< May 2007 | Main | July 2007 >

June 29, 2007

Lonely Dick

The following item was written by Matthew Blake, a Nation magazine intern:

This past week The Washington Post ran a four-part, as much-depth-as-you-can-take series on Vice President Dick Cheney. It unflinchingly documents Cheney's unprecedented power and secrecy. His wide-ranging (and often undercover) influence stretches from encouraging the use of torture during interrogations of suspected terrorists to orchestrating a massive fish-kill in Oregon. (For the full, super-sized account, read the series here.)

The articles so thoroughly reinforces the image of Cheney as a dark, ruthless powerbroker that the question is not "How awful is this guy?" but, "Who can now defend him?" While Cheney has earned a reputation for dismissing public opinion, he has long enjoyed support from conservative and neoconservative pundits and advocates. Surely, then, some of his ideological pals must have come to his rescue, denouncing the Post series (written by Barton Gellman and Jo Becker) and poking holes in this obvious liberal claptrap. I went looking to find out who in neocon and conservative circles were standing by their man.

First, I turned to Fox News, but its Web site contained nary a word on the Cheney series. No acknowledgment of its existence--and no counterattack. Next, I visited The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times. Nada. The Web sites of these centers of conservative opinion were letting their champion in the White House dangle in the wind. (If the editorial section of the Journal could not defend Cheney in the face of the liberal media, what good is it?) The crusading neocons of The Weekly Standard, I figured, must be firing back. After all, Cheney helped bring about the war in Iraq they had craved for years. And a Weekly writer, Stephen Hayes, has been working on a positive Cheney bio. (Good timing!) The Standard could set the world straight on the real Dick Cheney. But its Web site, updated daily with conservative opinions from both staff writers and the blogosphere, offered nothing on Cheney.

Could it be that conservatives were cutting-and-running on their great torchbearer. I performed a Lexis-Nexis search for every article with "Dick Cheney" from newspapers, wires and blogs for the days the series ran. Once again, there was no one defending Cheney. I Googled "the case for Dick Cheney." That produced several articles entitled, "The Case Against Dick Cheney."

Nearing despondency, I was comforted by the realization that I had overlooked a key source. I hadn't checked the National Review. With 50 years of principled conservative commentary, NR would not be intimidated by a report loaded with named sources in the liberal media. And it looked like I had struck pro-Cheney gold. On the magazine's Web site, Jonah Goldberg had posted a column with the courageous title, "Confessions of a Cheney Fan." Goldberg was giving voice to the voiceless, telling the virtual world that "Cheney is pretty much the only guy out there who walks the walk. He truly doesn't care what people think about him. I love that." Finally, a conservative willing to stand up for the Big Guy. But in ensuing paragraphs, Goldberg betrays his love and tosses Cheney overboard. "It becomes clear," he wrote, "that the Cheney method leaves a lot to be desired." Goldberg concluded that Cheney's shadowy, uncompromising approach to government is "ultimately counterproductive."

I was shocked. With this assault on Cheney, Goldberg was practically giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. (Don't the evildoers want Americans to despise the vice president?) And at this point, I gave up. The message seemed to be, Dick, you're on your own. Good thing he has an entire branch of government to himself.

YOUR TAX DOLLARS NOT AT WORK. This week the House armed services committee released a report that noted the United States has spent more than $19 billion on training and equipping 346,500 members of the Iraqi military and police force. The report concludes that many of the Iraqi security forces are not yet up to speed. That's after the Bush administration has spent an average of $55,000 a person. Maybe we'd better off if we just pull out and airdrop bales of money.

Posted by David Corn at 12:27 PM

June 28, 2007

The W. Years Go Apocalyptic?

In Washington, it feels as if we're approaching Endtimes. Not a moment of Biblical apocalypse, but one helluva constitutional clash between congressional Democrats and the Bush-Cheney bunker--I mean, White House. Yesterday, the Senate judiciary committee subpoenaed the White House for documents related to the legality--or illegality-of its warrantless domestic spying program. (The committee is not looking for operational details about the eavesdropping; it merely wants to scrutinize the legal review that presumably was conducted by the White House of this program.) Today, the White House announced it would not comply with earlier subpoenas from the House and Senate judiciary committees requesting information and testimony regarding the still-unexplained firings of U.S. attorneys. The White House claimed that its previous offer--to allow congressional investigators to question Karl Rove and other past and present White House officials but not transcribe the conversation--was good enough. (No notes? That seems suspiciously close to the desire for no evidence.) Certainly, Representative John Conyers and Senator Pat Leahy, the chairs of the judiciary committee, are not likely to accept the White House's refusal. Next stop: citations of contempt.

This point was bound to come. As they become more politically unpopular, George Bush and Dick Cheney are trying to preserve and expand their powers. (Cheney apparently is able to define his powers any way he fancies since his office has essentially argued he's not really part of the constitutional framework.) A key component of their power-grab entails not cooperating with other parts of the government that dare to ask Bush and Cheney to explain their actions. (A Justice Department official who questioned whether the department should okay the legality of the domestic wiretapping program was later denied a promotion, and Cheney's office sought to shut down an office of the National Archive that questioned his office's handling of classified material.)

With Democrats comparing Bush to Nixon--which is not fair...to Nixon (he was never as imaginative in his constitutional interpretations as Cheney)--these constitutional confrontations are probably heading toward the Supreme Court. Which means Bush could end his presidency much like he began it: being saved by justices appointed by him or his father.

BANNED IN CHINA. The book I cowrote with Michael Isikoff, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, was sold to a Chinese publisher named Modern Education Press. I think we were supposed to get a grand total of $1500 for the Chinese rights--maybe less. (In dealing with China, you take whatever you're offered. Otherwise, your intellectual property will just be pirated and you'll see zippo in payments.) The explanation for the cancellation: the publisher worried that the book (and another American book it was to release, Licensed To Kill by Robert Young Pelton, a look at the world of private military contractors) might not be approved by government censors. At least someone is looking out for Bush: the Chinese government.

NOT SO MIGHTY. Over at AlterNet, I weighed in on the controversies involving A Mighty Heart, the new film in which Angelina Jolie stars as Mariane Pearl, the widow of slain journalist Daniel Pearl. Here's the start of my essay:

The recent blog-driven fuss kicked up by the movie A Mighty Heart-- whether casting pale-skinned Angelina Jolie as darker-skinned Afro-Cuban-Dutch Mariane Pearl, the wife of murdered journalist Danny Pearl, was an act of racist dimensions -- seems irrelevant when you consider an important piece of evidence: the movie itself. The film is not about Pearl and his journalism (as Pearle's colleague Asra Nomani has complained). And it's not about Mariane Pearl (we learn little of her past, her work, her views). It is about glamorous actor/UN refugee activist Jolie playing Mariane Pearl.

The real-life Pearl story was a tragedy of immense sadness. A talented journalist who sought to understand the world and convey that understanding to readers of The Wall Street Journal was abducted and murdered by al Qaeda jihadists who cared not a whit for such bridge-building. Yet the story within the movie, unfortunately, is not much of a story. After Pearl is kidnapped in Karachi in January of 2002, Jolie-as-Mariane essentially waits two weeks for the bad news. She and the Asra Nomani character try to retrace Danny's pre-kidnapping steps to get a bead on the abductors, but they have little success. The Mariane of the movie confronts no dramatic choices. She takes no decisive action. She does keep her composure, she worries, and she reminisces (a lot). But her actions do not drive the narrative. This is not to suggest that the real Mariane Pearl insufficiently responded to the terrible situation at hand. She did all she could. But at the center of this movie is only tragedy, not plot.

Once you understand the movie was custom-built for Jolie to display her acting chops by portraying a woman on the verge of profound loss, the casting issue becomes moot. It was designed as a star vehicle for a particular star: Jolie.

Read the rest here.

Posted by David Corn at 11:41 AM

June 27, 2007

More Family Jewels?

I'm surprised. There's a lot of material in the 700-page "Family Jewels" file released by the CIA yesterday (see the post below), but neither of the two major media accounts of this release mention one of the hot items in the file: that John McCone, a CIA chief in the 1960s, bugged his own offices and home study, that other directors might have done the same, and that the bugged conversations were transcribed. The New York Times account and The Washington Post report say nothing about this nugget contained in a memo written by Walter Elder, who had been McCone's executive assistant. (If you're looking through the "Family Jewels"--which is available here--the Elder memo starts on page 457 of the file.)

Talk about gems! Imagine transcripts of conversations conducted by McCone and other CIA directors. McCone served as CIA director when the CIA (at the urging of Robert Kennedy) was trying to bump off Castro, the United States and the Soviet Union nearly entered a nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the United States was being drawn further into Vietnam. If there are transcripts recording the conversations of other directors, historians and reporters, if they ever could get their hands on these documents, might be able to uncover scandals and revelations that would make Watergate seem small. Tom Blanton, the head of the National Security Archive, a nonprofit outfit, tells me that his group will be filing a Freedom of Information Act request for the McCone transcripts and any others. The CIA will probably resist releasing such material if it exists. But it could turn out that the "Family Jewels" file is no more than a treasure map for the real pot of (historical) gold.

By the way, neither the Times nor the Post pointed out, as I did, that one of the lead "jewels" was censored from the documents released by the CIA (see below)--though they do note that the CIA did excise material before making this file public.

HERE COMES WARNER? Yesterday, I noted that Republican Senator Dick Lugar's newly voiced opposition to the war might become a turning point--if other leading GOP senators were encouraged by Lugar's remarks to express their true concerns and feelings. I singled out Senator John Warner, the ranking Republican on the armed services committee. And Warner came through--kind of. From CQ.com:

John W. Warner, R-Va., the former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who warned last October that the war in Iraq was "drifting sideways," said he expected Lugar's speech to add steam to the vigorous Iraq debate during consideration of the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill (S 567, HR 1585), something expected to take place after the July Fourth recess.

The debate is expected to coincide with the July 15 release of an interim report on the Iraq War.

Warner has said he is considering an amendment that would rewrite the 2002 authorization for the war. As long ago as last August, Warner said the resolution (PL 107-243) had been overtaken by events in Iraq.

"I hail what he did," Warner said of Lugar's speech. "It shows the strength that each of us individually must bring to this debate."

Warner, who commands enormous respect as an expert on military affairs, said he agreed with Lugar that the September reporting date is too long to wait to revise U.S. war policy and that Lugar's speech captured the sentiments of many other lawmakers.

"He's drawing on many of the principles that many senators have expressed," Warner said.

Senator George Voinovich was one Republican who followed Lugar's example. He sent a letter to George W. Bush calling for initiating the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. From the San Francisco Chronicle:

As ominous as Lugar's words were, the White House faced another key defection on Tuesday when Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, said he, too, felt it was time for the United States to start withdrawing troops from Iraq.

Voinovich had criticized Bush's plan for a surge in American combat forces in January, but hadn't voted for resolutions condemning the president's move -- or demanding troop withdrawals. However, the senator said Tuesday that he sent Bush a letter outlining his "Plan E, for Exit," as the Ohioan put it.

Voinovich said it is time to send Iraq's battling factions and its neighbors a firm signal that American forces are pulling out.

"If everyone knows we're leaving, it will put the fear of God in them," said Voinovich. That would force the Iraqis to settle their internal differences or see their country descend into chaos."

It certainly is late for Republican adults in the Senate to have reached this point. But the drip-drip-drip may soon turn into a flood that even Dick Cheney will have a hard time ignoring or dismissing.

Posted by David Corn at 11:17 AM

June 26, 2007

The CIA's Missing Jewel

From my "Capital Games" column at www.thenation.com....

What's the missing jewel?

Today, the CIA released its infamous "Family Jewels" file. This is a set of internal memos compiled in the mid-1970s after press reports revealed numerous CIA dirty tricks. In 1973, CIA director James Schlessinger, having learned that Watergate burglars E. Howard Hunt and James McCord (each a CIA veteran) had been in contact with the Agency while carrying out illegal activities for President Richard Nixon's reelection campaign, ordered divisions within the CIA to report any activities they had engaged in since 1959 that might be outside the CIA's authority. Deputy Director William Colby then assembled a loose-leaf notebook of the memos that poured in. The whole package totaled 700 pages. And though its existence has been known for years--congressional investigators of the 1970s had access to these documents--this secret file has never before been made public. It was considered to hold the agency's darkest secrets.

Many of these secrets did emerge during the congressional investigations of the 1970s: the joint CIA-Mafia attempt to assassinate Fidel Castro; CIA surveillance of American reporters and political dissidents; the CIA's secret jailing for three years of a suspected Soviet agent (who was not a Soviet agent). The newly-released documents are full of fresh details about some of these notorious episodes. But at least one of the "Family Jewels" seems to be missing.

The first document in the packet is a 1973 memo from Howard Osborn, then the CIA's director of security, to the CIA top management, and it summarizes the "jewels" compiled by his office. It lists eight problems--including the recruitment of mobster Johnny Roselli for the Castro hit. But blacked out from this document is the first item on Osborn's list. And a two-and-a-half page description of this operation is also redacted from the "Family Jewels" file.

In a recent speech, General Michael Hayden, the CIA's director, hailed the declassification of the "Family Jewels." He remarked, "The documents provide a glimpse of a very different time and very different Agency." Yet the very first secret in these papers has been deleted.

"The No. 1 jewel of the CIA's Office of Security is probably a pretty good one--especially since the second jewel in this list is the Roselli/Castro assassination program," says Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, a public interest outfit that filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the "Family Jewels" fifteen years ago. There are many other deletions in the "Family Jewels" file, and in most instances there's no telling exactly what has been excised. But much of the censored material seems to be related to how the CIA has created cover and fake documents. "This is probably justifiable," says Blanton, because such operational secrets may still be relevant today. But the missing jewel? Assassination? Domestic spying? Something unimaginable? "We just don't know," says Blanton.

All in all, Blanton notes, the file is not as explosive as CIA-watchers might have anticipated. "These are the 'Family Jewels'?" he asks sarcastically. "Much of this came out years ago. So how could the CIA justify keeping this stuff secret for 30 years? This is not really as informative as the [previously released] inspector general's report on the Castro assassination plots."

There are, however, intriguing tidbits scattered throughout these hundreds of pages. Here are a few:

* In a June 1, 1973 memo written to Colby, Walter Elder, who had been executive assistant for John McCone, the CIA director in the early 1960s, outlined "activities which to hostile observers or to someone without complete knowledge...could be interpreted as examples of activities exceeding CIA's charters." One such activity, he noted, "involved chemical warfare operations against...." The target is redacted. This operation, according to Elder, never went beyond the planning stage.

* In the same memo, Elder reports that discussions within the CIA chief's offices were recorded and transcribed: "I know that any one who has worked in the Director's office has worried about the fact that conversations within the offices and over the telephones were transcribed. During McCone's tenure, there were microphones in his regular office, his inner office, his dining room, his office in East Building, and his study at his residence on White Haven Street. I do not know who would be willing to raise such an issue, but knowledge of such operations tends to spread, and certainly the Agency is vulnerable on this score." Secret transcripts of conversations involving CIA directors? According to Blanton, there's never been any public indication that McCone or other CIA directors bugged themselves. Transcripts of such discussions could contain plenty of jewels. The National Security Archive is already filing a Freedom of Information Act request.

* One memo notes that CIA had a Project OFTEN that collected "data on dangerous drugs from U.S. firms" until the program was terminated in the fall of 1972. Another memo reports that commercial drug manufacturers "passed on" to the CIA drugs "rejected because of unfavorable side effects" These drugs were then tested using volunteers from the U.S. military.

* During the internal review that led to the creation of the "Family Jewels" file, a top CIA official suggested that the CIA director keep himself in the dark about MKULTRA--the Agency's mind control program run by Sidney Gottlieb, a psychiatrist and chemist. As part of this program, the CIA slipped LSD and other psychoactive drugs to unwitting subjects. (Gottlieb, according to another document in the file, was supposed to have provided poison in for an assassination attempt against Patrice Lumumba, the anti-colonial prime minister of the Republic of Congo. After being deposed in a 1960 coup, Lumumba was shot and killed by Kantangan forces.)

* CIA employees assigned to MHCHAOS--the operation that conducted surveillance against American opponents of the Vietnam war and other political dissidents--expressed a "high degree of resentment" about being given such a mission.

* The CIA "performed image enhancement techniques" on video footage of the television show of columnist Jack Anderson, who had received leaks of top-secret CIA documents. "The purpose was to try to identify serial numbers of CIA documents in Anderson's possession"--presumably documents he held up or that were on his desk. The memo on this operation does not say if the effort succeeded.

Hayden, the CIA chief, deserves some credit for releasing the "Family Jewels," and he wants the public to believe that his CIA is not your father's CIA, which plotted assassinations, illegally opened mail, and spied on American political dissidents. But the CIA in recent days has run secret prisons and used interrogation methods that either involve torture or border on torture. (The details are sketchy.) And the National Security Agency has used warrantless wiretaps to eavesdrop on American citizens and residents. Moreover, as the release of the "Family Jewels" demonstrates, there still are secrets from the past the CIA will not disclose. Are these legitimate secrets that ought to be kept from the public to protect national security, or are they embarrassments the Agency is not willing to face? Only the secret-keepers of the CIA know which jewels remain buried.

The entire "Family Jewels" file and related documents can be found at the website of the National Security Archive.

Posted by David Corn at 05:27 PM

The Lugar Threat

Is the dam about to break? That is, are congressional Republicans soon going to jump ship on George W. Bush and his war in Iraq?

Last night, Senator Dick Lugar, the senior Republican on the foreign relations committee, gave what Zbigniew Brzezinski has called a "historic" speech. Lugar declared flat-out that Bush is wrong on Iraq. He said:

In my judgment, our course in Iraq has lost contact with our vital national security interests in the Middle East and beyond. Our continuing absorption with military activities in Iraq is limiting our diplomatic assertiveness there and elsewhere in the world. The prospects that the current "surge" strategy will succeed in the way originally envisioned by the President are very limited within the short period framed by our own domestic political debate. And the strident, polarized nature of that debate increases the risk that our involvement in Iraq will end in a poorly planned withdrawal that undercuts our vital interests in the Middle East. Unless we recalibrate our strategy in Iraq to fit our domestic political conditions and the broader needs of U.S. national security, we risk foreign policy failures that could greatly diminish our influence in the region and the world....

Commentators frequently suggest that the United States has no good options in Iraq. That may be true from a certain perspective. But I believe that we do have viable options that could strengthen our position in the Middle East, and reduce the prospect of terrorism, regional war, and other calamities. But seizing these opportunities will require the President to downsize the U.S. military's role in Iraq and place much more emphasis on diplomatic and economic options. It will also require members of Congress to be receptive to overtures by the President to construct a new policy outside the binary choice of surge versus withdrawal.  We don't owe the President our unquestioning agreement, but we do owe him and the American people our constructive engagement.

Takeaways: the surge is not working and it's time to start withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. (You can read the entire speech here.) Will the White House and its prowar media comrades brand Lugar a "defeatocrat" or "surrender monkey" for speaking such words?

Lugar is not a commanding national figure. (Who remembers his hapless presidential campaign of 1996?) But he is a leading Republican voice on foreign policy and can provide cover to other Republicans anxious about Iraq and its potential impact on the congressional elections next year. If one or two more major Republicans join Lugar--paging Senator John Warner!--Bush could find himself buried in a truly bipartisan avalanche of congressional opposition.

General David Petraeus in recent days has started to downplay the report he is scheduled to present in September on progress (or the lack thereof) in post-surge Iraq. But Petraeus' shuffle may be insufficient to head off growing Republican unease with the war. Lugar is leading a charge that threatens Bush, Dick Cheney and their war.

Posted by David Corn at 11:28 AM

June 25, 2007

Can Democrats Dethrone King Cheney?

The Washington Post is doing a big take-out on Dick Cheney and the strings he pulls at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The articles in the series are not shockers. But the series is loaded with details that show that the Veep was pushing--and birthing-- some of the administration's most controversial policies (cruel and inhuman interrogations, secret detentions, wiretapping, etc.) even earlier than previously known. Here's one brief summing-up excerpt from the first article in the four-part series:

Stealth is among Cheney's most effective tools. Man-size Mosler safes, used elsewhere in government for classified secrets, store the workaday business of the office of the vice president. Even talking points for reporters are sometimes stamped "Treated As: Top Secret/SCI." Experts in and out of government said Cheney's office appears to have invented that designation, which alludes to "sensitive compartmented information," the most closely guarded category of government secrets. By adding the words "treated as," they said, Cheney seeks to protect unclassified work as though its disclosure would cause "exceptionally grave damage to national security."

Across the board, the vice president's office goes to unusual lengths to avoid transparency. Cheney declines to disclose the names or even the size of his staff, generally releases no public calendar and ordered the Secret Service to destroy his visitor logs. His general counsel has asserted that "the vice presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch," and is therefore exempt from rules governing either. Cheney is refusing to observe an executive order on the handling of national security secrets, and he proposed to abolish a federal office that insisted on auditing his compliance.

It's clear that Cheney is doing all he can to duck the normal checks and balances set up by the Constitution and to defy the fundamental premise of American republicanism: every part of the government is accountable to another part.

Articles like this will offer fodder to the Impeach Bush & Cheney crowd. But putting impeachment aside, congressional Democrats ought to go on a tear regarding Cheney and his anti-constitutional shenanigans--particularly his office's recent assertion that he can circumvent an executive order regarding the handling of classified records because his office is not technically part of the executive branch. At the least, the public ought to know who's on his payroll. But like a good mob boss, Cheney refuses to say who's part of his crew. This middle-finger approach to open government should not be tolerated. There ought ot be hearings, and congressional Democrats ought to call Cheney and his staff as witnesses. This is certainly worth a constitutional showdown.

Today, Senator Barack Obama released a statement on Cheney that reads:

Throughout this administration, Vice President Cheney has consistently sought to operate in secrecy and thwart rules designed to ensure the public's right to know how their business is being done. I believe strongly that democracy works best when it does its work in the daylight. In an Obama Administration, we will launch the most sweeping ethics reform in history so that we can restore an open, honest government that finally makes real progress on the challenges facing the American people.

This was not the strongest statement possible. (Democratic Representative Rahm Emanuel suggested that Congress ought to pull funding of Cheney's office.) Obama and other legislators should not be issuing statements but demanding hearings, investigations, and subpoenas (if necessary--which they will be). Cheney has turned the Office of the Vice President into his own secret undisclosed location. It's time for Democrats to force him from the bunker.

Posted by David Corn at 01:08 PM

Be Patient....

I'm speaking at a student journalist conference this morning. I don't know how encouraging I can be about the profession and--most important for the members of the audience--career prospects for young people entering the industry. (My advise: learn Chinese and study biotech or engineering.) So no postings until later today.

Posted by David Corn at 08:53 AM

June 22, 2007

Bloomberg: MIA in Iraq

Michael Bloomberg appears to be enjoying the attention he has received since registering as an independent with the New York Board of Elections. He spent the day after his decision coyly declining to answer whether he will run for president as an independent. And political pundits have gone crazy speculating about a Bloomberg bid and wondering which party it might hurt.

My hunch is that Bloomberg is pulling a head-fake. Is this smart-money businessman-turned-pol truly willing to throw $100 million or more down the tubes for a presidential bid with little chance of success? But let's say he's serious--or semiserious. Then we--and Bloomberg--should cut to the chase: What would he do about Iraq?

As I noted in a posting below, when his aides talk to reporters (as unnamed sources) about a possible Bloomberg presidential run, they mention immigration and global warming. They say nothing about the number-one issue facing the nation: Iraq. And in recent years, Bloomberg himself has said relatively little about the war.

During a speech at Google headquarters this week, Bloomberg dismissed the presidential debates as "just theater." Absent from this speech was any discussion of Iraq. Yet during the Republican and Democratic debates, the candidates (minor and major) have taken stands (good or bad) on what ought to be done in Iraq. And outside the debates, most have discussed the war at length and presented plans. At this week's Take Back America conference, all the Democratic candidates who spoke--including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards--stated what they would do to end the war. Senator John McCain, famously, has said what he would do to win the war: keep backing George W. Bush's troop buildup.

Bloomberg has not joined this grand and crucial debate. In 2005, he dismissed Iraq as "not a local issue"--even though by that time 32 New York City natives had been killed in combat. Bloomberg later apologized. At a March 2006 press conference, he did criticize the notion of creating a deadline for a troop withdrawal. And months later, the day after Donald Rumsfeld resigned as defense secretary, Bloomberg said "it's time to have somebody new."

But with those few remarks, Bloomberg has hardly engaged with the national discourse on the war. And he has not said much since then. What does he think of a timetable now? What about the current escalation? Is the war winnable?

At a speech in Houston last month, Bloomberg stated, "In this day and age, it is the mayors of this country that are really facing the substantive issues." That's true to an extent. But if Bloomberg aspires to be a national leader, he cannot duck the Iraq war. So I propose this deal: when Bloomberg gets serious about the country's most pressing problem, then the media ought to take him seriously as a potential candidate. Until then, he's merely playing war games--or mind games.

Posted by David Corn at 12:54 PM

June 21, 2007

King Cheney

The following press release sent out today by Representative Henry Waxman is almost unbelievable.

The Oversight Committee has learned that over the objections of the National Archives, Vice President Cheney exempted his office from the presidential order that establishes government-wide procedures for safeguarding classified national security information. The Vice President asserts that his office is not an "entity within the executive branch."

As described in a letter from Chairman Waxman to the Vice President, the National Archives protested the Vice President's position in letters written in June 2006 and August 2006. When these letters were ignored, the National Archives wrote to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in January 2007 to seek a resolution of the impasse. The Vice President's staff responded by seeking to abolish the agency within the Archives that is responsible for implementing the President's executive order.

In his letter to the Vice President, Chairman Waxman writes: "I question both the legality and wisdom of your actions....[I]t would appear particularly irresponsible to give an office with your history of security breaches an exemption from the safeguards that apply to all other executive branch officials."

Not an "entity within the executive branch"? What branch of government, then, does Cheney's office belong to? I'm no constitutional lawyer, but I believe there are only three possibilities. He's no judge, and he's not a member of Congress. That leaves only the executive branch. Unless, of course, the veep's office transcends the Constitution. Yes, perhaps it's supra-constitutional. Oh heck, why don't we just call him King? But that would create a problem: what to call the president?

Waxman's letter can be found at www.oversight.house.gov.

Posted by David Corn at 04:47 PM

SiCKO Rockos!

Longtime readers might recall that I was not a big fan of Fahrenheit 9/11. When it came out in 2004, I wrote,

My take on F9/11--thanks for asking--was that the movie is brilliant when it actually documents matters: civilian casualties in Iraq, the attitudes of American GIs there, the horrific costs paid by US soldiers, the anguish felt by relatives of dead Iraqi citizens and dead American GIs, and Bush's seven minutes of do-nothing silence after being informed a second airliner had crashed into the World Trade Center. But the film is problematic and self-defeating when it offers overly conspiratorial connect-the-dot explanations: Bush attacked Afghanistan to benefit cronies who wanted to develop a pipeline there; Bush invaded Iraq to preserve the power of his ruling class and feed the ever-hungry war machine; the Bush clan's too-tight relationship with the Saudis was to blame, somehow, for most things. But I noted [on an NPR show] that the film strongly--if briefly--made the case that the WMD argument for war had been a crock.

Last night, I attended the Washington premiere of Michael Moore's latest documentary, SiCKO. And I was moved by how fine a film it is. Funny, sad, poignant, angry. The movie is a stunning dissection of the health care industry. It does not reveal what most Americans don't already know. But the film--quite moving in some parts, quite funny in others--presents a well-crafted indictment and diagnosis of a sick, sick system.

After the end credits rolled, I saw Moore in the lobby of the theater. He said hello. I shot him a thumb's up. "It's a great piece of work," I said. "I can't think of anything negative to say." "Not even you," he replied with half a smile.

I had questioned elements of F9/11, and I'm aware of the complaints about Moore's fact-bending in his other films. But I could only gush about SiCKO. "Wonderful job," I said. We talked about how he had not yielded to pressure from Harvey Weinstein, the film's executive producer, to cut out a bit about how Senator Hillary Clinton has become a top recipient of health care industry political contributions. (Weinstein is a friend of hers.) Did that piss off the movie mogul? "What could he do?" Moore replied. "I'm me." I congratulated him once more and left him to other fans.

I've written a rave of the film here. But don't take my word for it. See it.

Posted by David Corn at 02:17 PM

June 20, 2007

Hillary the Populist?

Pop quiz: Of the leading Democratic presidential contenders, who's the most populist?

Judging from the speeches they delivered at this week's Take Back America conference--an annual gathering of thousands of progressive activists--it's not Senator Barack Obama, the former community organizer who called for hope-driven political transformation. Nor is it former Senator John Edwards, the onetime corporation-suing trial attorney who pointed out his recent antipoverty work. It's Senator Hillary Clinton.

Her speech was loaded with us-versus-them, I'm-on-your-side, anti-corporate references. Before she took the stage, she was introduced by Ellen Malcolm of EMILY's List (a political action conference that funds Democratic women candidates), and Malcolm exclaimed that Clinton, as a young professional, "instead of joining a big law firm...joined the Children's Defense Fund." (But wasn't she a partner in the Rose Law Firm, a prominent corporate law firm in Arkansas?) "She takes on the power," Malcolm declared.

Clinton told the crowd that many Americans these days "feel invisible." And she feels their invisibility. Families, she said, are working harder for less. Productivity is up 18 percent in recent years, yet the average family income is down. She decried "growing economic inequality" and pointed to the expanding gap between CEO and worker pay. She called for a "new generator of jobs." She demanded that the revolving door between corporate lobbyists and the government be closed. The top 2 percent in America, she complained, control 22 percent of the nation's wealth--the highest concentration of wealth in the United States since 1929. "Enough with corporate welfare and golden parachutes," she nearly shouted. She vowed to stand up for unions.

Most of the news coverage of the speech focused on the moment when she was booed. That came when she was discussing the Iraq war. She promised that she would end the war in Iraq if elected president. "The best way to support our troops is to bring them home," she said. Then Clinton added, "The American military has succeeded; it is the Iraqi government that has failed." That's when the hooting came. A slice of the audience was offended by her blame-the-victim stance. Rather than concede that she had been wrong to vote for the war and then to support it, she was suggesting the real problem was those darn Iraqis who cannot get their act together in the aftermath of a poorly-planned U.S. invasion and occupation. But Clinton was not put off by the jeers. "I love coming here every year," she quipped. "I see the signs [that say] 'Lead us out of Iraq.' That's what I'm trying to do." The booing subsided, and the many HRC fans in the audience cheered her on.

That moment was the money shot of the day. But as--if not more--interesting was Clinton's depiction of herself as the anti-corporate savior of working Americans. "Their needs and their lives....are not invisible to me," she proclaimed. While Obama had tugged at the hearts of the Take Back America crowd and Edwards had pitched a cerebral case (see my posting from yesterday), Clinton had grabbed the audience members by the....you-know-what.

This sales pitch would ring truer were the Clinton campaign not fueled and staffed by corporate-geared lobbyists and consultants. My Nation colleague Ari Berman recently detailed Clinton's corporate connections in an extensive piece. He wrote:

Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, not only polls for America's biggest companies but also runs one of the world's premier PR agencies. A bevy of current and former Hillary advisers, including her communications guru, Howard Wolfson, are linked to a prominent lobbying and PR firm--the Glover Park Group--that has cozied up to the pharmaceutical industry and Rupert Murdoch. Her fundraiser in chief, Terry McAuliffe, has the priciest Rolodex in Washington, luring high-rolling contributors to Clinton's campaign. Her husband, since leaving the presidency, has made millions giving speeches and counsel to investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. They house, in addition to other Wall Street firms, the Clintons' closest economic advisers, such as Bob Rubin and Roger Altman, whose DC brain trust, the Hamilton Project, is Clinton's economic team in waiting. Even the liberal in her camp, former deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes, has lobbied for the telecom and healthcare industries, including a for-profit nursing home association indicted in Texas for improperly funneling money to disgraced former House majority leader Tom DeLay. "She's got a deeper bench of big money and corporate supporters than her competitors," says Eli Attie, a former speechwriter to Vice President Al Gore. Not only is Hillary more reliant on large donations and corporate money than her Democratic rivals, but advisers in her inner circle are closely affiliated with unionbusters, GOP operatives, conservative media and other Democratic Party antagonists.

I commend the entire article. After reading it, you might want to exclaim, "Populist Hillary, heal thyself."

WHAT MAKES Ds and Rs DIFFERENT? An interesting moment came during House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's address to the Take Back America gang. It was a standard-fare address. She cited her accomplishments as speaker and called on the activists to pressure the Bush administration and Republicans to end the war. Decrying the "tragedy" of Iraq, she noted the loss of 3500 American soldiers there, and the crowd respectfully applauded. And don't forget, she added, the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians who have been killed during the war: "They're all God's children." The audience responded with a standing ovation. Could you see a conservative crowd applauding such a recognition of the full tragedy of Iraq? That's a rhetorical question.

Posted by David Corn at 03:09 PM

June 19, 2007

Bloomberg Goes Indy...And Forgets His Pal?

From Wednesday's New York Times:

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced Tuesday that he was dropping his Republican affiliation, a step that could clear the way for him to make an independent bid for the presidency.

The announcement was released during a campaign-style swing through California, during which Mr. Bloomberg, 65, a billionaire businessman, used increasingly sharp language to criticize both parties in Washington as too timid to take on big problems and too locked into petty squabbling to work together.

"I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead my city," Mr. Bloomberg's statement read. "Any successful elected executive knows that real results are more important than partisan battles, and that good ideas should take precedence over rigid adherence to any particular political ideology."

From Bloomberg's speech to the 2004 Republican convention:

I want to thank President Bush for supporting New York City and changing the homeland security funding formula and for leading the global war on terrorism. The president deserves our support. We are here to support him. And I am here to support him.

So what has Bloomberg learned about Bush and the GOP in the past three years that he didn't know before? And another thing: Bloomberg's aides tell the Times his key issues--which he might highlight during a presidential bid--are global warming, immigration, and a crackdown on illegal guns. They did not include Iraq.

Posted by David Corn at 11:23 PM

Obama and Edwards: Hearts and Minds

So there I was: caught in a scrum of Obama fans who were surging forward to get near their man. He was working the rope line after delivering a speech at the Take Back America conference (see my report below), and I was swept up in the frenzy, as progressives tried mightily to get his signature or snap a photograph of the junior senator from Illinois. He was shaking hands and trying to chat a moment or two with each well-wisher who reached him, as Secret Service agents nudged him toward the exit. "Thank you, thank you," he said to people thrusting their hands at him. He grabbed my hand and said, "Than--." Then he stopped. "You're the media," he said. "You can still thank me," I replied. "Not until I see the story, David," he said. And Obama moved on. Below is my story, from my "Capital Games" column at www.thenation.com.

One spoke to the heart. One spoke to the head. But both presidential candidates had the same mission: to prevent Senator Hillary Clinton from claiming the soul of their party.

On Tuesday, at the annual Take Back America conference--a three-day gathering in Washington, DC, of thousands of progressive activists--Senator Barack Obama and former Senator John Edwards, each an aspirant for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, delivered back-to-back speeches that delineated the stark difference in their political courtship styles.

Obama went first. He started with his own story, talking about his days as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, when he was paid $12,000 a year by church groups to help establish job training and after-school programs in a neighborhood hit hard by a steel plant closing. He described his subsequent entry into local politics and decried a Washington dominated by special interests where "all you see...is another scandal, or a petty argument, or the persistent stubbornness of a President who refuses to end this war in Iraq." Blasting lobbyists for oil and pharmaceutical companies, he exclaimed, "They write the checks and you get stuck with the bills, they get the access while you get to write a letter, they think they own this government, but we;re here to tell them it's not for sale."

That was a good applause line. The cynical ways of Washington, he said, are of no use to an Iowa couple he met who own a small business and cannot longer afford health care coverage. Pay-to-play politics in Washington, he pointed out, does not help the workers of Newton, Iowa, who lost their jobs when Maytag closed their plant and shipped their jobs overseas; nor does it do much for the still-homeless in New Orleans, the 45 million Americans without health insurance, and the 15 million American children living in poverty. "The time for the can't-do, won't-do, won't-even-try style of politics is over," Obama proclaimed. "It's time to turn the page."

And to turn the page requires..hope. Obama, jokingly referring to himself as a "hope-monger," maintained that hope gets results, and he pointed to his accomplishments as a state senator in Illinois: passing legislation that tightened government ethics rules, that reformed the death penalty, and that expanded health care insurance for children. His big message: hope can cause transformation. Washington can be changed; the nation can be changed. He knows that because his own life marks a transformation in America. "On paper," he said, it is impossible that I am here--a U.S. senator running for president." It was obvious what he meant: a black U.S. senator running for president.

Obama touched the right policy points. He promised to sign into a law a universal health care plan by the end of his first term. He called for more money for education. He vowed to place a cap on greenhouse-gas emissions and raise fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. He voiced support for a minimum wage that is a living wage and for legislation that would help unions organize workers. He urged the shutdown of the Guantanamo detention facility. Noting that he had opposed the Iraq war from the start--"we knew back then that it was dangerous diversion from the struggle against the terrorists who attacked us on September 11th; we knew back then that we could find ourselves in an occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences"--he highlighted his previous proposal to begin the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

But his appeal was not his policy shopping list. He was promoting himself foremost as an agent of change who can bring about "a new kind of politics." He offered the crowd "a simple truth, a truth I learned all those years ago as an organizer in Chicago...that in the face of impossible odds, people who love their country can change it."

And he connected. The crowd was jazzed by the combo of personal story, progressive policy proposals, and message of transformation. For an audience member looking to be inspired--to be wowed--Obama made it easy. I am your man, he proclaimed. He was convincing.

Moments after Obama was done, Edwards took to the stage. He said little about himself. But he opened by stating he had been wrong to vote to grant George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq. Congress, he insisted, must display strength and conviction and shut down Bush's war. (This was a slight dig at Obama and Clinton, who recently voted against Iraq war funding but who have not been vocal leaders in opposing funding for the war.) But his primary theme extended beyond the war. America, he said, is currently regarded with disdain throughout the world. Instead, it must become a global "force for good."

He went through the litany. The United States has failed the world in its weak response to the genocide of Darfur. The United States has failed the world by not doing enough to spur economic development in the poorer regions of the globe. (He hailed micro-lending programs.) The United States has failed the world by refusing to limit its carbon emissions. But imagine, he said, if the United States would change its energy policies and reduce its oil consumption. Oil prices would fall and Middle Eastern autocrats would have less money in their pockets. And imagine, he said, if the United States and Europe turned toward biofuels. Africa--a continent full of cheap land and cheap labor--could become a source of such energy supplies. "Millions of children," Edwards said, "would be lifted of poverty."

From global warming to biofuels to poverty in Africa. This was a bit Clintonian--as in Bill. Edwards was displaying his policy wonkishness, while offering himself as a man who knows what must be done to lead the United States in the post-Bush world.

Next, he turned to domestic matters. He referred to his antipoverty policy work of recent years. He called for a national housing policy that does not "cluster poor people together." He proposed a "College for Everyone" program that would provide students money for tuition and books if they worked ten hours a week. He promoted his own universal health care proposal, suggesting it was more universal than Obama's. "I will speak for the poor," he said. "I will speak for the uninsured. I will speak for the disenfranchised. This is my life." Paraphrasing Gandhi, he remarked, "You have to be the change you believe in." The audience applauded Edwards, but he had not rocked the house as much as Obama had.

Edwards, who became wealthy as a successful trial attorney, was arguing a case. Obama, the former organizer, had delivered a motivational speech. There was much overlap between the two presentations: America has to treat its less-fortunate citizens better; it must repair its relationship to the rest of the world; and all this depends on you. There were no apparent policy differences. (Only health care experts can argue how the health care plans of these two candidates vary.) Yet each speech was a different experience. Obama spoke as if he was addressing people looking for love. Edwards spoke as if he was before people about to make a hire. Either man, though, will have to win votes of both affection and confidence to best the woman in the lead.

Posted by David Corn at 04:31 PM

June 18, 2007

Summer Reading?

Today, Democratic Representative Henry Waxman, who chairs the oversight and government reform committee, released an interim report on the use of Republican National Committee e-mail accounts by Bush White House officials. Here are some of its conclusions:

* The number of White House officials given RNC e-mail accounts is higher than previously disclosed. In March 2007, White House spokesperson Dana Perino said that only a "handful of officials" had RNC e-mail account. In later statements, her estimate rose to "50 over the course of the administration. In fact, the Committee has learned from the RNC that at least 88 White House officials had RNC e-mail accounts. The officials with RNC e-mail accounts include Karl Rove, the President's senior advisor; Andrew Card, the former White House Chief of Staff; Ken Mehlman, the former White House Director of Political Affairs; and many other officials in the Office of Political Affairs, the Office of Communications, and the Office of the Vice President.

* White House officials made extensive use of their RNC e-mail accounts. The RNC has preserved 140,216 e-mails sent or received by Karl Rove. Over half of these e-mails (75,374) were sent to or received from individuals using official ".gov" e-mail accounts. Other heavy users of RNC e-mail accounts include former White House Director of Political Affairs Sara Taylor (66,018 e-mails) and Deputy Director of Political Affairs Scott Jennings (35,198 e-mails). These e-mail accounts were used by White House officials for official purposes, such as communicating with federal agencies about federal appointments and policies.

* There has been extensive destruction of the e-mails of White House officials by the RNC. Of the 88 White House officials who received RNC e-mail accounts, the RNC has preserved no e-mails for 51 officials. In a deposition, Susan Ralston, Mr. Rove's former executive assistant, testified that many of the White House officials for whom the RNC has no e-mail records were regular users of their RNC e-mail accounts. Although the RNC has preserved no e-mail records for Ken Mehlman, the former Director of Political Affairs, Ms. Ralston testified that Mr. Mehlman used his account "frequently, daily." In addition, there are major gaps in the e-mail records of the 37 White House officials for whom the RNC did preserve e-mails. The RNC has preserved only 130 e-mails sent to Mr. Rove during President Bush's first term and no e-mails sent by Mr. Rove prior to November 2003. For many other White House officials, the RNC has no e-mails from before the fall of 2006.

Waxman's report also notes that the

Presidential Records Act requires the President to "take all such steps as may be necessary to assure that the activities, deliberations, decisions, and policies that reflect the performance of his constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties are adequately documented...and maintained as Presidential records." To implement this legal requirement, the White House Counsel issued clear written policies in February 2001 instructing White House staff to use only the official White House e-mail system for official communications and to retain any official e-mails they received on a nongovernmental account.

The evidence obtained by the Committee indicates that White House officials used their RNC e-mail accounts in a manner that circumvented these requirements. At this point in the investigation, it is not possible to determine precisely how many presidential records may have been destroyed by the RNC. Given the heavy reliance by White House officials on RNC e-mail accounts, the high rank of the White House officials involved, and the large quantity of missing e-mails, the potential violation of the Presidential Records Act may be extensive.

Time for another criminal investigation? Waxman is continuing his investigation, but the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section should take a look at this. The Waxman report also notes that the Bush political operation is stonewalling:

The Committee may need to issue compulsory process to obtain the cooperation of the Bush Cheney '04 campaign. The campaign has informed the Committee that it provided e-mail accounts to 11 White House officials, but the campaign has unjustifiably refused to provide the Committee with basic information about these accounts, such as the identity of the White House officials and the number of e-mails that have been preserved.

With the House and Senate judiciary committees heading toward a showdown with the White House over whether it will turn over documents regarding the dismissals of the US attorneys and whether it will permit past and present White House officials to testify to the committees, another confrontation is brewing. If Waxman succeeds in obtaining access to all these emails, congressional investigators and reporters will have many hours of intriguing reading ahead of them.

The full text of the report is available at www.oversight.house.gov.

Posted by David Corn at 12:25 PM

Bush-Bashing: It Keeps Getting Easier

These days it can be hard to be tougher on the Bush administration than its conservative critics. Yesterday, I participated in the roundtable discussion on ABC News' This Week with George Stephanopoulos, and the lead subject was the latest Middle East crisis. Though Hamas bears responsibility for the violent coup it mounted in the Gaza Strip, I was prepared to blast the Bush White House for having botched Middle East policy for the past six years. But I quickly realized it would be hard to outflank conservative commentator George Will. Here's how the roundtable opened:

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH (on tape): Peace requires a new and different Palestinian leadership so that a Palestinian state can be born. I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror. I call upon them to build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: It did not turn out as President Bush hoped five years ago this week in the Rose Garden. That was President Bush on June 24th, 2002, when he called for the Palestinians to replace Yasser Arafat. Here to talk about where we are right now, I'm joined by George Will, David Corn of "The Nation" magazine and our White House correspondent Martha Raddatz. Welcome. And George, you heard Senator Biden. He laid a lot of blame for this Hamas coup this week on the president and the White House.

GEORGE WILL: Well, this administration so fervently believes in the tonic of democracy as a transformative elixir. I mean, this president, what you just showed said, well, we'll have elections and this will produce tolerance. Actually, I think they've got it backwards. First you get tolerance, then you try democracy. Elections haven't gone well in Lebanon, where it produced Hezbollah. It hasn't gone well in Iraq, where if anything, it's aggravated the sense of sectarian differences. It hasn't gone well in Palestine. When, against the urgings of the Israelis, we pressed for the elections that overthrew Fatah, who we were backing and put in Hamas, Condoleezza Rice said nobody saw it coming. Those four words are the epitaph of this administration.

"Nobody saw it coming"--that could apply to the administration on many levels. And Will delivered this indictment with complete disdain. Next, Martha Raddatz, ABC News' White House correspondent, piled on:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Martha Raddatz, the Israeli Prime Minister is coming here on Tuesday, so what can the administration do right now? The officials I talk to say they're trying to say this is an opportunity to build up president Abbas now that he has control of the West Bank to himself.

MARTHA RADDATZ: But I don't think they really have any idea how to build up Abbas. I mean, it hasn't worked so far. There's corruption. They seem to be in denial about Hamas, and they've been in denial about Hamas all along. I remember the president very early on said look, they didn't vote for Hamas because of terror. That's not the reason they voted. Well, he should take that lesson now because people want jobs, people want money, people want a way of life that they may find in Hamas that they didn't find in Fatah. So this is far from solved. It's far from solved in the West Bank whether they'll have any power. And I think right now you probably see the White House scrambling to come up with some sort of opportunity or even what to say.

Incompetence, denial--what's left? Now it was my turn:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Although, David, can an isolated Hamas actually provide these opportunities to its people in the Gaza strip?

DAVID CORN: Well, no, it can't, which is why the situation could get worse there. You could have a humanitarian crisis with 1.4 million people there cut off from water, electricity and food supplies which come in through Israel. I mean, let me agree with what George just said, said that in addition to the administration, you know, getting the tonic wrong, I think they really believe that speechifying was more important than the hard work of diplomacy. I mean in the Clinton years, they had the Oslo agreement and there was a lot of diplomacy back and forth. The Bush people came in and they that - they actually threw it aside with a lot of disregard and believed that they could sort of elevate the issue by giving these grand eloquent speeches about democracy, and that would do the trick, and they let the hard work of diplomacy, I think, go to the side. And now we're paying the dividends.

So right, left and center agreed: Bush blew it in the Middle East. When it comes to support from outsiders, the Bush White House is basically left only with the small neocon crowd (and some of its allies, such as John McCain). And even many neocons blast the Bush administration for screwing up their war in Iraq. (And they're fit to be tied about Bush's refusal--so far--to pardon Scooter Libby.) Bush-bashing is becoming too common and, alas, even easier than it once was.

Posted by David Corn at 11:10 AM

June 15, 2007

Michael Moore Strikes Again

A new Michael Moore film is opening next week. Called SiCKO, it takes aim at the health care industry. No Moore film is complete without controversy and creative marketing. We've had the controversy already, with the Treasury Department threatening to go after Moore for taking sick American veterans to Cuba for free medical treatment. Now comes the creative marketing. A publicist for the film just sent out this notice:

Quick heads up: This coming Wednesday (June 20), Michael Moore will hold an exclusive screening of his new film, SiCKO, in Washington, DC, specifically for healthcare lobbyists.

Print and online "invitations" will appear over the next five days in the Washington Post, Politico, The Hill, and Roll Call that list all of the reregistered health care lobbyists in Washington, DC and invites them (so long as they bring the ad as their ticket) to an exclusive screening. The ad (which I can email you in you want) features a set of tombstones, which reflects a central theme of the movie--the health care industry is killing people. The ad--because it lists all of the names and because of its provocative nature--will cause a stir next week.

We will have a real-time webcam set up at the screening so the American public can track how many lobbyists actually show up (it will be a real time video to a variety of sites and then be converted into a YouTube posting to go on the SiCKO YouTube channel).

As you know, a central theme of the movie is how the health care lobby is maintaining a death grip over our health care system through its control of the political process. The industry puts profits before patients and too many politicians put contributions before care--all in response to the health care industry's lobbyist muscle. Hence, the ad and the premiere. We are hopeful that some health care lobbyists show up and that they are able to see the real life consequences of a broken health care system.

As the ads are being placed today, this info is going to start getting out and I just wanted to give you a heads-up.

How many lobbyists for private health care and insurance firms will show up at this special screening? Probably as many senior White House officials who attended the Washington premiere of Fahrenheit 9/11. And that's the point. This will be one empty house a film producer is happy to see. Let's hope the movie is as ingenious as the promotion.

Posted by David Corn at 02:09 PM

You Can Watch Me...

This Sunday on ABC News' This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

Posted by David Corn at 11:01 AM

June 14, 2007

Libby Heading To Jail; Neocon Pardon-mania To Hit

From my Capital Games" column at www.thenation.com....

Now it gets serious.

On Thursday afternoon, federal district court Judge Reggie Walton ruled that he will not put off sending Scooter Libby to jail. Last week, the judge sentenced Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff to 30 months and a $250,000 fine for obstructing justice during the CIA leak investigation. Libby's lawyers asked for Libby to remain free on bail while they appeal the conviction. Walton said he would entertain the request, though he indicated he was not at all sympathetic to their legal arguments. He did not change his mind.

His ruling was a routine legal decision. Walton usually sends criminals convicted in his court (who are not flight risks) to prison once the Bureau of Prison notifies him it has selected a prison for the convict. That process tends to take 45 to 60 days. So unless Libby's layers can persuade an appeals court to overturn Walton's decision, Libby will soon be reporting to a federal penitentiary.

Which means neocon pardon-mania is about to hit.

The Libby Lobby has long called for George W. Bush to pardon Libby--even before his trial and conviction. And the neocons and conservatives have amped up their demand for a pardon in the days since Libby was sentenced.

On June 5, The National Review reiterated its call for a pardon:

[Libby] is a dedicated public servant caught in a crazy political fight that should have never happened, convicted of lying about a crime that the prosecutor can't even prove was committed. President Bush has the power to end this ridiculous saga right now. He should do so.

Days later, William F. Buckley suggested this was an issue involving Bush's manhood:

Mr. Bush will have to exhibit the courage for which he is loved and hated, by doing the right thing, and letting Mr. Libby get on with life.

Today, P.S. Ruckman, writing for The National Review, proposed that Bush issue a "respite" that would delay Libby's jail term while Libby's appeal continues.

The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, too, has been in the forefront of the free Scooter movement. Three days ago, it opined:

With Mr. Libby, what is Mr. Bush afraid of--jeopardizing his 33% approval rating? A pardon would be a two-day story. His opponents can't hate Mr. Bush more than they already do, and his supporters would cheer to see the President standing by the man who stood by him when others in his Administration cut and ran.

Days earlier, The WSJers proclaimed:

Mr. President, this buck stops with you.

Among the rush-to-war crowd, there is outrage that Bush has not waved his magic wand for Libby. These conservatives believe that that Libby (and they) have been betrayed by the president. Rightwing columnist Bob Novak (who started the leak scandal when he outed covert CIA officer Valerie Plame in his column) recently channeled this rage in a column:

The treatment of Lewis Libby, once Vice President Cheney's influential chief of staff, enrages Republicans far more than their public utterances suggest. The president's studied distance from the CIA leak case led to the appointment of a special prosecutor by then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey at a time when Comey already knew the leaker's identity. That distance has continued with Bush's response from Europe to Libby's conviction; it was filtered through a deputy press secretary, emphasizing that he had no intention of issuing a pardon.

One Republican who did not watch her words last week was Washington lawyer Victoria Toensing: "If the president can pardon 12 million illegal immigrants, he can pardon Scooter Libby." Toensing is joining the procession supporting the still-unannounced run for president by Fred Thompson, who is unequivocal in his outrage over Libby's fate and asserts that he would pardon him.

You can feel the rage. And the neocons know how to gin up campaigns. They will do whatever it takes to pressure Bush. Expect them to go--to use a technical term--bananas. Especially since the White House still is indicating Bush is not eager to untie Libby from the train tracks. After Walton turned down Libby's request to remain free, White House spokesperson Dana Perino said, "Scooter Libby still has the right to appeal, and therefore the president will continue not to intervene in the judicial process. The president feels terribly for Scooter, his wife, and their young children, and all that they're going through."

There was wiggle room in the statement. Perhaps if Libby exhausts his appeals on the issue of staying out of prison while he appeals the conviction, Bush might then consider a pardon. But this was not the message the Libby Lobby wanted to hear.

These days Bush has lost the general public due to the Iraq war, He is in trouble with party's base because of the immigration bill he's been pushing. Now the elite guard of the GOP is in an uproar over his failure (so far) to pardon Libby. These guys and gals are going to endeavor to make this decision a painful one for Bush. They know how to play (read: manipulate) the media. And they have a mole in the White House: Dick Cheney. With Americans and Iraqi civilians being killed in Iraq every day, they will pour all their passion into the Save Scooter fight. After all, he is one of them. And though most neocons who misguided the United States into the failed war in Iraq have never served in the military, they do share a credo with one of the military services: leave no man behind. Scooter is their holy cause. The crusade has just begun.

BLOGGINGHEADED AGAIN. Yes, the Jim Pinkerton and David Corn Show is back on Bloggingheads.tv. We talk immigration, Iraq, and Albania. Watch it here.

Posted by David Corn at 04:30 PM

The Mosque Attack: Where was Bush?

The Iraq news this morning is that the twin golden minarets of the al-Askari mosque in Samarra were blown up yesterday during an attack apparently mounted by Sunni extremists with links to al Qaeda. Given that George W. Bush has repeatedly (and erroneously) called the early 2006 attack on the mosque the trigger of sectarian conflict within Iraq, anyone paying attention ought to ask, so why did the United States not do what was necessary to prevent another attack on the mosque? The other Iraq news is the release of a Pentagon report noting--no shock here--that despite Bush's so-called surge the overall level of violence in Iraq has not decreased. Attacks have shifted from Baghdad to other parts of the country. When it comes to violence in Iraq, there is a free market.

What's likely to get less attention than the Pentagon report is a report put out by a coalition of nongovernmental organizations that raises questions about the United States' conduct of the war. Here's an Agence France-Press article on the report:

UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - A coalition of non-governmental groups on Wednesday took the UN Security Council to task for its "shocking silence" on alleged violations of international law by US-led forces in Iraq and urged an early end to their mandate.

In a scathing report, the Global Policy Forum slammed the conduct of US-led coalition forces and their Iraqi government partners who "have held a large number of Iraqi citizens in 'security detention' without charge or trial, in direct violation of international law."

"No Iraqi is safe from arbitrary arrest and the number of prisoners has risen greatly since 2003 (when the US-led war began)," said the forum, an international non-profit body that monitors policy-making at the United Nations....

The report said US military commanders have established permissive "rules of engagement," allowing troops to use "deadly force" against virtually any perceived threat.

"As a consequence, the US and its allies regularly kill Iraqi civilians at checkpoints and during military operations, on the basis of the merest suspicion," the 117-page report said.

Americans may have Abu Ghraib fatigue and not want to hear more about systemic problems involving U.S. human rights and international law violations within Iraq. But it seems this is a matter that the in-control Democrats of Congress ought to examine. If arbitrary arrests, detentions without charges, and the misuse of deadly force are indeed on the upswing, U.S. forces could be creating more enemies than they are thwarting.

Posted by David Corn at 09:17 AM

June 13, 2007

Lieberman Goes Pink?

Here's a meeting that would be fun to be a fly on the wall for. From a press release disseminated by the antiwar group Code Pink:

Peace Groups to Meet with Senator Lieberman About Iran,
Ask Him to Retract Statements about Attacking Iran

Outraged by Senator Lieberman's comments on CBS last Sunday on wanting to bomb Iran, CODEPINK and members of Iranian, Iraqi, Israeli and Jewish communities will hold a meeting on Thursday with the Senator himself. Lieberman's aggressive comments prompted one CODEPINK member, Leslie Angeline, to start a hunger strike until she meets with the Senator. Angeline is now into the 5th day of her hunger strike.

In response to Lieberman's statements on CBS that "we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians", dozens of representatives from various international peace communities will present the Senator with photos of Iranian children and tens of thousands of petition signatures from Americans urging diplomacy not military action with Iran.

Does each side here have a taste for masochism? Seriously, Lieberman obviously has decided he doesn't want to get Cindy-Sheehaned. But he's not going to retract his neoconnish war-drum beating. That's his foundational issue these days. If he couldn't threaten bombing Iran, he'd lose all his "Joe-mentum."

Posted by David Corn at 11:08 PM

A Crucial Decision for Libby...and Bush

Thursday is D Day for Scooter Libby--and George W. Bush.

Federal district court Judge Reggie Walton, who last week sentenced Libby to 30 months in jail and a $250,000 fine, scheduled a hearing for Thursday to consider Libby's lawyers' request that Libby remain free on bond while his attorneys appeal his conviction. At last week's sentencing hearing, Walton indicated he was not sympathetic to Libby's arguments on this point. To win over the judge, Libby's attorneys have to demonstrate to him that their appeal involves significant legal issues. If they fail to do so, Libby will likely have to report for jail time in the next month or two. (No doubt, if Walton rules against them on Thursday, Libby's lawyers will try to appeal that decision quickly.)

Should Walton rule against Libby, that will put pressure on Bush. Already, the neocon-dominated Libby Lobby is calling on Bush to pardon Libby. And neocons view Bush's refusal (so far) to intervene as an act of profound betrayal. If Thursday's hearing makes clear Libby is off to jail soon, the cries for a pardon will increase--and so will the cries of betrayal if Bush does not accede. This could get ugly.

Posted by David Corn at 11:54 AM

A Crunch Point's Gonna Come/Bush and Bitburg

What are the Democratic presidential wannabes--as well as those nervous-Nellie Republicans in Congress--going to do? That is, about the war in Iraq. Since George W. Bush initiated his so-called surge (a.k.a. escalation) in Iraq, he and defenders of the war have intermittently claimed there are "signs of progress." But in recent weeks that hollow claim had become increasingly empty. Today, The Washington Post reports:

A senior U.S. military commander said yesterday that Iraq's army must expand its rolls by at least 20,000 more soldiers than Washington had anticipated, to help free U.S. troops from conducting daily patrols, checkpoints and other critical yet dangerous missions.

Even then, Iraq will remain incapable of taking full responsibility for its security for many years -- five years in the case of protecting its airspace -- and will require a long-term military relationship with the United States, said Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, who until recently led the U.S. military's training effort in Iraq.

Appearing before a House panel, Dempsey outlined his assessment of Iraq's 348,000-strong security forces looking into 2008 and the prospects that they can take over from U.S. troops. He said the Iraqi forces are improving but are still riddled with sectarianism and corruption and are suffering from a lack of leaders and the attrition of tens of thousands of members -- including 32,000 police between mid-2005 and January.

His projection of the size of the police force required to help bring stability -- 195,000 -- is more than 40 percent higher than Washington estimated in 2003. The remarks follow other blunt comments by U.S. military commanders that civilian deaths and attacks on U.S. troops have recently risen and that particularly tough fighting is expected in the coming months.

Building a competent Iraqi security force is at the center of the U.S. effort to turn over military operations, but serious gaps in the capability of Iraqi forces are limiting their role in pacifying Baghdad and safeguarding civilians under the counterinsurgency plan being implemented by the top U.S. commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, Dempsey said.

In a posting yesterday, I wondered how Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards would handle the question of how many U.S. troops would have to remain in Iraq after the general withdrawal of combat forces they each have promised. (My hunch: Edwards, looking to set himself off as more antiwar than the two other leading Dems, would seek to make an issue out of this and pledge to enact a larger pullout. Yes, my withdrawal is bigger than your withdrawal.) But now the question appears to be, who is willing to pull the plug on an enterprise that currently shows few (if any) indications of success? Are HRC, Clinton or Edwards prepared to pronounce the war a failure, really pull out of Iraq, and suffer whatever consequences arise?

But before a new president is faced with that decision, Congress will again be bedeviled. With the "surge" going nowhere, the Democratic leaders in Congress will be under more political pressure to stop Bush's war. The see-you-in-September point I've referred to in previous posts is fast approaching--as is a request from the White House for next year's war funding. Last month's debate over the Iraq war funding legislation was merely a warm-up for what's coming soon. Moreover, several key Republicans in Congress--who are anxious about heading into next year's elections with the unpopular war continuing--have in recent weeks proclaimed that time (and their patience) is running out. How will they react to the latest assessment?

It's clear that the United States cannot half-ass it's way through Iraq. If Bush were truly serious, he'd send another 150,000 troops (and perhaps institute a draft to get them.) Still, there's no guarantee such an escalation would work. (See Vietnam.) But it's obvious that what's happening now--creeping escalation--is not succeeding. So what politician is going to have the guts to say America has failed and ought to extricate itself from Iraq? Who's willing to be branded a defeatist?

BUSH'S BITBURG MOMENT? On Monday, during his visit to Bulgaria, Bush, according to the AP, "prayed before a wreath at an eternal flame that marks Bulgarian's tomb of the unknown soldier." This tomb is a memorial to Bulgarian soldiers who have died while fighting for their country. But in World War II, Bulgaria fought with the Nazis against the Allied powers--until Russia declared war on Bulgaria on September 5, 1944. So was Bush praying for soldiers that supported Nazism? How ecumenical. (If you're too young to get the Bitburg reference, Google it.)

McCAIN's PROBLEM. Why is John McCain sputtering instead of soaring? It may be that his age is showing or that he has gone from the insurgent candidate of 2000 to the establishment contender of 2008 (and, subsequently, has pandered to social conservatives). Now here's another clue: almost all of McCain's top campaign consultants (except for two long-term advisers) are former George W. Bush strategists. The guys who destroyed McCain on behalf of Bush in 2000 are now running his presidential effort. It looks like they will ruin his presidential chances twice.

Posted by David Corn at 09:31 AM

June 12, 2007

Wiggle Room for Hillary?/Post Blows Thompson Scoop

Former Senator John Edwards has been trying darn hard--in between $400 haircuts--to demonstrate he's more antiwar than his two primary rivals: Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Of this pair, Clinton has particularly taken steps to make certain there's little space between her and the other main Democratic contenders on the Iraq issue. (I explained all this after the last Democratic presidential debate here.) And, after all, each of these candidates vow that if elected president he or she will bring the U.S. troops home.

But is there a catch? In an NPR commentary yesterday, veteran newsman Ted Koppel noted that Clinton privately told a senior military official that she knows that American troops will remain in Iraq for decades.

This isn't any newsflash. Even if there were a general pullout of American combat forces ordered today, troops would remain to provide security in the Green Zone and elsewhere, to train Iraqi forces, to patrol the borders, and to chase after al Qaeda in Iraq. Some of these tasks could take years. But will Edwards jump on Clinton's realism and claim HRC is not truly in favor of pulling out the troops? I can see antiwar activists bashing Clinton for this, but will antiwar voters in the Democratic primary demand that the candidates provide specifics (and numbers) regarding their withdrawal plans?

There's still a lot of time before the voting begins, and Edwards is going to keep trying to find a meaningful difference between himself and Clinton on the war. In this ground war, even an inch could count.

FRONT-PAGE MISCUE. I've referred to this quote before, but today I reach for it again: I.F. Stone once said you never know where in The Washington Post you'll find a front-page story. Check out today's paper. Jeffrey Birnbaum has a scorcher of a piece on Fred Thompson. And it's nowhere near the front page.

It's been reported and mentioned (here and elsewhere) that Thompson spent about two decades as a Washington lobbyist. But these reports covered work he did years ago. Birnbaum discovered that Thompson--in between acting gigs--has in the past three years raked in $760,000 for helping a British company that owes billions of dollars in asbestos claims. His mission: obtain inside information on what Congress might do to limit the firm's liabilities. Here's how the piece starts:

By all accounts, Fred D. Thompson will soon be running for president, portraying himself as a Washington outsider on the campaign trail. But over the past three years he showed up every two weeks or so at a lobbying and law firm in downtown D.C. to plot how best to persuade Congress to help a British company.

His main assignment: to use his connections to then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) to extract information about goings-on inside Congress and use it to benefit his multibillion-dollar client.

In exchange for this insider wisdom he was paid a cool $760,000.

Even casual observers of the presidential race know that in recent years Thompson, a Republican former senator from Tennessee, was a lobbyist between his acting gigs. What is less widely known is what he did in D.C.

According to people he lobbied with, Thompson was an access man. He contacted his old colleagues to learn the latest about bills his client cared about. Thompson was frequently responsible for finding out what Frist was planning for asbestos legislation, his spokesman said -- an easy task, given his eight years in the Senate representing Tennessee alongside Frist (both were first elected in 1994).

Thompson's client, London-based Equitas Ltd., held billions of dollars to pay off claims from people sickened by asbestos, a once-common building material. It wanted Congress to limit how much it had to pay into a trust fund to cover those liabilities.

In an earlier era, the term of art for what Thompson did would have been "foreign agent." But a law change in 1995 allowed lobbyists for foreign companies to register simply as run-of-the-mill lobbyists, which permitted them to sidestep detailed disclosure requirements about their activities and to avoid the politically charged "agent" designation.

Thompson has been preparing to run for president as a "folksy" outside-the Beltway candidate who will decry Washington. Yet this work is about as inside-the-Beltway as it gets. (You think Jay Leno will ask Thompson about his Equitas connection on The Tonight Show this evening?)

A contradiction this big deserves front-page treatment. The story appeared on p. A23, as part of Birnbaum's "On K Street" column. Okay, maybe the editors didn't want to start a column on Page One. But there should have at least been a teaser on the cover page of the paper. This story revealed more about Thompson then any episode of Law & Order.

Posted by David Corn at 10:47 AM

June 11, 2007

Bush & Gonzales: BFF/McCain and September/The Final Inside Joke of The Sopranos

At the Archaeological Museum in Sofia, Bulgaria, today, George W. Bush once again defended besieged Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Here's the exchange:

Q: Mr. President, I want to take you back to domestic issues again. You say the no-confidence vote [pending in the Senate today] has no bearing as to whether Alberto Gonzales remains as Attorney General. How can he continue to be effective? And it seems like you're not listening to Congress when it comes to Gonzales, but you are listening to Congress when it comes to Peter Pace.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, it's an interesting comment about Congress, isn't it, that, on the one hand, they say that a good general shouldn't be reconfirmed, and on the other hand, they say that my Attorney General shouldn't stay. And I find it interesting. I guess it reflects the political atmosphere of Washington. And they can try to have their votes of no confidence, but it's not going to determine -- make the determination who serves in my government....

And as to how Gonzales -- first of all, this process has been drug out a long time, which says to me it's political. There's no wrongdoing. You know, he -- they haven't said, here's -- you've done something wrong, Attorney General Gonzales. And therefore, I ascribe this lengthy series of news stories and hearings as political. And I'll make the determination if I think he's effective, or not, not those who are using an opportunity to make a political statement on a meaningless resolution.

This is good news for Democrats and any American who cares about the Justice Department. How can keeping a political hack who has lost all credibility as attorney general be considered a positive thing? Thanks to the shenanigans of Gonzales and his underlings, the Justice Department has been paralyzed. That has made it tougher for conservative ideologues to work Justice as their own plaything. Sunday's Washington Post noted that the Bush administration has been lackadaisical of late in stuffing the courts with rightwingers, and this has peeved its conservative comrades outside the government. The Post reported:

A White House failure to move quickly to fill judicial openings around the country is fueling concern among conservative allies that President Bush may miss an opportunity to use his final months in office to continue putting his stamp on the federal judiciary....

But though some people single out Democrats for criticism, others worry that changes in the White House counsel's office and the congressional uproar over Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales have pushed the issue lower on the priority list. "I have been pressing them to submit names -- because every day that passes it becomes that much more difficult," said Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the committee's ranking Republican. "I am not disappointed, because the president is busy. But there is an opportunity that could be missed if they don't start submitting names."

Added Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), a strong White House ally who is on the committee: "With all the investigations and things that have been going on, we have not seen a steady stream of nominees coming to the Senate."

With Justice tied into knots by the various controversies (the still-unexplained firings of the US attorneys, the recent scandal involving the politicization of the selection process for immigration judges, and so on), there's simply not enough time to load the judiciary with conservative ideologues.

Weeks ago, during the weekend of the annual White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, I had several conversations with different Hollywood liberals who were in town for the event. They each went something like this.

Hollywood liberal: Why can't we get rid of Gonzales?

Me: Why do you want to?

Hollywood liberal (after a pause): Oh, I see....

Liberals and Democrats ought to be thankful Bush is so mule-headed on this front. Retention of Gonzales is a twofer: it reaffirms the image of Bush as an out-of-touch, isolated leader overly dependent on the mediocre members of his own, small crew, and it slows down the work of the Justice Department. Maybe next Bush can bring Michael Brown back to FEMA.

GETTING PAST SEPTEMBER. In recent weeks, I've kept track of the increasing trend among Washington policymakers and lawmakers (especially of the Republican variant) to declare September the make-or-break month regarding the Iraq war. Well, each day, September draws nearer. And the recent news out of Iraq does not indicate much, if any, progress. So it's time for the anti-Septemberists to take to the street. And leading that charge is the fellow who may well be throwing away his political career to support the war started by the man who seven years ago denied him the presidency. I'm referencing Senator John McCain, who seems more tired as a presidential candidate by the week. On ABC News' "This Week" yesterday, the Arizona Republican said, "I read the polls and I know what American public opinion is, and I regret that now September seems to be a magic moment." McCain has pledged to support the US troop increase in Iraq even "if I'm the last man standing." This fall he may start to get rather lonely.

BADA BING. What a fake-out. Executive producer and creator David Chase ended The Sopranos not with a plot point but with a wry joke. In the middle of what seemed to be the climactic scene of the entire series--was Tony about to be whacked by hitmen or was he going to be arrested by undercover FBI agents?--the screen went dark. End of story. End of series. No, Paulie Walnuts didn't blow Tony away, as I had predicted. Nothing happened. Instead of a narrative finale, the millions watching all wondered at the same moment, "Has my cable gone out?" It was the final inside joke of a series that had been loaded with inside jokes: with the death of The Sopranos, yes, you're cable is essentially gone. Was Chase reminding all of us that, hey, even HBO is only television?

Posted by David Corn at 11:07 AM

June 08, 2007

A Sarcastic Judge

On Thursday, twelve notable legal scholars asked to file an amicus brief in the Scooter Libby case, arguing that there are serious constitutional questions regarding the legal authority of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. The group includes mostly conservative legal experts, such as Robert Bork and Viet Dinh. But also aboard is Alan Dershowitz, a civil libertarian. The brief comes at a time when Libby's defense team is trying to convince federal district court Judge Reggie Walton, who sentenced Libby to 30 months in jail and a $250,000 fine, that there are significant legal issues at stake in their appeal of Libby's conviction for lying. If Libby's lawyers succeed in convincing Walton of this, Libby can stay out of prison on bail pending the appeal. The scholars take no position on the bail issue, but their argument is ammo for Libby's lawyers in their effort to keep their client from going straight to jail.

To intervene in the case, the legal experts had to ask Walton permission to file their amicus brief. In a brief two-sentence order issued on Friday, Walton said, fine. But he added a footnote--a sarcastic footnote--that read in its entirety:

It is an impressive show of public service when twelve prominent and distinguished current and former law professors of well-respected schools are able to amass their collective wisdom in the course of only several days to provide their legal expertise to the Court on behalf of a criminal defendant. The Court trusts that this is a reflection of these eminent academics' willingness in the future to step to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this Court and throughout the courts of our nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions even in instances where failure to do so could result in monetary penalties, incarceration, or worse. The Court will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries, as necessary in the interests of justice and equity, whenever similar questions arise in the cases that come before it.

This is one tough judge--but he has a sense of humor. Professor Dinh, Judge Walton on line two.

Posted by David Corn at 07:34 PM

Mrs. Senator Cheney?/Libby Lobby Goes Wild

I filmed another Corn & Miniter Show for PajamasMedia.com. It should be up on the site sometime today. But Richard Miniter, Pajamas' Washington editor, raised two interesting points. First, will there soon be a new Cheney in the U.S. Senate? I say "new" because Dick Cheney, as vice president, is already the president and tiebreaker of the Senate, and Miniter was referring to Lynne Cheney. Wyoming Senator Craig Thomas, a Republican, died of leukemia a few days ago, and, per the state's constitution, Governor Dave Freudenthal, a Democrat, must appoint a Republican as Thomas' replacement. And one of the names in circulation is Mrs. Cheney. My response: Please! Go for it, Gov! Two for the price of one--what could be better? Vice President Cheney is the most unpopular veep since Spiro Agnew. (And the latest news about Dick Cheney makes him seem to be a fan of Mob rule; see the item below.) Yes, let's keep reminding the public that the Cheneys are in charge. And perhaps if Lynne becomes a senator, a publishing house will reissue her novel about lesbians in the Wild West.

Miniter also decried the recent sentencing of Scooter Libby, claiming the case against Libby was nothing but a political vendetta. How so? He explained: After Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself form the CIA leak case, DEputy Attorney General James Comey appointed U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to be the prosecutor and--cue the ominous music--Comey had Fitzgerald pursue Libby because Libby was a bureaucratic enemy of Comey. That is, it was all as setup. Comey had his good friend Fitzgerald destroy his foe.

This is a line being pushed by the Libby Lobby. Friends of Libby--such as Republican consultants/strategists Barbara Comstock and Mary Matalin--have been promoting this "explanation." The problem: there's no evidence to back it up. Libby's lawyers did try to challenge Fitzgerald's appointment, but as far as I'm aware they never argued that Fitzgerald (a man of no discernible political leanings) was part of a Comey-led conspiracy to take out Libby. And Comey, a former US attorney, is hardly known as an ideologue driven to bureaucratic warfare against policy opponents. But Comey is in the news these days for disclosing that Cheney's office in 2004 was involved in the effort to overturn Comey's decision not to reauthorize the warrantless wiretapping program after he, Ashcroft, FBI chief Robert Mueller and others decided the program was not legal. The Libby partisans are trying to exploit this new information. How far will the Libby Lobby go to win a pardon for Libby, who appears to be heading to jail because he lied? As far as Libby went.

WANNA SEE GRIDLOCK?In today's Washington Post, Dan Balz analyzes the collapse of the immigration bill in the Senate and writes:

The collective failure of the two parties already appears to have stimulated interest in a third-party candidate for president in 2008 whose main promise would be to make Washington work. It is far too early to assess the viability of such a candidate, but it is easy to imagine the immigration impasse finding its way into a television commercial if someone such as New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg decides to run.

What the smart Balz did not mention is that while some voters might be intrigued by a third-party candidate, there is no way a third-wayer could make Congress work any better. Imagine how both parties would respond to a president of neither party. Yes, George W. Bush, the diminished and diminishing president, has little influence these days. But an independent chief executive would have even less sway. With such a traffic cop in charge, gridlock would be worse.

JUST FOR THE HELL OF IT? In Thursday's report on the G-8 meeting, The Washington Post detailed how thousands of protesters tried to circumvent police blockades. It said nothing about what the demonstrators were protesting. Iraq? Global warming? Nothing.

SECOND THOUGHTS. Yesterday I put it on the line and predicted that Tony Soprano would be dispatched to the big pork store in the sky by Paulie Walnuts. But now I'm wondering if Paulie's going to double-cross me. So here are some other possibilities. Janice Soprano kills Tony. Why? Family kills. Or Tony whacks himself. Remember he's a depressive. Or perhaps Tony helps his FBI nemesis nail those two possible Middle Eastern terrorists and wins a get-out-of-jail free card. Or, he turns snitch and rats out Phil Leotardo. Then, via the witness protection program, he and Carmela are relocated to Utah, where she opens an antique shop and he watches History Channel all day long. By the way, next door there's a curious family that seems to have one husband and three wives.

While we're obsessing with HBO, let me recommend one of its new shows, Flight of the Conchords. You can watch the first episode on-line here. As for the designated replacement for The Sopranos, a show called John from Cincinnati, I'm wondering how HBO is going to pull this off: moving from a crime soap opera to a show that appears to be about metaphysics and surfing. How much waxing will there be? (Disclosure: I'm a consultant for an HBO series on the Iraq war that's in the works.)

Posted by David Corn at 11:26 AM

June 07, 2007

Tony Soprano, Dick Cheney, Mitt Romney, and Victoria Toensing

Come this Sunday, Tony Soprano will be gone. Whether or not rival mob boss Phil Leotardo bumps off Tony in the final episode, the HBO series will be over. But Tony's spirit will live on...in the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Let's review the recent news about Cheney. First, we learned he is keeping secret the logs recording who has visited his office. These records have been public until Cheney changed the rules last year. He wants meeting at his office to be covert. And today we learned that in 2004 Cheney pressured top officials of the Justice Department to approve a warrantless wiretapping program that could target American citizens. The problem was that Justice officials had concluded the program was illegal. (This is the dispute that led to the bizarre scene of then-White House chief of staff Andrew Card and then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales rushing to the hospital room where then-Attorney General John Ashcroft lay gravely ill and trying to force Ashcroft to reauthorize the program. Ashcroft said no.) Later, Cheney's office engaged in payback by blocking the promotion of one of the Justice officials who had raised concerns about the wiretapping program. And, of course, there's Scooter Libby. Cheney's former top aide was sentenced to 30 months in prison and slapped with a $250,000 fine because he lied to federal investigators to cover up his--and perhaps Cheney's--role in the CIA leak case.

Secrecy, revenge, criminal behavior--it's not HBO, it's the Bush-Cheney White House.

THE FAT MAN SINGS. How will The Sopranos end? Once upon a time, I thought the natural finale for the show would be for Dr. Melfi to kill Tony. Get it, therapy is lethal. And two seasons or so back, there was that stretch of tension--near-violent tension--between the conflicted shrink and her mob patient. But the penultimate episode seemed to resolve their on-again/off-again relationship. So here's my best guess of the moment: Paulie Walnuts murders Tony Soprano.

First, you have to ask, can executive producer David Chase resist the temptation to kill off one of the most interesting and well-developed television characters in years? Then again, Chase prides himself on not doing the predictable. Since it would be unpredictable for most producers to snuff out their lead character, we can expect Chase to do just that. But because that's what we expect, he might chose to do the opposite. But if we think he's so unpredictable he would do the predictable, then....In any event, if you select the Tony-dies option, the question is who pulls the trigger? A Leotardo henchman? Not much drama there. Paulie is the last member of Tony's main crew still alive. He was always the most weasely of the bunch. And Phil deliberately told his lieutenants not to kill him. Trying to outguess Chase is a mug's game, but I'm speculating (at least today) that the final words will be something like this, "Sorry, Skip. Good-byes are a bitch."

WHEN WILL LYING START TO COUNT IN '08 RACE? Paul Begala had a good gotcha after Tuesday night's GOP presidential race. He writes:

In a 2000 debate, Al Gore said that during wildfires in Texas he'd met with the director of FEMA. In fact, Vice President Gore had met with the deputy director of FEMA. Although I had been at the meeting as well, I didn't remember it either. But the press, spoon-fed by the Republican smear machine, used the misstatement to damn Gore as a "serial exaggerator."

So I expected the 600 journalists covering the GOP debate at St. Anselm's College to spank Mitt Romney when, in answering the first question of the night -- knowing what you know now, would you have invaded Iraq? -- Romney said that if "Saddam Hussein had opened up his country to IAEA inspectors, and they'd come in and they'd found that there were no weapons of mass destruction...we wouldn't be in the conflict we're in."

As Begala notes, Saddam had allowed WMD inspectors into Iraq in the fall of 2002, and these inspectors had not found anything prior to the invasion (though they said they needed more time to conclude that Iraq was WMD-free). The inspectors had to leave because of George W. Bush's invasion. Romney may have caught a break from the media because at this stage he's merely one of ten GOP contenders and not yet the nominee. But perhaps a questioner at a future debate will remember to ask Romney about this major-league whopper.

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE KIDS. There's been much tittering about the scores of letters sent to federal district court Judge Reggie Walton by friends of Scooter Libby who asked for leniency in Libby's sentencing. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Kissinger, Bolton, Perle, Matalin, Carville, Wieseltier, and many Washington notables did what they could. (See Rick Perlstein's take-out here.) The notes generally fell into one of two categories. Libby deserved a break either because (a) he had saved the United States from terrorists countless times or (b) Libby really, really is a good dad who loves his kids and even other kids. Some letters said both.

One of Libby's most ardent champions has been GOP lawyer Victoria Toensing, who has repeatedly made statements about the case (and about me) that are not only untrue but silly. (See here.) So I was mildly surprised when I read the testimonial letter she and her husband, Joe DiGenova, sent to Walton. It took the family-man route:

One incident stood out to us that we want to share with the Court. On a particularly rough trial day, Victoria approached Scooter at a break and invited him and Harriet [Grant, his wife] to come over for dinner as a social break from the pressure. One could tell by looking at Scooter's expression that he would have loved to do so. Yet, he immediately replied, "No, Harriet and I need to be with the kids. It's important we spend time with them now." We were so touched that in the midst of his ordeal, his priority was his family.

This priority reflects a man of deep commitment to those dependent upon him and to a set of values worthy of recognition by the Court. We respectfully urge the Court to impose a sentence of probation on this honorable and caring man whose history of valued public service is equally worthy of consideration.

I am sympathetic to the pain the Libby family has endured due to his actions and convictions. He has young kids; his wife once worked for the Democrats in the U.S. Senate. It's not easy to sit in a courtroom for months and watch someone else be judged, convicted, and sentenced to jail--even if he or she is guilty as charged. It's rewarding to see the system work as it should. But if you don't feel a twinge of sadness, check your soul.

That said, the Toensing testimonial is rather weak beer. Because Libby--who was facing the prospect of being forcibly separated from his kids for several years--preferred to see his kids rather than dine with Toensing and her husband, he deserved special consideration from Walton? Most non-sociopathic criminal suspects would make the same choice. Declining the dinner invitation from Toensing signified nothing special about Libby. What's striking is not Libby's desire to spend time with his kids but that Toensing couldn't come up with a better argument.

Posted by David Corn at