I knew that Congress hadn't seen the same intelligence that the White House had seen. It was frustrating at the time, because serious political editors like Harris were repeating the talking point without asking: "Might the president be pulling our leg?"


Senator Feinstein asked the Congressional Research Service to look into the question. And, of course they verified that Congress did not have the same intelligence the White House did. The White House also had access to raw intelligence. As we know now, some of that raw intelligence, parts that were used in presidential speeches that were debunked, came from torturing detainees.


Why these limits on Congressional access? (from the report)

   "In not providing Congress routine access to source identities, executive branch officials cite the need to protect against "leaks" or unauthorized disclosure of information that the Intelligence Community generally considers to be the most sensitive in its possession."

Anyone read that graph to Karl Rove or Scooter Libby?

Jay Rosen at Pressthink has published interviews with Harris and Froomkin. I want to spend a little more time looking at the interview, but I thought this exchange was telling:


   

Q: You also said, "I perceive a good bit of his commentary on the news as coming through a liberal prism--or at least not trying very hard to avoid such perceptions." But you don't give any examples or links to past columns, and Deborah Howell, who also made this point, doesn't give any examples, so it's hard for readers to judge what these observations are based on. Could you help me out here? What issues does WHB tend to view through a liberal prism? Can you point to columns that you had in mind? You also say that it may be true that Froomkin would do the column the same way if Kerry had won the `04 election; but if that's so, doesn't that undercut the notion of a liberal prism?

    John Harris: How Dan would be writing about a Kerry administration is obviously an imponderable. Does Dan present a liberal worldview? Not always, but cumulatively I think a great many people would say yes--enough that I don't want them thinking he works for the news side of the Post.

    Without agreeing with the views of this conservative blogger who took on Froomkin, I would say his argument does not seem far-fetched to me.

Shorter Harris: I don't want to agree with RNC blogger Ruffini, but I'll post a link to him that's close to my own viewpoint. Yes, I know there's a famous quote about TV never having gone broke by underestimating the intelligence of its viewers (paraphrasing Twain, I believe), but is that what Harris thinks of the Washington Post's readership?

I have a report on a topic not related to Murtha or Iraq, but one that I believe may be of interest to the TPMCafe community.




Last night, I was at a reading by Tom Toles, the editorial cartoonist for the Washington Post, and thought it was brilliant.  I've put together my notes on the talk, and believe that readers here might find it interesting.




In particular, he mentioned that part of his routine every day was reading TPM before he makes his draft drawings.  Given that this is probably the world's most read political cartoonist, that's pretty cool.

Regarding this decision I'll just say that Scalito's desire to return society to the Dark Ages matches well with some of his colleagues pining for the days of the feudal system.




There is a certain logic to such a nomination.  It appears calculated to undo the Gang of 14 agreement, which had undermined the authority of the One True branch of government, the Executive.  Can't have that.  It also would be an appeasement to the Fundamentalist branch of the Republican party.  Their support for Bush in the 2004 election was conditioned on a Supreme Court appointment that would overturn Roe, and Miers was ambiguous on this point.  They had ordered up raw meat; imagine their surprise when they found snausage in their bowl.




More on Scalito at dKosopedia.

Was there something in Rove's motive that made it less serious? Let's take a closer look. Here's what Franklin says about his motive:

Franklin said he passed the information because he was "frustrated"

with the direction of U.S. policy and

thought he could influence it by having

them relay the data through "back

channels" to officials on the National

Security Council

While Rove never said what his motive was, it appears that his motive was to retaliate against a political opponent, hardly a nobler cause.

Was there something about the nature of the specific charges that made them more serious? Here's what Franklin plead guilty to:

Franklin, 58, a specialist on Iran,

pleaded guilty to two conspiracy

counts and a third charge of possessing

classified documents.

True, Rove didn't pass written documents to reporters, but that hardly seems like the crucial distinction.

It's also important to note that Franklin has turned state's witness, so something positive will come out of this: at least a slightly better understanding of Israel's espionage activities in the US. To the best of my knowledge nothing good has come out of Rove's leak of a covert agent.

As far as why the two cases are treated differently, might it be that the real distinction is that Rove has friends in higher places than Franklin?

Freedom in Afghanistan, say goodbye Taliban

Free elections in Iraq, Saddam Hussein locked up

Osama's staying underground, Al Qaida now is finding out

America won't turn and run once the fighting has begun

Libya turns over nukes, Lebanese want freedom, too

Syria is forced to leave, don't you know that all this means

Chorus

Bush was right!

Bush was right!

Bush was right!

Democracy is on the way, hitting like a tidal wave

All over the middle east, dictators walk with shaky knees

Don't know what they're gonna do, their worst nightmare is coming true

They fear the domino effect, they're all wondering who's next

Repeat Chorus

Ted Kennedy - wrong!

Cindy Sheehan - wrong!

France - wrong!

Zell Miller - right!

Economy is on the rise kicking into overdrive

Angry liberals can't believe it's cause of W's policies

Unemployment's staying down, Democrats are wondering how

Revenue is going up, can you say "Tax Cuts"

Repeat Chorus

Cheney was right, Condi was right, Rummy was right, Blair was right

You were right, we were right, "The Right" was right and Bush was right

Bush was right!

Bush was right!

Abramoff: "I hate to ask your help with something so silly, but I have been nominated for membership in the Cosmos Club," Abramoff wrote. He noted that the club has "Nobel Prize winners, etc. Problem for me is that most prospective members have received awards and I have received none."

The thing is, Jack, the reason you might not look like the right material for the Cosmos Club is that you spent your life screwing people over for money.  What can the good Rabbi do about that?

Abramoff: "I was wondering if you thought it possible that I could put that I have received an award from Toward Tradition with a sufficiently academic title, perhaps something like Scholar of Talmudic Studies? ...Indeed, it would be even better if it were possible that I received these in years past, if you know what I mean. Anyway, I think you see what I am trying to finagle here!"

Most people would be embarassed to ask anyone for such a favor, let alone a Rabbi.  In this case, however, the Rabbi seemed to reason there was no harm in bearing a little false witness, if his friend could hobnob with people who actually accomplished something in their lives.

Lapin: "Mazel tov, the Cosmos Club is a big deal."  (break of a few days) "I just need to know what needs to be produced....letters? plaques? Neither?"

Abramoff:  "Probably just a few clever titles of awards, dates and that's it. As long as you are the person to verify them [or we can have someone else verify one and you the other], we should be set. Do you have any creative titles, or should I dip into my bag of tricks?"

It's not known whether he dipped into his bag of tricks or not.  The Cosmos Club has made it clear Mr. Abramoff is not a member, however, and never has been.

I wanted to note the passing of someone who has influenced profoundly my views towards the possibility of a revival in the American Theater.

In the late 1980's a number of August Wilson's works openned at the Huntington Theater in Boston, where I was living at the time.  This gave me the chance to see something raw and exciting, works that no reviewer had the chance to either approve of or dismiss.

I found his plays to be a profound marriage of the historical and the mystical.  I often noticed the experience to be a cure for a disease that afflicts me on occasion:  the tendency towards seeing our situation in pessimistic or cynical terms.

What I saw in what he was saying, was that the respect for the dignity of life, makes one's life dignified.

The number of Iraqi army battalions

that can fight insurgents without

U.S. and coalition help has dropped

from three to one, top U.S. generals

told Congress yesterday, adding that

the security situation in Iraq is too

uncertain to predict large-scale

American troop withdrawals anytime

soon.




If you're like me, you read that and said "WTF?"  I mean, how exactly do you go from 3 battalions down to 1?  Fortunately, the Post article clears this up.  To be precise they didn't clear this up by answering the question, but by pointing out that "WTF?" is a perfectly understandable response:




Officials did not say specifically

why two battalions are no longer rated

at Level 1 and thus unable to operate

on their own. They said generally

readiness ratings can change for numerous

reasons, such as if a commander

resigns, or if more training is

needed. Casey also said that the

"Iraqi armed forces will not have an

independent capability for some

time."




Here I'd like to present an alternative hypothesis.  As long as we're coming up with reasons, I can conjecture as well as anybody.




So, here's my guess.  Someone along the chain of command realized it would be very embarassing to say that 1 battalion was ready.  So, he said 3.

I have no experience with the novel genre, so I'm not sure how to approach that.  A short film would be most straightforward to do as a mocumentary, looking at the last days of the Bush administration before the resignations of Bush and Cheney.  The nice thing about the short film approach is that actual news footage can be used along with fictional interviews.

A play could be done either in a "Law&Order" style, meaning investigation leads to plot twists leads to a trial, or as a modernization of a classic work.  Since Shakespeare is as close to perfection as anything we have in the English-speaking world, that would be my first choice, and Macbeth comes to mind as a work where the plot and personalities have a good deal in common with the Bushies (think Rove as Lady MacBeth).

I mention this in the hopes that this could spark the imaginations of some of the creative folks who visit here.

Five (or four) years ago is a long time.  I think we can safely say that this was largely a Clinton-era problem, and that problem's been solved.  Our long national nightmare of Monica Lewinsky is now over.  As we say in Texas. "Read my lips, no more Clinton."

So, it's time we moved onto greener astroturf.  As you know, I'm a big believer in Judeo-Christianity, but never really spent much time on the Judeo part.  So, it really jingled my spurs when I read this in my favorite book, the Bible:

1. "You shall have no other gods before me." That means: tax cuts stimulate the economy.



2. "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain." That could mean anything, let's just move on.



3. "Observe the sabbath day." That's pretty clear.  I'll just tack on "in Crawford" at the end.



4. "Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God commanded you; that your days may be prolonged."  That means if your dad is president, some day you may be, too.



5. "You shall not kill."  By that he means, of course, unless you've got a good reason.



6. "Neither shall you commit adultery."  To which I say, "Monica Lewinsky".  I guess I said a mouthful there already, heh, heh.



7. "Neither shall you steal." Meaning, we still got a lot of tax-cutting to do.



8. "Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbor."  Could mean anything, let's move on.



9. "Neither shall you covet your neighbor's wife."  This one sounds important.  I'll come back to it in a minute.



10. "and you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's."

Obviously, that last one is wrong.  But nine out of ten is good work.  That's like an A-. It's wrong because coveting things is what we call being an owner.    But, coveting people is wrong.  It's what animals, evil doers and liberals do.  These three form the Axis of Coveting.  And when two people covet each other, that is the worst of all.

That's why I'm announcing my War on Coveting.  I am requesting Attourney General Gonzales to order you worker bees to round up all the evidence of coveting.  And bring it straight to me, where I'll make war on it.  Coveting can run, but it can't hide.

Y'all come back now ya hear,
W

• Republicans plan to use the budget process to press for drilling in the 1002 Area of ANWR.  This is to circumvent the possibility of a filibuster.


• The bill authorizing drilling would have been drafted by now, but Katrina and the Roberts hearings have pushed that date back to October 26.


• The bill will require a parliamentary ruling on whether or not drilling in ANWR is "extraneous material" to the budget process.


• The Energy Information Administration has estimated that the potential consumer benefit of drilling in ANWR is less than 1.5 cents/gallon.

As someone who has followed this issue for a while, I'll say that the amount of disinformation on this topic is huge.  The chief beneficiary will be Exxon-Mobil, the remaining supporter of Arctic Power, the pro-drilling lobbying group.

What's interesting is that Senator Stevens (R-Alaska) appears to have abandoned the Energy Independence baloney that others have used to justify drilling.  Instead, his argument is drilling in ANWR is necessary to keep from busting the budget:

"If you look at it, ANWR's dollar sign is $2.4 billion," he said. "That's needed to keep this budget balanced now, as far as the routine budget. There's no question about that now. I think they've looked for other areas but the budget itself can't be approved unless somewhere the Energy Committee can raise $2.4 billion. I don't see any other place in the economy they can do it other than ANWR."

Let's see if I get this:  we've spent $200 billion on Iraq and plan to spend another $200 billion on New Orleans.  And ANWR is supposed to save us from fiscal disaster?

In today's Washington Post we learn how the Pentagon is celebrating Freedom through the extensive use of snow fencing:

The march, sponsored by the Department of Defense, will wend its way from the Pentagon to the Mall along a route that has not been specified but will be lined with four-foot-high snow fencing to keep it closed and "sterile," said Allison Barber, deputy assistant secretary of defense.

The U.S. Park Police will have its entire Washington force of several hundred on duty and along the route, on foot, horseback and motorcycles and monitoring from above by helicopter. Officers are prepared to arrest anyone who joins the march or concert without a credential and refuses to leave, said Park Police Chief Dwight E. Pettiford.

In other news, the campaign slogan for the Walk (or is it a March now?) has changed from "America Supports You" to "Keeping America Closed and Sterile."

Nearly all Arlington National Cemetery gravestones for troops killed in Iraq or Afghanistan are inscribed with the operation names the Pentagon selected to promote public support for the conflicts. That was not the case with earlier wars.



Families of fallen soldiers and Marines are being told they have the option to have the government-furnished headstones engraved with "Operation Enduring Freedom" or "Operation Iraqi Freedom" at no extra charge, whether the service members are buried in Arlington or elsewhere.

The article goes on to mention that at least some families were not asked about the additions.



I've got a couple of questions.  First of all, who came up with the name Operation Iraqi Freedom and when?  Wasn't this supposed to be Operation Keep Iraq from Nuking Us? Wasn't that what Condi "Mushroom Cloud" Rice and Colin "Mobile Biowarfare Labs" Powell was telling us?  My recollection was that only after the search for WMD turned up diddly did the Bush administration make the rhetorical adjustment to "spreading democracy."



Second, does everyone in the Bush administration have a tin ear?  Did no one question this decision?  Did no one think something along the lines of:  Using soldier's graves to promote the war and ultimately the Bush administration is Kafkaesque to say the least, and more to the point sick.



Finally, does everyone at the Pentagon now serve the Republican propaganda machine?  Is the next step to have Cheney/Rumsfeld 2008 printed on tombstones?

A month after his July 25 suspension, WMAL has fired Michael Graham.  Graham was suspended initially for saying repeatedly that "Islam is a terrorist organization."

Up to yesterday WMAL believed that Graham would be returning to work:  (Washington Post)

The station had conditioned his return to the midmorning shift on reading a station-approved statement in which Graham would have said that his anti-Muslim statements were "too broad" and that he sometimes uses "hyperbole" in the course of his program. WMAL also asked Graham to speak to the station's advertisers and its employees about the controversy.

But Graham refused both conditions, prompting the station to drop him.

Curiously, the July 25 incident occurred a week after Graham's participation in a "Truth Tour" of Iraq, where he would presumably have come into contact with many ordinary Iraqi Muslims, who emphatically are not terrorists.

As Justice Brandeis put it, the limit of free speech is when you "falsely shout fire in a crowded theater."  Graham clearly crossed that line.

(cross-posted at dcdl.org)