July 28, 2005
7/28: Slimer! And The Real Spook Busters
Note for web readers: To go directly to the SCOTUS coverage, click here.
The Hotline's Blogometer takes the daily temperature of the blogosphere.
MILLER: Return Of The Judy-Did-It Theory
At the Huffington Post, Arianna Huffington speculates that New York Times' Judy Miller was upset by Joe Wilson's 7/6/03 NYT op-ed, which "call[ed] into question" her pre-war WMD reporting, investigated him, and leaked Valerie Plame's name to the WH. Huffington writes, the Times is divided "into two camps: those who want to learn everything about this story, and those who want to learn everything as long as it doesn't downgrade" Miller's newfound "heroic status." But if this scandal is to "unmask" the "ill-conceived" Iraq war, the "unmasking ... has to include Judy Miller and the part she played in the mess in Iraq." Josh Marshall writes, though "not all the details are the same ... I've heard similar stuff." Huffington sent out e-mail notices to bloggers, and approving posts can be found at Crooks and Liars, TalkLeft, and Daily Kos.
INTEL HEARINGS: Always Use Protection
Liberal Wayne Madsen Report speculates that Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) will grant to Karl Rove and Scooter Libby "general immunity from prosecution in return for their testimony before" his Intel Cmte. TalkLeft picks up on this nugget and warns that the GOP may be getting ready to "slime" Fitzgerald.
The Left Coaster goes further: "If Pat Roberts or anyone else wants to offer them immunity, that would constitute direct evidence that they themselves believe Rove and Libby are guilty. If Pat Roberts or anyone else wants to go after Patrick Fitzgerald, that would constitute direct evidence that they themselves believe Rove and Libby are guilty."
Ex-KE'04 aide Ari Melber, at the Huffington Post: "Why focus on the CIA right now? The approach offers two potential benefits for Republican leak apologists. First, it helps them claim they are responding to calls for Congressional investigations by holding hearings, even though the hearings aren't about the actual leak. ... Second, focusing on CIA policy instead of the White House leak protects the Administration and diverts blame to the CIA. But this is a risky strategy that could backfire on live television."
Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum and RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh continue their disagreement over the intention of Roberts' new round of hearings, at the respective links.
ROVE/PLAME: Daddy, What Did You Do During The White House/CIA War?
Liberal Mark A.R. Kleiman, on a New York Times reporting that Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus says the WH volunteered Plame's name to him: "This is going to make it extremely hard for the leakers to get out from under by pretending that the information was either given to them or wheedled out of them by reporters. And, of course, insofar as the officials' accounts of the interactions don't match the journalists, there's the issue of false statements and perjury to consider."
A diarist at RedState notes the New York Post report that Valerie Plame donated $372 to Dem-assisting 527 ACT in the '04 cycle while marking her employment as "N/A". The diarist asks: "Valerie Plame is still employed by the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA allows its employees to donate to political groups, and so she faced no repercussions for that donation. Yet she chose to claim she was retired. Why?" Blogs for Bush: "[S]he was either pretending she was still undercover, or she just lied... I'm going with the strong possibility that she just lied...lying seeming to be the default position for her and her husband."
Crooked Timber's Ted Barlow strongly criticizes Christopher Hitchens' latest Slate piece defending Rove and criticizing the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. At his personal blog, Reason intern Daniel Koffler argues that Hitchens is mostly right about the IIPA law, but Barlow is correct that "a substantial portion of Hitchens' piece stinks of score-settling over the Iraq-WMD issue."
Right Wing Nut House writes, the "leak that outed Valerie Wilson did not take place in a vacuum. The White House was under attack by our own CIA." RWNH points out an interview that "non-partisan" ex-CIA official Bobby Inman did with NRO's Media Blog. Inman, on the leaking of Plame's name: "I would rather not see[ that], but she was working in an analytical organization, and there's nothing that precludes anyone from identifying analytical officers. I watch all the hand-wringing over the ruining of careers... there are a lot of operatives whose covers are blown. It doesn't mean the end of their careers. Many move to the analytical world, which is where she already was" and showed no signs of returning. Inman also expresses his displeasure at CIA leaks against others during WH'04.
Conservative Baseball Crank: "[T]o me, if somebody was just negligent with the identity of a non-covert agent and accidentally revealed that she'd been covert in the past, that's a blunder, but it's not something you organize a lynch mob over."
FITZGERALD: IL Communication
Liberal IL-based ArchPundit considers a rumor that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will not be reappointed as U.S. Atty. In the next post, titled "The Many Layers of Patrick Fitzgerald," ArchPundit goes into the "local ... origin" of Fitzgerald's trouble with House Speaker Denny Hastert. TPM Cafe has more.
Skeptic's Eye's Allison Hayward notes a Roll Call story where John McCain expresses his displeasure that the "wrong people" -- i.e. McCain-Feingold opponents -- may be seated on the FEC commis. by recess appointments: "It might be enlightening, given McCain's disdain for the 'wrong people' to know who the Senator believes are the 'right people.' He shouldn't be able to take potshots at candidates without his alternatives (presumably he has some) seeing the same scrutiny."
CAP's Think Progress posts a letter Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) sent to Sec/State Condoleezza Rice, asking if an MSNBC report that U.N. Amb. nominee John Bolton testified in the Fitzgerald investigation.
Right-leaning Tom Maguire questions the salience of the New York Times' report on the Fitzgerald's investigation into then-WH spokesperson Ari Fleischer's involvement in the leak, noting this "mini-bombshell" from the Times' latest: "Few if any reporters who traveled with Mr. Fleischer, [Dan] Bartlett and the White House entourage that week have been called to testify before the grand jury." Maguire responds: "'Few if any'? Just last week, Timesman Adam Liptak told us that 'Four reporters have testified in the investigation: Glenn Kessler and Walter Pincus of The Washington Post, Tim Russert of NBC News and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine.' So who are the 'few, if any'? I am pretty sure neither Pincus nor Cooper went to Africa; is the Times rowing back from Liptak's pronouncement, and admitting that more reporters have testified, or given evidence? Well, no kidding..."
TERRORISM: Cough Cough
Conservative Captain's Quarters guest-blogger Daffyd ab Hugh calls attention to the fact that the "Failed Millennium Bomber" Ahmed Ressam was given only 22 years, and by U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee. He partially titles the post "Stupid Republican Tricks" and notes that Ressam "could be out of prison when he is only 51 years old... not exactly too old to continue his jihad against America." In an update, "Captain" Ed Morrissey notes that the maximum sentence is 35 years. Hugh Hewitt posts more info on Coughenour, calling him "the perfect example of what life-time tenure does to the ego, and a reminder of why Democrats should not be allowed to obstruct" Bush's jud. nominees. Hewitt notes that Lynndie England could get 3/4ths of that time for Abu Ghraib. In a follow-up post, he recommends donating to MN SEN candidate/Rep. Mark Kennedy (R) as a start toward putting different judges on the court. In a header, Michelle Malkin calls Coughenour "The Terrorists' Little Helper." At Daily Kos, a front-paged diarist (unknowingly) concurs with Hewitt that Ressam is "no less a terrorist than Mohamed Atta -- just less successful" but calls Judge Coughenour's comments praising the "public trial" above military tribunals "incredibly powerful."
RedState picks up on a U.S. News report on the Pentagon's new counter-terrorism strategy, which expands the target from "al Qaeda" to "Islamist extremism"; contributor Charles Bird comments: "Should've been done a year ago."
Jeff Jarvis reports on NYC subway bag searches: "Yesterday, when I came down to the PATH station, I saw cops performing their random searches. I wasn't picked. But I walked up to a couple of them and said, 'I don't know whether you're getting crap for doing this but I'm glad you are.' They nodded thanks. Well, it turns out, they're not getting crap. They're getting volunteers."
GITMO: On The Next Episode Of "JAG" ...
Liberal atty Marty Lederman posts text of previously unreleased JAG memos criticizing Gitmo interrogation techniques, originally written in '03. He provides a lengthy analysis (1st link) and writes: "These memos reveal the JAGs as the real heroes of this story. Indeed, it's uncanny how prescient these memos were." Centrist journalist Andrew Sullivan links approvingly, adding, "decent conservatives in the Senate understand that this administration's shameful record must be corrected by legislation. ... Deep down, this is a debate about whether the president, in a war with no defined end, can simply place himself above the law whenever he so desires, in order to reverse America's long-standing policy of treating prisoners humanely." Conservative NRO blogger Eric Pfeiffer disagrees: "Right or wrong, this seems too broad a statement. Taken literally, Sullivan's argues those Republicans opposed to the John McCain and Lindsey Graham amendments lack decency."
IRAQ: I Like That It Shook My One Hand, Then Hugged Me With The Other Arm! That's A Handsome Apology!
Libertarian-leaning Instapundit, frequently the target of criticism that he doesn't take bad news in Iraq seriously, defends himself: "So I put up a post on why I think an Iraqi civil war would be bad, but is unlikely, and Bradford Plumer at the Mother Jones blog accuses me of happily 'daydreaming about a possible Sunni-Shiite civil war in Iraq.' Well no, not like the MoJo folks daydream about worker control of the means of production." Plumer posts what Instapundit calls a "very handsome apology," and calls the matter settled.
BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Olbermann Gets A Pat On The Back From A Blogger With An Audience Bigger Than His Own
Liberal Philly bloggers are posting to blogs pictures and info of a missing pregnant woman, Latoyia Figueroa, who has been gone 8 days. The case receives attention on Daily Kos and Eschaton. Figueroa is non-white and has received little media coverage, prompting questions about this known media trend. The All Spin Zone writes an open letter to CNN's Nancy Grace, who again on 7/27 prominently featured the Natalee Holloway/Aruba disappearance. Earlier that p.m., CNN's Inside the Blogs segment on "IP" spent a few minutes discussing the case, albeit for a smaller audience. All Spin Zone has now helped set up a reward fund.
Daily Kos' Armando: " I saw this ratings synopsis and it really impressed me that it looks like [Keith] Olbermann is really the biggest show on MSNBC now. Pretty impressive. ... Evidence that truly 'fair and balanced' news is a ratings winner? Is it not time that these cable news networks stop trying to Out-Faux Faux?" (Note for the slang-impaired: "Faux" is "Fox.")
CAFTA: You Can't Spell "Decline" Without D, L And C
NRO's The Buzz notes, the DLC "advocated" CAFTA passage, yet 33 of the 43 DLC-aligned House Dems voted against it, as did 10 of 18 Dem Sens, including WH'08 "aspirants" Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), John Kerry and Evan Bayh (D-IN). At TAPPED, Matt Yglesias downplays CAFTA's likely effects: "The reality is that the impact will be pretty trivial. NAFTA was a much more consequential agreement, and even it, contrary to myth, had at best a small impact on the United States."
At conservative PoliPundit, Lorie Byrd asks in a header: "Why Do Most Americans Not Realize The Economy Is In Good Shape?": "I remember going through this same thing in 1992 when the Bush recovery was described as the worst economy in 50 years until the day after the election, when it became known as the Clinton recovery. It frustrated the heck out of me then, and although it does less so now because this is not an election year, it still annoys me."
OHIO 02: Yeah, But What If He Loses?
MyDD reports from the OH 02 special election, where previous long-shot Paul Hackett has closed the gap in some polls, and the NRCC is helping out GOPer Jean Schmidt. MyDD's Scott Shields: "The NRCC ad buy was $285,000 and Hackett is now within 5 points. They're clearly freaking out. Really exciting stuff..." The data comes from Swing State Project's Tim Tagaris, who writes, "if we can win here, we can win anywhere."
Tagaris also follows up on criticism of Hackett's Iraq service (see 7/26 Blogometer), writing: "The 'swift boating' is picking up steam, and we have to fight back. I sat no less than five feet away from a reporter from a cable news outlet that asked, 'Some say that this was all a plan on your part. To go to Iraq and come back with this great story while running for congress.'"
Liberal TX blogger Charles Kuffner notes that Hackett has been named an "Honorary Texan".
MISCELLANY: Boots On The Ground
- In response to a UK Guardian report, Dartmouth undergrad Joe Malchow defends his criticm of the Guardian's slowness to fire a terrorist-sympathetic writer, Dilpazier Aslam. Little Green Footballs notes that Aslam may sue the Guardian.
- Kausfiles comments on the Washington Post's story about lefty blog criticism of HRC: "A milestone for the blogosphere! Kos writes 10 paragraphs and makes Dan Balz write eleven."
- Aaron's CC declares oline shop CafePress "officially a tool" of the Dems -- many individuals have created anti-Rove products, and CafePress itself sends out e-mails to customers promoting those products.
- James Taranto's 4-year anniv. writing the "Best of the Web Today" column for the WSJ is today; starting 7/27 he is running a 3-part retrospective.
- Registration is open for DeVry's Blogger Boot Camp; a speaker will be Vodkapundit's Steven Green.
- Registration is now open for Eschacon, the Atrios-focused Philly blogger convo.
BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Conspiracy Theory
Today the Blogometer talks to righty economist Don Luskin, who contributes to National Review Online and blogs at The Conspiracy To Keep You Poor And Stupid.
What is your full name?
Donald L. Luskin
What is your age?
51
Where did you grow up?
California
Where do you live now?
Silicon Valley
What is your occupation?
Investment strategist
Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?
No.
When did you start blogging and why?
Late 2002. I thought it would help me write a book I've been working on. It didn't.
What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?
No one single favorite post. But my favorite story has been my ongoing unmasking of Paul Krugman as a political hack, and the way I've been able to goad him into completely discarding any semblance of dignity or authority from his prior life as an overrated economist.
Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?
No particular schedule. Output varies greatly from day to day.
Who is your favorite political blogger?
Favorite non-political blogger?
None. Never read them.
Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?
John Tierney.
What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?
None. Never watch.
What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?
NY Times, Wall St. Journal, WaPo, National Review.
What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?
None.
How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?
Never.
How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?
Old media will imitate look-and-feel of new media. New media will continue to watch-dog old media and discover the stories that old media can't cover, especially the stories about old media itself.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Who Stands A Better Chance Of Reaching Across The Aisle -- AFL-CIO Or FRC?
Conservative Slublog: "Only days after two major unions left the AFL-CIO, the union re-elected John Sweeney as its president. I think Sweeney, by tying the unions so strongly to one political party, has done more to hurt organized labor than any recent figure. Such a strategy would have worked if the Democrats had regained the White House or either house of Congress in the last few election cycles, but that has not happened, and labor has been shut out of the political process almost entirely. Conservatives, instead of simply rejoicing over the union's troubles, should learn from Sweeney's mistakes. Organizations such as the Family Research Council should make note of how politically isolated organized labor has become and start reaching out to Democrats."
LEST WE FORGET: The Kids Are Alright
UK Maxim editor/Huffington Post contributor Greg Gutfeld: "Every one loves a cute story about kids and the love they share with those around them. But nobody's cuter than a child-friendly HuffPo, helping kids see the world around them through HuffPo eyes!" Here's one: "A Teacher was talking to her first graders about families. One little boy says he had different color hair than his brothers. One girl says he was adopted. He says, 'What does it mean?' 'It means,' said the girl, 'that you grew in your mommy's heart instead of her tummy!' 'That's true,' says the teacher, 'But your natural birth mother did not have to bring you to term. She could have aborted you. And you should have supported her decision.'"
NOTES AND ERRATA: We'll Be More Nareful
In the 7/27 edition, when we said NAFTA? What we really meant was CAFTA.
BLOGOMETER SPECIAL: Doc Roberts
What the blogosphere is saying about Pres. Bush's pick of John Roberts for the SCOTUS:
CONFIRMATION: Paper Weight
Liberal Talking Points Memo, on the limited release of documents re: Roberts: "I'm wondering what the argument is, precisely, for the White House having access to any more information in the process of nominating Roberts than the Senate should have in confirming him. ... I know it may seem like I'm being willfully dense or naive. But what's wrong with the standard of: If the White House got to see it, why not the senate?"
Conservative Power Line's Paul Mirengoff, on the Dems' "desperate strategy" re: the Roberts nod: "Create procedural disputes by demanding that the White House produce documents that every living former solicitor general has said ought not to be produced. Insist on answers to questions that Justice Ginsburg steadfastly refused to answer. Hope that this gets you enough traction to delay the process. Use the delay time to dig for dirt, as they tried to do with Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas." Noting that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) "threatened to call a third strike if the Senate majority sets a confirmation schedule that would enable Roberts to take his place on the Court when it re-opens for business in October," he writes: "A politician intoxicated by his own power can be frightening, but a politician drunk on impotence is mostly comical."
THE FIGHT: A Civil Action
Re: Roberts' writings for the Reagan WH on busing, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) tells the AP: "From what we know now, John Roberts had a hand in some of the most aggressive assaults on civil rights protections during the Reagan administration..." Blogs for Bush's Matt Margolis responds: "This is yet another attempt to take isolated legal analyses out of context from nearly 25 years ago ... This was an issue which there was much debate and disagreement on a quarter-century ago including within Kennedy's own party. ... Senators Byrd, Biden, and Inouye disagreed with Kennedy's position, but Kennedy has [never] suggested his fellow Democrat Senators were waging an 'assault on civil rights.'"
At the Volokh Conspiracy, UCLA law prof Eugene Volokh defends Roberts from criticism in the "french fry" case in a Bloomberg column by Berkeley law prof Goodwin Liu.
IMPACT: Strictly Speaking
At RedState, Gerry Daly responds to a KRT analysis of comments Roberts made on PBS's "News Hour" in '97, suggesting Roberts might allow assisted suicide or gay marriage laws to stand: "Of course, what the President had promised was that he would nominate a strict constructionist, who would faithfully interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench. This too is an approach that can lead to results that would make conservatives happy, or liberals happy, depending on the case at hand. And it is an approach that is completely square with the philosophy hinted at by Roberts' comment."
Posted by at July 28, 2005 12:32 PM
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
