Cheney is delusional when he says that the British partial withdrawal in southern Iraq is a sign of success in stabilizing the region; but, for a more concrete sense of how badly the British have failed and how cowardly Tony Blair has become, you can't do better than Patrick Cockburn's piece yesterday in The Independent. . . .

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/the_war_in_iraq_/2007/02/blair_basra_and_our_delusional_veep.php
[Mark Kleiman] Is Dick Cheney "delusional"? Decide for yourself.

Here's what happened: Prime Minister Tony Blair today announced the first large-scale withdrawal of British troops from Iraq . . .

Here's what Cheney said about it:

"Well, I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well," Cheney told ABC News' Jonathan Karl. . .

And here's what the experts say:

The partial British military withdrawal from southern Iraq announced by Tony Blair this week follows political and military failure, and is not because of any improvement in local security.

Is Israel planning to attack Iran? Or are we?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_18.php#012624

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_25.php#012632

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_18.php#012630
[Reuters] Despite the Bush administration's insistence it has no plans to go to war with Iran, a Pentagon panel has been created to plan a bombing attack that could be implemented within 24 hours of getting the go-ahead from President George W. Bush, The New Yorker magazine reported in its latest issue.

The special planning group was established within the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in recent months, according to an unidentified former U.S. intelligence official cited in the article by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh in the March 4 issue.

The panel initially focused on destroying Iran's nuclear facilities and on regime change but has more recently been directed to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq, according to an Air Force adviser and a Pentagon consultant, who were not identified.

The consultant and a former senior intelligence official both said that U.S. military and special-operations teams had crossed the border from Iraq into Iran in pursuit of Iranian operatives, according to the article. . . .

From the London Times: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/24/232948/312
Some of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources. . . .

An invaluable resource: http://www.comw.org/pda/0702iran.html

Betraying the troops

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/bush-and-rumsfeld-broke-army-now-theyre.html
[Joe Sudbay] Never, ever should anyone in the Bush Administration be allowed to utter the phrase "we support the troops." This week, we saw just how the Bush Administration has neglected and abused the troops who were injured in the Bush-led war. The Washington Post series on Walter Reed has exposed the brutal treatment experienced by injured U.S. soldiers and their families at the hands of the Bush-led government that sent them to war. Unfortunately, Walter Reed, the flagship medical facility in the Army, is just the tip of the iceberg. . . .

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/25/41045/9187

More abuse for the National Guard

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_02_18_atrios_archive.html#117234779098057913

The US agrees to take in Iraqi refugees from the civil war, which is a good thing. But you can guess what comes next

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html#7305675440609348127

Wow! An inspiring Supreme Court decision (unfortunately it’s from Canada, not the US)

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/24/great-supreme-court-decision-but-not-ours/
“The overarching principle of fundamental justice that applies here is this: before the state can detain people for significant periods of time, it must accord them a fair judicial process” . . .

Grounds for dismissal?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/washington/25lawyers.html
Internal Justice Department performance reports for six of the eight United States attorneys who have been dismissed in recent months rated them “well regarded,” “capable” or “very competent,” a review of the evaluations shows. . .

The Christian Right isn’t happy with ANY of the Republican candidates for President, and that’s good news for the rest of us

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/us/politics/25secret.html

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/24/162659/204

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/secret-club-of-right-wingers-and.html

Whoa John, you’re gonna have a hard time living this one down

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10030.html
[NYT] So some guy stands up after John McCain’s luncheon speech here yesterday to a group of business types and asks him a question.

“I’ve seen in the press where in your run for the presidency, you’ve been sucking up to the religious right,” the man said, adding: “I was just wondering how soon do you predict a Republican candidate for president will start sucking up to the old Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party?”

Mr. McCain listened with his eyes downcast, then looked the man in the eye, smiled and replied: “I’m probably going to get in trouble, but what’s wrong with sucking up to everybody?” . . .

Mitch McConnell (R-KY): we haven’t hammered him too much lately, but just wait. . .

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/24/15553/8982

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/24/20210/4657

The L word

http://mediamatters.org/items/200702240002
[Jamison Foser] You might want to make sure you're sitting down for this one.

This week, the Republican National Committee distributed materials attacking Democratic presidential candidates for such sins as ... liberalism. Hillary Clinton, for example, is described as a "lifelong liberal." John Edwards is a "liberal," as is Barack Obama. And Chris Dodd.

Shocking, isn't it?

Strangely, some journalists apparently thought the RNC criticizing Democratic presidential candidates was unusual and surprising enough to merit a news story.

At ABC, for example, the RNC hit pieces were touted in The Note -- before they were even "released" . . .

Think about that for a second: ABC's The Note touted and quoted advance excerpts of ... talking points. Advance excerpts of ... "what amounts to rhetorical framing." Stop the presses!

David Brooks plays “Make a Wish” on Iraq, and Mark Shields make him look like a fool

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html#2539428751692116419

When will the press catch on that it’s not the “antiwar left” any more – it’s an antiwar NATION?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/02/24/antiwar_left/index.html

Will the Dems try to resuscitate the Fairness Doctrine? Why it matters

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/24/191638/287

Interesting. Why Democrats should give up trying to gain Republican voters

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/24/183711/862
[Chris Bowers] All of this is just scratching the surface. There is simply no empirical evidence from the past forty years that Democrats have the ability to shift a statistically significant number of Republican identifiers during a national election. Democratic margins among both Independent identifiers and Democratic identifiers have proven to be both far more variable and quite statistically significant. . .

[NB: Bowers has a point, but by his own numbers the percentage of GOP gains ranges from 13% for Clinton in 1996, to 6% for John Kerry in 2004. Those are big differences, since every 1% GOP vote gained is also a 1% GOP lost for the Republican candidate (i.e. a 2% gap). Given the current trend of extremely close national elections – even a percent or two can make the difference.]

The Dems are struggling to settle on a consensus plan on Iraq. Murtha’s option seems DOA. Personally, I like Biden's approach: we never authorized you for THIS. Let's have that debate

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/24/AR2007022401420.html

Gag me

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10032.html
Mary Matalin, for example, sent a fundraising letter on behalf of Libby’s Legal Defense Trust in which she tells the reader, “This loyal soldier in the War on Terror doesn’t have to go at it alone.” . . . [read on]

WILL Cheney be indicted? http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/2/24/141015/646

More evidence that the Washington Post ombudsperson needs an ombudsperson: she sees no problem with running a prominent editorial, authored by a Republican activist and friend of the Libby defense team, featuring a MUG SHOT of Patrick Fitzgerald, on the eve of jury deliberations

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301726.html
This wasn't tampering. The judge has instructed jurors to stay away from news reports. . . .

Conservapedia gives us what might become a new regular feature: “The Book of Knowledge”

http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2007/02/judicial-activism-real-definition.html
[Scott Lemieux] I'm particularly partial to

"[Nineteen-Eighty-Four] is a utopian book because it talks about a place where everyone is watched over by Big Brother." . . .

I like the entry on "judicial activism":

There are two major types of judicial activism practiced in the United States' court system:

1. Liberal judges striking down laws that uphold core conservative American values
2. Liberal judges refusing to strike down laws that subvert core conservative American values

The most famous example of this is Roe v. Wade. Other examples include Brown v Board of Education[1] and Loving v Virginia[2] which stripped state control over education and marriage, respectively, putting it in the hands of the federal government. . . .

http://sadlyno.com/archives/5152.html
Unicorn: The existence of unicorns is controversial. Secular opinion is that they are mythical. However, they are referred to in the Bible nine times, which provides an unimpeachable de facto argument for their once having been in existence. . . .

Sunday talk show line-ups

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/24/AR2007022401452.html
FOX NEWS SUNDAY: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) and Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell (D).

THIS WEEK (ABC): Rice and former president Jimmy Carter.

NEWSMAKERS (C-SPAN): U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab.

FACE THE NATION (CBS): California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.).

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.).

LATE EDITION (CNN): Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), Reps. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), Iraqi national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie and former secretaries of state Madeleine K. Albright and Henry Kissinger.

Bonus item: Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said something truly idiotic yesterday – then shows that she hasn’t learned Rule #1 about saying something stupid: don’t make it worse

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10027.html

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/24/whackaloon-canya-dig-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 @ 7:33 AM

 
THE BULLY

Dick Cheney: darker and more vicious with each passing day

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022300785.html
Vice President Cheney today repeated his charge that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's approach toward the Iraq war would benefit al-Qaeda, saying that he was not trying to impugn the speaker's patriotism but instead hold her accountable for the consequences of her policies. . .

[NB: “hold her accountable for the consequences of her policies,” huh? First of all, her policies haven’t had any consequences yet – but YOURS have]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/23/134024/333
[MissLaura] In a startling move, Dick Cheney has decided that someone should be held accountable for their Iraq position: Nancy Pelosi. . . [read on!]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_18.php#012612
[TY] I think the main thing Cheney is doing here is making the point that the Iraq war is about al-Qaeda, when in fact al-Qaeda is only a very small part of the war, as the NIE indicates. . . .

[Josh Marshall] True. But the thing is, the bigger we screw-up in Iraq, the more unpopular we get in the region, the wider the pool of potential recruits for jihadist groups like al-Qaida. So, yes, it's a canard. But the scope and magnitude of Cheney's screw-ups and incompetence are so vast that they actually can increase the danger we face from al-Qaida, even though at the outset they had little to do with each other. . . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_18.php#012609
[Josh Marshall] I don't know how many times this needs to be said: stop complaining that he's questioning anybody's patriotism. Or Pelosi's judgment. Or any of it. I know it's a dicey phrase, especially when it's being employed against a woman. But I think explanatory value outweighs other sensitivities. This is a perfect example of the GOP's bitch slap theory of electoral politics. Cheney criticize; Dems, Pelosi, whoever says it's unfair.

The point of the whole exercise is not the underlying issue of Pelosi but what the exchange is supposed to demonstrate about both players -- that Cheney is strong (he hits) and Pelosi is weak (she complains when attacked.)

Why complain about anything Dick Cheney says? The man is simply too big a fool to hold any job of responsibility in the national government. Think of his history of failure, terrible judgment, reckless endangerment of the country. It's hard to imagine that there's anyone in this country not under active federal surveillance who has done more to advance the al Qaeda agenda than Dick Cheney.

I know that seems like hyperbole or a throwaway line. But it's actually very true. . . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_18.php#012616
[DB] Why doesn't a prominent Democrat come out and basically repeat your post on Cheney? Why can't a Democrat on a Sunday morning talk show scream, "Cheney is a moron! He has no idea what the hell he is doing. He is an outright disaster. . . The only reason he remains afloat is because he is a bully. Well it is about time someone called the bully's bluff.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/cheney-who-has-helped-rebuild-al-qaeda.html
[Joe in DC] Let's review:

1) Just this week, we learned that Al Qaeda is back; Bin Laden has reasserted his authority;

2) Last fall we learned that the nation's 16 intelligence agencies concluded that the Iraq war has hurt the U.S. efforts to fight terrorism while serving as a recruiting boon for jihadist terror networks;

3) The Iraq war is a monumental failure and there has never been a real plan from the Bush/Cheney Administration to get the U.S. out of the quagmire.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10021.html
[Steve Benen] Shortly after the first Gulf War, then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney was a little sensitive to charges that he failed to “finish the job” against Iraq. More than a few hawks thought that Cheney and the other Bush administration dropped the ball when it had the opportunity to take out Saddam but chose not to.

In a 1991 speech, Cheney delivered a rather defensive speech on the subject, noting the intense sectarian rivalries that dominate Iraqi society and the likely inability to maintain stability in Baghdad. As for replacing Saddam with a democracy, Cheney asked his audience,

“How much credibility is that government going to have if it’s set up by the United States military when it’s there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for the government, and what happens to it once we leave?. . .

The notion that we ought to now go to Baghdad and somehow take control of the country strikes me as an extremely serious one in terms of what we’d have to do once we got there. You’d probably have to put some new government in place. It’s not clear what kind of government that would be, how long you’d have to stay. For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who’s going to govern in Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire.” . . .

To his credit, ABC News’ Jonathan Karl sat down with Cheney in Australia today for a fairly wide-ranging interview, and asked the Vice President about his remarks from 16 years ago. Cheney’s response was not reassuring. . . . [read on]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/02/23/various_matters/index.html
[Glenn Greenwald] Cheney replied: "Well, I stand by what I said in '91. But look what's happened since then -- we had 9/11." Cheney then proceeded to babble nonresponsively about all the terrible Terrorist Attacks and all the great things we have accomplished in Iraq and how important it is to Stand Tall in the face of the Terrorists -- none of which, of course, addresses why we invaded Iraq if doing so is the "classic definition of a quagmire." As Froomkin asks:

So if I read this correctly, Cheney is saying: Yes, it's a quagmire. But after 9/11 we needed to prove that we weren't weak.

Is that now the official White House position?

That, as I noted earlier today, has indeed become the sole and all-consuming view of the Bush administration on all foreign policy matters, and as much as anything else, it is that mindset which explains our current predicament. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/02/23/BL2007022300990.html
[Dan Froomkin] During today's 22-minute interview in a Sydney restaurant, Cheney showed no sign of backing down from controversy. Rather, he:

* Repeated and amplified his opinion that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's proposed course in Iraq would validate al Qaeda. (After Cheney's last interview with Karl, Pelosi called upon President Bush to repudiate the comments.)

* Refused to acknowledge any failure of U.S. policy in Iraq.

* Stood by his 1991 prediction that an invasion of Iraq would result in a quagmire -- but said that 9/11 changed the dynamics such that it had to be done anyway.

* Expressed pride in having done "some very controversial things" since 9/11 that he said have averted further terrorist attacks within our borders.

* Said it was "probably inaccurate" to call him an all-powerful vice president.

* Refused to address any of the serious accusations leveled against him during the course of the trial of his former chief of staff, Scooter Libby.

* Refused to rule out military action against Iran.

More: http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/02/reciprocity/
[Matt Ygeslias] Dick Cheney is, to be sure, the Bush administration figure most likely to say something ridiculous in public . . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_18.php#012617
[Barack Obama] "Now, keep in mind, this is the same guy that said we'd be greeted as liberators, the same guy that said that we're in the last throes. I'm sure he forecast sun today," Obama said to laughter from supporters holding campaign signs over their heads to keep dry. "When Dick Cheney says it's a good thing, you know that you've probably got some big problems."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_18.php#012620
QUESTION: Mr. Vice President, you've said that the British draw-down from Iraq reflects their success there and not domestic considerations. Did the United States ask for them to redeploy those troops inside Iraq to take some strain off the U.S. forces involved in the Baghdad Security Plan and in al Anbar province? And if not, why not?

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Well, the Brits have been great allies in the efforts -- mutual efforts in Iraq. They have been there from the very beginning, as have our Australian friends. They have to make decisions with respect to their forces based upon what they think makes sense. . . .

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/23/dick-cheneys-honor/

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/the_permanent_campaign_/2007/02/simile_contest_dick_cheney_edition.php
[Jonatan Zasloff] This leads to an exclusive RBC simile contest, to wit:

Dick Cheney attacking someone's judgment is like ____________

I know the press has a difficult time keeping these complexities straight, but in all the talk of Iranian meddling in Iraq, you might think someone would point out that the closest links of Iran and Iraq are through Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, head of SCIRI -– supposedly our “ally” (and what does SCIRI stand for again?)

http://www.first-draft.com/2007/02/the_enemy_of_my.html

http://www.first-draft.com/2007/02/no_longer_opera.html

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/005705.html

http://www.juancole.com/2007/02/breaking-news-us-arrests-ammar-al-hakim.html

http://www.juancole.com/2007/02/khalilzad-apologizes-for-arrest-of.html

More good news

http://www.slate.com/id/2160542/fr/rss/
[Barbara Raab – long name, only three letters] The LAT reports the Bush administration is running out of patience with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Shiite parliament's foot-dragging over legislation that would ease rules barring former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party from government service, an important factor in bringing Iraq's violence under control. The person in charge of overseeing the de-Baathification plan was Ahmad Chalabi, who Maureen Dowd describes in her NYT column today as "the man who helped goad and trick the U.S. into war."

US attorney number eight fired

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002618.php

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/2/24/14953/9729

An investigation begins: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_18.php#012606

Joe Lieberman: we’ve had just about enough of his pious posturing

His promises not to switch parties: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/02/post_49.php

His waffling now: http://joewaffle.notlong.com
The Associated Press is now moving a story with a big headline that blares: "Lieberman ends speculation of switch to GOP." Yes, but did he actually do this? Here's what Lieberman said . . .

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/02/a_switch_in_time/
[Matt Yglesias] As Joe Lieberman continues to indicate that he spent his entire 2006 re-election campaign lying to the voters of Connecticut, the Democratic leadership needs to get its shit together. Lieberman switching would not change committee composition or "majority" status as explained here. What's more, it would doom his re-election bid in 2012 . . .

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2007/02/post_2893.html
[Mark Schmitt] Here is my plea to Senator Joe Lieberman, a politician I've admired since I was seven years old: Please switch parties. We're tired of the game where you keep dancing ever close to the edge, hoping someone will pay attention to you. Just switch. The issue of our moment is the Iraq war, the pro-war side is the Republican Party. That's your side. Don't do Harry Reid any favors -- he'll manage just fine without you. . . .

If you're not willing to do that honorable thing, then please just quit talking about how you just might possibly have to consider, with deep regret, switching parties, not because you've changed but because of the tragedy that the party has left you, become objectively pro-terrorist, blah blah blah. It's an act that got old a long time ago.

More: http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=EB66CD99-E0C3-F090-A1D2679A51EFDABB

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/23/pros-get-punkd-amateurs-come-through/

Now for something real

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html#7868061382831538193
[Digby] The percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high . . .

The Dems get serious (maybe)

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002614.php
[Paul Kiel] "I've had enough of 'nonbinding,' " says Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA). OK, then. So what's next? . . . [read on]

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/senate-dem-iraq-legislation-may-codify.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301772.html
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned yesterday that a new Democratic effort to repeal the 2002 Iraq war resolution would meet the same fate as two previous efforts to limit President Bush's authority: blocked by procedural obstacles, unless Democrats relent to GOP terms. . .

The Walter Reed scandal is a scandal again

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/defense-secretary-contradicts-army.html

For the umpteenth time, is there ANYTHING a right-winger can say that deems them unqualified for positions of political responsibility and influence?

http://rogerailes.blogspot.com/2007_02_18_archive.html#3692907746792256568#3692907746792256568
[Roger Ailes] In his latest appeal to the Republican base, Duncan Hunter has named Dr. Henry Jordan as his South Carolina campaign co-chair. This Henry Jordan:

A state Board of Education member, talking Tuesday about displaying the Ten Commandments in public schools, had a ready suggestion for groups who might object to it.

"Screw the Buddhists and kill the Muslims," Dr. Henry Jordan said during the board's finance and legislative committee meeting. "And put that in the minutes," he added.

The remarks made Tuesday were expunged from the written minutes, but were recorded on tape. The (Columbia) State obtained the tape under the Freedom of Information Act. . . .

Rush Limbaugh touts phony figures to suggest the absurd claim that fewer soldiers are dying in Bush’s war than died during Bill Clinton’s peacetime

http://mediamatters.org/items/200702230005

The Goofus Files

http://www.first-draft.com/2007/02/your_president__16.html

Bad as Tony Snow is, the press secty’s B Team is even worse

http://www.first-draft.com/2007/02/today_on_holden_13.html
MR. FRATTO: Now that's -- so we're operating under a mandate. If you look at U.N. Security Council Resolution 1723, it specifically authorizes the presence of the multinational force in Iraq, at the request of the government of Iraq --

Q -- under military occupation --

MR. FRATTO: This isn't -- this isn't --

Q They requested -- would you take a referendum on that issue?

MR. FRATTO: This isn't military operation [sic]. As the current U.N. Security Council Resolution 1723 makes clear, we are in Iraq at the invitation of the government of Iraq. And it's very clear on that. . .

http://www.first-draft.com/2007/02/today_on_holden_12.html
Q Dana, the Vice President made some comments about Democrats and their agenda and how it would . . encourage terrorists in Iraq. . . Was he at all out of line in making those comments?

MS. PERINO: The Vice President out of line? Absolutely not. He was questioning the merits of the -- of their proposal. And I think if you go up and take a look back at some of the things that they've said about the President, the tables could be turned. But we're not making the same accusations.

Will blogging and the “new media” help save democracy?

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0222-29.htm
[Andrea Schmidt and Megan Boler] In the megamart vision, the wide range of choice and freedom of expression are most significant—a vision of democracy modeled on American consumer choice. . .

But many bloggers we interviewed dispute the megamart model of democracy and see instead the emergence of a renewed “town hall”: a public forum in which judgments and opinions are rigorously debated. As one Left blogger we interviewed states of his attempts to educate and mobilize his readers . . . [read on]

http://www.counterpunch.org/boler02202007.html
[Megan Boler] The popular debate about whether Jon Stewart's The Daily Show is "bad for Americans" won't go away. Indeed, worries got so big that now FOX has launched a conservative antidote, "The Half Hour News Show" which premiered this week. Now streaming on YouTube, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough ran a piece featuring Daily Show clips and two pundits debating whether "therapeutic irony is rendering us politically impotent." Similar fears were fanned last year when news media had a fiesta with a questionable study by two academics which claimed that watching The Daily Show breeds cynicism and lowers young voters' "trust in national leaders." . . . [read on]

Bonus item: Who elected HER?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_18.php#012605
[Josh Marshall] Whackjob member of Congress Michelle Bachmann [R-MN], it turns out, has discovered that there's already a plan in place to divide Iraq. Iran will get half the country. And they'll set that part up as a "terrorist safe haven zone."

Says Bachmann: "And half of Iraq, the western, northern portion of Iraq, is going to be called…. the Iraq State of Islam, something like that. And I’m sorry, I don’t have the official name, but it’s meant to be the training ground for the terrorists. There’s already an agreement made." . . .

***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 @ 7:13 AM

 
A LOT LONGER . . .

What the surge really means

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17282867/site/newsweek
[Michael Hirsh] The British are leaving, the Iraqis are failing and the Americans are staying—and we’re going to be there a lot longer than anyone in Washington is acknowledging right now. As Democrats and Republicans back home try to outdo each other with quick-fix plans for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and funds, what few people seem to have noticed is that Gen. David Petraeus’s new “surge” plan is committing U.S. troops, day by day, to a much deeper and longer-term role in policing Iraq than since the earliest days of the U.S. occupation. How long must we stay under the Petraeus plan? Perhaps 10 years. At least five. In any case, long after George W. Bush has returned to Crawford, Texas, for good. . . .

To a degree little understood by the U.S. public, Petraeus is engaged in a giant “do-over.” It is a near-reversal of the approach taken by Petraeus’s predecessor as commander of multinational forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, until the latter was relieved in early February, and most other top U.S. commanders going back to Rick Sanchez and Tommy Franks. Casey sought to accelerate both the training of Iraqi forces and American withdrawal. By 2008, the remaining 60,000 or so U.S. troops were supposed to be hunkering down in four giant “superbases,” where they would be relatively safe. Under Petraeus’s plan, a U.S. military force of 160,000 or more is setting up hundreds of “mini-forts” all over Baghdad and the rest of the country, right in the middle of the action. The U.S. Army has also stopped pretending that Iraqis—who have failed to build a credible government, military or police force on their own—are in the lead when it comes to kicking down doors and keeping the peace. And that means the future of Iraq depends on the long-term presence of U.S. forces in a way it did not just a few months ago. “We’re putting down roots,” says Philip Carter, a former U.S. Army captain who returned last summer from a year of policing and training in the hot zone around Baquba. “The Americans are no longer willing to accept failure in order to put Iraqis in the lead. You can’t let the mission fail just for the sake of diplomacy.” . . .

More: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_18.php#012592

Angry yet?

http://www.slate.com/id/2160442/fr/rss/
[Daniel Politi] The Post and the NYT both stuff good dispatches from Iraq that illustrate the seemingly never-ending divide between Iraqi and American soldiers. The NYT takes a look at the street patrols in Baghdad that are part of the new security plan and says nothing much has changed. U.S. troops are still taking the lead and highly outnumber their Iraqi counterparts, who often make their sectarian affiliations clear, and sometimes even warn residents of the approaching Americans. The Post spends some time in a police station in Baqubah that has both Iraqis and Americans. Again, it's the Americans that have to take the lead, and there is not much communication with the Iraqis in the station who are relegated to a different part of the station, have fewer rations, and inferior equipment.

The NYT fronts a look at the effect the long deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan are having on soldiers' families and loved ones, which it says is "one of the toughest, least discussed byproducts of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan." In a similar vein, the LAT fronts a look at the story of one woman whose husband lost an arm and a leg in Iraq to illustrate the ordeal the spouses of amputees often go through.

Will Bush start a troop withdrawal by the end of the year? (a debate)

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_02_18_atrios_archive.html#117215501309099881

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/22/92235/5827

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_02_18_atrios_archive.html#117215607946693266

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html#7464370435978208397

Breaking the Army

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/george-bush-may-very-well-be-breaking.html

See? See? They ARE building WMDs! (Now we’ll have to invade them all over again – or something)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/world/middleeast/22cnd-iraq.html

The sad, untold tale of Bush’s failure in Afghanistan

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/22/193958/490
[Hunter] Like most Americans, I considered American actions in Afghanistan to be a dismal but necessary act. An attack on United States soil requires, unequivocally, a disproportionate response; a valid military response in this case would have indeed been a removal of the Taliban from power, the complete and total removal of al Qaeda from Afghanistan and in any other countries in which they had found refuge, and a generous reconstruction of Afghanistan in such a fashion as to ensure al Qaeda's continued inability to function there, thus demonstrating that terrorism against the United States would both fail in its purpose, and would result in disproportionate damage to the terrorists and hostile nations responsible. That's how you prevent terrorism: you make the consequences worse than the possible upside.

That proposition, supported by nearly all Americans, lasted mere months, however, before the Bush administration's eyes wandered away from the actual fight against al Qaeda and supporters and towards a large scale proxy war advocated by Rumsfeld and by neoconservative strategists looking to transfer American attention to the war they had wanted to fight, rather than the war they were actually in. The relatively small number of troops that had been committed to Afghanistan were drawn off to prepare for a larger Iraq conflict, including special forces tasked directly with tracking bin Laden. At no point was Afghanistan on the road to sure recovery: the Taliban remains a force in the country to this day.

From the start, Iraq was at minimum a distraction from al Qaeda. But in practice, it was clearly and predictably worse . . . [read on]

There’s no way to spin the British announcement that they’re getting out of Iraq as anything but bad news for the Bush plan – but that doesn’t mean they aren’t trying to

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/02/22/BL2007022200800.html

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/02/23/british_withdrawal/

More: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/uk-moving-towards-investigation-into.html
[The Independent] The Government is under mounting pressure to hold an early inquiry into the mistakes made in Iraq as Tony Blair refused to apologise for the chaos engulfing the country.
. . .

Chalabi, still around, still playing the angles (Is he the “friend” Cheney referred to yesterday, who told him things were going great in Basra, despite news reports to the contrary? They never learn, do they?)

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_18.php#012598

Meanwhile. . .

http://www.slate.com/id/2160442/fr/rss/
[Daniel Politi] Meanwhile, the Post reports that the Iraqi diplomatic mission in Washington is spending tons of money and its embassy is undergoing major renovations. The Iraqi government recently purchased a $5.8 million mansion in Washington that has more than 7,000 square feet of space. And, yes, it does have a Jacuzzi.

What you have to read international papers to find out

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2019235,00.html
Much of the intelligence on Iran's nuclear facilities provided to UN inspectors by US spy agencies has turned out to be unfounded, diplomatic sources in Vienna said today. . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_18.php#012591
[The Times of London] But there are deep fissures within the US Administration. Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, who has previously called for direct talks with Tehran, is said to be totally opposed to military action. . .

The hawks are led by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, who is urging Mr Bush to keep the military option “on the table”. He is also pressing the Pentagon to examine specific war plans — including, it is rumoured, covert action. . .

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010795.php
[Haaretz] When Israeli officials asked Secretary Rice about the possibility of exploring the seriousness of Syria in its calls for peace talks, her response was unequivocal: Don't even think about it. . . . [read on]

A question: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012593.php
[Andrew Sullivan] On the evidence of the last six years, is the US an aggressive, destablizing force on the global stage or a benign, ordering force?

How Gonzales runs the Dept of Justice

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/22/1994/27080
[AP] Federal prosecutors counted immigration violations, marriage fraud and drug trafficking among anti-terror cases in the four years after 9/11 even though no evidence linked them to terror activity, a Justice Department audit said Tuesday.

Overall, nearly all of the terrorism-related statistics on investigations, referrals and cases examined by department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine were either diminished or inflated. Only two of 26 sets of department data reported between 2001 and 2005 were accurate, the audit found. . . [read on]

Was the firing of seven US Attorneys all a cover for the ONE firing they were really serious about?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_18.php#012582
[Josh Marshall] Sometimes a really big story is sitting there, right in plain sight. That's the case with the firing of San Diego US Attorney Carol Lam and the on-going Duke Cunningham investigation.

As per Washington conventional wisdom we're now supposed to accept that the firing of seven US attorneys around the country was, yes, perhaps unprecedented, but more an example of Bush cronyism than an effort to short-circuit one or more investigations. But the firing of Lam just doesn't bear out that reading. . . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_18.php#012583
[Josh Marshall] A number of TPM Readers have written in suggesting that former US Attorney Carol Lam's firing was at the heart of the US Attorney purge. The others were meant as cover, to deflect attention from what looked like an attempt to shutdown her investigation and make her appear to be just one of several firees. I think that's quite possible actually. And there are people involved in the case who think the same thing.

More on the Alishtari story: when does this reach critical mass?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10010.html

What are the Dems doing?

http://www.slate.com/id/2160442/fr/rss/
[Daniel Politi] The WP fronts word that Democratic leaders in the Senate will release a plan next week to repeal the 2002 resolution that authorized the war in Iraq in order replace it with one that sets limits and begins to get troops out of the war zone. Some Democrats in the House, led by Rep. John Murtha, wanted to link further funding of the war effort with troop readiness but they have dropped the efforts after bipartisan criticism. Although most Democrats agree they want to go beyond nonbinding resolutions ("I've had enough of 'nonbinding,'" said Sen. John Kerry) there is still disagreement on how exactly to proceed.

Joe Lieberman, always looking for ways to make sure NOBODY FORGETS HIM, now threatening to switch parties

http://lieberman.notlong.com

http://liebermanswitch.notlong.com

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10007.html

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/22/surprise/

Why it won’t matter: http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2007/02/post_2895.html

http://politicalinsider.com/2007/02/liebermans_switch_wouldnt_flip.html

Frank Gaffney, heir of Lincoln

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/02/pundit_who_publ.php

While the jury deliberates, some tasty snacks from the Libby trial

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/22/fitz/

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/22/unscripted/

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/22/nope-not-yet/

The bigger story: http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/22/the-conspiracy-patrick-fitzgerald-couldnt-crack/

Victoria Toensing’s (not surprisingly) dishonest account of her shamelessly pro-Libby editorial in the Washington Post

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2007/02/post_2896.html
You were sitting at the defense lawyers' table at this morning's session of the trial, were you not?

Does that mean you are part of the defense team? Shouldn't that have been mentioned with your Outlook article? . . .

ANOTHER gratuitous slam at Fitzgerald, from the Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/22/AR2007022201935.html

If you hate Fox News as much as I do: a new resource

http://foxattacks.com/

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10012.html
[Steve Benen] Olbermann fans will love a new recurring segment he introduced last night — it’s called the “24 Hour Comedy Hour.” I don’t want to spoil the surprise, but I’ll give you a hint, Olbermann starts using a laugh track during some regular Fox News broadcasts.

Bonus item: Conservapedia!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/23/64536/3709

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

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:28 AM

 
IN DEEP DENIAL

Give me an effin' break: new GOP poll supposedly shows people LIKE the Iraq war

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_18.php#012570

NOT good

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/PAR230638.htm
The U.S. military said on Thursday a second bomb in two days using chlorine gas may have been a copycat attack amid concerns insurgents were broadening their range of weaponry to include crude chemical bombs. . . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/22/04647/0102
[McJoan] While it's hard to imagine the chaos in Iraq could get any worse, it is getting worse and that trend will only continue. . . .

14,000 National Guard troops, rushed back into Iraq ahead of the normal rotation schedule – and once again not enough equipment for them

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/national-guard-units-heading-to-iraq.html

PM Maliki: it’ll never work as long as he’s in charge

http://www.first-draft.com/2007/02/malikis_tin_ear.html

The British announce a phased withdrawal, and however you spin it, it’s a problem for Bush

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/02/20/blair/index.html

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/uk-pullout-from-iraq-defeat-no-matter.html

http://www.first-draft.com/2007/02/today_on_holden_11.html
Q The Iraq withdrawal plan announced by Tony Blair, do you see that as a negative sign?

MR. SNOW: No, it indicates that there's been some progress in Basra. . .

Q Can I follow that, Tony? The plan calls for the British to remove troops as conditions permit. And the initial response from the U.S. was that that's a model to emulate. But that's what some have, in fact, been calling for here, is time lines for removal of troops if conditions permit. So why is that model not okay for U.S. troops?

MR. SNOW: No, this is not a time line. And the Prime Minister made it clear it is not a time line. As a matter of fact, what you had is progress first and then the removal. This was not in response to any calendar that had been set by the Parliament or by the Prime Minister. In fact, it had been the result of a judgment. . . .

Q Is there any consideration of having the Brits ease the burden on the U.S. in its own surge in Baghdad and al Anbar?

MR. SNOW: No, these are -- they have had separate -- as you know, there has been a division of labor within Iraq and people do have separate responsibilities. . .

Dead-enders: they DID find WMD’s in Iraq, they really did!

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/02/22/gaffney/index.html

If you remember the scene in “Alien,” where the android flips out and starts spinning around the room, spewing white juice and striking out at everyone within reach - - - that’s what Cheney reminds me of these days

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_18.php#012565
[ABC] I talked to a friend just the other day, a guy who knows the region very well, has spent a lot of years in that part of the world who had driven from Baghdad down to Basra in seven hours, found the situation dramatically improved compared to where it was a year or so ago, sort of validated the British view that they have made progress in southern Iraq, and that they can therefore afford to reduce their force posture.

[NB: Yeah? Who is that “friend”?]

http://www.first-draft.com/2007/02/bububut_dick_ch.html
An AFP reporter who visited British forces in Basra and at the airbase last month found both under almost daily mortar attack from militias in the city. . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_18.php#012566
[RS] Josh, one of the arguments made by Cheney in the interview (and others such as John Howard) is that the British withdrawal is good news because it reflects improvement in the situation in the South. Well, if this is the case, then why aren't the British troops being moved to where they are needed instead of being withdrawn? Why is nobody asking this question?

http://mccainapology.notlong.com
[Cheney] Karl: So what's your take on where Secretary Rumsfeld fits in?

Cheney: I think Don's a great secretary. I know a little bit about the job. I've watched what he's done over there for six years. I think he did a superb job in terms of managing the Pentagon under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. . .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070222/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq;_ylt=AuF1MaSrh21XaKCgDET3SSTMWM0F
Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday harshly criticized Democrats' attempts to thwart President Bush's troop buildup in Iraq, saying their approach would "validate the al-Qaida strategy." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi fired back that Cheney was questioning critics' patriotism. . .

"I hope the president will repudiate and distance himself from the vice president's remarks," Pelosi said. . . . "You cannot say as the president of the United States, 'I welcome disagreement in a time of war,' and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country," the speaker said. . .

More: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html#4869199328893391432

Alpha Dog. McCain criticizes Cheney, Cheney lashes out, McCain backs down and apologizes. . . . maybe

http://mccainapology.notlong.com
[ABC] Karl: And I wanted to ask you. You probably heard John McCain again come out and say that your friend Donald Rumsfeld is perhaps the worst secretary of defense ever. What do you make of that?

Cheney: I just fundamentally disagree with John. John said some nasty things about me the other day, and then next time he saw me, ran over to me and apologized. Maybe he'll apologize to Rumsfeld. . . .

Karl: And I know we're just about out of time, but I wanted to clarify, Sen. McCain had said that the problem with President Bush is he listened to you too much. So this is what he was apologizing to you for?

Cheney: Yes, yes.

Karl: What did he say?

Cheney: Well, he came up to me on the floor a couple of days later, the next time I was on the floor of the Senate, said he'd been quoted out of context, and then basically offered an apology, which I was happy to accept.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_18.php#012572
[Greg Sargent] McCain declining to comment on Cheney's assertion that the Senator privately apologized after criticizing him over Iraq.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10000.html
[Steve Benen] In 2004, John McCain said Dick Cheney was one of the best Vice Presidents in American history. Last month, McCain reversed course, saying Bush has been “badly served by…the Vice President.” According to Cheney, McCain reversed course again, and apologized to the VP directly.

John McCain, Mr. Flexible

http://politicalinsider.com/2007/02/mccain_pulls_a_romney_on_ethan.html
[1999] "Ethanol is not worth it. It does not help the consumer. Those ethanol subsidies should be phased out. . .”

[2003] "Ethanol is a product that would not exist if congress didn't create an artificial market for it."

[2007] "I just want to discuss a couple more issues with you very quickly. By the way, as Chuck Grassley so insists I do, I had my glass of ethanol this morning and I'm feeling good. I know you are too. It's great for you. We need energy independence. . . . I'm not sure we can achieve that but certainly ethanol's going to play a major role in the energy independence."

More trouble for Bush pal Alishtari

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/20/18711/1394

The return of Dubai Ports World

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/21/121552/437

John Murtha (D-PA), a man with more military cred than Bush’s entire inner circle put together, stands against them – and so . . . must. . .be. . . destroyed

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/21/205252/061

The Republicans are scared to DEATH about Iraq still being an issue in 2008: watch for Bush to pull a Tony Blair before the year is out

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/02/21/republicans_want_iraq_decided_this_year.html

The Dems zero in on those bogus US Attorney firings. Keep an eye on this one

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/21/19114/2462

Reflections on the Libby trial – and why DID Fitzgerald go out of his way to pin a big target sign on the back of Dick Cheney?

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/21/whats-it-all-about-alfie/
[Jane Hamsher] With the close of the Libby trial, I'd like to step back and start trying to define what the important, overarching narratives to emerge from the case actually are:

1. The administration lied us into war and tried to abuse its power to punish the whistleblower who told the American public the truth.

2. Scooter [Libby] is the firewall to Shooter [Cheney].

3. Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby and other members of the administration conspired to keep federal investigators from uncovering their crimes.

4. The media was complicit in spreading administration propaganda rather than doing investigative journalism, and are now helping to set the table for a pardon.

5. The journalistic standards that have been exposed in the case (witness Tim Russert, Judy Miller, Andrea Mitchell, Robert Novak and others) are reprehensible, and have undermined the public trust in the media.

6. The degree to which this story about the lies that lead to war has been ignored by the media (relative to the feeding frenzy over a Clinton blowjob) left a huge opening that the blogs have filled.

More: http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/21/232234/564

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/21/madness-madness-madness/

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/21/the-waiting-game/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/02/21/BL2007022101033.html

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2007/02/post_2873.html

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/2/21/13335/0191
[DOJ] Mr. Fitzgerald will not be available after a verdict for one-on-one interviews or talk shows. We do anticipate that he will speak to the media after a verdict outside the Courthouse.

[Jeralyn Merritt] My main question which I hope a reporter asks: Is this investigation over? I sure hope the answer is "no."

The Goofus Files

http://www.first-draft.com/2007/02/your_president__15.html
And so today we're going to have a conversation with experts. We've got people who call themselves experts, like me and the Secretary and the Governor. And we got people who are living experts because they're having to deal with the health care problems. . . . I happen to believe governors know how to set agendas and know how to achieve results. You've got you such a governor here in the state of Tennessee, as well.

Dems: DO NOT give Fox News the legitimacy of sponsoring one of your debates

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/21/145258/489

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/21/131213/634

So petty, so unnecessary, and so typical: WH punishes 86-year old Helen Thomas

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2847.html

Bonus item: Boo hoo!

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3818

***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 @ 7:21 AM

 
AND THE JURY SAYS . . . .

An overview of the Libby summations, along with liveblogging “transcripts,” from Firedoglake. What a tremendous job they have done in providing a fascinating insight into this trial

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/20/big-close/

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/20/libby-trial-jury-nullification-jnov-and-other-motions

Prosecution: http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/20/libby-live-zeidenbergs-prosecution-summation-one/

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/20/libby-live-zeidenbergs-prosecution-summation-two/

Defense: http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/20/libby-live-wells-defense-summation-one/

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/20/libby-live-jeffress-defense-summation-two/

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/20/libby-live-wells-defense-summation-three

Rebuttal: http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/20/libby-live-fitzgeralds-rebuttal/

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/20/libby-live-fitzgeralds-rebuttal-two/

Good luck

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/washington/20cnd-libby.html
“All of us forget things, we misconstrue things,” the chief defense lawyer, Theodore V. Wells Jr., told the jury. “It happens to everybody. Everybody.”

Another defense lawyer, William H. Jeffress Jr., told jurors there is more than enough reasonable doubt to return a verdict of not guilty. “You’re an American jury,” he said, “sworn to give Mr. Libby the presumption of innocence.” . . .

Mr. Wells scoffed at the prosecution’s case, saying it was based on “he said, she said,” and that there was more than enough reasonable doubt for an acquittal. . . .

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/20/libby-live-fitzgeralds-rebuttal/
[Fitzgerald] It's a he said he said he said he said she said she said she said he said (shows the graphic of nine people) . . .

Jeralyn Merritt ALWAYS makes the case for the defense – so how does she handle a case where she really wants the defense to lose?

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/2/21/23551/6143
I'm so conflicted.

I believe that the Office of the Vice President, particularly Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby, went all out to attack Joseph Wilson after his July 6th New York Times Op-ed criticizing the intelligence relied on by the Administration to justify its decision to go to war in Iraq. . . [read on!]

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=167836
[David Corn] The defense team's closer had an air of disorganization. But that was the point. Wells and co-counsel Bill Jeffress threw whatever they could at the jury. . . .

More: http://www.samefacts.com/archives/valerie_plame_/2007/02/classicism.php

It’s clear what Fitzgerald thinks about Cheney’s role: will he do anything about it?

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/20/big-close/
There is a cloud over the VP. He wrote those columns, he had those meetings, He sent Libby off to the meeting with Judy. Where Plame was discussed. That cloud remains because the defendant obstructed justice. That cloud was there. That cloud is something that we just can't pretend isn't there.

More: http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/20/indicting-dick/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/02/20/BL2007022000550.html
[Dan Froomkin] Murray Waas had another bombshell for the National Journal yesterday, writing that if Libby is found guilty, the prosecution may pursue Cheney legally -- presumably trying one more time to "flip" Libby and turn him into a prosecution witness.

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2007/02/post_2860.html
[Jeff Lomonaco] But is the public prepared for such a move? Would an indictment of Cheney be perceived as coming out of nowhere? And why would it depend on Libby's conviction -- that is, an acquittal would clearly be an end of the investigation, but from a legal perspective, why wouldn't Fitzgerald have indicted all accused wrongdoers at the same time?

There has to be some kind of account of new information that has been gained since Libby's indictment. Perhaps the prosecution is hoping that, if Libby is convicted, he either would agree or could be compelled to be more forthcoming. I'm skeptical. Has the prosecution gained new information from the man who just barely escaped prosecution, Karl Rove, and whom prosecutors were probably hoping to play off against Libby when they intended to indict him in October 2005 before Rove's lawyer pulled off a last-minute deferral? I'm skeptical too. If Fitzgerald is going to pursue Cheney upon a possible conviction of Libby, he's going to have to lay the groundwork for that; the only chance he will have is with what he has to say on the courthouse steps if Libby is indeed convicted.

A trip down memory lane

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/499053p-420743c.html
Any staffer proven to have leaked CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity "would no longer be in this administration," former White House spokesman Scott McClellan promised in September 2003. . . .

Read it and weep (pt. 1)

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_18.php#012558
[Peter Bergen] Paul Cruickshank of NYU's Center on Law and Security and I coauthored this attached study which we believe is the first attempt to measure the effect of the Iraq war on jihadist terrorism. The headline-- a sevenfold increase in jihadist terrorist attacks since the beginning of the Iraq war compared to the period after the 9/11 attacks and the invasion of iraq in March 2003. Much of that increase is accounted by jihadist terror attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we also found enormous increases in the Arab world outside Iraq and some real increases in attacks against US NATO allies. . .

[Josh Marshall] If you approach the Iraq War in common sense terms rather than as an exercise in ideological grandiosity and historical narcissicism, the results are not surprising. Grim, but not surprising.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010786.php
[Mother Jones] The globalization of jihad and martyrdom has disquieting implications for American security in the future. Jihadists are already leaving Iraq to operate elsewhere, a "blowback" trend that will greatly increase when the war eventually winds down. Terrorist groups in Iraq, which have learned to raise millions through kidnapping and oil theft, may be in a position to help fund their jihadist brethren elsewhere. Finally, Iraq has increased the popularity of a hardcore takfiri ideology so intolerant that, unlikely as it seems, it makes Osama bin Laden appear relatively moderate.

Read it and weep (pt. 2)

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/dad-writes-letter-to-editor-seeking.html
I have a son going to Iraq this summer. I was able to afford to buy state-of-the-art body armor for his protection. Unfortunately there are many parents that are not able to afford this body armor.

My son’s outfit has 24 Marines. . .

Read it and weep (pt. 3)

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/02/tony_snow_bushs.php
[Greg Sargent] There was an extraordinary moment at Tony Snow's White House press briefing today. Snow was pressed pretty hard by reporters over the Walter Reed army hospital scandal, and at one point, he assured reporters that President Bush cares deeply about the troops . . .

But at another point, Snow was asked if the President would ever be saying anything about Walter Reed, and the answer was startling. . .

Am I wrong for finding this extraordinary? Bush has a "profound emotional commitment" to the troops. But Snow was unequivocal: The White House has no plans whatsoever to say anything -- ever, not even through a spokesperson, no matter what we learn -- about something which bears directly on their actual mistreatment. . .

In other words, Bush's public concern for the troops ends where the mere potential for political damage to the White House begins. Watch how Bush feels about the troops -- not what he says or does. . . . In a way, that's the story of this Presidency in a nutshell, isn't it?

Read it and weep (pt. 4)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/21/05739/5929
[Yesterday] Standing aboard the USS Kitty Hawk in Yokosuka harbor, Cheney said, "I want you to know that the American people do not support a policy of retreat."

[Last week] Poll: 63% want all troops home by end of '08

. . . Americans overwhelmingly support congressional action to cap the number of U.S. troops in Iraq and set a timetable to bring them home by the end of next year, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds....

Why is Tony Blair emboldening the enemy?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6428863,00.html
Prime Minister Tony Blair will announce on Wednesday a new timetable for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, with 1,500 to return home in several weeks, the BBC reported.

Blair will also tell the House of Commons during his regular weekly appearance before it that a total of about 3,000 British soldiers will have left southern Iraq by the end of 2007, if the security there is sufficient . . .

Blair and Bush talked by secure video link Tuesday morning, and Bush views Britain's troop cutbacks as “a sign of success'' in Iraq, said U.S. National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe. . . .

More: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/02/20/blair/index.html

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3817

Denmark too! http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/denmark-announcing-iraq-withdrawal.html

The Bush gang: still trying to paint their critics as traitors (it’s what they do)

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/18/snow-protect-iran/
Today on CNN, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow claimed that members of Congress who have warned about the possibility of a military strike against Iran may be “trying to protect Iran.” . . . .

[NB: Yes, that powerful Iran lobby in the Congress is doing its best. . . .]

DC Circuit Court supports Bush gang on Guantanamo

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/2/20/13013/5804
[Big Tent Democrat] The decision is an exercise in disengenuity. . . .

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/20/213625/605

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/02/initial-thoughts-on-boumediene.html

The emerging Republican meme: we’ve been at war with Iran all along – it started with the hostage crisis in 1979. But that means. . . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/20/13574/2013
Anonymous Liberal notes the unintended consequences of Instapundit's proclamation that America is -- and has been since 1979 -- at war with Iran. Namely: the arms sales wrapped up in the Iran-Contra scandal now officially constitute high treason. Oopsies!

The Alishtari scandal: of course the Republicans are in no hurry to return his money

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002605.php
[NRCC] "We are extremely concerned and disturbed by these charges but we need to be careful not to rush to judgment as the judicial process moves forward. If the individual in question is actually found guilty of a crime, it is our intent to donate the money to charity."

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2007/02/post_2855.html
[Adele Stan] The AP has just reported the arrest of a donor to the Republican Party -- a self-described lifetime member of National Republican Senatorial Committee's ''Inner Circle" and appointee to the NRCC's ''White House Business Advisory Committee'' has been indicted on terrorism charges . . . One can't help but wonder just how long the U.S. attorneys who brought these charges will last, given the recent firings of seven who dared to take cases that made the G.O.P. look bad. . .

More: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_18.php#012552

This is an answer we’ll be waiting for

http://www.first-draft.com/2007/02/today_on_holden_10.html
Q One more, please. Can you confirm that Karl Rove received a copy of the Iranian proposal for negotiation sometime in early May, 2003?

MR. SNOW: I absolutely cannot. I know nothing about it.

Q Are you sure you know nothing about it?

MR. SNOW: I am sure that I know nothing about it. I will try to find out --

Q Can you find out about it?

MR. SNOW: I will try to find out.

Q Thank you.

MR. SNOW: Apparently you think you know something about it -- (laughter) --

Q I do.

MR. SNOW: -- so we'll try to see what we can. All right. . . . [read on]

Not surprisingly, Tony and the WH press corps agree on one thing

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/20/224634/678
NBC News’ David Gregory bemoaned how political coverage has "become so polarized in this country...because it’s the internet and the blogs that have really used this White House press conferences to somehow support positions out in America, political views." . . . [read on!]

[NB: Mea culpa! I promise never again to use these press conference transcripts to support my political views. I’ll just use talk radio instead]

More: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/20/snow-reporters-blogs/
Newsweek’s White House correspondent Richard Wolffe added, “[Bloggers] want us to play a role that isn’t really our role. Our role is to ask questions and get information. … It’s not a chance for the opposition to take on the government and grill them to a point where they throw their hands up and surrender.” . . .

The Goofus Files

http://www.first-draft.com/2007/02/your_president__14.html
I've asked him to ensure that our intelligence agency focus on bringing in more Americans with language skills and cultural awareness necessary to meet the threats of this new century. I've asked him to restore agility and excellence to our acquisition community, and ensure that our nation invest in the right intelligence technologies. . .

He's going to find that the intelligence product is an important part of my strategic thought, and important part of helping me get this government to respond to do our most important duty, which is to protect you. . .

Putting Bush’s CRITICS on the couch

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/20/late-nite-fdl-fetch-me-my-ax-continued/
"Bush Derangement Syndrome"

Circling the wagons

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/02/excellent_news/
[Matt Yglesias] When your chief executive becomes unpopular due to the catastrophic failure of his policymaking and leadership, it's always good to read that he's increasingly surrounding himself with an insular group of long-time loyalists: "Six years into Mr. Bush’s presidency, the corps of loyal Texans who accompanied him to Washington from Austin remains a powerful force inside the administration, a steady source of comfort for an increasingly isolated president." Good times. I found this part especially hilarious: "Mr. Johnson says the most painful accusation is hearing Mr. Bush called a liar."

For me, the most painful thing is the way Bush is constantly trying to mislead people.

Fox News sponsors a Democratic presidential debate. Why? Their motives can’t be good

http://mydd.com/story/2007/2/20/15121/1084

Fox News: Teacher’s unions. . . . sorry. . . . teacher’s unions. . . are . . . no . . . can’t even type this. Just read it!

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9987.html

Glenn Beck: how much longer?

http://www.first-draft.com/2007/02/glenn_beck_kick.html
BECK: I don’t want to kick a city when it’s down, but I just -- I mean, we’re not even rebuilding it properly.

I find it very difficult in some ways to feel bad for New Orleans . . .

Bonus item: Amusing facts

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2007/02/go_figure_dept.php
[Mark Kleiman] A friend makes a point I hadn't considered: of the three top-tier Republican Presidential candidates, the only one who's monagamous is the Mormon.

***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 @ 6:45 AM

 
A GRAND NATIONAL JOKE

This just about sums it all up

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_18.php#012536
[Josh Marshall] You've probably seen today's report in the Times about the al Qaida resurgence along Pakistan's lawless frontier with Afghanistan. This should hardly be a surprise not only because of the Taliban's comeback in Afghanistan but much more importantly because of the de facto ceasefire with al Qaida militants and their backers that the Pakistani government recently agreed to.

But it gives the current debate over Iraq a renewed clarity. The whole endeavor in Iraq is no more and no less than a grand national joke we are playing on ourselves. We're having a clownish debate over Iraq as the center of a war on terror while the actual people -- in many cases, it would seem, literally the same people -- who plotted the 9/11 attack are on the rebound. How can anyone credibly deny that if most of our ground forces and budget weren't tied down in Iraq we would be far better able to react to this genuine threat?

And we are unwilling to shift course because we can't come to grips with what has already happened. . . .

Yeah, but Harry tell us how you really feel. . . .

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/498948p-420502c.html
"This war involves the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of this country," Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told CNN's "Late Edition." "We find ourselves in a very deep hole. We need to find a way to dig out of it." . . .

Condi fails (again)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/world/middleeast/19cnd-mideast.html

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/category/politics-society/
[Richard Silverstein] Trying to parse the various Kabuki-like statements coming from Condi Rice and the Israelis and Palestinians about their three-way talks yesterday produces an odd feeling of diplomatic whiplash. But the upshot of the deal is that essentially nothing happened. Which in terms of the Mideast conflict always portends worse to come. Like a shark who stops moving, when things don't progress in the Mideast they usually proceed to bloodshed. All of this means that Condi's gamble in holding these talks didn't pay off. In fact, it was a bust. . .

Rumsfeld, redux

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/19/mccain.ap/index.html
Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Monday the war in Iraq has been mismanaged for years and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will be remembered as one of the worst in history. . . . "We are paying a very heavy price for the mismanagement -- that's the kindest word I can give you -- of Donald Rumsfeld, of this war," the Arizona senator said. . .

[NB: A follow-up, please, Mr. McCain. So what do you think of the BOSS who hired him, who listened to him, and who kept him in office long after his limitations became evident to everyone?]

Feith-based reality

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070213_before_the_invasion_there_was_feith/
[Robert Scheer] Someday, you are going to read a whole lot about the shenanigans of one Douglas J. Feith and an elaborate scheme to get the United States to invade Iraq. That is because Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., has been determined to get to the bottom of this sordid tale and is now, fortunately, head of the Senate Armed Services Committee and thereby empowered to get at the truth. . .

How the world views us now

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html#2288587721718359227

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010772.php

Pathetic. Our George W. tries to soak up the status of an earlier George W.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9976.html
[Steve Benen] Bush certainly seems to believe that he’s carrying on the Washingtonian tradition. He told his audience today, “On the field of battle, Washington’s forces were facing a mighty empire, and the odds against them were overwhelming. The ragged Continental Army lost more battles than it won, suffered waves of desertions, and stood on the brink of disaster many times. Yet George Washington’s calm hand and determination kept the cause of independence and the principles of our Declaration alive…. In the end, General Washington understood that the Revolutionary War was a test of wills, and his will was unbreakable.” He didn’t come right out and say, “I’m just like him,” but in context, the message seemed unmistakable.

Of course, to suggest that somehow George Washington would approve of the war in Iraq, and that there’s some kind of parallel between the current war and the Revolutionary War, is just silly, even by Bush’s low standards. . . .

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/19/155714/826

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing about him is that I read three -- three or four books about him last year. Isn't that interesting?" --George W. Bush, while showing German newspaper reporter Kai Diekmann the Oval Office, Washington, D.C., May 5, 2006

What would the Father of Our Nation say!

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/02/bush_on_top.html
Speaking of George Bush, with whom Sharon developed a very close relationship, Uri Dan recalls that Sharon's delicacy made him reluctant to repeat what the president had told him when they discussed Osama bin Laden. Finally he relented. And here is what the leader of the Western world, valiant warrior in the battle of cultures, promised to do to bin Laden if he caught him: "I will screw him in the ass!"

[NB: I assume he didn’t mean this literally]

The Bush gang’s war on veterans – it’s amazing how they maintain the aura of being pro-military

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/veterans-abuse-stories-in-news-just.html

How they undercount the number of U.S. casualties

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/pentagon-intentionally-hiding-12-of.html

How can such things be allowed to happen?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/novak-house-gop-fired-veterans-friendly.html
[John Aravosis] We now know how the Bush administration got away with years of providing such paltry support to our injured and maimed veterans from the Iraq war and Afghanistan. The Republican congressional leadership forcibly removed the GOP House committee chair in charge of overseeing veterans. Why? He was too vet-friendly, too interested in meeting the growing needs of our war veterans, and the Republicans wanted to save money at the expense of our injured and maimed veterans. . . .

Dana Priest, one of the best around, writes a scathing, detailed, lengthy two-parter on the neglect of wounded vets. We’ve had links to it here. Now the right-wing response: attack the Pulitzer-prize winning journalist and suggest that a REAL reporter get assigned to the story. . . and you won’t believe who they have in mind

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/02/19/jonah/index.html

Isn’t it ironic?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010778.php
Over at ThinkProgress, Faiz Shakir makes an interesting point: The Bush administration may claim that last week's votes against the surge were bad for the war effort, but during Condoleezza Rice's recent trip to Baghdad she used those votes as a way of pressing Iraqi leaders to make the compromises necessary for political stability. Turns out it's a pretty useful way of convincing them that American patience is not inexhaustible.

As Sen. Carl Levin put it, "It's interesting that finally [the administration] understands the power of what we are doing in the Congress." Indeed it is. . .

Court fails to bring war profiteer Custer Battles to justice

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/19/114651/633

Another whistleblower punished

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/054

The Alishtari story gets more and more bizarre

His blog! http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_18.php#012533

His c.v. http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002600.php

His buddies http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002601.php
[Paul Kiel] Oops! Building on my last post on the NRCC's bogus Business Advisory Council and "Businessman of the Year" program, it turns out that Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari isn't the first member of the council to be indicted on charges of supporting terrorism.

Yasith Chhun, the head of the Cambodian Freedom Fighters, a group designated by the State Department as a terrorist organization, was indicted in May of 2005 for charges of plotting to overthrow the Cambodian government. He was also, The Los Angeles Times reported, a member of the NRCC's Business Advisory Council . . .

Who ruined the Bush Presidency?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/washington/20cheney.html
The evidence in the trial shows Vice President Dick Cheney and Mr. Libby, his former chief of staff, countermanding and even occasionally misleading colleagues at the highest levels of Mr. Bush’s inner circle as the two pursued their own goal of clearing the vice president’s name in connection with flawed intelligence used in the case for war. . . .

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/19/AR2007021900863.html
Cheney's Influence Lessens in Second Term

The Libby trial may not be the end of Fitzgerald’s investigation

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/021907nj1.htm
[Murray Waas] At the time that Libby offered his explanation to Cheney, the vice president already had reason to know that Libby's account to him was untrue, according to sources familiar with still-secret grand jury testimony and evidence in the CIA leak probe, as well as testimony made public during Libby's trial over the past three weeks in federal court.

Yet, according to Libby's own grand jury testimony, which was made public during his trial in federal court, Cheney did nothing to discourage Libby from telling that story to the FBI and the federal grand jury. Moreover, Cheney encouraged then-White House press secretary Scott McClellan to publicly defend Libby, according to other testimony and evidence made public during Libby's trial.

If Libby is found guilty, investigators are likely to probe further to determine if Libby devised what they consider a cover story in an effort to shield Cheney. They want to know whether Cheney might have known about the leaks ahead of time or had even encouraged Libby to provide information to reporters about Plame's CIA status, the same sources said. . . .

The closing arguments: a preview

For the defemse: http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/19/libby-case-the-defense-summation/

For the prosecution: http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/19/libby-case-prosecution-summation-and-rebuttal/

Predictions?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010776.php
[Kevin Drum] I'm going to take a flyer on a hung jury. Fitzgerald has pretty strong evidence, I think, but perjury is a tough case to win. The jury is going to be swayed both by the lack of an underlying crime in the indictment and by the possibility that Libby might have just had a faulty memory when he testified. I figure the majority of the jury will vote to convict, but that even after a lengthy deliberation there are going to be two or three holdouts.

I agree here: no Democrat should echo Republican attacks against fellow Democrats

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_02_18_atrios_archive.html#117192727301644737

http://mydd.com/story/2007/2/19/16148/5292
Clinton also sought to draw a contrast with some of her Democratic rivals on the issue of terrorism. "Some people may be running who may tell you that we don't face a real threat from terrorism," she said. "I am not one of those." . . .

The kind of people they are

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/02/lets_dialogue/

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/clash_of_civilizations_/2007/02/glenn_reynolds_and_genocide.php

Giuliani: all hat and no cattle

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/02/giuliani_fake_national_securit/

Ouch! Chris Matthews on Senator John “McBush”

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_02_18_atrios_archive.html#117192762900261346

Sinking fast: http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/19/145013/260

Mitt Romney: sooner or later he’s gonna run up against this

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_02_18_atrios_archive.html#117192131149104651
[CNN] It can't be ignored that, in particular, Evangelicals have a certain amount of problem with Mormonism. They don't think it's a Christian religion. They liken it to a cult.

Hey, there really WAS a “vast right-wing conspiracy” against Bill Clinton

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html#8380399264791029159

http://whiskeyfire.typepad.com/whiskey_fire/2007/02/by_the_way_sorr.html

Brit Hume would be an embarrassment to any real news organization

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/02/19/brit_hume/index.html

I love the Internet!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/19/182559/089
[Kagro X] [Congressional Research Service] is a vital tool for Members and staff, and consistently produces some of the most reliable, non-partisan research products available, on a dizzying array of subjects. Their task, essentially, is finding the answers to anything Members want to know about. And with an army of skilled researchers and the incredible resources of the Library of Congress, they're not only turning out the best "intelligence" around, but they're also creating a secondary market for the stuff. . .

Why? Because CRS produces these reports for Congress, as their employees. That makes their reports essentially work for hire, and that means that they're the property of Congress, and the Congress can dispose of them as they see fit. In practice, that means that most Members will happily supply constituents with copies of prepared reports (though they're not supposed to commission such reports on anyone else's behalf). But in order to request a copy, you've got to know it exists. . . .

Thank your lucky stars for the dedication of the Federation of American Scientists' Steven Aftergood, and add their Secrecy News to your blogroll, as I have. Aftergood has made it his mission -- or at least one of them -- to compile and disseminate the newest and most notable CRS reports he can get his hands on. According to the Post, the free stuff lags considerably behind the pay services, with about 10% of the CRS output available, but it's a good start and a great idea.

So go ahead and poke around. It just may be that a community like Daily Kos can take the Secrecy News' work to the next level, providing another collaborative forum for analysis and discussion of what Aftergood turns up for us. . . .

Good thing I don’t live in Arizona (thanks to A.G. for the link)

http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/02/19/ariz
To date, 2007 hasn’t seen much legislative progress for measures inspired by the “Academic Bill of Rights,” the brainchild of David Horowitz that he says promotes diversity of thought on campuses, but that many faculty leaders believe is designed to squelch them. Bills have been introduced in nine states, according to Free Exchange on Campus, which opposes them. But with one exception, those bills haven’t been moving.

The exception is Arizona, where a Senate committee on Thursday approved a bill that would go much further than the Academic Bill of Rights, and which has infuriated faculty and student leaders. The bill, whose chief sponsor is the Republican majority leader in the Senate, would ban professors at public colleges and universities, while working, from:

* Endorsing, supporting or opposing any candidate for local, state or national office.

* Endorsing, supporting or opposing any pending legislation, regulation or rule under consideration by local, state or federal agencies.

* Endorsing, supporting or opposing any litigation in any court.

* Advocating “one side of a social, political, or cultural issue that is a matter of partisan controversy.”

* Hindering military recruiting on campus or endorsing the activities of those who do.

Bonus item: Our President

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html#1636749671240989712

***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 @ 6:32 AM

 
ONCE IN A LIFETIME

Talking Heads: "And you may tell yourself, My god!...what have I done?"

How the US invasion of Iraq has helped Iran

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/world/middleeast/18assess.html

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/18/12519/1179

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/world/middleeast/19irancnd.html

In Baghdad. . .

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2883878
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Iraqi leaders Saturday that the Baghdad security operation needs to "rise above sectarianism" and noted that no U.S. or Iraqi forces have yet moved into the capital's major Shiite militia stronghold, an Iraqi official said.

The official, who was familiar with the discussions, said Rice told Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that the initial stage of the crackdown, which began Wednesday, appeared to focus on Sunni areas and had left Sadr City, stronghold of the Mahdi Army militia, nearly untouched. . . .

More: http://www.juancole.com/2007/02/security-plan-mocked-by-massive.html

In Kirkuk . . .

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/16716510.htm
As with Shiite militias in Baghdad, the line between militia members and Iraqi security troops in Kirkuk is so thin that it at times doesn't exist. And U.S. plans to build Iraq's security forces - a process that has cost more than $15 billion nationwide - seem to have strengthened militias instead of discouraging them.

The issue of loyalty with Iraqi security forces is proving to be the Achilles' heel of American plans to stabilize the war-torn nation. Without neutral Iraqi soldiers and police, an American withdrawal would almost certainly lead to greater sectarian bloodshed than Iraq is currently experiencing. . . .

In Pakistan . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/world/asia/19intel.html
Senior leaders of Al Qaeda operating from Pakistan have re-established significant control over their once-battered worldwide terror network and over the past year have set up a band of training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border . . .

American officials said there was mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, had been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of North Waziristan. Until recently, the Bush administration had described Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri as detached from their followers and cut off from operational control of Al Qaeda.

The United States has also identified several new Qaeda compounds in North Waziristan, including one that officials said might be training operatives for strikes against targets beyond Afghanistan.

[NB: Meanwhile, the Bush gang keeps describing Iraq as the central front in the war against terror]

The Bush gang’s favorite meme: no US administration has ever dealt with a threat as dire and complex as this one. (Well, that WOULD explain their failure)

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html#1055216383903338644

Who said this?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html#2656310778102512330
What this tells you . . . is that we are coming out of Iraq. This is the first resolution and it's non-binding, others are coming down the road. There will be no more surges into Iraq, the president has said we are not winning the war with the troops we have, we are coming out. So we had better prepare ourselves for the consequences, not of a defeat for American arms, but a defeat for American policy in Iraq, the potential loss of Iraq. And frankly . . . the situation's not looking all that good in Afghanistan either, where the NATO allies are not doing their bit. So we are at a historic turning point, I think, for the United States in the middle east. . . [read on]

The “dissent is unpatriotic" line is a bit tougher to run when the criticisms come from the career military

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/02/18/odom/index.html
[Glenn Greenwald] In any event, the entire Odom interview (and his Op-Ed) ought to be read by every Democratic consultant and anti-war politician. So many war opponents and Bush critics feel compelled to express their opposition defensively and apologetically. It is common to hear them -- especially political figures -- prefacing their war opposition by bending over backwards to assure everyone that they are patriots, that they care about the troops, that they want to protect America, too -- as though those matters are legitimately in doubt.

But observe how Gen. Odom is not the slightest bit concerned by Hugh Hewitt's smearing tactics, how indifferent he is to the task of trying to persuade Hewitt that he really is a patriot. It is Hewitt's judgment and allegiances which are in question, not Odom's. . . .

I love this

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3810
[Tim Ryan, D-OH] . . . When the Republican party and this President didn't send enough troops, we didn't call you unpatriotic. And when you sent our young soldiers over there without the body armor, we never called you unpatriotic. . . We never called the other side unpatriotic, when they sent our soldiers over without enough body armor. And when they didn't send enough up-armored Humvees, we never called anybody unpatriotic. And now when the next batch goes over without the proper jammers or up-armored kits, we don't call you unpatriotic. . . . [more! read on]

Just another reminder of why a “bipartisan” advisory group on the Iraq war has NOTHING to do with actually guiding or changing policy (there is zero evidence that the Bush gang has ever been interested in a bipartisan policy): it is about spreading “ownership” of the war in a way that will box in the Democrats with regard to future criticisms of the war

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/18/20243/4126

There is going to be a congressional inquiry into why the Bush gang ignored an opportunity for diplomatic intervention in Iran. Condi Rice will be in the cross-hairs. But we’re going to hear more about stories like this too

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/16/rove-iran/
[Faiz] Inter Press Service reports that, in early May 2003, Karl Rove received a copy of a secret Iranian proposal for negotiations with the United States from former Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) — who is now serving 30 months in prison for his role in a corruption scandal.

Former Ney aide, Trita Parsi — who now works at the National Iranian-American Council — said that Ney was chosen by the Swiss Ambassador in Tehran Tim Guldimann to carry the Iranian proposal to the White House because he believed Ney to be the only Farsi-speaking member of Congress and particularly interested in Iran. . .

Contrary to the article’s report, Rove was not deputy chief of staff in May 2003. He was serving at the time as the senior political adviser in the White House, a position with no responsibility on foreign policy. The White House press office has not responded to a request for comment on why Rove received a copy of the Iranian proposal.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice — who served as National Security Adviser in 2003 — and Eliot Abrams — the deputy National Security Adviser — have claimed that they do not remember receiving the Iranian proposal. Newsweek recently revealed the contents of the proposal, which were communicated through a Swiss intermediary in May 2003. . .

Did the Bush gang just ADMIT that they distorted the truth about who is arming fighters in Iraq?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/18/203731/524

The kind of people they are

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/military-amputee-uninvited-from-bush.html
[WP] David tangled with Walter Reed's image machine when he wanted to attend a ceremony for a fellow amputee, a Mexican national who was being granted U.S. citizenship by President Bush. A case worker quizzed him about what he would wear. It was summer, so David said shorts. The case manager said the media would be there and shorts were not advisable because the amputees would be seated in the front row.

"'Are you telling me that I can't go to the ceremony 'cause I'm an amputee?'" David recalled asking. "She said, 'No, I'm saying you need to wear pants.'"

David told the case worker, "I'm not ashamed of what I did, and y'all shouldn't be neither." When the guest list came out for the ceremony, his name was not on it. . . .

Rashomon

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_18.php#012526
[Josh Marshall] Yes, I would have thought this would have gotten a bit more attention.

This blog points my attention to Friday story about Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari, a reasonably large contributor to Republican congressional committees (more than $15,000 in the 2002 and 2004 campaign cycles). Alishtari was arrested on Thursday. And on Friday he was charged in federal court with attempting to secretly send $152,000 to Pakistan and Afghanistan to purchase equipment for terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. . . .

TPM Reader B points out that the New York Post chose a rather different way of reporting this story. Their lede: "A Westchester businessman and purported peace activist was nabbed by the feds for allegedly plotting to funnel more than $150,000 to terrorists at training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

No mention of Republican ties. . .

More: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_18.php#012526
[Josh Marshall] Update: Oh that's interesting. Cunning Realist found this CV purportedly posted by Mr. Alishtari. In addition to other GOP donor awards, Alishtari says that he was appointed to something called the "White House Business Advisory Committee" in 2003. And CR ends with this point, referencing Alishtari's CV: "Note the entrepreneurial business background with a focus on technology/security. Have any of those businesses ever received government contracts or funds? Any direct or indirect contact in the past with anyone from the Bush administration or Congress?"

. . . Not sure how or if this might relate to Mr. Alishtari's indictment. But Alishtari's company EDI Secure's claim to fame seems to have been a patent for something called the 'Single Use Credit Card Number.' . . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_18.php#012527
Now a reader of the Cunning Realist blog has dug up the archived version of the website of Mr. Alishtari's company, GlobalProtector, which shows that at the same time Alishtari was giving money to the GOP he was bidding on multiple government contracts -- including ones with the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security. . . .

It seems clear now that Bush’s unpopularity, an unending war, and the early start to 2008, are making a lot of people – including Republicans and typically loyal pundits, etc – distance themselves from Bush and look ahead to their own survival in the messy political environment he has created. This makes for some interesting initiatives and coalitions

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701324.html
Three senators proposed legislation that would target what they say is $100 billion a year in tax revenue lost each year because of overseas tax havens, in part by forcing hedge funds to track their foreign investors. . .

The legislation would require hedge funds to establish programs to combat money laundering and better track offshore investors, under guidance from the Treasury Department. The measure would also prohibit the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office from issuing patents for accounting strategies intended to "minimize, avoid, defer, or otherwise affect liability for federal, state, local, or foreign tax." . . .

[NB: They’ve been issuing PATENTS for that?]

Look, even Fox News is trying to polish its credentials as an independent and tough-minded journalistic enterprise

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/18/feith-fox/
Last week on Fox News Sunday, former Rumsfeld aide Douglas Feith told Chris Wallace, “Nobody in my office ever said there was an operational relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. It’s just not correct. I mean, words matter.”

Fox News pursued the matter and did a follow-up report this week. Wallace reported, “It turns out he did make that case [that there was an operational relationship] in a memo he sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee in October of ‘03.” . . .

The Daily Show: http://www.first-draft.com/2007/02/what_was_wanted.html

The Republicans are against congressional meddling in war funding (after they were FOR it)

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html#4187264093361894417

The assault on John Murtha (D-PA) continues

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/18/hume-murtha-smear/

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/19/12838/2667

In what world is it acceptable for a major newspaper to run a harsh (and factually inaccurate) attack on the prosecutor in a major trial on the eve of jury deliberations?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021601705_pf.html
[Victoria Toensing] Fitzgerald apparently concluded that a purported cover-up was sufficient motive for Libby to trim his recollections in a criminal way. So when Libby's testimony differed from that of others, it was Libby who got indicted.

There's a reason why responsible prosecutors don't bring perjury cases on mere "he said, he said" evidence. Without an underlying crime or tangible evidence of obstruction (think Martha Stewart trying to destroy phone logs), the trial becomes a mishmash of faulty memories in which witnesses can seem as guilty as the defendant. Any prosecutor knows that memories differ, even vividly, and each party can be convinced that his or her version is the truthful one.

If we accept Fitzgerald's low threshold for bringing a criminal case, then why stop at Libby? This investigation has enough questionable motives and shadowy half-truths and flawed recollections to fill a court docket for months. . . . [read on]

Toensing’s delusions: http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/02/delusional_rede.html
Valerie Plame was not covert. . . [NB: Are they still recycling that long-discredited canard?]

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/18/the-worst-argument-for-libbys-acquittal/
[Jeralyn Merritt] Thanks, Victoria, for attempting to personally smear the prosecutor on the eve of closing arguments. I bet if a true criminal defense lawyer wrote an article like that you'd accuse him or her of trying to influence the jury pool.

Toensing is playing to the court of public opinion here, not the court of law. By setting forth her grounds for indicting others in the case, she's advocating exactly what Patrick Fitzgerald has said he's on guard against: the defense playing the jury nullification card, arguing that it's not fair Libby was charged while others weren't. . . .

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/021807.html
[Robert Parry] Beyond the absurdity – and dishonesty – of Toensing’s arguments, the Post illustrated the article with fabricated “mug shots” of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, an Iraq War critic whose undercover CIA wife, Valerie Plame, was outed by the Bush administration. . .

http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/02/brent_budowsky_.html
[Brent Budowsky] Mr. Kaiser, I am forwarding below the note I wrote to Messrs. Graham and Hiatt about Outlook's Victoria Toensing piece today.

With all due respect, I have long admired your work, but that piece today was the most egregious attempt at jury tampering that I have ever seen in this or any other town. . . .

More from the Post

http://www.slate.com/id/2160148/fr/rss/
[Daniel Politi] [T]he Post goes inside with a look at how experts view lying. Some psychologists believe lying is so common that putting people on trial for doing it, "is somewhat like putting them on trial for breathing," says the paper. Experiments have found that an average person tells about two lies every 10 minutes. Also, those who lie frequently have the best intentions and think they are benefiting others. . . .

[NB: It goes without saying, but did we see articles like this when Bill Clinton was being savaged for lying about his affair with Lewinsky -- if anything, a much MORE understandably human lie?]

Libby: the shadows of Karl Rove . . .

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/18/what-did-rove-know-and-when-did-he-know-it/

. . . and Dick Cheney

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/18/fdl-book-salon-anatomy-of-deceit-on-the-nie/

Another McCain flip-flop

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/18/22152/9176
[1999] I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade. . .

[2007] I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned

Putting Bush on the couch: Mark Kleiman demurs

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/gwb_the_beloved_leader_/2007/02/bill_frist_in_democratic_dress.php
[I]t seems to me grossly unethical for a psychiatrist to use his professional credentials and professional jargon as a way of attacking a politician he hates. . . [read on]

Are the Dems losing the momentum they gained from the 06 elections?

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/02/you_do_what_you_can/

More calls for paper-trail voting

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/18/AR2007021801067.html

Theocracy watch: is religiosity the new Republican litmus test for President?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/02/romneys_bigotry.html

Jim Wallis: “The Religious Right's Era Is Over”

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1590782,00.html

Bonus item: Once in a Lifetime (There you have it: our first back-to-back use of recycled Talking Heads titles, and the third in recent weeks.)

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/18/face-the-snark-35/
And you may find yourself behind the wheel of a large automobile.
And you may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife.
And you may ask yourself, 'well…how did I get here?' . . .
And you may ask yourself, What is that beautiful house?
And you may ask yourself, Where does that highway go?
And you may ask yourself, Am I right?...am I wrong?
And you may tell yourself, My god!...what have I done?

[NB: Read it all]

***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 @ 6:58 AM

 
ROAD TO NOWHERE

The wrong coverage

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/17/iraq.senate/index.html
Democrats fail to get Senate vote on Iraq
Democrats failed to pass a procedural measure that would have allowed them to call a Senate vote on a resolution opposing sending more U.S. troops to Iraq. Some Republicans backed the move but Democrats were still four votes short. . . .

The right coverage

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021700247.html
Senate Republicans Block Floor Vote on Iraq Resolution
Senate Republicans today blocked a floor vote on a House-passed resolution that expresses disapproval of President Bush's plan to send thousands of additional U.S. troops to Iraq, as a procedural motion to cut off debate on the measure fell short of the 60 votes needed.

It was the second time this month that minority Republicans successfully filibustered a nonbinding resolution opposing the troop buildup. . . .

Even better coverage

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_11.php#012525
[Josh Marshall] Senate Republicans succeed in keeping Iraq gag rule in place.

And TERRIBLE coverage

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/17/12226/1671
A Divided House Denounces Plan for More Troops
A sharply divided House of Representatives passed a resolution on Friday formally repudiating President Bush’s decision to send more than 20,000 new combat troops to Iraq. . . .

[McJoan] Democrats are going to have to understand that this is the way they are going to be covered as long as all of this non-binding back and forth plays out. . . . [read on!]

How they voted

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/vote-is-on.html

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9966.html

Giuliani supports the surge, but says he’s “not confident” it will work (thanks to John Aravosis for the link). Now THAT’s leadership

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/14/giuliani.lkl/index.html

McCain keeps talking about what might happen if and when the American people ever lose faith in the war. Uh, John? John? Come. . .a. . . little. . .closer. . . I . . . want . . . to . . . .whisper. . . .something . . . .

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY LOST FAITH IN THIS GODDAMN MISERABLE WAR!!!!!!!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/17/195525/776

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/us/politics/18mccain.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070217/ap_on_el_pr/mccain2008;_ylt=Au0aYbwFW3nTV8JDO4qBSi_MWM0F

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701344.html

Condi shows up in Iraq to say everything is going GREAT

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/17/133852/098
[WP] Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made an unannounced visit to Baghdad Saturday and hailed early signs of success in a U.S.-Iraqi operation to quell sectarian violence in the embattled capital. . .

Although killings have decreased since the start of the operation in Baghdad three days ago, a double car bombing in the northern city of Kirkuk killed at least 10 people and wounded 60 Saturday in a crowded market. . .

Her visit came amid a relative lull in violence, which the Iraqi government held up as a promising sign that the new Baghdad security plan is off to a good start. A top U.S. military official sounded a more cautionary note, saying the capital might be experiencing a temporary respite as militant organizations assess the new measures and gear up to fight back.

[McJoan] The game of whack-a-mole continues, and as they move troops into one area, violence erupts in another. There aren't enough troops to quell it over the entire country. . .

Condi’s State Dept

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021601785.html
Skeptical lawmakers yesterday demanded a detailed accounting of how Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice plans to spend $6 billion in supplemental funds that the administration has asked for the State Department this year, much of it for Iraq and Afghanistan.

"I think you've got a lot of explaining to do," Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.) told Rice at a hearing of the House Appropriations subcommittee on state and foreign operations. "A huge majority of the funds in the supplemental are for military, not political or economic or reconstructive, purposes." . . .

Condi’s learning Cheney’s secret: to get Bush on board with you, cut out all competing points of view

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/17/condi-plays-cheneys-cut-out-game/

For shame

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172.html
The common perception of Walter Reed is of a surgical hospital that shines as the crown jewel of military medicine. But 5 1/2 years of sustained combat have transformed the venerable 113-acre institution into something else entirely -- a holding ground for physically and psychologically damaged outpatients. Almost 700 of them -- the majority soldiers, with some Marines -- have been released from hospital beds but still need treatment or are awaiting bureaucratic decisions before being discharged or returned to active duty. . . . [read on!]

In Joe Lieberman’s world, when the Congress asserts authority over the Executive, that threatens a “constitutional crisis.” When the Executive routinely ignores or overrides all checks and balances, well . . .

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html#7356743664577589238

US and Iran: allies?

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/02/downward_spiral_1/

McCain misses the Iraq vote: he has more important things to talk about

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_02_11_atrios_archive.html#117172936126839273
[Atrios] Straight-talking maverick John McCain supports abstinence only education.

I know it will never happen, because it would cause David Broder to faint, but any politician or public figure should be asked if they, in fact, saved themselves for marriage, and whether they were abstinent between their multiple marriages.

More: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/forget-iraq-mccain-wants-to-be-anti-sex.html

Jose Padilla, driven mad by interrogation methods and sensory deprivation, may never be able to stand trial. Another victory in the struggle to bring terrorists to justice (oh, wait, he never committed any terrorist act)

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2007/02/this_should_be_interesting.html

What exactly is Libby charged with?

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/2/17/114228/508

A new shadowy figure emerges from the Libby testimony: Richard Hohlt

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17202408/site/newsweek/

Putting Bush on the couch (thanks to Manny S. and A.G. for the link)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/22/101516/45
First and foremost, George W. Bush is a Narcissistic Personality Disorder. . . . [read on]

The US Attorney scandal continues to percolate . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701509.html
All but one of the U.S. attorneys recently fired by the Justice Department had positive job reviews before they were dismissed, but many ran into political trouble with Washington over issues ranging from immigration to the death penalty, according to prosecutors, congressional aides and others familiar with the cases.

Two months after the firings first began to make waves on Capitol Hill, it has also become clear that most of the prosecutors were overseeing significant public-corruption investigations at the time they were asked to leave. Four of the probes target Republican politicians or their supporters, prosecutors and other officials said. . . .

The Clinton/Obama contest is definitely heating up

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2007/02/obama_the_counterpuncher.php

I’m not one of those people who believes Hillary has to utter the magic words “my vote to authorize the war in Iraq was a mistake.” But she’d better come up with better answers than these

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3809

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/hillary-im-not-apologizing-vote-for.html
[NYT] Mrs. Clinton rolled out a new response to those demanding contrition: She said she was willing to lose support from voters rather than make an apology she did not believe in.

“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,” Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina. . . .

The debate continues: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/17/213744/100

Swift Boating Hillary

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010769.php

It’ll never happen, but. . . .

http://www.buzzflash.com/store/items/518
Why wait until 2008? . . .

Put the woman of the house in the White House in 2007!

Let's give Bush and Cheney an eviction notice to remove them as derelict squatters.

Then, let's move Nancy Pelosi (third in line in succession) into another House, the White House!

Some kind of turning point: mainstream newspaper cites blogs as a news source

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/2/17/175432/217

Learning from the political tactics of the Right

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=D175D387-E0C3-F08F-9AC6551FD40DB50B

Sunday talk show line-ups

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/local/states/california/16721583.htm
• "Meet the Press" Guest: White House press secretary Tony Snow.

• "This Week" Guests: Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and his wife, Ann Romney; actor Michael Douglas.

• "Face the Nation" Guests: Sens. Joe Biden, D-Del., and Richard Lugar, R-Ind.

• "CNN Late Edition" Guests: White House press secretary Tony Snow; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson; magician Penn Jillette; former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele; and Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League.

• "Fox News Sunday" Guests: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.

Bonus item: Homeland Security safety symbols (funny – thanks to A.G. for the link)

http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/2007/02/homeland_securi.html

Extra bonus item: an annotated version of the Talking Heads’ "Road to Nowhere”

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/17/fdl-late-nite-gop-road-to-nowhere/

***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 @ 6:51 AM

 
RIDING HIGH

Here are headlines worth waiting for

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/16/world/middleeast/16cnd-cong.html
House Passes Iraq Resolution With 17 Votes From G.O.P.
After four days of emotional debate over the extent of presidential powers in wartime and the proper role of Congress, the House of Representatives adopted a resolution today denouncing President Bush’s plan to send more American troops to Iraq.

The 246 to 182 vote in favor of the non-binding but nevertheless important measure set the stage for a crucial Senate debate on Saturday on how to debate the administration’s Iraq policy, or indeed whether it should be debated at all. . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021501794.html
Broad Swath of GOP Defecting on Iraq Vote
From the moderate suburbs of Delaware to the rural, conservative valleys of eastern Tennessee, House Republican opponents of President Bush's latest Iraq war plan cut across the GOP's ideological and regional spectrum. . . .

Senate Republicans will likely block a vote on this measure later today

http://iraqvote.notlong.com

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_11.php#012519
[Josh Marshall] According to CNN, only one senator who's running for president has decided to blow off Saturday's surge resolution vote.

Who?

John McCain.

Joe Lieberman postures as a statesman: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_11.php#012517
Yes, we should vigorously debate and deliberate. That is not only our right, it is our responsibility. But at this difficult juncture, at this moment when a real battle, a critical battle is being waged in Baghdad, as we face a brutal enemy who attacked us on 9/11 and wants to do it again, let us not just shout at one another, but let us reach out to one another to find that measure of unity that can look beyond today’s disagreements and secure the nation’s future and the future of all who will follow us as Americans. . . .

[NB: “Yes, debate by all means, as long as you end up agreeing with me”]

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/17/01550/2533

Here’s the spin

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_11.php#012523
[Josh Marshall] If you get a chance on the second showing this evening, watch the second segment on CNN's AC360 this evening. It's about the surge vote. The primary theme? Democratic weakness. . . . [NB: WHOSE weakness?]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200702160013
Several times during the 7 p.m. ET broadcast of the February 15 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, the onscreen text read " 'Slow Bleed' Strategy? Iraq Funding Debate," putting part of the headline of a Republican National Committee statement in question form. In introducing the program, host Wolf Blitzer said: "[A] 'slow-bleed' strategy -- that's what Republicans are accusing Democrats of plotting in the Iraq debate," while the onscreen text read: " 'Slow Bleed' Strategy?" CNN also repeatedly used " 'Slow Bleed' Strategy? Iraq Funding Debate" in CNN congressional correspondent Andrea Koppel's report on the House debate, during which Koppel read from an RNC "statement calling" comments by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) "the Democrats' 'slow bleed' strategy to choke off funding for troops in harm's way." Neither Blitzer nor Koppel informed viewers of the origin of the "slow bleed" term. . . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/16/165634/613
[Tony Snow] Again, members -- it's going to be interesting, because members of Congress have taken their own gamble here. They're gambling on failure -- some members, at least. . . . [read on!]

More from Tony: http://www.first-draft.com/2007/02/today_on_holden_9.html

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9957.html
[Steve Benen] What about the rumors about several dozen Republicans joining Dems on this? Either there was some serious last-minute arm twisting, or the GOP was doing a very effective job of expectation management.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010763.php
Earlier this week Wayne Gilchrist (R-Md) predicted that 30 to 60 Republicans would vote for the nonbinding House resolution opposing the surge. . . .

http://www.slate.com/id/2160142/fr/rss/
[Justin Peters] The Washington Post is the only paper to discuss this extensively, suggesting that significant White House pressure, combined with the announcement Thursday by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., of his plans to slow troop deployment, caused Republicans to close ranks. Still, 17 defectors is a significant number in a House that, as of eight months ago, saw all but three Republican members vote their support for the war effort, as the Wall Street Journal notes. It's becoming clear that the rubber stamp that approved the war is running low on ink. That's not to say that many Republicans aren't still seeing red over Democratic tactics. . . .

So is this resolution a big deal or not?

Yes: http://www.juancole.com/2007/02/congressional-revolution-on-iraq-blasts.html

No: http://www.discourse.net/archives/2007/02/the_mountain_has_labored_and_brought_forward_.html

Predictably, the administration’s mouthpieces offer encouraging assessments that the “surge” is already doing quite well

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/17/world/middleeast/17iraq.html
Baghdad Plan Is a ‘Success,’ Iraq Prime Minister Tells Bush
Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki told President Bush on Friday that the increased effort to provide security in Baghdad had gone exceedingly well so far, Mr. Maliki’s office said in a statement. . . . The two spoke via video link and, according the statement, Mr. Maliki said, “The security plan has been a dazzling success during its first days.” . . .

Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., commander of the First Cavalry Division in Baghdad, told reporters on Friday that there had been a substantial reduction in violence in the past 48 hours, which he attributed both to the increased troop presence and the decision by Sunni and Shiite militants to keep a low profile.

“They’re watching us carefully,” he said. “There’s an air of suspense throughout the city. We believe, there’s no question about it, that many of these extremists are laying low and watching to see what it is we do and how we do it. How long that will last, we don’t know.” . . .

But the fact of the matter is: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/02/16/BL2007021600931_pf.html
[Dan Froomkin It seems almost inconceivable: The White House actually invites the press corps to hold it accountable -- but when the time comes, and a key benchmark is missed, the press is silent.

And yet that's exactly what has happened.

Back in January, when President Bush announced that in spite of the public opinion against the war in Iraq he was going to send in more troops, he repeatedly insisted that what was different this time was that the Iraqis were finally serious about stepping up. . . .

"You're going to have to -- you're going to have some opportunities to judge very quickly," one senior administration official said . . . "The Iraqis are going to have three brigades within Baghdad within a little more than a month. They have committed to trying to get one brigade in, I think, by the first of February, and two more by the 15th," the official said.

"So people are going to be able to see pretty quickly that the Iraqis are or are not stepping up. And that provides the ability to judge." . . .

President Bush yesterday insisted that everything's going according to plan: "Our new commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, is now on the ground in Baghdad," Bush told the American Enterprise Institute. "He says the Iraqi government is following through on its commitment to deploy three additional army brigades in the capital."

But at a Pentagon press conference yesterday, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Peter Pace acknowledged that only two of those three Iraqi brigades are there: "You've got two of the Iraqi brigades in -- that were going to plussed up in Baghdad in Baghdad now. The third one is moving this month," Pace said.

Other press reports suggest that even those two brigades are not anywhere near full strength.

And action in Baghdad seems thus far to be almost entirely led by Americans, in stark contrast to what was promised. . . .

Rewriting history: yet another post-facto rationale for why we invaded Iraq – and it might be one of silliest yet

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_11.php#012521

This should be a huge story (if it wasn’t seen as just one more instance of incompetence and corruption in Iraq): how the Pentagon valued party loyalty over qualifications in staffing post-war reconstruction jobs

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/005671.html

Today’s must-read: here’s how Cheney and the rest of the Bush gang viewed leaks of classified info (when it hurt the administration) – as opposed to when they leaked classified information themselves that helped them – and how it set the stage for the Plame scandal

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0215nj1.htm
Cheney warned that unless the leaders of the Intelligence committees took action to discover who leaked the information about the intercepts -- and more importantly, to make sure that such leaks never happened again -- President Bush would directly make the case to the American people that Congress could not be trusted with vital national security secrets. . . .

Later that day, then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer read from a prepared statement: "The president [has] very deep concerns about anything that would be inappropriately leaked that could ... harm our ability to maintain sources and methods and anything else that could interfere with America's ability to fight the war on terrorism."

And Bush himself later said, in reference to an entirely different leak, that whoever in government disclosed details of his administration's covert NSA surveillance program had committed a "shameful act" that had the effect of "helping the enemy." Attorney General Alberto Gonzales raised the possibility of prosecuting journalists.

As a result of the White House pressure over the NSA intercept leak in June 2002 -- applied through Cheney's phone call -- Graham and then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss, R-Fla., asked the Justice Department to investigate whether any members of Congress (including themselves) or their staffs were responsible for the leak. Prosecutors and FBI agents later zeroed in on Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., who was then the ranking member on Senate Intelligence, as the person most likely responsible for disclosing the information to the press. . . . [read it all]

Analysis: http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/16/isnt-it-ironic/

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/16/murry-waas-on-dick-cheney/

Read it and weep: the WH press corps, then and now

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/02/washington_pres.php
[Greg Sargent] What credibility do you have?" Mollenhoff shouted. His voice was booming, and the other reporters fell silent. "What documents have you seen?" Mollenhoff demanded. "Because if you can't tell us, you have no right to stand there."

When MacGregor had entered the room, copies of his prepared statement had been handed out, so the reporters knew what was coming. Others were shouting at him now, though none as vigorously as Mollenhoff. "Why should we sit here and listen to you, why should we print a word you say?" he insisted. . . [read on!]

One of the crony US Attorney replacement candidates "drops out"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021600936.html
"I'm not going to get fair consideration from Senator Pryor, my home-state senator, or the Judiciary Committee, particularly under Leahy," Griffin said in an interview. "I decided that there was nothing to gain by submitting myself to that circus." . . .

Here’s the REAL reason: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9950.html

[NB: Steve snags the key point: Griffin will still fill the post (for as much as the rest of Bush’s term) – he just won’t go through the confirmation process]

The Cunningham/Wilkes scandal: about to break wide open

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/16/how-many-slow-rides-to-come/
[Christy Hardin Smith] As a political bombshell of a potential story, it really doesn't get much more potent than this, does it? Alleged bribery, gambling, limo rides with hookers? . . .

McCain, Giuliani, Romney – the GOP frontrunners are not exactly picking up steam

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/17/us/politics/17arizona.html

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2007/02/one_down_one_to_go.php

Polls: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/16/154311/206

Glenn Greenwald – a blogger I didn’t even know about a year ago – is growing in stature

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/16/can-i-call-you-gator-greenwald-now/

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/02/16/radio_debate/index.html

Bonus item: Al Neuharth, founder of USA Today

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/02/plain_talk_by_a_1.html
Our great country has had 43 presidents. Many very good. A few pretty bad. On Presidents Day next Monday, it's appropriate to commemorate them all.

I remember every president since Herbert Hoover, when I was a grade school kid. He was one of the worst. I've personally met every president since Dwight Eisenhower. He was one of the best.

A year ago I criticized Hillary Clinton for saying "this (Bush) administration will go down in history as one of the worst."

"She's wrong," I wrote. Then I rated these five presidents, in this order, as the worst: Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Ulysses Grant, Hoover and Richard Nixon. "It's very unlikely Bush can crack that list," I added.

I was wrong. This is my mea culpa. Not only has Bush cracked that list, but he is planted firmly at the top. . .

More: http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/16/112534/423
“Stupid, ignorant ass. Selfish, confused, dishonest . . . Hypocrite liar. Stubborn, irresponsible jerk . . .”

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_02_11_atrios_archive.html#117167229717439448

***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

 
DELUSIONAL

They STILL don’t know what they want to say about Iran intelligence (wasn’t it easier when they could just make things up and the press would repeat it as fact?)

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9944.html
[Think Progress] While much of the information had previously been known, the highlight of the presentation — as reported by ABC World News — was that it was “the first time military officials…made the link to the highest level of Iran’s government.” But the briefing “offered no evidence” to substantiate that claim. After coming under intense scrutiny for an intelligence presentation that was approved by the highest levels of the administration, the White House has slowly backed off its claims of Iranian government involvement. . . . Today, CNN reported that the White House is now blaming the anonymous intelligence briefer who presented the information. According to CNN’s Ed Henry, the White House says the anonymous intelligence briefer went “a little too far” in stating the evidence.

[Steve Benen] Actually, this raises more questions than it answers. . . [read on!]

http://www.first-draft.com/2007/02/today_on_holden_8.html
Q Have you been able to reconstruct the transcript of the briefing in Baghdad on Sunday?

MR. SNOW: No, but I think the general purpose of the briefing in Baghdad was to outline Iranian activities in terms of supplying weaponry, or weaponry that had made its way from Iran into Iraq that had been used to kill coalition forces, among others.

One of the most prominent parts of the briefing were the EFPs, the explosively formed projectiles, which are a new form of IED. And so that's basically what was laid out at the briefing. I have not been able -- we're still working on trying to come up with some sort of rendering so that we can find out precisely what the briefer said.

Q Why wouldn't you offer a transcript?

MR. SNOW: Because it wasn't transcribed at the time. People are looking for a tape to see if they can rebuild it just for you guys.

Polls: http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/15/19456/3027
[Jonathan Singer] Even the President's most loyal base -- conservative Republicans -- aren't buying the notion that Iran represents an existential threat to the United States, or even that it is the greatest threat to our nation's security. And when looking at the broader public as a whole, even fewer are accepting the Bush administration's saber rattling as it relates to Iran.

If the numbers do not speak clearly enough, let's put it another way: Americans do not want war with Iran. . . .

Bush, having robbed Peter to pay Paul (moving troops from Afghanistan to Iraq), suddenly realizes that he’s facing a spring offensive from the Taliban. So now he needs more help from NATO. Why do we get the feeling they’re just making it up as they go along?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/15/121344/500

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/16/washington/16prexy.html

Another chapter in my favorite book, “Be Careful What You Ask For”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/world/middleeast/14cnd-cong.html
The Senate had been expected to recess after today for a week. But Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, both Republicans, urged Senate leaders late Wednesday to cancel the recess so debate on Iraq could proceed. Mr. Hagel has been the most outspoken Republican critic of the president’s Iraq policy.

Since the Feb. 5 stall in the Senate, numerous Republican moderates in that chamber have said there should at least be a debate. “Those Republicans who have expressed their concern over the Senate’s failure to debate the war in Iraq will have another opportunity to let their actions speak louder than their words,” Mr. Reid said. . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021500876.html
Democrats are calling the bluff of a group of Republican senators who oppose the escalation, but who joined with their GOP leadership to block the earlier Democratic-led resolution from coming to a vote, in an effort to force Democrats to allow a pro-administration measure to be offered.

When the House floated a much simpler text, Senate Democratic leaders quickly gravitated to it, believing Republicans would find it harder to block. . . .

[NB: I told you, they NEED this vote. It was just a matter of time before they’d come back, after voting NOT to consider it just a week ago. Wait ‘til we see how many House Republicans vote for the resolution today – some are saying as many as 60!]

Isn’t it great having the Dems in charge?

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002584.php
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), speaking on the Senate floor this afternoon, vowed to "get to the bottom" of the administration's December purge of federal prosecutors, and said that if they found that the prosecutors had indeed received positive job evaluations from the Justice Department before being booted, "there will be real trouble." . . .

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002582.php
House Democrats, led by Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), are pushing for U.S. Attorney Carol Lam to continue to preside over the Duke Cunningham investigation as outside counsel. Two days after Lam's office brought two historic (and incredibly detailed) indictments, she's on her way out, one of the seven federal prosecutors forced out by the administration in December. . .

More: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_11.php#012505
[NYT] A United States attorney in Arkansas who was dismissed from his job last year by the Justice Department was ousted after Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, intervened on behalf of the man who replaced him, according to Congressional aides briefed on the matter.

Ms. Miers, the aides said, phoned an aide to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales suggesting the appointment of J. Timothy Griffin, a former military and civilian prosecutor who was a political director for the Republican National Committee and a deputy to Karl Rove, the White House political adviser.

Later, the incumbent United States attorney, H. E. Cummins III, was removed without explanation and replaced on an interim basis by Mr. Griffin. Officials at the White House and Justice Department declined to comment on Ms. Miers’s role in the matter. . . .

What you get when you create a highly politicized federal legal system

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021501725.html

First Hillary Clinton, now Nancy Pelosi. Where do these uppity women get off, thinking they can tell the Commander in Chief whether he can start a new war or not?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021500157.html
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that President Bush lacks the authority to invade Iran without specific approval from Congress . . . .

And a new approach on blocking the troop escalation in Iraq

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021500157.html
[L]awmakers plowed through a third day of marathon debate in the House on a nonbinding measure opposing the administration's plan to increase troop strength in Iraq -- and as Democrats readied a more provocative challenge to the president.

That included drafting legislation to require the Pentagon to meet certain standards for training and equipping the troops, as well fixing the time that military units must be given at home between deployments. "That stops the surge (in troops) for all intents and purposes, because ......they cannot sustain the deployment," said Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, who said he would attach the conditions to legislation providing nearly $100 billion for the military.

Republicans quickly fired back. Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the GOP leader, issued a statement saying the plan would "pull the rug out from under American troops in the combat zone by cutting off their reinforcements and forcing them to face the enemy without our full support."

[NB: Don’t call it a “surge,” don’t call it an “escalation.” Now it’s “reinforcements”]

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021501703.html

Baghdad Bob

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003546508
Surely, at this stage, the White House would be willing to admit that conditions in Iraq following the 2003 invasion haven't gone exactly according to plan? White House Press Secretary Tony Snow was asked about this today at the daily briefing, following the release of military documents from 2002 that revealed that the U.S. expected that by now a token American force of 5,000 would be able to keep things under control in Iraq -- and the occupation would require only a two or three month "stabilization" period.

"What went wrong?" the reporter reasonably asked.

Snow replied: "I'm not sure anything went wrong." . . .

Ah, how about THIS?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/tommy-franks-was-so-incredibly-wrong-on.html
[MSNBC] Some of the planning by Gen. Tommy Franks and other top military officials before the 2003 invasion of Iraq envisioned that as few as 5,000 U.S. troops would remain in Iraq by December 2006, according to documents obtained by a private research organization. . . “Completely unrealistic assumptions about a post-Saddam Iraq permeate these war plans,” said National Security Archive Executive Director Thomas Blanton in a statement posted on the organization’s Web site along with copies of some charts used in the PowerPoint presentation.

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/washington/15military.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6364507.stm
Iraq invasion plan 'delusional' . . .

Matthew Dowd, Bush loyalist and uber-strategist, says Bush has been ruined by Iraq

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/former-top-bush-strategist-knocks-bush.html
former Bush strategist Matthew Dowd writes that President Bush's "gut-level bond" with the American people "may be lost" and that "wholesale change" is needed in Iraq.

"Sending in a small contingent of troops is likely going to be seen as not helpful," Dowd writes. "He'd be much better off with the public if he said, 'This is a mess, we made mistakes, and the only way to fix it is a wholesale change.' And that could mean either a serious increase in troop strength or withdrawal."

Dowd opines that Bush's problems stem from his success in the 2002 midterm elections. ". . . when all the levers of power in Washington became Republican, creating consensus seemed to become unnecessary at the White House.". . .

Uh, on that last point: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html#2187717965291663120
[Digby] Who do you suppose told him he didn't need to gain consensus to govern effectively?

[TNR] In late 2000, even as the result of the presidential election was still being contested in court, George W. Bush's chief pollster Matt Dowd was writing a memo for Rove that would reach a surprising conclusion. Based on a detailed examination of poll data from the previous two decades, Dowd's memo argued that the percentage of swing voters had shrunk to a tiny fraction of the electorate. Most self-described "independent" voters "are independent in name only," Dowd told me in an interview describing his memo. "Seventy-five percent of independents vote straight ticket" for one party or the other. Once such independents are reclassified as Democrats or Republicans, a key trend emerges: Between 1980 and 2000, the percentage of true swing voters fell from a very substantial 24 percent of the electorate to just 6 percent. In other words, the center was literally disappearing. Which meant that, instead of having every incentive to govern as "a uniter, not a divider," Bush now had every reason to govern via polarization.

“On the table”

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html#3830844070750999324
[Digby] There is a back and forth going on about whether the US should take the military option "off the table" when discussing Iran's nuclear ambitions . . .

More: http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2007/02/post_2810.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010753.php

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010756.php

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2007/02/post_2813.html

Virgil Goode (R-VA): if he didn’t exist, we’d be accused of making up a stereotype of an idiotic, jingoistic, racist southerner

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/15/1856/12400
[Think Progress] During today’s House debate on Iraq, virulently anti-Muslim Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) said supporting the anti-escalation resolution would "aid and assist the Islamic jihadists who want the crescent and star to wave over the Capitol of the United States and over the White House of this country." Moreover, he said, "I fear that radical Muslims who want to control the Middle East and ultimately the world would love to see ‘In God We Trust’ stricken from our money and replaced with ‘In Muhammad We Trust.’" . . .

More: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002189.php

The kind of people they are

http://deaththreats.notlong.com

They quote “Lincoln”

http://lincolnquote.notlong.com
Here's GOP Rep. Don Young of Alaska on the House floor today, coming out against the anti-escalation resolution. To make his case, Young very portentously attributed the following quote to Abraham Lincoln: "Congressmen who willfully take action during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs, and should be arrested, exiled or hanged." . . .

Of course, as many of you know already, Lincoln never said those words. The quote, which has been recycled endlessly by war supporters, has been thoroughly discredited. Given that the discrediting of this quote has been all over the internet for over six months, we have to ask: Did Rep. Young know that the quote was bogus, but recycle it anyway? We'll never know. He certainly seemed to think what he was saying was very profound.

David Brooks: never wrong

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/02/david_brooks_an.php
[Greg Sargent] David Brooks' column in the New York Times today perfectly illustrates what can usefully be called the Doctrine of Pundit Infallibility -- or DOPI for short. Brooks writes:

Far be it from me to get in the middle of a liberal purge, but would anybody mind if I pointed out that the calls for Hillary Clinton to apologize for her support of the Iraq war are almost entirely bogus? . . . Today, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party believes that the world, and Hillary Clinton in particular, owes it an apology. If she apologizes, she’ll forfeit her integrity. She will be apologizing for being herself.

Putting aside Brooks' argument about Hillary, this one sentence is worth dwelling on, because it perfectly captures our new DOPI -- pronounced "DOPEY." It shows that a pundit like Brooks, who did plenty of relentless cheerleading for the Iraq conflict, can freely operate in the full knowledge that he'll face no ridicule or derision whatsoever from valued colleagues for very visibly heaping scorn on the people who, unlike him, were right about the war.

Also amusing is the fact that Brooks says liberal Dems want the "world" to apologize to them. Actually, they want people like Brooks himself to own up in a serious way to getting it wrong. . . .

Update: Don't miss this piece from Brooks in 2003 in which he actually predicted that war opponents wouldn't admit they were wrong about Iraq.

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9946.html

Why a bipartisan ticket in 2008 (say, McCain/Lieberman) remains very unlikely

http://politicalinsider.com/2007/02/bipartisan_ticket_talk_meets_a.html

The Libby trial shows how blogging has become a serious alternative to the mainstream media

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/02/15/blogs/index.html
[Glenn Greenwald] The reporting produced by the FDL team has been, as one would expect, intense, comprehensive and superb. In addition to daily live-blogging of every single witness, which entails almost every question asked and answer given, as well as close-to-verbatim accounts of legal arguments between the Fitzgerald's team and Libby's lawyers, the FDL Plame experts have been providing day-by-day analysis of the legal, political and journalistic issues raised by this trial. In short, they have produced coverage of this clearly significant event -- one which has provided rare insight into the inner workings of the Beltway political and journalistic elite -- that simply never is, and perhaps cannot be, matched by even our largest national media outlets.

None of this will come as a surprise to regular readers of blogs, who have long recognized the gross inaccuracy of the standard caricature of bloggers -- mostly perpetuated by journalists who perceive bloggers as hostile competitors -- as foul, reckless, drooling, wild-eyed radicals. Some of the most well-informed, independent and most sophisticated analysis and even original reporting takes place in the blogosphere. That is just undeniable fact. . . .

Libby’s defense: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/2/16/13045/0945

Looks like Fox’s alternative to The Daily Show isn’t long for this world

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9947.html
[Steve Benen] Given the awful response to the first episode of Fox News’ The 1/2-Hour News Hour, the right-wing network is apparently not confident in the show’s future. Fox News ordered a grand total of two episodes today. (Four would have been an insult. But two?)

Atrios analyzes right-wing “humor”

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_02_11_atrios_archive.html#117154979788052178
Aside from racism, violence, and general "kicking the puppy" humor, conservative political humor these days involves referencing an alternative reality that they've created. They don't need jokes, they just need to point to the fantasy world they've created ("Nancy Pelosi's big plane! ahahahahaah!") so they can have a shared chuckle about it. There's no wit needed, just an invocation of pre-existing laugh lines based on their manufactured reality.

Bonus item: Space camp

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_11.php#012504
[Josh Marshall] Meet our new friend, Georgia State House Rep. Ben Bridges (R), chairman of the retirement committee in the state house.

Bridges is now in a bit of trouble for spilling the beans about evolution being the product of a Pharisee Jew conspiracy to bamboozle normal Americans and destroy Christianity.

“Indisputable evidence — long hidden but now available to everyone — demonstrates conclusively that so-called ‘secular evolution science’ is the Big-Bang 15-billion-year alternate ‘creation scenario’ of the Pharisee Religion,” reads the letter that went out under Bridges' name. “This scenario is derived concept-for-concept from Rabbinic writings in the mystic ‘holy book’ Kabbala dating back at least two millennia.” . . .

Now, it was down in Texas that things started to spin out of control. Warren Chisum (R), House Appropriations Committee Chairman in the Texas state House, took the memo from his friend Bridges and used the House operations system to distribute the memo throughout the legislature. . .

The ADL caught wind of the Bridges memo and now Chisum says he's "willing to apologize if I've offended anyone" if anyone got their big nose bent out of shape.

Reports the Dallas Morning News: "Mr. Chisum said he hadn't looked at the Web site and didn't realize that he was distributing that type of material. He expressed chagrin that he didn't vet the material more carefully." . . . [read it all!]

***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

 
WORDS MATTER

“We don’t know” – a useful formulation, suggesting that there might be something there, while maintaining deniability if there’s not

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/02/20070214-2.html
Q Thank you, sir. General Pace says that these bombs found in Iraq do not, by themselves, implicate Iran. What makes you so certain that the highest levels of Tehran's government is responsible? . . .

THE PRESIDENT: What we do know is that the Quds force was instrumental in providing these deadly IEDs to networks inside of Iraq. We know that. And we also know that the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. That's a known. What we don't know is whether or not the head leaders of Iran ordered the Quds force to do what they did. . .

Sound familiar? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/
MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. . .

More: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002572.php
[I]t's deliberately an argument by innuendo. . .

CNN swallows the bait

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/14/cnn-iran/
CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr said this morning:

The bottom line, Heidi, is the US certainly does have intelligence tying these Iranian weapons shipments to Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah ali Khamenei. It’s not something that the Bush White House wants to talk about in public too much because they really do not want to ratchet up tensions with Iran, the facts aside.

Starr claims the White House doesn’t want to talk about this “too much.” Actually, the White House explicitly denies it. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said yesterday:

SNOW: This is where we get to the rhetorical question I was asking you before. Do we have a signed piece of paper from Mr. Khamenei or from President Ahmadinejad signing off on this? No. …

I’m trying to be careful about how we do this. The question is, do we know that some particular senior official signed off? No. It’s an opaque government. It’s not a transparent government.

So, are they saying there IS a link, or not? Or are they purposely muddying the waters?

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002576.php
Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns went beyond what President Bush said this morning about official Iranian culpability for Iranian munitions used in attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq. Responding to Warren Strobel of McClatchy's efforts to get Burns to define the relationship between Qods and higher echelons of Iranian leadership, Burns said:

I'll resist the temptation to draw an organizational chart, for obvious reasons. They're part of the Iranian defense and intelligence establishment. They're a major part of the Iranian government. Therefore, the actions of that force are the responsibility of that government. If that force is supplying technology for Shiite militants, that government is responsible.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/cnns-ed-henry-actually-asked-bush-hard.html
[CNN’s Ed] Henry just blasted Bush with the following question, paraphrased: You're telling me that you have no idea if the Iranian government is behind the attacks in Iraq, so you're outright contradicting your own people who briefed us only two days ago?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/bush-admits-that-he-lied-about-iran.html
[AP] At issue was a weekend briefing in Baghdad at which three senior U.S. military officials said that the ''highest levels'' of the Iranian government had ordered the smuggling into Iraq of high-tech roadside bombs that have been killing American soldiers.

http://www.slate.com/id/2159911/fr/rss/
[Daniel Politi] But wait, isn't there something strange going on here? After all, officials insisted that Sunday's briefing was delayed because the original draft made claims that couldn't be supported. And now we're meant to believe that after this (supposed) careful vetting the claim of involvement from the "highest levels" of Iran's government just somehow got through? TP wonders whether this is why the briefers insisted so strongly on anonymity.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_11.php#012489
[Josh Marshall] All the other administration bamboozlement aside, we're now supposed to believe that the central allegation in that Baghdad Iranian arms briefing was false. Not just in the real world sense, but even in the Bush administration sense. That is to say, the administration didn't authorize him to say the arms transfers were authorized at the highest levels of the Iranian government. He just screwed up. He said something he wasn't supposed to say.

Do we believe this? This is the kind of goof that starts wars. Government officials are fired for screw-ups of far less gravity. Is this unnamed 'official' getting fired? And why has it taken three days for anybody to say this briefer went beyond its brief.

How badly have they screwed this up? VERY badly

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/005659.html

Words matter

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012479.php
[Josh Marshall] President Bush says "with certainty" that Qods forces are giving these weapons to fighters for use against American troops. The only question, he says, is whether the leaders of the Iranian government at the highest level directly told them to do so. CNN's Barbara Starr says that this is the same thing that Gen. Pace is saying.

But they're actually not saying the same thing. And President Bush's remarks are intentionally framed to duck the key issue of who the Iranians are really arming and why. . . .

As of late this afternoon, we're being told that the briefers in Baghdad went beyond what they were supposed to say and that the president is now dialing the claims back. In fact, President Bush is intentionally giving Americans the impression that we know something we don't -- that the Qods force is providing weapons for use against U.S. forces. This makes all the difference in the world. So even as Wolf Blitzer says just after 5 PM this afternoon that President Bush is "backing off" the claims, he's actually still trying to fool Americans into believing something that we not only can't prove but that is more than likely false.

A reporter friend told me recently that the administration is saying on background that the really slam-dunk evidence they're not yet able to release. But as I told this person, after the experience of 2002 and 2003, mere self-respect prevents me from putting any credence whatsoever in such claims.

If they had the evidence we'd be seeing it. But without any solid evidence, the president still wants to fool the American public into believing these bogus claims. . . .

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/bush-speaks-and-spins-at-11-am-press.html
[Bush] "Here's my point, either they knew or didn't know. What matters is, is that they're there. What's worse, that the government knew, or that the government didn't know?"

[Joe in DC] Well, with all due respect, you simple-minded idiot, if you're threatening to declare war on the Iranian government for actively helping the insurgents, then yes, it's far worse if the government knew because that would mean they were actually helping the insurgents.

But what Bush is suggesting is that it doesn't matter if the government of Iran is to blame, we're going to blame them anyway. What's the difference? That's like asking "what's the difference if Saddam didn't really have any ties to Al Qaeda, if the US didn't really have a plan for victory in Iraq, if Bush didn't really give the troops the equipment and numbers they need for victory?"

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html#2477448553071575222
Q: What assurances can you give the American people that the intelligence this time will be accurate?

BUSH:. . . The idea that somehow we're manufacturing the idea that Iranians are providing IEDs is preposterous.

[Quiddity] Interesting. When questioned about the accuracy of the intelligence, Bush did not reply by saying that the collection of evidence was by reliable parties, or that the analysis was thorough. Instead, he spoke about manufacturing evidence, denying that it took place. . . .

Parsing: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/15/01213/5918

Alternative explanations for the weapons: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010747.php



The best/worst moments of Bush’s press conference

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9932.html

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_11.php#012483

http://www.first-draft.com/2007/02/your_president__11.html



Hillary demands that Bush bring a new war resolution to Congress before any action against Iran – smart move

http://hillaryiran.notlong.com

Eleven House Republicans speak out against Bush’s surge – and their floor speeches were some of the most interesting to hear. Many more may vote for the resolution. But what is most fascinating was how many GOP speeches dared, almost begged, the Democrats to put forth a bill blocking further funding for the “surge.” THAT’s the issue they want to debate

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/14/AR2007021401576.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070215/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq;_ylt=AtMH3W1iB62PhfksHvsGfiPMWM0F

Twelve? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/washington/15cong.html

Did the NIE report tilt the scale toward Bush’s “surge” by not considering a full range of alternative policies?

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/005660.html

Bush hasn’t used his veto much – but it looks as if he’ll be using it a lot more now

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2758.html
President Bush will veto pending legislation aimed at boosting union strength, Vice President Cheney told National Association of Manufacturers members at a Wednesday breakfast meeting to kick off the group’s lobbying efforts.

The “Employee Free Choice Act,” currently making its way through the House, would change the process of union elections. Under the measure, if a majority of workers in a workplace sign cards authorizing a union, then the workers would get a union. Under current law, even when a majority of workers ask for union representation, their employers can force them to undergo an election process administered by the National Labor Relations Board. Supporters contend the proposal would strengthen unions against unfair management tactics. Opponents warn that the measure is an effort by unions to exert undue influence after years of waning support.

The manufacturers’ coalition seeks to kill the bill, among a list of four legislative priorities for the 110th Congress. . . .

Condi Rice is going through a bad patch right now (well, she’s been going through a bad patch since January 2001) – but you don’t get much clearer evidence of her lying than this

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/14/202742/717

More conservative backlash against the North Korea agreement: first, John Bolton, now Elliott Abrams -- from within the Bush team

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010751.php

How pathetically wrong was the Bush gang’s postwar plan for Iraq? You won’t believe how wrong . . .

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010750.php
[Kevin Drum] And then there's this slide, showing the "Phase IV" plans. That's mil-speak for "after the invasion," and it shows that they figured they'd be down to 25,000 troops within a couple of years -- and almost totally gone a year or so after that. That hasn't worked out so well.

Serious questions about Doug Feith’s renegade intelligence operation, including a mysterious meeting in Rome with Iranian arms dealer and intelligence pimp Manucher Ghorbanifar and representatives of SISMI (Italian Intelligence). Wait, wasn’t SISMI allegedly the source of the bogus Niger/Uranium letter that started the whole “sixteen words” mess (and eventually led to Joe Wilson’s trip and, hence, to the Plame scandal)? Did Feith’s people ask for something they could use to take back to DC to buttress their case for war?

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12449

http://www.etherzone.com/2007/raim021207.shtml

Oldie but goodie: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7681

More to come: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070213_before_the_invasion_there_was_feith/

Why are the American people so worried about sending more troops to Iraq? Because the “liberal media” keeps showing them what’s happening there

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/02/house_gopers_to.php
[House GOP] Thanks to the liberal mainstream media, Americans fully understand the consequences of continuing our efforts in Iraq -- both in American lives and dollars. . . .

They don’t even bother trying to pretend, do they?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/14/AR2007021401913.html
A senior Justice Department official who recently resigned her post bought a nearly $1 million vacation home with a lobbyist for ConocoPhillips months before approving consent decrees that would give the oil company more time to pay millions of dollars in fines and meet pollution-cleanup rules at some of its refineries. . .

[NB: And why are we always learning about these stories only AFTER people have resigned?]

The Libby defense wraps up

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9935.html
[Steve Benen] The defense rested in Scooter Libby’s criminal trial today, but not before a little drama. Apparently, Libby’s defense team had led the judge to believe that the defendant would testify, which led to the lawyers having access to specific classified information. When the lawyers announced Libby would not take the stand, the judge said he would not allow some classified information to be presented to the jury as Libby’s defense team had planned. . . .

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/14/the-defense-rests/
[Jane Hamsher] Watching Libby during the trial, I've also been struck by the impression that he thinks himself a "great man," and that the trial is a way to preserve his honor. Thus instead of launching a more plausible, "everybody makes mistakes" defense (as Jeralyn has noted would be a much easier sell to a jury) the defense has gone for broadside attacks against anyone who contradicted him. I have no idea what the outcome of the trial will be, but even if he skates, I'd be loath to attribute it to brilliant defense strategy. . . [read on]

Is this a sign of a desperately weak defense, or a confident one?

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/14/scooter-libbys-state-of-mind/
[Swopa] Consider Team Libby's track record since the opening arguments: A head fake that Scooter's defense would be based on pleading that he was scapegoated in order to protect Karl Rove. Bogus rumors that Rove and Dan Bartlett would be forced to testify. Bogus flat-out assertions by defense lawyers that VP Dick Cheney would testify on Libby's behalf. And even more cynically bogus claims that Libby himself would take the stand, woven into a ploy to introduce a dubious "memory defense" and try for a mistrial by demanding access to large quantities of classified material.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/02/14/BL2007021400709.html
[Dan Froomkin] In the end, however, the Libby defense team obviously realized that putting their star witnesses in a position where their every assertion would be aggressively and expertly challenged -- rather than just accepted and broadcast -- would hurt them more than it could possibly help.

Smart move for them. Bummer for a public craving a better understanding of what went so terribly wrong. . . .

http://www.slate.com/id/2159911/fr/rss/
[Daniel Politi] The decision to not put Libby on the stand led the judge to rule the defense can't call on CIA employees who were going to testify about Libby's workload. . .

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6416170,00.html
Defense attorneys misled the court into thinking that former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter'' Libby would testify in his CIA leak trial, a federal judge said Wednesday, as he blocked Libby from using some classified evidence in the case. . . .

Libby is accused of lying and obstructing an investigation into the 2003 leak of a CIA operative's identity. His attorneys have said for months in court papers that Libby would testify that he had important national security issues on his mind and that he simply forgot details about his conversations regarding the CIA employee, Valerie Plame.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald agreed to tell jurors about the terrorist threats, war planning and other secret issues that Libby faced at the time. The prosecutor said that he agreed to do this on the condition that he could cross-examine Libby at some point on just how seriously he considered these threats.

When defense attorneys abruptly announced Wednesday that Libby no longer planned to testify, however, Fitzgerald said that jurors hearing the case therefore should not be given a prewritten statement about Libby's briefings.

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton agreed, and reversed an earlier ruling that the evidence could be admitted.

“My absolute understanding was that Mr. Libby was going to testify,'' the judge said. “My ruling was based on the fact that he was going to testify.''

Walton appeared upset and seemed to stake his reputation on the decision. Libby's attorneys indicated they would appeal the decision if Libby is convicted. . .

The mystery of the hearts: http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/14/7242/

The Republican “brand”

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9934.html

The kind of people they are

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010746.php
[Glenn Reynolds, “Instapundit,” supposedly a reasonable conservative] We should be responding quietly, killing radical mullahs and iranian atomic scientists. . . Basically, stepping on the Iranians' toes hard enough to make them reconsider their not-so-covert war against us in Iraq. . . T]o be clear, I think it's perfectly fine to kill people who are working on atomic bombs for countries -- like Iran -- that have already said that they want to use those bombs against America and its allies, and I think that those who feel otherwise are idiots, and in absolutely no position to strike moral poses. . . . [read on!]

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9933.html

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html#3125965632258796411

Going after robo-calls

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/15/15852/7310

Now THIS is bad journalism (a bit of factual background: these bills were required by law to have been passed last year, under the Republican Congress – they never got around to it)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/14/AR2007021401574.html
Four and a half months after the legal deadline, the Senate gave final approval to a 2007 spending plan . . .

In the end, Republicans gave in and overwhelmingly supported the spending bill, which funds a litany of popular domestic programs through Sept. 30.

Before the vote, Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said that his fellow Republicans were not willing to risk a partial government shutdown over complaints about how Democrats were running the chamber.

"This is funding for about half the government," he said. "We've got to get it done and move on." . . .

Congressional Democrats blame Republicans for leaving them a fiscal mess from last year. . .

Hilarious rant on Joe Klein

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/12/late-nite-fdl-dawn-breaks-on-marblehead/

More: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html#158595123691409544

The new right-wing alternative to The Daily Show – a review

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/14/late-nite-fdl-ewwwwww-whats-that-smell/
Fox News Channel does not know how to do slashing comical commentary. . .

Bonus item: Funny Bush impersonation (thanks to Colleen V. for the link)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0zn5xkLIjE

***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 @ 6:32 AM

 
CREDIBILITY GAP

Whoa-ho-ho, this is rich. Bush acts puzzled about why people don’t believe him any more

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/02/13/BL2007021300582.html
[Dan Froomkin] President Bush yesterday sounded perplexed that anyone would think he is preparing to attack Iran -- going so far as to make a sour face and lower his voice in a mocking imitation of his critics. . .

Why might anyone be doubting Bush's stated intentions?

Well, it could be that when it comes to the Middle East, the war in Iraq has so damaged Bush's credibility that even some of his natural allies don't believe what he has to say anymore -- even his pro forma denials of hostile intentions toward Iran.

And then there's the fact that those sour-faced, unhappy-sounding critics Bush was mocking have, time and again, been proved right. . . .

Here’s why no one believes you, George

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html#7545474289337706252

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/02/13/bush-caught-on-tape-lying-about-2003-sotu/

Anatomy of a lie

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/02/12/BL2007021200678.html
[Dan Froomkin] For a long time now, Bush administration officials have been promising reporters proof that the Iranian government is supplying deadly weaponry to Iraqi militants.

The administration finally unveiled its case this weekend, first in coordinated and anonymous leaks to a trusting New York Times reporter, then in an extraordinarily secretive military briefing at which no one would speak on the record, journalists weren't allowed to photograph the so-called evidence, and nothing even remotely like proof of direct Iranian government involvement was presented. . .

Michael R. Gordon started the ball rolling in the Saturday New York Times: "The most lethal weapon directed against American troops in Iraq is an explosive-packed cylinder that United States intelligence asserts is being supplied by Iran."

This is about as close as Gordon gets to skepticism: "The assertion of an Iranian role in supplying the device to Shiite militias reflects broad agreement among American intelligence agencies, although officials acknowledge that the picture is not entirely complete."

Gordon acknowledges the obvious context -- "Any assertion of an Iranian contribution to attacks on Americans in Iraq is both politically and diplomatically volatile," he writes -- but then gives his sources a pass: "The officials said they were willing to discuss the issue to respond to what they described as an increasingly worrisome threat to American forces in Iraq, and were not trying to lay the basis for an American attack on Iran." . . .

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/NYT_article_appears_to_violate_policy_0210.html
A front page article in Saturday's New York Times which claims that there is "broad agreement among American intelligence agencies" that Iran has been supplying Iraqi Shiite militias with explosively formed projectiles (or EFPs) appears to violate the paper's policy on using unidentified sources, RAW STORY has found.

The article, "Deadliest Bomb in Iraq Is Made by Iran, U.S. Says," written by Times military affairs correspondent Michael R. Gordon, refers to "civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies" . . .

In February of 2004, the paper issued a "restatement" of its "sourcing policy," after controversies arose regarding its coverage of the Bush Administration's pre-war WMD claims about Iraq . . . According to the confidential news sources policy, the New York Times has "long observed the principle of identifying our sources by name and title or, when that is not possible, explaining why we consider them authoritative, why they are speaking to us and why they have demanded confidentiality." . . .

Gordon's article doesn't contain any explanation why his sources were unidentified, nor does it even come out and explicitly say that anonymity was granted.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003544369
It also may be worth noting that the author is Michael R. Gordon, the same Times reporter who, on his own, or with Judith Miller, wrote some of the key, and badly misleading or downright inaccurate, articles about Iraqi WMDs in the run-up to the 2003 invasion.

Gordon wrote with Miller the paper's most widely criticized -- even by the Times itself -- WMD story of all, the Sept. 8, 2002, “aluminum tubes” story that proved so influential, especially since the administration trumpeted it on TV talk shows.

When the Times eventually carried an editors’ note that admitted some of its Iraq coverage was wrong and/or overblown, it criticized two Miller-Gordon stories, and noted that the Sept. 8, 2002, article on page one of the newspaper "gave the first detailed account of the aluminum tubes. The article cited unidentified senior administration officials who insisted that the dimensions, specifications and numbers of tubes sought showed that they were intended for a nuclear weapons program." . . .

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_070213.htm
Only one day after Administration officials briefed reporters on what they claimed was "evidence" of Iran's involvement with the Iraqi insurgency, the story may be turning into a PR nightmare for the Bush team. Today's Washington Post reports Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace, during a visit to Australia, appeared to cast doubt on the Administration's message, telling the Voice of America that while "Iranians are involved, and it's clear that materials from Iran are involved," he "would not say...that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit." McClatchy says that "neither the White House nor the Pentagon responded to requests for an explanation of the apparent contradiction between the nation's highest-ranking military officer and his subordinates in Baghdad." Moreover, Pace's comment "could make it harder for the Bush administration, its credibility about Iran questioned because of its false pre-war claims about Saddam Hussein, to make its case that Iranian meddling in Iraq is fueling sectarian violence and causing US casualties."

Pace's comments came amidst deepening skepticism from emboldened Administration critics, with media reports describing the White House as "on the defensive" on the issue. In fact, CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight said that Administration sources admit the White House "is under no kind of illusion that people are necessarily going to take this at face value. They say, quite frankly, they know they have a credibility problem . . .

And how convenient that the markings on the shells are in English, not Farsi

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3796

Or? http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3797

The limits of spin

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/02/20070213-3.html
Q Tony, on Iran, General Peter Pace is now saying that he was not aware that this briefing was going ahead in Baghdad, where military officers were talking about Iran's influence in Iraq this past weekend. How could the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs not know that military officers would be briefing in Baghdad?

MR. SNOW: . . . Let me tell you what -- I think a lot of people are trying to whomp up a fight here that doesn't exist. I spoke with General Pace a bit this morning, as well. And there is a core of information that everybody agrees upon. Number one, there is weaponry that is of Iranian manufacture that's in Iraq killing Americans. There are Iranians involved, there are Iranians on the ground. Our intelligence indicates that the explosively formed penetrators, the EFP, in fact, are directly associated with Quds forces, which are part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, which are part of the government. The Quds force is, in fact, an official arm of the Iranian government and, as such, the government bears responsibility and accountability for its actions, as you would expect of any sovereign government. . .

Q No, you didn't say that, though -- that's where you said "people are trying to whomp up a fight." With all due respect, it's General Pace's comments, not anyone else's, where he said --

MR. SNOW: No, go back --

Q Well, he said -- let me just say, he said, "It is clear that Iranians are involved and it's clear that materials from Iran are involved. But I would not say but what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit." Are you saying that you, from this podium, know more than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

MR. SNOW: I am telling you that -- I'm telling you what the intelligence indicates.

Q So is he not in the loop? I'm just trying to understand why there's a contradiction, where the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs --

MR. SNOW: I'll tell you what -- I just know that there's -- Ed, calm down. I know you're excited, your voice is rising, your pace is increasing --

Q I don't need to calm down. I'm telling you that he is saying this; I'm not.

MR. SNOW: Well, I'm telling you I talked with him. Okay?

Q Okay.

MR. SNOW: And I've talked with him --

Q Well, we'll follow up with him, as well.

MR. SNOW: . . . I don't know what's more frightening, the fact that the Quds forces would be operating with the knowledge of senior officials or without the knowledge of senior officials. . . .

Q Right. But on the substance of it, the briefers over the weekend said that these parts are sent to Iraq with the approval of senior Iranian officials. And the bottom line is he seems to be contradicting that.

MR. SNOW: . . .[D]o we have a signed piece of paper from Mr. Khomeini or from President Ahmadinejad signing off on this? No. But are the Quds forces part of the government? The answer is yes.

So the question is, I think this ends up being a semantic dispute about senior levels of the government or the government. And the fact is, the government knows about it.

Q Okay. But isn't it really a question about whether or not you have strong evidence? When the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff seem to be saying something different than the White House, does that raise questions about how solid this evidence is? . . .

MR. SNOW: All right, so where's the credibility problem, in terms of -- are you saying --

Q In terms of the Iranian government being behind it. That's not -- nobody's disputing whether it's manufactured in Iran. That's what -- you keep changing what my question is.

MR. SNOW: No, no, I'm trying to clarify your question, because I think this is a --

Q I don't need it clarified, I'm trying to tell you -- I know what my question is, and basically, he's saying that he doesn't see evidence that the Iranian government is clearly behind it. That's my -- I've asked that three or four times. You haven't answered that. You're saying the Iranian government is behind it.

MR. SNOW: Okay, let me put it this way -- I'll say it one more time. The Quds force is part of the Iranian government. The Quds force is behind it, is associated with it.

Q Okay --

MR. SNOW: All right? Thank you. . . . I already laid it out for you, man.

Q But it seems to be a reasonable expectation the American people can have, to get some kind of explanation for how you can have the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the administration on two separate pages.

MR. SNOW: We're not on separate pages. The explanation --

Q Certainly, we seem to be, from what was said.

MR. SNOW: I know, because everybody is trying to get into semantic --

Q But yesterday you said the administration is confident the report on Iran is accurate and the weaponry is coming with knowledge of the Iranian government.

MR. SNOW: Of the government. And I still --

Q But now you're saying that the Quds forces, which is part of the Iranian government -- you're sort of parsing.

MR. SNOW: Well, I was parsing yesterday. I'm trying to be careful about how we do this. The question is, do we know that some particular senior official signed off? No, it's an opaque government; it's not a transparent government. But on the other hand, this is part of the Revolutionary Guard, which is part of the government, and therefore you do hold the government responsible. . . We know the Quds forces are involved. They're part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. That's part of the government. Just not going to go any further than that. . .

MR. SNOW: Again, let me just -- here's your rhetorical question: What's more frightening, the notion that they are freelancing or that they're not?

Q So they might.

MR. SNOW: No, I'm just posing a question for your consideration.

Q But then how solid is the information, though? I think the bottom line question still is if the Chairman --

MR. SNOW: Ed, the information is . . . Let's go back through what we understand. We understand that these weapons came from Iran, no dispute about that. We know that Quds forces have been within Iraq, no dispute about that. We know that the Quds forces are, in fact, part of the Revolutionary Guard; they're an instrument of the Iranian government. Nobody doubts that. So the question therefore becomes, who wrote the orders -- I'm not going to -- we're not going to be able to tell you who signed the orders. But we do know that the Iranian government at that level has been involved.

The important thing is we're trying to do this, and what's interesting is that the Iranian officials -- if they deny it, that's fine. Let's make sure that they, therefore, become engaged in trying to make sure that none of that stuff comes across the border is being used to kill Americans or innocent Iraqis.

Q It's not Iranian officials denying it -- that's not -- again, it's about General Pace . . .

Q If I could just come at this one other way. Beyond the evidence of the involvement of the Quds forces, there's no other evidence of ties to the Iranian government?

MR. SNOW: I don't want to lay out -- for one thing, I don't have access to the full chain of intel. But I can tell you the intel community believes that the Quds forces was involved, and I don't want to get into any further characterizations. . .

Q Do you think that the off-the-record, low-level Iran briefing has backfired? The reason I ask that is because on the one hand you avoid the comparison with Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations, but at the same time, what you've ended up with is the sense that no one senior in the administration seems to be willing to go on the record. And I understand that one of the people -- not all of the people, but one of the people would have been unable to brief; the other people wouldn't have been unable to brief.

MR. SNOW: No, look, again, I think what's happening is that everybody is trying to create a narrative here of something that's -- look, the problem before, nobody found weapons of mass destruction. You cannot say that nobody didn't -- nobody found explosively formed penetrators. You've got pictures of the things. . .

Q Well, isn't the key fact really not only that, but the key fact is, who is sending the weapons into Iraq?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, there is evidence that links Quds force to it. Now, again, the question --

Q Direct evidence?

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to characterize -- let me put it this way, I will push all the evidentiary questions to DNI, but the finding of the intelligence community is that it's, in fact, linked to the Quds forces.

Q That's kind of a "no." . . .

[NB: Sounding more and more like Scott McClellan every day. . .]

More: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002558.php
[Spencer Ackerman] Wow: a failure of bamboozlement. . . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_11.php#012436
QUESTION: I mean, Sean, sort of a follow-up on all these questions. In a general sense, the big (inaudible) at the moment we've seen, you know, cover of Newsweek, cover of Economist saying Iran could be next, a lot of speculation about military action. Can you give me any reaction to that?

MR. MCCORMACK: It seems to be the news media that is whipping up that storyline, not us.

Here’s a simple question no one is taking seriously: How do we KNOW that withdrawing from Iraq would make things worse?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010742.php

More: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0703.dreyfuss.html

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/12/sitroom.01.html
[John Murtha, D-PA] I will tell you, [Al Qaeda] will rue the day when the United States gets out of there, because the Iraqis know who they are, and they will get rid of them.

I am absolutely convinced. They know the -- the tribes. They know the geography. The -- the -- the Iraqis know who the al Qaeda are. It's just that we, obviously, provide the incentive to recruit al Qaeda. Iran wants us in there, and -- and al Qaeda wants us in there. The minute we're gone, they will take care of al Qaeda by themselves. Al Qaeda will not even be a factor in Iraq once the United States is gone.

A primer on the House Iraq debate: the GOP talking points leak out

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/13/183126/589
“We are writing to urge you not to debate the Democratic Iraq resolution on their terms, but rather on ours.

Democrats want to force us to focus on defending the surge, making the case that it will work and explaining why the President's new Iraq policy is different from prior efforts and therefore justified.

We urge you to instead broaden the debate to the threat posed to Americans, the world, and all "unbelievers" by radical Islamists. We would further urge you to join us in educating the American people about the views of radical Islamists and the consequences of not defeating radical Islam in Iraq.

The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily. If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose.”

More: http://gopletter.notlong.com
[Greg Sargent] Yep, so the advice here is this: GOPers shouldn't allow themselves to be lured into a "debate" about the single most important policy question facing us right now, because they might lose. Never mind how all this might impact the troops who actually have to go to Iraq. Healthy priorities, huh?

Also amusing is the letter's assertion that "Democrats want to force us to focus on defending the surge." Now why on earth would Dems want Republicans to justify a policy that will directly impact tens of thousands of people and their families? How unreasonable!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/13/AR2007021301204.html
[Dana Milbank] Rep. Adam Putnam of Florida, the man in charge of Republican strategy in this week's great debate on Iraq, was a study in nervous energy as he waited to speak on the House floor yesterday. . .

There was good reason for this anxiety. As head of the House Republican Conference, the 32-year-old redhead is leading his caucus into a public-opinion meat grinder: supporting President Bush's increase of U.S. troops in Iraq, against the wishes of more than 60 percent of Americans. Worse, he is leading them with a pair of somewhat contradictory arguments: (a) that the Democrats' resolution opposing Bush's Iraq buildup is a meaningless gesture, and (b) that the Democrats' resolution will cause the end of civilization as we know it. . . . [read on]

John Boehner (R-OH) cries crocodile tears, then lashes out

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/13/boehner-weeps/
“House Minority Leader John Boehner got emotional this morning as he spoke about the ’solemn’ debate that the House is set to begin today over the non-binding resolution opposing Bush’s troop increase.” Boehner “began to shed tears.”. . .

Boehner’s fleeting moment of solemnity was quickly replaced with divisive attacks on Iraq war critics. Speaking on the House floor, Boehner began the House debate on the anti-escalation resolution by calling it a criticism of “the latest effort by American forces to win in Iraq.” Boehner said that escalation opponents are taking the “bait” of “al Qaeda and terrorist sympathizers” by using Iraq to “divide us here at home.”. . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_11.php#012446
[Josh Marshall] Minority Leader Boehner's (R-OH) speech today in the House is really worth a close listen. When did this war start? The Iraq War, that is? Not in Iraq. Not even on 9/11. It turns out it started with the Iranian hostage crisis.

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9920.html

More twisted logic from House Republicans

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9922.html
[TNR] A friend on the Hill responds to GOP Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen’s argument on the House floor that, by withdrawing from Iraq, America would show al Qaeda that we can’t stomach combat casualties: “Which raises the question, just how many more soldiers should we get killed in order to show them that we can take mass casualties? By that logic, wouldn’t a worse Iraq strategy actually keep us safer by getting more of our people killed?”

[Steve Benen] And thus concludes today’s edition of “why the debate over Iraq policy is like a bad Twilight Zone episode.” . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_11.php#012454
[Josh Marshall] This is one for the ages, from the House Iraq debate today. It's Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA), one of true jokers of the House GOP, explaing why voting for the anti-surge resolution is actually a vote to 'stay the course' in Iraq, what the Democrats were attacking the president for doing as recently as last fall . . .

Oh, yeah

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/13/165529/022
[Jerry Nadler, D-NY] That is why this resolution must be only the first step.

In the Supplemental Budget we will consider next month, we should exercise the only real power we have - the Congressional power of the purse. We will not cut off the funds, and leave our troops defenseless before the enemy, as the demagogues would imply, but we should limit the use of the funds we provide to protecting the troops while they are in Iraq and to withdrawing them on a timetable mandated in the law. We should provide funds to rebuild the army and to raise our readiness levels, for diplomatic conferences in case there is any possibility of negotiating an end to the Iraqi civil war, and for economic reconstruction assistance, but above all, we must use the power of the purse to mandate a timetable to withdraw our troops from Iraq. . . .

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/13/93141/5324
[Lynn Woolsey, D-CA] o oppose the escalation is an important first step, but it must be the beginning of our debate, not the end. Even if we succeeded in preventing President Bush's escalation we would be left with an unacceptable status quo - over one hundred thousand of our brave men and women still in harm's way, and a continued military occupation that is fueling the insurgency. Let me be clear, we must do more than oppose the President's escalation, we must bring our troops home. . .

I like how the Dems are playing this: offer the Republicans a face-saving compromise, then when they break their promise, screw ‘em

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/02/reid-withdraws-support-of-warner-iraq.html
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid dropped his support Tuesday for the Iraq resolution condemning a troop increase chiefly sponsored by Virginia GOP Sen. John Warner.

Instead, Reid said he will use the Iraq resolution that is expected to pass the House later this week as the main Democratic resolution when the Senate revisits the debate later this month. . .

No Libby or Cheney testimony

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/02/13/libby/index.html

[NB: Libby’s lawyers are right that putting either guy on the stand would only make things worse for them. Still, it’s hard not to imagine this as a quid pro-quo for a promised pardon somewhere down the road. Oh, to have Cheney up there under oath!]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeralyn-merritt/libby-to-rest-without-cal_b_41140.html
[Jeralyn Merritt] Ted Wells announced they will rest their case tomorrow. Neither Libby nor Vice President will testify. . . .

The defense wants to call the three CIA briefers tomorrow for about 20 minutes. Wells said he will play some Russert tapes to the jury which will show he testified falsely.

The jury will go home now as the federal courthouse is closing. Legal arguments will continue today.

Jury instructions will be finalized Thursday without the jury. Closing arguments will be Tuesday of next week. . .

The question of the day: of all the perpetrators, why is Libby the only one who lied?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010740.php

The answer? http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/04/from-the-department-of-friends-in-need/

Assessment: he’s screwed

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/13/shooter-say-it-aint-so/
[Jane Hamsher] What we did get was Cheney proxy John Hannah, who spent the morning telling us what a Very Important Man Scooter Libby is, and how very busy he was fighting Al Quaeda single handedly the week of July 8 and how he had a charming habit of forgetting things that Hannah would tell him. In the courtroom Scooter smiled affably at this good-natured portrait of his memory-challenged self.

On cross examination, Fitzgerald then inquired of Hannah if part of Libby's job was to push back if the integrity of the OVP was attacked, and Hannah said yes. Fitz then wanted to know if, during that very critical week, Hannah wanted to go out for coffee with Scooter for a couple of hours and shoot the breeze would Scooter even have time to say yes? Hannah started to squirm, knowing that this is exactly what happened between Judy Miller and Scooter at the St. Regis. So a very uncomfortable Hannah replied, well, if it were really important, he's sure Scooter would do it. Fitzgerald then wants to know if it's fair to conclude that if Scooter DID agree to go, it would be over something that was very important to him.

It was a Perry Mason moment.

Things got a bit more brutal for Team Libby with juror questioning when one juror wanted to know how Scooter, being as horribly memory-challenged as he appears to be, could do a job that was so sensitive and important. The jury sounds, based on their questions, like they're getting a bit cynical. . . .

Oh and one final teaser — Marcy believes that Fitzgerald would not have handled Robert Novak, who was really a bit of a disgusting hack on the stand, so gently if he did not need him for future aspects of his investigation.

Just a bit of speculation. But something to think about.

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2007/02/post_2791.html
[Jeff Lomonaco] I'll let the lawyers assess whether Libby's surprisingly brief defense means that his team feels confident about their prospects. I will say this: my lawyer friends tell me it's a big no-no to make a claim in the opening that you don't go on to substantiate, and as far as I can tell the defense has offered no evidence, beyond one note from Vice President Cheney and an attempt to elicit testimony from Robert Novak to the effect that Karl Rove was a key political figure, for its opening claim that in the fall of 2003 Libby was acting not to save his job but to counter a White House effort to scapegoat Libby for the leaking in order to save their key political genius, Rove.

But Jeralyn Merritt thinks Libby might walk: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/2/14/23746/4051

Bush, still supportin’ the troops. . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9913.html
[AP] The Bush administration plans to cut funding for veterans’ health care two years from now — even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system.

Bush is using the cuts, critics say, to help fulfill his pledge to balance the budget by 2012.

After an increase sought for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head. Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly — by more than 10 percent in many years — White House budget documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter. . . [read on]

More problems with military recruiting

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/pentagon-continues-to-lower-bar.html
[Chris in Paris] Over 100,000 waivers for new recruits with criminal backgrounds over the last three years. . . .

Doug Feith, determined to hold onto his ranking as “the f-cking stupidest guy on the face of the earth”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/13/AR2007021301092.html
“The CIA has a hard job. . . .”

It’s good to be a Bush buddy

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2007/02/post_2787.html
[Ben Adler] As recently reported, President Bush's budget will cut wasteful subsidies to student loan corporations and redirect the funding to Pell Grants. Finally Bush has done something progressives can cheer, though experts think he could have gone farther. Meanwhile, Albert L. Lord, chairman of Sallie Mae, sold 400,000 shares of the company's stock the week before the budget was announced. What a lucky coincidence!

Now that Democrats control Congress and can actually investigate these kinds of mysterious shenanigans, it may be harder to get away with suspicious trading. And sure enough, leaders in Congress are investigating whether Lord benefited from an illegal stock tip from somewhere inside the Bush White House. Sure, this may pale next to the myriad unethical and possibly illegal actions administration officials took in the run-up to the Iraq war, from misleading Congress and the public to allegedly disclosing the identity of an undercover CIA agent. But just as Nixon was undone by Watergate, which may not have been his biggest crime, it's worth pursuing every shady action the administration tries to take.

The deficit no one talks about any more

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/business/14econ.web.html
The gap between what Americans import and what they export widened to another record in 2006, totaling $763.6 billion, the Commerce Department said today.

It was the fifth year in a row that the trade deficit broke through its previous record, which in 2005 stood at $716.7 billion. . .

John Howard, Australian PM, auditions to replace outgoing Tony Blair as Bush’s lapdog (thanks to Aussie colleague Marjorie O. for the link)

http://www.newmatilda.com/home/articledetail.asp?ArticleID=2071
Howard has effectively dealt himself out of the game. His attack on Obama means that he can’t stick around after Bush is gone and his thoughtless and egotistical desire to curry favour with the little man in the White House now means it will be difficult for his successor within the Liberal Party to have a meaningful relationship with a Democrat President, particularly if it is Obama.

Howard embraced Bush as soon as the latter became President. US foreign policy became Australian foreign policy right down to not signing the Kyoto Protocol. Howard’s abrogation of national sovereignty and his craven fawning on Bush and his Administration has demonstrated neither experience nor maturity. Cunning as a fox he may be, but he has hidden his increasingly obvious shortcomings behind duplicity. . .

The Cunningham/Wilkes scandal rolls up another crook – this one, the former #3 at the CIA

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/02/foggo_indictmen.html
[Dusty] Foggo, who served as the CIA's executive director, was accused last year by fellow CIA employees of steering contracts for the CIA station in Iraq to longtime friend Brent Wilkes, a defense contractor whose activities also led to the indictment of former Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham. . . .

If Foggo is indicted, it will represent a dark day for the CIA and is expected to lead to a full congressional investigation of how secret CIA contracts are awarded. . .

More: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_11.php#012455

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002557.php
U.S. Attorney Carol Lam [is] expected to announce the indictment of Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, the former #3 at the CIA, and Brent Wilkes, a defense contractor accused of bribing Duke Cunningham and the prime benefactor of the secret CIA contracts that have landed his best buddy Foggo in trouble.

But there's some added drama in that Lam will holding the presser, since she is one of the seven federal prosecutors forced out by the administration in December. The Wall Street Journal earlier reported that she'd ordered her staff to have Wilkes and Foggo indicted before her last day -- this Thursday. . .

More on those “performance related” firings of U.S. Attorneys, like Lam (obviously a real incompetent, she)

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002551.php

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9912.html

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/02/09/united_states_attorneys/index.html
[Joe Conason] Leading senators of both parties are disturbed by these incidents because U.S. attorneys -- the powerful officials appointed by the president to prosecute federal crimes and defend federal interests in each of the nation's judicial districts -- are supposed to be as nonpartisan as possible. . . [read on]

Behind the Foggo story

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/corruption_in_washington_/2007/02/query.php
[Mark Kleiman] Why did Porter Goss, the former Republican Congressman Bush put in as DCI when George Tenet left, decide to promote this particular mid-level career staffer to be the #3 in the agency?

Background: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/11/AR2006051101947.html
To understand what went so badly wrong at the CIA under Porter Goss, it's worth examining the career of his executive director, the onomatopoetic Kyle "Dusty" Foggo. His rise illustrates the conservative cronyism, leak paranoia and political vendettas that undermined Goss's tenure. . . .

http://72.166.46.24//boston/news_features/other_stories/multi-page/documents/04301894.asp
Goss has chosen as the next ExDir one K. Dusty Foggo. The good news is that unlike Goss’s staff cronies — most of whose CIA experience was brief and long ago — Foggo has been a DA officer for the past 22 years, and belonged to the late MG service. But while many old hands consider this an improvement over Kostiw, they’re somewhat underwhelmed with the choice of Foggo. . . "Dusty came into the agency through the Presidential Management Intern program, and he was one of four interns brought into the MG service, and turned out to be the weakest of the four — his contemporaries did better than him," says an intelligence officer knowledgeable about Foggo’s career. "He’s never gotten the big jobs, like chief of administration in an area division of the DO or up in the DA hierarchy, even after Buzzy ‘reorganized.’ He’s only served in a variety of small and midlevel stations and as the number-two or -three man on some administrative staffs, and hasn’t had enough experience managing large staffs or interacting with people outside the agency to prepare him to be ExDir. And while he’s smart enough to get some things, his personality is going to be what undermines him.". . . "He’s something of a loose cannon who thinks he can do everything on his own, and you just can’t do that as ExDir," the veteran officer says. Some speculate that Foggo’s "loose cannon" quality could be a force for good if he puts institutional concerns before Goss’s political ones, but that’s a dubious notion, given that Foggo owes his elevation to Goss.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/415277p-350961c.html
CIA Director Porter Goss abruptly resigned yesterday amid allegations that he and a top aide may have attended Watergate poker parties where bribes and prostitutes were provided to a corrupt congressman. . .

More: http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/004101.html

http://harpers.org/sb-loss-of-goss-3025720.html

Is “principled conservatism” an oxymoron?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html#8477597093314773780

The second blogger (Melissa McEwan) also quits from the Edwards campaign

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/02/13/edwards2/index.html

Stupid, but entertaining

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200702130007
[Eric Boehlert] On Friday, Wallace appeared on Fox News to promote the upcoming edition of Fox News Sunday, and the host was going down the lineup of stories he and his guests were going to address. "We will be talking about politics, about Iraq, and 'Planegate'; 'Pelosi One,'” . . . With a smirk on his face, Wallace added, "[It's] a great little story. Stupid -- but it's kind of entertaining."

Stupid -- but kind of entertaining. Have more honest words ever been spoken by a high-priced D.C. pundit? In fact, I'm nominating "Stupid -- but kind of entertaining" to be not only the unofficial tag for the pointless, overblown Pelosi story, but also to be the unofficial motto for the entire Beltway press corps that's increasingly uninterested in substance and more concerned with stagecraft and personality. It's a press corps that goes weak in the knees for stories that are stupid -- but kind of entertaining. . .

More: http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2007/02/how_the_pelosi.htm

More stupid

http://mediamatters.org/items/200702130011
During a discussion of Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) comment that "[w]e have now ... seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted" in Iraq, co-host Campbell Brown said on the February 13 edition of NBC's Today: "It's tough for Democrats especially on this issue because -- especially Obama, who's not only opposed to the war, but has set a timeline for bringing troops home. It's difficult to say that you're against the war and at the same time not say that you're against the troops." . . .

Punishing Helen Thomas

http://www.first-draft.com/2007/02/this_aggression.html

Bonus item: Why aren’t we surprised?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/13/81137.shtml
In a television interview broadcast Monday, first lady Laura Bush was asked how good President Bush is about remembering the romantic holiday.

"Not very good," she told daytime talk-show host Rachael Ray. "There's a White House florist, so they always send up flowers and he signs the card." . . .

"Last year, one of the gardeners at the White House - they're National Park employees - did a heart topiary for the president to give to me," the first lady said. "But, of course, the president didn't think of it. The gardener did."

***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 @ 6:31 AM

 
WISHFUL THINKING

The Bush gang wanted to start a war over Iran’s nuclear weapons program. It didn’t stick. Now they’ve switched to a new rationale: sending weapons across the border into Iraq. People are already doubting that one. Soon they’ll come out with another reason. Sound familiar?

Guess who doesn’t believe the Iran weapons story?

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/12/pace-iran-iraq/
[Amanda] At Sunday’s briefing in Baghdad, U.S. officials attempted to tie the Iranian government to attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, claiming that “Iran’s export of the bombs to Iraqi Shiite militias was a deliberate strategy of the regime.”

But today, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace disavowed this claim. He told reporters he has no evidence of any links between the explosives killing Americans and top Iranian officials:

We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran. What I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se [specifically], knows about this,” he said. “It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it’s clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit.

Pace isn’t the only one concerned about the intelligence presented at Sunday’s briefing:

Indeed, while the specific intelligence on the explosive formed projectiles is no longer disputed in the intelligence community, the CIA is questioning whether their export from Iran represents a strategy of the regime or the rogue actions of one of its security services, known as the Quds Force. [New York Sun, 2/12/07]

The officials offered no evidence to substantiate allegations that the “highest levels” of the Iranian government had sanctioned support for attacks against U.S. troops. [Washington Post, 2/12/07]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/12/183819/889
[McJoan] Paces questioning of these claims suggests that the military might not be all that gung-ho to take on a third war in the region, particularly considering how horribly the administration has handled Afghanistan and Iraq. His is one strong voice of sanity that needs to be heard right now. Congress is also beginning to take note, and the House Intelligence Committee is holding a closed hearing on the issue Thursday.

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021201537.html

More problems for the Iran weapons story

What is the role of the Iranian govt? http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/02/iran_who_funds_the_revolutiona.html
[Joe Klein] The point is, if we have "no clue about what's going on inside Iran," as several high-ranking diplomatic and intelligence sources in the Bush Administration have told me...how on earth do we know that the IEDs have been authorized by the Iranian leadership? The answer is, we don't.

Who is Iran actually arming in Iraq? http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/12/15852/3153

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/02/12/fox_iran/index.html
[Alex Koppelman] Let's say for the sake of argument that the administration is right on two key points: that Iranian arms are indeed flowing into Iraq and that it's happening with the approval of the Iranian government. Even if that's true, there's still a big logical hole in the reasoning of much of the press's reporting on the issue. That's especially true of this article, beginning in just the first sentence: "The White House stuck to its guns Monday, insisting it had clear evidence that Tehran approved the shipment of weapons -- including deadly bomb-making materials -- to Shiite militants for use against U.S. forces in Iraq."

What's the problem there? Well, simply that weapons supplied by Iran to Shiite militias would be far more likely to be used in sectarian violence against Sunnis than against U.S. troops. As Salon contributor Juan Cole has already pointed out on his blog, the majority -- by far -- of U.S. deaths in Iraq are caused by Sunnis, not Shiites. Beyond that, the weapons allegedly supplied by Iran are flowing to U.S. allies in Iraq.

What difference does it make? http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012393.php

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_11.php#012398

Nobody believes it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/02/12/BL2007021200678.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/13/world/middleeast/13weapons.html

The REAL cause of troop deaths: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/bush-yet-again-has-failed-to-give.html
[John Aravosis] [T]he reason those supposed "Irani explosives" are causing so much damage is, in part, because Bush has, yet again, failed to get our troops the armor they need for their vehicles. . . Now who's empowering Al Qaeda and demoralizing the troops?

Nevertheless. . .

http://www.correntewire.com/wapo_cheney_aide_says_2007_attack_on_iran_is_real_possibility
[WP] John Hannah, Vice President Cheney’s national security adviser, said during a recent meeting that the administration considers 2007 “the year of Iran” and indicated that a U.S. attack was a real possibility. . . .

Attacking Iran: how crazy is that?

http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/2007/02/paul-krugman-scary-movie-2.html
[Paul Krugman] Before we get to the apparent war-mongering, let’s talk about the basics. Are there people in Iran providing aid to factions in Iraq, factions that sometimes kill Americans as well as other Iraqis? Yes, probably. But you can say the same about Saudi Arabia, which is believed to be a major source of financial support for Sunni insurgents — and Sunnis, not Iranian-backed Shiites, are still responsible for most American combat deaths.

The Bush administration, however, with its close personal and financial ties to the Saudis, has always downplayed Saudi connections to America’s enemies. Iran, on the other hand, which had no connection to 9/11, and was actually quite helpful to the United States in the months after the terrorist attack, somehow found itself linked with its bitter enemy Saddam Hussein as part of the “axis of evil.” . . .

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/iran-just-how-badly-can-we-screw-up.html
[AJ] Virtually anyone with any military, foreign policy, or Middle East expertise thinks that it would be an absolute disaster to act militarily against Iran. We understand that a ground invasion is logistically impossible, an airborne attack would not end nuclear development and might even accelerate it, and either "option" would result in massive recriminations against U.S. troops in Iraq and possibly counter-attacks against U.S. interests and allies in the region and beyond. In short, people who know about these issues (and plenty who don't, but have an iota of common sense) view any kind of attack against Iran as so monstrously wrong-headed, so profoundly against U.S. interests, as to be beyond the realm of possibility. Some of these people are even irritated with those who are anxious about an Iran strike simply because it is, to them, incomprehensible and impossible.

I'm not unsympathetic to this position. I, too, think it would be disastrous to take military action against Iran. I think it would represent all the worst aspects of the Iraq war -- manipulated intelligence, overheated rhetoric, ideology overtaking reality, greatly harmful to U.S. foreign policy, etc. -- without even the superficial salve of democracy-promotion, and I think the blowback in Iraq would be swift and severe.

But here's the thing: I have no faith in the current administration to recognize any of this. I believe it is unlikely we will attack Iran. Various reports in recent years have predicted attacks on Iran and been wrong, and I think there would literally be a near-mutiny from senior military officials were they ordered to attack Iran. However. Stranger things have happened, and we are dealing with a president who doesn't feel constrained by public opinion or an electoral future . . .

Big success in North Korea?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/world/asia/12cnd-korea.html
Negotiators for the six nations in the North Korean nuclear disarmament talks are poised to announce a new agreement on Tuesday. . .

The agreement is expected to include some significant concessions by the North Koreans, although they did not agree to give up their existing nuclear weapons. . .

Guess who doesn’t think so?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/12/sitroom.02.html
This is a very bad deal and I'm hoping that the president has not been fully briefed on it and he still has time to reject it.

It's bad for two reasons.

First, it contradicts fundamental premises of the president's policy he's been following for the past six years. And, second, it makes the administration look very weak at a time in Iraq and dealing with Iran, it needs to look strong.

So I hope with a few hours yet to go, the president might yet reject it. . . .

This is, in many respects, simply a repetition of the agreed framework of 1994.

You know, Secretary Powell, in 2001, started off the administration by saying he was prepared to pick up where the Clinton administration left off. President Bush changed course and we followed a different approach.

This is the same thing that the State Department was prepared to do six years ago. If we were going to cut this deal now, it's amazing we didn't cut it back then.

So I'm hoping that this is not really what's going to happen. . .

It -- really, it sends exactly the wrong signal to would-be proliferators around the world -- if you hold out long enough and wear down the State Department negotiators, eventually you get rewarded, in this case with massive shipments of heavy fuel oil for doing only partially what needs to be done -- the complete dismantling of their nuclear program. . .

[T[his deal says almost nothing about the North Korean program to achieve nuclear weapons through highly enriched uranium. This is the same fallacy as the Clinton administration, focusing like looking through a soda straw, at the Yongbyon nuclear facility and not looking at the broader North Korean nuclear effort.

I am very disturbed by this deal. . .

Bush’s budget

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/lying_in_politics_/2007/02/more_fiscal_hokum_from_the_right.php

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/3064/context/cover/
Buried inside President Bush's 2008 budget resolution released last week is a provision that would shift control over how anti-violence programs are funded from the legislative to the executive branch.

The provision has key lawmakers, as well as advocates in the domestic violence community, up in arms because it would give the Department of Justice, rather than Congress, discretion over how to spend federal dollars earmarked to combat domestic violence and sexual assault. . .

How the House Dems are going to handle the Iraq resolution

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021200571.html

What the Republicans plan to do

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/house-gop-prepares-for-mini-political.html

Look! Another bill for Senate Republicans to filibuster! (thanks to Buzzflash for the link)

http://www.bluejersey.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4004
After all the uproar over Senator [Bob] Menendez's [D-NJ] vote a few months ago for the unconstitutional Military Commissions Act which eliminated habeas corpus and legalized torture, it appears he's had a change of heart. That vote was taken under immense pressure during the campaign, and he's now doing the responsible thing and cleaning up the mess he helped make. According to an announcement from the campaign, Senator Chris Dodd will introduce and Bob Menendez will co-sponsor legislation to correct the "flawed Military Commissions Act"

More: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002540.php

Will Joe Lieberman change parties? Will it shift control of the Senate if he does?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012405.php

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_02_11_atrios_archive.html#117129435824710096

John McCain fears that a “Tet Offensive” event in Iraq could “switch American public opinion.” Uh, John, at least 62% are ALREADY against it

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/john-mccain-fears-americans-may-turn.html

And after Tet, in 1968, what was the great collapse of popular support?

http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/Change-Viet2.html
Regards war in Vietnam as a mistake: 49%

John McCain, shameless panderer

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/12/mccain-creationism/
[Stayam] Today is Darwin Day, commemorating the anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth and of the publishing of On the Origin of Species. The National Academy of Sciences, “the nation’s most prestigious scientific organization,” declares evolution “one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.” President Bush’s science adviser John Marburger calls it “the cornerstone of modern biology.”

Yet, on February 23, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) will be the keynote speaker for the most prominent creationism advocacy group in the country. The Discovery Institute, a religious right think-tank, is well-known for its strong opposition to evolutionary biology and its advocacy for “intelligent design.” The institute’s main financial backer, savings and loan heir Howard Ahmanson, spent 20 years on the board of the Chalcedon Foundation, “a theocratic outfit that advocates the replacement of American civil law with biblical law.” . . .

More Feith-bashing. So easy, so fun

http://www.juancole.com/2007/02/feith-in-situation-room-three-lies.html

More revelations to come from the Defense Dept IG investigation?

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/005641.html

I hadn’t heard about this case. Could be good! (thanks to Steve Benen for the link)

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070209/9cia.htm
A federal judge has ruled that a CIA agent identified only as "Doe," allegedly fired after he gathered prewar intelligence showing that Iraq was not developing weapons of mass destruction, can proceed with his lawsuit against the CIA. . .

What a surprise

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010736.php
[Kevin Drum] Hmmm. Those U.S. attorneys who were fired recently in part because of "performance related" issues? Turns out most of them got positive job evaluations.

Marisa Taylor of McClatchy asked a Justice Department official about this and was told the whole thing was just a matter of semantics. "Performance-related can mean many things," the official said. I'll bet. . . .

John Howard (Australian PM) is a god-damn liar

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/12/sitroom.02.html
HOWARD: They seem to be running this line that I've interfered in American domestic politics. That's absurd. What I've done is to criticize Senator Obama's views on a particular issue and I don't retreat in any way from that criticism.

What Howard said: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/12/sitroom.01.html
If I were running al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats. . .

Libby seems to think that it is a defense for him that (a) other Bush people were also leaking the Plame information and (b) he talked with some reporters he DIDN’T leak to. One little problem: he isn’t on trial for leaking the information – he’s on trial for lying about it

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021200588.html
Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus testified in court this morning that then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, not I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was the first person to tell him that a prominent critic of the Iraq war was married to undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame. . . .

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003544488
Robert Novak took the stand just after lunch. He named Karl Rove and Richard Armitage as the two sources for his famous "outing" column. . . .

How exactly does this help Libby?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/washington/12cnd-libby.html
One by one, the reporters from The Washington Post, The New York Times and Newsweek took the stand and recounted their conversations with Mr. Libby in the summer of 2003 about the issue of unconventional weapons and Iraq. They briskly and unhesitatingly said Mr. Libby, then the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, did not speak about the C.I.A. employee, Valerie Wilson.

[NB: The fact that, for whatever reason, he didn’t tell these other people has nothing to do with the testimony that he DID tell Cooper and Miller (with documentary proof of the latter), and that he lied when he said he didn’t know about it until Tim Russert told HIM]

Dick Armitage, pottymouth

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/12/sitroom.01.html
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP FROM BOB WOODWARD, "WASHINGTON POST": What's Scowcroft up to now?

RICHARD ARMITAGE, FORMER DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: [expletive] Scowcroft is looking into the yellowcake thing.

WOODWARD: Oh, yes?

ARMITAGE: As the PFIAB.

WOODWARD: Yes. What happened there?

ARMITAGE: They're back together. [coughs] They knew with yellowcake, the CIA is not going to be hurt by this one...

WOODWARD: I know, that's...

ARMITAGE: ... Hadley and Bob Joseph know. It's documented. We've got our documents on it. We're clean as a [expletive] whistle. And George personally got it out of the Cincinnati speech of the president.

WOODWARD: Oh, he did?

ARMITAGE: Oh, yes.

WOODWARD: Oh really?

ARMITAGE: Yes.

WOODWARD: It was taken out?

ARMITAGE: Taken out. George said you can't do this.

WOODWARD: How come it wasn't taken out of the situation then?

ARMITAGE: Because I think it was overruled by the types down at the White House. Condi doesn't like being in the hot spot. But she...

WOODWARD: But it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency. In many that's just...

ARMITAGE: His wife works in the agency.

WOODWARD: Why doesn't that come out? Why does...

ARMITAGE: Everyone knows it.

WOODWARD: ... that have to be a big secret? Everyone knows.

ARMITAGE: Yes. And I know [expletive] Joe Wilson's been calling everybody. He's pissed off because he was designated as a low-level guy who went out to took at it. So, he's all pissed off.

WOODWARD: But why would they send him?

ARMITAGE: Because his wife's a [expletive] analyst at the agency.

WOODWARD: It's still weird.

ARMITAGE: It -- it's perfect. This is what she does. She is a WMD analyst out there.

WOODWARD: Oh, she is?

ARMITAGE: Yes.

WOODWARD: Oh, I see.

ARMITAGE: [expletive] look at it.

WOODWARD: Oh, I see. I didn't [expletive].

ARMITAGE: Yes, see?

WOODWARD: Oh, she's the chief WMD?

ARMITAGE: No, she isn't the chief, no.

WOODWARD: But high enough up that she can say, 'Oh, yes, hubby will go.'"

ARMITAGE: Yes, he knows Africa.

WOODWARD: Was she out there with him?

ARMITAGE: No.

WOODWARD: When he was ambassador? ARMITAGE: Not to my knowledge. I don't know. I don't know if she was out there or not. But his wife is in the agency and is a WMD analyst.

How about that [expletive]?

(END VIDEO TAPE)

Yawn

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/benchconference/2007/02/post_19.html
[Andrew Cohen] So far, Libby's lawyers have not exactly blown away court observers with their first witnesses-- and of course you never get a second chance to make a first impression. Pincus told the panel that it was former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer who first told him about Valerie Plame Wilson, the CIA agent and wife of Joseph Wilson, the administration critic. Last week, you may recall, Fleischer testified that he was told about Plame Wilson by Libby. Meanwhile, Bob Woodward told jurors that he learned about Plame Wilson from Richard Armitage, now known to the world as THE original (and repentent and unindicted and official) leaker to the media of Wilson's identity. And Novak confirms Armitage as the leaker and says that Karl Rove confirmed the leak.

Interesting, sure. With gusts up to fascinating. But, you may resonably ask, what does any of this have to do with whether Libby lied to federal investigators and to jurors when questioned about Plame Wilson? And, so far, the answer is easy: not much. . .

Andrea Mitchell: “everybody knew” about Plame

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_02_11_atrios_archive.html#117129435824710096

Jane Hamsher’s daily summary: http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/12/today-in-libby/

Liveblogging transcripts at Firedoglake: http://www.firedoglake.com/

The larger pattern of leaks is becoming clear: and guess who’s at the core of it all?

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3792?PHPSESSID=422a2148b8da8fd57fc178199eff3b1d
[Swopa] The blockbuster story no one is reporting from the Libby trial . . .

More on “1 x 2 x 6” http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2007/02/post_2762.html

The role of the media: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/2/13/14519/9038
[T]here are two trials going on in the Prettyman courthouse in D.C. . . .

One of the two bloggers hired (back) by the Edwards campaign quits under continued right-wing pressure – and the only good thing about it is now she can say EXACTLY what she thinks

http://pandagon.net/2007/02/12/announcement/
[Amanda Marcotte] I was hired by the Edwards campaign for the skills and talents I bring to the table, and my willingness to work hard for what’s right. Unfortunately, Bill Donohue and his calvacade of right wing shills don’t respect that a mere woman like me could be hired for my skills, and pretended that John Edwards had to be held accountable for some of my personal, non-mainstream views on religious influence on politics (I’m anti-theocracy, for those who were keeping track). Bill Donohue—anti-Semite, right wing lackey whose entire job is to create non-controversies in order to derail liberal politics—has been running a scorched earth campaign to get me fired for my personal beliefs and my writings on this blog.

More: http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/12/21471/1528

The kind of people they are

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_digbysblog_archive.html#117134193642112502

Apropos of nothing, but hilarious (thanks to Atrios for the link)

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/12/novak-really-freaks

The Goofus Files

http://www.first-draft.com/2007/02/your_president__7.html
A society in Iraq that is learning to live with themselves; a unified -- a country that's heading toward more unity, based upon a modern constitution which was approved by the Iraqi people. There will be violence. There will be criminality. But they will also see a country in which the security forces are better equipped and better adapt at dealing with the extremists. . .

They will also know what I know, that the real challenge in the Middle East is to confront extremists and not allow the extremists to bully and marginalize and use their weapon of terror to gain safe haven and/or to gain an ideological advantage over the millions who want to live in peace. . .

And if we can help this government be able to create the conditions so that a mother can raise their child in peace, I think people will look back and they'll be thankful of America. . .

Obamamania, coming to a town near you (he’s the most INTERESTING candidate, that’s for sure)

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/2/12/234247/959

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2007/02/yesssssss.php

Bonus item: Glenn Beck wishes Obama was more “black”

http://mediamatters.org/items/200702130003
Beck claimed that Obama "is colorless," adding that "as a white guy ... [y]ou don't notice that he is black. So he might as well be white, you know what I mean?" In addition, Beck said: "I guarantee you, there will be blogs today that will have me being a racist because I say that." . . .

[NB: Yep, including this 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 @ 6:18 AM

 
CHUCKLES

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012381.php
[UPI] At a farewell reception at Blair House for the retiring chief of protocol, Don Ensenat, who was President Bush's Yale roommate, the president shook hands with Washington Life Magazine's Soroush Shehabi. "I'm the grandson of one of the late Shah's ministers," said Soroush, "and I simply want to say one U.S. bomb on Iran and the regime we all despise will remain in power for another 20 or 30 years and 70 million Iranians will become radicalized."

"I know," President Bush answered.

"But does Vice President Cheney know?" asked Soroush.

President Bush chuckled and walked away.

We all know Rove 101: when your back is to the wall, don’t go defensive, push back even harder. But now we’re seeing it applied to Bush’s war policy. People tell you to cut back troops in Iraq, add more. The war is a quagmire in Afghanistan and a catastrophe in Iraq, but don’t admit mistakes or failure: open a new front against Iran. Yes, these madmen really might do it

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17086418/site/newsweek/
[Newsweek] The Iranians have reason to feel paranoid. In recent weeks senior American officers have condemned Tehran for providing training and deadly explosives to insurgents. In a predawn raid on Dec. 21, U.S. troops barged into the compound of the most powerful political party in the country, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and grabbed two men they claimed were officers in Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Three weeks later U.S. troops stormed an Iranian diplomatic office in Irbil, arresting five more Iranians. The Americans have hinted that as part of an escalating tit-for-tat, Iranians may have had a hand in a spectacular raid in Karbala on Jan. 20, in which four American soldiers were kidnapped and later found shot, execution style, in the head. U.S. forces promised to defend themselves.

Some view the spiraling attacks as a strand in a worrisome pattern. At least one former White House official contends that some Bush advisers secretly want an excuse to attack Iran. "They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for," says Hillary Mann, the administration's former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs. U.S. officials insist they have no intention of provoking or otherwise starting a war with Iran, and they were also quick to deny any link to Sharafi's kidnapping. But the fact remains that the longstanding war of words between Washington and Tehran is edging toward something more dangerous. A second Navy carrier group is steaming toward the Persian Gulf, and NEWSWEEK has learned that a third carrier will likely follow. . . .

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2007/02/talk_about_burying_the_news.html
[Michael Froomkin] There is no way I can imagine this bunch sending three carrier groups to the Gulf unless they plan to use them. Incidentally, the Gulf is a very small bit of water for one carrier group, not to mention three. And, I worry about them being, um, targets.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/12/13055/6568
[Paul Krugman] So the administration has always had it in for the Iranian regime. Now, let’s do an O. J. Simpson: if you were determined to start a war with Iran, how would you do it?

First, you’d set up a special intelligence unit to cook up rationales for war. A good model would be the Pentagon’s now-infamous Office of Special Plans, led by Abram Shulsky, that helped sell the Iraq war with false claims about links to Al Qaeda....

Next, you’d go for a repeat of the highly successful strategy by which scare stories about the Iraqi threat were disseminated to the public.

This time, however, the assertions wouldn’t be about W.M.D.; they’d be that Iranian actions are endangering U.S. forces in Iraq. Why? Because there’s no way Congress will approve another war resolution. But if you can claim that Iran is doing evil in Iraq, you can assert that you don’t need authorization to attack — that Congress has already empowered the administration to do whatever is necessary to stabilize Iraq. And by the time the lawyers are finished arguing — well, the war would be in full swing. . .

The big roll-out

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/world/middleeast/11cnd-weapons.html
After weeks of internal debate, senior United States military officials today literally put on the table their first public evidence for the contentious assertion that Iran is supplying Shiite extremist groups in Iraq with deadly weaponry, including a roadside bomb that pierces American armor. . .

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/005635.html
[Laura Rozen] Cell phones were taken away so reporters could not get pictures for more independent analysis of what was shown. There's something so tentative about all of this. . .

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010723.php
[Kevin Drum] Today was finally the day of the big briefing about the roadside bombs Iran is supposedly smuggling into Iraq, and you'd think the folks in charge of this long-planned event would want to put their best foot forward. But no. Despite being "repeatedly pressed on why they insisted on anonymity in such an important matter," they persisted in conducting the briefing entirely on background.

Golly. I wonder why no one wanted their name publicly attached to this stuff? I mean, it's ironclad, right? A slam dunk, so to speak. It's certainly puzzling that they're being so shy about taking credit for their work, isn't it? . . . [read on]

http://www.slate.com/id/2159558
[Daniel Politi] Reporters at the briefing in Baghdad appear to have been quite skeptical of the information, as it comes at a time when officials are increasingly tying Iran to Iraq's problems. Also, the military officials insisted on anonymity and reporters were not allowed to record or photograph anything. The Post gets a comment from an official at the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad who said that if the U.S. military is sure of its evidence, they should display it publicly. . .

The military officials did not provide any evidence to support claims that top officials in Iran had authorized attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq and the Post also notes there were no CIA officers or diplomats present at the briefing. . .

More: http://www.juancole.com/2007/02/nyt-falls-for-bogus-iran-weapons.html

It’s simply insane

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran11feb11,0,4574117,full.story
[M]any Iranians say the international dispute over Iran's nuclear program has become a rallying point for a president who otherwise would be facing substantial public dissatisfaction over soaring inflation, rising unemployment and widespread censorship.

This has been a source of frustration to Iran's reformists, who dealt the president's party a blow at the polls in local elections in December but complain that the Bush administration's threatening rhetoric has pulled the rug out from under them.

"You are harmful for us. We try to tell politicians in Washington, D.C., please don't do anything in favor of reform or to promote democracy in Iran. Because in 100% of the cases, it benefits the right wing," said Saeed Leylaz, a business consultant and advocate of economic reform and greater dialogue with the West.

"Mr. Ahmadinejad tries to make the international situation worse and worse. And now with the U.N. Security Council resolution, he can say, 'Look, we are in a dangerous position, and nobody can say anything against us, because the enemy is coming into the country.' Exactly like George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. They are helping each other. They need each other, I believe." . .

http://iranwar.notlong.com
[Daniel Buk] The Iranian President is just a figurehead in Iran with no real authority. As President, Ahmadinejad cannot appoint his cabinet, he cannot appoint military or judicial leaders and most importantly, he is not even the Commander-in-Chief of Iran's military (that constitutional authority lies with Iran's Supreme Leader). Iranian President Ahmadinejad is increasingly under criticism from the Iranian Majlis, Iran's parliament. Ahmadinejad is steadily becoming marginalized by Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, who is in turn supervised by the Iranian Mujtahids (council of 86 Islamic legal experts), who are also critical of Ahmadinejad. Growing numbers of the rest of the Marjas (Grand Ayatollahs) of Iran are marginalizing Ahmadinejad. Parviz Davoodi, First Vice President to Ahmadinejad, also strongly disagrees with Ahmadinejad on some very big issues (there are 10 Vice Presidents in total). More and more Iranian citizens are becoming disenchanted with Ahmadinejad. . . .

This mounting criticism will probably dissipate if the US invades Iran, and the rising resentment towards Ahmadinejad will probably be redirected towards the US . . . They will likely put aside their differences and unite against any US invasion force, probably solidifying and even intensifying Iranian support for Ahmadinejad's anti-US rhetoric. If we invade Iran, any hopes Iranian society has for democracy will likely be replaced with hatred and contempt for the US presence there. If we invade Iran, we can say goodbye to any hopes for a stable Iranian democracy for (at least) another decade, which in turn will further destabilize the already imperiled Middle East and upset the chances of peace in the region. . .

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/iran-is-laughing-at-us-right-now.html
[John Aravosis] If I were Iran, I'd be laughing, hardy har har har.

With what possible Army, and what possible support from the American people, is Bush going to launch HIS THIRD WAR? The first two wars are hardly going well, and he thinks we're going to have a third? He's nuts or bluffing, or both, and what's worse, the Iranians know it. We don't even have the men and equipment to supply our current needs, and Bush thinks Iran is going to be scared by our threats? The Irani government may be evil, but it's not stupid.

Bush gets us into a third war, and you just watch how quickly his government falls, not to mention, you can kiss every single Republican candidate buh-bye come 2008. . . .

Generals know what it is to send young lives into battle in a fruitless cause

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020901917_pf.html
[Gen. William E. Odom] The new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq starkly delineates the gulf that separates President Bush's illusions from the realities of the war. Victory, as the president sees it, requires a stable liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American. The NIE describes a war that has no chance of producing that result. In this critical respect, the NIE, the consensus judgment of all the U.S. intelligence agencies, is a declaration of defeat. . .

Too many lawmakers have fallen for the myths that are invoked to try to sell the president's new war aims. Let us consider the most pernicious of them.

1) We must continue the war to prevent the terrible aftermath that will occur if our forces are withdrawn soon. Reflect on the double-think of this formulation. We are now fighting to prevent what our invasion made inevitable! Undoubtedly we will leave a mess -- the mess we created, which has become worse each year we have remained. Lawmakers gravely proclaim their opposition to the war, but in the next breath express fear that quitting it will leave a blood bath, a civil war, a terrorist haven, a "failed state," or some other horror. But this "aftermath" is already upon us; a prolonged U.S. occupation cannot prevent what already exists. . .

2) We must continue the war to prevent Iran's influence from growing in Iraq. This is another absurd notion. One of the president's initial war aims, the creation of a democracy in Iraq, ensured increased Iranian influence, both in Iraq and the region. . .

3) We must prevent the emergence of a new haven for al-Qaeda in Iraq. But it was the U.S. invasion that opened Iraq's doors to al-Qaeda. The longer U.S. forces have remained there, the stronger al-Qaeda has become. . .

4) We must continue to fight in order to "support the troops." This argument effectively paralyzes almost all members of Congress. Lawmakers proclaim in grave tones a litany of problems in Iraq sufficient to justify a rapid pullout. Then they reject that logical conclusion, insisting we cannot do so because we must support the troops. Has anybody asked the troops?

During their first tours, most may well have favored "staying the course" -- whatever that meant to them -- but now in their second, third and fourth tours, many are changing their minds. . .

What Odom doesn’t say: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_11.php#012391

More: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_11.php#012389

Where the “axis of evil” came from

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/02/worst_speech_ever/
[Matt Yglesias] This is really shocking . . .

More: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_digbysblog_archive.html#117122838283797283

The case for impeachment

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/11/fdl-book-salon-us-v-bush-et-al/

Douglas Feith, not just a liar; he's a very, very stupid liar

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010722.php
[Feith, on Fox News] Nobody in my office ever said there was an operational relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. It's just not correct. I mean, words matter.

[Feith, 11/24/2003] Osama bin laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 . . .

More: http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/feb/11/doug_feith_reinventing_history

Enjoy the House vote on Iraq this week

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010726.php
[LAT] Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest, a Maryland Republican, predicts that 30 to 60 of his colleagues will back the nonbinding resolution, which would be the strongest repudiation of Bush's Iraq policy from Republicans since the war began nearly four years ago. . .

[Kevin Drum] As one Republican congressman put it, "This next week is going to be a very tough one for us to get through. The Democrats know that. We can sit back and hope they overplay their hand, but I don't think they will." I don't think so either.

Two more Bush whistleblowers punished

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_11.php#012394

A big shout-out to all my Aussie readers!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/11/0445/84602
[AAP] Australia's Prime Minister John Howard blasted Senator Obama's policy on the Iraq war and said al-Qaeda would "be praying as many times as possible for a victory for not only Obama but also for the Democrats".

[CNN] "If Prime Minister Howard truly believes what he says, perhaps his country should find its way to contribute more than just 1,400 troops so some American troops can come home," [Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs] said. "It's easy to talk tough when it's not your country or your troops making the sacrifices."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21209258-2,00.html
"I think the most interesting thing about (Senator Obama's comments) is that it didn't really address the substance of the issue," Mr Howard has said on ABC Radio. . .

"I think it's flattering that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced," Senator Obama said in Iowa. . .

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2007/02/in_case_you_were_wondering_.php
[Mark Kleiman writes to Howard] By now the gross impropriety of your attempt to interfere in the domestic politics of the United States will no doubt have been brought to your attention. Might I suggest a prompt apology, not only to Senator Obama, but to the American citizenry? We prefer to select our own leadership, without any officious meddling from abroad. . . .

In the Libby trial, what we’ve learned so far

http://libbytrial.notlong.com
[AP] Trial testimony so far - including eight hours of Libby's own audio-recordedd testimony to a grand jury in 2004 - suggest that a White House known as disciplined was anything but that.

What has emerged, instead, is:

-a vice president fixated on finding ways to debunk a former diplomat's claims that Bush misled the U.S. people in going to war and his suggestion Cheney might have played a role in suppressing contrary intelligence.

-a presidential press secretary kept in the dark on Iraq policy.

-top White House officials meeting daily to discuss the diplomat, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, and sometimes even his CIA-officer wife Valerie Plame. . .

What’s next: http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/11/below-the-surface/
Will Libby testify? . . .

McCain, Giuliani, and Romney can debase themselves all they want to try to convince religious conservatives to support them – but the religious right knows better. They control the Republican party now, and they believe they can insist on whomever they want (and they don’t want these guys). On a Sunday talk show, one talking head mentioned that the religious right contributes as many votes to the Republicans as all minority and labor votes do for the Democrats, combined. THAT’s leverage, my friends

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-16-mccain-christian-conservatives_x.htm
Sen. John McCain said Tuesday he hopes to patch things up with conservative Christian leader James Dobson, who recently said he wouldn't support the Republican's presidential bid under any circumstances.

In a radio interview with KCBI, a Dallas Christian station, Dobson argued that McCain didn't support traditional marriage values and said he has prayed "we won't get stuck with him." Dobson is founder of Focus on the Family.

"I'm obviously disappointed and I'd like to continue and have a dialogue with Dr. Dobson and other members of the community," McCain said Tuesday during a stop in Columbia.

McCain has said gay marriage should not be legal but has angered some conservatives with his opposition to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions. The Arizona senator said the issue should be left to the states. . .

McCain has reached out to conservatives he once crossed. Last May, he spoke at Falwell's Liberty University in Virginia. In 2000, Falwell opposed McCain's campaign for the GOP nomination and supported George W. Bush. At the time, McCain labeled Falwell and others on the right and the left as "agents of intolerance." . . .

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21209422-2703,00.html
[Andrew Sullivan] It tells you something about the state of the Right in the US that Rudy Giuliani is having a very hard time deciding whether to runfor the Republican nomination next year.

He either has the highest ratings of the plausible candidates among Republican voters, or near the highest. . . .

But the lukewarm response to him from the party's base cannot be a plus. Here's what a key leader of the religious Right, Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, had to say about him last week: "He's the frontrunner, but it's kind of like here in DC, you drive over the Potomac (river) at night and it looks beautiful but if you get down near it you certainly wouldn't want to take anything out of it and eat it. It's polluted; it's got problems."

A more elevated expression of the base's discomfort came from Terry Jeffrey last week. Jeffrey is an editor at Ronald Reagan's favourite journal, Human Events, and wrote a column for conservative magazine National Review that politely described Giuliani as anathema to conservatism.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/02/11/romneys_stem_cell_view_may_upset_the_right/
In the heated debate among conservatives over whether Mitt Romney deserves their vote, the focus has been largely on whether his big swings to the right on social issues are sincere.

But on the charged issue of stem cell research, he's facing conservative criticism of a different shade: that he hasn't swung far enough. . .

Romney's views on stem cell research have evolved over the past five years. . .

Why does anyone take Cokie Roberts seriously?

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_02_11_atrios_archive.html#117121059536422674
[1997] "The Internet is the best thing in my lifetime for grassroots organizing," exults the Project's director, Jamie Love. He's managed to use the system to influence various government agencies, and to educate the public. Love argues that this type of organization and communication cuts through the special interest politics that he believes rules Washington. "I think there's a general sense that people who can hire a guy and game the system have a leg up," says Love.

Somewhere between 250,000 to 350,000 people check into the site dealing with congressional activities every day. And then many of these people get in touch with their representatives, by e-mail, of course.

They also get in touch with each other on public policy issues. According to Love, it's like an electronic town meeting. . .

That analogy makes our blood run cold. Remember, that was Ross Perot's big idea. Let's just all get together, via computer, and let the politicians know what we want, so then they will do it! No more pandering to the big contributors, no more deals between members, just the voice of the people will be heard!

We hear that and shudder. To us it sounds like no more deliberation, no more consideration of an issue over a long period of time, no more balancing of regional and ethnic interests, no more protection of minority views. . .

Bonus item: Fox News breaks its own record

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001938.php
[Steven Clemons] I feel awkward posting a link to this special that ran on Fox News on the topic of "Radical Islam."

It is the single worst piece of television journalism engaging in hyperbolic fear-mongering that I have seen. . . .

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

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 5:55 AM

 
A FOOLISH CONSISTENCY

This is becoming an emerging theme: more and more people are realizing that we have a Sect’y of State who has done NOTHING of moment in that job, and whose chief accomplishment in her previous job as National Security Advisor was to drop the ball in the summer of 2001 when copious warnings were coming in that “Bin Laden was determined to attack inside the United States”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aeQ6n8nf7ML4&refer=politics
“Condi is seen as being the loyal implementer of the president's policy priorities, and as a result she's getting the same kind of treatment as her boss,'' said Lee Feinstein, a former State Department policy planner now at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. . . .

Now that the facts are known about how the Office of Special Plans fabricated and stovepiped intelligence to support war policies, let’s look at the demand side – Why was this unit established? Who was the client for their work product?

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/10/curious/
[Christy Hardin Smith] One wonders if there is an Executive Order out there somewhere to that effect. Shouldn't someone be asking about that? . . .

The VP’s office is refusing to conform to disclosure requirements mandated by Presidential Executive Order

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/10/181814/730

Sharp analysis, I think: the reason the WH won’t respond to the question about their authorization to launch a new war against Iran is that, when and if they do it, they will present it as an extension of their (already “approved”) war against Iraq. That’s why all these reports about Iranian training and weapons coming into Iraq are so crucial to their rationale - they’re just going to be “defending the troops”

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/2/10/173819/005
[Big Tent Democrat] I have been extremely critical of the push from many to have the Congress concentrate on stopping the commencement of war in Iran instead of ending the war in Iraq. My basic premise is that Bush's only possible legal rationale for initiating a military conflict with Iran is by arguing that Iran is interfering in the Iraq conflict. As I have stated, the 2002 Iraq AUMF is a blank check to the President and could conceivably be argued as the basis for striking Iran based on Iran's alleged involvement in Iraq. Not surprisingly, the Bush Administration is indeed arguing that Iran is meddling in the Iraq conflict . . .

Can we just rename the Justice Department?

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12444
[Barbara Dreyfuss] The Justice Department, which serves as legal counsel in court proceedings for other departments, has repeatedly gone beyond merely protecting its own actions from scrutiny. Even when Congress was in Republican hands, Justice Department officials advised other government departments on how to stonewall congressional review. These efforts now appear to be ramping up.

The Justice Department Legal Counsel's office recently held meetings with lawyers of other departments to discuss strategy for responding to congressional requests for documents and hearing appearances. In January, Senator Grassley charged at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that the DOJ has started running training "events" for other offices of the executive branch, teaching them how to handle congressional inquiries and hearings. Grassley's office says they were tipped off to this by someone in the Justice Department worried about this new program. . . . [read on!]

Hypocrisy, like money, is mother’s milk to politics

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/10/AR2007021001510.html
In his early efforts to secure the support of the Republican establishment he has frequently bucked, McCain has embraced some of the same political-money figures, forces and tactics he pilloried during a 15-year crusade to reduce the influence of big donors, fundraisers and lobbyists in elections. That includes enlisting the support of Washington lobbyists as well as key players from the fundraising machine that helped President Bush defeat McCain in the 2000 Republican primaries. . . .

Johnny Mac’s Big Givers: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/10/AR2007021001545.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/us/politics/11trips.html
The 110th Congress opened with the passage of new rules intended to curb the influence of lobbyists by prohibiting them from treating lawmakers to meals, trips, stadium box seats or the discounted use of private jets.

But it did not take long for lawmakers to find ways to keep having lobbyist-financed fun. . . .

Examples: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/02/10/us/politics/20070211_TRIPS_GRAPHIC.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010719.php
[Kevin Drum] Apparently the con is an absurdly simple one. Lobbyists can't pay for this stuff directly anymore, so instead they make a contribution to the congressman's PAC and the PAC pays for it. . . [read on]

Rudy Giuliani, like John McCain, is rapidly losing the gloss of a plain-speaking maverick

http://giulianilies.notlong.com

Who do you call in when Rove needs a Rove to explain his dumb remarks?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/02/white_house_red.html
White House Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino told ABC News that the White House does not deny that Rove made the remark but claims it has been taken out of context. . .

More: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/where-is-rncs-outrage-over-karl-roves.html

When the Right accuses others of prejudice. . .

http://mediamatters.org/items/200702100007

Sunday talk show line-ups

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/10/AR2007021001148.html
FOX NEWS SUNDAY: Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.); former defense undersecretary Douglas J. Feith.

THIS WEEK (ABC): Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.); former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (R).

NEWSMAKERS (C-SPAN): Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.).

FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.).

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Reps. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) and John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).

LATE EDITION (CNN): Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and John Cornyn (R-Tex.); Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.); Ray Takeyh, senior fellow at Council on Foreign Relations; Terence R. McAuliffe, former Democratic National Committee chairman; Army Lt. Gen. Karl W. Eikenberry, outgoing top U.S. commander in Afghanistan; retired Army Col. Pat Lang.

Bonus item: Dick Cheney, man of consistency

http://www.slate.com/id/2159553
[Roger McShane] Also worth a look are Dick Cheney's notes from 1975 as he considered how the Ford White House should handle an article by Seymour Hersh about a secret espionage program. The Times says the notes show Cheney "is hostile to the press and to Congress, insistent on the prerogatives of the executive branch and adamant about the importance of national security secrets." It seems not much has changed. . . .

The 1975 notes: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/weekinreview/11liptak.html
RETURNING to the White House after the Memorial Day weekend in 1975, the young aide Dick Cheney found himself handling a First Amendment showdown. The New York Times had published an article by Seymour M. Hersh about an espionage program, and the White House chief of staff, Donald H. Rumsfeld, was demanding action.

Out came the yellow legal pad, and in his distinctively neat, deliberate hand, Mr. Cheney laid out the “problem,” “goals” while addressing it, and “options.” These last included “Start FBI investigation — with or w/o public announcement. As targets include NYT, Sy Hersh, potential gov’t sources.” . . .

More immediately, Mr. Cheney considered possible responses to the article. One was to “seek immediate indictments of NYT and Hersh.” A second was to get a search warrant “to go after Hersh papers in his apt.” . . .

***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 @ 8:01 AM

 
DEFENSIVE MANEUVERS

The Office of Special Plans report has been released, and it confirms what we already knew (from the Downing Street memo and other sources): intelligence was filtered, twisted, spun, and fabricated to justify a foregone decision to go to war. If this isn’t impeachable, I don’t know what is

The report summary: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Raw_Story_first_to_acquire_declassified_0209.html

OSP background (includes other great links): http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/09/the-other-lie-that-misled-us-into-war

More: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002517.php

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001934.php

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020907J.shtml

“Inappropriate, but not illegal.” Is that their DEFENSE?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/pentagon-report-confirms-iraqal-qaeda.html
[WP] In a telephone interview yesterday, Feith emphasized the inspector general's conclusion that his actions, described in the report as "inappropriate," were not unlawful.

Wordplay: http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/09/guess-it-all-depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-illegal-is/
[Christy Hardin Smith] Guess It All Depends On What The Meaning Of “Illegal” Is…

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/9/105251/6803
[Kagro X] When this "administration" makes an argument that its activities were legal because they were "not unauthorized," you need to be thinking of how Attorney General Alberto Gonzales regards the nexus between legality and authorization. . .

The "administration's" gambit here is that we'll all fall back on the presumption that the government is "entitled" to this kind of deference. Either that the "Commander in Chief" can get away with certain methods of circumventing the law, and that if he "breaks" it, it's really not breaking it, precisely because he's the president. Or failing that, they hope at the very least that we'll accept their view that the sort of "not illegal" activities which Feith pursued at the behest of the "administration" ought to be beyond the reach of the criminal law, because otherwise we're "criminalizing politics."

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002518.php
[Spencer Ackerman] Douglas J. Feith's successor as undersecretary of defense for policy, Eric Edelman, has put together a 53-page rebuttal of the Pentagon Inspector General's report criticizing the Office of Special Plans . . . Its key point: what the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy (OUSDP) did wasn't intelligence work at all, but rather policy work. It's an argument apparently generated to spare the OUSDP from the charge of illegality, which the IG doesn't in fact put on the office -- but, in his statement yesterday, Sen. John Rockefeller (D-WV), the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, raised as a remaining possibility. . .

Doug Feith, still lying (badly)

http://www.juancole.com/2007/02/feith-in-situation-room-three-lies.html

Courageous news coverage

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020902250.html
Senate Democrats and Republicans disagreed yesterday over the meaning and importance of a Defense Department inspector general's conclusion that a Pentagon policy office produced and gave senior policymakers "alternative intelligence assessments on Iraq and Al Qaida relations" that were "inconsistent" with the intelligence community's consensus view in the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/world/middleeast/09cnd-cong.html
Senate Democrats and Republicans differed sharply today on whether Pentagon officials deliberately used faulty intelligence to justify the Bush administration’s war against Iraq. . . .

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_digbysblog_archive.html#117110587936595202
[Digby] Even in the face of an official report from the Pentagon inspector general which all but says so, the New York Times still cannot screw up the courage to state plainly the only possible conclusion: The Bush administration knowingly, criminally lied to the American people in order to start an illegal war and invade a country that, no matter how odious its leader, was no threat to the United States. . . [read on]

Right on

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/02/calls-to-investigate-medias-pre-war.html
[Glenn Greenwald] It is vitally important to ensure that those who were responsible for the deceit that led us into Iraq are identified and held accountable.

But that responsibility extends beyond Bush officials into most of the nation's most influential media outlets. Gilbert Cranberg, former Editorial Page Editor of The Des Moines Register and Tribune and Professor of Journalism at the University of Iowa, has published a superb article at the excellent Nieman Watchdog site (affiliated with the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard), in which he calls for a serious and independent investigation into the profound pre-war failures of our media . . .

But at least we’ve learned our lesson now, right? Right?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/9/171633/3316
[McJoan] While the Senate Armed Services Committee debates the faulty intelligence the Bush administration’s used to take us to war against Iraq, Defense Secretary Robert Gates is continuing to cite iffy intelligence about Iran . . .

More: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/02/ny-times-returns-to-pre-iraq-war.html

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/005631.html

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_04.php#012376

Iran: it could happen any day

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_04.php#012377
[The Guardian] US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington. . . [read on!]

Every few weeks we get another version of this story – but the myth of gradually turning over power to these guys stays in circulation. IT ISN’T GETTING ANY BETTER. Why isn’t the press drawing the obvious conclusion?

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/16655490.htm
Many of the Iraqi forces whom the U.S. is counting on to defeat Sunni Muslim insurgents, disarm Shiite Muslim gunmen and assume responsibility for keeping the peace have been infiltrated by sectarian militias and are plagued by incompetence and corruption. . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_02_04.php#012378
[LAT] A month after the Bush administration announced a "surge" in troops for Baghdad, Iraqis are still waiting for anything to change. . . .

A follow-up to the astonishing, vastly underreported story that Dick Cheney’s office is now claiming that the VP is, in effect, a unique, independent part of government – and not subject to oversight

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9888.html

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_digbysblog_archive.html#117107982670783759

The Bush gang always says they value open debate in a democratic society – except for any ACTUAL debate, which is disloyal and treasonous

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/02/09/BL2007020900945.html

An amazing piece of confession

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020801680.html
[Eric Fair] A man with no face stares at me from the corner of a room. He pleads for help, but I'm afraid to move. He begins to cry. It is a pitiful sound, and it sickens me. He screams, but as I awaken, I realize the screams are mine.

That dream, along with a host of other nightmares, has plagued me since my return from Iraq in the summer of 2004. Though the man in this particular nightmare has no face, I know who he is. I assisted in his interrogation at a detention facility in Fallujah. I was one of two civilian interrogators assigned to the division interrogation facility (DIF) of the 82nd Airborne Division. . . .

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2007/02/post_2740.html
[Tom Schaller] This took courage. If only there were more Americans like Eric Fair . . .

What happens to whistleblowers: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9885.html

More: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_digbysblog_archive.html#117106476778341288

They won’t stop (until we stop them)

http://www.first-draft.com/2007/02/lets_hear_it_fo.html
[NYT] A federal appeals court blocked the Pentagon on Friday from transferring an American citizen to an Iraqi court to face charges he supported terrorists and insurgents.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously ruled that Shawqi Omar, a citizen of both Jordan and the United States who once served in the Minnesota National Guard, has a right to argue for his release before a U.S. court.

By a 2-1 vote, the panel also upheld an injunction issued last year by U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina here that barred the U.S. military from turning Omar over for trial in an Iraqi court. . .

Scooter Libby’s defense: what to expect

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/scooter-libbys-defense.html

Thank goodness for the blogosphere: a few highlighted selections from Libby’s grand jury testimony

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/09/scooters-greatest-hits/

“Gently”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/us/politics/10rudy.html
Giuliani Shifts Abortion Speech Gently to Right . . .

Joe Lieberman’s strategist debates the Edwards blogger decision – and, what do you know, ends up parroting the Republican line

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_digbysblog_archive.html#117104726853772542

It’s just too easy pointing out Bill Donohue’s lies and hypocrisy – but this is the clearest example of his outrageous double standard

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9884.html

More: http://mediamatters.org/items/200702100005

The kind of people they are

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/02/ah_civility/

Karl Rove’s enlightened views on immigrant workers

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/2/9/20343/23664

The Goofus Files

http://www.first-draft.com/2007/02/your_president__4.html
We're modernizing a border that needed to be modernized, whether it be through fencing or the different types of high-tech investments. . . . I firmly believe that in order for your Border Patrol agents to be able to do their job, we need a guest worker program so that people don't have to sneak in our country, and therefore, we can really enable your good folks to be able to focus on terrorism, drug runners, gun runners. . .

The Goofus Files (other Republicans edition)

http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2007/02/dumb-stuff-republicans-say-on-senate.html
[Bob Geiger] OK, folks, it's Friday, it's been a long week in the United States Senate and I've decided to bring some amusement into your lives by showing you some dumb things that Republicans said this week on the Senate floor. Nothing big… Nothing momentous…. Just enough to make you say "huh?" . . .

Baghdad Bob

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9879.html
[Steve Benen] Let’s play a game — pick the worst Tony Snow falsehood of the week. . .

More: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/02/why_oh_why_are_.html

http://www.first-draft.com/2007/02/today_on_holden_4.html
Q You called the Pelosi plane issue a "silly story" this morning. Shortly thereafter the RNC put out a statement saying -- calling it "Pelosi's power trip" and that she's "non-stop Nancy seeks flight of fancy." Are you calling that --

MR. SNOW: Well, I'll reiterate our position. The question -- the RNC has put out a statement on Speaker Pelosi and travel arrangements, and I'll just repeat our position, which is, as Speaker of the House, she is entitled to military transport, and that the arrangements, the proper arrangements are being made between the Sergeant of Arms office in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Department of Defense. We think it's appropriate, and so, again, I think this is much ado about not a whole lot. It is important for the Speaker to have this kind of protection and travel. It was certainly appropriate for Speaker Hastert. So we trust that all sides will get this worked out.

Q So, Tony, is it inappropriate for the RNC then to make an issue out of this, and say -- I mean, ridiculing her as "non-stop Nancy, flights of fancy"?

MR. SNOW: Jonathan, you know what my position is. I will let you draw whatever conclusions you may, but our position is pretty clear on this one. . .

Q Can I go back to the Pelosi issue? The Republican National Committee is putting out press releases. Is the RNC now beyond the President's purview? If you think it's a silly story, is there -- they're able to just operate if they want to attack like that on their own?

MR. SNOW: Well, apparently they did this time. . .

Q Just going back to the Pelosi story for a moment, just to clarify, is there no message coordination between you guys and the RNC?

MR. SNOW: There is from time to time, yes. But in this particular case, we've got a clear view.

Q Would it be correct to put it --

MR. SNOW: Would --

Q No, would it be -- it just seems that you're at such odds on this. . .

I know the media loves a good congressional fat cat story – and more power to them – but do they have to make stuff up?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200702090017
Nightline aired GOP claim that Pelosi requested "a luxury jet" . . .

http://mediamatters.org/items/200702090008
CNN did not challenge unsubstantiated GOP claim that Pelosi specifically requested "one of the most luxurious planes" . . .

http://mediamatters.org/items/200702090019
Luntz claimed military plane for Pelosi is "not a security issue" . . .

http://mediamatters.org/items/200702100001
Wash. Times baselessly claimed Hastert's jet could fly nonstop to California "year-round" . . .

http://mediamatters.org/items/200702100004
Contradicting CNN's own reporting, Dobbs asserted that Hastert's plane could reach California . . .

http://mediamatters.org/items/200702100002
Attkisson's CBS report did not explain Pelosi's security needs . . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/02/post_44.php
HOWARD KURTZ DROPS BALL ON PELOSI PLANE STORY

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/02/post_43.php
WHY WON'T MEDIA JUST SAY THAT PELOSI PLANE STORY IS FALSE?

Hey guys, here are some REAL scandals to pay attention to

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/02/reign_of_scanda.html

Bonus item: this blog has nothing to say about Anna Nicole Smith’s death, except that it’s a shame. But my god, what a ridiculous amount of coverage (accompanied, always, by lots of photos of her massive chest). Classy move, guys

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_02_04_atrios_archive.html#117103897070618136