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."

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.

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."

• 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.

"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."

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)

To avoid long lines, America Supports You Freedom Walk participants are encouraged to arrive at the Pentagon South parking lot between 7 and 8 a.m. According to the Freedom Walk Web site, the first 1,000 people to arrive will receive an official America Supports You campaign lapel pin.

Far out!  Between the America Supports You campaign lapel pin, and my Whip Inflation Now button, I'll be the envy of the entire lefty blogosphere.

On a more serious note, this:

The goal for next year's walk is to get each state to host its own Freedom Walk to provide an opportunity for as many citizens as possible to reflect on the importance of freedom, according to a DoD press release.

It struck me that the point of the Freedom Walk was based on the following tautology:  What do Americans love?  Why, freedom.  And what do terrorists hate?  Freedom.  Specifically, our freedom.  Why did we invade Iraq?  To free them.  Thus, by freeing Iraq (by invading them) we were fighting terrorism.

It also struck me that the group organizing the Freedom Walk is called America Supports You.  Why isn't it called America Supports the Troops, if that's in fact the message of this group?  I ask noting that the You is ambiguous in this phrase.  You could also mean President Bush.  It could also mean Bush's base.  In full:  America Supports You, both those who defend our nation, and you who support our Commander-in-Chief.

It also occurred to me that, given our recent casualty rate, by the November 2006 elections, as many Americans will have been killed in Iraq as were killed on September 11.  I doubt somehow that this math has escaped Dick Cheney, Karen Hughes or Karl Rove, either.

In today's Washington Post Henry Kissinger writes (p A19):

History, of course, never repeats itself precisely. Vietnam was a battle of the Cold War; Iraq is an episode in the struggle against radical Islam.

The group of conservative talkers, led by Melanie Morgan, the co-host of a morning show on KSFO-AM in San Francisco and co-founder of MAF, also included Mark Williams of KFBK in Sacramento, Martha Zoller of WDUN in Atlanta, Michael Graham of WMAL in Washington, Brad Maaske of KMJ in Fresno, and the executive producer of the film, "Weapon of Mass Destruction: The Murderous Reign of Saddam Hussein," and Buzz Patterson of the syndicated RightTalk radio.

You may recall that upon returning from the Truth Tour, Michael Graham's world view was so enriched that he wrote:  "We are at war with a terrorist organization named Islam."  Graham was promptly suspended by WMAL here in Washington.  Mr. Graham is the author of Redneck Nation, which I'm guessing is his autobiography.

It's been 2 or 3 weeks since the "Truth Tour" has been back from Iraq.  When are we going to hear all the good news?  Did the Iraqis thank the radio folks for invading their country?  Did the Iraqis give the wingers enough flowers and candy so they had leftovers to bring home to Paul Wolfowitz?

Apparently no. This recent Hardball interview may be telling, if you can get past Morgan's grating style.  When asked if the insurgents will eventually win, Morgan says:  "I'm not a psychic."

The MediaTransparency.org piece linked to above argues that Move America Forward is really a front organization for right-wing PR firm Russo Marsh & Rogers. RM&G are responsible for the campaign to keep Fahrenheit 911 being shown in theaters.  They are also responsible for the "I Heart Gitmo" campaign, among other family-friendly ventures.

If any of this has sounded a bit odd so far, this is even weirder.  In their lede to Press Junket to ''Happy Iraq'' - Journalism or Propaganda?  SpinWatch says:

John Kasich, subsituting for vacationing Bill O'Reilly last night, discussed the upcoming "Truth Tour," the second such outing being sponsored by the newly created Office of Media Outreach, a taxpayer-funded publicity arm of the Department of Defense.

Here's the thing:  I haven't been able to independently verify a DOD Office of Media Outreach.  I'm pretty sure if the office exists, and it supported the "Truth Tour" this would be news.  Is this for real?  Did SpinWatch just get the name wrong?  Is this the Office of Strategic Influence lightly recycled?

Anonymous Liberal has a provocative post about Judith Miller, and her role in the leak of Valerie Plame's covert identity. While A.L. is focusing on the notion that Miller laundered the leak through her own contacts, there are other forms of active roles she may have played that don't go to that extent.

Here's an example from All The President's Men that suggests how reporters get caught up in political dirtywork: (All The President's Men, page 54)

On the freeway, a billboard caught his eye. It pictured a handsome, thirtyish, blond man who looked like a model in a cigarette ad. "Vote for Neal Sonnett, State's Attorney, Dade County," it said. Bernstein's anger at the chief investigator turned to rage.

A couple of weeks before, Dardis had called him for a favor. "It's on a case we're working, not related to Watergate," he had told Bernstein. "You must have some friends at the Pentagon or somewhere in the military. If you could get somebody to look up the records for you... " Then he asked for any possible derogatory information- arrests, mental illnesses, history of homosexuality- in the file of a Neal Sonnet.

A Pentagon colonel had agreed to try to get Sonnett's military information for Bernstein, and just before the Republican convention Bernstein had called Dardis to tell him so. Fortunately, Dardis had said he didn't need it any more.

(cross posted at AltHippo)

It is easy to believe in one's youth that you are master of your own fate.  Easy, as long as things go relatively well for you. You went to the right schools, got the right kind of job, was on track to fame and fortune. In short, the world started and stopped with the letter "I".

Over the years, the forces of life change this perception of you as Master of Fate.  Sometimes they knock the wind right out of you.  Things happen:  marriage, divorce, unemployment, disease.  People close to you get sick, and some of them die.  New friends come into your circle, and others leave.  One's heart is broken time and again.

The reason I'm a liberal now is not because I'm more idealistic.  Instead, experience, often painful experience, has loosened me up, and made me less self-absorbed.

What I fear most about the current conservative movement is the blind eye they turn to the fact that bad things really do happen to good people.  To the extent that society can act as a balancing force, we must.

The sort of reforms that someone like Roberts will likely champion may be subtle, but will be in the direction of society becoming less secure.  More stable perhaps, but the kind of stability where one's class becomes entrenched.

The current conservative movement appears to believe that their Lord and Creator wants the rich to be richer, and the poor poorer.  And that they were sent to earth to undertake this mission.

The anti-American bedwetters around the world and in the United States Congress have been whining in public for what seems like months about the treatment of the 500 or so Islamic terrorists down at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We’ve heard Amnesty International call it a Gulag and Senator Dick Durbin compare our soldiers to everyone from Adolf Hitler to Pol Pot. So what’s it really like?

Camp Delta, the prison where all of the Islamic killers are held is actually quite nice. When “detainees” (the jihadists) are processed in, they’re issued clothes, toiletries, a prayer rug and a Koran. They get two showers a week (hey..it’s better than the once a month showers they’re used to.) They get three culturally sensitive meals per day. Congressman Duncan Hunter pointed out a meal recently on the menu at Club Gitmo: oven-fried chicken, broccoli, peas, mushrooms, rice, pita bread and two types of fruit. Oh, those poor prisoners!

No man can take part in the torture of a human being without having his own moral nature permanently lowered.

As my fellow TPM Cafe blogger notes below, Bush will announce his Supreme Court pick tonight.

As the Washington Post article notes:

"I've heard nothing official, but it certainly does look like it," said a Republican strategist with close ties to the White House. "The word has gone out that we should be ready today. And the signs are all pointing to Clement."

The subject of most speculation today was Clement, 57, who served for 10 years on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana before being elevaned.

This is a surprise, as Clement is not of the Scalia/Thomas mold, though she is a member of the Federalist Society.  More importantly, this is not a choice that will please the Christian Right.

Perhaps the "leak" is misdirection? 

(transcript)

 White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove spoke with at least one reporter about Valerie Plame's role at the CIA before she was identified as a covert agent in a newspaper column two years ago, but Rove's lawyer said yesterday that his client did not identify her by name.

I know that some of you would prefer that I nominate Alberto. Alberto and I go back. Alberto and I are good friends, and that's an important quality in a Supreme Court judge. Yet, I am certain he is insufficiently extreme to satisfy my base. You see, it is necessary for the President to feed some raw meat to my base every now and then. Like wild dogs, feeding them raw meat keeps them from carrying off the fatter chickens and sheep. That's a ranchin' expression.

There will be no litmus test for a nominee. Anyone who favors the criminalization of abortion, supports the right to express yourself freely by cross burning, is opposed to those who express themselves by flag burning, and who favors the random placement of religious artifacts everywhere, will be considered independent of their views on how fast the New Deal should get repealed.

To those of you who say that a nominee should more closely reflect popular opinion I say: Uh uh. 50% + 1. You and I had our accountability moment, and you voted for me before you voted against me. Now it's time you made like the .org people and MoveOn.

I should also point out that every criticism of me, every time you question my policies, every failure to respect my authority, every step you make, every breath you take, it hurts our troops who are fighting Osama Bin Laden in Iraq. September 11. Iraq. September 11. Iraq. Ya da ya da. Splish splash. I'm takin' a bath. September 11.

May my real father, God, bless all of the 50% + 1 among you. Good night.

What Bush seemed unable to grasp, is that the US, while still supporting the occupation, does not trust him.

 In the recent Washington Post-ABC poll, 52% said the President intentionally misled the American public.  (pdf)

 Yet, his rhetoric this evening equated the invasion of Iraq, 9.11, and the war on terrorism.  Why?  Is this an effort to disprove Lincoln's addage that you can only fool all of the people some of the time?

I thought this quote from Bush on the future of Iraq was curious:  he envisioned a free Iraq that "Respects the rights of the majority, and protects minority rights."

 Does Bush not understand that this is one of the chief complaints against the Republican majority in Congress?  By that I mean the US Congress.  Not the folks that we are hopefully trying to free.

I am lost trying to understand who Bush was trying to reach tonight.

Today, somewhere in the 6th dimension, the Naidraug Unlimited wrote an article with this lede:

Vice President Edwards said in a recent interview that Karl Rove was not the type of person to lead a political party and mentioned the chairman's mother.

``I've never been able to understand Rove's appeal. Maybe his mother loved him, but I've never met anybody who does. He's never won anything, as best I can tell,'' Edwards said in an interview on the liberal Xof News Channel's ``Connity & Halmes.''

The word on the street is that ANWR drilling is going to be stripped out of the Energy bill.  As this KTUU article puts it:

"ANWR is unlikely to be included in any final energy bill that passes the Congress this year. That's because the issue is too contentious to pass in the Senate. But ANWR could be approved in the House and Senate as a budget issue, with the idea it would generate revenue for the federal government."

What then is the potential timing of things?  This fall a final version of the budget will probably pass.  And it will likely include revenues from leasing the 1002 Area (the coastal region of ANWR) to the drilling concerns.  Again, KTUU:

"It’s possible Congress may not have a final vote on the matter until November. Of course, whenever or if ever Congress decides to approve an ANWR drilling measure, no doubt President Bush will sign the bill."