Rosetta

Harriet Miers Fired

2007-01-05T09:28:00.000-08:00

Harriet Miers, of Supreme Court nomination fame, was asked to step down.

From the linked story:
"Miers, a longtime Bush loyalist whose nomination to the Supreme Court was withdrawn in 2005 as a result of conservative opposition, led an office that will oversee legal clashes that could erupt if Democrats aggressively use their new subpoena power. Bush advisers inside and outside the White House concluded that she is not equipped for such a battle and that the president needs someone who can strongly defend his prerogatives."

Later in the piece:
"In a letter to Bush released by the White House, Miers offered expansive praise for the president while never explaining her departure: "It is hard to leave the tasks at hand. They are gravely important, and I shall miss greatly the arena in which the battles of our times are being fought.""

Well actually, as WH counsel, you'd just be continuing to block the public's access to documents. But 'the battles of our times' does pop a little more.

"The opportunity cost"

2007-01-02T10:08:00.000-08:00

Richard Clarke posted a very interesting letter to the Post on Sunday that lists with some clarity what opportunities we've missed around the world since the start of the Iraq war.

"In every administration, there are usually only about a dozen barons who can really initiate and manage meaningful changes in national security policy. ...."

Please go read the whole thing.

Lieberman is Pro-Surge

2007-01-02T08:14:00.000-08:00

Joe Lieberman writes in today's Washington Post in support of The Surge.

I wanted to break out some things I agree with:

"How we end the struggle there will affect not only the region but the worldwide war against the extremists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001."

You're right, Joe. That's true. And thanks for reminding us about the lessons of 9/11.

What we're doing there is important. Losing will be very bad. The country could explode into civil war. Al Qaeda would claim our withdrawal as a victory. The region could be drawn in. Oil prices could spike, and the world's energy resources (and untold billions) would be a loose football. Right. Agreed. But Joe, and I hate to say this again, That's why most of your party, not including you, didn't want to invade in the first place.

And now we don't want to listen to you. We wanted you to go away. We don't know why you're saying this now, because you must know your party -- which just tried to ditch you at the last gas station, only for you to run back to the car just in time, which was a little awkward for a moment there -- doesn't care what you think we should do in Iraq. Especially since it's the same thing you thought before, just moreso.

There's no arguing that losing in Iraq would be anything but bad. And I'm not a military strategist, but I can tell you that another 10% added to our force in Baghdad, even another 30%, won't matter. We would need a 300% increase. We would need an overwhelming force on every corner of every street. And even that would only secure the capital. What about the rest of the country? Wouldn't success in this surge lead to a need for a national surge? Or at least other regional surges? And what if Baghdad slips back toward chaos during these other surges? A second Baghdad surge?

I'm not against the surge. I just haven't heard anything persuasive in support of it. That being said, if this is a police operation, are we equipped for it? If Dallas, Texas were in a state of low-grade civil war, if there were only a few hours of electricity every day, if many in the local police were working for one side of the dispute, how many foreign soldiers, who speak Arabic only, who no one likes all that much, would it take to bring order? And exaclty how many is 'A whole f-ing lot.'

How Democrats Can Sustain

2006-11-09T08:46:00.000-08:00

People want to argue that Republicans lost more than Democrats won. By next Monday, it won't matter, so let's not waste time arguing that now.

The voting public has a fragile belief that the Democratic leadership is more trustworthy on economic matters. This is a once-in-a-generation moment. Dems have been the tax-and-spenders. But that meme may become extinct if they act as a body in the next two years to bolster their image of fiscal restraint, of working toward balanced budgets. And let's perform some oversight of federal contracts, eliminate no-bid contracts from the Pentagon, and curb lobbyist influence and pork spending. Advocate line-item voting on spending bills. These actions are inevitable, and if the Democratic leadership doesn't say it first, Republicans certainly will.

This is a generational opportunity. If they squander this chance, It won't come again.

Democrats wish to raise the minimum wage. Fine. But I hope they argue that it won't hurt the tax base, that we won't lose more jobs overseas as a result. Start by arguing your opponent's side first, disarming him. Then say that we're strengthening the American family. That poverty tears families apart. That a living wage makes home ownership possible. This will sound familiar to many more people than you think. And many of them think they are Republicans. Not to mention, it is unconscionable that Americans make too little money to support their families. That is easy to argue, and difficult to refute.

The voters have also begun, in a much, much more fragile way, to believe that Dems may be more qualified on national security. This is a second generational moment. Democrats, seemingly, have cornered the market on mature, considered opinion on the Iraq war, from the beginning. Why invade Iraq? What's the rush? What do we hope to gain? What are the risks? Who will do the rebuilding? On and on, Democrats have owned these questions, and they were right to ask them. Now they must put action to those sentiments. Listen to James Baker's Iraq Survey Group findings. Partition? Redeployment? A summit with Iran, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the entire regional sphere of influence? Let the Bush administration take the laurels. It doesn't matter. But by summer of 2008, there must be improvement, if not peace, in order for Democrats to maintain control of Congress. And that would be the rarest prize.

Federline, Republicans Ousted

2006-11-08T07:23:00.000-08:00

What a morning.

I got Rick Santorum, Mike Dewine, Lincoln Chafee, Kevin Federline, Conrad Burns, and Jim Talent with bootprints on their back-ends, and it's only 10:17 on the east coast.

Rosetta Projected Results

2006-11-07T20:53:00.000-08:00

Just so everybody can go to bed:

House: +36 seats to the Dems.
Senate: 48/52 Republicans.
Dems hold NJ and MD.
Dems pick up RI, PA, OH, and MT.
Reps hold VA, TN, and, unfortunately, MO.

Take it to the bank.

Lieberman Supports Hastert

2006-10-06T10:26:00.000-07:00

From today's Hartford Courant:

"I know some people are calling for [House Speaker Dennis] Hastert to resign, but the truth is that unless he knows what he saw and he saw something he should have acted on, he deserves to have essentially a fact-finder to come in," Lieberman said.

"The Foley case bothers people," he added. "If anyone thinks they can make this into another partisan flap, it's not. It's very real and human. The House Republican leaders and, frankly, the Democratic leadership, should not make it partisan."

The words "beyond the pale" come to mind. Many prominent Republicans have come out against Hastert, their own Speaker, which should tell you something. Most are totally avoiding comment. Foley's chief of staff has called Hastert a liar, which is professional suicide, but the right thing to do. Joe Lieberman, again, is to the right of most conservatives. He's also acting in a way inconsistent with...

1. His own political interests. (Just look at how Chris Dodd is polling in his House race since last week.)
2. The political interests of his party. (No Democrat, other than Pelosi, has given any quotes, for good reason. Let them dig their own hole.)
3. The interests of justice. (Only pressure on the GOP will get a special investigator to look into who knew what when, and not just what's wrong with the Page program. Cover from the Dems makes that more difficult.)
4. Any honest interest in bipartisanship. (No Dem has been on t.v. "nationalizing" this issue. No one has said this is another result of GOP corruption. That would be partisan bloodlust. What we see instead is a call for accountability from one person, Hastert. He was told, he knew, he did nothing. )

The 109th Congress bears the dubious distinction of being the most do-nothing congress in the nation's history. Someething like 100 days in session, no real legislation passed, no achievements. So what was Hastert so busy with that he forgot every time he was told about this?

And as for Lieberman, I don't want him caucusing with us in January. I'm just sick of the man. I've heard enough.

Foley's Orientation Wasn't the Problem.

2006-10-03T12:39:00.000-07:00

He was a powerful person, a United States Congressman, trying to sleep with 16 year-old children. There's one real problem. He was doing this at work, in Congress. There's another problem.

The following has been widely excerpted this morning from today's WSJ editorial board:

But in today's politically correct culture, it's easy to understand how senior Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert's head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys. Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where's Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on that one?

The direct inference here, in case you missed it, is that gay men like young boys. The indirect inference is that everyone knows gay men like young boys. And if Hastert hadn't been so blindered by political correctness, he would've been able to intervene. (The real truth was that political calculation -- the GOP must keep control of the House -- could have been the leadership's only logical motivation.)

But here's another good excerpt I haven't seen anyone talking about:

What next was Mr. Hastert supposed to do with an elected Congressman? Assume that Mr. Foley was a potential sexual predator and bar him from having any private communication with pages? Refer him to the Ethics Committee? In retrospect, barring contact with pages would have been wise.

Since the page scandal in the early 80's, contact between pages and Congressmen has been restricted. Pages are not allowed to give out their email addresses, Instant Messenger screen names, or phone numbers to Congressmen. Congressmen aren't supposed to ask. And as a member of the Page Committee, Foley would be fully aware of these restrictions.

And as for the presumed "innocence" of the contacts that Hastert saw, ask yourself, as an adult, how many 16 year-olds you count as friends. Straight or gay has nothing to do with it.

So, yes, the Ethics Committee would be the first forum for investigation. Pages should've been interviewed. IM conversations reviewed. (ABC News nailed this down in about 24 hours). The findings would have then been forwarded to the Justice Department.

But instead, look forward to more coded homophobia from your friendly neighborhood GOP candidate in the next five weeks. How on earth does a thinking person, or the fourth-largest national paper, go directly from Mark Foley to "Boy, I sure hate gays" in one train of thought? How angry, how fearful do you ... never mind.

God, please bless America.

Surprise!

2006-10-02T14:55:00.000-07:00

I think every decent person needs to do the right thing on this: watch the first few minutes of Bill O'Reilly's show tonight. Our brave culture warrior. (Hit the site for a second and see Papa O'Reilly in boxing robe with neck towel. This is not a joke.)

I've been watching the Chris Matthews show this evening, and have to say that until the first ten minutes of him talking through this with people, I didn't get how much this is going to spread around. He didn't draw this connection, but I'd compare it to the Cardinal Law preist abuse scandal. Picture months and months of, "Wait, you knew about this? And what did you do about it?"

The FBI will keep it in the news, the James Dobson crowd is already batshit angry, and every Republican up for office will have to comment. This could shred the alliance between economic and social conservatives. Not to mention that thousands of Congressional Pages will be coming to a cable news network near you.

My prediction: Denny Hastert wins reelection and resigns his leadership post. You heard it here first.

Two questions for extra credit:
Was Mark Foley married?
Is Mark Foley, as Wonkette supposed, really attending a Scientologist-run "deprogramming" program in Clearwater?

You Can Do It, Steve Laffey!

2006-09-11T12:46:00.000-07:00

From The Note:

The most compelling political storyline for Tuesday's primaries is in Rhode Island where Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) is being challenged by the Club for Growth-backed Steve Laffey. Coming one month after Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) lost a Democratic primary in Connecticut, would a Chafee loss signal a resonant additional purging of party moderates?

Despite voting against the Iraq war, against the Bush tax cuts, and refusing to vote for George W. Bush for reelection in 2004 (he wrote in Bush the elder on the ballot), Chafee is still being backed by the national party because they view him as their best chance to keep the seat in GOP hands, and because he is the incumbent. If Laffey wins, the favorite in the race will be Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse in November — a key building block for Democrats as they try to gain six seats for control of the Senate.

If Laffey wins the primary, the Dems will pieck up a seat in the Senate. And Lincoln Chafee, frustrator of millions, will be smoted. Smited. Smoten. Not re-elected. Smote.

Ted Stevens is the Secret Holder

2006-08-29T13:15:00.000-07:00

There's an extraordinary thing happening today:

TPM Muckraker, boasting the world's worst title for a website seeking journalistic legitimacy, is one of a few sites tracking down the Senator who's placed a "Secret Hold" on the Obama/Coburn bill "that would create a user-friendly, public database of all government spending." (TPM, ibid)

They're getting people to call every Senator in the land and get them on the record. Saxby Chambliss is the only one so far to refuse to respond. 10 others haven't been reached, and I want to save everyone's time:
Ted Stevens.

Ted Stevens, ladies and gentlemen. Go home and eat dinner. The story's out.

UPDATE: See? Ha. A full day before his name was even floated at those other [mocking, nasal voice...] news [end mocking, nasal voice] sites. Ha. (OK, Robert Byrd was in there somewhere too, but that just overcomplicates the story line.)

Ulcerous little self-seeking vermin

2006-07-22T20:59:00.000-07:00

[This was from a Monty Python episode I happened to catch, presented as a public service anouncement. But it seemed apt, and I'd like to take full credit:]

We would like to apologize for the way in which politicians are represented in this programme.

It was never our intention to imply that politicians are weak kneed political time-servers who are concerned more with their personal vendettas and private power struggles than the problems of government.

Nor to suggest at any point that they sacrifice their credibility by denying free debate on vital matter in the mistaken impression that party unity comes before the well being of the people they supposedly represent

Nor to imply at any stage that they are squabbling little toadies without an ounce of concern for the vital social problems of today.

Nor indeed do we intend that viewers should consider them as crabby, ulcerous, little self-seeking vermin with furry legs and an excessive addiction to alchohol and certain explicit sexual practices which some people might find offensive.

We are sorry if this impression has come across.

Lieberman To Run Independent?

2006-06-14T08:03:00.000-07:00

I've been quietly watching this Ned Lamont run against Joe Lieberman, and I have to say it's an entertaining little news cycle. Joe's taken a conservative stand on Iraq, and hasn't wavered -- he may still be of the opinion that WMD's just haven't been found yet. I don't think anyone's asked him lately. But he also took a very long time to pick a side on the Social Security privatization debate. Same on a few similar issues. Suffice it to say, he ran to the right of everyone in the 2004 primary, and I think he'll be in there in 2008, damn the torpedoes.

But first he's got a primary in Connecticut, with Ned Lamont actually gaining -- gasp -- legitimacy and support. And so Joe's doing the noble thing, and threatening to run as an Independent -- making it very likely a Republican would pick up the seat. He's having his friends float it to maintain some distance for now. From Political Wire:

In fact, an important Lieberman backer, former Connecticut Democratic chairman John F. Droney Jr., is quoted by the Hartford Courant as a supporter of the plan: "I think to be terrorized through the summer by an extremely small group of the Democratic Party, much less the voting population, is total insanity for a person who is a three-term senator."

Being terrorized by the voting population is actually just being, like, unpopular for your views.

I don't know. He was so thick-headed about getting out of the race in 2004, I worry that the message won't get across when he keeps his seat this year. Joe, listen to your constituents. Listen.

2006-06-07T10:01:00.002-07:00

Howard Kurtz mentions today in his Media Notes column at the Washington Post, "An interesting letter from a soldier in Fallujah, Anthony Ippoliti, to his hometown paper, the Ridgefield, Conn., Times (via Andrew Sullivan):"

How can these groups claim to support our troops while telling us that what we are participating in is wrong? How can they support us if they are essentially saying that our blood and sacrifices have all been given in vain? How can they support us if they say that our comrades and brothers who have been wounded or killed in action have done so for a hopeless and morally questionable cause? . . .

I'll field that one.

Hm.

Let me start with Ann Coulter, actually. On the Today show this morning, she said some stupid, inflammatory things to sell her book. She said 911 widows were "using their grief in order to make a political point while preventing anyone from responding. . . . I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." Which is an evil, stupid thing to say. That being said, the first part of her remark, that liberal spokespersons like Cindy Sheehan and the 9/11 widows make for unfair debate partners (criticize their views and you will be called evil and stupid -- see above) is legitimate. She's put at an immediate disadvantage by having to debate a grieving mother.

I only mention this as preface to disagreeing with a presumably brave, self-sacrificing soldier who's done more for his country than I have. So, now that the niceties are out of the way, let's zoom back to Mr. Ippolitti's point ('how can you say you support the troops while also saying the war is more or less pointless')....

First, what a specious, stupid, unhelpful point to make. And honestly, what a useless piece of hot air. One has nothing to do with the other. I support the troops so much that I'd rather they weren't fighting and dying in this war. I questioned the rationale (or questioned for a rationale) long before the war started. Those questions were legitimate, and liberals were mocked for asking them. The war began, and it became clear that WMD inspectors should've been allowed to stay, that the administration indeed pulled them out so they would not be able to finish and conclusively declare that there are no usable munitions or weapons programs in Iraq. You called us crackpots. We were correct. We said the administration had tossed the State Department's post-war plan in the trash. You said 'so what.' Iraq has cost us a century of good will, and the saddest part is that we cannot yet leave.

Further, and apart from the straw liberals you imagine, I think the affairs of Iraq's people, suffering though they may be, are no more our business than our problems are theirs. Saddam tortures his own people? I feel badly for their circumstance, but I would not risk any American blood or treasure to help them. We've just been attacked. We have our own problems.

If we're concerned about WMD, we should focus on accounting for Russia's deteriorating and unguarded stockpiles. If terrorism is the problem, we should work to raise up the poorest and most hopeless parts of the world. If we're interested in stabilizing the Middle East, overthrowing a bad government and replacing it with no government is not a good start. (This is all slow, tedious work which makes for poor campaign advertisements, but it is what's necessary if these are our aims.)

There will not be Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq. Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds are separate populations united only by a British colonizer's relatively new and certainly arbitrary geographic border. Their territories are oddly arranged, and access to oil wealth is not equally distributed between them. There are external parties with competing interests on all borders, including Iran, Turkey, Russia, old Europe, and the USA. There is an infrastructure for the delivery of electricity, and of water, food, and medicine, which has been shorn to bits by poor governance and, wait for it, an ugly war. Anyone who wants to send another busload of our brightest, strongest, most idealistic 19 year-old nephews and neighbors to help the Iraqis sort this out needs to first explain what for, and how.

Mr. Ippoliti is braver than me, and has put his neck on the line for what he thinks are America's best interests. He's been misled, and I agree that is sad. But we are all adults, and sad is no reason for me to lie. Or for him to act like an angry fool.

Harvard Student's Book Yanked by Little, Brown

2006-04-28T09:03:00.000-07:00

It's a good thing I'm not envious or resentful of college students with book deals. Otherwise, this would just leave me tap-tap-tapping my toes all day long.

"Just a day after saying it would not withdraw "How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild and Got a Life" from bookstores, Little, Brown, the publisher of the novel whose author, Kaavya Viswanathan, confessed to copying passages from another writer's books, said it would immediately recall all editions from store shelves."

Giant Pyramid in Bosnia

2006-04-27T09:29:00.000-07:00

I'm surprised I haven't seen more about this. They mentioned it on the Daily Show last night, and everyone's picked up the AP story. But where's the 'what the ****!' you'd expect?

Also, let me get this straight: there's a 2,120-foot tall hill looming directly over a village. It's shaped like THIS.

No one noticed?

One skeptic in a discussion forum asks, "is it credible that there would've been any society living in the Balkans 12,000 years ago with the technological and logistic capability, and sufficient population size, to build a structure on that scale? I find that doubtful, since there's no known sedentary agrarian civilization that old, and hunter-gatherers or pastoralists wouldn't have had sufficient population size, economic surplus, or organizational methods to undertake a construction project of that magnitude."

Well said, but I'd sit on that thesis for a few more weeks. I think it's gonna need another edit.

One last thing. What's with all the pyramids? Why pyramids? Nearly every corner of the earth seems to have gone coo-coo for pyramids around 10,000 years ago. Why not cubes? Trapezoids. The noble rhombus.

California wants the first primary

2006-04-25T10:57:00.000-07:00

Check it out in the Union Leader.

"The bill would require California's secretary of state to schedule the election as early as Jan. 2 in Presidential election years and conduct it by mail."

As long as we're still spitballing ideas, how about national primaries? Crazy?

EXTRA: Or national elections, for that matter. I'm still waiting by the mailbox for my "My Vote Doesn't Count" t-shirt, but I think they must've lost my order. Again.

Thanks, Ohio!, Florida!

2006-04-19T07:35:00.000-07:00

Some staff shakeups with McClellan gone and Rove...well...more gone than he was yesterday. But that's not what we're attracted to this morning. Check out the state-by-state numbers in this 50-state poll from SurveyUSA. Only four states still approve of the president's job.

But that's not what we're looking at this morning, either.

I want you to look at his numbers in ... wait for it ...
Ohio: 34% approve!
and ...
Florida: 37% approve!

Thanks, guys! Thanks for coming around!

I've said this before, though maybe not on this site. I have no problem with older, wealthy (bigoted, racist) or perhaps warmongering, xenophobic Republican voters who will vote red every single chance they get for the rest of their lives. They are voting in what they perceive as their own best interests, and I understand.

My problem is with the middle-class semi-conservatives (closeted bigots, racists, warmongers, haters) who put this guy in office. If they had paid more attention in the first term, our country wouldn't be stuck with this guy today. If you're one of the folks who voted for Bush in '04, and now you're not happy with him, take that as a lesson that you make poor decisions. And stay home in 2008. Please.

If you still like the guy, come on down and vote. At least I can understand people like you.

Dan Froomkin takes a vacation

2006-04-12T07:58:00.000-07:00

I read washingtonpost.com's White House Briefing nearly every day, which seems like about six months out of the year with all the vacation time this guy takes. So I'm going to start documenting every time Dan Froomkin takes a week off. For the record, this one's looking like April 13 to 20.

My over/under is ten weeks per year. We'll see.

UPDATE: His last column was actually posted on Tuesday, April 11. I take that to mean he submitted it by 8:30 or 9 that morning. So it's over a week -- seven business days off if you include Tuesday.

And just to be clear, I enjoy Dan's column. I just wish he'd have a fill-in to help, or that he'd take a couple weeks off every year like the rest of us. Otherwise, what's the point of the sometimes-when-I-feel-like-it column?

Memorial Day (Week) UPDATE:
Looks like May 26 - June 1 weren't good for our favorite aggregator. Put him down for another four days off, on top of the Monday we all had off.

UPDATE: Friday, June 9. Too nice out? No Froomkin.

UPDATE: Labor Day weekend. Two and a half months to the midterms, with control of Congress in play and a war on the line. See you next WEDNESDAY. Six more workdays off for Froomkin, plus the bonus Monday, plus the day after that for barbecue recovery.

UPDATE: I know, I know. I've been remiss. Tuesday, December 12. Not even a note on Monday that he'd be out, and no explanation the day after. That's what we call the old 'no call, no show' in the land of work. I should probably admit here that I just took a week off myself. I mean, it was my first vacation in four years, but still....

UPDATE: Thursday / Friday: December 21, December 22. (December 20 ran a best-of-2006 column, which was almost definitely edited in advance, but I'll give him partial credit.)

UPDATE: Tuesday, Dec. 26 - Friday, Dec. 29. Four more days, and Christmas, and New Year's. (I have to admit, I'm feeling pretty well-rested after some holiday slacking myself.)

That's 32 days so far that I've noted. And I've probably missed a couple. So figure 6 weeks off, not including every single holiday the rest of us get off. And that's only since mid-April. Three and a half months to the finish line. My 10 weeks over/under may still hold.

UPDATE: Tuesday, January 2nd. You just took half of December off.

UPDATE: Thursday and Friday, January 25 and 26. He had pneumonia, which is valid. But sorry, it still makes the list.

UPDATE: Only eleven days or so until the one-year deadline, and Dan comes up big with Friday, Monday, and Tuesday off. Enjoy your five-day weekend, dude. Crack one for me while you're at it. 38 days so far. A little disappointing.

2006-04-05T07:48:00.000-07:00

I was just thinking about yesterday. That was excellent.
Awesome.
Ha.

Touchdown.

2006-04-04T07:30:00.000-07:00

Read all about it. And don't let anyone tell you it was because of poll numbers. This guy JUST won the Republican primary. And there were some protest votes (I think he pulled in a little over sixty percent of the vote against three primary opponents, but don't quote me), but it's a Republican district. They voted for Bush at 64% in 2004 (49% nationwide).

Tony Rudy, his deputy chief of staff, pled guilty to conspiracy and corruption charges... Yesterday. And he is announcing resignation... Today.

DeLay pulled out because...
he is going to prison...
if he doesn't focus.

Hang in there, buddy.

MORE: The best part was when he said he was going to dedicate himself to a few things including 1) foster care (um, OK, thanks Tom), and 2) strengthening the connection between "religion and politics." No really Tom. You've done enough already.

Priceless: Barney Frank Settles Ethics Questions

2006-02-02T09:09:00.000-08:00

Look for the joke in Barney Frank's suggestion on House Ethics Reform debate, from the Post:

House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.), who was to unveil a draft of the full lobbying reform package yesterday, instead announced it was not ready. Dreier did press forward with a change in House rules that bans former members who have become lobbyists from the House floor and the House gym. It also strips lobbyist spouses of current lawmakers of floor and gym privileges.

The rule change passed overwhelmingly, 379 to 50, but not before Democrats -- and some Republicans -- ridiculed it as meaningless. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) suggested that lawmakers compromise and change the rules so that lobbyists must yield to lawmakers who want to use the gym equipment they are on.

The real news? There was a motion to hold new House elections for every committee chairmanship. Surprisingly, "the motion was backed by 85 of the roughly 200 Republicans at the meeting."

Eesh.

SOTU Speech Last Night

2006-02-01T07:59:00.000-08:00

I have to admit that I just watched some excerpts over at the Post, and somehow missed the whole State of the Union speech last night.

But from the 10-minute excerpt, I have to say he looked good up there. Pretty relaxed, not fishing for words, not fixing on the teleprompter. And the speech was not bad. He mentioned he wants Congress to form a panel to investigate the problems Baby Boomers' retirement will create for SS, Medicare, etc. And that's a good idea. The problem with Bush's '05 solutions for SS was that they didn't even address solvency for the program. Private accounts had nothing to do with solvency. But if he wants the numbers (which are already available from any number of sources -- I'll leave that to talkingpointsmemo), they will not be hard to find. Panel or no panel.

So all in all, it looks like Bush will play to the center for this election cycle, probably with the idea that midterm elections like 2002 and now, 2006, will be low turnout years if you let them, and that works for an incumbent congress on shaky ground with the electorate. Stay tuned.

2006-01-31T10:18:00.000-08:00

From an excellent editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

"Through history, tyranny has not always foamed at the mouth. In the beginning, it often wears an earnest, sincere face. Eventually, though, it begins to harp incessantly about threats and enemies; it comes to treat dissent as treason, and civil liberty as an unwise luxury.

"Our nation's founders had lived through such a sequence of tyranny. That's why they were at pains to fashion elaborate checks on the chief executive's power; they saw power's innate tendency to view whatever it wants to do as just, necessary, and subject to no outside control.

And then I laugh, happily, laughing for hours

2006-01-19T11:50:00.000-08:00

In response to the Democrats' reform proposal, Trent Lott was quoted by the Times:

" 'Now we're going to say you can't have a meal for more than 20 bucks," said Senator Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi. "Where are you going, to McDonald's?"

I'll answer that one. How about, yes, you go to McDonald's. Or buy your own lunch. Or pack a lunch. Like humans do.

In the real world, it's one thing to schmooze a client with a nice lunch. It's a courtesy, really. But once that client starts buying you lunch every day, which is what Lott seems to be receiving, then that is closer to financial support. Support, not courtesy. How many days a year does he buy his own lunch?

As a sidenote, how does he think this quote helps his chances regaining a Whip position, vis-a-vis the mouth/foot relationship he's been developing with himself.

And what about the probably 99% of Americans who every day spend less than $20 on lunch? Raise your hand if it's less than seven. You're still in the top 98%. Does he deserve better than us?

Alito Confirmed

2006-01-19T08:33:00.000-08:00

"Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) formally announced Tuesday his decision to vote for confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court."

Meet GOP Rep. Jerry Lewis

2006-01-19T07:55:00.000-08:00

Get your morning edition. Read all about it:

"One day after a New York investment group raised $110,000 for Republican Rep. Jerry Lewis, the House passed a defense spending bill that preserved $160 million for a Navy project critical to the firm. The man who protected the Navy money? Lewis."

This is why we need an acting House Ethics Committee. This is clear grounds for expulsion, but there is no one to hear the case. If you or I did this at work, we wouldn't just be fired. We'd be in jail.

2006-01-19T07:30:00.000-08:00

It will matter much more how "lobbying reform" plays with the public than whether it works, but for those of you scoring at home, here are details about the competing GOP positions from yesterday's Note:

"The Tony Rudy Reform": Close the Revolving Door. Close the revolving door between the Congress and lobbying firms by doubling (from one year to two) the cooling-off period during which lawmakers, senior Congressional staff, and Executive Branch officials are prohibited from lobbying their former offices. Eliminate floor privileges for former Members of Congress and officers of the Senate and House who return to lobby."

"The Ralph Reed Reform":Toughen Public Disclosure of Lobbyist Activity. Significantly expand the information lobbyists must disclose, including campaign contributions and client fees. Require them to file disclosure reports electronically, and increase the frequency of those filings. Require lobbyists to certify that they did not violate the rules, and make them subject to criminal penalties for false certifications."

"The Jack Abramoff Reform":Ban Lobbyist Gifts and Travel. Prohibit the receipt of gifts, including gifts of meals, entertainment and travel, from lobbyists."

"The Grover Norquist Reform": Shut Down Pay-to-Play Schemes Like the 'K Street Project.' End efforts like the 'K Street Project,' which Republicans created to tell corporations and lobbying firms whom they should hire in exchange for political access."

"The Frist and Hastert Reform": Prohibit 'Dead of Night' Special Interest Provisions. Require that all conference committee meetings be open to the public and that members of the conference committee have a public opportunity to vote on all amendments. Make copies of conference reports available to Members, and post them publicly on the Internet, 24 hours before consideration (unless waived by a supermajority vote)."

GOP Leadership Races

2006-01-17T12:56:00.000-08:00

John Shadegg's (R AZ-3) leap into the Majority Leadership race potentially opens the Chair seat for House GOP Policy Committee Chairman (Shadegg's current post).

I mention that to quote this, Congressman Thaddeus McCotter (Michigan 11)'s open letter seeking support to take that seat. An interesting read:

"I never envisioned seeking such a position, because I’m a bald, guitar twanging back-bencher on four “B-committees” from a borderline district in a “blue state.” I’m also not a member of the Republican Study Committee nor the Republican Main Street Partnership – and, oh, did I mention I lack a leadership fund? (Though, in the interests of full disclosure, the K Street lobbyists do take all my calls just so they can testify they’ve told someone “no.”)"

We're deep in the weeds today at Rosetta, but I love this stuff. Read some more. I'm saving all the good stuff for Wonkette.

Go James Frey

2006-01-17T08:43:00.000-08:00

I was going to stay out of this, since it's off-subject for this blog, but the story is still alive and the whole din is just driving me closer and closer to my own little transcontinental blackout.

Without getting into my own very thin credentials as a writer, I have to say I applaud this guy for making an effective novel. Calling "A Million Little Pieces" a memoir made this story -- which was an exaggeration of his own problems -- work as storytelling. It wouldn't have worked as fiction, because no one would care. Memoirs are not journalism, especially if the writer is not a public figure. We exaggerate stories all the time at parties, or with friends, even when some of the truth witnesses might be smiling through the embellishments. It's theater, and as long as no one other than the teller is maligned, it's good clean fun. If we told the truth and only the truth at these moments, we'd miss all the "You're Kidding, No Expletive Way That Happened" facial expressions and responses.

It's also referred to as bullshitting, and it's a blast.

Anyway. He made the right decision to change the book's genre, and though I've just started the book, I'm looking forward to following him where ever he intends for the story to go.

UPDATE: I know we're talking about a morality tale, but it clearly reads as entertainment first (you wish, in one way, it happened to you), and fatherly advice a distant, distant second.

Abramoff's Donations

2006-01-17T07:56:00.000-08:00

I want to spend some time today building out a post on Abramoff's political donations, and the donations he's urged clients to make to Congressmen either rewarding them for votes or actions, or paying up front for same.

One point I'd like to start with:
Jack Abramoff has never, never donated a nickel to a Democrat, a Democratic organization, the party itself, the DCCC, MoveOn, Emily's List, Bikes Not Bombs, any liberal organization, the UN, the Daily Show, or anything or anyone that could be construed in any way whatsoever as left-leaning. No NPR tote bag. No Al Franken coffee mug.

Is that putting too fine a point on it? He's a Republican, and this is a Republican ethical problem.

Every time you hear "Republicans and Democrats" in connection to this, know that you have just been treated to a falsehood. Jack Abramoff donated to Democrats? Who. Which one. Who says? I'd like to hear about that.

That being said, Democrats have received contributions (in every case AFTER a key vote, rather than before) from Abramoff clients, and there's nothing unusual about this. Indian gaming interests have contributed to Harry Reid, who represents Las Vegas, and to Democrats in a position to affect a group or corporation's affairs. But no quid pro quo has been suggested, nor found, nor do I think any will be found.

A donation AFTER a key vote reads as, "this guy believes in things which aided us on a major vote. We need to donate to help keep him in office." Donate BEFORE that vote, and the line is, "We settled on 25k for him to say this and vote this way." And those are your dirty, uniformly Republican, politicians.

Update: OK, another thing. Abramoff has fixed up a few Congressmen's wives with "jobs" at "philanthropic" organizations to move the money. This seems to be reserved for the more-obvious bribe money. Where are the Democrats' wives in these fake jobs? If everyone's going down, I'm sure the minority would like at least a taste for the trouble.

China Divests Dollar

2006-01-10T11:54:00.000-08:00

This is huge:
"SHANGHAI, Jan. 9 -- China has resolved to shift some of its foreign exchange reserves -- now in excess of $800 billion -- away from the U.S. dollar and into other world currencies in a move likely to push down the value of the greenback, a high-level state economist who advises the nation's economic policymakers said in an interview Monday."

When America runs in the red, we sell Treasury bills, primarily to foreign nations who want to stabilize their currency with the solid U.S. dollar. The Euro and even the Yen look better than our dollar for the near to mid term, and people are getting out.

What has changed in the last three to five years? The national debt, and a seemingly irreversible trade deficit. (There are admittedly politics with China as well.)

Our low interest rates, continued growth through down cycles, and a relatively steady keel through global currency rate fluctuations are imperiled by this trend.

MORE: Laugh line from this article: "The move temporarily muted criticism on Capitol Hill from those who accuse China of currency manipulation." I bet.

Alito or Abramoff Leading the Press This Week?

2006-01-09T08:08:00.000-08:00

Watch the papers as Alito's confirmation hearings start up today and get into full swing this Tuesday to Thursday.

From Time:
"Republican officials say they are so worried about the Abramoff problem that they are now inclined to stoke a fight with Democrats over the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court in an effort to turn the page from the lobbying investigation. Outside groups plan to spend heavily, and the White House will engage in some tit for tat with Democrats as the hearings heat up."

So there's your playbook. Let's see if the Dems 1) play along and resist the nomination 2) play along ineffectively enough to a) not swing Lincoln Chafee and b) put Ben Nelson in play from their own side.

For extra points, let's see how the Dems do making sure you know who Julie Myers is by the end of the week.

Bush to Ignore Bill He Just Signed and Continue to Break the Law With Impunity

2006-01-04T12:27:00.000-08:00

Here's the key sentence in this morning's Globe story by Charlie Savage:

"But, the official [a senior administration official] said, a situation could arise in which Bush may have to waive the law's restrictions to carry out his responsibilities to protect national security." [Emphasis mine.]

This was the resolution McCain pushed for before the holidays. What does "waive" mean in the sentence above? Yes, you in the back.... Good. Right.

Now, does he have the authority to "waive" the law? The Constitution? What about the whole thing? What about the elections in '06? Anyone? Someone?

2006-01-04T10:40:00.000-08:00

I've learned two things so far today:

1. Michael Scanlon, former DeLay aide and first to be indicted in [NAME OF NEW NATIONAL SCANDAL HERE], got turned in to the Feds by a scorned former fiance.

Raw Story says Emily J. Miller, a co-worker of Scanlon's when he worked for the then-GOP leader, knew of his dealings and, basically, fried his ass. And he fried Jack Abramoff's. And now we're waiting to see who HE fries.

2. The Park Street Cafe (between Boylston and St. James) makes a delicious chicken breast club sandwich. Real chicken. Delicious. No where near Park Street.

Abramoff Scandal Premiering This Month

2006-01-04T08:01:00.000-08:00

I don't have much to add to news of Jack Abramoff's plea deal, but I can tell you the sole reason this hasn't gotten more play is because there isn't yet a catchty name for it. Abramoff is not alliterative with much of anything.

Now, DeLay? The Hammer? The Bug Man? Far fewer people know who he is than you may think, but at least he's got a workable name, and headline writers appreciate that sort of thing.

If you can think of, or have heard, a catchy name for the indictment and resignation fiesta that's about to be uncorked on the hill, please drop me a line.

Duke's California-50 Seat up April 11

2005-12-29T11:34:00.000-08:00

Check it out at the Fix:

"California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) announced late last week that a special election to replace former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R) in the state's 50th District will be held on April 11, with a runoff set for June 6.

"Actually, under state law, the official special election is on June 6; all candidates -- regardless of party affiliation -- will compete in the April 11 open primary. If one candidate receives better than 50 percent of the vote (an unlikely outcome), he or she wins the seat outright. If no candidate gets a majority, the top votegetter from each party advances to the June runoff.

"Although the district went for President Bush by 10 points in 2004, the scandal that led to Cunningham's resignation makes Democrats think they have a real chance here. The seat is likely to be the first major test of whether the "culture of corruption" argument can be a winner for Democrats at the ballot box in 2006."

We'll be keeping an eye on this one.

BACKFILL: Duke loses long battle with Cookiejar.

Here we go

2005-12-28T13:00:00.000-08:00

Unicorn head.
Discuss.

Not quite realistic enough to hang over the mantle.

2005-12-28T10:21:00.000-08:00

More soon, including some improvements for '06.
Try us again in a week.

Wait. Wait. No...

2005-11-22T06:38:00.000-08:00

You might remember this: a couple months ago, there was some talk that Paul Hackett, a veteran of Iraq who was running for a seat in the House in some Ohio district as a Democrat, had a real shot at pulling an upset and taking a GOP district with virtually no support, no grass roots to speak of, and no organization to look to even for coaching, seed money (how the DCCC could really let this happen in OHIO is another question)....

Anyway, this Rep. from Ohio, Jean Schmidt, in the post below who called a 30-year Marine veteran a coward the other day, because he has an opinion, she beat Hackett two months ago. That's the one they chose.

Do you understand why this may turn my stomach?

What kind of people send this woman to Washington and say, yes, yes, she is like us.

Good Times

2005-11-22T06:29:00.000-08:00

From the AP:

"The fiery, emotional debate climaxed when Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, the most junior member of the House, told of a phone call she received from a Marine colonel.

""He asked me to send Congress a message - stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message - that cowards cut and run, Marines never do," Schmidt said.

"Democrats booed and shouted her down - causing the House to come to a standstill.

"Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., charged across the chamber's center aisle screaming that it was an uncalled for personal attack. "You guys are pathetic. Pathetic," yelled Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass."

GOP Senators to Force Iraq Issue

2005-11-15T09:06:00.000-08:00

I wish, wish-wish-wish, I could be sitting across from the VPOTUS while he eats his cornflakes and reads this article:

"WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 - In a sign of increasing unease among Congressional Republicans over the war in Iraq, the Senate is to consider on Tuesday a Republican proposal that calls for Iraqi forces to take the lead next year in securing the nation and for the Bush administration to lay out its strategy for ending the war.

"The Senate is also scheduled to vote Tuesday on a compromise, announced Monday night, that would allow terror detainees some access to federal courts. ...."

This says, OK, pull over. We're driving.

2005-11-15T07:52:00.000-08:00

Just read this:

"Another SERE technique that has apparently surfaced at Guantánamo is the use of “noise stress.” The sere affiliate told me that trainees often think that the interrogation portion of the program will be the most gruelling, but in fact for many trainees the worst moment is when they are made to listen to taped loops of cacophonous sounds. One of the most stress-inducing tapes is a recording of babies crying inconsolably. Another is a Yoko Ono album. Detainees at Guantánamo have reportedly been subjected to blaring audiotapes of loud music, cats meowing, and human infants wailing."

From the New Yorker. Not exactly light reading.

But Yoko Ono?

2005-11-11T09:43:00.000-08:00

Check out the Post and hear all about Republican moderates balking on the proposed budget plan.

As Josh Marshall said, pass the popcorn.

But look at the substance of the bill. Cuts to social services. Cuts to food stamps. Extension of the equity tax break for the very rich. Sick people write bills like this. Sick.

And hopefully that's why moderates are resisting.

New MIT Feature

2005-11-01T10:19:00.000-08:00

Let's call it the first of a weekly "It's a good thing they're keeping busy over there at MIT" feature.

Archimedes is said to have built a boat-burning sun death ray during the siege of Syracuse in 212 BC. The Mythbusters TV show "busted" the myth, but these guys thought they'd give it a shot. Good thing they're keeping busy!

Senate Hearings on Plamegate

2005-10-31T13:15:00.000-08:00

A question:
With no summation of Fitzgerald's investigation on the horizon, and with so many (Official A) questions left unanswered, when would it become the correct time to ask for Senate hearings into Plamegate? What purple-state Republican representative will suggest hearings first? Which one could be pressured to?

As the LATimes's Ron Brownstein puts it, "Congress owes America answers to the questions Fitzgerald has left hanging so suggestively."

Alito Will Be Divisive Nominee

2005-10-31T07:02:00.000-08:00

Sam Alito, from Jersey, was nominated this morning. If democrats can get their act together quickly enough, there will be a fight. By quickly, I mean noon at the latest.

Play at home. If you haven't seen Harry Reid on CNN before lunch, Alito is in by the State of the Union speech.

UPDATE: We bet that Alito is not, and we have real money to put up here, "immensely, perhaps irrationally, into birthdays."

Who Did Rove Give Up?

2005-10-28T13:09:00.000-07:00

Read this carefully:

"Rove provided new information to Fitzgerald during eleventh-hour negotiations that "gave Fitzgerald pause" about charging Bush's senior strategist, said a source close to Rove. "The prosecutor has to resolve those issues before he decides what to do.""

Touchdown.

2005-10-28T10:02:00.000-07:00

Five indictments for Libby.

Just know, as you walk out into your weekend:

1. They're going to try to pile this whole thing on Libby.

2. Rove is "still under investigation." We'll all probably find out what that means in the next hours, days.

The slow unfolding of justice.

3. Libby quits.

4. The open talk of pardons (probability of, political impact of) can now begin.

5. If convicted, is this legal evidence that the White House lied us into a war? Is that still a reach? When would it not be?

6. Your grandchildren will ask you about today.

7. Fitzgerald seemed to leave the door open at his press conference to indicting Libby on conspiracy and on the leak itself after the perjury, obstruction, and false statements counts are resolved.

2005-10-28T06:23:00.000-07:00

Tom Delay: "We are witnessing the criminalization of conservative politics."

So, stop committing crimes.

Would someone please indict someone.

2005-10-25T11:22:00.000-07:00

In the meanwhile, Bush's lawyers got snippy with satirical website The Onion this week. They got snippy back:

"I greatly appreciate your comments regarding my Weekly Radio Address parody. But I'm surprised the president deems it wise to spend taxpayer money for his lawyer to write letters to The Onion.

"If you have a lot of extra money lying around that you don't know what to do with, here are some better ideas for spending it:

"1. How about a tax break for satirists?

"2. With indictments in 'Plamegate' forthcoming, perhaps a nice going-away present for Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Vice President Cheney, or whoever the president may be firing. I recommend a subscription to The Onion."

And so on. Please, Mr. Special Prosecutor, a bored nation needs you.

Kay Hutchinson Spreads WH Message

2005-10-24T11:05:00.002-07:00

From today's Washington Post:
"Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), appearing on [Meet the Press], said ... if there were an indictment, she hoped it would be for "a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime."

From USA Today's 2004 candidate profile:
"In 1999, however, she stood with Republicans in voting to remove President Clinton for grand jury perjury and obstruction of justice in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal."

Since infidelity isn't illegal. And these guys were lying about a federal crime.

Anti-Fitzgerald Campaign Launched by WH

2005-10-24T10:48:00.000-07:00

Today in the NY Daily News, a Bush ally relays comments on Fitzgerald approved by Our Actual President (OAP):

"As the White House and Republicans brace for possible indictments in the CIA leak probe, defenders have launched a not-so-subtle campaign against the prosecutor handling the case."

"He's a vile, detestable, moralistic person with no heart and no conscience who believes he's been tapped by God to do very important things," one White House ally said, referring to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald."

Tapped by God? Bush is an Evangelical Christian. So is Miers for that matter.

Who First Named Plame?

2005-10-21T08:18:00.000-07:00

From today's NY Times:

"It is still not publicly known who first told the columnist Robert D. Novak the identity of the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson. Mr. Novak identified her in a column on July 14, 2003, using her maiden name, Valerie Plame. Mr. Fitzgerald knows the identity of this source, a person who is not believed to work at the White House, the lawyers said."

That leaves a long list. There's me (nope), Plame herself (mindbending, but no), and ... hm ... maybe ... civilians at the Pentagon (nah).

My money's on Doug "the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth" Feith.

No Fast-Food Lawsuits

2005-10-21T07:31:00.000-07:00

"House Votes to Ban 'Cheeseburger' Lawsuits." Read it over at WebMD.

Summary: Just what it sounds like.

It only garners my attention today because, 1) There will be no indictments today, and I hate that, and 2) I really do try to give recognition to the GOP when they do something right.

I blame the lawyers. My styrofoam coffee cup should not now say, "Coffee is hot: watch out stupid," but it does. A lack of proper notices is not the problem.

John Hannah Cooperating in Probe

2005-10-18T11:59:00.000-07:00

The Raw Story reports that "Individuals familiar with Fitzgerald’s case tell RAW STORY that John Hannah, a senior national security aide on loan to Vice President Dick Cheney from the offices of then-Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, John Bolton, was named as a target of Fitzgerald’s probe. They say he was told in recent weeks that he could face imminent indictment for his role in leaking Plame-Wilson’s name to reporters unless he cooperated with the investigation."

I wish I had a <speculation> tag for what I'm about to say, but: If this is true, there may be a plausible line to Dick Cheney.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention that the The New York Daily News floated speculation of a "senior cooperating witness" with dirt on Cheney this morning, so there's the first of two dots.

Conservatives Organize Against Miers

2005-10-18T09:34:00.000-07:00

Alexander Bolton in The Hill today ledes:

"Influential conservatives who oppose the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court are raising money to escalate their campaign to persuade her to withdraw from consideration."

Soak it in. Enjoy.

It is "Miers's." Not "Miers'."

2005-10-17T10:50:00.000-07:00

That is, unless you are referring to more than one Miers.

I've seen this too often.

A proper noun ending in 's' (James) is made possessive by adding an apostrophe, and then an 's' (James's is correct. James’ is incorrrect). This is true in all instances, and it seems important to add some extra emphasis here. A proper noun ending in 's,' just as with all other singular nouns, is made possessive by adding an apostrophe, and then another ‘s.’ Always.

There are some exceptions. Jesus’ and Moses’ are listed as “traditional exceptions” in the Chicago Manual of Style, and certain Greek or hellenized names (Demosthenes’, Euripides’) can use this abberant construction “for reasons of euphony.” As far as this weblog is concerned, the writer who mentions Demosthenes can reorder his sentence to avoid unfortunate euphonisms, leaving consistency intact for the rest of us. So, everyone together: Miers's.

Miers for Associate Justice, Take Two

2005-10-17T10:16:00.000-07:00

The White House looks like it will spend much of this week re-introducing Harriet Miers to the national media. They don't need fawning adulation from the Washington Post. Just enough cover for 55 Republican senators to vote yes in a floor vote.

And expect conservative pundits to settle down after this retread. The onus will be on bloggers and the msm to push back on the laudable Dallas City Council and lottery commission faux-qualifications of this person.

Judy Miller is a Bad Person

2005-10-17T08:53:00.000-07:00

She told the Wall Street Journal (marginalized by its aversion to free-online content):

"'I don't remember who told me the name,' she said, growing agitated. 'I wasn't writing a story, remember?' Asked if the other source was Mr. Rove, she replied, 'I'm not going to discuss anyone else that I talked to.'"

First question: Why not come clean?
Second: Has she broken her deal with Fitzgerald by not giving up her source?
Third: Why not come clean?

Bush Taps Tai Shan for WMD Post

2005-10-17T08:13:00.001-07:00

WASHINGTON -- George Bush this morning named 3-month-old baby panda Tai Shan to front the State Department's Nuclear Containment and Non-Proliferation Task Force from his podium in the Rose Garden at a press conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

He noted, "The panda is great, the great and majestic member of our bear people. ... Our bear friends. He haves. [sic] ... He had. Has ... no paper trail."

Smart People are SO MEAN!

2005-10-13T07:17:00.000-07:00

I love this quote from yesterday's Boston Globe, quoting supporters of Miers:

"Last week, for example, former senator Dan Coats, an Indiana Republican chosen by the White House to shepherd Miers's nomination through the Senate, drew ridicule when he appeared to suggest to CNN that Miers would give a voice on the court to nonintellectuals.

''If great intellectual powerhouse is a qualification to be a member of the court and represent the American people and the wishes of the American people and to interpret the Constitution, then I think we have a court so skewed on the intellectual side that we may not be getting representation of America as a whole," Coats said.

Why Miller Kept Quiet

2005-10-05T09:24:00.000-07:00

I keep waiting for everyone else to figure this out. Miller stayed in jail until she got Fitzgerald to agree to ONLY QUESTION HER ABOUT LIBBY. Where were her other sources on WMD? Chalabi, sure, but she only found him because the Defense Dept. put her in touch with him.

From the LA Times: "Bennett ... worked out an arrangement with Fitzgerald that limited the scope of the testimony that Miller would have to give, which the journalist said Friday was pivotal to her decision to cooperate."

The story everyone keeps repeating is that for stupid or mysterious reasons, Miller didn't want to believe that Libby's waiver was good. That whole story is smoke and bs. The Fitgerald deal limiting her testimony is why she testified.

Press Frustration Over Judy Miller

2005-10-03T09:53:00.000-07:00

Reporters routinely deal with doubletalk and evasion from people in government. But something about hearing a story that doesn't add up from a NYTimes reporter seems to just drive other reporters bat[....]. I mean, crazy.

This is Dan Froomkin, from Friday's Washington Post"

"Note to reporters: There is nothing intrinsically noble about keeping your sources' secrets. Your job, in fact, is to expose them. And if a very senior government official, after telling you something in confidence, then tells you that you don't have to keep it secret anymore, the proper response is "Hooray, now I can tell the world" -- not "Sorry, that's not good enough for me, I need that in triplicate." And if you're going to go to jail invoking important, time-honored journalistic principles, make sure those principles really apply."

Harriet Miers Has Never Been a Judge.

2005-10-03T07:28:00.001-07:00

And she's another Bush crony.
And even people on the right say she's, well, not, um, smart.

She also looks funny.

Funnylooking, dimwitted crony and kneejerk ideologue. Let's not start saying she's got the Roberts checkered flag.

And she's not very charismatic and people say she's a micromanager who can't make decisions.

To recap.
Harriet Miers: funnylooking, dimwitted, micromanaging crony and indecisive kneejerk ideologue.
OK.

Judy Miller Was Gunning For Joe Wilson

2005-09-30T08:25:00.000-07:00

Judy Miller is now free to go, and the NY Times has some details today on her role in the Valerie Plame / Joe Wilson slimeathon. But check this key part:

"According to someone who has been briefed on Mr. Libby's testimony and who believes that his statements show he did nothing wrong, Ms. Miller asked Mr. Libby during their conversations in July 2003 whether he knew Joseph C. Wilson IV, the former ambassador who wrote an Op-Ed article in The Times on July 6, 2003, criticizing the Bush administration. Ms. Miller's lawyers declined to discuss the conversations.

Mr. Libby said that he did not know Mr. Wilson but that he had heard from the C.I.A. that the former ambassador's wife, an agency employee, might have had a role in arranging a trip that Mr. Wilson took to Africa on behalf of the agency to investigate reports of Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear material. Mr. Wilson's wife is Ms. Wilson."

Why was Judy Miller looking into Joe Wilson? Remember, his editorial a week prior was in direct conflict with her Chalabi-fed WMD reporting. She was out to slime Wilson for her own purposes, and was turning over rocks until she got something good.

So, why was she looking into Wilson? We can answer that one.
Why didn't she run with what she got? That one we can't answer, at least with any certainty.

DeLay Indicted in Texas

2005-09-28T12:51:00.000-07:00

"Fuck."

Read the Washington Post.

"A Texas grand jury today indicted Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) on a criminal count of conspiring with two political associates to violate state campaign finance law, and DeLay announced he would temporarily step down as House majority leader."

Armed Military Dolphins May Have Escaped

2005-09-26T08:38:00.001-07:00

It's often hard to be surprised.

From the UK's Guardian:
"Armed dolphins, trained by the US military to shoot terrorists and pinpoint spies underwater, may be missing in the Gulf of Mexico."

"Experts who have studied the US navy's cetacean training exercises claim the 36 mammals could be carrying 'toxic dart' guns. Divers and surfers risk attack, they claim, from a species considered to be among the planet's smartest. The US navy admits it has been training dolphins for military purposes, but has refused to confirm that any are missing."

The Onion, of course, scooped this five years ago.

John Edwards on Wage Cut

2005-09-21T13:03:00.000-07:00

"I might have missed something, but I don't think the president ever talked about putting a cap on the salaries of the CEOs of Halliburton and the other companies . . . who are getting all these contracts. This president, who never met an earmark he wouldn't approve or a millionaire's tax cut he wouldn't promote, decided to slash wages for the least of us and the most vulnerable."

Thanks to the Post.

Gulf Coast Wage Cut

2005-09-20T07:56:00.000-07:00

You may have heard that one of Our Actual President's (OAP's) plans is to temporarily involk something called the Davis-Bacon act of 1931. So now, contractors who will be working to rebuild the Gulf Coast needn't offer 'prevailing wages' to workers.

I'm not on either side of this one yet. I understand that if we were paying every electrician $50/hr with benefits, hazard pay, on and on, the job would never get done. But there's plenty of room for abuse by the contractors ("three dollars an hour, plus food, plus that cot over there"). And if anyone's going to get screwed, I doubt it will be the fifty-dollar electrician.

Talking Points Memo is working on the list of Senators for and against so far.

2005-09-16T09:59:00.000-07:00

After his address in New Orleans. Thanks to Reuters.

This Is A Note From Our President. It Is Real. Very Real.

2005-09-15T11:52:00.000-07:00

This is a note from Our Actual President to Sec. Rice.
This is real. It's not a hoax. Follow the link below to Yahoo. It's real. It's from Reuters.

You can see in the image above, captured at the UN, where Bush is writing a note asking permission to go to the bathroom.

"I think I
may need
a bathroom
break?
Is it possi[ble]
Wh[en]..."

Here it is on Yahoo.

Thanks to Wonkette.

Mike Brown Speaks Candidly (Candidly)

2005-09-15T08:29:00.000-07:00

From today's NY Times, Ex-FEMA Chief Tells of Frustration and Chaos
For example: "'I was beginning to realize things were going to hell in a handbasket" in Louisiana. A day later, Mr. Brown said, he asked the White House to take over the response effort."

It's not mindblowing material, just surprising to hear, especiallly so soon after his termination.

Bush Gets a Laurel!

2005-09-14T11:20:00.000-07:00

PLEASE SEE BATHROOM NOTE ABOVE. LAUREL REVOLKED.

Let it never be said that I have nothing good to say about Bush:

"Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government," Bush said at a White House news conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. "And to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility. I want to know what went right and what went wrong."

Bush was given some words to say which I actually ... what's the word? ... admire? appreciate? What a day this has turned out to be. Enjoy your laurel, Bush. It's from the bottom of the box. A little dinged up. Don't wear it at the table. But a laurel's a laurel.

Holy cow.

In case you forgot, the Laurel's description:

SEVERAL VOICES OUT OF A CLOUD

Come, drunks and drug-takers; come, perverts unnerved!
Receive the laurel, given, though late, on merit, to whom
and wherever deserved.

Parochial punks, trimmers, nice people, joiners true-blue,
Get the hell out of the way of the laurel. It is deathless
And it isn't for you.

Louise Bogan

Hot New Word: Monomaniac

2005-09-14T11:05:00.000-07:00

I just saw the word "monomaniac" used for the second time in three days. It means "when someone is too interested in one thing." This makes it Rosetta's first-ever Hot New Word. Watch for it. Catch the excitement.

Ariana Huffington: "The monomaniacs in the media are at it again, focusing all their attention on a single story to the exclusion of all others."

Visit ArianaLand.

Pals Get Gulf Cleanup Contracts

2005-09-14T08:33:00.000-07:00

From Reuters:

"At least two major corporate clients of lobbyist Joe Allbaugh, President George W. Bush's former campaign manager and a former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, have already been tapped to start recovery work along the battered Gulf Coast."

Check it out.

UPDATE:
I like the Onion's headline better than mine:

Halliburton Gets Contract To Pry Gold Fillings From New Orleans Corpses' Teeth.

SECOND UPDATE:
It's officially a storyline. From today's NY Times:

"The inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security said Tuesday that his office had received accusations of fraud and waste in the multibillion-dollar relief programs linked to Hurricane Katrina and would investigate how no-bid contracts were awarded to several large, politically well-connected companies."

Sec. Chertoff Rebutted by Forecasters

2005-09-06T06:25:00.000-07:00

"You rang?"

From today's Washington Post:

"While Chertoff said the levee breach that flooded New Orleans "exceeded the foresight of planners," Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center, said Brown and other top federal officials were briefed as much as 32 hours in advance of landfall that Hurricane Katrina's storm surge was likely to overtop levees and cause catastrophic flooding.

"They knew that this one was different," Mayfield said yesterday. "I don't think Mike Brown or anyone else in FEMA could have any reason to have any problem with our calls. . . . They were told. . . . We said the levees could be topped."

Katarina Blame Turns to States

2005-09-06T05:53:00.000-07:00

I hope you'll watch along with me as the White House today begins to quietly shift blame off to the states. Talkingpointsmemo pointed me to this, um, change in position from Louisiana House Republican Boustany:

Friday:

Rep. Charles W. Boustany Jr., (R-La.), said he spent the past 48 hours urging the Bush administration to send help. "I started making calls and trying to impress upon the White House and others that something needed to be done," he said. "The state resources were being overwhelmed, and we needed direct federal assistance, command and control, and security -- all three of which are lacking."

Monday (MSNBC interview video thanks to Crooks n' Liars):

BOUSTANY: Most of the red tape and problems have been at the state level. I have to say that the federal response has been focused on New Orleans with search and rescue operations which is going very, very well at this stage. But we've had a completely ineffectual state response and this is being borne by the local communities to help now. and I have asked the president to take this into consideration, consider that the state response is completely ineffectual and the full range of social and health care needs needs to be met.

So there's today's playbook.

DHS Fails Katrina Test

2005-09-02T07:52:00.000-07:00

We join the story four our five days into the disaster in New Orleans and environs. Only today, the National Guard base three hours away from N.O. is being deployed to aid the thousands whose lives have nearly been ruined completely.

There's a good article over at Slate wondering why the Dept. of Homeland Security didn't have a plan, and doesn't seem to be leaping into action.

For whatever good that criticism does anyone now, that is.

Great analysis in today's Post

2005-08-12T08:16:00.000-07:00

I hope you'll read this whole article in today's Wash. Post. Play at home -- add these two sentences together:

"Top Pentagon officials have made no secret in recent weeks of their eagerness to begin withdrawing some troops to ease the strain of lengthy deployments. At the same time, military commanders have cautioned against expecting that Iraq's new army and police forces will develop quickly enough to operate on their own within another year or two."

Oh, Now I Remember

2005-08-03T08:22:00.000-07:00

Why we lost.

Quote 1:
"Current means it's happening right now" -- Gore ("Tonight Show," NBC, 8/1).

Quote 2:
"Patronizing, of course, means 'talking to people like they're stupid'" -- Gore ("SNL," NBC, 12/13/02).

Thanks to the National Journal.

DeLay sends 1.5b Back Home

2005-07-28T13:12:00.000-07:00

I'd expect this to be picked up by the Washington Post and NY Times tomorrow (Friday), just in time for the "looking back" pieces in the Sundays:

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - House Majority Leader Tom DeLay quietly slipped into the energy bill a $1.5 billion fund for oil and natural gas drilling research that will benefit an energy consortium based in his home district, a California Democrat said on Wednesday."

Or maybe DeLay's earned some benefit-of-the-doubt in the last month or so.

It's Almost Recess Appointment Season!

2005-07-28T10:56:00.000-07:00

With the energy bill and CAFTA moving (squeakily) through Congress, expect John Bolton's name to arise again as Congress recesses in August. I think we can expect the White House to put Bolton in place until a new Congress convenes in early 2007.

If only to take the third mystery leaker off the front page for a couple days next month.

JAG Lawyers: "[But We're the Good Guys]"

2005-07-28T08:18:00.000-07:00

Today in the NY Times:

"WASHINGTON, July 27 - Senior military lawyers lodged vigorous and detailed dissents in early 2003 as an administration legal task force concluded that President Bush had authority as commander in chief to order harsh interrogations of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, newly disclosed documents show."

As stories started to come back from Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo over a year ago, I remember logging some practical concerns with the way we were treating prisoners. If they know they may be treated like this, we can forget (for some time to come) about massive surrenders by insurgents. We can also forget about the fair treatment we've always been able to at least hope for when our own soldiers and citizens are captured. It looks like the armed forces shared and voiced those same concerns.

Later in the same piece:

"Other senior military lawyers warned in tones of sharp concern that aggressive interrogation techniques would endanger American soldiers taken prisoner and also diminish the country's standing as a leader in "the moral high road" approach to the laws of war."

In other words, we're supposed to be the good guys.

Read the whole thing.

Rove Lied to FBI Investigators

2005-07-20T09:02:00.000-07:00

From Tuesday's LA Times:

"On Monday, a person familiar with the investigation confirmed a report in the latest issue of Newsweek magazine that, when first interviewed by the FBI about the leak, Rove did not mention a conversation he had about Plame with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in the days before Plame's name surfaced in the news media.

"The source said Rove later mentioned the conversation to investigators, who did not appear to be aware of it when Rove made the revelation.

"It is not known whether Rove initially mentioned a conversation he had with [Robert] Novak days before Novak published his column unmasking Plame.

"Failing to disclose material facts to investigators can, under some circumstances, be a violation of federal law."

Fineman Earns Conditional Rove Laurel

2005-07-18T11:42:00.000-07:00

A left to the chins.

Howard Fineman gets a "Conditional Laurel"* for today's must-read. It's a great context-making article on Rove, and it includes this one paragraph I had to read three times to make sure I was hearing it right:

"Like an entire generation of baby-boom conservatives, Rove's political boot camp was the College Republicans, which, in his case, was something of a misnomer, since he dropped out of the University of Utah to join them in the late '60s. They were under the aegis of the Nixon White House, a tie that may have augmented the usual adolescent urge to dabble in dirty tricks. Rove did his share—stealing campaign stationery and inviting the world to a Democratic beer bash was one—but the CRs were important to him for other reasons. They gave him a sense of order and belonging, which he may well have needed. His dad walked out in 1969; in 1970, he learned that he and a brother had been fathered by someone other than the man he had called Dad. (Eleven years later, his mother committed suicide.)"

I'd call that over the line. I'm sure it's something well-known to Washington journalists, or at least something Fineman's been wanting to say for a while, but if he was waiting for the right time to talk about Rove's family like that, this wasn't it.

That being said, it's Karl Rove and he's done far worse, to far better men, with greater resulting harm, in more nameless and craven ways. So after a long committee meeting, at which several off-white and oxford-blue shirts were stained with coffee and sleeves were rolled to the cuff, Howard Fineman has been awarded Rosetta's first Conditional Laurel.

* Bravery is morally neutral, and may in certain cases be applauded without moral assessment, in the way Rome is applauded. Great work, Howard. Great in the Roman sense. I hope you didn't flush your career.

Dear Mr. Rove,

2005-07-18T10:13:00.000-07:00

I know these must be difficult times, and I wanted to let you know that if you need any therapy and / or understanding, you have only to ask.

We're here for you, man.

OK, I'm back

2005-07-07T08:47:00.000-07:00

There's just too much going on to resist reopening Volume 1. I can't stand it any more: good storylines abound right now, and where do they lead?

Let me start you off with this:

Karl Rove made his remarks about liberals and 9/11 ("liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding") a couple Wednesdays ago (on 6/22), and just after that, Rove's name seems to have come out in the Valerie Plame grand jury investigation.

How do these two things make sense when layed beside each other? Was Rove trying to make the news, or flame liberals one last time before (as he potentially perceives it) he goes down for this? Does he expect to be indicted? Does he expect to be indicted but already knows he's getting out of it? Was that stakes-raising? A PRE-raspberry?

I don't want to make too much of this. It sounds like he'll play stupid and get out of any real trouble. And there's no reason to believe the administration will show him the door or even reduce his visibility for any length of time. Though it would be nice if a long trial kept him on the bench for the early part of the 2006 election cycle.

THE END of Volume 1

2005-06-27T08:32:00.000-07:00

See? This is why.

I think I've transcended the political blog. I've sublimated into something entirely different. Something more. Or maybe I'm just not cut out for this, as deep and abiding my interest may run. I'm saying this is the end of Volume 1 of this blog.

Here's what I've found out in this blog experiment I call "blogsperiment": I enjoy following storylines in the paper, and I love reading inferences, comparing one paper's reporting on this storyline to another's and finding little pixel-sized bits of info which can only be seen when these two articles are layed beside each other. The blog is the perfect medium for blurting out my interpretations of news and my guesses about what will happen next.

The problem comes when you have made your predictions on every interesting storyline in your purview. And then you just have to wait for ... more purview. And comment on your previous predictions. The 'see, I was RIGHT' post, or the 'curses--new wrinkle' post. Hillary will run for president. Bolton will be sent to the UN. Tucker Carlson's show will be cancelled and it will not be his fault. Dave Chapelle will be back.

But all of this material is sensitive down to the hour. If I noticed something at 2pm, I'd have until 2:15 to get it onto the site, and YOU'd have until around 4 to read it here first. Otherwise, it's everywhere and there's no point. So I have to keep readers coming back all day. And there just isn't anything that damn interesting to say that often.

George Carlin did this famous bit about Al Sleet, the hippie-dippie weatherman, who said, "Forecast tonight: dark, with scattered sunlight appearing around dawn." His ultimate, spaced-out forecast: "The weather will continue to change from time to time."

I'll be in touch, and thanks for reading.
-Mike

Downing Street Memo Buzz Continues

2005-06-14T13:33:00.000-07:00

It's valid to wonder why the Memo hasn't gotten more traction here in the U.S. I think the subject has been argued and people have made their decisions. So why is it worth debating at all? I was reminded of this quote from Time magazine in March 2003. Note that the episode recalled below is from March 2002:

"F___ Saddam. we're taking him out." Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase.

The Senators laughed uncomfortably; Rice flashed a knowing smile.

The tone always seemed a little callous and simple-minded for what was on the line. Link.

Peggy Noonan Blames Mark Felt for Pol Pot's Genocide

2005-06-03T15:49:00.000-07:00

And failure in Vietnam.

The Washington Post said yesterday that Mr. Felt's information allowed them to continue their probe. That probe brought down a president. Ben Stein is angry but not incorrect: What Mr. Felt helped produce was a weakened president who was a serious president at a serious time. Nixon's ruin led to a cascade of catastrophic events--the crude and humiliating abandonment of Vietnam and the Vietnamese, the rise of a monster named Pol Pot, and millions--millions--killed in his genocide. America lost confidence; the Soviet Union gained brazenness. What a terrible time. Is it terrible when an American president lies and surrounds himself by dirty tricksters? Yes, it is. How about the butchering of children in the South China Sea. Is that worse? Yes. Infinitely, unforgettably and forever.

I've been meaning to look into those new glasses. Did Peggy Noonan really just blame Felt for America's failure in Vietnam? I'm not sure where to start.

OK, I figured it out. Let's start here. If Mark Felt's part in disrupting the presidency of Nixon resulted in the killing of millions and a failed war, isn't Noonan, for her part in crippling Clinton's second administration, at least a little culpable for keeping Osama alive and well? Clinton wanted bin Laden in a bad way--I recall this specifically. His calls for the sort of action it would take to get bin Laden (troops in harm's way, a fairly large ground invasion and search) brought wag-the-dog howls from conservative writers. "Quit changing the subject. Let's get back to the BJ."

From the Washington Poston Dec. 19, 2001.

Clinton administration officials believed the Taliban would interpret the warning [to the Taliban, for harboring bin Laden] as a military threat.

The administration never made good on it. Put baldly, several principal advisers said recently, the political and diplomatic market would not bear such a war.

"Until September 11th," said Karl F. Inderfurth, who was assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs, "there was certainly not any groundswell of support to mount a major attack on the Taliban. This is just a reality."

We'll wait for her warm-sounding apology for that.

Attn. VPOTUS: Suicide Attacks Rising Rapidly

2005-06-02T09:56:00.000-07:00

From today's LATimes: "Increasingly, the bombers are Iraqis instead of foreign infiltrators. Civilians and police, not GIs, are the prime targets."

I think it's important to separate out attacks by Iraqis (who I'm comfortable calling 'insurgents') from the suicide bombers we've seen coming over the borders (well, border, singular, since it's mainly Syria). This second category should be called foreign fighters, terrorists, or maybe interlopers, carpetbaggers, haters, what-have-you.

Read the whole thing.

Note: The writer doesn't seem convinced about whether IRAQIS are the new suicide bombers who are spiking the numbers. If that's so, it marks an important cultural shift. Iraqis historically haven't shown much interest in martyrdom. It's been the outsider jihadists who've wanted to blow themselves up. There are quotes on both sides of this in the article, with the represented consensus agreeing that "...once they realized how powerful this weapon is and saw its effectiveness, Iraqis started getting involved in suicide operations."

Dick Cheney said Tuesday that the insurgency is in its last throes. I'm not interested in tossing this on the pile of unsubstantiated comments from the VPOTUS. I want to know what he meant.

Hillary Locks '08 Nomination

2005-06-01T11:17:00.000-07:00

I have complicated feelings on Hillary Clinton, and I think many on the left would second me on some apprehension about HC08. I'm settling into something though, and it seems worth stating now since this is where we are: Hillary's nomination in 2008 is inevitable.

Sometime in January 2003, when it became a certainty that Dean wouldn't win, it was worth wondering whether the Dems could ever avoid the bedlam they repeat quadrennially leading up to the party convention. I supported Dean in '04, and supported him for the clarity of his positions (this is our problem, this is not... this was stupid of these people, this works fine the way it is), and for the mere fact of his early gravity in the nominating landscape (I'll admit it). It's practical to back the candidate who's most likely to end up winning. The more people who pick someone early in the race, the smoother that process will go, the more focused the fundraising, the more practical, pragmatic, and grown-up the party seems (something Democrats must, must push with every statement and speech--something like 'can the non-screaming, non-wild-eyed grownups have the room?').

Beyond pragmatism, though, nothing quantifies the humiliation I think the Democratic base felt through BC42's second term. The public squabbles, the resignations, the weekly scandals. Monica Lewinsky. Democrats need to deal again with hearing and saying Monica Lewinsky before the GOP war machine starts throwing it at them again. Because that, too, is inevitable.

In Vigilant Hillaryland, Advisers Stay Devoted

RAF Bombed Baghdad in 2002

2005-05-31T11:29:00.000-07:00

From the British Sunday Times: "RAF bombing raids tried to goad Saddam into war"

THE RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war, new evidence has shown.

The attacks were intensified from May, six months before the United Nations resolution that Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, argued gave the coalition the legal basis for war. By the end of August the raids had become a full air offensive.

The details follow the leak to The Sunday Times of minutes of a key meeting in July 2002 at which Blair and his war cabinet discussed how to make “regime change” in Iraq legal.

Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, told the meeting that “the US had already begun ‘spikes of activity’ to put pressure on the regime”.

This bombing, this and other 'spikes of activity,' was prior to resolution 1441, before Iraq was found, in the eye of the UN, to be running afoul of weapons inspectors. I don't believe I'm taking a narrow view here.

We have to ask the following question: Is this legal? And more questions: What if it isn't? Simply put, what if China did this to Taiwan? How would we like it?

.

Downing Memo Reaching US MSM?

2005-05-31T10:52:00.001-07:00

There are few things I will call a 'must-read.' I don't like the term. But whatever your political stripe, you must read this editorial by Ralph Nader and Kevin Zeese: I'll wait right here.

I know, I know. I just said read this thing by Ralph "how can everyone agree that I am both hated AND irrelevant" Nader. Pretend you've never heard of the guy.

Now, there is of course no (none, nil) chance of any hearings against the war or the administration, nor will there be any hearings on the "Downing Street Memo." But at this point in the political cycle, and with the setbacks this Congress and administration have seen since January, expect these rumblings to get traction for the next couple of weeks. There's just too much British reporting that's already in the bag.

The important questions, SS reform, SCOTUS appointments, depend on whether '06 (and '08) Repubs feel comfortable in their districts. If they feel comfortable, there will continue to be no middle in congressional politics. Uncomfortable, and there's a middle. Play at home: watch one to see the other.

Good News: Iraq Is About To Be Miami-Calm

2005-05-31T09:47:00.000-07:00

Dick Cheney is all smiles about the next year or so in Iraq.

"I think we may well have some kind of presence there over a period of time," Cheney said. "The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."

For more sunshine and flowers, make sure you check out "US generals say Iraq outlook 'bleak'" But that's just the generals.

What on EARTH is the point of comments like Cheney's?

The Hammer Is Sad

2005-05-27T16:50:00.000-07:00

I hope this doesn't get lost over a holiday weekend. Tom DeLay has a snit over a joke on Law & Order; the sort of snit he's hoping will get attention.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is outraged over the season finale of "Law & Order: Criminal Intent," and is accusing NBC of "deliberate misuse" of his name.

Detectives on the Wednesday episode of the ripped-from-the-headlines cop drama were investigating the slaying of two judges by suspected right-wing extremists.

"Maybe we should put out an APB [all points bulletin] for somebody in a Tom DeLay T-shirt," says Detective Alexandra Eames, played by Kathryn Erbe, after a black appellate court judge is killed.

The show's creator, Dick Wolf, gets the quote prize: "I … congratulate Congressman DeLay for switching the spotlight from his own problems to an episode of a TV show."

Read the whole thing.

North Dakota Backed the Wrong Horse

2005-05-27T10:05:00.000-07:00

John Thune, the freshman GOP senator from South Dakota who unseated Dem leader Tom Daschle, campaigned on his ability to save Ellsworth AFB and the 4,000 jobs it brings to the region. Ellsworth is scheduled to close.

10 years ago, Daschle worked to get Ellsworth off the list during the Clinton administration. This time around, Daschle would have held a seat on the base closing commission. South Dakota, good call.

And in case you're hopeful for Ellsworth, the answer is: No, no, the foot-stomping John's doing won't work.

Lieberman May Vote for John Bolton

2005-05-20T10:08:00.000-07:00

From Bloomberg:

Republican George Voinovich of Ohio, whose opposition cost Bolton the recommendation of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he'll vote no. Democrats Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas are all considering voting for Bolton, according to aides.

I'm not sure what Joe's thinking here, but that's not a new thing. I've seen Joe cross the aisle, or flirt aloud with the notion of crossing the aisle, on several measures and votes, including most recently in the privatization debate. But what does he get from this? After Connecticut takes the largest hit nationally on our military bases, after a socially liberal (fiscally conservative) state reelects him to represent their interests, I just don't get the logic.

Pozen Criticizes Bush's SS Plan

2005-05-19T08:35:00.000-07:00

This has got to be a bad sign.

Robert Pozen, author of the "progressive indexing" plan you may have heard about at Bush's last press conference, recently told Congressional Quarterly that carve-out accounts shouldn't be part of the plan.

Read a little more. I'll be lurking around on this until someone picks it up.