Also Also

(Reid) WYDEN Joins Feingold on PATRIOT Filibuster Threat

[crossposting for once FROM DailyKos and not to it...first time on the recommend list!]

RawStory is publishing an exclusive* that claims Sen Min Leader Reid will vote against cloture on the current PATRIOT USA Act agreement, effectively vowing to filibuster the bill:

 

Reid has told aides he will vote against cloture -- a Senate procedure which requires that 60 senators support a bill being brought before the Senate before it is brought to a final vote. In essence, voting against cloture means supporting a filibuster.

"Senator Reid has several concerns including the National Security letters, the library provision, and some of the habeas corpus aspects which have nothing to do with terrorism," an aide told RAW STORY.

Interesting to note that last line on habeas corpus--the current version of the bill already reflects some compromise between Lindsey Graham and Carl Levin, but still runs to the right of the Bingaman amendment largely restoring HC rights to Guantanamo prisoners. (If you recall, Oregon's Ron Wyden initially voted for the Graham bill restricting HC rights, but then voted for both the Bingaman and Graham/Levin bills after many of us pitched a fit. Much in the way that a subsequent defensive 3-and-out saves the cheese of a QB who turns the ball over, Reid may end up sparing Wyden lasting harm from his bizarre lapse.)

But in any case, whenever the party leader in one of the chambers signs on to blocking a bill, that's pretty big news. Reid continues to impress, picking battles that are both important and winnable.

Update 4pm--
Fresh from Sen Wyden's office, his statement on joining Reid and Feingold (and apparently Obama, Kerry and Republican Hagel) in opposing cloture:

U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) today announced his intention to vote against and support efforts to filibuster the conference report reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act, citing concerns about numerous provisions that could compromise Americans’ privacy rights that would be made permanent under the legislation.  Specifically, Wyden announced his intention today to oppose the legislation because it does not include sunsets for controversial powers and diminishes congressional oversight over the government’s use of these powers.

    “The current version of the report strikes the wrong balance between security and civil liberties and leaves Congress with inadequate oversight,” said Wyden. “Just as troubling is the inclusion of new language that will make it much more difficult for law-abiding Americans to defend themselves from possible Patriot Act abuses.  These unjustified changes do not make the Patriot Act a more effective tool for fighting terrorism and in fact, make it more susceptible to abuse.  I will vote against the current version of the legislation and support efforts to block its passage.”

    Specifically, Wyden cited strong concerns over a number of provisions contained in the conference report that would significantly compromise the privacy rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens.  These specific provisions include:

· A provision that makes permanent the ability of FBI agents to issue National Security Letters (NSL), or documents issued without the approval of a judge or grand jury, which allows the government to obtain sensitive personal information about law-abiding U.S. citizens;

· A requirement that requires anyone who receives a NSL to notify the FBI if s/he consults with an attorney and to identify the attorney to the FBI, potentially resulting in a significant blow to the right to counsel, something that exists nowhere else in law;

· A provision to impose criminal penalties on a NSL recipient who speaks out in violation of a NSL gag order, even if s/he believes his rights have been violated;

· A measure that fails to require a roving wiretap includes sufficient information to describe in detail the specific person to be wiretapped.

    While Wyden is an original co-sponsor of the Combat Met Act that was attached to conference report, he expressed his disappointment that this legislation was attached to the controversial PATRIOT Act.

     “As a cosponsor of the combat meth legislation, I am disappointed by the politicization of the meth tragedy in this fashion,” said Wyden. “I will continue to fight for the passage of the meth bill but not as a part of this badly flawed legislation.”   

*Andrew at NPI points out that while this is good news, it's also hardly an exclusive if Reid told AP about it last night. So take 'exclusive' with a grain of salt.

Expert Predictions on Post-Election Iraq

If you bought the full program, with all the bios and stats for the major and minor players in the Iraqi fiasco, then none of the following analyses are likely to surprise you. Predicting outcomes is largely a numbers racket, and the numbers in Iraq aren't hard to fathom--obviously some coalition of Shia parties will control the new Parliament, and Sunni participation will lag (although at least one report tonight paints a picture of encouragement). The rest of the story is in who is being backed by whom, and how that dynamic will be impacted by the rather formal statement of who will be empowered by the election and who will be marginalized.

Much of the below is cribbed from Juan Cole, which for the purposes of this conflict is largely like saying you got some materials from the Library of Congress. (The Hardball interviews are my contribution; a benefit of free workout time at the office. Chris Matthews has a strangely sycophantic streak about himself when it comes to Bush, but he consistently brings on guests who trash the operation, so watching it is better than Wolf at 4pm.) First and foremost, something you probably did NOT know even if you got the program; it's still not something that has received any serious media play: the major winners in this week's election want us out and are OK with shooting at us to help make the decision easier:

According to the reports, the "Pact of Honor" that was adopted consists of 14 points, among which the following demands and agreements are the most important (the sentences in quotation marks are translated from the document as quoted in the reports):

• "withdrawal of the occupiers and setting of an objective timetable for their withdrawal from Iraq"; "elimination of all the consequences of their presence, including any bases for them in the country, while working seriously for the building of [Iraqi] security institutions and military forces within a defined schedule";

• suppression of the legal immunity of occupation troops, a demand coming with the condemnation of their practices against civilians and their breach of human rights;

• categorical rejection of the establishment of any relations with Israel;

• "resistance is a legitimate right of all peoples, but terrorism does not represent legitimate resistance"; "we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing, abducting and expulsion aimed at innocent citizens for sectarian reasons";

• "to activate the de-Ba'athification law and to consider that the Ba'ath party is a terrorist organization for all the tyranny it brought on the oppressed sons of Iraq, and to speed up the trial of overthrown president Saddam Hussein and the pillars of his regime";

• "to postpone the implementation of the disputed principle of federalism and to respect the people's opinion about it."

The conference established a committee that is responsible for following up the implementation of the resolutions and reporting on it after six months.

If anything, the conference was a testimony to the increasing importance of the Sadrist current. As for the actual implementation of its resolutions, it will greatly depend on the pressure that the same current will be able to exert after the forthcoming election, if the United Iraqi Alliance -- of which the Sadrists are a major pillar on a par with SCIRI -- succeeds in getting a commanding position in the next National Assembly."

Ah, the Sadrists. Certainly no fundamentalism there. Remember that of the two, Sistani is the "quietist" (Koran not necessarily the literal guide for politics), while Sadr is the traditionalist (Koran is your law text). Remember back when he was wanted for murder? I know it's the Moonie Times, but it's true! We kind of well, let all that slide if he agreed to lay low for a while. And he has, waiting patiently until December 16th. And here's where the ugliness starts. Here's Bob Baer, CIA expert and inspiration for Syriana, on Sadr's strategy:

BAER:  I think, Chris, we are going to see worse problems after the election, because the Shia are going to say we are the legitimate rulers, we are taking the oil, we‘re taking the power and oh, by the way, you Americans, thanks a lot, now leave.  And it‘s—you‘re going to have a radical government ...

MATTHEWS: Well, that would be interesting.  Do you really believe that the Shia would feel themselves confident enough to hold the place once we leave? 

BAER:  With Iran‘s backing, why not?  Muqtada al-Sadr was put in by Hezbollah.  He‘s been told to back off until after the 15^th.  I think pretty well the best prediction after the 15^th, he is going to say all right, thank you very much. 

MATTHEWS: I‘ve never heard this before.  You believe, Bob Baer, based upon your knowledge, that the government they elect in Iraq and we supervise next Thursday will have enough self confidence to say we can leave? 

BAER:  I think they will.  And I think their plan will be—is to go into Ramadi and Fallujah and take care of business.

"Take care of business." I don't think he means they'll set up a tax-abated economic development zone. How will they exert that power? With the intelligence and security apparatus of the Badr Brigade, a longtime partner/acolyte of the Iranian paramilitary service. It is these forces that have quieted down southern areas and even parts of Baghdad; not only are they probably the most badass Iraqis short of the Kurdish peshmerga, they are stragetic in their methods. Their control of the area  is the price they seek for making things look politically quiet for the Americans.

Via Cole we get a really sharp history and analysis of the Badr, and how they are another primary set of 'businessmen' ready to TCB. But what I found most interesting was the rather pernicious allegation that the "horrified revealment" of US-backed Iraqi security abuses of Sunni detainees was actually engineered by the US. Recognizing that a disaffected Sunni could really mess things up long term, the idea is that exposing the torture of Badrites et al would pump up the ballot box in Sunni areas. The US government, cynically exploiting the torture they claim they know nothing about for political gain? Can't be.

Believe it. Matthews' other guest that workout Tuesday was Michael Ware, TIME's Baghdad correspondent. He didn't reference the timing of the torture revelations, but did make it clear that the US was wary of the Shia landslide and wanted to try to pump up the Sunni any way possible:

WARE:  Well, there has been considerable Sunni outreach, particularly by the U.S. mission here, trying to contact Sunni community leaders, tribal leaders, sheiks, the opinion makers, to try and get them to bring their people to participate in this process.

America, to some agree, went to bat for the Sunnis in the constitutional process.  Yet by in large, it was to very little avail.  The people who hold the ranks of power kept a tight hold on those ranks.

Strangely, what we‘re seeing now is an enormous shift, an evolution in U.S. strategy.  They‘ve always had engagement with the Sunni, even with the insurgents.  We‘re seeing that ramped up. The U.S. mission here has recognized that the war cannot be won militarily in the time available, that is being given it by the American
public.  So they‘re looking for a political solution, they‘re looking for their allies. What are they doing?  They‘re bringing back the new Baath party.  The new Baath, not the Baath of Saddam, but a Baath as military intelligence said, “expresses Sunni nationalism.”

MATTHEWS: Will it work?  Can we bring together Sunni nationalism and Shia nationalism to form a new coalition?  A new government?  A new deal? 

WARE: Listen.  Politically there a ripe middle ground here in Iraq that‘s waiting to be captured.  Right now, those who are benefiting from the system, as it stands, are the extremists on both ends.

Hey, that sounds kind of hopeful! Ware does say that the US has appeared to figure out which horse to back, better late than never. Maybe this will shake itself out shortly after the election, and we can start leaving in gradually increasing numbers. But ultimately he too shares the opinions of the rest:

WARE:  Well, put it this way.  I‘m certainly—I‘ll bet the house that American troops cannot leave this country any time soon.  The ones who are winning from this war are America‘s enemies, Iran and al Qaeda. They‘re the ones who are getting stronger, not weaker.

Something to look forward to. {cough} Hey, you want something affirmative? Here's an affirmative, answer-the-tough-questions advocacy for withdrawal sooner than later. Read the responses, and arm yourself for the next conversant who says we can't just leave...

--TJ

 

Oh, NOW Hitchens Wants Someone Fired

I still have a residual respect for the writer/faux raconteur Christopher Hitchens. Back when Dennis Miller could say fuck on his show and wasn't warped into someone else by 9/11, there was no better episode than one with Hitchens, slouched into the guest chair with a smoke and a scotch as if the interview had been moved to the green room, bantering on in a wickedly funny manner about how much he hated the Americans, but how much he preferred them to the British. I suspect I was not alone; he was on several times.

So for many of us, the bizarre reincarnation of Hitchens after 9/11 as a sort of Oscar Madison version of Andrew Sullivan*--so ardently believing in Middle East hegemony and disdainful of those who would not give President Bush the benefit of all doubt--has been something to ponder. It's not so much his general support of Bush's grandiose vision, as it is the tenacious clinging to support when it should be clear to any half-intellectual that Bush is not the right seer for the job. Someone as smart as Hitchens would have been expected to bail out on this 3rd-rate burglary of a war long ago, but rather than cut bait and put away dreams for reality, Hitchens simply insulated himself by calling cowardice on those who had the nerve (or sense) to say 'enough.'

Which is why it's more than a little flabbergasting that what Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, the Downing Street Memo, European renditions and other disgraces could not accomplish, payola to the Iraq media does:

This time, someone really does have to be fired. The revelation that Defense Department money, not even authorized by Congress for the purpose, has been outsourced to private interests and then used to plant stories in the Iraqi press is much more of a disgrace and a scandal than anyone seems so far to have said.

I mean, just picture the scene for a moment. An Iraqi family living in, say, Anbar Province, picks its way down the stoop to collect the newly delivered newspaper. This everyday operation is hazardous, but less so than going down to the corner to pick it up, because there are mad people around who do not believe that anything should be in print, save the Quran, not to mention nasty local potentates who do not like to read criticism of themselves. Further, the streets are often dark and littered with risky debris. The lead story, however, reports that all is well in the Anbar region; indeed, things are going so well that there is even a slight chance that they will one day get better. Who is supposed to be fooled by this? The immediate target is, one supposes, the long-suffering people of Iraq. But over time, the printing and dissemination of cheery reportage must have been intended to be picked up and replayed back into the American electorate. If done from state coffers, that is probably not even legal.

Digby calls this kind of agitation naive, but I find it rather more disturbing, dishonest, and blood-angering. Don't get me wrong; this is another in a long line of really dumb moves by the administration. It makes a lie and a joke out of the stated claim that we're trying to teach the Iraqis democracy, since  independent and trustworthy media are a neccessary cornerstone of all democracies. I'm not arguing with the content--I'm disgusted that Hitchens has the fucking NERVE to make THIS an occassion to drop the glove and say, "That's it--heads shall roll!" I mean, you could pick from a bigger list than the fresh fish menu (pdf) at McCormick and Schmick's if you wanted to get outraged about the incompetency and mendacity of the administration on Iraq. And he picks this? This is what has put him off his morning kippers and Glenlivet?

To start with, even Hitchens agrees that the Iraqis themselves are so used to this that they're probably laughing if they read Slate. Journalist payola is not likely on the top 50 complaints of Iraqis about the way the Americans are handling things. So why Hitchens is bunged up, I cannot say.

Furthermore, in his indignance he mindlessly trounces past multiple ironies, including the manipulation of our own media in nearly the same scenario: paying off for favorable stories. Anderson Williams, hello! He's worried about insidiously cheery stories making it back to the States eventually--the stories can save the cab fare; they're being manufactured here already. And beyond the payola aspect, there's the entirely sycophantic media ass-kissing before and at the start of the war that (with the help of shadow-scared Democratic Congresspeople) made the whole thing possible. As someone directly responsible for browbeating dissenters over their reckless truths and morale-hurting caution, Hitchens shows remarkable cojones in crying over the lost spirit of free journalism NOW, after all this time. Where was he when Katie Couric was rubbing herself on the Today Show while shouting, "Marines ROCK!!" during the  roll on Baghdad?

In for a pence, in for a pound, Chris. Quit making a mockery of this utter disaster of a war by getting your knickers twisted over something that yeah, sucks and hits close to home for you, but what amounts to a discarded axle on the highway of twisted metal and burned out machines that is Iraq. Take a page from Sully and finally vindicate your big brain--this isn't working.

*that is, before Sullivan himself gave up the ghost amidst so much perfidy and bufoonery from the administration...

--TJ

The Hardening of Positions in Iraq

In a year in which things have only sporadically seemed to improve in between waves of deterioration, it was a week of building tensions and an apparent settling of positions as the country moves towards another election in mid-December. First and foremost was the unrepentant declaration by the US government, that the still-mercurial goals of public safety and democracy would be the standards that must be met before the Iraq job is considered "done."

I should say now that the posturing on all sides is not necessarily a signal of the worst, especially given political realities. When we say that Bush has declared the battle will be fought until won, there's also no doubt that some measure of troop withdrawals will take place in 2006, if only the 12-20,000 who have served in a ramped-up security capacity for the constitutional and parliamentary votes.

There are still many who believe this nonsense about staying the course is only a hopeful buy for time in which a withdrawal of troops can be spun as the seeds of victory in Iraq. But if not tactically, in a politically strategic sense Bush has dug in. If you are going to run on the Bush coattails in 2006 as a GOP Congressperson, you are going to have to back the war full gonzo. That has frankly scared the bejeezus out of a lot of Republican insiders, but there it is.

The Iraqis are having their own moments of hyperbole, of course. Former interim PM Iwad Allawi claimed he was the victim of an assassination attempt as he attended a mosque in the holy city of Najaf. Juan Cole doesn't think much of the attempt, categorizing it more as an expected negative reaction to the cravenly political visit of a mosque by an unpopularly secular politician. Cole believes that the 14%  his party got in the January elections will be a high water mark for him, and certainly having stones and shoes thrown at you is not good fodder for your next campaign ad. Someone is backing Allawi--and the shiny four color posters suggest it's someone with money--but the people aren't buying.

In other ominous declarations, the head of a hardline Sunni group and signatory to the Cairo agreements of last month is talking fraud:

Abdul Salam Kubaisi, a senior official of the Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars, said the group would "reconsider the decisions" it reached with rival Shiites and Kurds at a national reconciliation conference last month in Cairo. The leaders had agreed that violence in Iraq should stop, U.S. forces should gradually withdraw and some detainees should be freed.

The agreement was hailed by the United States and other governments as an important step toward preventing the country from splitting into warring factions. But Kubaisi said the pledge to curb the violence had not been kept. He blamed the Shiite-led government's security forces and U.S. troops for the continuing attacks.

Another Sunni group claims solidarity, but as with the constitutional situation there are sects that run more moderate than these folks, so it's unwise to use this one group as a harbinger. However, these are the first signals I've seen about thoughts of a boycott, which contradict the US reports that Sunni are increasingly looking to participate politically.

Certainly eager to participate politically are the Shia, and Imam Sistani has sent out the word that it's good to vote--and by the way, vote only for one of the big three national religious parties...one of which is Moqtadr Sadr's group. The WaPo article mistakenly characterizes Sistani's call to the polls as a neutral one, not backing any party. Sistani clearly advocates a theocratic ballot, and refers to secular parties as "the dangerous ones." Furthermore, he notes ominously that he who wins the parliamentary battle, will control the true shape of a constitutional document wherein the hard questions were left for "later." In Sistani's eyes, "later" is Dec. 16th.

So what do you have? First of all you've got two Western-backed secularists in Allawi and Chalabi, who appear well funded and possibly the beneficiaries of an election fraud conspiracy, then you've got the hardline militant Sunni who will not participate if evidence persists of security force abuses from Badr and Sadrist militia under the guise of Iraqi police. The Shia who appear to be asserting control are not the moderates, and ideological impurity is being punished not only at the high political level (ie Allawi), but in the streets as hairdressers and liquor establishments are being harrassed. This only confirms the fears of the Sunni, who correctly sense that ideological purity is not going to work out too well for them. And you have a foreign occupation that claims it will not leave until somehow all these folks will come to the polls and agree to hash out differences over tea and pita. As I've quoted Dr. Phil before, "so how's that working out for you?"

--TJ

Bad Murtha Fuckers

What an interesting Friday in Congress. Bills of all kinds were flying around--budget in the House, taxes in the Senate, plus Patriot Act manueverings and reconciliation back and forth. And somehow they still found time to organize a political stunt bill vote and in the process set the smear engines on full ahead.

The House today voted 403-3 to defeat a bill calling for a literally immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Of course the headlines essentially read what the GOP wanted them to read in a hopeful attempt at jujitsu: that a bill to pull troops--something a majority of Americans now supports in some abstract form--was unanimously rejected by both sides of the aisle. But it might have been helpful to put the bill text closer to the top of these stories:

"It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

Not heavy on detail, is it? Murtha's own bill gave no such immediacy other than ASAP, but that's not what the GOP had the House vote on. So the bill itself was a sham, quickly recognized as such by Minority leadership and given the heave ho. But the far more controversial event occurred during the debate, as new Rep Jean Schmidt (the winner in the Hackett squeaker) read into the record a statement supposedly from a constituent, calling Murtha a coward. Things devolved quickly from there:

Ms. Schmidt: Yesterday I stood at Arlington National Cemetery attending the funeral of a young marine in my district. He believed in what we were doing is the right thing and had the courage to lay his life on the line to do it. A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bop, Ohio Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do. Danny and the rest of America and the world want the assurance from this body - that we will see this through.

[Note by kos -- the whole chamber went nuts at this point, with Democrats shouting and booing Schmidt down]

The Speaker Pro Tempore: The house will be in order. The house will be in order. The house will be in order. The house will be in order. The house will be in order. The gentlelady will suspend. And the clerk will report her words. All members will suspend. The gentleman from Arkansas has demanded that the gentlelady's words be taken down. The clerk will report the gentlelady's words.

The Speaker Pro Tempore: The house will be in order. Members pleas take seats. The gentlelady from Ohio.

Ms. Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, my remarks were not directed at any member of the House and I did not intend to suggest that they applied to any member. Most especially the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania. I therefore ask for unanimous consent that my words be withdrawn.

The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection. The gentlelady's words will be withdrawn.

Now there's no doubt that Republicans have been looking to pounce on something, anything, for a couple of weeks now. And GDub gave the signal to begin defending the administration against criticisms of warhandling. Cheney upped the ante this week, and Bush endorsed it. This is a campaign-style assault engineered by Karl Rove, back in the saddle emotionally for now, or perhaps simply throwing himself into his work. (Note to Karl: keep your calendar open for testimony/lawyering up in the Abramoff case--DeLay's former axeman is turning state's evidence). So I'm sure the troops were given the signal to attack whatever the first bold statement on Iraq was from one of the Democrats.

But I don't think this is turning out the way they'd like, so far. The House vote will be used as GOP ammunition, but the bill doesn't stand up under scrutiny and I think that can be communicated.  The smear attempt is definitely coordinated--one of the tactics Rove has developed is asking for an ethics probe of Murtha--but I'm not sure Karl specifically had Jean Schmidt in mind, and not for calling him a coward by proxy of constituent letter. Where the Republicans may have had an advantageous strategy by forcing Democrats to defend Murtha's policy initiative, the Dems seem much more comfortable defending Murtha's character and honor. Chairman Dean weighed in quickly and forcefully:

Shameless Republicans immediately went on the attack. Dick Cheney, who has said that he had "other priorities" and collected 5 deferments while people like Murtha served in Vietnam, called Murtha's comments "irresponsible" and regretted that "the president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone." The White House spokesman, who has also never worn the uniform, pronounced himself "baffled" that Murtha, who volunteered for two wars, wanted to "surrender to the terrorists". A Republican Congressman said Murtha and others "basically are giving aid and comfort to the enemy".

Shame on them. Every one of us -- right now -- needs to let Jack Murtha know that we respect his service, respect his leadership, and respect his right to speak the truth. This man has spent his life serving us. The very least each one of us can do is let him know that no matter what dishonorable smear campaign Republicans wage we will be there with him.

Send Congressman Murtha a note telling him that you will not be silent while he is attacked:

http://www.democrats.org/shameonthem

So did John Kerry via email, strikingly bluntly for him (although truthfully I think he's a day late and a dollar short defending Democratic Congressional war veterans):

It disgusts me that a bunch of guys who have never put on the uniform of their country have aimed their venom at a marine who served America heroically in Vietnam and has been serving heroically in Congress ever since. No matter what J.D. Hayworth says, there is no sterner stuff than the backbone and courage that defines Jack Murtha's character and conscience.

Dennis Hastert -- the Speaker of the House who never served -- accused Jack Murtha of being a coward. Well let me tell you, Jack Murtha wasn't a coward when he put himself in harm's way for his country in Vietnam and earned two purple hearts -- he was a patriot then, and he is a patriot today. Jack Murtha's courage in combat earned him a Bronze Star, and his voice should be heard, not silenced by those who still today cut and run from the truth.

Instead of letting his cronies run their mouths, the President for once should stop his allies from doing to Jack Murtha what he set them loose to do to John McCain in South Carolina and Max Cleland in Georgia.

The President should finally find the courage to debate the real issue instead of destroying anyone who speaks truth to power as they see it. It's time for Americans to stand up, fight back, and make it clear it's unacceptable to do this to any leader of any party anywhere in our country.

Murtha shows up on Meet the Press Sunday I believe. Assuming he does well, this may end up backfiring a little on Republicans while they are out in their districts. In any case, it's been a wild week on the House floor.

--TJ

 

Plame: The Dogs Start Biting Each Other

Over the last two days, we have been overwhelmed with rumors in what was once a tight-lipped affair. What that tells me is that people are beginning to talk to get their story out ahead, to make sure they distance themselves from the "wrong" people and try to point the finger elsewhere. And of course, these things tend to move along the chain of command.

But first the fear has to come up from the bottom. Assuming for the moment that the reports are accurate--and they are not at all unreasonable--in the last two days Raw Story has described testimony of two White House functionaries who are turning evidence on the VP's office. Once you get people inside the White House pointing fingers up the chain (apparently Fitzgerald has them nailed on participating in the links, according to RS), the people who gave the orders start working on their stories.

Thus, today in the Daily News we have the "protect Bush" leak: George was "furious" with Rove for his efforts in unmasking Plame--although apparently on grounds of incompetence, not ethics. I don't think the leakers on this one meant to suggest that Bush was lying when he said Rove told him he wasn't involved, but there it is, and the groundwork for later is laid: Bush was mad when he found out---implying that he had to be TOLD. Hint, hint. Josh Marshall digs in deep on the story today.

So now Rove's out in the cold, right? Heck no. He can just pass on the heat. Tomorrow's WaPo carries the story of Rove's recollection on who might have been that guy who told him about Plame, that he just couldn't remember before: Oh yeah, it was Scooter! I think, anyway. And besides, we just talked about what we heard the reporters tell us.

I suspect as the vulnerability of the White House Group spreads (they're even trying to rope Judy Miller in now, although she may have eagerly qualified on her own), you'll also see more of this from former administration personnel--the sudden freedom to speak your mind about all the dead bodies you saw during your time in the regime:

n a scathing attack on the record of President George W. Bush, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Mr Powell until last January, said: “What I saw was a cabal between the vice-president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made.

“Now it is paying the consequences of making those decisions in secret, but far more telling to me is America is paying the consequences.”
...

   Among his other charges:

■ The detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere was “a concrete example” of the decision-making problem, with the president and other top officials in effect giving the green light to soldiers to abuse detainees. “You don't have this kind of pervasive attitude out there unless you've condoned it.”

■ Condoleezza Rice, the former national security adviser and now secretary of state, was “part of the problem”. Instead of ensuring that Mr Bush received the best possible advice, “she would side with the president to build her intimacy with the president”.

■ The military, particularly the army and marine corps, is overstretched and demoralised. Officers, Mr Wilkerson claimed, “start voting with their feet, as they did in Vietnam. . . and all of a sudden your military begins to unravel”.

Note with interest the reference to fallout with Powell on his public comments; Wilkerson describes him as a good soldier to the end. Pathetic. And I'm glad he speaks up about Rice; the heinous rumor that Rice would get nominated to replace Cheney at VP has been making me ill with the number of people who seem to think that's a good idea. I think if this really blows up to the point where Cheney resigns, Condi is going to get some of the mud splatter on her own dress.

For so long, the Bush administration was a model of harsh enforcement of discipline. But once people's names started getting into the paper alongside the word "indictment," these cowards began bailing on each other. (To be fair, it would seem Wurmser and Hannah bailed some time earlier, once Fitzgerald showed them what he had). As I saw someone mention in a comment recently, you can bet there are no G Gordon Liddys in this sniveling group.

It's horrible for the country, but I have to admit that it's satisfying to see the rats scurry as the cellar door opens on them.

--TJ

Condi's First Trip to Foreign Relations

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sought to reassure critical lawmakers on Wednesday that the Bush administration had a strategy in Iraq that would "assure victory."

To loosely quote Dr. Phil--how's that working out for you, Condi?

'Nuf said.

--TJ

Breaking: Iraqi Constitution Vote Cancelled

Out a little while ago from NYT: the vote is cancelled, with no new date set:

An optimistic tone was struck by President Jalal Talabani, however, soon after the delay was announced.

"Efforts are still continuing to reach consensus in the coming hours," he said at a joint news conference with a Sunni leader, and he stressed that the Sunnis should get a bigger role in drafting the constitution.

The announcement that Parliament would miss the second extended deadline places the current government on uncertain legal authority. Under the rules that were agreed to last year the National Assembly is obliged to dissolve itself and hold new elections if it is unable to reach agreement on the interim constitution.

On balance, I agree with Armando at Kos, who gets the hat tip: this is better than taking the vote, passing it without Sunni support, and then dealing with the consequences. One suspects now that the current draft of the constitution is no longer likely to be the final version, meaning that the issues of federalism, women's rights, oil distribution and the primacy of Islamic jurisprudence are still theoretically on the table. At home politically, the truly ridiculous endorsement of the draft by the Bush administration now looks to be a mistake they'll escape punishment for.

However, as the Times points out, the Iraqi government is now in limbo, legally speaking. They were supposed to have it done by midmonth, or the parliament dissolved. After two extensions, now there is no discrete timeframe for approval. Is there a movement in Iraq to start over with new elections? Juan Cole suggests there are rumblings among the more secular Shiites and some of the centralized government-friendly Kurds for trying to enforce dissolution, but it's not clear that they have the political strength to do so:

Al-Zaman suggests that some parliamentarians, including Allawi and some of the Kurds, actually want parliament dissolved and new elections held, convinced that in the next parliament the religious Shiites will not have such a dominant position. They think that might be a better situation for drafting the constitution. Al-Zaman did not give any quotes or proof that this suggestion is founded in more than speculation.

Given that few details are yet available about the latest delay and reaction from the principals, most of the rest of the Times article is devoted to the violence that swept the country yesterday. The news of our old friend al-Sadr being involved in Shiite-on-Shiite clashes yesterday is not too good, although it appears that some residents of Najaf are not wild about the hold on power the Mahdi army continues to wield in some areas of southern Iraq. And of course the Sunni bombings, kidnappings and attacks continue in ever more brazen and organized fashion.

Update 930--
If you believe Reuters as of 10 minutes ago, the draft will still be approved today. But they're the only ones I can see who are reporting that still, and this may be why:

"[the source of the report, government spokesman] Laith Kubba has been saying that we solved the disputes for a month now, but so far we have not gotten anywhere," Hussein al-Falluja, a Sunni member of the constitution panel, told Reuters. "If this constitution continues to include federalism it should be put in the bin and done again."

On the other hand, AP has quotes from leading Shiites who suggest the cancellation of the vote simply means they believe the draft was approved Monday, and the next vote will be the popular referendum in October:

Whether a new assembly vote on the charter was even necessary was in question, however. At the same time, a meeting was scheduled for Thursday night among

Iraq's factional leaders, and it was possible that parliament could be convened afterward on short notice.

Shiite representative Khaled al-Attiyah said there was no need for an assembly vote because the constitutional committee met its legal obligations by handing in a draft by the Aug. 22 deadline. Another Shiite, Nadim al-Jabiri, said there would be no vote Thursday because the draft will be approved or rejected in a popular referendum Oct. 15.

Let's just say things are a little confused right now.

Update 3pm--
and yet more confused. Now the parliamentary speaker claims a one-day extension has been granted--but if that doesn't help iron things out, it will simply go to referendum without a vote or apparently even a reading:

Hajim al-Hassani, speaking minutes after the midnight deadline, said after meeting for three days, "we found that time was late and we saw that the matters will need another day in order to reach results that please everyone."

Earlier, however, a negotiator said Shiites didn't even show up for a late-night meeting.

I think Billmon's on the right track here; this sounds like sham politics in order to gin up a propitious outcome for the Shia. The draft itself is bad enough, in that it seemingly guarantees a marginalization of the Sunni faction. But if the appearances of how it's going to be done are accurate, it will be that much tougher to forestall the worst of outcomes.

--TJ

Sen. Smith on Iraq Policy: "It Depends"

Having passed along comments yesterday from Sens. Hagel and Feingold on our future policy in Iraq, I suggested it might be a good time to check in with your own Senators to see how they will react to the suggestions that it's time to start planning an endgame. For me, that would be Gordon Smith (R) and Ron Wyden (D). Both are in Oregon now during the August recess, but if you want policy answers you really have to check in with their DC offices. So I did.

Wyden's Portland office was actually able to make some kind of statement as to his position on structured withdrawl: he's for it. If I may paraphrase the staffer, "Senator Wyden does generally support some kind of timetable for withdrawl, yes." (Disclaimer: I mentioned up front to the staffer that I was a Wyden voter, and I mention that to you now). That's rather vague and closer to what Hagel has said than Feingold, but if you suppose some kind of Congressional resolution seeking a drawdown timeframe, I'm fairly comfortable telling you that Wyden's office indicated that he would probably be in favor of it.

Gordon Smith's DC office was, shall we say, a little less forthcoming. I spoke to a staffer this morning, let him know I was a constituent without indicating my support or opposition for him (I voted against him in 2002), and read back Hagel's quote, asking if Smith supported the idea in that statement or backed the President's policy.

At first, the staffer was fairly direct: he noted that his own brother (the staffer's) was in Iraq, and the Senator supported the troops' staying "until the mission was done," and mentioned that the constitution in the process of being drafted was going to be an "amazing" step forward. I asked, "what constitutes 'done'?" That's when the verbal fidgeting began. I got Talking Point #35, "setting an artifical timetable will only embolden the insurgency." (At least he didn't use the word 'terrorists.') I started to offer Feingold's rebuttal that indefinite occupation and the lack of a plan was currently doing an awful lot of emboldening, but then begged off, saying I didn't want to get into a discussion about it; I just wanted to know Smith's position: does he support a structured withdrawl of troops beginning sometime in 2006, or does he support a continuation of Bush's policy on Iraq?

The answer? "It depends." The staffer tried to say that Bush has many different policies on Iraq (which probably wasn't meant to imply a scattershot and desperately short-term vision, even if that's how it sounded), and he couldn't go into which ones he agreed or disagreed with. So I boiled it down: "Let's just focus on one of them, then: does the Senator support more troops, the same number we have now, or fewer troops going into the future?

Can you guess the answer? "It depends." Then came out Bush waffle #48: "That's up to the generals to decide, how many troops they need." I noted that "the generals" had been fairly consistently asking for more troops, all the way back to General Shinseki before the war started. Again I asked, does the Senator believe we should have more troops, fewer troops, or what we have now? "It depends."

Smith's staffer wouldn't commit to begin pulling troops under any timeframe, and he wouldn't commit to support of Bush's current policy (which so far features no pullout plan), either. This is much the same toothless dodge he employed earlier this year on Bush's Social Security plan, refusing to make any statements on what he might or might not favor because "no plan has been presented."

Is Smith going to hide his views under a bushel all the way to 2008, refusing to commit to anything until he's been told what to say?

It depends.

Update, 11AM:
Over at BlueOregon, they're pointing out Smith's below-average SUSA poll showing among all Senators, and culling suggestions for a replacement.

--TJ

Feingold, Now Hagel: Iraq Policy Crumbling?

You'll find bigger, better-read blogs than ours discussing Russ Feingold (D-WI)'s first call for a withdrawl date today, but in case you missed it, here's the relevant material:

Feingold’s position goes beyond what virtually any other senator has explicitly proposed for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. The Democrat said he was also trying to break what he called a “taboo” in the Senate on the discussion of specific dates for bringing troops home. He said lawmakers, especially Democrats, need to be less “timid” on the subject.

Feingold offered a resolution in June calling on President Bush to provide a timetable for withdrawal, but the measure was silent about deadlines. A proposed House resolution calls for a start date of October 2006 for withdrawal, but it has not gained wide backing.

“The situation is becoming more and more untenable because of a lack of a clear plan to finish the task and leave,” said Feingold in a telephone interview while he traveled between listening sessions in northern Wisconsin.

...

The Bush administration and even some critics of the war have argued that setting target dates for the withdrawal of troops would be artificial and embolden insurgents in Iraq.

Feingold said he rejected that argument because he was convinced that the indefinite presence of troops and the lack of a withdrawal plan fueled the insurgency.

Feingold said a deadline for full withdrawal — he proposed Dec. 31, 2006 — should be flexible and subject to changing conditions. But he contended that setting even a target date would “help us to undermine the recruiting efforts and unity of the insurgents, encourage Iraq ownership of the transition process … and reassure the American people our Iraq policy is not directionless.”

If I were to quibble, I'd point out that even Feingold's bold political stand is operationally pretty weak: no drawdowns until at least next year; waiting until the END of the year rather than by, say, summer; and that political out represented by the phrase  "flexible and changing conditions." But as I said those are quibbles, and Feingold deserves praise for getting out in front, allowing himself to be the America-Hater target of the Vituperative Right while trying to drag his more timid colleagues along. I'm not sure whether he's whistling past his own graveyard or not, but he seems confident he'll be successful, saying "I think there’s a groundswell of dissatisfaction with what’s happening in Iraq. I’d be very surprised if people didn’t come back (from recess) with much more of a sense of urgency.”

So that's the scoop on Russ. What I haven't seen elsewhere yet, is mention of this Reuters piece indicating that Chuck Hagel (R-NE) is not only hearing high levels of anxiety over Iraq and fuel prices at home during the Congressional recess, but that he agrees with them:

Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, acknowledged the U.S. military presence was becoming harder and harder to justify. He believes Iraq faces a serious danger of civil war that would threaten Middle East stability, and said there is little Washington can do to avert this.

"We are seen as occupiers, we are targets. We have got to get out. I don't think we can sustain our current policy, nor do I think we should," he said at one stop. [emph mine]

I'm not sure how you can read that in any other way than calling for a pullout, sooner rather than later. Hagel has not been afraid to disagree with the President, particularly when it comes to Iraq. But this is the first I've seen from him declaring that the current administration policy is no longer worth following, and it doesn't get much plainer than "we have got to get out." His constituency still supports Bush, one of the nine states in SUSA's most recent polling to show a net positive approval rating. But even there, you can see disapproval creeping upward.

Let's ask Chuck if he'll sign on to Feingold's call for withdrawl, given his statements. Contact one of his offices, or use the email form if you're from Nebraska--I'm not sure if you're out of state and try to use it, that your message will even be looked at.

And while you're at it, you should probably check with your own Senator to see what they have to say about it, too.

--TJ