Bush's buddy, the Attorney General
The AP had an interesting item today, highlighting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' perspective on being close friends with the president. As the embattled Gonzales sees it, his close relationship with Bush, which spans decades, is inherently "a good thing" for everyone.
"Being able to go and having a very candid conversation and telling the president: 'Mr. President, this cannot be done. You can't do this,' -- I think you want that," Gonzales told reporters this week. "And I think having a personal relationship makes that, quite frankly, much easier always to deliver bad news."
"Do you recall a time when you (were) in there and said, 'Mr. President, we can't do this'?" Gonzales was asked.
"Oh, yeah," the attorney general responded.
"Can you share it with us?" a reporter asked.
"No," Gonzales said.
Now, I think there are two ways to look at this.
1. Gonzales is lying about this little story, and there's never been a time in which he's had to keep the president from going too far. He's the quintessential "yes man," who does as he's told.
2. Gonzales is telling the truth, and the Attorney General/WH Counsel -- the one who's approved of abandoning the Geneva Conventions and the rule of law -- believes some of the president's other requests are beyond the pale.
I'm struggling to decide which is worse.
--Steve Benen
Clarence Thomas has nothing to say
Sure, I realize that some Supreme Court justices are going to be less curious than others, and some prefer delving into briefs to quizzing counsel, but Clarence Thomas' reticence is unnerving.
Justice Clarence Thomas sat through 68 hours of oral arguments in the Supreme Court's current term without uttering a word.
In nearly 16 years on the court, Thomas typically has asked questions a couple of times a term.
But the last time Thomas asked a question in court was Feb. 22, 2006, in a death penalty case out of South Carolina. A unanimous court eventually broadened the ability of death-penalty defendants to blame someone else for the crime.
Since October 2004, when high court transcripts began identifying justices by name, Thomas has said 281 words total. Justice Stephen Breyer, who sits next to Thomas, has uttered nearly 35,000 words since January.
My guess is he speaks far more often behind the scenes. After all, he and Scalia have to chat about how best to vote together on all the major cases, right?
--Steve Benen
'I'd rather trade places with Jose Padilla'
In March, we started hearing about the panic and paralysis that had taken over the Justice Department in the wake of the prosecutor purge scandal. "You have no idea," said one Justice official, "how bad it is here." By one account, top DoJ officials -- the ones who haven't resigned -- were turning on each other. "It's unreal -- it's open warfare over there," a former Justice official with close ties to Gonzales' team said.
And it's under these conditions that the Justice Department needs to find a new Deputy Attorney General for a lame-duck administration, under a scandal-plagued Attorney General. How's the search going? (via TP)
Few in Washington have envied Paul McNulty over the past three months. But with the deputy attorney general's resignation last week amid the scandal over the firings of at least eight U.S. attorneys, there's one person whose position might be even less desirable: McNulty's yet-to-be-named successor.
"I'd rather trade places with Jose Padilla," jokes Viet Dinh, a former senior Justice official under then-Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Ouch.
I can't imagine what's holding potential applicants back. The last DAG was blamed for the purge scandal despite having been "largely left out of the loop," and his predecessor was James Comey, who had a rather unique experience with Gonzales and the Bush White House during his tenure.
And now no one wants the gig? Who would've guessed?
--Steve Benen
When an 8-year-old uncovers secrets
Political scientist Pete Moore wrote a fascinating item for Salon about his endeavor digging through the massive archive of Coalition Provisional Authority documents. As Moore acknowledged, he didn't expect to find too many hidden gems -- insightful personal letters may occasionally fall out of dusty old volumes in libraries, but the CPA's archives are paperless.
But Moore neglected to factor in human error.
It turns out the IT era really is different, after all. It took my 8-year-old son just a few seconds to shake loose some hidden history from within the official transcript of the CPA.
My son made his discovery while impatiently waiting to play a computer game on my laptop. As part of a research project, I had downloaded 45 documents from a section of the CPA Web site known as Consolidated Weekly Reports. All but three of the documents were Microsoft Word. I had one of the Word documents up on my screen when my son starting toying with the computer mouse. Somehow, inadvertently, he managed to pull down the "View" menu at the top of the screen and select the "Mark up" option. If you are in a Word document where "Track changes" has been turned on, hitting "Mark up" will reveal all the deletions and insertions ever made in the document, complete with times, dates and (sometimes) the initials of the editors. When my son did it, all the deleted passages in a document with the innocuous name "Administrator's Weekly Economic Report" suddenly appeared in blue and purple. It was the electronic equivalent of seeing every draft of an author's paper manuscript and all the penciled changes made by the editors.
I soon figured out that with a few keystrokes I could see the deleted passages in 20 of the 42 Word documents I'd downloaded.
Let this be a lesson to all of us -- keep young children around for computer-related research projects.
Of course, this isn't just an amusing story about a fruitful accident; Moore (with his son's help) also found some important CPA-related details in the previously-hidden passages. I don't want to alarm anyone, but apparently CPA officials were dangerously clueless about the insurgency and why it existed. Take a look.
--Steve Benen
Newly-minted conservative Mitt Romney bashed GOP's Contract With America in 1994. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Saturday Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
It's the voter suppression, stupid
Rick Hasen alerted me to this Houston Chronicle piece from the other day, about legislation in Texas that would -- in the interest of preventing non-existent "voter fraud" -- require that registered voters present photo IDs proving their citizenship before voting.
The measure is championed by Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst (R) and GOP lawmakers in Austin, who are using the same arguments heard in other states that have considered adding hurdles to participating in elections. Dewhurst has been relying on Mike Baselice, a prominent Republican pollster in Texas, who's been helping bolster the party's strategy.
Baselice conducted a poll the first week in April for an anonymous client on another subject. He says he threw the voter ID question in on his own, because it was a hot topic at the time. He provided the results to Republicans, who are now using it to support their cause.
The poll found 95 percent of Republicans, 91 percent of independents and 87 percent of Democrats support using photo IDs.
Royal Masset, the former political director of the Republican Party of Texas, who trained Baselice, says it is easy to elicit that kind of response to a poll question.
Among Republicans it is an "article of religious faith that voter fraud is causing us to lose elections," Masset said. He doesn't agree with that, but does believe that requiring photo IDs could cause enough of a dropoff in legitimate Democratic voting to add 3 percent to the Republican vote. (emphasis added)
And that, my friends, is what the "voter fraud" game is all about.
--Steve Benen
Politics on the menu at Iglesias lunch
It's not as if we need additional evidence that former New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias was fired for failing to politicize his office, but proof keeps piling up anyway.
Weeks before the 2006 midterm election, then-New Mexico U.S. Atty. David C. Iglesias was invited to dine with a well-connected Republican lawyer in Albuquerque who had been after him for years to prosecute allegations of voter fraud.
"I had a bad feeling about that lunch," said Iglesias, describing his meeting at Pappadeaux Seafood Kitchen with Patrick Rogers, a lawyer who provided occasional counsel to the New Mexico Republican Party.
When the voter fraud issue came up, Iglesias said, he explained to Rogers that in reviewing more than 100 complaints, he hadn't found any solid enough to justify criminal charges.
What Iglesias did not know was that Rogers and Mickey Barnett, another prominent GOP attorney in New Mexico, had taken their concerns about Iglesias and "voter fraud" directly to DC. Monica Goodling (who else?) helped arrange some meetings for them.
One of those they met with was Matthew Friedrich, a senior counselor to Gonzales. Friedrich would meet again with Rogers and Barnett in New Mexico, where, he told congressional investigators, the pair complained about Iglesias. They made it clear "that they did not want him to be the U.S. attorney.... They mentioned that they had communicated that with Sen. Domenici, and they also mentioned Karl Rove," Friedrich said, according to a transcript provided by congressional investigators.
When Iglesias said he believes "all roads lead to Rove," he wasn't kidding.
--Steve Benen
Adventures in Fox News polling
As Eric Kleefeld noted, there's a real gem towards the end of the latest Fox News poll (.pdf).
"Recently Democratic Leader of the Senate Harry Reid said that the war 'is lost' in Iraq. Do you feel this was an acceptable thing or an unacceptable thing for Reid to say while U.S. troops are still in the field fighting?"
Given this wording, the results weren't close -- 29% said the comments were acceptable, 65% said unacceptable.
Of course, the phrasing is obviously about as subtle as a sledgehammer. Like all unreliable polls, the question is intended to produce a specific result (which Hannity and O'Reilly can then use on the air). Indeed, just a few questions prior, poll respondents were asked how they'd describe conditions in Iraq right now. A combined 57% said we're either losing or have already lost.
It's worth remembering, from time to time, that this is how Fox News conducts all of its polling. Consider these questions from last month's national FNC poll:
* Do you think illegal immigrants from Mexico should be given special treatment and allowed to jump in front of immigrants from other countries that want to come to the United States legally, or not?
* Considering that over the past twelve months the stock market is up, employment has increased and the disposable income of U.S. workers has increased, do you think the news media has generally done a good job or bad job providing accurate news about the nation's economy?
The month before, Fox News' poll included these fair and balanced questions:
* Do you think a Congressional investigation into the dismissal of the eight federal prosecutors is a good use of taxpayer money?
* Who do you trust more to decide when U.S. troops should leave Iraq -- U.S. military commanders or Members of Congress?
* Do you think the Democratic Party should allow a grassroots organization like Moveon.org to take it over or should it resist this type of takeover?
Pretty soon, someone might get the sense that Fox News is trying to skew its polls to advance some kind of political agenda. Shocking, I know.
--Steve Benen
Graves to testify
The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings into the prosecutor purge scandal aren't over yet -- not by a long shot. About two weeks ago we learned that former Kansas City U.S. Attorney Todd Graves, who gave up his post last year, was the ninth prosecutor to have been purged.
Early next month, Graves will get a chance to share his story. (thanks to reader V.S.)
Former U.S. Attorney Todd Graves will tell his story to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Graves said Friday he would testify about his removal from the Western District of Missouri post on June 5, after Congress returns from its Memorial Day recess.
"I'm proud of my record as a prosecutor, and I will not be bashful in telling them what little I know about the current mess at the Department of Justice," Graves said in a statement.
He's expected to testify the same day as the man who replaced him, Brad Schlozman, who has returned to the Justice Department in Washington.
Circle the day on the calendar; it's bound to be a good one.
First question for Graves: On May 8, you released a statement saying it was better to resign and "take a graceful exit than to do something that you should be ashamed of." Who wanted you to do something shameful? Might it have something to do with dubious voter fraud indictments?
--Steve Benen
Gingrich's ironic assessment of '08
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, as usual, is disgusted. This time, he's blasting the field of 2008 presidential candidates who, Gingrich believes, are "demeaning the presidency" by jumping through pointless hoops.
"We have shrunk our political process to this pathetic dance in which people spend an entire year raising money in order to offer non-answers, so they can memorize what their consultants and focus groups said would work," Gingrich said.
In a speech to the John Locke Foundation, a conservative think tank, the prospective Republican candidate said he will not consider running until he has created a wave of reform. [...]
"This idea of demeaning the presidency by reducing it to being a game show contest ... is wrong for America, and I would never participate in it," he said.
In principle, I don't entirely disagree. The process can be silly at times, and watching 10 candidates offer sound-bite answers -- when they're not raising their hands to yes/no questions -- can start to appear a little demeaning.
But for Newt Gingrich to complain about politicians offering "non-answers," crafted by "consultants and focus groups," is rich. Good ol' Newt practically invented this style of politicking. After all, how did Gingrich and Frank Luntz put together the "Contract with America"? They relied on the advice of "consultants and focus groups," which told him what would work.
For that matter, wasn't it Gingrich who circulated a memo called "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control" to incoming GOP freshmen in 1995? The document included a list of words Gingrich wanted House Republicans to memorize because consultants and focus groups said they would work.
It's a little late for Newt to complain about an atmosphere he helped create.
--Steve Benen
McCain drops an F-bomb
It's something of an open secret on the Hill, but Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) temper can be so explosive, it tends to alienate friend and foe alike. Consider yesterday's brouhaha over the new immigration-reform package.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) hasn't spent much time in the Capitol this year as he seeks the GOP presidential nomination. But one of his rare appearances this week provided a pretty salty exchange with a fellow Republican.
During a meeting Thursday on immigration legislation, McCain and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) got into a shouting match when Cornyn started voicing concerns about the number of judicial appeals that illegal immigrants could receive, according to multiple sources -- both Democrats and Republicans -- who heard firsthand accounts of the exchange from lawmakers who were in the room.
Apparently, McCain accused Cornyn of raising petty objections, and Cornyn accused McCain of having dropped in without taking part in the negotiations. "F**k you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room," McCain reportedly shouted. Paul Kane added that McCain also "used a curse word associated with chickens."
Oddly enough, these outbursts are not terribly uncommon for McCain. Several years ago, Jake Tapper reported on an incident in which McCain got into a shouting match with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Eventually, a seething McCain told his GOP colleague, "You know, senator, I thought your problem was that you don't listen. But that's not it at all. Your problem is that you're a f**king jerk."
More recently, former Sen. Bob Smith (R-N.H.), who served with McCain on the Senate Armed Services Committee and on Republican policy committees, said, "I have witnessed incidents where he has used profanity at colleagues and exploded at colleagues. He would disagree about something and then explode. It was incidents of irrational behavior. We've all had incidents where we have gotten angry, but I've never seen anyone act like that."
Keep in mind, we're talking about McCain dropping F-bombs on Republicans.
I guess this helps explain why McCain hasn't exactly racked up the Senate GOP endorsements for his presidential campaign.
--Steve Benen
Former Clinton-era U.S. Attorney ponders bid against GOP Senator Pete Domenici. That and more political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
A savvy House Dem staffer we know gives us a candid and dispiriting overview of the political situation facing Congressional Dems on Iraq -- and worries that the Dem leadership will cave.
--Greg Sargent
Pelosi to Bush: Support our troops, don't oppose their pay raise.
In new letter, Dem leadership blasts White House for the first time for opposing a 3.5% pay hike for the troops.
--Greg Sargent
White House spokesman Tony Fratto plays another round of "How Low Can We Set The Bar" during this morning's press gaggle.
--Paul Kiel
Which U.S. attorneys made the firing lists and when? Well, at least now we know that much.
--Paul Kiel
Talks between the White House and Dem Congressional leaders over Iraq have just broken down and hit a wall.
--Greg Sargent
Harry Reid blasts McCain for multiple missed Senate votes. That and more political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Today's Must Read: what does it take for a lawmaker to get in trouble around here?
--Paul Kiel
Sometimes something catches my eye that may not have any grand significance but I've got to write about it anyway.
Here I'm reading a CNN article about James Dobson, in which the grand inquisitor announces that he will not under any circumstances vote for, endorse or do anything else for Rudy Giuliani if he gets the Republican nomination. Fair enough.
But down here in the article we have the seventh graf that gives a quick background and we read that ...
Dobson's organization says his daily radio program is heard by as many as 220 million listeners over 3,500 stations in the United States. He's also seen on 80 television stations, and 10 Focus on the Family magazines have 2.3 million subscribers, the group says.
Now, I know it says Dobson's outfit 'says' and 'as many as'. But couldn't the reporter do a little brain work on this one? 220 million listeners? 2/3 of all Americans? I'm laughing even writing it. Actually, I should mention our new tagline for TPMtv -- with as many as 1.7 billion viewers worldwide.
Okay, I'm done.
Late Update: TPM Reader BG points out that Dobson is claiming that his daily show is on approximately one out of three radio stations in the US. I'm sure he's on quite a few; don't know if that's many. 220 million listeners? Pretty sure on that.
TV Preacher Superpowers Update: TPM Reader MS and several others point out that Pat Robertson can leg press 2000 pounds because of his mystical protein drink. So it's important not to sell these guys short.
So Late It's the Next Day Update: Okay TPM Reader KS points out it may be the CNN reporter who's a goof. The Dobson page actually says 220 million in the whole world.
--Josh Marshall
Sigh ...
McClatchy Newspapers has learned that the top prosecutors in Macon, Ga., and Roanoke, Va., landed on a proposed firing list weeks after the White House and Justice Department traded notes about the potential for voter-fraud cases in central Georgia and Appalachia. They were added to a list just days before last November's midterm election, but ultimately not fired.
--Josh Marshall
Best practices (from Wapo) ...
The Commerce Department's inspector general, who is supposed to look into complaints of wrongdoing by government officials, committed "egregious violations" of the federal law that protects whistle-blowers by retaliating against two subordinates, a government investigation has concluded.The U.S. Office of Special Counsel found that Inspector General Johnnie E. Frazier wrongly demoted the two employees during an investigation of his spending, according to a copy of the report obtained by The Washington Post. It concluded that Frazier's actions violated the Whistleblower Protection Act.
--Josh Marshall
McCain misses 42 Senate floor votes in a row. That and more political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Justice Department official Mike Elston, who suggested 5 of the 26 names of U.S. attorneys who were at one point considered for firing, now says that he never meant any of those to be fired. He was just passing some names along.
--Paul Kiel
Hillary takes her toughest drubbing on Iraq yet from her Dem rivals.
Update: Here's some video of Obama's slamming of Hillary's vote for the war. Really worth a watch -- it comes across as tougher than it did in print.
--Greg Sargent
President Bush refuses to answer whether he ordered Card and Gonzales to Ashcroft's hospital bedside ...
The funny thing about this dodge is that the president is saying not only that the nature of the program is highly classified and must be kept secret, which may be true, but that his apparent order for Gonzales and Card to go squeeze the semi-concsious John Ashcroft is also highly classified and must be kept secret. Somehow I just don't get that one. The president's refusal to answer tells the tale. The president gave the order and even placed the call, as James Comey all but told us yesterday.
But it should not surprise us because this White House has mainly used 'classification' as a way to keep embarrassing information out of public view.
--Josh Marshall
Count 'em up. As the Democrats push for a no-confidence vote for Gonzales in the Senate, you can bet that they're taking a hard look at the vote count.
And it's not looking good for Gonzales. We've updated our count and so far nine Republican senators have called (or hinted strongly) that Gonzales should resign.
Update: Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) makes it ten.
--Paul Kiel
Edwards campaign slams Rudy Giuliani for his claim that he "usually" hears Democrats blaming America for 9/11.
--Greg Sargent
How you can be a part of TPMtv, in today's episode of ... well, TPMtv ...
--Josh Marshall
As the walls close in, Steve Clemons wonders, what ever happened to Wolfowitz the strategist?
--Andrew Golis
Bush ducks question over whether he ordered the Card/Gonzales hospital blitz. More soon.
--Josh Marshall
Why all that drama in March, 2004 over the president's secret domestic surveillance program -- when it had been going on unchecked for more than two years? An explanation.
--Paul Kiel
National Dems to actively target GOP Reps. Marilyn Musgrave and Sam Graves.
That and much more news in our Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Today's Must Read: trying to make sense of the very long list of U.S. attorneys who just missed getting canned.
--Paul Kiel
"The American people are understandably fearful about another attack like the one we sustained on Sept. 11, 2001. But it is the duty of the commander in chief to lead the country away from the grip of fear, not into its grasp." -- in today's Post, Charles C. Krulak, commandant of the Marine Corps, 1995 to 1999. Joseph P. Hoar, commander in chief of U.S. Central Command, 1991 to 1994.
The legacy of this administration is frightening to behold, its philosophy of force and violence, its lawlessness.
--Josh Marshall
The Post has still more on the growing list of US Attorneys who at one time or another appeared on the DOJ firing list. The number is now up to 26 or higher, according to sources consulted by the Post. And to add further confusion we're now hearing about some folks who are such administration loyalists that they're actually being questioned as playing a role in the firings rather than being potential firees.
You can see the article here.
This puts me in the mind of an email I got a couple months ago from a friend who I'd call a seasoned Washington type.
It seems plausble to me that Harriet would get the idea in her head, thinking--or having been told--that she find an artful way of getting rid of PF [i.e., Patrick Fitzgerald].And maybe that idea of hers was shot down as too "Saturday Night Massacre"-y. But it's in the nature of humans, as well as bureaucracies, for an idea to get rolling and then to gain new fans and constituencies as it rolls along that have little or nothing to do with the original impetus.
So various White House aides and DOJers used the opening created by Miers' bright idea to advance new agenda items, working, one could imagine with other Republicans. Sorta the Executive Branch equivalent of a Congressional appropriations Christmas tree.
I've always thought this guy might be on to something. And along those lines I'd be curious -- if it will ever be possible to do -- to get that list of 26 or however many firees there are and get it broken down by time. Who got put on when? Who in 2005 and who in 2006?
If you look over the broad scattering of documents thus far released on the Attorney Purge, there's at least an argument to be made that it unfolds something like this. Someone gets the bright idea, very early in 2005 to can all of the US Attorneys or a lot of them. But for one reason or another the idea gets rejected or just dies a slow bureaucratic death. However it happens, by the end of 2005 the idea's basically moribund.
But then in early 2006 some problems come up -- a rising wave of Republican corruption scandals and declining Republican political fortunes. And the US Attorney Purge idea gets revived -- but now with a much more specific focus, with an eye toward the 2006 and 2008 elections. Certain US Attorneys become more of a problem with expanding corruption investigations.
If you're interested, look at Sampson's correspondence from early 2006.
--Josh Marshall
Is this the buried lede of all buried ledes? (The answer appears to be no: see update below.)
Deep down in the second to last paragraph of the new McClatchy Attorney Purge story out tonight reads ...
A U.S. attorney in Minnesota, who disagreed with the Justice Department on a case involving voting rolls, was asked to resign early last year.
Minnesota only has one US Attorney district, the one based in Minneapolis. 
So this must refer to Thomas Heffelfinger, the former Minneapolis US Attorney who resigned last year to be replaced by the notorious martinet Rachel Paulose.
It's been long suspected that Heffelfinger might have been shoved aside to make room for Paulose. And we've known for almost a month that Heffelinger did show up on the DOJ firing list not long before his departure. But I was not aware that we had had clear and specific evidence that he was fired or, as they say, asked to resign. And as hard as it might be to believe his desire to move on to other challenges was just a big coincidence he did go on Minnesota public radio at the end of the last month and very definitively say that he hadn't been pushed out.
But McClatchy is saying -- and even rather offhandedly -- that he was told to resign and that he was pushed because he wouldn't go along with the voter roll purges that the Department of Justice was pushing in swing states around the country. If I'd had to guess what happened. Something like that would be my top guess. But who found this out? And why is the first we hear of it so deep down in this article about two other US Attorneys?
Update: Actually, we understand that the McClatchy piece mistakenly had "Minnesota" where there should have been "Missouri" -- which would make sense, since Kansas City's Todd Graves has confirmed that he was asked to leave, and he did disagree with the Justice Department on a case involving voting rolls. So a false alarm. -- PK
--Josh Marshall
More (from McClatchy ...)
The Justice Department last year considered firing two U.S. attorneys in Florida and Colorado, states where allegations of voter fraud and countercharges of voter intimidation have flown in recent years, congressional investigators have learned.That brings to nine the number of battleground election states where the Bush administration set out to replace some of the nation's top prosecutors. In at least seven states, it now appears, U.S. attorneys were fired or considered for firing as Republicans in those states urged investigations or prosecutions of alleged Democratic voter fraud.
The two prosecutors who were targeted were Gregory Miller, the U.S. attorney for the northern district of Florida in Tallahassee, and Bill Leone, the former acting U.S. attorney for Colorado.
The other obvious point -- they're all swing states, which should come as no surprise since it's all of a piece. The bogus 'vote fraud' charges are voter suppression tactic aimed at keeping the level of minority voting down in close races.
--Josh Marshall
Ed Kilgore gives us his own up close perspective on Jerry Falwell's (or not Jerry Falwell's) Lynchburg, Virginia.
--Josh Marshall
On President Bush's 'war czar' ...
From a knowledgable TPM Reader ...
I haven’t read exhaustively on this, but it seems that the lede is getting buried in stories about the appointment of LTG Lute as war “czar.” It’s not that the administration had to lower their sights to a 3-star. The amazing thing is that they had to fall back on an active duty general – a guy they could order to take the job. All the previous names floated were retired folks who had the luxury of turning the offer down.I’ve never met Lute, but his resume is solid. It’s particularly noteworthy that his last three jobs have all been joint positions. He will probably be an effective organizer. But as a currently serving 3-star, he will be at best a coordinator, outranked by many of the key people he needs to coordinate.
It is somewhat troubling how more and more of our senior national security positions are being filled by military folks still on active duty or just recently retired (CIA, DNI, etc.). There needs to be a balance in backgrounds, and we’ve probably pushed past the right level.
And from tonight's Nelson Report ...
there's a fascinating debate ongoing from "the uniforms" and from sensible civilian staff types. One major concern is the conflation of appropriate civilian and military roles.Providing "best military advice" is the military's responsibility, and also a right. The responsibility of the civilian leadership is to provide military leaders with enough knowledge of "national policy" to be able to advise, and to understand military matters well enough to understand that advice...and to give it proper and thoughtful consideration.
As we see with the Congressional debate and posturing over how to use the budget to set a schedule and "benchmarks" for success in Iraq, Capitol Hill now shares with the majority of the public the view that the Bush Administration's civilian leadership did not live up to any of its responsibilities...aided and abetted by serious dereliction of news media and Congressional oversight duties.
What we hear repeatedly expressed as the danger now...both with this nomination, and with constantly rhetorically making Gen. Petraeus responsible for "the plan" in Iraq...is that the military will be held accountable for the policy. As a military friend privately comments, "This is simply wrong".
There's also a serious debate going on within military circles about what might be termed Constitutional issues...a debate which could well get to the Congress, since the Senate will be required to hold hearings and to approve Lute's nomination. Here's the private comment of a very well-known retired general, which has resonance for Japan's debate over revising Article 9:
"The czar business is certainly unprecedented and is either a tacit admission that the in-place structure does not meet the needs of the time or is a political maneuver by a desperate president shuffling the deck chairs.
This is serious stuff, indeed, for it calls into question the basic construct of the US military for over half a century.
It remains to be seen what Lute's brief will be and given Title 10, what authorities he is given. In any case POTUS is tampering with fundamentals and it will have serious consequences that I hope have been fully analyzed and understood.
Certainly the Congress which gave birth to the National Security Act and all the legislation that followed has to weigh in on this.
Given the anti-Bush temperament of that body, I find it stunning that the President has given it another reason to attack him for not knowing what he is doing.
The days ahead will be most interesting."
--Josh Marshall
From Evans-Novak Political 
Report ...
Rove's former assistant, Susan Ralston, is currently seeking immunity to testify before Waxman's committee. Ralston is a former assistant to Jack Abramoff, the disgraced Washington super-lobbyist and Republican fund-raiser. As Rove's gatekeeper, she became special assistant to the President and the highest-ranking Filipino-American in the administration. For Waxman, she is a link between Abramoff and Rove. Ralston was deposed behind closed doors prior to her request for immunity. According to her friends, she has nothing to say that would cause problems for Rove. Her request for immunity was forwarded to the Justice Department, whose recommendation may or may not be followed by Congress.
--Josh Marshall
In a swipe at Rudy, Mitt Romney says the GOP needs to nominate a strong family man.
That and lots of other news in our Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
John McCain just keeps on missing vote after vote on Iraq -- including today's on the Feingold amendment.
--Greg Sargent
Justice Department finally responds to Senate committee subpoena. And, well....
--Paul Kiel
More of Kyle Sampson's testimony comes out. And this bit contradicts a key part of Alberto Gonzales' testimony before the Senate.
--Paul Kiel
Just so the White House doesn't feel left out, Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) today wrote Fred Fielding to warn that if the White House doesn't stop stonewalling, "I will have no choice but to issue subpoenas."
--Paul Kiel
As discussed, here's the video of yesterday's testimony by former Deputy AG James Comey. Their section of questioning where Comey discusses the hospital showdown is about 25 minutes. We've tried to edit it down by cutting out a few relatively non-essential passages. And we got it down to about 15 minutes.
We'll be posting a shorter version with just a few key passages a bit later.
Late update: If you're pressed for time, here's a shorter version of Comey's testimony with the two most noteworthy segments:
--Josh Marshall
Tony Snow: Defeat of Feingold amendment proves that Americans, and Congressional Democrats, don't support withdrawal from Iraq.
--Greg Sargent
There are so many parts of this late night hospital blitz story that it's a bit hard to know where to start. One thing that seems very clear -- even clearer than when I discussed it below -- is that the president sent Gonzales and Card over to the hospital to coax an okay out of the presumably heavily sedated Ashcroft. The first day's reportage really skirted around that issue. Maybe day two will be different. Another point though is to remember just who it is we're dealing with here.
This is John Ashcroft, not by many measures a staunch libertarian and a pretty committed Republican to boot. He was refusing to sign off on this. And according to Comey's testimony he was willing to resign over it, apparently along with most of the senior leadership of the Department of Justice. I think we need to know more about just what was being done with this program that would make Ashcroft put so much on the line.
Another point: if we assume that the president sent Gonzales and Card over to the hospital room (and I think that's the only reasonable interpretation of yesterday's testimony), there must have been a meeting before that call was placed, probably at the White House. Who was in the meeting? And who got the president to authorize this? Gonzales? I doubt it. I think we probably needing to be looking toward the Vice President's office playing a driving role in all this.
See more here from a knowledgable TPM Reader.
--Josh Marshall
WaPo's Howard Kurtz sees no problem with the media's failure to cover the Rudy campaign's Iowa farm gaffe.
--Greg Sargent
The Senate Judiciary Committee issues a subpoena for Karl Rove's emails in the Justice Department's possession, the Justice Department ignores the subpoena, and the senators get angry.
--Paul Kiel
I was just speaking with David Kurtz about the news coverage of yesterday's Comey testimony. As David notes, both the Times and the Post suggest that this was a dispute among the president's subordinates and that, in the Post's words, the crisis was "resolved only when Bush overruled Gonzales and Card." The Times says that the president eventually "intervened ... to avert a crisis ... and quelled the revolt."
But I'm not sure that's the only or really the most likely interpretation of what Comey said. In Comey's testimony he actually says that he thinks it was the president himself who called the hospital to say Gonzales and Card were coming over. He hesitated and said he wasn't certain of that. But his recollection seemed to be that it was the president.
His actual words are as follows ...
Comey: Mrs. Ashcroft reported that a call had come through and that as a result of that call Mr. Card and Mr. Gonzales were on their way to the hospital to see Mr. Ashcroft.Schumer: Do you have any idea who that call was from?
Comey: (hesitation) I have some recollection that the call was from the president himself. But I don't know that for sure. It came from the White House. And it came through and the call was taken in the hospital.
The logic of the testimony also suggests that the president sent Gonzales and Card over. Later, in response to the threatened resignations, the president backed Comey and the Justice Department and allowed them to make changes that would bring the program under legal or constitutional limits.
I think it's a stretch to believe that the president was brought in as some neutral arbiter. A more logical interpretation is that the president dispatched Gonzales and Card to Ashcroft's bedside and then later backed down.
Late Update: Marty Lederman who of course knows the legal and constitutional issues far better than I do has more on this here.
--Josh Marshall
Feingold amendment to cut funding for war goes down to defea