DIGGING DEEPER

Uh-oh

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/062262.php
[Josh Marshall] Here's a late report from Britain's Channel 4 news on the Bhutto assassination, with newly acquired video that appears to further contradict Pakistani government reports of what happened . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/world/asia/31inquiry.html
New details of Benazir Bhutto’s final moments, including indications that her doctors felt pressured to conform to government accounts of her death, fueled the arguments over her assassination on Sunday and added to the pressure on Pakistan’s leaders to accept an international inquiry . . .

Pakistani and Western security experts said the government’s insistence that Ms. Bhutto, a former prime minister, was not killed by a bullet was intended to deflect attention from the lack of government security around her. On Sunday, Pakistani newspapers covered their front pages with photographs showing a man apparently pointing a gun at her from just yards away. . . .

The government’s explanation, that Ms. Bhutto died after hitting her head as she ducked from the gunfire or was tossed by the force of the suicide blast, has been greeted with disbelief by her supporters, ordinary Pakistanis and medical experts. While some of the mystery could be cleared up by exhuming the body, it is not clear whether Ms. Bhutto’s family would give permission, such is their distrust of the government. . . . [read on!]

Digging deeper into the destruction of the CIA torture tapes: Is there ANY way Cheney (at least) wasn’t involved in this decision?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/30/oligarchy/index.html
[Glenn Greenwald] Shane and Mazetti previously reported that . . . there had been 'vigorous sentiment' among some top White House officials to destroy the tapes." The White House has simply refused to say whether they were behind the decision. . . . [read on]

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14079.html
[Steve Benen] It was one CYA-move after another. Officials had to start recording so no one would think anything untoward happened. Officials had to stop recording because untoward things were happening. And officials had to destroy the torture tapes so no one would know about all the untoward things that happened. . . .

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/30/tortured-questions-part-ii/
[Christy Hardin Smith, on lying to the 9/11 Commission] [Y]ou do not get that sort of coordinated, wholesale skating deliberately around a topic in that sort of slippery, calculated way by accident. Especially not over an entire spectrum of witnesses. Who prepped the witnesses on behalf of the Bush Administration? David Addington has a history of a strong hand in this sort of thing -- was he involved in witness prep? Who advised all of these disperate Administration personnel, both past and present members at that point, on what not to say? And how not to say it -- or allude to it in any way?

That sort of coordinated ommission smacks of collusion, deliberately staked out and eminating from the same belief that to do otherwise would lead to exposure of bad acts. And that raises the specter of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, lying to federal investigators, and a whole host of other related potential cover-up offenses. . . .

CYA at the highest levels, especially across such a broad spectrum of witnesses, takes a lot of coordination and a high level of motivation to keep one's mouth shut, just on the "prisoner's dilemma" model of analysis alone. Which takes us straight to Dick Cheney's doorstep, doesn't it? Is it me, or does this scream of his behind-the-scenes ass-covering machinations with the enforcer's hand of Addington behind the wheel? [read on]

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/30/the-cia-solidifies-its-terror-tapes-story-or-tries-to/
[Emptywheel] We know the CIA was still taping--at least some detainees--in November 2002 because the CIA taped al-Nashiri, who wasn't captured until November. So did they tape the CIA detainee who died in custody in November? And if so, did they destroy that tape? . . [read on!]

More: http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/30/tortured-questions/

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/30/mary-mccarthy-and-the-terror-tapes/

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/30/lying-to-congress-before-the-torture-tapes/

Yawn. More calls for “bipartisanship” (where were these people five years ago?)

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/no-longer-silent-by-dday-its-despairing.html
[Dday] It's despairing to close a year where Iraq still rages, telecoms are poised to receive immunity for lawbreaking, George Bush explicitly states that Congress doesn't exist, material evidence implicating the CIA in torture is destroyed without batting an eyelash, Democrats act like they're powerless to do anything about it, and official Washington considers the real problem is that politicians disagree with each other. . . .

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_12_30_archive.html#8494206846617616054
[Atrios] We're a dozen or so old, white, mostly male people who for the most part don't hold elected office. Unless the presidential candidates do what we tell them to do, we're going to encourage our short divorced pal from New York City to spend a billion bucks of his personal fortune to f*ck around with the election because that's what the people need.

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/30/162429/14

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2979

http://politicalinsider.com/2007/12/bloomberg_steps_in.html
An independent presidential run by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg now looks like a near-certainty. . . .

Theocracy watch: the class politics of religious conservatism

http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/when_old_tricks_stop_working

More: http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/huckabee-wants-to-take-america-back-to.html

Yeah, but just don’t use the word “liar”

http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/ap-analyzes-mitts-candor-gap.html
[AP] As a presidential contender, Mitt Romney has the looks, the money and the campaign machine. He also has something of a candor gap. . .

“Straight-shooter” John McCain flips on the immigration issue (which he knows is killing him with conservative primary voters)

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/new_mccain_ad_ive_learned_my_lesson_on_illegal_immigration.php
"Before I can win your vote, I know I have to win your respect . . . And to do that, you know I'll always be straight with you. And on this issue, I've learned that we've got to restore trust in government, and secure our borders." . . .

One of the steady constants of American politics are people who might like to BE President, but have no appetite, or talent, for running FOR President: the scrutiny, the endless glad-handing and baby-kissing, the fundraising, the risk of rejection. Bob Dole comes to mind. He ran, but very half-heartedly. Mario Cuomo. More recently, Bob Kerrey, Colin Powell and Condi Rice. Well, now we can add Fred Thompson to the list

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14080.html
[Steve Benen] It’s not exactly a secret that Fred Thompson’s presidential campaign isn’t going well. By some measures, that’s a surprise — he’s plenty conservative; he’s never flip-flopped on key issues; and he’s not a member of a religious minority that the GOP base finds offensive. Simply as a matter of process of elimination, this guy should be huge.

There is, of course, a problem: Thompson apparently has no interest in actually running for president.

There’s no shortage of stories about Thompson running a lackluster campaign that seems to include avoiding voters . . . [read on]

I thought I was going to be very clever and predict that John Edwards was going to win the Iowa caucuses in a surprise upset of Clinton and Obama – then I found a day full of links of others already coming to the same conclusion. (But I’m also predicting that if he wins, the national press will find some way to minimize or dismiss its significance.)

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/062255.php

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/30/edwards_fights_to_the_finish_1.html

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/12/30/11755/272

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14078.html

The importance of second choices in Iowa: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/12/30/13230/710
On second choices, Edwards is way ahead of Obama and Clinton. . .

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/30/12746/124

New Hampshire too? http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/12/30/new_hampshire_race_tightens_as_edwards_surges.html

Bonus item: Ouch!

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/006871.html
[Laura Rozen] There it was, forehead smacking obvious, seeing Huckabee's astonishing comments Friday when asked about the Bhutto assassination. Huckabee is the spitting image of 24's ineffectual president Charles Logan. . . .

***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

 
CASE CLOSED

Heckuva job, Georgie: Al Qaeda is far stronger and more widespread today than it was on 9/11

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/world/asia/30pakistan.html
The Qaeda network accused by Pakistan’s government of killing the opposition leader Benazir Bhutto is increasingly made up not of foreign fighters but of homegrown Pakistani militants bent on destabilizing the country . . .

“Case closed” on Benazir Bhutto’s assassination? Not so much

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-assess30dec30,0,5176533.story
The circumstances of Benazir Bhutto's assassination suggest either that Islamic militants based in Pakistan are able to act with near-total impunity or that elements within the government of President Pervez Musharraf have been complicit in attacks, or both, analysts and Western diplomats say.

The government's version of events surrounding the attack Thursday that killed the popular former prime minister raises many more questions than it answers, these observers said. The nearly instantaneous naming of a culprit and eagerness to assert that Bhutto had not been shot left some observers troubled . . .

Condi Rice, bringing all the expertise and wisdom as Sect’y of State that she carried as National Security Advisor

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_12_23_archive.html#4737327031013796110
[Newsweek] It was a decidedly odd moment. On Thursday, within hours of Benazir Bhutto's assassination, State Department spokesman Tom Casey told reporters in Washington that his boss, Condoleezza Rice, had quickly made two calls. One was to Bhutto's bereaved husband, Asif Ali Zardari. Rice's other call, Casey said, was to the man he called Bhutto's "successor," Amin Fahim, the vice chairman of her Pakistan People's Party. Casey couldn't even quite master this obscure politician's name, but he said, "I'll leave it up to Mr. Amin Fahir—Fahim—as the new head of the Pakistan People's Party to determine how that party is going to participate in the electoral process."

The problem is, nobody but the State Department—especially not the political elites in Pakistan, even those within Bhutto's own party—sees Fahim in such a role, and certainly not so soon. Critics suggest that the administration is so eager to graft legitimacy onto President Pervez Musharraf, its ever-more-unpopular ally in the war on terror, that it is pressing too hard to move past Bhutto and continue with scheduled Jan. 8 parliamentary elections, even though riots are paralyzing the country. "They're trying to rush everything. This is a disaster," says Marvin Weinbaum, a former State Depratment official and current scholar at the Middle East Institute. "This is now our new game plan: We're working out a deal between Fahim and Musharraf after the election. They mention Fahim because they don't know any better. The fact is, she [Bhutto] didn't trust him."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/abhuttosuccessor;_ylt=AspIH4ekCJxywhXSm4TOOkWs0NUE
[Time] A senior official of Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party (PPP) told TIME late Saturday that the slain former prime minister's 19-year-old son, Bilawal, will likely be named as her political heir and the new party leader on Sunday. . . .

More: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002626.php

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080107/huq

How the Bush gang wrecked the US military

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/military_meritocracy_/2007/12/wrecking_the_army_contd.php
[From a former Army E-6] When I watched the Baghdad Museum being looted of millions of dollars in antiquities and there was nothing being done to stop it, that was the point I decided this was going to be a clusterf*ck of monumental proportions. When we rolled into France, Italy, and finally Germany, we had a Mayor, police units, and medical units assigned and in place as fast as we rolled through.

The lack of foresight demonstrated by the Museum situation should have been the first clue that this was not going to go well. Yes, they did plan and fight the war well, but that was a given. The fact that they didn't have the support structure in place, record pace or not, was the warning to those of us who follow this sort of thing that bad news was coming, and it would be a long time getting clear of it. And repeating the mistakes of Vietnam over again and again is just pathetic. . . [read on!]

Why the CIA torture tapes were destroyed

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/washington/30intel.html
In fact, current and former intelligence officials say, the agency’s every action in the prolonged drama of the interrogation videotapes was prompted in part by worry about how its conduct might be perceived — by Congress, by prosecutors, by the American public and by Muslims worldwide. . . .

Such are the “victories” for George Bush these days

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071229/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_children_s_health
President Bush on Saturday signed legislation that extends a popular children's health insurance program after twice vetoing attempts to expand it.

Politically, the move was a victory for Bush . . .

Digby nails it: when Bush “swept” into power on two consecutive razor thin elections (which is a generous interpretation), he trumpeted a “mandate” – and the media chimed in. He governed, as we all know, as a highly partisan and divisive candidate from the very start, aided by a lock-step Republican majority in Congress. With a Democratic majority now in Congress, Bush governs by veto and the Republicans by filibuster – and these are called "victories."

But as soon as the Democrats are on the verge of controlling all three branches, the establishment wisdom suddenly switches: we need more bipartisanism, they tell us, the Dems must do more to accommodate Republican ideas!

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/bipartisan-zombies-by-digby-it-was.html
Isn't it funny that these people were nowhere to be found when George W. Bush seized office under the most dubious terms in history, having been appointed by a partisan supreme court majority and losing the popular vote? If there was ever a time for a bunch of dried up, irrelevant windbags to demand a bipartisan government you'd think it would have been then, wouldn't you? (How about after 9/11, when Republicans were running ads saying Dems were in cahoots with Saddam and bin Laden?) But it isn't all that surprising. They always assert themselves when the Democrats become a majority; it's their duty to save the country from the DFH's who are far more dangerous than Dick Cheney could ever be. . . . [read on]

Broder, of course: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/29/AR2007122901476.html
New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a potential independent candidate for president, has scheduled a meeting next week with a dozen leading Democrats and Republicans, who will join him in challenging the major-party contenders to spell out their plans for forming a "government of national unity" to end the gridlock in Washington.

Those who will be at the Jan. 7 session at the University of Oklahoma say that if the likely nominees of the two parties do not pledge to "go beyond tokenism" in building an administration that seeks national consensus, they will be prepared to back Bloomberg or someone else in a third-party campaign for president.

Conveners of the meeting include such prominent Democrats as former senators Sam Nunn (Ga.), Charles S. Robb (Va.) and David L. Boren (Okla.), and former presidential candidate Gary Hart. Republican organizers include Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), former party chairman Bill Brock, former senator John Danforth (Mo.) and former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman. . . .

How the Iowa caucuses work: a primer

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2959
[Chris Bowers] In a campaign this close, the deciding factor might very well be what deals the different campaigns can make with each other. In the event they fail to reach the 15% threshold in any given precinct, every campaign will probably instruct the local campaign precinct captain to caucus for a single, different candidate. The candidate who is able to scoop up the most of these second-place endorsements will probably win the caucus. . . [read on]

More: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/12/29/124656/99

I rarely disagree with Digby, but I don't share her hostility to the Iowa caucus system. Yes, a small and ethnically unrepresentative sampling of people holds a huge sway in influencing the choice of nominee. But there are lots of direct-voting primaries too, and you wouldn't get this level of involvement in most other states. It's retail politics at its best, and a far better alternative than picking party nominees in smoke-filled rooms

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/theories-of-iowa-and-progressive-change.html

Despite Rudy’s posing – aided by conventional wisdom and the punditry – the Mayor of 9/11 does NOT have a big advantage on the terrorism issue

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/12/breaking_big_ne_1.php

Rudy’s brain trust

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/rudy_surrogate_who_talked_about_chasing_muslims_back_to_their_caves_resigns_from_campaign.php
[Greg Sargent] John Deady, the co-chair of New Hampshire Veterans for Rudy, who told us in an interview that he doesn't "subscribe to the principle that there are good Muslims and bad Muslims," is officially out of the Giuliani campaign. . . .

The sharks are eating each other

http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/gop-race-turning-vicious-keep-it-up.html
GOP race turning vicious . . . [read on]

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/like-in-brewsters-millions-by-dday-as.html
[USAT] Dig beneath the surface of the raucous Republican presidential race and you will find even deeper turmoil: Four in 10 GOP voters have switched candidates in the past month alone, and nearly two-thirds say they may change their minds again. . . [read on]

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/mysterious_dirty_tricks_mailer_reminds_south_carolinians_about_romneys_mormonism.php
[Eric Kleefeld] With the primaries rapidly approaching, it's only natural that some of the more sleazy campaign tactics would intensify. CNN has obtained a mailer in heavily evangelical South Carolina, purporting to be a holiday card paid for by the Mormon Temple in Boston, wishing fond holiday wishes from the Romney family. . . .

Theocracy watch: Huckabee wants to call Mormonism a cult? What about THIS?

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/12/28/7414/0420
GOP presidential frontrunner Mike Huckabee has ties to fringe evangelist Bill Gothard, more critics have started to ask questions about Gothard himself. What do we know about the relatively obscure figurehead of a multi-million dollar empire that gets constantly compared to a cult—complete with teachings of blind obedience, and other brainwashing techniques . . .

http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com/index.php/content/comments/exposed_mike_huckabee_with_bill_gothard_last_week_in_houston/
[P]residential hopeful Mike Huckabee has close ties to fringe evangelist/tycoon Bill Gothard, who runs the little-known Chicago-area Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP) and a string of affiliated businesses. It’s been widely reported that Gothard’s organizations advocate strict authoritarianism and blind obedience. Allegations of child abuse such as locking kids for extended periods in “prayer closets” and other misconduct have led to investigations. . .

Let’s see: Bill Kristol said that the New York Times should have been prosecuted for running the story that first disclosed the Bush gang’s warrantless surveillance program – and now that same newspaper is rewarding his journalistic integrity by giving him a weekly column. How nice and forgiving of them

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/29/kristol-v-nyt/

More Kristol witticisms: http://mediamatters.org/items/200712290001

Sunday talk show line-ups

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/29/sunday-talking-head-thread-84/
ABC's This Week: Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and John McCain, R-Ariz.; David Brooks, Donna Brazile and George Will.

CBS's Face the Nation: Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.

NBC's Meet the Press: Former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Ark., and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

CNN's Late Edition: Sens. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Joe Biden, D-Del.; former Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga.; former Defense Secretary William Cohen.

Fox News Sunday: Former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn.

Bonus item: The highly intrusive and inconvenient liquid ban on air travel? Based more on “24” than on actual science

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/liquid_ban.php
[NYT] “The notion that deadly explosives can be cooked up in an airplane lavatory is pure fiction,” Greene told me during an interview. “A handy gimmick for action movies and shows like ‘24.’ The reality proves disappointing: it’s rather awkward to do chemistry in an airplane toilet. Nevertheless, our official protectors and deciders respond to such notions instinctively, because they’re familiar to us: we’ve all seen scenarios on television and in the cinema. This, incredibly, is why you can no longer carry a bottle of water onto a plane.”

***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 @ 8:17 AM

 
CREDIBILITY GAP

If the government of Pakistan wants to discourage speculation about official involvement in Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, the first thing they should avoid is ambiguity about her cause of death

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/062175.php
[Josh Marshall] Initial reports from Pakistani government officials ascribed the death of Benazir Bhutto to a gunshot wound fired by the assailant before he detonated his suicide bomb. Subsequent reports today say that it was not a bullet wound but rather shrapnel from the bomb.

A fired bullet can be badly disfigured. So probably only an expert can reliably distinguish one from the other. And thus that confusion is not surprising.

Yet now the Pakistani Interior Ministry is reporting that Bhutto died neither from a gunshot wound or shrapnel but rather from a blow to the head (causing a fractured skull) . . .

And the credibility or at least reliability of this latest explanation is undermined by the fact that there was apparently no post-mortem conducted on the body.

My, that was fast . . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/28/105733/97
[BarbinMD] Barely 24 hours after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the government of Pervez Musharraf has declared that: “investigators had resolved the ‘whole mystery’ behind the opposition leader's killing and would give details at press conference later Friday.”

With "irrefutable evidence" that al-Qaida and the Taliban were behind the attack, it seems that there will be no need for the thorough investigation that the White House was calling for yesterday . . .

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/dec/28/al_qaeda_did_it
Interior Ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema said that on Friday, the government recorded an “intelligence intercept” in which militant leader Baitullah Mehsud “congratulated his people for carrying out this cowardly act.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071229/ap_on_re_as/pakistan;_ylt=AhQjVLOL1iq2zl30j0ou79es0NUE
An Islamic militant group said Saturday it had no link to Benazir Bhutto's killing, denying government claims that its leader orchestrated the assassination.

Bhutto's aides also said they doubted militant commander Baitullah Mehsud was behind the attack on the opposition leader and accused the government of a cover-up. . . .

Second thoughts

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/dec/28/al_qaeda_did_it
[Larry Johnson] I do not rule out Islamic radicals who are not part of the government as possible culprits. But they are not the only folks with motive and access. In fact, the Government of Pakistan’s rush to pin this on Al Qaeda smacks of scape goating. There are longstanding ties between Al Qaeda and elements of the military and the intelligence service.

The virtual absence of any uniformed security detail around her gives further credence to the belief that elements within the military and ISI did away with her. There was no doubt that Benazir was a high risk for an assassination attempt. Why were Pakistani authorities so passive when it came to her security? It would be one thing if she resisted efforts to cover her. But the opposite is true. She had specifically and repeatedly asked for more security. . .

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/28/al-qaeda-did-it-might-be-a-bit-premature/
[McClatchy] Police officers had frisked the 3,000 to 4,000 people attending Thursday's rally when they entered the park, but as the speakers from Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party droned on, the police abandoned many of their posts. As she drove out through the gate, her main protection appeared to be her own bodyguards, who wore their usual white T-shirts inscribed: "Willing to die for Benazir." . . .

Bhutto's party had complained repeatedly that the government provided her with inadequate security. She'd narrowly escaped another assassination attempt, at her homecoming parade Oct. 18 in Karachi, which left 140 dead. . . . [read on]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-security29dec29,0,1091446.story
In the weeks before Benazir Bhutto's assassination, the Bush administration directly provided her with intelligence on dangers she faced from militants in Pakistan, as U.S.-backed President Pervez Musharraf resisted pressure to expand the scope of her security detail, U.S. lawmakers and other officials and Bhutto supporters said Friday.

Yet as the slain former prime minister was laid to rest, questions mounted about both the adequacy of the U.S. efforts and shortcomings on the side of the Pakistani government.

U.S. lawmakers and the popular Pakistani opposition leader's friends charged that Musharraf had rebuffed U.S. entreaties for beefed-up security. And U.S. officials were reluctant to press Musharraf too hard, a former advisor to Bhutto said. . . .

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004991.php
[Spencer Ackerman] Who murdered Benazir Bhutto? U.S. authorities don't know. They may never know. And they're not ruling anything in or out.

To recap our debate yesterday, the first-blush assessment from most experts held that al-Qaeda is responsible. Others, including political adversaries of Pervez Musharraf, then suggested Musharraf's government was at least culpable, given the porousness of security Bhutto received in the garrison city of Rawalpindi where she was assassinated. Still others caution that Pakistani Islamic terrorist groups with agendas distinct from al-Qaeda's might be more likely candidates. . . .

Bhutto's party, the Pakistan People's Party, is demanding an official inquiry, though it's unclear (to me at least) whether Musharraf has agreed to one. But here's one development to watch in the event of a probe. In the Los Angeles Times, Josh Meyer reports that Pakistan hasn't yet replied to U.S. investigators who've offered to help.

The main suspects: http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/12/who-killed-bena.html

More: http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/dec/28/musharraf_regime_r_i_p

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004994.php

http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/if-al-qaeda-really-was-behind-bhuttos.html

The aftermath

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/28/bhutto/
[Emptywheel] I think it safe to say Condi's policy is in shambles. Which suggests that, short of unquestioning support for Musharraf led by the Dick Cheney faction in the Administration, the US is going to have an increasingly difficult time influencing the future of Pakistan at precisely the time when the situation may grow more chaotic. And in a panic to sustain whatever stability possible in Pakistan, we may well see Cheney's foreign policy approach regain ascendancy in this Administration. Though what that means if this was indeed an Al Qaeda attack, with or without the complicity of pro-extremist members of the military and intelligence services, I don't know. If Al Qaeda did pull off this dramatic attack, and if the attack leads in some way toward Musharraf consolidating his power (or at least cracking down definitively on opposition), then unquestioning support of him is the last thing, it seems, that we ought to be doing. . . . [read on]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122802622.html
U.S. military officers and other defense experts do not anticipate an immediate impact on U.S. operations in Afghanistan. But they are concerned that continued instability eventually will spill over and intensify the fighting in Afghanistan, which has spiked in recent months as the Taliban has strengthened and expanded its operations. . . .

Let’s play a game: “Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated, therefore. . . .” [what?]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/us/politics/28cnd-campaign.html
[Mike Huckabee] We ought to have an immediate, very clear monitoring of our borders and particularly to make sure if there’s any unusual activity of Pakistanis coming into the country.”

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/worst_of_the_worst.php
[Matt Yglesias] A remarkable quantity of dumb stuff has been said since Benazir Bhutto's death. I think, though, that [Kathryn Jean Lopez’s] post on how this shows we should ban abortion may be the worst in terms of its substantive logic.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/forgetting-to-hide-it-by-digby-joan.html
[Fred Thompson] Speaking today to a small group of supporters in the last campaign rush before the Iowa caucuses next week, Thompson railed against those who opposed -- and ultimately assassinated -- former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

"They're driven to distraction by the notion that a secular woman would be head of government,'' the Republican presidential hopeful said of the woman who was slain as she campaigned for her country's presidency after years in exile.

But in America, Thompson said, repeating remarks earlier in the week, no woman is up to the job just yet.

"This year, it's a man, and next year, it's going to be a man,'' said the actor and former US senator from Tennessee.

Bush vetoes a defense bill. Why?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071228/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
President Bush plans to veto a sweeping defense policy bill on grounds that it would derail Iraq's efforts to rebuild its country, the White House said Friday.

Bush's action, which apparently caught congressional leaders off guard, centers on one provision in the legislation dealing with Iraqi assets. . . .

House and Senate Democrats said Friday that the first time they'd heard of any White House concerns with the legislation was after Congress sent the bill to Bush for his signature.

"The administration should have raised its objections earlier, when this issue could have been addressed without a veto," Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a joint statement. "The American people will have every right to be disappointed if the president vetoes this legislation, needlessly delaying implementation of the troops' pay raise, the Wounded Warriors Act and other critical measures."

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14068.html
[Steve Benen] The president went nearly six years in office without vetoing a single bill, but has now had seven — including funding the war in Iraq, stem-cell research (twice), and healthcare for low-income kids (twice). In each instance, lawmakers were well aware of the White House’s opposition, but passed the bills anyway, hoping Bush would either change his mind or they could override the veto.

Which is what makes today’s news so odd. . . . [read on]

And how can he issue a “pocket veto” when Congress is still technically in session? Is this yet another new Presidential power? Or is there a reason why he doesn’t want to veto it openly?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/28/171914/13/822/427337
[Kagro X] That veto George W. Bush threatened of the Defense authorization bill? The one with the troops' pay raise in it?

He hasn't even got the stones to put his signature to it . . .

But this bill was presented to the president for his signature on December 19th. It's been eight days since then, not counting Sundays as the Constitution outlines. Seven if you give an extra day for Christmas. Hasn't been ten days yet.

Not only that, but you may recall that the Senate has remained in session all this time explicitly to prevent trickery like this. The most oft-cited reason was to prevent recess appointments, but the pro forma sessions -- the most recent of which was held today, yes, the very day Bush claimed there was no session -- also serve to avoid adjournment, and therefore the pocket veto.

But not in Bushworld. In Bushworld, these sessions don't count. Because he says so.

And if Bush thinks the Senate's sessions don't count, what's stopping him from making recess appointments?

How much more abuse can this Congress stand?

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2960
[Chris Bowers] If Congress can't even determine when it is in session without Bush's agreement, then it is time to do one of two things. First, either abolish Congress altogether, or impeach Bush. After all, the logical conclusion of what Bush is doing here is that he can declare Congress either in or out of session whenever he wishes. In other words, Congress has no power whatsoever to check and balance anything Bush does. It doesn't even have the power to exist unless Bush says it does. If everything else Bush has done so far does not merit impeachment, then surely this level of existential crises does. . . [read on]

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/where-will-it-end-by-digby-earlier.html
[Digby] I would guess the administration is making the assumption that with the media's predictable disinterest in anything more complicated than polls and campaign gossip in the primary season and the Democratic leadership's unwillingness to take any risks at all, they'll get away with it. And they're probably right. . .

More: http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/28/dubyas-pocket-rocket/

Things that make you go hmmmm. . . .

http://www.slate.com/id/2181072
[Jesse Stanchak] Congressional Democrats are complaining that the White House failed to mention its objection before the bill was passed. . . . Both papers quote an anonymous White House source, but the NYT piece says, "The White House allowed the official to speak only if not identified." Typically, anonymous sources have their names withheld so their bosses don't know they're talking to reporters. If the White House knew the source was speaking to the press, then why the anonymity? And, more importantly, why would the NYT agree to such a bizarre condition?

Okay, so what’s the REAL reason for the veto?

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/28/why-the-sudden-veto-of-military-pay-raises/
[Emptywheel] It's weird in that Bush has had months to push a very compliant Congress to write the bill precisely as he wants. And it's weird because the stated reason for the impending veto doesn't make any sense. Steve points to this Yahoo article explaining why. Bush says he's going to veto the bill because the Iraqis are worried about getting sued, but the Iraqis are already protected by law. . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/washington/28cnd-bush.html
[NYT] Meanwhile, a Washington lawyer who has represented Americans who were abducted by Iraqi forces after the 1990 invasion of Kuwait said that he doubted the official explanation for President Bush’s rejection of the bill. . .

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/hmmm-by-digby-i-have-been-wondering.html
An informed reader writes in to offer a possible explanation:

Re: your post "Where Will It End?" I suspect that the key to the pocket veto has nothing to do with Iraqi assets. Rather, it is contained a little line buried in the last paragraph of the Memorandum of Disapproval: "... I continue to have serious objections to other provisions of this bill, including section 1079 relating to intelligence matters . . ."

What is in 1079 you ask? A provision requiring the Director of National Intelligence to make available to the Congressional intelligence committees, upon the request of the chair or ranking minority member, "any existing intelligence assessment, report, estimate, or legal opinion," within certain conditions. . .

What specifically does Bush fear must be turned over? It's hard to say. Waterboarding legal opinions? Opinions or other documents related to the torture tapes? Something related to the recent Iran 180? Who knows. . .

Another top ten list

http://www.slate.com/id/2179934/fr/rss/
[Dahlia Lithwick] I humbly offer this new year's roundup: The Bush Administration's Top 10 Stupidest Legal Arguments of 2007. . . .

Rudy’s NH campaign official with . . . . er . . . . peculiar views

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/062201.php
"I don't subscribe to the principle that there are good Muslims and bad Muslims. They're all Muslims." . . . [read on]

Reinventing Romney (again)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/28/11242/010

With friends like this. . .

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/huckabee.foreign.policy/index.html
A senior aide to Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee admitted Friday that the former Arkansas governor had "no foreign policy credentials" after his comments reacting to the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto raised questions. . . .

Because poor Bill Kristol doesn’t have enough outlets for his opinions . . .

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/alls_well.php
[Matt Yglesias] When I heard that Bill Kristol was leaving Time I got seriously worried about the state of the world. After all, everyone knows that conservative pundits don't get held accountable for saying tons and tons of wrong stuff -- that's not how it works. Instead, you march through the institutions of conservatism by being loyal to the Cause, and then eventually mainstream organizations decide they need to contain representatives of the Cause and there you are on your perch. So it is in the newsweeklies, so it is on the op-ed pages, and so it is on the Sunday shows. So how could Kristol be fired?

Thus I think we have to consider it good news that he's apparently been hired by The New York Times.

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/28/bill-kristol-to-become-e_n_78635.html

Bonus item: Peggy Noonan, arbiter of all such matters, tells us who the “reasonable” candidates are (and are not)

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14063.html

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

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 8:12 AM

 
BENNIE

Eulogies for Benazir Bhutto – and for US prospects in Pakistan

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/27/bennie-bhutto/
[Looseheadprop] One of my sisters attended Harvard University as an undergraduate. I helped her move into her freshman dorm in Wigglesworth Hall on Harvard Yard. . . .

In the stairwell that first day, the very first new friend my sister made was a cute little freshman in tan corduroy jeans with her dark hair pulled into two pigtails. She looked more like a high school freshman than a college student. She was tacking up fliers for some kind of cause (might have been related to world hunger) on the bulletin boards in the stairwell.

She was pretty and outgoing and introduced herself to us at once, "Hi, I'm Bennie, Bennie Bhutto." . . . [read on]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/benazir-bhutto-from-the-_b_78488.html
[Arianna Huffington] I want to write about the young woman I met in England before she became a player on the world stage.

She was at Oxford. I was at Cambridge. And by a strange coincidence I became president of the Cambridge Union and she became president of the Oxford Union. The anomaly of two foreign women heading the two unions meant that we ended up debating each other around England on topics ranging from British politics to broad generalities about the impact of technological advance on mankind. . . . [read on]

More: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002612.php

A terrible NYT obit: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/12/27/1161/1830

The consequences for US policy

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2007/12/bhutto-assassination-could-hurt-us-in.html
Today's assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto is a blow for democracy in Pakistan and seems likely to cement the military's grip on power for the near future . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/27/AR2007122700986.html
The assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has dealt a severe blow to U.S. efforts to restore stability and democracy in a turbulent, nuclear-armed Islamic nation that has been a critical ally in the war on terror.

While not entirely dependent on Bhutto, recent Bush administration policy on Pakistan had focused heavily on promoting reconciliation between the secular opposition leader who has been dogged by corruption allegations and Pakistan's increasingly unpopular president, Pervez Musharraf, ahead of parliamentary elections set for January. . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/world/asia/28policy.html
The assassination of Benazir Bhutto on Thursday left in ruins the delicate diplomatic effort the Bush administration had pursued in the past year to reconcile Pakistan’s deeply divided political factions. Now it is scrambling to sort through ever more limited options, as American influence on Pakistan’s internal affairs continues to decline. . .

http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/initial-policy-implications-of-bhutto.html
[A.J. Rossmiller] In terms of policy implications, this is reflective of a massive US foreign policy blunder, in that the Bush administration, in a monumentally stupid move, shoved Bhutto down the throat of Musharraf (and the rest of Pakistan) as a savior, despite her lack of broad popular support and general reputation as corrupt. In making someone who didn't necessarily have the ability to deliver the savior for democracy in Pakistan, we simultaneously set up our own policy to fail and offered Musharraf a return to (or continued) total power in the event that our little power-sharing arrangement didn't work. We also -- though not only us -- painted a big fat target on her back. Really a debacle all the way around. . . .

http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/it-is-almost-impossible-to-imagine-how.html
[Sky News] British political campaigner Mohammed Shafiq said: "This has destroyed any chance of election in Pakistan. It will cause more friction and more problems."

Sky's Asia correspondent Alex Crawford said: "It is almost impossible to imagine how much turmoil this is going to cause within Pakistan. There is going to be team of people who will want to avenge her death. There will be team of people who want to capitalise on the turbulence after her death."

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004984.php
"The military didn't really want civilian politicians in power," says New York University's Barnett Rubin, a South Asia expert. "They wanted to use them to legitimate indirect [military] rule, and they were going to do it by rigging the election."

U.S. strategy didn't exactly find that so offensive. "The idea was to consolidate the alliance of the so-called moderate forces in the Pakistani military through this election that the military was going to rig but we were going to certify anyway," Rubin observes. That is, as long as Bhutto was in the picture -- since the U.S. had reduced the democratic opposition to the figure of Benazir Bhutto, although her corruption as PM was manifest. Without Bhutto, it is unclear what the U.S. will do.

Bhutto's assassination presents an opportunity for Musharraf. "It's very possible Musharraf will declare [another] state of emergency and postpone the elections," Rubin continues. "That will confirm in many people's minds the idea that the military is behind" the assassination. For it's part, the U.S. will likely "be scrambling to say the election either needs to be held as planned or postponed rather than canceled, but Musharraf is in a position to preempt that."

As a result, Rubin says, U.S. strategy is "in tatters."

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004986.php
[Spencer Ackerman] As the assassination of Benazir Bhutto throws U.S.-Pakistani relations into turmoil, it's worth pointing out how the staffing of the U.S.'s Pakistan team indicates that Pakistan isn't exactly a priority for the Bush administration. . . .

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/pakistan-crisis-for-dummies-by-digby.html
[Digby] It's worse than that. As with everything else in this miserable administration, they've purged all the people who actually understand Pakistan in favor of the group that brought you the Iraq war . . . [read on]

Juan Cole

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/12/27/bhutto/
With Bhutto gone, does Bush have a Plan B?
Bush's failed policies in Pakistan, a nuclear power that al-Qaida still uses to plot against the West, threatens U.S. security more than Iraq ever did. . . . [read on]

More: http://www.juancole.com/2007/12/mobs-rampage-through-pakistani-cities.html

Who did it?

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004984.php
[Spencer Ackerman] The most likely culprit is the Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaeda. But it's not exactly an event met with tears by the Pakistani military, which thoroughly controls the government and the economy. . .

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004990.php
[Spencer Ackerman] According to a former intelligence official with deep experience on Pakistan, there's a third, and perhaps more likely culprit: internally-focused Pakistani Islamist militants without significant links to al-Qaeda. . . .

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004985.php
[Spencer Ackerman] A longtime adviser and close friend of assassinated Pakistani ex-prime minister Benazir Bhutto places blame for Bhutto's death squarely on the shoulders of U.S.-supported dictator Pervez Musharraf. . . .

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004988.php
[Spencer Ackerman] It's not just Bhutto adviser Husain Haqqani. Nawaz Sharif, now Pervez Musharraf's chief political enemy in the wake of Bhutto's assassination, also blamed the dictator for his onetime rival's death. . .

More: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/12/27/92722/308

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/27/updates-from-pakistan-and-beyond-on-the-bhutto-assasination/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/27/blitzer-exclusive-bhutto_n_78475.html
Today on "The Situation Room," Wolf Blitzer revealed an exclusive e-mail he received from Benazir Bhutto's US spokesman Mark Siegel in October. "This is a story she wanted me to tell the world on her behalf if she were killed," Blitzer said, before reading the e-mail.

In the e-mail, Bhutto wrote that, if anything were to happen to her, "I wld [sic] hold Musharaf [sic] responsible. I have been made to feel insecure by his minions, and there is no way what is happening in terms of stopping me from taking private cars or using tinted windows or giving jammers or four police mobiles to cover all sides cld [sic] happen without him."

What next?

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004989.php
[Spencer Ackerman] Try as Nawaz Sharif might to carry the banner of Benazir Bhutto, he might not be the optimal anti-Musharraf candidate. For one thing, even if Musharraf holds a promised election, Sharif isn't eligible to run, thanks to a ruling of the Musharraf-controlled Electoral Commission. For another, there's another secular, democratic politician waiting in the wings who might resonate with this year's middle-class rejection of Musharraf. . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/world/asia/28assess.html
Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto’s death thins Pakistan’s already meager ranks of charismatic civilian politicians just as the country had begun a treacherous passage toward restoring some form of democratic government, Pakistani and American analysts said. And it raises the specter of prolonged political conflict between Pakistan’s president, Pervez Musharraf, and the country’s opposition.

“I see a lot more trouble for Musharraf in the near future,” said Hasan Askari Rizvi, a leading Pakistani political analyst. . .

More: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/rip-benazir-bhutto-by-dday-i-actually.html

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002617.php

WHERE’S CONDI RICE? (the Secretary of State, in case we’d forgotten)

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_12_23_archive.html#1046862893962279383

Is this why we haven’t heard from her? http://www.slate.com/id/2181002
[Daniel Politi] The WP fronts a look at the U.S. role in all this deal-making and notes that Bhutto didn't make up her mind to return until after she got a phone call from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. . . .

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/28/14487/
[Scarecrow] The Bush Administration did not kill Benazir Bhutto; someone else did that. But it appears the Administration convinced her to go back to Pakistan to save a risky policy foolishly built on a despised, repressive military dictator to fight the US "war on terror." Now a courageous woman is dead, another nation is in chaos, the US is further discredited, it can't account for billions in military aid, and we still have an administration that remains a menace to everyone's security as long as they remain in office. But the Administration wants us to believe that only al Qaeda is responsible. . . .

The mostly execrable television coverage

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/28/the-scene-of-the-crime/
[Attaturk] I watched the usual abysmal American media coverage of the Bhutto assassination -- shallow, lacking context, and immediately applying all events to the presidential race [both absurd and grotesque]. . . .

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/27/late-nite-fdl-did-hillary-clinton-kill-benazir-bhutto/
[CNN] Did Hillary Clinton Kill Benazir Bhutto?”

The typical US political response: the world is dangerous and unpredictable, therefore we need tougher leaders

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/27/194418/67
[DHinMI] The Bush administration, the Republican candidates for President and wingers of all varieties will be invoking the specter of "TERRA!" and arguing that this killing is proof that we need a bellicose foreign policy under the command of another bellicose Republican. Of course, that's wrong. Pakistan's government has been under the control of the military for much of its history, and often those dictatorships had the sanction of the US. . . . [read on]

More: http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/the_tough_guys.php

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/27/common-sense-and-the-politics-of-benazir-bhuttos-death/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/27/AR2007122702514.html
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Bhutto's death helped underscore the line she has been driving home for months -- about who is best suited to lead the nation at a time of international peril. . . .

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/12/27/politics/fromtheroad/entry3650194.shtml
John McCain reacted this morning to the assassination of Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. . . .

"If I were president of the United States, I would be on the phone right now, and I would be meeting with the National Security Council, and I would be seeing ways that we could restore order, or maintain order, or restore order, whichever is the case in Pakistan. I know the players I know the individuals, and I know the best way to address this situation." . . .

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/12/27/politics/fromtheroad/entry3650147.shtml
Rudy Giuliani . . . called the terrorist attack that took Bhutto's life tragic and jarring for the people of Pakistan, and said it reminds Americans that President Bush made the "right decision to go on offense" against Islamic terrorism.

The former mayor also suggested "doubling our forces" in and around the region.

Giuliani invoked September 11th when mentioning this morning's carnage . . . .

In regards to a national security response to the assasination of Bhutto, Giuliani said "We should take a look at what we have in Afghanistan...and see if our efforts there are as effective as they should be. I have a feeling...we should increase our efforts in Afghanistan, which is on the border of Pakistan." . . .

"There's no question that we need to increase the Marines to at least 200,000," said Giuliani, who has continuously said he will increase the size of the U.S. Military if elected president. . . .

More reminders that, despite what current residents of Washington DC think, the US doesn’t get to shape the political futures of other nations – they play out in terms of their own internal dynamics whether we like it or not. Another case in point: the Taliban are coming back in Afghanistan

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/27/AR2007122700863.html
The United States supports reconciliation talks with Taliban fighters who have no ties to al-Qaida and accept Afghanistan's constitution, the U.S. ambassador said Thursday. . .

[NB: Uh-huh, only the GOOD Taliban – well, okay then]

In other news . . .

Purely speculative, but plausible: did Bush see the CIA torture tapes?

http://harpers.org/archive/2007/12/hbc-90002025
[Scott Horton] In this regards, the sequence of statements out of the White House is extremely revealing. It started with firm denials, then went silent and then pulled back rather sharply to a “President Bush has no present recollection of having seen the tapes.” This is a formulation frequently used to avoid perjury charges, a sort of way of saying “no” without really saying “no.” In between these statements, two more things unfolded that have a bearing on the question. . .

More: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3087293.ece

In defense of the EEOC decision to let companies drop 65-year olds from health plan coverage

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14057.html
[John Cole] This is just another piece of evidence to me that we will be moving to single-payer in the next decade or so, simply because big business wants this (and would argue they need it) in order to survive. . . [read on]

What does Rudy do when he’s in trouble? “9/11, 9/11, 9/11!”

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/rudy_hits_911_panic_button_with_new_ad_about_attacks.php

Head of the Kansas GOP BRAGS about vote caging (uhh. . . it’s ILLEGAL)

http://bluetiderising.blogspot.com/2007/12/kobach-admits-to-coordinated-voter.html

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/27/122448/64

More vote suppression: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/not-like-theyre-stopping-with-vote.html

In defense of partisanship

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/27/95010/179/336/426798

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/062102.php

Bonus item: How the Bush gang reached their final decisions on stem cell policy

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14052.html
[Jay Lefkowitz] A few days later, I brought into the Oval Office my copy of Brave New World, Aldous Huxley’s 1932 anti-utopian novel, and as I read passages aloud imagining a future in which humans would be bred in hatcheries, a chill came over the room. . . [read on]

***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.***

Labels: http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif

- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:58 AM

 
GOOD NEWS/BAD NEWS

This is bad. Very, very bad – and damn the so-called “Equal Employment Opportunity Commission” for enabling it

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/27/washington/27retire.html
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said Wednesday that employers could reduce or eliminate health benefits for retirees when they turn 65 and become eligible for Medicare. . . .

More: http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/27/your-parents-screwedbut-youll-join-em-soon-enough/

Why Turkey is attacking northern Iraq, and why the US is helping them

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004976.php

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/good-news-for-people-who-like-bad-news.html

The private contractor gravy train doesn’t just run through Iraq – check out these stories from Afghanistan

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004982.php
[Spencer Ackerman] DynCorp didn't have to even prove that it in fact purchased dozens of SUVs for which it charged the government. . . [read on]

More: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004981.php

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004978.php

One of the great lies is that military members and their families are all Republican-supporting conservatives. Turns out, not so much

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14044.html

“The Terror Presidency”

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/26/the-terror-or-maybe-something-else-presidency/

How far Cheney’s obsession with secrecy goes

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/26/archives-cheney-addington/
[Amanda] In June, House investigators revealed that Vice President Dick Cheney had exempted his office from an executive order designed to safeguard classified national security information. He claimed that the Office of the Vice President (OVP) is not an “entity within the executive branch.”

The National Security Archives’ Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) wrote Cheney’s then-chief of staff David Addington on two separate occasions in summer 2006, disputing those claims. Cheney’s office ignored both letters. Finally, in Jan. 2007, the ISOO directly asked — to no avail — Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resolve whether the executive order applies to Cheney’s office.

In a new interview with Newsweek, ISOO director J. William Leonard — described as the “gold standard of information specialists in the federal government” — said that he is quitting after 34 years, partly because of pressure from Cheney’s office. Addington personally tried to “wipe out” his job after Leonard attempted to challenge Cheney’s claims. . . [read on]

More: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-fourthbranch-works-by-dday.html

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14045.html

The US Attorney scandal: the still-unanswered questions

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/26/1439/6144

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14047.html

I fully expect the Supreme Court to uphold voter ID laws, even though they’re blatantly discriminatory (or maybe that should read “BECAUSE they’re discriminatory”)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/26/113457/41

Here it comes: Bush uses his signing of the omnibus govt funding bill to assert (yes) a NEW Presidential power – as I called it last week, a de facto line-item veto

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/26/214315/57

Little victories: Dems block a high-priority Bush recess appointment

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/26/senate-blocks-recess-appointment-of-torture-advocate/

The laziest kind of "balanced" reporting is the good news/bad news sort of story that does nothing more than recount a series of on-the-one-hand, on-the-other hand pseudo-equivalencies. Here’s a particularly odious example of it, c/o CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/23/bush.legacy/index.html

Jonah Goldberg’s new book, “Liberal Fascism,” is (from all reports – I’ll never pay for it) as fatuous a book as its title suggests. But my interest is with why Charles Murray, supposedly a “serious” scholar (co-author of “The Bell Curve”) should squander his credibility, such as it is, with a testimonial like this?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012782.php

OK, the Concord Monitor prints a devastating editorial rejecting Romney, calling him a phony. Romney sniffs “liberal newspaper.” So then what does he say about THIS?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/26/16213/584
“The more Mitt Romney speaks, the less believable he becomes.” That was the money quote of [the ultra-conservative Manchester] Union-Leader editorial in New Hampshire . .

Quote of the day: http://www.slate.com/id/2180926/
Romney meanwhile said he was a true conservative and criticized Sen. John McCain for opposing Bush's tax cuts and for his position on immigration. And McCain shot back: "I know something about tailspins, and it's pretty clear Mitt Romney is in one."

The funniest take-down of Huckabee you’ll see

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_12_23_archive.html#4046835556109545563

Oh, my, OUCH. If this is the essence of the GOP’s 2008 strategy, they are in for a bloodbath

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/those-goddamned-dirty-hippies-by-dday.html

Paul Krugman mounts an unapologetic assertion of progressive values – we have the people behind us, and should start acting that way

http://www.slate.com/id/2180178

Bonus item (year-end list edition): Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, issues its list of the ten most corrupt politicians of 2007. Read it if you want a good laugh

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/062019.php

Extra bonus item: Double G’s favorite quotes from 2007

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/26/quotes/index.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 @ 7:21 AM

 
LEGAL RATIONALES

The Bush gang tries (badly) to explain why it was okay to withhold evidence from the 9/11 Commission – and then destroy it

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/24/kean-cia-tapes/

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/25/torturous-logic/

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/25/the-other-provision-of-the-records-act/

Why did the EPA block a California emissions law? Will it surprise you to learn that Dick Cheney was behind it?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2231965,00.html
EPA staff members told the Los Angeles Times that the agency's head, the Bush appointee Stephen Johnson, ignored their conclusions and shut himself off from consultation in the month before the announcement. He then informed them of his decision and instructed them to provide the legal rationale for it, they said.

"California met every criteria ... on the merits," an anonymous member of the EPA staff told the Times. "The same criteria we have used for the last 40 years ... We told him that. All the briefings we have given him laid out the facts."

In an editorial, the New York Times described the decision as, "an indefensible act of executive arrogance that can only be explained as the product of ideological blindness and as a political payoff to the automobile industry". . . .

Johnson's staff gave him the opposite advice, warning him that should he block California, the state would probably sue him in the courts and would probably win. The state's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, immediately announced that he would challenge the EPA's ruling in the courts, describing it as "legally indefensible".

Juan Cole: Top Ten Myths About Iraq

http://www.juancole.com/2007/12/top-ten-myths-about-iraq-2007.html

Thanks for nothing

http://www.slate.com/id/2180877/
[Daniel Politi] USAT says that "never in modern times" have the nominating contests in both parties been so up in the air at the beginning of an election year. As the LAT points out in a story inside, this means that absolutely everything on these final days will become more important and any missteps will certainly be magnified.

The papers certainly will have to consider that in the coming days and weeks, knowing that anything they publish can be used by a candidate's opponents. In the Post's Style section Philip Kennicott takes a look at the importance of the "hangdog candidate image" and notes that pictures such as the highly unflattering portrait of Clinton that was posted in the Drudge Report will surely increase in circulation in the coming weeks. Of course, the Post can't help itself and goes ahead and publishes the unflattering photo (although it's not on the Style's front page).

With that in mind, the NYT delivers Clinton a big lump of coal (too late for Christmas metaphors?) on its front page today. In an examination of Clinton's years in the White House as first lady, the paper concludes that she wasn't much involved in the big issues of foreign policy and mostly carried out "soft" diplomacy. Notably, the piece glosses over some of these "soft" diplomacy successes, particularly her China speech on women's rights, which many have called her best moment as first lady. Of course, this is an issue because she's often talked about how she was a partner in foreign policy with her husband but Clinton was really "more of a sounding board than a policy maker, who learned through osmosis rather than decision-making," says the NYT. . . . Shouldn't the piece have at least brought up that perhaps Clinton was forced to take a back seat due to the way the president was criticized for giving his wife a prominent role in the whole health care debacle?

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/us/politics/26clinton.html

Theocracy watch: now that Huckabee has set the precedent of using his Christianity as a political tool, watch them all do it

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/25/christmas/index.html

Bonus item: Yee-ha! 60% of all death penalty executions are in Texas

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/us/26death.html

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

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:11 AM

 
A LUMP OF COAL

Hard times for the GOP

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/24/151739/31
The GOP's "None of the Above" problems continue . . .

Video: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061896.php
[I]t's looking pretty bleak for the Republican frontrunners. . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101415.html
Karl Rove's grandest aspiration was to create a Republican majority that would dominate American politics for a generation or more. But as the effects of his distinctive brand of fear-mongering fade, it's the Democrats who are poised to become the country's majority party – and perhaps for a long time to come. . . .

John McCain doesn’t generate a lot of enthusiasm among the GOP base, but he’s a known quantity who doesn’t have embarrassing disclosures popping up every week. Could he return as Mr. Default Option?

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/mccain_planning_campaign_swing_in_iowa.php

Chris Matthews, as is well-documented here, has a manliness issue – he just LOVES the testosterone in candidates. Well, there is no more hyper-macho candidate in this race than Rudy Giuliani, and that’s why Matthews has done everything possible to ignore or trivialize his philandering, his use of public moneys for his mistress, his secret 9/11 love-shack, his manly bond with the crook Bernie Kerik, and the general swagger of his exploitation of power. In Matthews' world, these are GOOD things, the way a REAL MAN should govern

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061898.php

More to come? http://www.newsweek.com/id/81286
With its tawdry plot lines involving corporate skullduggery, a steamy extramarital affair and presidential politics, the legal battle between former publishing doyenne Judith Regan and her ex-employer, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., seems straight out of a potboiler. Now the tale has taken another intriguing and potentially explosive twist with the sudden emergence of a mysterious tape recording. . . .

Here’s how bad Rudy’s situation actually is

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/us/politics/24giuliani.html
Rudolph W. Giuliani has entered a turbulent period in his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, marked by what his aides acknowledge are missteps, sharp shifts in strategy and evidence that reports about his personal life have hurt his national standing . . .

Romney tries to shake off a devastating NH editorial (calling him, in so many words, a big phony)

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/romney_campaign_responds_to_concord_monitors_unendorsement_hits_papers_liberalism.php

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/23/AR2007122302444.html

Meanwhile, the party establishment still can’t figure out how to deal with the Huckabee situation. You’ve already had Condi Rice (the Sect’y of STATE) throw her Gucci handbag at him – now the White House itself takes a swipe. That’s how terrified they are: the administration isn’t supposed to be involved in primary politics

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14029.html
[Steve Benen] If anyone from Bush’s inner circle is going to defend Mike Huckabee’s Christian-centered presidential campaign, you’d think it would be Peter Wehner. Not only is Wehner, the former White House director of strategic initiatives, a self-described evangelical Christian conservative, but he also helped oversee Bush’s faith-based office. It’s not like the separation of church and state would be high on Wehner’s priority list. . . . [read on]

Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh is sucking wind

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/24/rush-v-huckabee-so-far-its-huckapalooza/

More on Huckabee’s openly theocratic appeal

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/24/12233/248

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/24/huckabee-calls-extremist-war-mongering-preacher-a-great-leader/

Ron Paul . . . aw heck, it hardly seems worth the trouble

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061909.php
[Josh Marshall] You may have heard that in his star-turn yesterday on Meet the Press, Ron Paul said that the American Civil War was a mistake (brought on by a power-hungry Abraham Lincoln) and came out for so-called 'gradual emancipation'. . . .

Is General David Petraeus going to be the new GOP presidential savior? . . . (uh, no)

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14033.html

We’ve seen how much trouble Inspectors General have in this administration. It can’t stand watchdogs, oversight, or criticism - externally or internally. So this shouldn’t be a surprise

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004974.php
[Spencer Ackerman] It was one of the high points of recent CIA history, and that's saying a lot: CIA Director Mike Hayden ordered an investigation of CIA Inspector General John Helgerson. On top of ordering a scathing review of the CIA's pre-9/11 counterterrorism performance, Helgerson -- legally tasked with being an independent internal watchdog -- stuck his nose into the agency's detentions, interrogations and renditions programs, angering many inside the agency. Hayden struck back. . . . [read on]

Listen to them whine

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14031.html
Promoted to domestic security adviser in 2004, [Frances Townsend] became a loyalist and said she was leaving wearied by the acrimony that hangs over Mr. Bush’s last year in office.

“I find it both offensive and crippling,” she said. “When both career people and political people are worried about getting subpoenaed, it’s hard to get a lot accomplished.” . . . [read on]

[NB: And who does she blame for THAT?]

How Blackwater cheated the State Dept

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004975.php

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004970.php

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/23/AR2007122302442.html
The U.S. government disregarded numerous warnings over the past two years about the risks of using Blackwater Worldwide and other private security firms in Iraq, expanding their presence even after a series of shooting incidents showed that the firms were operating with little regulation or oversight, according to government officials, private security firms and documents. . . .

The mismanagement of US money in Pakistan has crippled counterinsurgent efforts there – meanwhile, Osama Bin Laden settles in for another New Year

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/25/world/asia/25pakistan.html

One thing we will learn in the CIA torture tape investigation is how little Porter Goss (the WH hack and hatchet man appointed to bring the CIA to heel) was respected or listened to within the Agency

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/24/but-the-tapes-werent-in-the-washington/

Bonus item: Rightwing blog Power-line takes a look at the story about J. Edgar Hoover’s plans to suspend Habeas Corpus and imprison 12,000 Americans – and finds in it a reason to bash today’s liberals. Pathetic

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14032.html
[Steve Benen] [A]s John Cole noted, “When your first instinct upon learning of [Hoover’s] plan is to try to figure out how the liberals are worse, you have issues.” . . .

***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 @ 5:59 AM

 
THREATS TO DEMOCRACY

Yes, it CAN happen here

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/22/235656/59
The New York Times today reports on one of a batch of newly declassified documents from the early 1950s. The document in question, a memo from then FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, is dated July 7 1950 (only two weeks after the outbreak of the Korean War). Hoover was angling for President Truman's permission to implement a plan to suspend habeas corpus, arrest thousands of citizens who were "potentially dangerous", hold them for an unspecified period, and permit the Attorney General to create special tribunals to decide whether to keep them imprisoned. . . .

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/washington/23habeas.html

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/12/23/223045/25
[NYT] After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush issued an order that effectively allowed the United States to hold suspects indefinitely without a hearing, a lawyer, or formal charges. . . .

Devastating

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/world/asia/24military.html
After the United States has spent more than $5 billion in a largely failed effort to bolster the Pakistani military effort against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, some American officials now acknowledge that there were too few controls over the money. . . .

In interviews, American and Pakistani officials acknowledged that they had never agreed on the strategic goals that should drive how the money was spent, or how the Pakistanis would prove that they were performing up to American expectations. . . . [read on]

More US failures across the region: http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/23/success-in-iraq-not-for-iraqi-women/
Success in Iraq? Not for Iraqi Women . . .

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/23/secret-schmoozing/
[Marc Lynch] Very few media outlets in the US seem to have noticed, but Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmednejad and Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah were back together again the other day on the occasion of the Hajj. Ahmednejad's surprising appearance at the Gulf Cooperation Council summit in early December had set off something of a frenzy of media discussion about whether it meant a possible reconciliation between Iran and its Arab Gulf neighbors. . .

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL2317952620071224
An Iraqi Kurdish official said Turkish warplanes had bombed areas in the semi-autonomous Kurdish region of northern Iraq on Sunday for the second straight day and the third time in December. Turkish troops have also conducted at least two small-scale cross-border raids so far this month. . .

No surprise here: Jose Rodriguez wants immunity before testifying to Congress about destroying the CIA torture tapes

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/23/immunity/

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/12/23/23921/560

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cia24dec24,0,5558164.story
The order to destroy the recordings came from Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., then-head of the CIA's clandestine service, which deploys spies overseas and carries out covert operations. . . .

The clandestine service "is almost tribal in nature," said a former senior CIA official familiar with the discussions on the tapes. "They believe that no one else will look out for them so they have to look out for themselves."

That culture, current and former intelligence officials said, helps to explain why Rodriguez ordered the tapes destroyed despite cautions against doing so from senior lawmakers, White House attorneys and the agency's director.

It may also account for why Rodriguez was not punished or fired after that decision was disclosed. Rodriguez is now in the CIA's retirement program and is expected to leave the agency in the coming months. His successor at the clandestine service remains undercover. . .

Good point: what’s surprising isn’t that the US videotaped two interrogations, but that they don’t videotape ALL of them (Britain and Israel do, for example). Here’s why they should . . .

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012768.php

Theocracy: a threat to democracy everywhere

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/23/154212/19

Who the HELL are the Republicans going to nominate? Even they have no idea

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14019.html

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/24/15649/847

The emergence of Mike Huckabee as the favored candidate of the Religious Right has really screwed up the Republican Establishment’s plan for a Giuliani or Romney candidacy. The efforts of the east coast candidates from New York and Massachusetts to distance themselves from the moderate policies they pursued in their home states have convinced NO ONE that they stand on the right side of the issues religious conservatives care about the most. Plus, they have additional baggage, in the eyes of conservative Christians: Giuliani’s flagrant womanizing and Romney’s Mormonism.

Meanwhile, these voters have found someone who truly IS one of them, and so far all the attempts of the Bob Novak’s and Rush Limbaugh’s of the world to tear Huackbee down haven’t put a dent in his basically unshakeable 30% support – the most passionate and committed segment of the GOP base. Of course Huckabee has almost no appeal outside of that 30%, and he’d be a disaster as a national candidate – or even as a VP prospect. So long as he holds this group, though, there is no way a consensus can emerge around any other candidate

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/23/AR2007122302444.html

More lies from Rudy

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14022.html
[Steve Benen] Giuliani was told the firefighters didn’t have a functioning communications system after the original WTC attack in 1993, but for seven years, Giuliani ignored the problem. When he eventually ordered new radios, he gave Motorola a lucrative no-bid contract, and the company ended up providing untested radios that didn’t work.

On 9/11, when the order went out to the FDNY to evacuate, the firefighters never heard the order, which is why so many perished. (The NYPD, which had working radios, heard the order, vacated Ground Zero, and lost far fewer people when the towers fell.) Giuliani later said he believes the firefighters ignored the evacuation order on purpose — a claim that disgusts the department and the families of those who died.

Giuliani hasn’t been pressed on any of this by political reporters, so it was a pleasant surprise to see George Stephanopoulos broach the subject this morning. According to a transcript from ABC News . . . [read on]

More: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/23/giuliani-radios/

The Politico, often linked here, has established an uneven relationship with careful reporting. Yesterday we linked to a story from them saying that, according to eyewitnesses, Mitt Romney’s father DID march with MLK, debunking what had been a devastating assault on Romney’s repeated claim that he’d “seen” it happen. Well, now it turns out that the eyewitness report was itself bunk – now what will Romney say?

http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9789
[David Bernstein] All of this evidence is important to present to the general public, but it is unnecessary for the Romney campaign -- it has been clear for some time that they know perfectly well that the two men never marched together.

Bear in mind that the Romney team has a substantial research team (and vast resources for outsourcing more). Bear in mind that the campaign has compiled vast documentation about the candidate's father, particularly his civil-rights activities, long before the Phoenix posed the question earlier this week. Bear in mind that the campaign has direct access to George Romney's materials and documents, his family members, his friends, his former staff, etc.

Believe me, they know the two men never marched together. This is an attempt to rewrite history. And even if it is a small rewriting, it is offensive.... Changing that history by mistake -- which is quite possibly how this began -- is unfortunate. Changing that history intentionally -- which is what the campaign is doing now -- is offensive.

More: http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_12_23_archive.html#6429854658320741607

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14020.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 @ 7:26 AM

 
PRICELESS

The CIA’s excuse for not turning over the torture tapes to the 9/11 commission? This is priceless . . .

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012765.php
[Kevin Drum] * The 9/11 Commission was an official investigative body chartered by both Congress and the president.

* It specifically asked for "documents," "reports" and "information" related to detainee interrogations.

* The CIA knew about the tapes, knew they were germane, and knew the commission was likely to ask for them at some point.

* But it never revealed their existence and never turned them over because no one ever specifically said the word, "videotape."

From an administration that said the vice president is a fourth branch of government; that the Medicare prescription bill would only cost $400 billion; that waterboarding isn't torture; and that Iraq was trying to procure uranium from Africa — well, this one might not even make its all-time top ten mendacity list. For one thing, the deceit is a little too obvious. Surely to make the list your lies have to display more than a fourth-grade level of sophistication?

More: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/22/timing-again

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/22/recycling-torture-timelines/

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14017.html

Yes, the civil war seems to have calmed down in Iraq – a mass exodus of people, ethnic cleansing and enforced segregation in Baghdad neighborhoods, and a focus on getting rid of Al Qaeda in Iraq, have all given the Sunni and Shiite militias other things to worry about than each other. But will it last?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012767.php
[AP] Iraq's Shiite-led government declared Saturday that after restive areas are calmed it will disband Sunni groups battling Islamic extremists because it does not want them to become a separate military force. . . [read on]

The death of SCHIP?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/22/15421/590

http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/movement_built_last

Will NCLB be a major campaign issue in 2008?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/us/politics/23child.html

It’s astonishing that the Republicans are still running the “global warming is a myth” line, after all this time

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/22/73147/008

Here’s how it works on the Republican side: everyone ignores you until you start to show some strength. Then they all go after you. Huckabee’s been getting his, and then some. Now it’s McCain’s turn

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14016.html

Theocracy watch: Huckabee wants the Ten Commandments looking over his shoulder if he’s ever in the Oval Office

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14013.html

Still, I give him this: Huckabee is an honest theocrat, a preacher and a true evangelical – the real deal, not the kind of sanctimonious poseur the GOP has been foisting on its Christian base for a generation or more

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012766.php
[Kevin Drum] Liberals, at least, just honestly disagree with evangelical social fervor. Republican elites, by contrast, are willing to pander endlessly for evangelical votes, evangelical money, and evangelical organizing zeal, but once the elections are won they think of them, in Peggy Noonan's recent words, as "the idiot vote." Unless evangelical interests coincide with the moneycon wing of the party (as they do with judges, for example), they get little more than a few symbolic bones tossed their way.

As you can imagine, I'm delighted to see evangelicals finally figuring this out and getting ready to turn their longstanding misgivings into out-and-out rebellion. It's about time this battle got fought in the full light of day.

The most interesting moment of the Limbaugh attack on Huckabee last week, recounted here yesterday, was when Rush took on a conservative preacher who called in to say he was grateful for Huckabee – a true Christian conservative. “Identity politics,” Rush snorted, and proceeded to tell the preacher he was a fool. I know Rush believes that he is the sole arbiter of what is and isn’t good for conservatism, but does he really want to take on this fight?

Now Huckabee responds, and it’s pretty clear who’s the one really connecting with the Christian Right

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/22/huckabeelimbaugh-smackdown-everyones-a-concern-troll/

Romney tries the same strategery

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/23/52439/171
[BarbinMD] So, you have a Southern Baptist minister who opposes abortion, stem cell research, same-sex marriage and civil unions, and Mitt Romney is comparing him to Bill Clinton? You have to wonder how this will go over with the Evangelical voters, particularly coming from Romney, who has flip-flopped on all of those very issues: abortion, stem cell research. and gay rights. . . .

Romney, cut down by the New England papers who know him best

http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/concord-monitor-editorial-romney-is.html
[Concord Monitor] When New Hampshire partisans are asked to defend the state's first-in-the-nation primary, we talk about our ability to see the candidates up close, ask tough questions and see through the baloney. If a candidate is a phony, we assure ourselves and the rest of the world, we'll know it.

Mitt Romney is such a candidate. New Hampshire Republicans and independents must vote no. . . .

Hmmm . . . I’m sorry if he’s really sick, but is Giuliani laying the groundwork for a health-related excuse to withdraw from the GOP race?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/us/politics/22campaign.html
Rudolph W. Giuliani scaled back his weekend schedule in New Hampshire on Friday as he recovered from the illness that led him to be hospitalized overnight this week for what his aides called “flulike symptoms.” . . . Still, the campaign declined to say precisely what the symptoms were, which tests were performed at a hospital in St. Louis, or what doctors believe caused the symptoms. Mr. Giuliani ended his race for the United States Senate in 2000 after receiving a diagnosis of prostate cancer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/us/politics/23rudy.html
Rudolph W. Giuliani on Saturday provided the most detailed account yet of the health scare that led to his recent hospitalization, saying that he suffered a “terrible headache” but did not black out, and that his doctor would update his health condition “after Christmas.” . . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14012.html
[ABC] What was wrong? What tests did he get? What was causing such severe pains? Giuliani gave no details. . . . [read on]

Wow – and this is what his FRIENDS think of him (thanks to Avedon Carol for the link)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/21/american-conservative-mag_n_77943.html

What Romney thinks about untrammeled Executive power (it won’t reassure you)

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/23/romney/index.html

I guess it’s the theme of the day

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/12/paul-says-he-di.html
[Ron] Paul says he didn't mean to accuse [Mike] Huckabee of being a fascist . .[read on]

[NB: This is quite remarkable, when you think of it. “Fascist” was always our term for targeting extreme right-wing threats. Now the Republicans are using it with each other!]

Sunday talk show line-ups

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/22/231532/70
* Meet the Press (NBC): Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX); CNBC & NYT's John Harwood and NBC News' Chuck Todd on the pres. campaign
* Face the Nation (CBS): Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL); Mike Huckabee (R-AR)
* This Week (ABC): Rudy Giuliani (R-NY); roundtable of WaPo's EJ Dionne, ABC's Torie Clarke, Cokie Roberts and George Will; Caroline Kennedy (author, "A Family Christmas")
* Fox News Sunday: Gen. David Petraeus on latest Iraq report; pastor Joel Osteen; Worcester Health president Morrill Worcester
* CNN Late Edition: year-end special featuring clips of previous interviews

Bonus item: Heh, heh, heh . . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14018.html
[Steve Benen] A few weeks ago, word surfaced that Karl Rove was shopping for a book publisher, and was poised to make a cool $3 million. He is, after all, Karl Rove. He’s The Architect. As the greatest political mind of the decade, his book is bound to be awesome. . . .

[NB: Then somebody realized that this was KARL ROVE we were talking about, and he wasn’t going to say a damn thing that was true or revealing about the Bush administration, its machinations, or his role in them . . . ]

[AP] GOP strategist Karl Rove has agreed to write about his years as an adviser to President Bush in a deal worth over $1.5 million with former colleague Mary Matalin’s conservative imprint at Simon & Schuster, officials said Friday. . .

***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 @ 7:46 AM

 
RACE TO THE BOTTOM

Too bad – a federal judge says, “Why should I look into the CIA torture tape destruction when the Dept of Justice is already looking into it?”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071221/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_videotapes_courts

Here’s why, as Bmaz over at Marcy Wheeler's blog explains in plain English: because the DOJ has a fundamental conflict of interest in overseeing this investigation. And nobody seems to care to point this out

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/21/the-wheels-of-justice/

More: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/21/dates/

The CIA apparently lied to the 9/11 Commission

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/washington/22intel.html
A review of classified documents by former members of the Sept. 11 commission shows that the panel made repeated and detailed requests to the Central Intelligence Agency in 2003 and 2004 for documents and other information about the interrogation of operatives of Al Qaeda, and were told by a top C.I.A. official that the agency had “produced or made available for review” everything that had been requested. . . .

Blackwater – the tie that keeps costing the US

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004964.php
[Spencer Ackerman] A report prepared for the State Department's inspector general in January 2005, and obtained by TPMmuckraker, shows Blackwater's accounting system for its no-bid, multimillion dollar Iraq contract was "not considered adequate for accumulating costs on government contracts." . . .

The State Department was under a massive time-crunch in mid-2004 to stand up its new Baghdad embassy as the Coalition Provisional Authority went out of business that June. As a result, State Department logistics official William Moser explained to Congress, State opted to sign a no-bid contract for diplomatic security services with the company already on the ground: Blackwater. "We did not like doing a sole source award for Blackwater," Moser told the House oversight committee in October. No wonder: Blackwater, apparently, took advantage of the opportunity.

Yet despite its own internal watchdog's finding of fraudulence in Blackwater's Iraq contract, months later, the State Department re-signed a deal with the company to provide security for U.S. diplomats. . .

More: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004967.php

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004968.php

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004969.php

John Kiriakou broke omerta about US torture policy, and so he must be punished

http://motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2007/12/john-kiriakou.html
[Laura Rozen] After Kiriakou became one of the first CIA officials to publicly discuss details of the agency's rough treatment of Zubaida, the Department of Justice, according to McClatchy's Jonathan Landay, this week opened a criminal investigation into whether Kiriakou had disclosed classified information (the case was referred to the department by the CIA). It could be that the feds are attempting to stifle further disclosures by Kiriakou, who has retained prominent whistleblower attorney Mark Zaid. While Zaid plays down the investigation, calling it "perfectly expected and routine," it's quite likely that Kiriakou would have had more to say, in part as a result of where he served in the agency. Not only in Pakistan, but back at Langley, Kiriakou was in a position to know about important debates inside the CIA, regarding interrogation techniques and other high-level matters. . . [read on]

More evidence of the Bush gang’s direct links to the New Hampshire phone jamming scandal

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13997.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/20/rnc-phone-jamming-doj/

I hate to say it, but how long will it be before the Democrats cave and let the Bush nominees, including von Spakovsky, sit on the FEC?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122102299.html

The press clearly doesn’t know how to cover this story: MoveOn.org raises money to buy phone cards for US troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. But how can an “antiwar group” be supporting the troops? It’s so confusing!

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/22/why-the-nerve-of-some-people/

Cheese it! They’re on to us. . .

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/permanent-revolution-by-digby-i-have.html
[Digby] [H]ere's a little something I found over at the Leadership Institute website, where they train all those fresh faced conservatives we see cheering Ann Coulter at the CPAC convention every year. . .

What Socialists Really Think About Economics

* Profit Comes From Evil Greed

* Socialists must get all your property

* Tax all income at 100%

* Support big government. No new tax cuts.

* Only government creates wealth

* Bureaucrats spend your money better than you do

* To elect more socialists, destroy the economy

* Government jobs good; private employers bad

* "Something for nothing" fools almost everyone

* Why work when you can loot those who do?

* Socialism has never been tried


What Socialists Really Think About Your Family And Our American Culture

* Traditional morality is always bad

* Do what feels good now. Make taxpayers pay the bill

* Break all family ties

* Make God illegal

* Masculine is bad; feminine is also bad

* Kill it. Why give your baby to a moral couple?


What Socialists Really Think About Liberty

* Solve all problems. Give the Left all power.

* Stamp out liberty. It's unfair.

* Everything not compulsory must be prohibited

* Re-write history or stop teaching it

* Keep campuses conservative-free zones

* In the media, any conservatives are too many

* No free speech for conservatives

* Only groups have rights

* Give up your guns. We want you defenseless.

* Pay the union boss or we'll crack your skull

* Save the environment. Kill off all the people.

* Destroy all non-government education

* Teachers unions -- more important than teaching kids

* When judges give us what we want, forget the laws and the Constitution


What Socialists Really Think About The Future Of America In The World

* America causes all world problems

* Eliminate patriotism

* Bring on world government

* Next time, Marxist-Leninists will get it right

The silly season. Remember how George “41” Bush trumpeted his taste for pork rinds as a sign of his touch for the common man (http://www.usatrivia.com/biobush.html)? Such nonsense is still with us – and it’s a helluva way to pick a President

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_12_16_archive.html#8297148829236733942
[Joel Achenbach] I heard the other day that Mitt Romney is so careful with his weight that he will pick the cheese off his pizza. Then I heard from another source that he eats pizza with a knife and fork. . . .

I just can't imagine the American people electing as president someone who does that to pizza. . . . You want, as a voter, to be able to say, "He looks like he knows his way around a pizza." . . [read on]

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/jon-benet-whiz-wit-by-digby-atrios.html
[Margaret] Carlson goes on, at considerable length, about how Bush “bond[ed] with the goof-off in all of us” on that plane. Persistently, she portrays the press corps—and herself—as if they were feckless teen-agers. On the plane, “[Bush’s] inner child hovers near the surface,” she writes. . . .

Carlson spends little time on Bush’s policies, though it’s clear who she thinks they favor. For example, she briefly mentions Bush’s legislative approach after the 2002 elections. “After his big win in the midterm elections in 2002,” she writes, “Bush lurched further in the direction of protecting those who have against those who don’t.” But she spends much more time discussing the way Bush provided better food on his plane. Mmmm! “There were Dove bars and designer water on demand,” she recalls. . . [read on]

Those little lies, if you don’t fess up to them, metastasize into something worse and worse

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13995.html
[Boston Globe] Mitt Romney acknowledged yesterday that he never saw his father march with Martin Luther King Jr. as he asserted in a nationally televised speech this month, and historical evidence shows that Michigan’s Governor George Romney and the civil rights leader never did march together. . .

[Steve Benen] Oh my. Consider this nine-word sentence: “I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.” As of now, Romney wants to parse the words, “saw,” “march,” and “with.” . . .

Yes, worse and worse: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/12/it-gets-better.html
[Boston Globe] Mitt Romney went a step further in a 1978 interview with the Boston Herald. Talking about the Mormon Church and racial discrimination, he said: "My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit."

Yesterday, Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom acknowledged that was not true. "Mitt Romney did not march with Martin Luther King," he said in an e-mail statement to the Globe.

Watch him twist and squirm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up60e-ygalU

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/21/romneys-mlk-problem-just-got-worse/
[Romney] “You know, I’m an English literature major . . . . [I]t’s a figure of speech.” . . .

More lies: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/us/politics/21cnd-romney.html

Lucky guy. New evidence emerges that perhaps his dad did appear with MLK on one occasion. They will trumpet this disclosure as a vindication of the whole rest of the story, even though it’s not

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061826.php

Romney and Huckabee, in some kind of ghoulish contest of pandering to the basest instincts of Americans

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/05/romney-double-guantanamo.html
[May 15] When asked about interrogation methods for terrorist suspects, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said the goal should be to prevent future attacks and suggested doubling the capacity of the terrorist detention center in Guantanamo Bay.

"I don't want them on our soil," Romney said. "I want them on Guantanamo, where they don't get the access to lawyers that they get when they're on our soil. I don't want them in our prisons. I want them there. Some people have said we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is we ought to double Guantanamo." . . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14005.html
[CBS] Asked about Guantanamo, Mike Huckabee said he had visited the facility and said it was “disappointing” that military personnel were eating meals that averaged $1.60 while the detainees were eating Halal meals that cost over $4 each.

“The inmates there were getting a whole lot better treatment than my prisoners in Arkansas. In fact, we left saying, ‘I hope our guys don’t see this. They’ll all want to be transferred to Guantanamo. If anything, it’s too nice.” . . . [read on]

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/21/161333/34

You know what this means . . .

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/poll_mike_huckabee_takes_national_lead_and_rudy_drops_to_second_for_first_time.php
For the first time, a reputable poll has found that Rudy is behind, and Mike Huckabee has edged into a slight lead, in the national GOP primary. . . .

. . . . ATTACK!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071221/ap_on_el_pr/rice_huckabee_5
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stuck a toe in the presidential race Friday, taking strong issue after Republican Mike Huckabee accused the administration of having an "arrogant bunker mentality" on foreign policy.

"The idea that somehow this is a go-it-alone policy is just simply ludicrous," she said, briefly weighing in on politics during a State Department news conference in Washington. . . .

In response, Huckabee said he held Rice in high regard but questioned whether she had read the entire Foreign Affairs journal article in which he made the "bunker mentality" remark that has drawn fire from fellow Republican candidates. . .

More attacks: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13999.html

Yes, they’re worried. Rush Limbaugh, bellwether of the conservative id, devotes multiple segments of his show to attacking Huckabee. I don’t usually waste space here quoting this clown – but just as an exercise, see how often he contradicts himself, does what he accuses others of doing, and hides behind the laughable excuse that he’s “just asking questions”

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_122107/content/01125107.guest.html
More I see what Huckster's -- Huckabee's (laughs) record was in Arkansas, there's a lot of liberalism in there. There certainly isn't a lot of Reaganism in there, and I think that the Huckabee campaign is trying to dumb down conservatism to comport with his record, and now they focus on me, challenging me on a personal level here like the libs do . . .

As you know, as a general and practical rule I do not endorse primary candidates, but I do take a careful look at the candidates and comment on what I think their strengths and weaknesses are . . .

So when I raise questions about public reports regarding a candidate's record or position, I'm comparing the record and position with our founding and conservative principles and my own beliefs. It is not personal. When I talk about Huckabee's illegal alien position, tax increases, the release of hundreds of criminals, the rhetoric about our war effort, it isn't personal. . .

When I raise questions about, say, about Governor Huckabee's positions on illegal aliens, tax increases, the release of hundreds of criminals via pardon and his rhetoric about our war effort, sorry, I'm trying to develop an understanding of the guy so I can determine for myself whether he is in fact the kind of conservative you and me want as our president. I've not "attacked" him. I have studiously avoided it. But I've raised questions -- and, of course, in this climate, questions will be considered an attack, but I'm going to keep asking the questions if I believe it's warranted to do so. . . .

I think Huckabee is having serious difficulty distinguishing between conservatism and liberalism. . .

I mean, individuals who have fought immigration for years are not happy with his open borders positions as governor. They're just not. Anti-tax groups are unhappy with his tax increases when he was governor. Conservatives who helped defeat the Soviet Union under Ronaldus Magnus are troubled by his statements about our war effort and his desire to negotiate with Iran, for instance -- and it raised eyebrows among longtime school-choice advocates when the New Hampshire NEA endorsed Huckabee. They endorsed Hillary on the Democrat side; Huckabee on the right. . . . So it seems to me that it is Huckabee's record that is well suited for the axis of liberalism that he decries. . . .

I do not take a backseat to Huckabee or anybody else on these issues, and to suggest otherwise is to attack the character of anybody who dares to question your political and policy positions, and that's what the libs do, because the libs can't debate the issues. The libs don't want to debate the issues because they can't win. I'm getting the sense that Mike Huckabee doesn't want to debate the issues . . .

CALLER: Well, yeah, I'm with you. One other thing I just wanted to say, and that is, in terms of all the candidates, I'm not personally a Huckabee supporter, but I can't see that Huckabee is, just looking at his record, is less conservative than, say, Mitt Romney or, say, Rudy Giuliani or McCain. So in a way, Huckabee --

RUSH: You know, when you're talking about Rudy and Romney, you can basically cite two things. In Rudy's case, same-sex marriage and abortion.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: You can cite four or five things about Huckabee --

CALLER: Right. Right.

RUSH: -- and Romney, you can say the same thing. You can cite a couple flip-flops on Romney, but there's more than two deviations in the Huckabee governing record. I'm just asking questions. I am just asking questions, and I ask questions to make myself think and hopefully you, too. . . .

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_122107/content/01125113.guest.html
CALLER: Hey, it's an honor to talk to you. I've been listening to you for, well, since I came back to the States. . . . Hey, my comment is about this, Rush. I'm a preacher. I travel all over the States -- and conservative, and up until Huckabee really came in the front, what I was hearing from 90% of the people were that we don't have any conservative that really is a true conservative. On the issues obviously were abortion, gun rights, and the homosexual agenda, and then Hucklebee (sic) really jumped up, and the whole mood as changed, almost like it's been revitalized. They see a light at the end of the tunnel. The comment I have to make . . . I feel like you shouldn't be so condemning to Hucklebee when it is against something about you being an entertainer, which we know you're not. But, uh, I think -- I think -- You're merchandising on that to build your reputation, not that it needs to be built, but it has to be maintained, and I think it will be more suitable, I think, for the Republicans and conservatives if we could just kind of support our guy. I think it does more damage to the Republicans getting the nomination. I think the Democrats like you slamming Hucklebee because I think Hucklebee is the most winnable candidate that the Republicans have.

RUSH: Well, all right. I learned. I'm not going to try to talk you out of it. I'm not going to argue with you about it, because you're committed. It's your life, it's your decision-making process, and your vote, and it's yours. I'm not here to argue with you about it. All I'm doing is raising questions about what I think are not even anywhere near conservative aspects of Governor Huckabee's experience, and his governance in Arkansas. As to the fact that I am taking on Governor Huckabee here for my own marketing or ego? No. I guess what you mean is that I am doing this today to somehow show people that I have power. I want you to believe me; I've said this countless times. I may have power, but I'm harmless with it because I don't walk in here every day thinking about that. I really don't. . .

I sadly, and unfortunately, must make this point reacting to our last caller. What we have going on here is identity politics, I think, in a large swath of support for Governor Huckabee. Identity politics is what the left does. . . . The identity of Huckabee is: "Christian, Southern Baptist minister," and that identity is covering and is being translated by supporters as meaning whatever they want it to mean, as opposed to actually looking at how he's governed. Like the pastor who just called and said Huckabee is a light at the end of the tunnel. Pastor, the light at the end of the tunnel is the oncoming train, and you can't get off the track! That's the light at the end of the tunnel. . .

Of course, one of the things that makes me convinced I'm right about this is that Governor Huckabee is doing what he can to avoid discussing his record and his policy beliefs and is in fact relying on his identity to keep people on his side, in his camp, and perhaps even grow it. In one way, you'd have to say it's pretty smart because on the other side his opponents, you've got admitted conservative flaws -- admitted conservative flaws which do trouble the Christian right, which is a large part of the Republican base. Either support for abortion or gay marriage, things that would be disruptive to the culture, and many people are very, very concerned about the culture. . . .

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_122107/content/01125111.guest.html
This is not a whine, and it's not a complaint. It is a fact. The DC-Wall Street media axis of the Drive-Bys is doing everything it can to influence the Republican selection process . . . Mike Huckabee is getting a pass from the Drive-Bys. They are excited that he might get the nomination. They don't want Rudy because Rudy might be able to beat Hillary. They don't want Romney because of the same thing. They don't want Fred Thompson for the same thing. They are doing everything they can not to focus on the things that you're talking about, and instead they're taking aim at the two or three things that each candidate deviates somewhat from conservatism. There is story after story after story: "Will Republican base voters support somebody who lived with a gay couple in the middle of a divorce, Rudy Giuliani? Yeah!" This is how they're trying to influence people. . . .

It's the same thing with Rudy's position on abortion. They're trying to divide the Republican base. That's why when Huckabee comes along, and they don't have to divide the Republican base because they think if they nominate Huckabee -- if they succeed in getting him nominated -- in one fell swoop of a presidential campaign they could take Huckabee out, and at the same time take out the Christian right once and for all. That's what they want to do. They're salivating over this. So when you call here and you go through the resume of Giuliani, if you wanted to try it with Romney, there's no question. Real-life experience is what it is, as you described with Rudy in New York and cleaning it up. But that's not what they focus on, not the Drive-Bys. The Drive-Bys are focusing on the deficiencies and the deviations from a so-called conservative norm. So these guys, they have a double dose order. They've got to overcome these attacks, and they know it, going in . . .

Bonus item: Poor Rush – he thinks the rest of us are as stupid as his listeners . . .

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_122107/content/01125107.guest.html
[Dec 21] I became a megastar, folks, long before the Clintons got into the White House. I really am uncomfortable with this. I was hoping that it wasn't going to come to this kind of thing. . . . I've never called Huckabee "a huckster."

[NB: Look at the opening line, above – from the same show!]

Four days earlier: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121707/content/01125113.guest.html.guest.html
[Dec 17] The Huckster Sounds Like Perot . . .

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

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

 
INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW

Here's what I want to know about the CIA torture tapes. If Miers, Gonzales, or other WH lawyers were really trying to get the CIA not to destroy them, why didn’t anyone say, "The President orders you not to do it." Weren't they serious about putting a stop to it? Couldn’t they get Bush’s attention about such a serious matter?

If they did, what does this do to Bush's credibility? He claims to have no recollection of the matter, but giving an order to the CIA not to destroy tapes documenting US torture isn’t the sort of thing that would slip your mind.

And if Bush or his lawyers WERE telling the CIA not to do it, what does it say that they went ahead and did it anyway?

(Here is my wish list scenario – that Bush's people were telling them not to, but Cheney and his people went around them to tell the CIA to go ahead and do it anyway. Or – what is perhaps more likely: Bush's people were telling them not to, for appearance's sake (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) while Bush used Cheney and Addington as a backdoor to give them tacit permission to do so, while he could maintain deniability.)

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061634.php
[AP] One official familiar with the investigation said the review so far indicates that Alberto Gonzales, who served as White House counsel and then attorney general, advised against destroying the videotapes as one of four senior Bush administration attorneys discussing how to handle them. . . .

[David Kurtz] No mention of Cheney's David Addington.

Huh? http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004954.php
[WP] [CIA Director Michael] Hayden's message to lawmakers last week was that the White House officials neither advocated destroying the tapes nor counseled against their destruction.

The Justice Dept, which tried to get everybody else to butt out of the CIA torture tape investigation, now says, “Who, us? We never tried to block any evidence or testimony.” (Uh-huh)

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004953.php

Will the House give Jose Rodriguez immunity to testify?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061633.php

[NB: Hope it turns out better than this one did: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9833666

http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2007/05/monica_goodling_testifies_before_house_judiciary.html]

Bush plays dumb (no, it’s not hard for him to do)

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061561.php
[David Kurtz] The President just finished up his pre-Christmas press conference. He skated with one exchange on the CIA torture tapes, reiterating that his own knowledge of the tapes and their destruction didn't come until he was briefed shortly before the story went public. But then Bush shifted the focus, declaring that he wouldn't make any judgment about the case until all the facts came out, trying somehow to position himself as a neutral arbiter, rather than a crucial fact witness, key player, and the official with ultimate responsibility for what happened. President Bush, just as curious as the rest of us to learn what happened. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/12/20/BL2007122001419.html
[Dan Froomkin] President Bush staved off questions about White House complicity in the destruction of CIA interrogation videotapes, refusing even to flatly deny that he was personally involved.

Bush also declined to say whether he thought the destruction of the tapes was right or wrong. . . .

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/20/151815/18

In Alice’s Wonderland, misleading leaks coming from “senior Administration officials” don’t mean anything, because SHE didn’t say them

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/20/why-is-dana-so-touchy/

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/20/dana-pig-missile-perino-doesnt-want-to-be-the-next-scott-mcclellan/

Looks as if Bush is about to basically assert line item veto power for himself – but first you have to create the narrative that the Dems are seriously abusing earmarks, when in fact they’ve REDUCED the number from when the Republicans were in charge (and when Bush happily implemented them). The media, of course, plays along. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/20/AR2007122002191.html
The White House threatened yesterday to cancel thousands of pet projects that Congress inserted into a massive spending bill before leaving town this week, a move that could provoke a fierce battle with lawmakers in both parties who jealously guard their ability to steer money to favored purposes.

At an end-of-the-year news conference, President Bush chastised Democratic leaders for failing to live up to their campaign promise to curb so-called earmarks and said he has ordered his budget director "to review options for dealing with the wasteful spending in the omnibus bill." Aides later said those options would include simply disregarding earmarks not included in binding legislative language.

The warning came during an expansive 48-minute session that Bush used to frame the results of 2007 as a victory for his priorities, highlighting areas where he forced Democrats to retreat while brushing past defeats for his own initiatives. . . .

"There's always been an opportunity for the president to issue an executive order essentially canceling most of the earmarks," said Brian M. Riedl, a Heritage Foundation scholar who issued a memo outlining ways to do so. "Generally, it's been perceived as a declaration of nuclear war for the president not to spend congressional earmarks. But with more than 11,000 of them, it seems like the president might consider it time." . . .

More: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/12/this_day_in_bus.php

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/21/bushs-budgets-no-room-at-the-inn/

Hans Von Spakovsky out, GOP holds FEC hostage

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004958.php

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13993.html

No more recess appointments for YOU

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004959.php

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13984.html

As usual, it’s the administration officials who blurt out the truth who get in legal trouble

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061637.php

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/20/AR2007122000675.html

So, this is what “success” looks like

http://www.juancole.com/2007/12/turkish-ambassador-us-was-helpful-600.html
Turkish Ambassador: US was Helpful; 600 attacks a week in Iraq; Surge Exiled One Million Iraqis to Syria where they Face Starvation . . .

“How to Rig An Election” – should be hitting the airwaves like an explosion

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004957.php
Raymond's telemarketing consulting firm engineered the 2002 New Hampshire phone jamming, where Republicans jammed Democratic get-out-the-vote phone banks. . . . The jamming, Raymond says, was a unique stunt. Much more common were false information campaigns via robocalls, push polling, and then sneakier stunts like the one described in the passage below. . . . [read on]

More: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004960.php

Guess who blocked the investigation into the New Hampshire phone-jamming?

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/20/dick-cheneys-lawyer-spikes-the-phone-jamming-case/

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/20/dick-and-ed-and-the-nh-phone-jamming/

More: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/23444.html

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13986.html

http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=1018

Fox News, like Rush Limbaugh, lines up at every opportunity to pooh-pooh global warming and to oppose conservation efforts. Even if it means recycling discredited urban legends (thanks to Elaine N. for the links)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268747,00.html
How much money does it take to screw in a compact fluorescent lightbulb? About $4.28 for the bulb and labor — unless you break the bulb. Then you, like Brandy Bridges of Ellsworth, Maine, could be looking at a cost of about $2,004.28, which doesn’t include the costs of frayed nerves and risks to health. . . .

According to an April 12 article in The Ellsworth American, Bridges had the misfortune of breaking a CFL during installation in her daughter’s bedroom: It dropped and shattered on the carpeted floor.

Aware that CFLs contain potentially hazardous substances, Bridges called her local Home Depot for advice. The store told her that the CFL contained mercury and that she should call the Poison Control hotline, which in turn directed her to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.

The DEP sent a specialist to Bridges’ house to test for mercury contamination. The specialist found mercury levels in the bedroom in excess of six times the state’s “safe” level for mercury contamination of 300 billionths of a gram per cubic meter. . . .

The facts: http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp

Harry Reid goes after the true threat to the Democratic party – its own left wing

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/21/dodd_reid/index.html
[Glenn Greenwald] In the Beltway world, anyone who aggressively objects to the Bush administration's extremism, and especially its lawbreaking, is always guilty of (at least) one of two sins: they are either fringe, unSerious, overly earnest losers, or -- as in the case with the accusations against Dodd here -- simply pretending to be bothered by such things in order to rouse the rabble and exploit them for cynical political gain. Anyone who disrupts Beltway harmony in order to hold the Bush administration accountable -- anyone who seems actually bothered by the rampant lawbreaking -- is thus easily dismissed as an annoying radical or a self-promoting fraud. . . . [read on]

Al Gore said “I helped create the Internet,” which was basically true – and was ridiculed and attacked throughout the 2000 campaign as a liar. Let’s watch how Mitt Romney’s Big Fat Lie gets treated. . . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/20/12143/353
“I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.” . . . [read on]

Well, it depends on the meaning of “saw” http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061649.php

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/romney_on_mlk_recollections_look_up_saw_in_the_dictionary.php

You can tell that the Conservative Establishment is out to get Huckabee – they sic their number one attack dog on him

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/20/will-novak-join-stop-huckabee-at-all-costs-parade/

Bonus item: Here they are – the Golden Duke nominees! Take a few minutes to click through and remember some truly amazing moments of shameless lying, unbelievable forgetfulness, jaw-dropping chutzpah, and general bamboozlement

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dukesnominees.php

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

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:51 AM

 
PANICKED

Don’t think the WH is worried about the CIA torture tape case? They’re struggling mightily to get the NYT to back off a story sub-headline that asserted "White House Role Was Wider Than It Said." Their excuse? “We haven’t said anything (publicly) about our involvement yet, so how can it be ‘wider’?”

But they didn’t challenge any of the facts of the story – that FOUR major WH lawyers were in contact with the CIA, some telling them (maybe) not to destroy the tapes, others encouraging them (maybe) to do just that

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061436.php

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004946.php

Poor Alice: http://www.first-draft.com/2007/12/today-on-hold-4.html

The key points of the story: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004939.php
[Paul Kiel] Really, can you have a botched cover-up without Alberto Gonzales involved? And how can there be a torture scandal without David Addington's great big mug? . . [read on]

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004945.php
[CNN, 12/8/07] "Later Friday, two senior administration officials told CNN that then-deputy White House counsel Harriet Miers was aware of the tapes and told the CIA not to destroy them." . .

“Panicked”

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/19/sub-heading-white-house-panics/
[Emptywheel] They appear to be making a fairly narrow objection. Since they have not publicly, officially, responded to the news that someone destroyed the terror tapes, they can't be described to have "said" anything. Never mind that someone has been shopping the cover story that only Harriet Miers was involved in the deliberations on the tapes. . . .

Given that the point of the sub-headline was that the story had been floated, by someone, that Harriet was the only one involved in the terror tape deliberations, I think the more appropriate response would have been to demand that the source for those original allegations either publicly retract them, or consider his source confidentiality sacrificed. Because, as it is, the NYT's change of headlines coddles the people who have been pitching the cover story about Harriet.

But I'm also interested in the White House's ham-handed response to this. The last time they handled a public allegation this badly was, oh, around July 8, 2003, when on Dick Cheney's apparent order, Scooter Libby outed a CIA spy to (the NYT again!) Judy Miller. Thus far, they haven't tried to out any of the parties involved--at least as far as we know. But as with Joe Wilson's allegations, they are responding in such a panicked mode that the most logical conclusion is that they are, truly, panicked by the possibility that they will have to answer for the destruction of the torture tapes. . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13975.html
[Steve Benen] Perino, meanwhile, seems to be responding to a question that wasn’t asked. Her official White House statement effectively says, “In all of our on-the-record comments, we’ve stonewalled, and therefore didn’t lie.”

All that trouble for THIS?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/pageoneplus/corrections.html
[NYT] The subheading with a front-page headline on Wednesday for an article about discussions between four top White House lawyers and the Central Intelligence Agency over whether to destroy videotapes showing secret interrogations of members of Al Qaeda referred imprecisely to the White House’s position thus far on the matter. . .

Other shoes to drop . . .

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/19/fire-at-the-eeob-as-wh-panics-and-tries-to-douse-cia-tape-destruction-heat/

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/12/willful-blindness.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/12/19/BL2007121901355.html

http://www.atlargely.com/2007/12/white-house-mor.html

House prepares subpoenas for torture tape investigation

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004948.php

CIA to cooperate? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/washington/20intel.html

One of those times when NOT answering the question tells you almost as much as an answer would (maybe more)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/washington/19cnd-justice.html
President Bush’s nominee to be the second-ranking official at the Justice Department refused to say on Wednesday whether he considered the interrogation technique known as waterboarding to be “torture,” from a legal standpoint. . . .

More: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004947.php

Make up your own punchline: fire billowing out from Dick Cheney’s suite of offices in the EOB

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061454.php

What is the biggest single thing the US could do to promote political reconciliation in Iraq? Can you guess?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13973.html

The Bush gang abruptly drops its plan to try to control military lawyers out of the WH – I wish I could have heard the feedback they got from military people over that bright idea

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004950.php

More: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/19/military_lawyers_stay_unbridled/

Due process at Guantanamo: two updates

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/18/213749/23

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/19/93827/056

This story is really awful: a KBR employee is drugged and gang-raped. The Depts of State, Defense, and Justice all punt their responsibilities for oversight of military contractors, deferring the handling of the case. . . to KBR! A rape kit is administered, the results are turned over to KBR security personnel, then “lost.” And no one has been tried or punished in over two years. Even the Republicans on the committee were furious. And there are many more cases like this. . .

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/19/kbr-gang-rape-survivor-says-11-more-women-like-her/
“Once I returned home, I sought medical attention, both psychiatric and physical. I was originally sent to a psychiatrist of KBR's choosing. The first question asked was, "are you going to sue Halliburton." My mother and I walked out.”

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4027734&page=1
The Department of Justice refused to send a representative to answer questions . . .

On a normal day, this would be a lead item

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/23444.html
The Justice Department delayed prosecuting a key Republican official for jamming the phones of New Hampshire Democrats until after the 2004 election, protecting top GOP officials from the scandal until the voting was over.

An official with detailed knowledge of the investigation into the 2002 Election-Day scheme said the inquiry sputtered for months after a prosecutor sought approval to indict James Tobin, the northeast regional coordinator for the Republican National Committee. . . .

Bush’s “Environmental Protection Agency” BLOCKS a California emissions law

http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/bush-administration-blocks-california.html

Why does the Washington Post run TWO editorials calling for the confirmation of Hans von Spakovsky, vote-suppression guru, and NONE from the other point of view?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061477.php

It’s not working: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004949.php

SCHIP fails

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/12/19/schip/index.html

Ya think?

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/19/pelosi-says-she-miscalculated-gop-determination-on-iraq/
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., admitted Thursday that she had underestimated the willingness of Republicans to stand behind President Bush’s Iraq policy despite the drubbing the GOP took in the polls in 2006. . .

The GOP officially becomes the most obstructionist party EVER. But somehow it’s still all the Democrats’ fault

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/hardwired-by-digby-campaign-for.html
[Digby] See how that works? The Republicans can call for the smelling salts over and over again, tremulously appearing before the cameras to protest the horror of some liberal group using "political hate speech" or failing to acknowledge that "elections have consequences" and the press immediately jumps on the bandwagon decrying the terrible degradation of our political discourse. Democrats do the same thing and they are accused of whining.

So, something like this record number of filibusters is seen as a sign that the prevailing Village wisdom still applies: Republicans are still stronger, better and more successful. They are getting the job done, which, by strict partisan measures, they are. The press respects Republicans when they do this. . . [read on]

A handy chart: http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=12&year=2007&base_name=your_world_in_charts_republica

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13977.html

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13978.html

How the press spins “failure”

http://www.slate.com/id/2180446/
[Daniel Politi] It can't be denied that the Democrats in Congress ended the year with several accomplishments under their belt, including an increase in the minimum wage, new ethics rules, and the energy bill that Bush signed yesterday. In total, they got Bush's signature on four of their six major issues. . . .

Two good moves from Harry Reid

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004944.php
[The Hill] Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday he would seek to extend a controversial interim wiretapping law through February to avoid the early presidential primary season.

Reid said Senate Democrats might have a better chance of resolving internal disputes and moving a rewrite of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) once the early primaries have concluded. . . .

http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/this-just-in-reid-to-again-block.html
Reid to again block controversial Bush holiday recess appointments . . .

The latest excuse for telecom immunity: the companies could be bankrupted if sued (uh, doesn’t this excuse concede that they’re GUILTY?)

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/19/ap-if-telecom-immunity-doesnt-pass-att-could-be-bankrupted/

John Edwards: still struggling to be taken seriously by the press as a national candidate

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/edwards_launches_new_attack_on_press.php

Rudy goes into the hospital – and you can see why

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/12/20/giuliani/index.html
A bad day for Rudy Giuliani . . .

http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/rudy-is-fading-fast-republicans-voters.html
Rudy is fading fast. . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13982.html
Reality catches up with Giuliani . .

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/12/19/giuliani/index.html
Rudy's past coming back with a vengeance . .

Why did Lieberman endorse McCain? Because no Democrat would have him

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/19/lieberman/index.html

TPM sponsors the first annual Golden Dukes: nominations and awards in six areas for the biggest scandals and bamboozlement. Travel back down memory lane with us. . . .

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061480.php

Bonus item: A nice testimonial from Mark Kleiman – thanks Mark!

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/blogging_/2007/12/progressive_blog_digest_a_daily_mustread.php
Progressive Blog Digest: a daily "must-read" . . .

***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 @ 8:04 AM

 
A TALE OF THE TAPE

Whoo boy – still think that Bush and Cheney (especially) didn’t know anything about this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/washington/19intel.html
At least four top White House lawyers took part in discussions with the Central Intelligence Agency between 2003 and 2005 about whether to destroy videotapes showing the secret interrogations of two operatives from Al Qaeda, according to current and former administration and intelligence officials.

The accounts indicate that the involvement of White House officials in the discussions before the destruction of the tapes in November 2005 was more extensive than Bush administration officials have acknowledged.

Those who took part, the officials said, included Alberto R. Gonzales, who served as White House counsel until early 2005; David S. Addington, who was the counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney and is now his chief of staff; John B. Bellinger III, who until January 2005 was the senior lawyer at the National Security Council; and Harriet E. Miers, who succeeded Mr. Gonzales as White House counsel.

It was previously reported that some administration officials had advised against destroying the tapes, but the emerging picture of White House involvement is more complex. In interviews, several administration and intelligence officials provided conflicting accounts as to whether anyone at the White House expressed support for the idea that the tapes should be destroyed.

One former senior intelligence official with direct knowledge of the matter said there had been “vigorous sentiment” among some top White House officials to destroy the tapes. The former official did not specify which White House officials took this position, but he said that some believed in 2005 that any disclosure of the tapes could have been particularly damaging after revelations a year earlier of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Some other officials assert that no one at the White House advocated destroying the tapes. Those officials acknowledged, however, that no White House lawyer gave a direct order to preserve the tapes or advised that destroying them would be illegal. . .

[NB: Does anybody believe that this White House, especially on the Cheney side, was pressing hard for the PRESERVATION of the incriminating tapes? In fact, I won’t be surprised if we don’t discover a major tug of war between lawyers in the Bush camp and in the Cheney camp over this one, with Cheney getting his way.]

More: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/19/lawyering-the-torture-tapes/

Now it gets interesting . . .

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004934.php
[Paul Kiel] Much to the administration's chagrin, Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. has ordered a hearing on the CIA's destruction of the torture tapes for this Friday at 11 AM. . . . [read on]

I think Alice doesn’t want to talk about the CIA torture tape scandal . . .

http://www.first-draft.com/2007/12/today-on-hold-3.html
Q Dana, is the White House taking any steps to make sure the CIA does not destroy any tapes -- any more tapes while these -- judges look at things, Congress looks at things, the CIA -- is the White House taking any steps to make sure there's no more destruction?

MS. PERINO: I'm going to refer you to the Justice Department, who is working on the preliminary inquiry with the CIA. . . .

MS. PERINO: I think that's a question that is best put to the Justice Department, and the Justice Department will be able to answer for you. . . .

MS. PERINO: I'm going to refer you to the Justice Department.

MS. PERINO: I'm going to refer you to the Justice Department on that. . . .

Watch: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061353.php

The Bush gang has trumpeted the torture of Abu Zubaydah as proof that their harsh methods yielded results. But guess what?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061294.php

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004931.php

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/12/18/BL2007121800862.html

Russ Feingold (D-WI), on the “success” of the surge

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/07/12/20071218iraq.htm
Mr. President, Iraq appears to be no closer to legitimate political reconciliation at the national level than it was before the surge began. Equally worrisome is that, as part of the President’s plan, we appear to be deepening our dependence upon former insurgents and militia-infiltrated security forces with questionable loyalties. Supporting the sheiks in al Anbar and elsewhere may help to reduce violence in the near term, but by supporting both sides of a civil war, we are risking greater violence down the road. Such tactics are likely to undermine the prospects for long-term stability as they could lead to greater political fragmentation and ultimately jeopardize Iraq’s territorial integrity. Again, Mr. President, without legitimate national reconciliation, violence may ebb and flow, but it won’t end and we’ll be no closer to a settlement no matter how long we keep a significant military presence in Iraq. That’s not the fault of our heroic men and women in uniform – it’s the fault of the administration’s disastrous policies.

There’s another dirty secret behind the temporary drop in violence, and it relates to the segregation of Baghdad, and the neighborhoods on its outskirts. With so many Iraqis fleeing their homes in search of greater safety and security, large scale displacement has resulted in very different demographics. Previously mixed neighborhoods have ceased to exist, thereby curtailing one of the chief sources of sectarian violence. This ethnic cleansing is hardly evidence of a successful surge. And it sure isn’t a hopeful sign for future peace and stability in Iraq.

When it announced the surge, the administration said its goal was to keep a lid on violence to give time and space for reconciliation in Iraq. Now that we are no closer to reconciliation, the administration is trying, once again, to move the goal posts. We don’t hear as much about reconciliation now, and when we do, it sounds very different from the national reconciliation that was supposedly our goal – instead we hear about “bottom-up” reconciliation, whatever that means. All the administration can do is stall for time, just as it did in 2004, just as it did in 2005, just as it did in 2006. The slogan may be different – “Mission Accomplished,” “Stay the Course,” “The New Way Forward” and even “Return on Success” – but each time we are told we are on the right road, if we just keep walking a little longer. Until, that is, we reach another dead end, and a new slogan is invented to justify heading in a new, but equally futile, direction. . . [read on]

Poor Condi, can’t get no respect

http://www.juancole.com/2007/12/was-rices-trip-to-iraqi-kurdistan.html

Breaking the Army

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/military_meritocracy_/2007/12/if_you_breathe_you_make_lieutenant_colonel.php

A damning indictment

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071218/ts_nm/disaster_preparedness_usa_dc;_ylt=AhELmWazOG01GpsydjDtPoms0NUE
[Reuters] The United States remains unprepared for disasters ranging from biological attacks to a flu pandemic, and funding for preparedness is falling, according to a report released on Tuesday. . .

Harry Reid denies that Chris Dodd’s filibuster threat had anything to do with his decision to pull the FISA bill. Here’s why that’s not true

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/18/why-did-reid-pull-the-bill/

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/18/why-did-reid-pull-the-telecom-bill/

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_12_16_archive.html#4805319924371464971

What next?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/18/victory/index.html
[Glenn Greenwald] It is absolutely true that yesterday's victory in forcing Harry Reid to pull the FISA bill from the Senate floor is temporary. Allies of the administration and lawbreaking telecoms will spend the next several weeks plotting to overcome the obstacles thrown in their path yesterday and, like a weed that has been cut but not uprooted, will return in January to try again. . . . [read on]

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/18/harry-reid-may-punt-extend-telecom-bill-through-february/
[Jane Hamsher] Reid is considering extending the Protect America Act for one month past its sunset on February 1 . . . The delay is good news for us, however, as it allows us more time to organize and get the word out. Working with Glenn Greenwald and others, we'll be sending out action alerts to let you know what you can do to fight the battle against retroactive immunity. . . .

Why a delay might make a difference (thanks to Matthew D. for the link)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/18/112028/22/307/423776
The delay in consideration of the FISA/telecom amnesty bill gains critical time for more Senators to examine the supposed legal justifications for telecom amnesty, and thereby come to the same conclusion that Sen. Ron Wyden did:

"I have read the documents and senators who haven't read them would be shocked to see how flimsy the case is on which the administration bases its case for immunity" . . . [read on]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/18/123529/84
[Smintheus] The apologists for retroactive immunity for the telecoms are in retreat, even if Sen. Reid has done no more for now than postpone discussion of the FISA bills until the new year. If we keep pressure up during the holiday, there’s a real chance of blocking that provision from becoming law.

The most important factor in yesterday’s victory was simply that telecom immunity has almost no constituency. And retroactive immunity for anybody, as a general ‘principle’, has an even smaller constituency . . . [read on]

More: http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/specialguests/2007/dec/18/temporary_success_in_the_senate

We’re about to find out whether Attorney General Michael Mukasey really is the man of integrity he was portrayed to be

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004935.php
House oversight committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) wrote Attorney General Michael Mukasey today to reiterate his request two weeks ago. The White House has arbitrarily blocked former Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald from turning over records of his interviews during the Valerie Plame leak investigation of White House officials, including the President, Waxman wrote then, but it's your call, Mikey, not theirs, on whether to fork it over. Apparently Waxman got no response.

Waxman adds helpfully in his letter today (which you can read below) that since Scooter Libby has dropped his appeal, "there remains no further pending litigation associated with the Fitzgerald investigation."

He concludes: "I urge you to cooperate with Congress’ investigation into these unanswered questions." . . .

More: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/18/henry-gets-impatient-2/

HUD Sect’y Alphonso Jackson has somehow kept a couple steps ahead of the law. That may be coming to an end

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004938.php

http://www.first-draft.com/2007/12/investigating-a.html

Well, the GOPers will have a jolly holiday – once again, they snooker the Dems into passing $70 billion more for the war (with no timetable or conditions) AND another $50 billion deficit-increasing tax cut, all without paying for them

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/washington/19spend.html

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/18/22533/878

How did a Congressman get to rewrite the text of a bill, adding a $10 million earmark AFTER it had been voted on?

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004937.php

How the Republicans steal elections: an insider’s expose

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061356.php

Huckabee spokesman has to explain his boss’s linking of homosexuality with necrophilia. (And he doesn’t do very well)

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061362.php

http://tinyurl.com/2ylv6g

More: http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/18/huckabaggage/

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13963.html

Mitt Romney, caught in a big lie

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_12_16_archive.html#1131388339070659386

http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/photo-proves-romney-lied-about.html

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/18/135024/45

Rudy Giuliani, quitter

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13964.html
[Steve Benen] It seems like quite a while ago, but earlier this year, Rudy Giuliani actually intended to be a force in the Iowa caucuses. He campaigned frequently in the state, held a lot of town-hall meetings, and through around June, actually lead in Iowa polls.

Then, of course, Republicans got a good look at the guy, heard what he had to say, learned about Giuliani’s background, and dropped him like a hot potato. His campaign pulled out of the Ames straw poll, and Giuliani’s support in the state has been in free-fall ever since.

Which leads, of course, to New Hampshire, where Giuliani expected to be a serious player. Like Iowa, the former mayor spent quite a bit of time in the Granite State, and in the early fall, was a close second in the polls. Then, a funny thing happened . . .

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

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:03 AM

 
(MOSTLY) ENCOURAGING SIGNS

What one man can do, another can do: Chris Dodd (D-CT), virtually alone, forces Harry Reid to pull the FISA bill for later consideration

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/breaking_reid_pulls_fisa_telecom_immunity_bill_off_senate_floor.php
[Greg Sargent] Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has yanked the Senate FISA renewal bill containing telecom immunity off the floor. That means it won't be debated until next year.

Senator Chris Dodd had planned to filibuster the bill this evening, and it didn't look as if the other Senators running for President -- Hillary, Obama, Biden -- would lend support for the filibuster in person. Now the question's moot -- until January.

Why did Reid pull the bill now? "Sen. Reid refused to jam this bill through the Senate because he believes it’s an important bill that deserves to be debated thoroughly," a Reid aide told us.

But Dodd aides expressed satisfaction, saying that the Connecticut Senator's filibuster threat was what stopped the bill for the time being. They vowed that he'd be back to fight it again in January.

http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/dodds-victory-on-fisa.html
[A.J. Rossmiller] I must say, I'm extremely impressed with Senator Dodd and his staff today. Dodd fought an uphill battle all the way on this, slowly but surely gaining ground, and today he won, and on a hugely important issue. He demonstrated leadership, rather than simply talking about how he might lead in the future, and really did something good for the nation. . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/17/211634/20
[Harry Reid] "The Senate is committed to improving our nation’s intelligence laws to fight terrorism while protecting Americans’ civil liberties. We need to take the time necessary to debate a bill that does just that, rather than rushing one through the legislative process. While we had hoped to complete the FISA bill this week, it is clear that is not possible. With more than a dozen amendments to this complex and controversial bill, this legislation deserves time for thorough discussion on the floor.

"We will consider this bill when we return in January. In the meantime, I again encourage the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to make available to all Senators the relevant documents on retroactive immunity, so that each may reach an informed decision on how to proceed on this provision.”

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/17/17245/429
[McJoan] Early this afternoon, Senators Wyden and Dodd had a lengthy exchange on the floor about the fact that only the Intelligence Committee members, Judiciary Committee leaders, and a few in leadership had the opportunity of seeing the legal justification for it's warrantless surveillance programs. They argued, effectively, that this information should be shared with all Senators before they make this critical vote on telco amnesty.

It turns out Harry Reid had written to DNI McConnell to suggest just that . . .

How Dodd did it: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/17/19296/489

Saying thanks to Senator Dodd: http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/17/breaking-reid-pulling-telecom-bill/

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/can-i-get-big-old-yeeeeaaarrrgh-by.html

http://sideshow.me.uk/sdec07.htm#12180257
[Avedon Carol] Chris Dodd for Majority Leader.

Federal judge tells the Bush gang that Secret Service records of WH visits (by Abramoff and others) are public information

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13953.html
[Steve Benen] For several years now, White House visitor logs have been a major point of contention with the Bush gang.

About a year ago, for example, when Dick Cheney insisted that his visitor logs remain classified, the WaPo sued the administration for access. A federal judge eventually ruled that the logs were public information, prompting Cheney to direct the Justice Department to block the decision on national security grounds.

But that’s just the start of the Bush gang’s log problem. In June, Cheney instructed the Secret Service to destroy copies of visitor logs. A few months prior, the White House told the Secret Service that while it maintains the visitor logs, the logs don’t actually belong to the Secret Service, which means FOIA doesn’t apply.

Today, was the culmination of these arguments, when a federal court ruled that visitor logs are public information. . . . [read on]

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004928.php
[Paul Kiel] Over time, the White House has tried various legal theories to block the release. There was the imposing "mosaic theory," whereby seemingly innocuous information, such as visits to the White House, could prove a national security threat when combined with other seemingly innocuous information. And there was the Vice President's secret agreement with the Secret Service that even though the Secret Service makes and keeps the visitor records, they're not really Secret Service records (even though they'd been treated that way in the past), they're White House records, and thus not subject to FOIA. Oh, and there was the Vice President's order to destroy the records. And on and on.

Today, CREW had a good day in court, with a federal judge deciding that the secret agreement was bunk and that the Secret Service records really were public records. And there was also a partial victory. The judge denied CREW's motion to declare that the Secret Service could not destroy its White House visitor records once it had transferred copies to the White House; but because the judge said the records are public records, the White House now cannot destroy them without the say-so of the National Archives and Records Administration. And when you want to destroy documents, you really don't want any red tape, do you?

But the battle will go on. Anne Weisman, the chief counsel for CREW, told me that they're still working to get their hands on records that would show Abramoff's visits to the White House (so far the Secret Service has turned over records that show only eight or so visits): "We think there's more."

The decision today is the second one to find that the records should be publicly available, but it's likely to be appealed, and given the insuppressible legal ingenuity of this administration, it's highly unlikely that any more records will be produced without a fight . . .

More: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/18/whorm-and-waves/

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-White-House-Secrecy.html

AG Michael Mukasey tells Congress and the courts that they have no business investigating the destruction of CIA torture tapes. I don’t think he convinced them

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004921.php
[Paul Kiel] "It smells like the coverup of the coverup." That's Rep. Jane Harman's (D-CA) take. And Rep. Pete Hoekstra's (R-MI) wasn't any different.

In case you were already out the door late Friday afternoon when the news broke, the Justice Department, along with the CIA's inspector general, informed the House intelligence committee that they'd told the CIA not to cooperate with the committee's investigation into the CIA's torture tapes. . . .

Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) and Hoekstra pronounced themselves "stunned." There's "no basis" for the DoJ to do that, they said. Harman, the former ranking member on the committee, said the same yesterday.

The ground is being laid for an ol' fashioned separation-of-powers showdown. Hoekstra went further, saying "I think we will issue subpoenas." With Republican backup, it should prove pretty easy for Reyes to pull the trigger. Hoekstra even singled out CIA Director Mike Hayden, promising to hold him "accountable." . . .

At this point, it's worth observing that Michael Mukasey has been on the job as attorney general barely a month and has already united both parties in Congress against him. That's some quick work.

http://www.slate.com/id/2180158/fr/rss/
[Emily Bazelon] Congress may well conclude that it's more important to find out quickly and make public who ordered, approved, and knew of the tapes' destruction. . . . The case for Congress is particularly strong given the Justice Department's recent, hardly confidence-inspiring history. That's not Mukasey's fault, since it's all about the tattered tenure of the dearly departed Alberto Gonzales. But Mukasey has to recognize that it's the backdrop for assessing whether the best way to ease the public's mind about the tapes is an internal DoJ investigation that boxes out the Senate and the House.

There are also specific reasons to doubt that investigation, in the preliminary form it has taken so far. Heading up the initial DoJ probe are the CIA's inspector general, John Helgerson, and Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Wainstein, who heads the Justice Department's National Security Division. Helgerson has criticized the Bush administration's treatment of the CIA detainees, which is a plus. And earlier this fall, when CIA Director Michael Hayden threatened an internal inquiry into Helgerson's work, the inspector general looked like the poor watchdog who was being muzzled. But in his message about the tapes last week, Hayden said that the inspector general's office knew about the videotapes before they were destroyed. Which also means Helgerson's office failed to stop whoever eliminated them. He's one of the people who should be questioned in the investigation, rather than the one who should lead it.

Wainstein poses a similar concern. The tapes were destroyed in 2005, reportedly in November. Wainstein was named U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., in October 2005, and for almost a year and a half before that, he was in charge of the office as the interim appointee. That means Wainstein was in the loop when various federal judges ordered the government, in spring and summer 2005, to preserve all the evidence—including interrogations—relevant to its reasons for holding the Guantanamo detainees who were trying to get a hearing in the judges' courtrooms. The government's lawyers represented to the judges that there was no reason to worry about destruction of such evidence. Who among them knew what about what was going on at the CIA? Those are questions that Wainstein may know something about. . . .

If Wainstein is part of the story of whether the government directly violated the judges' preservation orders, then like Helgerson, he shouldn't be in charge of the initial probe of the tapes. What's more, the National Security Division of DoJ was created by the Bush administration to work with the intelligence agencies. It's on the team, not separate from it, as investigators should be. Why isn't this a job for the FBI, where Mukasey could presumably find plenty of people who know how to poke and prod and had absolutely nothing to do with the CIA's decision-making, and so don't appear to have a stake in the mess they're supposed to shovel through?

Turkey attacks Northern Iraq, claiming that the US gave them the OK – and intelligence to do so. Iraq’s government (our supposed ally) is furious

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/17/news/Turkey-Iraq-Kurds.php
[AP] Turkey said dozens of its warplanes bombed Kurdish rebel targets as deep as 60 miles inside northern Iraq for three hours Sunday, the largest aerial attack in years against the outlawed separatist group. Turkey's military chief said the U.S. gave intelligence and tacit approval for the raid. . .

http://www.slate.com/id/2180252/fr/rss/
[Daniel Politi] Military officials insist the United States never overtly gave Turkey a green light to carry out the attacks in northern Iraq. But, as one official tells the WP, the United States is "essentially handing them their targets" and then saying that Turkey can use the information as it sees fit. Helping Turkey, a NATO ally, in its efforts to attack PKK rebels is undoubtedly a risky strategy, but the U.S. military seems to have concluded that the cost is worth it if it can help avoid opening a new front in the war, not to mention the possibility of losing one of its most important supply routes into Iraq. The strikes have raised the ire of Iraqi politicians, and the United States risks losing the support of the the Kurdish minority. The Post also makes clear that assisting Turkey could complicate U.S. diplomatic efforts to get Iraqi politicians to come up with a political reconciliation agreement. . . .

More: http://www.first-draft.com/2007/12/um-sovereignty.html

http://www.juancole.com/2007/12/iraqi-parliament-condemns-turkey-turkey.html

http://www.juancole.com/2007/12/us-provided-real-time-intelligence-for.html

More details on the politically driven prosecution of Don Siegelman, Democratic governor of Alabama. And guess who was pulling the strings?

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/12/hbc-90001940

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/17/noel-hillman-gets-a-subpoena/

Dick Cheney: the kind of guy he is

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/10/bush-confidant-.html

Rudy, we hardly knew ya

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/rudy_cutting_back_on_new_hampshire_ads.php
[Eric Kleefeld] In a sign that his campaign in New Hampshire could be flagging, Rudy Giuliani has been significantly scaling back his ad buys in the state. . . . And the campaign is shifting its resources to Florida, where Rudy is also sinking fast. . .

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/17/monday-late-nite-just-like-the-end-of-la-tosca/
[Watertiger] Any normal, semi-sane person would have been mortified by the series of political pratfalls Rudy Giuliani's been taking lately. From his stumbling performance on "Meet the Press" to a phlegmatic debate appearance to critics stepping up to the plate to debunk the myth of "America's Mayor", Rudy's makeshift machismo that held the rest of the country in thrall is finally flagging. Finally.

The New York Post today announced "NY GOP Cooling on Rudy". . .

Something good from New Jersey

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/good-day-by-digby-gov.html
Gov. Jon S. Corzine signed into law a measure repealing New Jersey’s death penalty on Monday, making the state the first in a generation to abolish capital punishment. . .

Something good from Colorado

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5451
Colorado's Republican Secretary of State, Mike Coffman, has announced that a number of Colorado's e-voting machines have failed state certification testings, and will not be allowed for use in the 2008 election cycle. . .

Well, it can’t be ALL good news: FCC to promote even greater media concentration

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/ap_on_bi_ge/media_ownership;_ylt=AoCXm6fy9AH4rf0PMfhnl6ayBhIF

Theocracy watch

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/17/19637/272
ABC News reports that Huckabee invokes Jesus Christ in his newest ad in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, set to unveil tomorrow. . . . [read on]

More (thanks to Nat K for the link): http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2007/12/17/161226/25

Don’t tell me that professional journalists don’t realize EXACTLY what they’re doing with crap like this

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/12/cnn_obamas_drug.php

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/12/new_york_times_10.php

Bonus item: Good news from the book markets: Ann Coulter’s latest, and Rove’s memoir proposal, are seriously underselling

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071217/FREE/161682590/1084/newsletter01

***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 @ 7:09 AM

 
THE BLAME GAME

We’re beginning to see the outlines of the internal war over the destruction of the CIA torture tapes – people are leaking information in order to cover their posteriors

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/006857.html
[Laura Rozen] Go read Marcy Wheeler on the latest Newsweek piece on the destroyed CIA interrogation tapes. She makes the case that Jose Rodriguez' lawyer Bob Bennett has made pretty clear he is going to advise his client to plead the fifth. And something in her analysis made me remember upon Goss's hasty resignation in May 2006, all the reports of tension between Goss and Negroponte and that Negroponte had long wanted him gone. Negroponte may not mind reminding DOJ and Senate investigators of his note to Goss advising against destroying the tapes. . .

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/16/isikoff-to-congress-make-sure-you-ask-for-the-negroponte-memo/
[Emptywheel] This article is framed in terms of what Congressional investigators want, not in terms of what the DOJ investigation is finding. Indeed, the leak about the Negroponte memo appears to come from two people involved in the investigation in some manner--whatever that investigation may be--who want to make sure news of this memo comes out and who seem to have little faith that news of Negroponte's clear instructions to Goss will come out otherwise.

Also, note the curious no comment in this paragraph. "Spokespeople for the CIA and the intel czar's office." You might assume, forgetting the last year of jostling within the Bush Administration, that it means that Isikoff called Negroponte's office and got a no comment. But while Negroponte was "intel czar" when he wrote this memo, he's not now; he's at State running things for Condi. So unless Isikoff forgot all these details, I'd suggest this article only appears to record a "no comment" from Negroponte, and it certainly doesn't exclude a pretty big comment from him. As in, "Mikey, I'd like you to write about this memo I wrote to Porter, because I'm afraid it's getting buried in the DOJ investigation."

There's another candidate to be one of Isikoff's sources. The article also includes a clear signal from the masterful press manipulator, Bob Bennett, that he intends to advise his client John Jose Rodriguez to plead the Fifth. . .

In case you missed it, Bennett uses the same phrase Monica Goodling's lawyer, John Dowd, used, "witch hunts," just before he snookered Congress into offering her immunity for a bunch of stuff that Congress already had evidence she was doing. As a reminder, Monica said almost nothing that incriminated Rove or Harriet and only sort of incriminated AGAG. But she managed to get herself immunity for "crossing the line" and politicizing DOJ's hiring practices. Bennett's use of precisely same language as Monica's lawyer may be no accident. . . .

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012716.php
[Kevin Drum] Over at Newsweek, the saga of the destroyed CIA interrogation video continues. Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball report that intelligence director John Negroponte provided direction about the tapes to CIA director Porter Goss in a 2005 memo. . . Later in the piece, they report that Goss was "dismayed" to learn that the tapes had been destroyed, thus perpetuating the story that Jose Rodriguez Jr., then chief of the CIA's National Clandestine Service, destroyed them entirely on his own despite contrary advice from virtually every other person involved in this. And maybe that's true. But Rodriguez is sure looking more and more like a classic fall guy every day, isn't he?

More: http://www.newsweek.com/id/78065

Go, go, go!

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN16366090
U.S. Congress members vowed on Sunday to investigate the CIA's destruction of interrogation videotapes despite Justice Department advice that the agency not cooperate.

The top Republican member of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee and a leading Democratic voice on security joined in a blistering attack on the CIA and on the complex network of U.S. intelligence agencies in general, which they described as arrogant, incompetent and unaccountable. . .

More: http://www.skeeterbitesreport.com/2007/12/enough-is-enough-its-time-to-now.html

Today’s the big FISA fight – why it matters, and what to expect

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/16/wheres-my-balance-of-powers-turf-war

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/17/13846/

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/16/18474/370

What to do: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/12/16/224053/45

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/16/dodd-fisa-and-the-filibuster-how-its-going-to-go-down-and-what-you-can-do/

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2799

Listening to his generals?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/16/AR2007121601823.html
With violence on the decline in Iraq but on the upswing in Afghanistan, President Bush is facing new pressure from the U.S. military to accelerate a troop drawdown in Iraq and bulk up force levels in Afghanistan, according to senior U.S. officials. . .

The Vulcans never quit

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3483252,00.html
US President George W. Bush's foreign policy is in free fall and puts the nation's security at risk, former ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told a German magazine on Sunday.

Bolton , who was a leading hawk in the US administration and favored a tough stance against Iran, North Korea and Iraq, told the Der Spiegel weekly that Bush needed to rein in Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

"His foreign policy is in free fall. The president is acting against his own judgment and instincts (and is) under the influence of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice," he was quoted as telling the magazine.

Bolton said Rice's was the dominant voice on foreign policy and that she was a channel for the views of liberal career bureaucrats in the foreign ministry.

"(Bush) does not supervise her enough. That is a mistake," he was quoted as saying, adding that a moderate foreign policy was a threat to US security. . . .

The rule of the Know-Nothings

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012719.php

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061154.php

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/17/competence-versus-populism/

The ruination of America’s economy

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/digging-through-rubble-by-digby-joseph_16.html
[Joseph Stiglitz] When we look back someday at the catastrophe that was the Bush administration, we will think of many things: the tragedy of the Iraq war, the shame of Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, the erosion of civil liberties. The damage done to the American economy does not make front-page headlines every day, but the repercussions will be felt beyond the lifetime of anyone reading this page. . . [read on]

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13941.html
[Steve Benen] Quick quiz: what’s going to cost the U.S. more over the next decade: the exploding costs of entitlements like Social Security and Medicare or Bush’s tax cuts? Despite all the talk we hear about the prior, it’s not even close — the tax cuts are poised to cost the treasury far, far, more.

And yet, every Republican presidential candidate in the field, to a man, vows to make each of Bush’s cut permanent, beyond their scheduled expiration in 2010. . . .

What will happen when a Democrat wins

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-things-work-by-digby-what-atrios.html

Lieberman to endorse McCain (I still think he’s a possible VP if McCain ever gets that far)

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/breaking_lieberman_to_endorse_mccain.php
[Eric Kleefeld] It sure is a big change for a guy who was the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2000, isn't it? It also begs another question: If McCain ends up not being the GOP nominee, will Lieberman back the Democrat or the Republican? . . .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20071217/cm_thenation/45260480
[The Nation] During his 2006 reelection campaign, Lieberman emphasized that he would support Democratic candidates in 2008. "I want Democrats to be back in the majority in Washington and elect a Democratic president in 2008," he said during a televised debate in July. Lieberman promptly backtracked after his reelection, announcing this January that he was "open" to supporting a Republican or Democrat for president, depending "on a whole range of issues." By not even waiting to see who the Democrats nominate, now Lieberman is revealing that the issues aren't important to him, either. . .

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2797
[Chris Bowers] As newspaper endorsements are proving this weekend, the establishment media consensus around the Lieberman's and McCain's of the world has never been broken. That these two are held up as the icons of an entire generation of established political pundits is demonstrative of the bankruptcy of an entire generation of national media figures. . . .

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2800
However 'bipartisan' the Beltway press wants to portray Lieberman's endorsement of McCain, the audience right now that McCain and Lieberman care about is Republican primary voters. That means that they must think Lieberman has appeal to Republican primary voters, and given his strong support from Republicans in Connecticut and constant praise from George Bush and Dick Cheney, Lieberman probably does. . . .

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/16/152349/50
[Politico] Independents are an important factor in New Hampshire, and McCain, who won the state in 2000, is now depending on them. . . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13945.html
[Steve Benen] This is the natural evolution of an embarrassing senator who lost his way quite a while ago. It’s unlikely, in a 51-49 Senate, that the Democratic leadership will punish Lieberman for this (by, say, reevaluating the decision to give him a committee chairman’s gavel he never uses), but it’s hardly an unreasonable move given the circumstances. . . .

More: http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/lieberman-to-endorse-mccain.html

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/when-hairy-met-sally-by-digby-did.html

Old Mitt better polish up some of his “I am not a flip-flopper” excuses. From Meet the Press:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22273924/
MR. RUSSERT: You gave a speech about the Mormon faith, religion and politics recently, and I want to ask you about a sentence in that speech that caused some discussion around the country. . . . "Freedom requires religion." Can you have freedom without organized religion?

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, I was paraphrasing and underlining, if you will, a quote that I'd just read from John Adams . . .

MR. RUSSERT: But when you say freedom requires religion, can you be a moral person and be an atheist?

GOV. ROMNEY: Oh, oh, of course. Oh, of course.

MR. RUSSERT: And participate in freedom?

GOV. ROMNEY: Oh, of course. Yes, this...

MR. RUSSERT: So freedom doesn't require religion?

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, this--the, the context was talking about the, the founding of the nation and the, the sense in this case of John Adams . . .

MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask you about an interview you had with Sunstone magazine. . . . It's a Mormon-based magazine. This is from November of '05, and it says, quote, "Romney sought advice from the man he admires most in this world, Mormon President Gordon Bitner Hinckley. The conversation eventually turned to whether a run for the presidency would be good for him and the church . . . ."

Should voters be concerned that you were seeking input from the leader of the Mormon church as to whether or not you should run for president?

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, the decision about running for president was one that I made entirely by myself, and I got a lot of advice from a lot of people. . .

MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about one of your supporters, a Dr. Bob Jones III. . . an evangelical leader, and this is what he said about your faith. He said it was a "cult," an "erroneous religion." How can you accept the support of someone who would trash your faith in that way?

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, you know, religions are in a competitive battle. They're competing for souls and adherence. . .

MR. RUSSERT: He went on. He said this: "I'd be very concerned if he tried to make it appear in any" way--in any "of this statements that Mormonism is a Christian denomination of some sort. It isn't . . . . How can you accept the support of someone who's so dismissive of a faith that you treasure?

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, people have differing views about faith, as you understand . . . We have Christians and Jews for instance. They don't have the same faith, but we certainly have the same Judeo-Christian foundation, and it's those common values that allow us to select people regardless of their faith for, for positions of secular leadership.

MR. RUSSERT: But you wouldn't call Judaism a cult or erroneous religion, would you?

GOV. ROMNEY: Well it's--I certainly wouldn't. But each of us has their own approach to how we're going to describe other people's faiths. . . .

MR. RUSSERT: Let me talk to you about your campaign. This is how it has been described in numerous cartoons, editorials, news articles: "A Changed Man. Many candidates change. Romney seems to have given himself a makeover. Which has prompted more than a few people to ask: Who is this guy?" . . .

I want to take abortion first. I participated in your debate in 2002 when you ran for governor of Massachusetts. I asked you about that issue, and this was your response. Let's watch.

(Videotape)

GOV. ROMNEY: My position has been the same throughout my political career, and it goes back to the days of 1970. There was a woman who was running for political office, U.S. Senate. She took a very bold and courageous stand in 1970, and that was in a conservative state. That was that a woman should have the right to make her own choice as to whether or not to have an abortion. Her name was Lenore Romney, she was my mom. I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: "Devoted and dedicated" to honoring your word. When you ran for the Senate against Ted Kennedy, you were asked the same question. This was your response.

(Videotape)

GOV. ROMNEY: Many, many years ago I had a dear close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. . . . And you will not see me wavering on that.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: You--will not see you wavering on that issue. You now have said you support the 2004 Republican Party platform, which says this: "We say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We" suggest "a human life amendment to the Constitution." Such amendment would ban abortions all across the country. Why such a dramatic and profound change after pledging never to waiver on a woman's right to choose?

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, you know, Tim, I was always personally opposed to abortion . . .

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe life begins at conception?

GOV. ROMNEY: I do. I believe, I believe from a, from a, a political perspective that life begins at conception. I, I don't, I don't pretend to know, if you will, from a theological standpoint when life begins. But...

MR. RUSSERT: You didn't try to change the Massachusetts abortion laws.

GOV. ROMNEY: I'd committed to the people of Massachusetts that I would not change the laws one way or the other, and I honored that commitment. . . .

MR. RUSSERT: But when you say you support a human life amendment to ban all abortions across the country, what would--form would that take? . . .

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, let's do two parts to that. First of all, my view is that the right next step in the, in the fight to preserve the sanctity of life is to see Roe v. Wade overturned and then return to the states and to the elected representatives of the people the ability to deal with, with life and abortion on their own. . . .

MR. RUSSERT: But, Governor, play that out. Some states would allow abortion, others wouldn't.

GOV. ROMNEY: Right. Yes. . .

I'm not promoting or fighting for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion in all 50 states. I am fighting for an overturning of Roe v. Wade. . . .

[NB: Of course, he just said he WAS for such a constitutional amendment. (Russert didn't point that out.) The question I wished Russert would ask, “What would Lenore Romney say?”]

MR. RUSSERT: You talked about this issue of stem cell research and embryos and yet you seem to have changed your position on that as well. Here's the way it was reported in the papers back then: "Romney faces another `flip-flop' question. In August of 2004, Governor Romney appeared to express support for expanded federal backing of embryonic work." Your spokesman said to "The Boston Globe that the governor `wants to encourage and support scientific research and the discovery of new cures.

"`For that reason'" "`he supports stem cell research on new and existing lines, in both private and federally funded settings.'"

You, yourself, issued--at a news conference, said this: "United States House of Representatives voted for a bill that was identical to what I proposed. They voted to provide surplus embryos from in vitro fertilization processes being used for research and experimentation. That's what I said I support."

These are embryos, these are, in your mind--words, human beings because they are--as life begins at conception, and these are surplus embryos from in vitro clinics that are used for research. They are destroyed. Do you still support that?

GOV. ROMNEY: I, I have the same position--let me describe it, because there are two parts to it. One is what I think should be legal in our society, and the other is, where should we devote federal funds. . . . I would allow, on a private basis, the use of surplus embryos, so-called surplus embryos from in vitro fertilization, and likewise the existing lines. . .

In terms of funding, I think the best source of our funding application should be in what are known as alternative methods. And this just recent. I've been, as you know, fighting for this for some time. But this recently saw a major breakthrough with direct reprogramming of, of human adult cells to become stem cells that can be very potent cells applied to help cure disease and, and serious conditions. . .

MR. RUSSERT: But to be clear, the embryos that are so-called surplus in vitro clinics are destroyed...

GOV. ROMNEY: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: ...for research, and you support that.

GOV. ROMNEY: The term support is perhaps not the exact word I'd choose.

MR. RUSSERT: You wouldn't outlaw it.

GOV. ROMNEY: I would, I would not outlaw it. . . .

[NB: Even though "life begins at conception"?]

And, at the same time, for federal dollars I would focus it on the, the alternative methods.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to gun control. Here's the headline: "Romney retreats on gun control. Romney, who once described himself as a supporter of strong gun laws, is distancing himself from that rhetoric now as he attempts to court the gun owners who make up a significant force in Republican primary politics. In his '94" Senate race, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rife Association and other" guns rights "groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons. `That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA,' Romney told the Boston Herald.'" "At another campaign stop" "he told reporters, `I don't line up with the NRA.'" Suddenly Romney decides to run for president and signs up for a lifetime membership in the NRA.

GOV. ROMNEY: [M]y position on guns is the same position I've had for a long, long time. And, and that position is that I don't line up 100 percent with the NRA. I don't see eye to eye with the NRA on every issue. I...

MR. RUSSERT: You're still for the Brady Bill?

GOV. ROMNEY: I supported the assault weapon ban. I...

MR. RUSSERT: You're for it?

GOV. ROMNEY: I assigned--and I--let me, let me describe it.

MR. RUSSERT: But you're still for it.

GOV. ROMNEY: Let's describe what it is. I signed--I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts . . .

MR. RUSSERT: How about the Brady Bill?

GOV. ROMNEY: The Brady Bill has changed over time, and, of course, technology has changed over time.

MR. RUSSERT: But the idea of a waiting period.

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, we have, we have a background check. That's the key thing. . . .

MR. RUSSERT: Immigration, an issue that is very important in this country and to the Republican primary voters. The Boston Globe interviewed you two years ago, and there's a tape of that conversation where you expressed support for the policies of George Bush and John McCain on immigration. Let's watch and listen.

(Audiotape)

GOV. ROMNEY: I think an amnesty program is what, which is all the illegal immigrants who are here are now citizens . . .and a walk up and get your citizenship. What the president has proposed . . . and, and what Senator McCain and Cornyn have proposed, are, are quite different than that. . . They require people signing up for a, a, well, registering and receiving, if you will, a number, a registration number, then working here for six years and paying taxes . . . not taking benefits--health, Medicaid, food stamps, and so forth--not taking benefits, and then at the end of that period, registering to become a citizen or applying to become a citizen and paying a fee. . . I think that that's--that those are reasonable proposals. . . .

(End audiotape)

GOV. ROMNEY: Now let's, now let's look at those very carefully, OK, and you're, you're a careful reader. . . . I did not support any of them. I called them reasonable. They are reasonable efforts to, to look at the problem. But I said I did not support--and I said specifically in that interview I have not formulated my own policy and have not determined which I would support. . . .

MR. RUSSERT: As you campaign around the country, you talk about your record in Massachusetts with budgets and taxes and so forth. The Cato Institute, a conservative think tank, gave you a C as governor of Massachusetts. And they say, "His first budget, presented under the cloud of a $2 billion deficit, balanced the budget with some spending cuts, but" "$500 million increase in various fees was the largest component of the budget fix." The AP says it this way: "When Romney wanted to balance the Massachusetts budget, the blind, mentally retarded and gun owners were asked to help pay. In all, then-Gov. Romney proposed creating 33 new fees," "increasing 57 others." The head of the Bay State Council of the Blind said that your name was "Fee-Fee"; that you just raised fee after fee after fee. That's a tax. . . .

GOV. ROMNEY: [W]e raised fees, and we generated about $240 million worth of increased revenue . . . Now, these were not broad-based fees. . . Because, because if they're broad, broad-based, they, they have the--they have a sense, a feeling like a tax. But a fee is different than a tax in that it's for a particular service. . . We were able to balance our budget in a very difficult time without raising taxes...

MR. RUSSERT: A fee's not a tax?

GOV. ROMNEY: A fee--well, a fee--if it were a tax, it'd be called--it'd be called a tax. But...

MR. RUSSERT: Governor, that's, that's gimmick.

GOV. ROMNEY: No, it's, it's reality. It is. But--and I have no--I'm not trying to hide from the fact we raised fees. We raised fees $240 million. . . .

MR. RUSSERT: You say you'd be a more effective leader on gay rights than Ted Kennedy.

GOV. ROMNEY: [H]ere's my view. I don't believe in discriminating against someone based upon their sexual orientation. And so I would be effective in trying to bring greater recognition of the, of the rights of people not, not to be discriminated against. . .

MR. RUSSERT: You said that you would sponsor the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Do you still support it?

GOV. ROMNEY: At the state level. I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this.

MR. RUSSERT: Now, you said you would sponsor it at the federal level.

GOV. ROMNEY: I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level . .

MR. RUSSERT: So you did--you did change.

GOV. ROMNEY: Oh, Tim, if you're looking for someone who's never changed any positions on any policies, then I'm not your guy. I, I do learn from experience. If you want someone who doesn't learn from experience, who stubbornly takes a, a position on, on a particular act and says, "Well, I'm never changing my view based on what I've learned," that, that doesn't make sense to me.

MR. RUSSERT: But it seems to be a lot of issues. Let me give, give you an example. Healthcare, something that you worked on very hard as governor with Ted Kennedy, compromise. And you talked about if you have automobile insurance, you need health insurance. A human being is more important than an automobile. And if you don't have buy health insurance--if you're too poor, we'll help you. But if you don't buy it, there's going to be a penalty. You're going to get fined, in effect, a couple hundred bucks.

Mitt Romney runs for president. Healthcare plan. No mandate. No conversation about health insurance, auto insurance. No fine if you don't sign up. Why, if it's good for Massachusetts and it's working in Massachusetts, wouldn't you apply it to the rest of the country.

GOV. ROMNEY: I would.

MR. RUSSERT: A mandate?

GOV. ROMNEY: No. Let me tell you what I would do . . .

MR. RUSSERT: Bottom line: All the positions you laid out today as a presidential candidate, can you assure the voters who won't flip back to some of the positions you had when you were governor of Massachusetts?

GOV. ROMNEY: You know, when I--of course--when I was--when I ran for, for governor of Massachusetts . . .

MR. RUSSERT: Mike Huckabee said that the George Bush presidency's foreign policy is arrogant and a bunker mentality.

GOV. ROMNEY: That's an insult to the president, and Mike Huckabee should apologize to the president.

MR. RUSSERT: This is what Mitt Romney said about Iraq, however, in September this year. "OK, well, first of all, it is a mess."

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, it is a mess. There's no question, if you, if you...

MR. RUSSERT: That's no reflection on George Bush?

GOV. ROMNEY: If you're, if you're, if you're suggesting that, that, that it's equivalent to say that we made a number of errors and that we have a very difficult situation in Iraq, that's the same as saying the president is arrogant and bunker mentality, that's, that's where he went over the line. I've been saying for months . . . if not years, that, that following the collapse of Saddam Hussein our policy was, was unprepared, unplanned, understaffed, undermanaged, that we made a number of errors and that much of the difficulty we face today is due to those errors. . . .

Frank Rich goes nuclear against Romney (thanks to Michael K. for the link)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16rich.html
Why didn’t Mr. Romney publicly renounce his church’s discriminatory practices before they were revoked? As the scion of one of America’s most prominent Mormon families, he might have made a difference. It’s not as if he was a toddler. By 1978 — the same year his contemporary, Bill Clinton, was elected governor in Arkansas — Mr. Romney had entered his 30s.

The answer is simple. Mr. Romney didn’t fight his church’s institutionalized apartheid, whatever his private misgivings, because that’s his character. Though he is trying to sell himself as a leader, he is actually a follower and a panderer, as confirmed by his flip-flops on nearly every issue. . . [read on]

The collapse of Giuliani

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/17/71747/036/899/423184
[DemfromCT] Rudy isn't quite done yet. Despite being an obnoxious in-your-face jerk, something New Yorkers have known for years (just ask his several ex-wives), his "a noun, a verb, and 9/11" persona is enough to keep him afloat in GOP country until he campaigns enough for the locals to get to know him. Now, he can declare his personal life off-limits all he wants to. However, as long as Judi Nathan's police escorts for shopping, out-of-city vacations and dog walking (paid on the taxpayer's dime) are in the news, it's a reminder that the guy didn't just have multiple affairs, he was a prick about it . . .

Pray for Huckabee

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/southern_captivity.php
[Matt Yglesias] Mark Kleiman has some wise thoughts on the conservative establishment's hatred of Mike Huckabee. It should also be said, however, that on a more basic level a Huckabee nomination would be an electoral fiasco for the Republican Party. . . .

Whenever the Republican Party is in trouble, it's always worth revisiting Christopher Caldwell's classic 1998 Atlantic piece "The Southern Captivity of the GOP". . . . Given the size and distinctiveness of the South as a region, and given the GOP's dominance of that region, the party is perpetually runs the risk of becoming a merely southern party.

The most successful Republican politicians of the "southern strategy" era, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, were Californians who were personally indifferent to religion and both led political coalitions that extended far beyond the south and its brand of evangelicism. Bush, in keeping with the more modest nature of his political coalition, is a Texan able to present himself as southern to fellow southerners. But on the national stage he overwhelming identifies himself with the iconography of the West -- cowboy boots, clearing brush, a ranch -- rather than with the south. And, again, for all his political reliance on evangelicals, he's actually a Methodist.

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/us/politics/17repubs.html

In 1992, the Democratic field for President was termed “the Seven Dwarfs” – that pool yielded Bill Clinton, an incredibly popular and effective President. So what do we call the current pool of Republicans?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13944.html

The media love these self-critical moments of reflection – but do they change?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/12/political_repor.php

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061142.php

Bonus item: Fox News, whiners

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/16/145319/34

***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 FROG IS COOKED

So much for “boiling the frog.” We have now lost any semblance of balanced government. You have a scandal that clearly has the Bush gang petrified. It has all the elements: secret torture tapes, destruction of evidence, different govt depts pointing their fingers at each other – and the powers that be are determined, at all costs, to keep this investigation secret and strictly controlled internally. That tells you just how bad it is, and how frightened they are.

So what do they do? They refuse to turn over any testimony and evidence to Congress. They tell the responsible oversight committees to butt out. And now, they are telling courts that they have no jurisdiction either!

The response from the sensible press about this outrage? Crickets. The ability of the Democrats to force a crack into this wall of secrecy? Very doubtful.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071215/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_videotapes_4
[AP] The Bush administration told a federal judge it was not obligated to preserve videotapes of CIA interrogations of suspected terrorists and urged the court not to look into the tapes' destruction. . . .

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/heads-i-win-tails-you-lose-by-digby.html
[AP] In court documents filed Friday night, government lawyers told U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy that demanding information about the tapes would interfere with current investigations by Congress and the Justice Department. . . .

On Friday, the Justice Department urged Congress to hold off on questioning witnesses and demanding documents because that evidence is part of a joint CIA-Justice Department investigation.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey also refused to give Congress details of the government's investigation into the matter Friday, saying doing so could raise questions about whether the inquiry was vulnerable to political pressure. . .

[Digby] So, basically the Justice Department lied to the judge. They don't want congress asking any questions either. . . [read on]

More: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/15/not-three-branches-not-two-branches-just-one-branch-of-government/

When Michael Mukasey was being reviewed for AG, and refusing to answer questions such as whether he thought waterboarding was legal or not, the wise chinpullers of the pundit class assured us all that this didn’t really matter, because he couldn’t possibly try to get away with what his predecessor had. Well, guess what?

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/ah_mukasey.php
[Matt Yglesias] Sure is good the Senate confirmed Michael Mukasey without him giving a straight answer about torture. As The Washington Post editorialized that his opponents were "working against the last, best hope to see the rule of law reemerge in this administration." Damn opponents. They were probably worried that if people were caught destroying evidence, he would help block inquiries into the obstruction of justice or something crazy like that. But that couldn't happen. After all, the Post said "Mukasey has demonstrated the ethical fortitude required of an independent attorney general" and Fred Hiatt is never wrong.

http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2007/12/news-flash-bush-official-facilitates.html
[Benjamin Wittes, New Republic] I know what you're thinking: If they confirm Mukasey without answers, the Democrats will once again be caving and letting the administration escape accountability. But the Democrats actually don't have to cave here. They just have to wait a few weeks. While Mukasey cannot answer these questions before confirmation, that inability will not persist long once he takes the reins of the Justice Department. Senators can make clear that they will let him take office but will also expect him back before the Judiciary Committee within two months of his accession to address questions of coercive interrogation, that they will expect answers far more straightforward and candid than they got from his predecessor, and that they will demand these answers--to the maximum extent possible--in public session.

The Democrats have a big club to wield over Mukasey's head to make sure they don't get snookered: Without a strong working relationship with them, he won't be able to get anything done. The lack of such a relationship gravely impaired both of his predecessors, albeit for different reasons. And, with only a year to serve in office, Mukasey's clock will tick loudly from the start.

[Scott Lemieux] Yes, the Dems will actually if anything have more leverage over Mukasey once he's confirmed! Because, er, he won't be able to "do anything" --like, oh, just for a random example, obstructing a Congressional inquiry into the obstruction of justice surounding state-sanctioned torture -- without them. And the Attorney General requires Congressional approval to fulfill most of the office's functions because...look, it's Halley's Comet!

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_12_09_archive.html#392063345428666847
[Atrios] I know I'm an opinionated hyperpartisan propaganda-pushing blogger, and Fred Hiatt and Ben Wittes are High Scribes of Journalism dedicated to the cause of truth-telling above all else, but at some point one just has to conclude that they are not interested in telling the truth, but they are instead interested in pushing an agenda. . . .

Here’s the outline of the Bush gang’s defense for destroying the tapes – and it tells us just how seriously they plan to “investigate” it (which is, NOT AT ALL)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/15/AR2007121501594.html
The Bush administration has told a federal judge that its 2005 destruction of CIA interrogation videotapes did not violate a court order because the captives in question were being kept in secret prisons at the time, not at the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. . .

Will the courts buy this? http://www.lastchancedemocracycafe.com/?p=1149

The conservative view of torture

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012712.php

More: http://tortureviews.notlong.com

This is what the fight over telecom immunity is all about: it’s about normalizing and EXPANDING warrantless surveillance to other areas of investigation, not only terrorist plots

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/washington/16nsa.html
For months, the Bush administration has waged a high-profile campaign, including personal lobbying by President Bush and closed-door briefings by top officials, to persuade Congress to pass legislation protecting companies from lawsuits for aiding the National Security Agency’s warrantless eavesdropping program.

But the battle is really about something much bigger. At stake is the federal government’s extensive but uneasy partnership with industry to conduct a wide range of secret surveillance operations in fighting terrorism and crime.

The N.S.A.’s reliance on telecommunications companies is broader and deeper than ever before, according to government and industry officials . . . [read on!]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/16/telecoms/index.html
[Glenn Greenwald] There are several vital points raised by the new revelations in The New York Times that "the N.S.A.'s reliance on telecommunications companies is broader and deeper than ever before" and includes both pre-9/11 efforts to tap without warrants into the nation's domestic communications network as well as the collection of vast telephone records of American citizens in the name of the War on Drugs. The Executive Branch and the largest telecommunications companies work in virtually complete secrecy -- with no oversight and no notion of legal limits -- to spy on Americans, on our own soil, at will.

More than anything else, what these revelations highlight -- yet again -- is that the U.S. has become precisely the kind of surveillance state that we were always told was the hallmark of tyrannical societies, with literally no limits on the government's ability or willingness to spy on its own citizens and to maintain vast dossiers on those activities. The vast bulk of those on whom the Government spies have never been accused, let alone convicted, of having done anything wrong. One can dismiss those observations as hyperbole if one likes -- people want to believe that their own government is basically benevolent and "tyranny" is something that happens somewhere else -- but publicly available facts simply compel the conclusion that, by definition, we live in a lawless surveillance state, and most of our political officials are indifferent to, if not supportive of, that development. . . .

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/12/16/03710/336
[Jeralyn Merritt] Today's Times' disclosures are big news in light of Monday's debate and vote on whether to grant retroactive immunity to the telecoms in the proposed revision of FISA. Shouldn't those telecoms that broke the law and gave up customer information or access to their calls or records without a court order be held accountable?

More: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/15/someone-doesnt-want-the-telecoms-to-get-immunity/

What we can do about it: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/15/17321/764

Bush seeks to limit the independence of military investigators

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13935.html
[Steve Benen] Having already successfully politicized U.S. Attorneys’ offices and the application of the rule of law in the Justice Department, the Bush gang has apparently decided to apply similar rules to the Judge Advocate General corps. . . [read on]

More: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012711.php

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/15/consolidating-corporate-welfare-and-cronyism-no-thanks/

Baghdad: “a horror movie” (thanks to Jessica Wilson for the link)

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/12/14/blackwater/index.html

Mission accomplished!

http://wilsonhellie.typepad.com/for_the_record/2007/12/unbelievable.html
The increase in incomes of the top 1 percent of Americans from 2003 to 2005 exceeded the total income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans, data in a new report by the Congressional Budget Office shows. . . .

Three members of the House Judiciary committee call for the impeachment of Dick Cheney, and start trying to drum up support. No, it won’t happen, of course – but don’t you think it’s newsworthy? Apparently the mainstream news media doesn’t think so

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/15/183511/90

How they’re playing it: Democrats have promised honest budgeting – namely, paying for new program initiatives with tax or fee increases, or rolling back tax cuts. Good policy or bad, it’s more or less coherent. The GOP and Bush gang have a nice high/low maneuver going – the minority in Congress threatens filibusters over anything that looks like a tax increase, the bill goes forward without it, then Bush threatens to veto it because it would increase the deficit (even though the biggest catastrophes for the deficit are Bush’s own policies)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121401843.html
Ending a six-week impasse, the Senate yesterday approved a $286 billion farm bill that would authorize significant new spending for farm programs, food stamps and conservation but would make only modest changes in the nation's traditional agricultural subsidy system.

The 79 to 14 vote came after Southern lawmakers used a procedural maneuver to prevent the approval of tighter limits on subsidy payments to large commercial growers of rice and cotton. The savings from the change would have gone to anti-hunger programs, the protection of fragile grasslands and the settlement of lawsuits filed by black farmers alleging discrimination in government farm programs. . . .

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.farmbill15dec15,0,5921368.story
President Bush has threatened to veto the legislation, saying it costs too much . . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/15/11048/562
[Kagro X] About all that nonsense Bush is tossing around about this being a "do-nothing Congress," here's something to keep in mind: with six vetoes to his credit during the first year of this Congress, and 53 veto threats pending, if this is a "do-nothing Congress," then we certainly have an "allow nothing White House."

Bush has stood the so-called power of the purse on its head, insisting he'll veto any appropriations bill that exceeds his budget numbers. He'll just veto them, and send the Congress back to the drawing board because the legislative branch didn't rubber stamp the executive branch's budget numbers. . . .

Forget the "60 vote requirement" in the Senate. With Bush, if he wants his way, it takes 67 votes to do anything different. And 290 in the House.

The Republicans created a monster: a mobilized and motivated Christian Right wing of their party that, especially under the Bush administration, got used to the idea that the President was the Preacher-in-Chief and that they should have a direct pipeline to govt funds and input into policy. Now the party has two conceivably viable candidates, Romney and Giuliani, who are unacceptable to this group – and no amount of spinning and pandering has moved that judgment. The theocrats have found their guy, Mike Huckabee, and they aren’t backing off him. The party pros are freaking out . . .

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/15/republican-dems-will-squash-huckabeee/
Rich Lowry, an editor of the conservative publication the National Review (which endorsed rival Mitt Romney this week), writes on the Republican Web site Townhall.com Friday that nominating Huckabee would amount to "an act of suicide" for the party. . . .

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=9311
[John Cole] It really is pretty awesome watching the Republican panic about Mike Huckabee set in, especially as he moves ahead in the polls in several states. . . .

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012710.php
[Kevin Drum] [A]s with blogosphere conservatives, mainstream conservatives are mostly urban sophisticates with a libertarian bent, not rural evangelicals with a social conservative bent. They're happy to talk up NASCAR and pickup trucks in public, but in real life they mostly couldn't care less about either. . . .

But then along comes Huckabee, and guess what? He's the real deal. . . . Huckabee, it turns out, isn't just giving lip service to evangelicals, he actually believes all that stuff. Among other things, he believes in creationism (really believes), once proposed that AIDS patients should be quarantined, appears to share the traditional evangelical view that Mormonism is a cult, and says (in public!) that homosexuality is sinful. And that's all without seeing the text of any of his old sermons, all of which he refuses to let the press lay eyes on.

I think this brand of yahooism puts off mainstream urban conservatives every bit as much as it does mainstream urban liberals. They're afraid that this time, it's not just a line of patter to keep the yokels in line. . . .

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/15/18316/457

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13938.html

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/whered-he-come-from-by-digby-like-john.html

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2007/12/why_do_the_moneycons_hate_huckabee.php

Any governor is going to have a problem with some clemencies granted to people who then go on to do rotten things (remember Michael Dukakis and Willie Horton?). But Mike Huckabee seems to have more than his share

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/12/14/huckabee/index.html

http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/huckabee-set-dwi-donor-free.html

More trouble for Huckabee

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13936.html

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/15/143815/87

The Republican id

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13930.html

The Des Moines Register and Boston Globe come out with endorsements. VERY interesting on the Republican side

http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/major-endorsements-des-moines-register.html

More: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061135.php

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/des_moines_register_endorses_hillary_and_mccain.php

Rudy: ouch!

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/12/15/223636/67

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/14/giulianis-grand-campaign_n_76849.html

Voting machines: still a serious problem

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061134.php

Sunday talk show line-ups

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/15/13277/605
* Meet the Pres (NBC): Mitt Romney (R-MA)
* Face the Nation (CBS): John Edwards (D-NC); Fred Thompson (R-TN)
* This Week (ABC): John Edwards (D-NC); Alan Greenspan; roundtable of Donna Brazile, Claire Shipman, Jay Carney and George Will; Brad Pitt on "Make it Right" initiative
* Fox News Sunday: George Mitchell on baseball steroids report; Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) & Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) on torture; Washington Capitals owner Ted Leonsis
* CNN Late Edition: John Edwards (D-NC); Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE); Pat Buchanan (author, "Day of Reckoning"; Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) & Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) talk intel; roundtable of Candy Crowley, Ed Henry & Dana Bash

Bonus item: And this is the GOOD scenario?

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_12_09_archive.html#1692539638206553202
[Atrios] We need a Democratic president so that the Republicans and their Blue Dog allies in Congress are finally inspired to take back the executive power grabs that they temporarily thought were necessary for the survival of the nation.

What this will mean in practice is that Democratic president will face a firestorm of "scandal" which will make Monica Madness pale in comparison. The powers that Bush claimed will be turned against a Democratic president and will likely be their undoing.

And this scenario is much better than the alternative.

***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 @ 7:30 AM

 
PYRRHIC VICTORIES

When confirmed, new AG Michael Mukasey was criticized as “the same as Gonzales, only smarter.” So far he’s living up to the first part, at least

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/washington/14cnd-intel.html
Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey has firmly rejected Congressional demands that he provide information about the Justice Department’s investigation into the Central Intelligence Agency’s destruction of videotapes showing interrogations, a stance that inflamed a feud between Capitol Hill and the administration this afternoon. . .

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/14/oversight-versus-politics/
[Emptywheel] Michael Mukasey has engaged in a remarkable bit of sophistry with his refusal to clue Congress in on the joint DOJ/CIA IG investigation into the destruction of the torture tapes. He explains his decision as an attempt to avoid "any perception that our law enforcement decisions are subject to political influence." . . . [read on]

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/shocked-simply-shocked-by-digby-who.html
[Digby] Who could have ever predicted this? . . .

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004916.php

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/ah_mukasey.php

It ain’t over: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004919.php
Only two days after the House intelligence committee inaugurated its inquiry into the CIA's torture tapes by hosting CIA Director Mike Hayden on Wednesday, the Justice Department instructed key CIA officials not to cooperate. The panel's leaders, Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) and Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), vowed not to back off . . .

“Trust us?” Sure, why not – there’s NO REASON to suspect that the administration wouldn’t investigate itself fully, is there?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/washington/15intel.html
The Justice Department asked the House Intelligence Committee on Friday to postpone its investigation into the destruction of videotapes by the Central Intelligence Agency in 2005, saying the Congressional inquiry presented “significant risks” to its own preliminary investigation into the matter. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121401269.html
The Justice Department moved yesterday to delay congressional inquiries into the CIA's destruction of interrogation videotapes, saying the administration could not provide witnesses or documents sought by lawmakers without jeopardizing its own investigation of the CIA's actions. . .

Dodd vows to block the FISA bill with telecom immunity – will other Dems support him?

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004918.php#more
[Spencer Ackerman] Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) is taking an enormous amount of criticism from the left. . . for putting the Senate intelligence committee's version of the surveillance bill on the floor as the "base text" for a vote on Monday and offering the Senate Judiciary Committee's version as a standing amendment. In a nutshell, Judiciary's version doesn't provide retroactive telecom immunity and offers more civil-liberties protections. . . .

Dodd: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/shake-it-up-by-digby-chris-dodds.html

More: http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/14/fisa-maneuvering/

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/14/latest-tricks-fisa-the-courts-the-petulant-unilateral-executive-and-you/

http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/im-kind-of-over-everyone-at-this-point.html

What will happen Monday?

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/12/14/232416/03

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/14/165449/23

When is a filibuster not a filibuster?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13928.html

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/would_filibustering_work.php

The Republicans have taken their stand – they are now officially on record in support of waterboarding as a form of torture (even Lindsey Graham, that damn hypocrite)

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004917.php

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/huckelberrys-hobgoblins-by-digby-it.html

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/12/14/BL2007121401204.html

How the press helps them

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012707.php
Paul Waldman is pissed off that Republicans have successfully cowed the media into refusing to use the word "torture" for things like waterboarding and sleep deprivation, which are pretty clearly torture . . .

Aside from the obvious purely political sense, explain to me the use of the word “victory” here

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121402212.html
As Congress stumbles toward Christmas, President Bush is scoring victory after victory over his Democratic adversaries. He has beaten back domestic spending increases, thwarted an expansion of children's health insurance coverage, defeated tax hikes, won funding for the war in Iraq and pushed Democrats toward shattering their pledge not to add to the federal deficit with new tax cuts or rises in mandatory spending. . . .

Bush's steadfast stand against Democratic spending, coupled with his equally resolute opposition to tax increases, could raise the federal debt this fiscal year by nearly $240 billion . . . [read on]

http://www.slate.com/id/2180136/fr/rss/
[Arthur Delaney] One big source of revenue would have been a repeal of a tax break that three years ago allowed oil companies to be classified as manufacturers for export purposes. Bush opposed the incentives at the time, but now the White House says repealing them would amount to a huge tax increase on the industry. Bush was more amenable to discretionary-spending increases when Republicans controlled Congress for his first six years on the job, with spending growth averaging at 7 percent, but since Democrats took over in 2006, Bush has insisted on spending growth of no more than 4 percent. . . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/14/92132/718
[Kagro X] Bush has an enormous number of veto threats pending. When we last left this story, George W. Bush -- after issuing a grand total of one veto (stem cells) during his first six years in office -- had suddenly found his groove, vetoing two bills (a second stem cell bill and the May Iraq supplemental) and issuing threats to veto 29 other key bills passed by the new Democratic Congress.

Today, that total has reached seven vetoes (including Energy & Water appropriations, Labor/HHS/Education appropriations, and two SCHIP vetoes) and threats against 53 additional bills . . . [see the full list – its amazing]

Pitiful

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13929.html
[Steve Benen] In light of the Bush administration’s obstinacy, this is what passes for progress: “European and U.S. delegates on Friday agreed to move controversial emission targets to a document footnote, opening the way for the 189 nations at the U.N. climate change talks to approve a roadmap for international action…. ‘This is a compromise. We can live with this. It’s in a footnote,’ German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said, referring to the 25 to 40 percent range for cuts.” . . .

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012709.php
[Kevin Drum] I realize that diplomacy and sausage making aren't always pretty, but the latest "compromise" at the Bali climate talks is about as ridiculous as anything I've seen in a long time . . .



The coming government spending crisis (pssst. . . . it isn’t Social Security!)

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/priorities-by-digby-for-some-reason.html


Another bad guy quits a Bush position under a cloud of scandal (but gets immediately reassigned to do damage somewhere else)

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004910.php

Alberto Gonzales is named by the ABA Journal as “Lawyer of the Year.” But after protests, they retract that and rename him “Newsmaker of the Year”

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004915.php

I’m sure the Bush gang is starting to really worry that documents on their still-secret misdeeds will fall into the hands of the next (Democratic) administration. How worried are they?

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/14/600-2/
600 Percent the cost of government paper-shredding has increased since President Bush took office. USASpending tracked how the government spent $452,807 on contracts for paper-shredding services in 2000, only to see that number rise astronomically to over $2.9 million in 2006. . . .

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13927.html

Harry Reid successfully prevented Bush from making any recess appointments during the Thanksgiving break – of course he will do the same thing over the Christmas break, right? Why would he not continue one of their few effective strategies? Why would he still let Bush get what he wants, just waiting a few more weeks? And yet, believe it or not, Reid might not do it

http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/reid-may-block-bush-recess-appointments.html

Rudy’s brilliant plan

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/15/say-have-i-mentioned-911-lately/
[Attaturk] Having taken the position that losing badly in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina is no big deal, Rudy Giuliani views Florida as the state that will save his campaign and send him to the White House.

If you think, "Gee, that doesn't sound like a particularly good plan" you would be correct. . . .

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061094.php
A new Rasmussen poll has him at 19% in Florida, behind Mike Huckabee's 27% and Mitt Romney's 23%. . . .

Analysis: http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/14/233028/37

Huckabee’s “theology degree”

http://www.first-draft.com/2007/12/facts-are-rea-1.html

Bonus item: Yes, he said it

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/thompson_my_most_prized_possession_is_my_trophy_wife.php
The Associated Press asked all the Presidential campaigns to name their principal's most "prized possession." Fred Thompson's answer: Trophy wife

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3685135
[ABC, Oct 7] Fred Thompson's Wife Jeri Tells Critics She Is Not a 'Trophy Wife'

***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 @ 7:28 AM

 
THE PARTY OF TORTURE

The CIA is not going to be the whipping boy for “aggressive interrogation techniques” that the Bush people pressed them to use

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004893.php
[Spencer Ackerman] Today's New York Times carries a valuable analysis by Scott Shane running through how the revelation of the destroyed CIA torture tapes underscores the agency's fears of having the administration turn on it. That is, after manipulating the law to justify ordering the CIA's torture of Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other al-Qaeda detainees, the Bush administration might finally prosecute someone low on the CIA food chain for doing what they ordered him or her to do. The agency watched Donald Rumsfeld, William Haynes and Ricardo Sanchez walk while Lynndie England and Charles Graner took the fall for Abu Ghraib. . . .

More: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004896.php
[Spencer Ackerman] Very little is known, and none of it for certain, about why the tapes ever existed. . . On one reading, the tapes are there to ensure that the interrogators didn't go beyond what the administration was authorizing, as a check on the interrogators themselves. Recording, then, has the added virtue of (if you'll forgive the vulgarity) covering the CIA's ass, a hallmark of George Tenet's tenure as CIA director: they'd be able to say in internal administration discussions that Interrogator X didn't do a thing that John Yoo, Jay Bybee et. al. didn't say they can do . . .

Tony Blankley, class act

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/13/192550/27
As soon as I heard about the destruction of that video, my first thought was "finally the CIA has done something right." . . . [read on]

Don’t take away our torture methods! (even though, we don’t torture)

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Intelligence-Bill.html
The House approved an intelligence bill Thursday that would prohibit the CIA from using waterboarding, mock executions and other harsh interrogation methods.

The 222-199 vote sent the measure to the Senate, which still must act before it can go to President Bush. The White House has threatened a veto. . . .

The Party of Torture

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/torture_/2007/12/license_to_torture.php
[Mark Kleiman] Yes, it's come to this. The Bush Administration officially won't say whether it would constitute torture if Iran were to waterboard a captured US airman. . . . [I]t makes clear the cost the country pays for not taking a firm stance against torture. In effect, GWB and his clown-show administration have declared our own men and women in uniform as fair game for waterboarding.

Funny, we've never been in any doubt about this before. The U.S. has prosecuted waterboarding as torture for more than a century. . . .

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/13/19590/145

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13915.html

http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/unleashing_beast

The Judiciary Committee votes to find Bush officials in contempt. The White House responds with. . . . ah . . . . more contempt

Congress: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004898.php

WH: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061024.php

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13914.html

Dick Cheney’s totalitarian theory of govt

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/13/when-all-eos-are-pixie-dust-it-means-dick-can-declassify-anything-he-wants/

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061028.php

I’ve asked this before, but what does it say about an administration when their Inspectors General – supposedly the watchdogs of propriety – are themselves continually under investigation?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121302178.html

“Re-branding” the G.O.P. – why it isn’t working

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13911.html

The Republicans – give them credit – are continuing to exercise a stranglehold over policy, even after the public repudiation of their positions in 2006. Is there ANYTHING the Democrats can do about it?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13906.html
[Steve Benen] Senate Republicans have decided to effectively hold Congress hostage, refusing to allow up-or-down votes on practically everything. Bills may enjoy the support of the majority of the House, majority of the Senate, and majority of the country, but the GOP has decided to embrace obstructionism in a way no previous Senate minority has ever even considered.

To be sure, this is causing intense frustration among congressional Democrats. The House is passing bills, only to see them die from neglect in the Senate. Dems in the upper chamber are desperate to score some legislative victories, but can’t get overcome the minority party’s shameless desire to shut down the legislative process. . . [read on]

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13916.html

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/love_that_filibuster.php

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/13/a-bully-for-president/

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/4481

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012700.php

We’re going through a pretty strong anti-Democrat phase here lately, and today will only make it worse: Harry Reid plans to bring forward the FISA bill WITH the unnecessary telecom immunity provision in it for a vote today

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/14/2419/1395

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/14/reid/index.html

Lucky guy: a Presidential candidate who now owns a major conservative talk radio network

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/13/bain-capital-founded-by-romney-buys-clear-channel/

Nice work if you can get it

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060980.php
[David Kurtz] Last week over at TPMmuckraker, Paul Kiel told you about Hank Asher, the confessed drug smuggler turned multimillionaire database guru who hooked up with Rudy Giuliani on a couple of different business ventures. Very mucky looking stuff, especially after Asher's name popped up in the public corruption indictment of the Orange County sheriff.

Now Time has a big new story out on the deal Rudy's firm had with one of Asher's database companies, Seisint. Turns out Giuliani Partners pulled down $30 million in one year on the Seisint contract.

And how exactly did Rudy's firm earn this money? . . . [read on]

More: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060994.php

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13913.html

Theocracy watch: Thoughtful conservatives are having second thoughts about letting religion become the litmus test for their Presidential nominees

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/07/peggy-noonan-admits-gop-is-controlled-by-fundies-idiots/

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/13/charles-krauthammer-latest-wingnut-to-lament-gops-fundie-problem/

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13909.html

I know the media has decided that this is a Hillary/Obama race, but John Edwards keeps persuasively winning people over

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/edwards_debate_performance_wows_cnn_and_fox_focus_groups.php

Bonus item: Matching the hilarious fake Huckabee ad yesterday, here’s a fake Romney ad

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060971.php

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

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:47 AM

 
A PLAGUE ON ALL THEIR HOUSES

The CIA, DOJ, and WH are playing hot potato with this tape destruction story. As the legal repercussions escalate, it’s less likely that the CIA is going to take all the heat to protect the other two

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004886.php
[Paul Kiel] Yesterday, The New York Times reported that the White House and Justice Department had advised against destroying the interrogation videotapes of -- but CIA officials said that advice was less than direct (of the "probably wouldn't be a good idea" variety). As Newsweek reports, that seems to have been the pattern for CIA, White House, and Justice Department officials who failed to unequivocally direct that the tapes be preserved. . . .

Thankfully for investigators, "an extensive paper—or e-mail—trail exists documenting the contacts between [the CIA's] Clandestine Service officials and top agency managers and between the CIA and the White House regarding what to do about the tapes." Both directors of the CIA during that time, George Tenet and Porter Goss, were no more explicit, only indicating "that they believed it would be unwise to destroy the tapes." The CIA's general counsel is characterized as "never comfortable with the idea of the tapes being destroyed." . . .

Oh-oh: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004887.php
[AP] The Bush administration was under court order not to discard evidence of detainee torture and abuse months before the CIA destroyed videotapes that revealed some of its harshest interrogation tactics. . . .

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004888.php
The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a motion asking a federal judge to hold the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in contempt, charging that the agency flouted a court order when it destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the harsh interrogation of prisoners in its custody. . .

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/cia-wont-take-the-fall-for-bushs-torture-policies/
[Scarecrow] Even though the White House is stonewalling, the Senate Intelligence Committee held a closed session on the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes, and the complicit Rockefeller emerged to tell us . . . nothing, the intelligence community was leaking stories all over Washington that pointed fingers right into the White House. It looks like the CIA is not willing to take the fall for the President's torture policies.

First, over at No Quarter, Larry Johnson's intelligence friends leaked word that the CIA's recently retired Deputy Director of Operations, Jose Rodriquez, who reportedly authorized the destruction of the interrogation/torture tapes, did not act unilaterally: "He did check with both the IG and the DO’s assigned Assistant General Counsel before destroying the DO’s copies of the tapes." As Larry notes, the NYT article by Shane and Mazetti also reports the involvement of other CIA attorneys in the decision.

The chain of knowledge and approval then moves from the CIA directly into the Justice Department and the White House. . .

As Marcy notes, we seem to have plenty of CIA sources telling public and private stories that link specific authorizations for torture directly to the White House, including repeated discussions with the President's personal counsel about destroying evidence, complete with paper and/or e-mail trails.

Why did the CIA constantly check with those closest to Bush? Newsweek:

The reason CIA officials involved the White House and Justice Department in discussions about the disposition of the tapes was that CIA officials viewed the CIA's terrorist interrogation and detention program—including the use of "enhanced" interrogation techniques—as having been imposed on the agency by the White House. "It was a political issue," said the former official, and therefore CIA officials believed that the decision as to what to do with the tapes should be made at a political level, by Miers—a former personal lawyer to President Bush and later White House staff secretary and counsel—or someone else directly representing the president.

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/12/12/BL2007121201438.html

I hope the Republicans are proud of themselves – aside from McCain, they have officially become the Party of Excuses for Torture. Here’s the worst of the worst

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060885.php
GWEN IFILL: I just would like to -- but do you think that waterboarding, as I described it, constitutes torture?

SEN. KIT BOND: There are different ways of doing it. It's like swimming . . .

Watch: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060899.php

“Moral clarity” (read it!)

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/moral-clarity-by-digby-remember-that-it.html

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13900.html

What happens to attempted terror prosecutions when some evidence has been destroyed, and when confessions and other information were extracted through torture – or when the suspicion of torture hangs over all the testimony? Think ANY of these cases will hold up in court?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/11/AR2007121102110.html

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/13/a-new-entry-in-the-lexicon-of-the-bush-years/

More: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2225875,00.html

Surge

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20071213/1a_offlede13_dom.art.htm
A record number of soldiers — 109 — have killed themselves this year . . .

Some topics just deserve the Maureen Dowd treatment – like the re-emergence of Doug Feith

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/opinion/12dowd.html

I guess there’s still a Plame civil suit somewhere in the pipeline, so the WH reverts to its “We can’t talk about ongoing legal matters” excuse

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060931.php

More “no comments” from Alice: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060938.php

It’s clear that the GOP has a plan for 2008 – block and impede every Democratic bill, working in coordination with the WH, then try to run against a “do-nothing Congress” next year. They decry the Democrats’ unwillingness to compromise, but it’s gotten to the point where they even block bipartisan bills (in fact, given their purposes, they must ESPECIALLY block bipartisan bills, because that would contradict their narrative).

Yes, it’s pathetic, but what else do they have?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13898.html
The NYT noted today that Senate Republicans have become so reflexive in filibustering everything that moves that when Dems finally agreed to GOP demands on a bill to repair the alternative minimum tax last week, Republicans filibustered anyway — out of habit. . .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071213/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_veto
President Bush vetoed legislation Wednesday that would have expanded government-provided health insurance for children, his second slap-down of a bipartisan effort in Congress to dramatically increase funding for the popular program. . .

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012690.php
[Kevin Drum, from a friend] So, let me get this straight: When the Democrats are the minority in the Senate, the Republicans get their way, and when the Democrats are the majority in the Senate, the Republicans get their way.

[Drum] It's hard to say anything about this other than the obvious: the Democrats have a very slim majority; the rules of the Senate work against them; and the Republican Party, even as it prepares to shuffle into what may well be a decade of irrelevance, continues to display a genuinely remarkable ancien régime ability to stick together and insist that nothing is wrong until its collective face turns blue. Even the fact that the entire country may well turn blue next November as a result doesn't dissuade them.

What bugs me about this is not the fact that the modern Republican Party doesn't really care about actual governance. This is hardly news. At this point, it's an exhausted organization so bereft of ideas that it really doesn't have much choice except to follow a policy of obstruction to its logical, nihilistic conclusion.

But why does the media have to play along? . . . [read on]

Certainly the Republicans can’t run on their own record. Maybe that’s why no one wants to give them money!

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/12/184248/95

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/for-john-boehner-it-sucks-to-be-a-republican/

The poisonous immigration debate

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/the_immigration_obsession.php

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/immigration_obsession_blame_io.php

You want to see lefty attacks on the Dems? Here are some good ones

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/10/4548/4464/945/420087
[Hunter] What Can Be Done With Democrats That Refuse To Lead? . . . [read on]

http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/democrats-who-refuse-to-lead.html
[John Aravosis] Democrats who refuse to lead. . . [read on]

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2751
[Chris Bowers] With capitulation on Iraq coming even quicker than expected, it is time to start thinking about how we can change the Democratic leadership in Congress . . . [read on]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/13/strength/index.html
[Glenn Greenwald] In the world of the Beltway pundit, Bush Dog Representative, and Democratic strategist, this is how Democrats prove how "strong" and tough they are . . . [read on]

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/12/AR2007121202837.html
When Democrats took control of Congress in January, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) pledged to jointly push an ambitious agenda to counter 12 years of Republican control.

Now, as Congress struggles to adjourn for Christmas, relations between House Democrats and their colleagues in the Senate have devolved into finger-pointing. . . .

Intelligence oversight: a contradiction in terms?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/12/AR2007121202260.html
[David Ignatius] Whatever else one might say about America's accident-prone intelligence agencies, it seems clear that the system of congressional oversight that was established in the mid-1970s to supervise them isn't working. . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/washington/13inquire.html
For six years, Central Intelligence Agency officers have worried that someday the tide of post-Sept. 11 opinion would turn, and their harsh treatment of prisoners from Al Qaeda would be subjected to hostile scrutiny and possible criminal prosecution.

Now that day may have arrived . . .

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/washington/12cnd-intel.html

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004892.php

Will the Dems stand strong on telecom immunity?

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004890.php

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/12/171656/41

More: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-mukasey12dec12,0,238086.story

Theocracy watch: thank God, they saved Christmas!

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13902.html

Huckabee and Romney get medieval over the religion issue

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13896.html

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/huck-and-mitts-brother-love-traveling-salvation-show/

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/republican-primary-disintegrates-into-ugly-sectarian-conflict/

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/12/154132/76

More nonsense from Huck: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/12/12/faith/index.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012691.php

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/huckabees_not_ready_for_prime.php

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13899.html

Bonus item: Fake television ad for Mike Huckabee. DON’T – MISS – IT

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060890.php

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

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:00 AM

 
HUNKER DOWN

Incoming!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/washington/12intelcnd.html
The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, delivered a blistering indictment today of the Central Intelligence Agency’s decision to destroy video footage of harsh interrogations of Al Qaeda detainees . . .

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004875.php
[Spencer Ackerman] You didn't think there'd be a scandal involving the destruction of potential evidence of torture without Pat Leahy and Arlen Specter getting involved, did you?

Leahy and Specter, the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote yesterday to Attorney General Michael Mukasey requesting a thorough understanding of the Justice Department's inquiry into the CIA's destruction of secret interrogation tapes. If Mukasey ever had a honeymoon at DoJ, it's already a distant memory.

The Dyspeptic Duo demand to know what the Justice Department knew about the tapes before their destruction -- after all, DoJ warned against junking them, so someone at DoJ knew they existed. . .

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/11/AR2007121102108.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/washington/12intel.html

Alice wraps herself up in knots

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/11/153220/48
Q Did the questioning of al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah conform with the interrogation program approved by President Bush? . . .

MS. PERINO: I will say that all interrogations -- all interrogations have been done within the legal framework that was set out after September 11th...All of the -- the entire program has been legal.

Q Are you saying that whatever was done in this case was not torture?

MS. PERINO: I am saying that the United States does not torture. . .

Q But when you have a former CIA officer, John Kiriakou, now saying that waterboarding was used -- since you're saying the interrogations were legal; he's saying on the record now, waterboarding was used in at least one case. You're saying waterboarding is legal?

MS. PERINO: Ed, I'm saying I'm not commenting on any specific technique. . .

Q You just said it was legal.

MS. PERINO: I'm sorry?

Q You said it was within the legal framework.

MS. PERINO: Yes.

Q Everything that was done.

MS. PERINO: Yes.

Q So waterboarding is legal.

MS. PERINO: I'm not commenting on any specific techniques.

More: http://www.first-draft.com/2007/12/today-on-hold-2.html

Bush says he doesn’t have any recollection of knowing about the torture tapes or their destruction – and darn it, that’s good enough for me. Let’s move on

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004879.php
[ABC] "My first recollection of whether the tapes existed or whether they were destroyed was when [CIA Director] Michael Hayden briefed me," Bush said.

[Bob, from the Comments] Am I the only one who is curious why a president who puts forward the theory of "unitary executive," and cites it to disregard laws duly enacted by Congress, can claim no responsibility for acts committed by his administration?

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13888.html

[NB: Harriet Miers knew, Bush knew. Period. End of story]

The coverage of the Kiriakou story: notice how often they lead with his comment that the harsh interrogation of Abu Zubaydah probably “saved lives,” and how infrequently they follow-up with the other part of his comments – that he also believes it was TORTURE and that it was WRONG

http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/cia-still-peddling-lie-that-low-level.html
[AP] According to the former agent, waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah got him to talk in less than 35 seconds. The technique, which critics say is torture, probably disrupted "dozens" of planned al-Qaida attacks, said John Kiriakou, a leader of the team that captured Zubaydah, a major al-Qaida figure.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0712/11/ltm.03.html
[CNN] JOHN ROBERTS: A retired CIA officer speaking out about the handling of high value Al Qaeda targets. John Kirkiakou said waterboarding helped get information that may have prevented future attacks during the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. . . .

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13880.html

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/006838.html

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/11/torture-is-necessary-to-defend-the-fatherland-therefore-torture-is-good/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/12/11/BL2007121101053.html

The torture tape timeline

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004872.php

Are there MORE tapes? http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004876.php

The paper trail

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/dec/11/disentangling_torture_tapegate

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004873.php

More: http://www.newsweek.com/id/76574/output/print

Pentagon blocks an officer’s testimony before Congress, but it’s okay for him to give interviews and write op-eds?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/12/washington_post_14.php

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060791.php

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004877.php

Let’s see: Doug Feith and Paul Bremer are going to have a fight over who screwed up Iraq worse. Can’t we just declare it a tie?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121001815.html

George Bush really seems to think that he can just rewrite Congress’s legislation

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/washington/12cnd-mileage.html
The White House, echoing a position taken by auto manufacturers and a coalition of industry groups, is asking that the energy legislation be changed to specify the highway safety administration as the primary enforcer of fuel efficiency standards, with the E.P.A. in only an advisory role. Democratic leaders in Congress rejected that position as a “nonstarter” and indicated their intent to move the bill with the current language intact.

Bush doesn’t believe that he even has to follow PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/11/bush-turned-his-eo-on-classified-information-to-pixie-dust-too/

Bush’s commitment to women’s rights in the Middle East (psssst . . . don’t tell Laura!)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/11/143436/97

The Bush gang, still blocking serious action on global warming

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/12/2365/3561

Working the vote suppression angle, now via voter ID laws

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004878.php

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004881.php

The politics of hate

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immig12dec12,0,3612843.story
More than any other question, Republican presidential candidates are asking voters to consider a single issue in the weeks before primary voting begins: Who detests illegal immigration the most? . . .

While the Republicans trash each other over it, the Democrats still haven’t figured out how to make the immigration issue work for them. It shouldn’t be hard

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/11/115744/78

Why NOT block everything, when the press praises you for it, and criticizes the inefficacy of your opponents? That’s a win/win!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/washington/12cong.html
Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, operates with near-robotic efficiency . . .

The silly season

Haircuts: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/12/washington_post_14.php

Laughs: http://mediamatters.org/items/200712110006

The real Mike Huckabee

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13882.html

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13890.html

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/huckabee_dont_mormons_believe_that_jesus_and_the_devil_are_brothers.php

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/huckabee_for_trade_with_cuba_before_he_was_against_it.php

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012687.php

http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/huckabee-nobodys-going-to-find-some.html

http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/huckabee-had-i-known-i-was-running-for.html
[Hotline] Huckabee acknowledged his shifting views yesterday, saying the change is due to the “simple reality that I’m running for president.” . . .

[NB: Well, THAT’S honest, at least.]

Another howler from Giuliani

http://400000.notlong.com

Rudy’s sinking fast

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012684.php

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/poll_rudy_dropping_in_multiple_voter_groups_as_religion_shakes_up_gop_primary.php

Interesting: the National Review goes with Romney

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/national_review_endorses_romney.php

Obama? Clinton? Don’t sell John Edwards short

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/poll_huckabee_still_loses_in_general_election_matches_edwards_most_electable_dem.php
[Eric Kleefeld] Some new CNN polling shows that while Mike Huckabee is surging around the country with Republican voters, he still lags far behind the top three Democrats in national polling, more so than the other Republicans. The numbers also show that John McCain is the most electable Republican, and that John Edwards is the strongest Democrat . .

Theocracy watch: it’s the holiday season, so it must be time for more Republican demagoguery about how the secularists are out to destroy Christmas

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13889.html

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/11/65317/058/485/420555

Yes, Virginia, there IS a war going on – but Christmas isn’t the target (it’s the excuse)

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_12_09_archive.html#5033185451355003900
[Haaretz] Four Jewish subway riders who wished other people Happy Hanukkah were pelted with anti-Semitic remarks before being beaten, New York police and prosecutors said. The incident was being investigated as a possible hate crime. . . .

http://www.first-draft.com/2007/12/the-first-casua.html
Michael has a lovely Christmas story of the woman charged with attempted murder for shooting 2 people because their dog damaged the Christmas decorations in her yard. . .

How the Village props up the credibility of Faux News

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/inside-edition-by-digby-if-anyone.html
[Politico] Despite missing some candidates from the other side of the aisle, Wallace — along with the Fox public relations team — will happily boast that in the D.C. market, there have been big gains. . . .

“I think we’re doing a variety of things to distinguish ourselves from the other shows, and Washington, especially, seems to be noticing the difference,” Wallace said.

Wallace's show is fourth in the ratings everywhere but DC.

Andrew Tyndall, an independent television news analyst, noticed increased attention recently being paid to Wallace’s D.C. numbers.

“It’s sort of funny publicity they’re putting it out,” Tyndall said. “The way they’re spinning it is that inside the Beltway he’s doing well.

“You could spin it the other way,” he added. “How come no one’s watching him in the rest of the country?”

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13885.html
“I think the Democrats are damn fools [for] not coming on Fox News,” Wallace said. “And my guess is that once you get a nominee, they probably will come on, because they know that we get a lot of voters they are going to need if they are going to win the election.”

[NB: Excuse me. . . .can’t . . . stop. . . .laughing!]

The Washington Post, still stinging over the reactions to their Muslim Obama piece, refuse to acknowledge the reason for the criticism

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/12/what_me_worry_w.php
[Greg Sargent] Okay, so Washington Post executive editor Leonard Downie, Jr., has finally commented publicly on the paper's disastrous front-page piece recycling the Obama Muslim rumors without declaring them false.

Stunningly, Downie offered no mea culpa; no discussion of the substance of the widespread criticism the piece attracted; no sign of recognition that the Post had badly botched things; no sign that he was even slightly perturbed by the episode at all.

Downie's comments came in the form of a letter to Romenesko that he wrote in response to a professor/blogger who had criticized the reporter on the piece, Perry Bacon. . . It's really telling that Downie was able to work up so much outrage about this but was unable to find anything to say about the piece itself. His newspaper publishes a major front-page story recycling rumors about a leading candidate without declaring them false or including widely-reported information debunking them? No comment. One mean and vicious blogger indulged in some over-the-top language? The outrage pours forth in torrents.

Also note that Downie characterized the story as being about "how the Obama campaign has responded to a campaign of rumors falsely portraying the candidate as a Muslim." Actually, that isn't what the story said: While Downie described the rumors as false here, the article didn't do this. It's really unclear at this point whether Downie and his fellow editors are even capable of grasping that this is the crux of the criticism here. . .

The pliant press and punditry willingly pumped up disinformation to drive the nation to war. Then they parroted administration lies about how well it was going. Then they realized that things were going so badly that no one believed them any more. Now, they’ve decided the war is pretty much over, so they can ignore the mess they helped create

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/11/kurtz/index.html
[Glenn Greenwald] The latest flock-like chirping from our pundit class is that the Iraq war's "improving" prospects war mean that it will no longer play a significant role in the 2008 election. David Brooks today was but the latest to unveil this new wisdom, following along with Peter Beinart's fact-free declaration last week that the disastrous war he cheered on is now politically irrelevant . . .

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/11/david-brooks-meet-moqtada-al-sadr/
[Eli] Courtesy of Peter Beinart, Tim Russert, and David Brooks, it looks like we have a new concern troll meme for 2008: Don't Mention The War. It's old news, you see - people are tired of talking about it, and besides The Surge is totally working! Brooks even claims that America is now in a "postwar" mindset despite, well, the pesky little fact that WE'RE STILL AT WAR. . . [read on]

***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 @ 6:48 AM

 
UNAPPEALING

Scooter Libby drops his appeal. Why?

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/4478
[AP] Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is no longer appealing his conviction in the CIA leak case, a tacit recognition that continuing his legal fight might only make things worse. . .

After Bush's commutation, Libby paid a $250,000 fine and remained on two years probation. There was no guarantee Libby would do any better if he persuaded an appeals court to grant a new trial. In fact, by the time that new trial was over, Bush would likely be out of office and the result of that trial would almost certainly stick.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002573.php
[Steven Clemons] I do wonder whether Scooter Libby has been informed that a pardon is in the works. It would not surprise me if it was the case.

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/12/10/libby-drops-appeal/
[Jon Ponder] At her daily briefing today, White House spokesperson Dana Perino refused to speculate whether Scooter Libby would be pardoned over the upcoming holidays.

So, now that all legal proceedings have been concluded, the WH can speak openly about the case. Cheney can discuss whether Libby was working under his orders. Bush can finally answer questions about what he knew and why he didn’t discipline staffers like Rove after promising that he would . . . right? Right?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060685.php
Dana Perino punts on all Plame leak questions because she hasn't talked to the President about it. . .

What Alice doesn’t know (it’s kinda scary)

On Libby: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060695.php

On the CIA tapes: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060705.php

On the Cuban missile crisis:http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/10/monday-late-nite-cuban-sandwich-crisis/
"Wasn't that like the Bay of Pigs thing?"

More: http://www.first-draft.com/2007/12/today-on-hold-1.html

What Cheney and Bush said

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/12/10/BL2007121000914.html
[Dan Froomkin] For the record, here's what Cheney said on March 6, the day Libby was convicted by a federal jury of perjury and obstruction of justice: "Since his legal team has announced that he is seeking a new trial and, if necessary, pursuing an appeal, I plan to have no further comment on the merits of this matter until these proceedings are concluded."

And here's what Bush said the following day: "I'm pretty much going to stay out of it until the course -- the case has finally run its final -- the course it's going to take."

What Tony Snow said

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/10/112241/36
Q Tony, one point that is not in dispute is that Karl Rove was involved in the leak, in some way he was involved. He talked to at least two reporters who ended up publishing this information. In 2004, the President said -- he didn't talk about convictions or anything -- he said he would fire anyone in this White House who was involved in the leak. We now know Karl Rove was involved; he did not fire him.

MR. SNOW: There are two things to note. We have also said that we do not -- we are not going to make comments in detail until the legal process is over. And it is not; there is still an appeal . . .

Q How does this square with the President saying, anybody who leaks in my White House, anybody who doesn't follow the law, is not going to work for me?

MR. SNOW: Well, once we get -- once we get final determination on that, we'll deal with it. . . .

Q The President set a lower standard first. He didn't say about breaking the law, he said involved in leaking the identity. So you've changed the standard --

MR. SNOW: No, no, no, I was just -- I was responding to that particular question. Again, when we get final clarity on this through the judicial system, I'll answer the question. . .

Is Jose Rodriguez falling on his sword? (Maybe he’ll get pardoned too.) According to these sources, he ordered the CIA torture tapes destroyed, not in order to protect the identity of the interrogators (as Michael Hayden said) but specifically to protect them from the risk of prosecution – and you know what that means

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004864.php

More: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060694.php

More trouble: the WH and DOJ lawyers didn’t quite, exactly tell him NOT to destroy the tapes. It’ll be interesting to find out what they DID tell him

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/washington/11intel.html
Lawyers within the clandestine branch of the Central Intelligence Agency gave written approval in advance to the destruction in 2005 of hundreds of hours of videotapes documenting interrogations of two lieutenants from Al Qaeda. . .

The involvement of agency lawyers in the decision making would widen the scope of the inquiries into the matter that have now begun in Congress and within the Justice Department. Any written documents are certain to be a focus of government investigators as they try to reconstruct the events leading up to the tapes’ destruction.

The former intelligence official acknowledged that there had been nearly two years of debate among government agencies about what to do with the tapes, and that lawyers within the White House and the Justice Department had in 2003 advised against a plan to destroy them. But the official said that C.I.A. officials had continued to press the White House for a firm decision, and that the C.I.A. was never given a direct order not to destroy the tapes.

“They never told us, ‘Hell, no,’” he said. “If somebody had said, ‘You cannot destroy them,’ we would not have destroyed them.” . . .

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012677.php
[Kevin Drum] Let me get this straight. The White House had been in the loop for two years. The CIA had received letters from both the Justice Department and congressional leaders arguing that the tapes shouldn't be destroyed. The CIA's top lawyer had been involved for the entire time. And yet we're supposed to believe that, in 2005, a mid-ranking agency lawyer suddenly decided the tapes could be destroyed and the head of the clandestine branch then gave the order to do so without anyone else being involved? Really? Does anyone actually believe this story?

More: http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/11/riiiiiiiiiiight/

One of the interrogators admits, yes, we did torture

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004870.php

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/10/17273/408

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/torture_/2007/12/uhoh.php
Every single interrogation technique, down to the individual shake or slap, had to be personally cleared by the CIA's Deputy Director for Operations. . .

Fox News: Three cheers for torture!

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13868.html

It’s a simple question

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/10/132456/74
[Russ Feingold, D-WI, to new AG Michael Mukasey] During the hearing on your nomination to be Attorney General and in your answers to questions submitted for the record, you repeatedly refused to answer questions related to interrogation techniques on the grounds that you had not yet been briefed on the CIA's interrogation and detention program. . .

[N]ow that you have been sworn in as our nation's Attorney General and presumably have been briefed on the program, I urge you to provide your views on its legality to Congress at the earliest possible date.

How much blame do the Democratic leaders deserve for not making a bigger stink about CIA waterboarding when they first learned about it? Or is the story more complicated than that?

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004860.php

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004862.php

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004869.php

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/cards-on-table-by-digby-despite-some.html

Henry Waxman (D-CA), the busiest man in Washington, releases a new report on Bush Co. lies – this time on climate change

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/10/154653/67

A horrible nightmare about rape and abduction by Halliburton employees in Iraq

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/10/halliburton-slips-just-a-little-further-down-the-barbarism-slope/
[ABC] Jamie Leigh Jones, now 22, says that after she was raped by multiple men at a KBR camp in the Green Zone, the company put her under guard in a shipping container with a bed and warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job. . .

Jones says she was held in the shipping container for at least 24 hours without food or water by KBR, which posted armed security guards outside her door, who would not let her leave. . .

Over two years later, the Justice Department has brought no criminal charges in the matter. In fact, ABC News could not confirm any federal agency was investigating the case.

Legal experts say Jones' alleged assailants will likely never face a judge and jury, due to an enormous loophole that has effectively left contractors in Iraq beyond the reach of United States law.

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13877.html

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2715

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/11/01043/106
[Miss Laura] The rapists are not being prosecuted - maybe cannot be prosecuted - because the US has left contractors in Iraq unanswerable to the law. The physical evidence of rape has been disappeared. The company is not being prosecuted for imprisoning her. They furthermore are insisting that her employment contract means she cannot sue them, but has to go into a secret arbitration process massively stacked in their own favor. . . .

Well, well, well. Maybe after being hit in the head with a two-by-four often enough, even the Democrats can learn

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121001615.html
A Democratic deal to give President Bush some war funding in exchange for additional domestic spending appeared to collapse last night after House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) accused Republicans of bargaining in bad faith.

Instead, Obey said he will push a huge spending bill that would hew to the president's spending limit by stripping it of all lawmakers' pet projects, as well as most of the Bush administration's top priorities. It would also contain no money for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"Absent a Republican willingness to sit down and work out a reasonable compromise, I think we ought to end the game and go to the president's numbers," Obey said. "I was willing to listen to the argument that we ought to at least add more for Afghanistan, but when the White House refuses to compromise, when the White House continues to stick it in our eye, I say to hell with it." . . .

So how did Giuliani do on Meet the Press?

“Rudy Self-Destructs” http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/dec/10/rudy_self_destructs_on_russert
[M.J. Rosenberg] Rudy Giuliani provided the worst performance I've ever seen by a major Presidential candidate. . . .

“Giuliani’s Virtuoso Performance” http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/12/giulianis_virtuoso_performance.html
[Chris Cillizza] In an appearance yesterday on "Meet the Press," Giuliani went a long way toward answering those questions with a virtuoso performance against -- to our mind -- the toughest questioner in the business: Tim Russert.

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13867.html
[Steve Benen] I can’t say there was much in the way of actual news, and I wouldn’t suggest we actually learned anything, but it was nevertheless a sight to behold. It’s unusual to see a presidential hopeful be so consistently deceptive, non-stop, for a national audience. Watching the show, it was tempting to keep a bottle of Maalox in one hand, and a shovel to trudge through the nonsense in the other. . . .

Hmmm. . . why won’t Mike Huckabee release copies of his sermons when he was a Baptist minister?

http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2007/12/huckabee-faith-baptist-pastor-sermons.html

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

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

 
DAMAGE CONTROL

Not that it excuses them, but it’s clear that the story about Democratic leaders who were briefed on waterboarding but didn’t object to it was leaked to the Washington Post by Bush-friendly sources trying to share the blame for their torture regime, and trying to take the story about their destruction of CIA interrogation tapes off the front page.

Think about how long they sat on this story, waiting for just the right moment when they would need it for Major Damage Control. Of course, it has nothing to do with the legality of their torture practices – or with the destruction of the tapes that document them – but it does undermine the Democrats’ ability to make an issue of it

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012667.php
[Kevin Drum] The sources for this story are so obviously intent on discrediting congressional Democrats that it's hard to know whether to take it at face value . . . [read on]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/09/democrats/index.html
[Glenn Greenwald] This information was almost certainly leaked to the Post by intelligence officials who are highly irritated -- understandably so -- from watching the manipulative spectacle whereby these Democrats now prance around as outraged victims of policies to which they deliberately acquiesced, when they weren't fully supporting them. . . [read on]

http://www.correntewire.com/we_are_democrats_they_are_enablers
[Lambert] Well, I guess now I know why impeachment was “off the table.” . . .

More: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/accomplices-by-digby-yesterday-on-cnn-i.html

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/09/nancy-pelosi-congressional-leaders-secretly-do-expect-the-spanish-inquisition/

http://waterboarding.notlong.com

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/torture_/2007/12/torture_as_a_partisan_issue.php

More on the torture tapes: Who was the “outside consultant” involved, if he was not CIA, and why was he needed?

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2007/12/what_is_the_cia_hiding.html

One of the remaining questions about the Iran NIE is why it was released at all, embarrassing for the Bush gang as it has been. Here’s an answer

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012666.php

What a weird, weird argument, from the WSJ: Bush needs more people around him who will bend or ignore the facts to fall in line with his policies. More?!!?? How could he have MORE?

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/_/2007/12/shorter_wall_street_journal_editorial.php

More: http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110010965
[WSJ] We reported earlier this week that the authors of this Iran NIE include former State Department officials who have a history of hostility to Mr. Bush's foreign policy. But the ultimate responsibility for this fiasco lies with Mr. Bush. Too often he has appointed, or tolerated, officials who oppose his agenda, and failed to discipline them even when they have worked against his policies. . .

The End of Conservatism

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2697

Rudy meets Timmy on Meet the Press – and even under fairly gentle questioning, Giuliani comes off looking pretty sleazy

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060608.php

The laugh: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13865.html

The transcript: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22170668/

Mitt Romney, buyin’ their love

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/payola.php
[Matt Yglesias] One big strength of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign is that he has a lot of institutional support from establishment-minded social conservatives. One big weakness of Romney's presidential campaign is that he seems like a great big phony all the time. To liberals, he looks like a phony. But to the socially conservative rank and file he . . . also looks like a phony. So why all the love from elites? Tom Edsall and Ethan Hova have the story: Bribery! . . . [read on]

Mike Huckabee, behind the mask

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13864.html

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/9/153845/065

Hey girls, let’s dish: why is the Washington Post assigning its FASHION REPORTER to cover Hillary?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13866.html

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2007/12/postquality_journalism.html

It shouldn’t be surprising anymore, but . . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13863.html
[Steve Benen] For quite a while, it seemed as if the only political ads that were rejected by television networks came from the left. Last week, for example, Fox News rejected an ad from the Center for Constitutional Rights about the administration’s torture because, as Bill O’Reilly insisted, the ad was “anti-American.” Last year, NBC refused to run an ad from MoveOn.org about alleged Republican corruption. Around the same time, all of the major TV networks rejected an ad by the United Church of Christ that told viewers, “No matter who you are or where you are on life’s journey, you’re welcome here.”

The trend has been discouraging. In November 2005, Fox News wouldn’t run anti-Alito ads. Not long beforehand, MoveOn.org raised enough money to buy an ad during the Super Bowl, but CBS rejected it, noting its “long-term policy not to air issue ads anywhere on the network.” Just a few weeks prior, CBS and NBC refused advertising from the UCC because the church’s open, tolerant message of inclusion was labeled “too controversial.”

With this background in mind, it came as a bit of a surprise last week when NBC rejected a political ad from Freedom’s Watch, a right-wing group created to support the White House’s policy agenda. . . .

As much as I’m opposed to Freedom’s Watch, this wasn’t exactly welcome news. I don’t want the left and right blocked from the public’s airwaves, I’d prefer the networks allow both sides to advertise and reach the public.

That said, I was at least mildly encouraged that NBC was being even-handed — the network rebuffed MoveOn.org, a message of tolerance from the United Church of Christ, and the loyal Bushies at Freedom’s Watch.

Or so I thought. . . . [read on]

On robocalls

http://www.slate.com/id/2179395/

Theocracy watch

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/9/12614/3121
[Devilstower] There is a war over Christmas. More accurately, there is a war over the place of religion in American life, and Christmas is a skirmish of that war. And if you believe in the separation of church and state, you won't be surprised to find that you're losing. . . [read on]

Bonus item: Bloggers – not only rude, but deadly

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/09/blogger.threat.ap/index.html

[NB: Someone who posts a comment on a web site is not a “blogger”]

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

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

 
LOYAL OPPOSITION

Bush’s WH counsel Harriet Miers told the CIA not to destroy the tapes. Think she didn’t tell her boss about it?

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3971180&page=1
ABC News has learned that at least one White House official knew about the CIA's planned destruction of videotapes in 2005 that documented the interrogation of two al Qaeda operatives: then-White House counsel Harriet Miers.

Three officials told ABC News Miers urged the CIA not to destroy the tapes.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3969392
"I asked the president about whether he knew about the tapes and their existence or their destruction, he said he had no recollection of that. He did not remember being made aware of those prior to yesterday morning," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said on Friday.

[NB: “No recollection.” Sound familiar?]

Investigations coming

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060600.php
[David Kurtz] Will the Department of Justice and CIA "joint inquiry" into the Agency's destruction of the al Qaeda torture tapes be another Bush-era whitewash? Perhaps. The Department of Justice seems hopelessly conflicted in any such investigation. But this portion of Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Wainstein's letter to CIA Acting General Counsel, John Rizzo, may suggest some DOJ displeasure with CIA . . .

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060602.php
The House intelligence committee will also be investigating the CIA torture tapes, according to a just-released statement from committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes . . .

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060584.php
The CIA withheld information about its interrogation videos from quite a few people, but we can include the 9/11 Commission among those who are annoyed about having been misled.

What will come of it? http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/8/17313/5832

Is this guy going to be the scapegoat?

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/006827.html
CIA Directorate of Operations division chief Jose Rodriguez made decision to destroy interrogation tapes without authorization from CIA general counsel or director Goss? So reports the NYT . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/washington/09zubaydah.html
The agency operative who ordered the destruction of the tapes in November 2005 was Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., then the chief of the C.I.A.’s national clandestine service, known as the Directorate of Operations until 2005. On Saturday, a government official who had spoken recently with Mr. Rodriguez on the matter said that Mr. Rodriguez told him that he had received approval from lawyers inside the clandestine service to destroy the tapes.

This disclosure could broaden the scope of the inquiry into the tapes’ destruction. . . . Current and former intelligence officials said that the agency’s senior lawyer, John A. Rizzo, had not been notified about the decision and was angered to learn about the destruction of the tapes. . .

Mr. Rizzo’s position, together with the fact that the C.I.A. inspector general, John L. Helgerson, is now examining the matter, indicates a greater level of internal concern at the agency over the destruction than Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director, indicated in his message to agency employees on Thursday. . .

More: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/08/congress-and-the-torture-tapes/

Here’s a theory: the tapes, supposedly destroyed in 2005, were still in existence a month and a half ago (thanks to Avedon Carol for the link)

http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/2007/12/when-were-tapes-destroyed.html

Here’s another theory: the tapes were destroyed not in order to cover up waterboarding tactics, but because of something that was disclosed during the torture sessions

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/7/183319/766/707/419308

Yes, I said TORTURE. The tapes depict torture. Why won’t others say it?

http://gregmitchellwriter.blogspot.com/2007/12/news-outlets-refuse-to-say-torture.html

Damn them. Damn them all

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html
In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange. . . .

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement." . . .

Perfect, just perfect

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/washington/09zubaydah.html
The destruction of hundreds of hours of videotapes showing interrogations of top operatives of Al Qaeda, including Abu Zubaydah, could complicate the prosecution of Mr. Zubaydah and others. . .

Officials acknowledged on Friday that the destruction of evidence like videotaped interrogations could raise questions about whether the Central Intelligence Agency was seeking to hide evidence of coercion. A review of records in military tribunals indicates that five lower-level detainees at Guantánamo were initially charged with offenses based on information that was provided by or related to Mr. Zubaydah. Lawyers for these detainees could argue that they needed the tapes to determine what, if anything, Mr. Zubaydah had said about them. . . .

More: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060586.php

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/12/8/165619/070

Yes, of course Bush knew about the intelligence that Iran had given up its nuclear program, even as he was ratcheting up his fearmongering against them

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/08/bushs-direct-and-constant-knowledge-of-the-nie-intelligence/

Iran is winning

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/8/11509/1380
[Scout Finch] Think the news couldn't get any worse for George Bush as it relates to Iran? Think again. Iran has opted to stop accepting the US dollar as payment for oil. . .

What will happen to the US economy and the value of the dollar if OPEC follows suit? Not because they want to join with Iran, but because they can't afford the cost of doing business with the dollar? . . . [read on]

More: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/08/breaking-persians-still-better-at-chess-than-americans/

Hey, military families look remarkably like the rest of the country: they hate the war and are increasingly looking to the Democrats to get us out of it

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/08/military-community-disapproves-of-bush-thinks-hes-bungling-war/

The Dems get played. . . . again

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/07/AR2007120702550.html
House Democratic leaders could complete work as soon as Monday on a half-trillion-dollar spending package that will include billions of dollars for the war effort in Iraq without the timelines for the withdrawal of combat forces that President Bush has refused to accept, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said yesterday.

In a complicated deal over the war funds, Democrats will include about $11 billion more in domestic spending than Bush has requested, emergency drought relief for the Southeast and legislation to address the subprime mortgage crisis, Hoyer told a meeting of the Washington Post editorial board.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was the first to suggest to Hill Democrats the outlines of the pending deal on war funds for Iraq.

If the bargain were to become law, it would be the third time since Democrats took control of Congress that they would have failed to force Bush to change course in Iraq and continued to fund a war that they have repeatedly vowed to end. But it would also be the clearest instance yet of the president bowing to a Democratic demand for more money for domestic priorities, an increase that he had promised to reject. . . .

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/8/85013/5442

I said PLAYED

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/washington/09spend.html
The White House budget director warned on Saturday that President Bush was prepared to veto a $500 billion catchall spending bill that Congressional Democrats are assembling to pay for government operations and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. . . .

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/8/143720/988

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/9/35425/4272

The Washington Post ombudswoman admits that their irresponsible story about the rumors over Barack Obama being Muslim was terrible journalism – but then can’t resist a swipe at all the meanies and bloggers who criticized the paper for publishing it

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/12/washington_post_13.php
[Deborah Howell] My problems with the story by National Desk political reporter Perry Bacon Jr. and the headline ("Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him") were that Obama's connections to Islam are slender at best; that the rumors were old; and that convincing evidence of their falsity wasn't included in the story...

The story also brought up a discredited Jan. 16 story in Insight magazine, which is owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church and owner of the Washington Times. The Insight story said that Obama had gone to a madrassa, an Islamic religious school, as a child. CNN, ABC-TV and the Associated Press went to the school and reported that it was not a religious school but a public school. Bacon's story should have noted that information...

Another problem: Bacon's story also picked up a quote labeling Obama a Muslim from the Snopes.com Web site, which knocks down Internet rumors, but it didn't mention the investigation that found the rumor to be false. . . .

Then she gets defensive: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/8/121046/368/549/419474

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/08/late-night-wingnut-crap-of-the-week-12/

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/wapowatb-by-digby-so-deborah-howell.html

Don’t tell me what a decent, Christian guy Mike Huckabee is

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13858.html
[AP] Mike Huckabee once advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public, opposed increased federal funding in the search for a cure and said homosexuality could “pose a dangerous public health risk.” . . .

“If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague [from the general population],” Huckabee wrote. . .

Huckabee added, “I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk.” . . . [read on]

More: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/i-gotcher-commpassionate-conservatism.html

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/08/huckabee-winning-the-who-is-the-craziest-republican-candidate-sweepstakes/

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/huckabee_wanted_aids_patients_quarantined_in_1992_opposed_new_govt_money_for_research.php

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2692

Huckabee responds: http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/huckabee_on_1992_aids_stance_safety_first_political_correctness_last.php

We’ll see what happens on Meet the Press today, but Giuliani seems to think he can just stop answering questions about his extramarital affair, misuse of public funds, and arranging police dog walks for his mistress Judith Nathan and free police rides for her friends and family

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060582.php

Fred Thompson, statesman

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/thompson_the_nie_is_bogus.php
During a campaign stop in Iowa yesterday, Fred Thompson dismissed the National Intelligence Estimate's findings that Iran is no longer developing a nuclear weapons — a further sign that the war hawks just aren't going to give up on their Iran narrative. . . .

"I'm very suspicious of the thing," Thompson said, then going even further and suggesting that the evidence of Iran having ceased to develop nuclear weapons was itself planted by the Iranian regime. "I wouldn't be surprised if some of that info wasn't put out by (the Iranian government) . . .”

“It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up”

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13855.html

Can ANY of these Republicans win?

http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/a_race_nobody_can_win.php
[Ross Douhat] If you look at the field, every candidate seems to have near-disqualifying weaknesses (a point Larison has been making for months, I believe), which helps explain why nobody seems capable of getting above 30-35 percent in any national or state-level poll. McCain is still poison to a large chunk of the base and probably doesn't have enough money to capitalize even if he wins New Hampshire - and if he loses there, he's cooked. Mitt Romney is running on a record that would have made him a moderate Democrat in any state except hyper-liberal Massachusetts. Rudy Giuliani is running on a record that would have made him a moderate Democrat in any place except hyper-liberal New York City. Fred Thompson is more ideologically appropriate, but he's lived down to his lackluster record as a politician by running a remarkably lousy and (perhaps unremarkably) lazy campaign. Ron Paul is, well, Ron Paul.

Note that I'm not saying the Republican field is weak, exactly. In a certain sense, it's the most accomplished primary field of any major party in a long time; indeed, you could argue that almost all the GOP candidates (including Huckabee) have more impressive resumes than the three leading Democrats, who between them can boast about ten years in the Senate and the weird quasi-accomplishment of being First Lady. It's just that ideologically-speaking, none of the Republican contenders make nearly as much sense as candidates for the nomination of the present-day GOP . .

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13860.html

Sunday talk show line-ups

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/8/151751/653
* Meet the Press (NBC): Rudy Giuliani (R-NY)
* Face the Nation (CBS): Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) & Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) on CIA tapes & Iran NIE
* This Week (ABC): Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) on his campaign and Iran NIE; Newt Gingrich (R-GA); roundtable of Sam Donaldson, Cokie Roberts and George Will; John Cusack on "Grace is Gone," a film about a man who cares for his daughters while his wife is serving in Iraq
* Fox News Sunday: Mike Huckabee (R-AR); Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
* CNN Late Edition: Pakstani Pres. Pervez Musharraf; Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA); Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)

Bonus item: According to Romney’s wife, his speech was a “Gettysburg Address”

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13857.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 @ 7:21 AM

 
EVEN WORSE THAN WE KNEW

Could it be any clearer? Lying to the court that certain tapes didn’t exist, withholding them from the investigative 9-11 committee, then secretly destroying them despite being explicitly told not to. This one isn’t going away any time soon, folks

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/washington/07cnd-intel.html
Angry Democratic lawmakers called for investigations today into the Central Intelligence Agency’s destruction in 2005 of at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two Qaeda operatives in the agency’s custody.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts accused the C.I.A. of “a cover-up” . . . “We haven’t seen anything like this since the 181⁄2 -minute gap on the tapes of Richard Nixon,” Mr. Kennedy said . . .

Mr. [Richard] Durbin, the Democratic whip, said he had written Mr. Mukasey to ask for an inquiry into “whether C.I.A. officials who destroyed these videotapes and withheld information about their existence from official proceedings violated the law.” . . .

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee wrote to Mr. Mukasey and the C.I.A. director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, today asking whether the Justice Department advised the C.I.A. on the destruction of the videotapes, and whether the department was now contemplating an investigation into possible obstruction of justice. . . .

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004845.php
[Spencer Ackerman] Usually, what nails you in Washington malfeasance is the cover-up, not the crime. With the revelation that the CIA in 2005 destroyed videotapes of interrogations of senior al-Qaeda detainees, it'll be both. . .

This week, The New York Times prepared a story about the tapes. To get out in front of it, Director Michael Hayden released a statement about both the tapes and their destruction.

Hayden makes not a single plausible claim about the tapes and why they were destroyed. . . . [read on]

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/dec/07/torture_tapes
[Larry Johnson] Are you telling me that CIA has not figured out how to edit videotapes and cover the faces and voices of their personnel? I’m sure there is a 14 year old computer geek out there somewhere with a MacBook Pro who is ready and willing to help the CIA do the necessary editing to protect their personnel. The Hayden excuse does not pass the bullshit test. . . . [read on]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/08/washington/08intel.html
White House and Justice Department officials, along with senior members of Congress, advised the Central Intelligence Agency in 2003 against a plan to destroy hundreds of hours of videotapes showing the interrogations of two operatives of Al Qaeda, government officials said Friday.

The chief of the agency’s clandestine service nevertheless ordered their destruction in November 2005, taking the step without notifying even the C.I.A.’s own top lawyer, John A. Rizzo, who was angry at the decision, the officials said. . . .

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004855.php
Senate intelligence committee chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) . . . knew about the tapes' existence in 2003, but only found out about their destruction yesterday. . .

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004852.php
[Rep. Jane Harman, D-CA] In early 2003, in my capacity at Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, I received a highly classified briefing on CIA interrogation practices from the agency’s General Counsel. The briefing raised a number of serious concerns and led me to send a letter to the General Counsel. Both the briefing and my letter are classified so I cannot reveal specifics, but I did caution against destruction of any videotapes.

Given the nature of the classification, I was not free to mention this subject publicly until Director Hayden disclosed it yesterday. To my knowledge, the Intelligence Committee was never informed that any videotapes had been destroyed. Surely I was not. . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/08/washington/08intel.html
Representative Peter Hoekstra, the Michigan Republican who was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee from 2004 to 2006, said he had never been told that the tapes were destroyed. . .

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/07/cia_evidence/index.html
[Glenn Greenwald] In April, I compiled a long list of the numerous court proceedings and other investigations which were impeded by extremely dubious claims from the Bush administration that key evidence was mysteriously "missing." . . . [read on]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060552.php
[CR] I don't know about you, but if I had the choice between being charged with Obstruction of Justice, or having documentary evidence that I participated in, facilitated, or ordered violations of the Geneva Conventions, amounting to war crimes, I know what I'd choose.

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/12/07/BL2007120701201.html

You don’t think they’re worried? Watch Alice obfuscate

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060564.php
"No recollection"

“What the tapes would have shown”

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012662.php

The unbelievable expanse of Bush claims of executive power – even worse than we knew

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004858.php
[Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-WA] “For years under the Bush Administration, the Office of Legal Counsel within the Department of Justice has issued highly classified secret legal opinions related to surveillance. This is an administration that hates answering to an American court, that wants to grade its own papers, and OLC is the inside place the administration goes to get legal support for its spying program.

As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I was given access to those opinions, and spent hours poring over them. . . To give you an example of what I read, I have gotten three legal propositions from these OLC opinions declassified. Here they are, as accurately as my note taking could reproduce them from the classified documents. Listen for yourself. I will read all three, and then discuss each one.

1. An executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it.

2. The President, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II.

3. The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations.

Those three principles, he said, boiled down to:

1. “I don’t have to follow my own rules, and I don’t have to tell you when I’m breaking them.”

2. “I get to determine what my own powers are.”

3. “The Department of Justice doesn’t tell me what the law is, I tell the Department of Justice what the law is.”

More: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/07/whitehouse-rips-the-white-house/

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/07/coming-after-john-yoo/

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13848.html
[Steve Benen] In recent years, as a result of a variety of jaw-dropping scandals, officials at the Bush White House has made it clear that they believe the president has the authority to decide for himself whether his own conduct is constitutional. Forget the judiciary, checks and balances, co-equal branches, etc. — Nixon once said, “[W]hen the president does it, that means that it is not illegal,” and this president seems to take that maxim to heart.

That said, neither Bush nor his aides go around explicitly making that argument. Instead, they do it in their lawyer’s office. . . . [read on]

Given the CIA tape story, Bush’s lies about the NIE and when he knew about it will probably fade from public attention. But not from ours

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/12/was_white_house.php
[Greg Sargent] It seems to me that the key questions about President Bush and the new National Intelligence Estimate saying that Iran suspended its nuke program years ago are getting lost in all the noise here.

Those questions are: Was the White House's intention -- provided that the new intel remained classified -- to continue to falsely hype the Iran nuke threat? Was the White House advocating for the concealment of the info with an eye towards continuing to do this? . . . [read on]

The GOP responds: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13844.html
[Steve Benen] Consider a thought experiment. Let’s say Republicans were anxious to confront Iran militarily, and Democrats preferred a diplomatic approach. Both sides awaited the collective judgment of U.S. intelligence agencies in the form of a National Intelligence Estimate. The NIE’s conclusions are published, and they tell Republicans everything they want to hear — Iran is a burgeoning threat with an active and dangerous nuclear program.

Dems respond to this news, not by refocusing efforts on a policy towards Iran, but by attacking the integrity of U.S. intelligence officials. What would Republicans do? I suspect they’d respond by questioning why Dems are more interesting in attacking the loyal and patriotic messengers than dealing with the message.

And yet, this scenario is playing in reverse. The NIE concluded that Iran halted its nuclear-weapons program in 2003 — which should be good news — but Republicans are responding by going after the intelligence community. . . . [read on]

More: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012659.php

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012660.php

Now we know why “Cookie” Krongard didn’t testify this week about lying about his brother’s involvement with Blackwater – he’s quitting instead

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071207/us_nm/usa_blackwater_krongard_dc;_ylt=AkkTuPri.KeeQA_enCKSw8us0NUE

More: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004853.php

Another bad headline

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/washington/07cnd-energy.html
Senate Blocks Energy Bill
[T]he measure was blocked in the Senate this morning, as it attracted 53 “yes” votes — 7 short of the number needed to advance it. Forty-two senators voted against it. . . [NB: Another Republican filibuster, not described as such]

If it were a Democrat saying this (Chapter #984)

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/gop_senate_leader_mcconnell_appears_to_belittle_deaths_of_american_troops.php
[Mitch McConnell, R-KY] “Nobody is happy about losing lives but remember these are not draftees, these are full-time professional soldiers."

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13846.html

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/7/224311/716

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/votevets_blasts_mcconnell_for_belittling_troop_deaths.php

Giuliani’s misuse of public resources to benefit his mistress started even earlier than previously admitted

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2007/12/07/2007-12-07_judith_nathan_got_security_earlier.html
Judith Nathan got taxpayer-funded chauffeur services from the NYPD earlier than previously disclosed - even before her affair with then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani was revealed. . .

When pressed by The News Thursday, aides to the Republican presidential hopeful conceded that Nathan got police protection "sporadically" before December 2000 - the previously acknowledged beginning of her taxpayer-funded detail.

Then-Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik said in January 2001 the NYPD assigned Nathan round-the-clock protection the month before because of an unspecified threat against her on a streetcorner near her home. He insisted at a news conference she had no guards until then.

Thursday, Giuliani aides changed their story. They said Nathan had received previously undisclosed "threats" earlier in 2000, and that protection was provided at those times.

They refused to provide dates, describe the nature of the threats or confirm - as witnesses and a law enforcement source now contend - that the protection began before she was publicly identified as the married mayor's girlfriend in May 2000.

That would make the threat justification all the more puzzling, because she wasn't a public figure. . . .

[NB: Maybe it was Giuliani’s WIFE issuing the death threats. . . ]

More: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060505.php

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004849.php

Mark 8:36 "For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” Where JFK’s religion speech was designed to bring the country together under the general principles of personal freedom and government neutrality toward religious belief, Romney cynically chose to divide the country: We the godly may believe different things, but at least we are united in our hatred toward the irreligious and the atheists

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2007/12/mitt-vs-atheist.html
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom."
-- Mitt Romney, Dec. 6, 2007

[Fred Clark] Romney repeatedly says in his speech that his topic is religious liberty and his own faith. Given that, it's not surprising that he would argue that "freedom" and "religion" are compatible or complementary. But he goes beyond that, arguing that each requires the other -- that religion is necessary for freedom and that freedom is necessary for religion. . . .

"Freedom requires religion," Romney said. Had he said, "Freedom requires religious freedom," then I would agree, absolutely. . . .

But Romney did not say that freedom requires religious freedom. He said, "Freedom requires religion." And that's a contradictory statement -- a very different, and very frightening, thing.

If freedom requires religion, then the a-religious and irreligious, the non-religious and un-religious are the enemies of freedom. Romney believes, in other words, that atheism is incompatible with freedom. Whatever it is he means by "religious liberty," he does not believe it can safely be applied to atheists. . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07brooks.html
[David Brooks, at his best] When this country was founded, James Madison envisioned a noisy public square with different religious denominations arguing, competing and balancing each other’s passions. But now the landscape of religious life has changed. Now its most prominent feature is the supposed war between the faithful and the faithless. Mitt Romney didn’t start this war, but speeches like his both exploit and solidify this divide in people’s minds. The supposed war between the faithful and the faithless has exacted casualties.

The first casualty is the national community. Romney described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The nonobservant are not. There was not even a perfunctory sentence showing respect for the nonreligious. I’m assuming that Romney left that out in order to generate howls of outrage in the liberal press.

The second casualty of the faith war is theology itself. In rallying the armies of faith against their supposed enemies, Romney waved away any theological distinctions among them with the brush of his hand. In this calculus, the faithful become a tribe, marked by ethnic pride, a shared sense of victimization and all the other markers of identity politics. . .

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/religion_and_politics_/2007/12/legitimate_inference_from_faith.php
[Michael O’Hare] It appears Mitt Romney has really stepped in it, with a speech so unctuous and contrived that it felt actually smarmy, not to mention a deeply reprehensible attempt to raise a smug sectarian alliance of one-Godly Babbitts against a subversive legion of more- or fewer-Godlies. Even David Brooks is ready to leave him at the station for that speech. . . .

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/romney_spokesman_wont_say_whether_athiests_have_a_proper_place_in_america.php
[Eric Kleefeld] A spokesman for the Mitt Romney campaign is thus far refusing to say whether Romney sees any positive role in America for atheists and other non-believers . .

More: http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/romneys_terrible_speech.php

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/religion_and_politics_/2007/12/more_on_mitt_the_bigot.php

http://www.juancole.com/2007/12/romney-some-beliefs-are-more-equal-than.html

All for naught?

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071207/NEWS/712070374/-1/caucus
Most conservative Christian political activists and pastors who studied Mitt Romney's speech on Thursday addressing his Mormon faith agree it was something he had to do.

But few said it was strong enough to change the minds of evangelicals - a powerful force in Republican politics. . . .

Fred Thompson’s lifeless campaign – is this the best they can do?

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/thompson_lit_warns_iowans_huckabee_is_like_bill_clinton.php
Fred Thompson has a great piece of literature in Iowa attacking Mike Huckabee, comparing him to another famous Arkansan. The mailer splices pictures of Huckabee together with none other than Bill Clinton . . .

ANOTHER Republican retiring

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/gop_congressman_mccrery_retiring.php

Bonus item: Bill O’Reilly -- mainstream pundit, or complete nutcase?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/7/175746/418
On Fox News yesterday, Bill O’Reilly let loose on “far-left websites” like DailyKos, stating, “If you read these far-left websites, you’re a devil worshipper. You are.” O’Reilly’s ombudsman responded, “As a journalist, you know better than that.” O’Reilly shot back: “Satan is running the DailyKos. Yes, he is!”

***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 @ 8:00 AM

 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

Nothing to hide?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/06/AR2007120601828.html
The CIA made videotapes in 2002 of its officers administering harsh interrogation techniques to two al-Qaeda suspects but destroyed the tapes three years later, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said yesterday.

Captured on tape were interrogations of Abu Zubaydah, a close associate of Osama bin Laden, and a second high-level al-Qaeda member who was not identified, according to two intelligence officials. Zubaydah has been identified by U.S. officials familiar with the interrogations as one of three al-Qaeda suspects who were subjected to "waterboarding," a technique that simulates drowning, while in CIA custody.

The tapes were made to document any confessions the two men might make and to serve as an internal check on how the interrogations were conducted, senior intelligence officials said.

All the tapes were destroyed in November 2005 on the order of Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., then the CIA's director of clandestine operations, officials said. The destruction came after the Justice Department had told a federal judge in the case of al-Qaeda operative Zacarias Moussaoui that the CIA did not possess videotapes of a specific set of interrogations sought by his attorneys. . . .

The tapes also were not provided to the Sept. 11 commission, the independent panel that investigated the 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon . . .

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004844.php
[Daniel Marcus, 9/11 commission lawyer] If tapes were destroyed, he said, “it’s a big deal, it’s a very big deal,” because it could amount to obstruction of justice to withhold evidence being sought in criminal or fact-finding investigations.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/12/6/184336/531
[ACLU] “The destruction of these tapes suggests an utter disregard for the rule of law. It was plainly a deliberate attempt to destroy evidence that could have been used to hold CIA agents accountable for the torture of prisoners. Both Congress and the courts have repeatedly demanded that this evidence be turned over, but apparently the CIA believes that its agents are above the law.”

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/06/absence-of-torture-tape-librarian-a-feature-not-a-bug/
[Emptywheel] Porter Goss. A partisan hack brought into CIA to destroy evidence. . . .

I'm going to just throw some points out that you can think about when you read the article yourself--you really need to read the whole thing because it is breathtaking in its implications.

* The timing of this leak was clearly intended to have one effect: to make it impossible for Bush to veto the bill prohibiting the CIA from torturing. Now let's see if it accomplishes that goal.

* Another note on timing? Paul Clement's statements at SCOTUS yesterday were not proved wrong within 24 hours, as they were when he claimed, during the Padilla hearing, that we don't torture. But this works about as well, I think, to make sure the Justices think long and hard about our gulag in Cuba.

* The Judge in Moussaoui's case, Leonie Brinkema, is not going to like this one bit; these are some of the tapes government lawyers claimed didn't exist, and she's already steaming mad that they misled her once.

* General Hayden claims the leaders of Congressional Oversight committees were briefed. Who? Assuming they were briefed in 2005, it would be Pat Roberts and Crazy Pete Hoekstra, both up for re-election next year. Were Jello Jay and Jane Harman also briefed? Also--I presume they briefed these folks on the destroyed evidence in 2005, right in the middle of debates on torture. Any wonder why they didn't brief Congress as a whole?

* General Hayden claims the CIA stopped videotaping interrogations in 2002. Given the big to-do over declassifying their change in policy on photographing detainees, consider me skeptical.

* Guess what? AG Mukasey has a mighty big headache on his hands, a clear case of obstruction of justice involving Goss and a bunch of other people. I guess we won't have long to wait to see whether he's willing to spike investigations for the Unitary Executive.

A timeline: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/06/torture-and-taping-timeline/

Still trying to explain away Bush’s lies about the Iran NIE

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/12/dana_perino_on.php

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13824.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/12/06/BL2007120601312.html

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/12/iran-the-nie-bu.html

Poor Alice: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html
Reporter: But the president said, "He didn't tell me what the information was." But you're now saying he was told that Iran may have halted its nuclear weapons program and also that there may be a new assessment, right?

Perino: Right, but he doesn't -- he didn't get any of the details of what -- what the information was, in terms of what the actual raw intelligence was.

Reporter: But he didn't say "details." He just said, "He didn't tell me what the ... "

Perino: OK, look. I can see where you could say that the president could have been more precise in that language. But the president was being truthful . . .

Reporter: Can I just clarify? Is the president briefed every day by Director McConnell when he gets his daily intelligence briefing?

Perino: I don't know if it's him every day, but he does get a briefing.

Reporter: ... on a regular basis ...

Perino: Sure.

Reporter: ... Director McConnell's in the Oval Office.

Perino: Sure.

Reporter: So are you saying that from August when the president was tipped off by McConnell until last week ...

Perino: "Tipped off"? Come on.

Reporter: No, no, no.

Perino: Ed, "tipped off"? He was ...

Reporter: He was tipped off to the fact that the assessment may be changing. In your own words, you said he was told of that.

Perino: Sure.

Reporter: He wasn't told all the details. So from August till last week the president never asked Director McConnell, "Hey, how's that going? Are we getting any more on Iran?" He never asked ...

Perino: I'm not saying that.

Reporter: Well, so he did ask McConnell?

Perino: I don't know . . .

Reporter: Can you just clarify one more thing? What day was the president actually briefed on the NIE?

Perino: I don't know. I don't know. . .

Reporter: But there have been reports that the president briefed Prime Minister Olmert last week, maybe on Monday.

Perino: I don't know.

Reporter: Did he brief Prime Minister Olmert? And how could he brief Olmert on Monday about a report that he found out about on Wednesday? Can you ...

Perino: I don't -- I will check. I mean, it's possible that he knew that there was information coming; the intelligence community was checking it . . .

Reporter: The New York Times today is saying that there was a meeting in the situation room two weeks ago about this NIE and the vice president was there, but not the president. Is that true?

Perino: I don't know. . .

Reporter: OK, but then it wouldn't filter up to the president if the vice president knew about the contents of the NIE two weeks ago? It wouldn't filter to the president until last week? He wouldn't know about the details?

Perino: I don't know . . .

Watch: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060482.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/05/former-cia-officials-bus_n_75518.html
Four former CIA officials who provided intelligence information to past presidents described as preposterous President Bush's claim that he was unaware until very recently that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003. . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13832.html
[Steve Benen] This isn’t complicated. When Bush says one thing, and then White House officials tell us that reality is something different, then necessarily what the president told us wasn’t true. Now, this could qualify as a lie (if he knew the truth at the time), or it could qualify as incompetence (if he just doesn’t know what he’s talking about), but it really has to be one or the other.

News coverage? Big yawn: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/12/big_news_orgs_p.php

Joe Klein: “an amazing moment of candor” (WTF??)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/7/55830/9792

Something good from Hillary

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/hillary_rolls_out_legislation_to_oppose_longterm_agreements_with_iraq.php
Looking to stake out a firm position against a long-term Iraq commitment, with only weeks to go before the early caucuses and primaries, Hillary Clinton rolled out new legislation today designed to challenge the White House's authority on Iraq.

The proposal deals with "status of forces agreements" that the Bush Administration has been making with the Iraqi government that would create a long-term American commitment. Hillary's legislation would deny funding for any commitments made under a SOFA, and would hold that they do not carry the force of law — as opposed to treaties, which are approved by Congress and are legally binding. . . .

Nothing to worry about here. Move on

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060483.php
[McClatchy] A State Department project manager banished from Iraq by the U.S. ambassador and under scrutiny by the Justice Department continues to oversee the construction of the much-delayed new American embassy in Baghdad from nearby Kuwait, State Department officials disclosed Thursday.

James L. Golden, a contract employee, is still managing the $740 million project, said Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy, the department's top management official. . . .

What, no Cookie and Buzzy show?

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004842.php

What do the American people REALLY think about immigration?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/6/124930/538
[LAT] [A] strong bipartisan majority -- 60% -- favors allowing illegal immigrants who have not committed crimes to become citizens if they pay fines, learn English and meet other requirements . .

More: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060480.php

When Kennedy gave his famous speech on Catholicism, he tried to reassure the American people that he believed in an iron-clad separation between Church and State. In today’s Republican party, a candidate can’t say that – and so Mitt Romney, in a speech meant to reassure people about his Mormonism, goes . . . another way, you might say

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_12_02_archive.html#7718286690659366154
[Atrios] It's completely appropriate that Mitt was introduced by George HW Bush, the man who once said: “No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.”

Bringing the country together: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13831.html
[Romney] “They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America — the religion of secularism.” . . . [read on]

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/06/mitt-romney-we-need-more-religion-in-government/
[Romney] “Freedom requires religion . . .” [read on]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200712060003
Romney has repeatedly said that he believes Americans "want a person of faith to lead them." . . . [read on]

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_12_02_archive.html#9182089207089811226
[Atrios] In Mitt Romney's America, you're free to worship anyone you want as long as it's Jesus Christ, or maybe his Dad.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012651.php
[Kevin Drum] I can't tell you how much this pisses me off. . . .[read on]

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/wonder-working-bs-by-digby-i-wrote.html
[Digby] He leaned more heavily on universal loathing of the despised minority of atheists and agnostics than even I predicted, but he did come through with some good code words meant to temper the fact that he couldn't say outright that although he hated the same people the good moralist Christian Right hates, he felt their pain. . . [read on]

DON’T actually discuss Mormonism: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/6/105657/418
[Kagro X] What the speech did succeed in showing is that the Romney operation is the nearest successor (to date) to the Bush operation in its willingness to play the press corps for suckers. . . .

Don’t EVER discuss Mormonism: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1935586/posts
[Romney] "There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith.” . . . [read on]

He’s no Jack Kennedy: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/6/144038/828

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13830.html
[Steve Benen] This wasn’t the JFK speech; it was the anti-JFK speech.

Kennedy believed in an “absolute” separation of church and state; Romney believes government neutrality on matters of faith is a mistake. Kennedy believed in leaving religious institutions free of government aid or favor; Romney believes the government must take an active role in preventing secularism from taking over. Romney didn’t echo the wise words of John F. Kennedy; he repudiated them.

The political strategy behind all of this isn’t subtle — Romney is appealing to right-wing conservatives by telling them he may share a (slightly) different faith tradition, but he’ll embrace their worldview and promote their ideas as president.

The question, of course, is whether any of this is going to work. Given the landscape, I seriously doubt it. . . .

Oops: http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/06/romneys-speech-the-wingnut-reaction/
[David Frum] Once the murmurs over the oratory subside, people are going to realize: that speech did not work.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/6/103015/447
[Sally Quinn] "I think it was an obliteration of the idea of the separation of church and state...if you believe in God or Christ you're on my side, if not, you're not."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/12/06/romney_advisers_against_todays_speech.html
Mitt Romney's Mormon problem "has been obvious for two years, though just two months ago he was still in denial, claiming only journalists asked him about his religion," Robert Novak writes. "A month ago, he changed his tune, telling campaign contributors he liked 'the idea' of a speech but 'at some point' in the future because 'the political advisers' tell him 'it's not a good idea.'"

"These advisers still think it's a bad idea . . .’

Watch: http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/romneys_mormon_speech_the_highlights.php

The press seems to have little interest in Giuliani’s adultery and misuse of public funds. Many of his supporters, however, think it’s a problem

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13835.html

The electoral vote-theft proposition in California just can’t seem to get off the ground

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/6/182138/703

Bonus item: George Bush’s “Hope Hotline”

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/6/181029/191

Extra bonus item: The kind of ads they make

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060490.php

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

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:46 AM

 
A QUESTION OF STANDARDS

Still trying to explain away the NIE mess – but in fact confirming that Bush DID lie when he said, “Mike McConnell came in and said, ‘We have some new information.’ He didn’t tell me what the information was.”

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060387.php
[Josh Marshall] I'm hearing from a lot of directions that the basic gist of the report -- that the Iranians aren't nearly as close to going nuclear as we'd been led to believe -- has been circulating at least in intelligence circles for some time. In other words, this NIE has been sitting either literally or figuratively on the president's desk for months. . . [read on]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060399.php
[Alice] "In August, DNI Director McConnell advised President Bush that the intelligence community would not be able to meet a congressionally imposed deadline requiring a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran because new information had been obtained just as they were about to finalize the report.

He said that if the new information turns out to be true, what we thought we knew for sure is right. Iran does in fact have a covert nuclear weapons program, but it may be suspended. . .”

[NB: I like that. The NIE, which shows that what they believed and were saying about Iran was WRONG, is now being spun as confirmation that they were right all along.]

More: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060351.php

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060339.php

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/casus-belli-flops-by-digby-josh.html

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/12/05/bush/index.html

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13818.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/12/05/BL2007120501703.html

More lies: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iDW0N8rUZyEPyY4oGxUVMOdxZ31w

Let’s just pretend it never happened

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060349.php

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/05/AR2007120500897.html

Fox News, hard after the story (r-i-i-i-g-h-t)

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13816.html

Coincidence?

http://www.drudgereport.com/
Ahmadinejad: Report a Victory for Iran

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315174,00.html
Ahmadinejad Says U.S. Intelligence Report is 'Declaration of Victory' for Iran

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/12/05/iran.nuclear/index.html
Iran: Nuclear report a 'victory'

[NB: Isn’t it good to know that CNN picks up its narratives from Drudge and Fox?]

Another guy with a LITTLE credibility problem

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/5/185541/710
[Politico] Vice President Cheney today predicted Iraq will be a self-governing democracy by the time he leaves office, calling the current U.S. surge strategy "a remarkable success story" that will be studied for years to come . . . [read on]

[NB: And THEN we will be greeted as liberators. Really.]

In fact. . . .

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/05/the-movie-weve-seen-before/
[Phoenix Woman] It looks like the Sunni insurgents in Iraq, far from being cowed by the mighty prowess of Bush's troop escalation surge, are simply biding their time until the escalation, which cannot be sustained as our armed forces are falling apart from overuse, comes to its eventual end . . . [read on]

Whack-a-mole continues: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/world/middleeast/06mosul.html
Sunni insurgents pushed out of Baghdad and Anbar Provinces have migrated to this northern Iraqi city [Mosul] and have been trying to turn it into a major hub for their operations . . .

Contempt vote coming today?

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004834.php

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/5/103212/477

Hey how’s abstinence education working for us?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/washington/06birth.html
The birth rate among teenagers 15 to 19 in the United States rose 3 percent in 2006, according to a report issued Wednesday, the first such increase since 1991. . .

Yes, ANOTHER Giuliani pal in a corruption probe

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004829.php

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004837.php

John Aravosis is out for blood over this Huckabee paroled rapist story

http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/huckabee-to-cnn-parole-board-members.html
Huckabee to CNN: Parole Board members not telling the truth about Dumond case

http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/former-top-aide-to-huckabee-he-did-try.html
Former top Huckabee aide: He DID try to influence parole board to set rapist free

http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/more-on-huckabees-active-role-in.html
Huckabee was warned rapist would strike again, mom of murdered girl speaks out on ABC

http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/huckabee-in-august-2007-i-felt-sorry.html
Huckabee in August 2007: I felt sorry for rapist

http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/huckabee-was-on-first-name-basis-with.html
Huckabee was on first-name basis with convicted rapist

http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/huckabee-issues-fake-passive-voice-cya.html
Huckabee issues fake passive-voice CYA apology to dead rape victims' families

http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/huckabee-rape-defense-bill-clinton-made.html
Huckabee rape defense: BIll Clinton made me do it

http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/huckabee-let-lots-more-criminals-off.html
Huckabee let lots more criminals off the hook

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13814.html

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/05/late-night-mike-huckabees-tangled-web/

WORSE than “Willie Horton” http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060402.php
[CR] Michael Dukakis did not advocate the release of Willie Horton specifically, whereas Mike Huckabee *did* advocate specifically for the release of Wayne Dumond. . . [read on]

The Washington Post is still trying to defend its “Muslim Obama” article