September 30, 2005

9/30: Miller's Crossing

This week the season turned into autumn, but on the blogs it almost feels like early summer again: First the frenzy surrounding House Maj. Leader Rep. Tom DeLay, and now the return of the long-developing, recently-dormant CIA leak/Valerie Plame investigation, which started as "Plamegate," a mystery surrounding Bob Novak, later focused on Karl Rove ("Rove-Plame"), was further nicknamed "Traitorgate" by the left and "Nadagate" by Times columnist John Tierney, resulted in the near-jailing of Time's Matt Cooper and the actual jailing of Miller, at which point the story crept along for a few weeks (in this space as "Rove-Plame-Miller") mostly from column-posts by Arianna Huffington. The New York Times and Washington Post are also covering the new developments, whereas TV is focusing more on the stunning visuals of the CA wildfires.

In other news, bloggers debating the DeLay case invoke ex-Pres. Clinton and ex-independent counsel Ken Starr; Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) writes a challenge for Daily Kos; as Bill Bennett's troubles move from the blogs to the MSM, he picks up some unlikely allies on the blogs; there's a bit of anxiety over more soon-to-be-released Abu Ghraib pictures as well as the difficulty of training Iraqi soldiers; CA's gay marriage debate brings some Manichaean responses; and Hugh Hewitt gets in a brawl with CBS News' Public Eye.

ROVE-PLAME-MILLER-LIBBY: If Libby, Libby, Libby Was The Leaker, Leaker, Leaker ...

Miller is out of jail, and Libby was her source. Kevin Drum summarizes the rest: "Miller's lawyer called Libby's lawyer last month; Libby said his generic waiver a year ago was plenty; Miller said it wasn't; Libby said fine, I'm telling you now you have a waiver; really and truly?; yes, yes, really and truly. So tomorrow morning Miller testifies. And as near as I can tell, that's all that [special prosecutor] Patrick Fitzgerald needs to wrap up the Plame case. Before long, we should know if he's got anything or not."

>> On the right there is widespread befuddlement-turning-into-suspicion about Miller's half of the story. The New York Times' own David Johnston and Doug Jehl report: "Much about Ms. Miller's role in the matter remains unclear. Mr. Keller, the newspaper's executive editor, has declined to say whether she was assigned to report about Mr. Wilson's trip, whether she had tried to write a story about it, or whether she ever told editors or colleagues at the newspaper that she had obtained information about the role played by Ms. Wilson." NRO's John Podhoretz: "Wait, hold it. Her 'role in the matter' isn't in the least 'unclear' to the editor of the newspaper website in which that sentence appears. Bill Keller could insert a few sentences of what he knows with his red pencil. So the sentence is a lie. The Times ... is deliberately withholding information from its readers and bizarrely covering its own tail by writing about its own decision as though it were writing about another newspaper." Betsy Newmark: "So, she's been a martyr for press freedom even though it was completely unnecessary. If there isn't something more to this story, then she and the New York Times are grandstanding fools. I do not discount that hypothesis." Volokh Conspiracy's Orrin Kerr: "If you're Bob Bennett, Judith Miller's top-shelf lawyer, wouldn't you try to clear this up before your client spent three months in jail? Something about this seems fishy to me." Even ex-conservative Arianna Huffington reaches the same conclusion: "[I]t defies credulity for Miller, Sulzberger, and Bill Keller to keep insisting that Libby's earlier waiver was coerced when Libby says that it wasn't. I don't have much good to say about the vice president's chief of staff, but I don't doubt that he knows the difference between being coerced and acting on his own free will." Podhoretz, summing up: "Weird wacko crazy bananas."

>> Liberal Digby doesn't believe Miller either, but for different reasons. He speculates that Miller and Libby are in cahoots: "Why would Fitzgerald think she would tell the truth when it's clear that Libby wants her to testify on his behalf? Because somebody else has already spilled the beans. ... Neither Miller or Libby can be absolutely sure what that person told the Grand Jury because neither of them can be absolutely sure that the other one didn't tell someone about their conversation. Who knows how many people could have testified before the grand jury about Miller and Libby? One thing is certainly clear. Fitzgerald doesn't trust Judy as far as he can throw her." And conservative Tom Maguire suggests Miller is "attempting to run out the clock on Fitzgerald's grand jury. It is not news that under DoJ guidelines, Ms. Miller's subpoena was quite narrowly directed towards her conversations with one specified official. And since Fitzgerald's grand jury has a month to run, running out the clock at this point should be easy -- for example, Ms. Miller can (*HYPOTHETICALLY*) testify that she told Libby about Ms. Plame, refuse to discuss the basis of that knowledge, and leave Special Counsel Fitzgerald with the challenge (per DoJ guidelines) of exhausting all reasonable means to ascertain her source before he re-subpoenas her."

>> On the left, there are varying degrees of certainty about what this means for Libby and the overall case -- American Prospect's Murray Waas, at Whatever Already: "Miller's testimony is central to whether" Fitzgerald charges Libby, who "was unwavering in telling prosecutors and the FBI that he knew nothing of Plame's covert work for the CIA, even though he spoke to Miller about at length about her and her husband," ex-Amb. Joe Wilson. More: "Whether that account is truthful is something only both Miller and Libby know." Liberal Oliver Willis: "Wouldn't that mean Scooter Libby is the leaker? ... What involvement did Vice President Cheney or President Bush have in this matter -- are they, like Tom DeLay, also parties to a criminal conspiracy or at the very least treason (as defined by George H.W. Bush)?" Needlenose comments on the Washington Post report that Libby "told her that he had learned that Wilson's wife had a role in sending him on the trip and that she worked for the CIA": "If this is what Libby has told the grand jury, he'd better be figuring out an exercise plan designed to make an orange jumpsuit look flattering. By admitting (through his lawyer the Post's anonymous source) that he was trying to get information from the CIA -- and then passing details to Schmidt -- he's provided all the circumstantial evidence needed to convict himself of leaking classified information."

>> Rob at AMERICAblog suspects larger disintegration of the WH's standing caused Miller to change her mind now: "Wonder if seeing the DeLay/Frist/Katrina house of cards start to fall got her to start singing..."

>> Wizbang: "All indications are that Fitzgerald already knows everything she's going to testify to. Fitzgerald indicated months ago that his case was complete, save for the testimony" of Miller and Time's Matt Cooper. The American Mind's Sean Hackbarth: "It will be a riot if he doesn't charge anyone."

>> Late last p.m., we searched Technorati for 'judith miller'+released to see which of the top political blogs went first up with the news. If you curious, here's just the 1st 10, with the relevant posts: Eschaton, Think Progress, Huffington Post, The Political Teen, TalkLeft, Firedoglake, The Left Coaster, Political Wire, Captain's Quarters, and Whiskey Bar.

DELAY: Or Maybe It Feels Like The Clinton Years Again

National Review's Byron York reports that Travis Co. DA Ronnie Earle granted extensive access to a film crew to follow him for 2 years. It is almost done, and will be called "The Big Buy." Right-libertarian Daily Pundit: "Well, I'm sure prosecutor Earle isn't the self-seeking political scuzzbag this makes him appear to be. Ahh, who am I kidding? Of course he is." R. Musil: "One can well imagine the righteous uproar that would have erupted if Ken Starr had tried something like this. Will the mainstream media protest now as they would have then? Will the Pope convert to Islam?"

At Blogs for Bush this week, Mark Noonan wrote of the DeLay indictment as a partisan act: "I really do urge our Democrats to step back from the edge -- you are sitting in a lake of gasoline and you are playing with fire. We on our side will only put up with so much before we start to pay back with usury what we have received." At Daily Kos, Hunter responds: "I have some words for you. Whitewater. Rush Limbaugh. 'Drug Dealer' Bill Clinton. Swift Boats. Vince F---ing Foster. Playing with fire, you say? ... What utter cowardice. What pathetic anti-American pedantry."

Along similar lines, but in a different direction, conservative Baseball Crank writes: "I was appalled by the personal attacks heaped during the Clinton years on Ken Starr, an upstanding public servant and a man whose previous career had been one of unblemished integrity and civility. I felt then -- and still do -- that the relentless attacks on Starr, as a means of delegitimizing his inquiry and distracting from the merits of the case, were bad for the administration of justice. And so, I have deeply mixed feelings about the "pig pile on Ronnie Earle" playbook. But the more I see of Earle's record, the more obvious it is that this is a guy with a long track record of troubling behavior."

Josh Marshall: "DeLay commanded the loyalty of House Republicans not just because he's a real Texas sh*tkicker, but because his K Street empire is one of the most fearsome tools in Washington history -- a kind of awe-inspiring political Death Star whose reactor shaft Democrats have never been able to locate." But now, "Blunt, Inc. is the new DeLay, Inc."

The post by Josh "Tacitus" Trevino we cited yesterday, it turns out, was also cross-posted as a diary to RedState -- which Trevino co-founded before leaving at the start of this month (see 9/6 Blogometer). Trevino's post was highly critical of DeLay. Fellow RedState contributor Augustine responded soon after in a separate diary: "Help me out here. Leave DeLay out for a moment, his non-conservative policy views notwithstanding, and understand the precedent this establishes... that if they can get one charge through the indictment phase, no matter how small or clearly politically motivated, we'll boot the guy out. How is this just? How is this right?" Trevino responds in the below: "It is the fact that DeLay is a political albatross, coupled with his lack of meaningful commitment to conservatism (in my book, anyway), coupled with his corrosive effect on the conservative movement that leads me to believe he should have been gone some time ago." Debate ensues.

CIVILITY: Who Dares Cross Daily Kos? That Skinny Kid From The South Side ...

Sen. Obama writes a 2100+-word diary for Daily Kos. While it's usually against policy to front-page diaries by pols, Armando decides this one is important enough, and does so. Obama writes in part: "There is one way, over the long haul, to guarantee the appointment of judges that are sensitive to issues of social justice, and that is to win the right to appoint them by recapturing the presidency and the Senate. And I don't believe we get there by vilifying good allies, with a lifetime record of battling for progressive causes, over one vote or position." More: "According to the storyline ... often reflected in comments on this blog," the Dems are "are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners" GOP, and "in order beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in 'appeasing' the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era. I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling ... around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent."

While there are some disagreements in the 100+ comments that follow since Obama posted it early this a.m., by and large the response is appreciative.

SCOTUS: Pins, Needles And Gavels Handle-Up

RedState's Erick Erickson: "'Shell shocked,' 'confused,' 'stumbling,' 'full of doubt.' These are all words I have heard used to describe the current White House effort to find Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement. [Alice] Batchelder, [Karen] Williams, and [Priscilla] Owen have all been interviewed, but the process continues to sputter along. Several have told me not to buy into the [Harriet] Miers trial balloon." An insider told him on the phone this a.m.: "The White House has gone into second guess mode. They want another Roberts, an enigma who will slip through and turn out to be a conservative. They are second guessing their picks. That, I would think, increases the chances of a [Larry] Thompson or [AG Alberto] Gonzales -- someone the President's gut tells him is conservative. My gut tells me we have to keep the pressure on or we're [screwed]." Erickson adds: "I'm told reliably there will be no announcement today."

Captain's Quarters: "While the O'Connor seat presents a bigger target for the Democrats, it still has its drawbacks as a line in the sand on judicial confirmations. ... But one factor that the Democrats have to keep in mind is that George Bush has three more years in office, and the GOP is likely to retain control of the Senate for all three. The Democrats have to defend more seats in the 2006 election and have more red-state incumbents than the GOP have blue-state incumbents. Why is that important? John Paul Stevens." At RedState, NAM's Pat Cleary admonishes the 22 Dems who voted against Roberts: "Shame on these Senators -- a few Presidential candidates past and future among them -- for blatantly kowtowing to their most liberal interest groups rather than putting partisanship aside and focusing on his impressive qualifications." More Cleary: "If they are waiting for a more qualified nominee, they won't get one."

IRAQ: Ready Or Not

Washington Post reports that Gen. George Casey told the House Armed Services Cmte that the "number of Iraqi army battalions that can fight insurgents without U.S. and coalition help has dropped from three to one." Reactions are varied, more or less split along traditional lines of support or opposition to the '03 Iraq war. Anti-war Unqualified Offerings lists some reasons why this might have happened, including "Combat with the insurgency has degraded two of the three units to the point of needing US backup to move and fight" and "Casey is really using code for political unreliability." Pro-war Ranting Profs: "Overall, the level of Iraqi preparedness is increasing, as the number of Iraqi forces that can operate independently -- if they're backed by American forces -- is up. But what gets big press coverage, of course, is that the number who can operate completely independently has slipped. I think that's in part because, as support for the war has continued to slip, there's too much eagerness to push positive news too eagerly. Every time there's the least chance that US forces might possibly, maybe, perhaps, be withdrawn at some point, that possibility gets pushed for all it's worth." Anti-war Democratic Veteran: "As the days have turned into weeks have turned into months, Preznit Pinocchio has stepped up at almost every available opportunity to proclaim how the Iraqi Security Forces have been readying themselves to have it 'Brought On' to them. Uh-huh." Pro-war Outside the Beltway: "Much more problematic in my view, though, is the fact that the Iraqi security forces have been deeply penetrated by insurgents and their sympathizers. Unless that problem is solved, 'readiness' is a chimera. Indeed, we're essentially training the enemy."

ABU GHRAIB: It's Been A Banner Week For Gory Pictures

Andrew Sullivan, on a judge's ruling that the remainder of images from Abu Ghraib must be released to the public: "I don't think most Americans are aware of what really went on at Abu Ghraib, and the depth and extent of the brutality. The reason is that the administration did everything it could to prevent the full record being made public ... Maybe now, we will begin to get accountability for what has been done and is being done in our name in Iraq, with regard to abuse of detainees and violation of the Geneva Conventions. I repeat: Rumsfeld must resign." Lean Left: "There is a danger here that the photos can stir up even more anti-Americanism and radicalize people who would not have bee radicalized without them. That argument, which the government makes, is not without merit. I do worry about the effect these pictures will have, and the potential for violence they may represent. But I fear their being kept secret even more. These pictures represent even worse abuses than where shown originally. It is important that the country be made aware of what has been done in our name.

BENNETT: Just As This Breaks Through To The Mainstream, Bloggers Start Going The Other Way?

TAPPED has the standard left-liberal take on Bennett's controversial remarks: "One thing about this post-Katrina period, it sure has brought out everyone's true colors. No normal person could even think such a thing, let alone utter it, let alone utter it on the radio, in public, for all the world to hear. I don't know where Bennett has been spending his days since turning in his virtuecrat hat, but it clearly hasn't been in decent society, where people are appalled by statements like his." Duncan "Atrios" Black presents the link to Media Matters -- which pushed the controversy first and for which he works -- with the header "How to Bring Down the Crime Rate" and understated teaser: "Bill Bennett has a suggestion."

But already, a few influential observers on the left are staking out a different position. UC-Berkeley economist Brad DeLong: "Bennett did not 'concede' that 'aborting all African-American babies 'would be... morally reprehensible.''" That was his point. ... Bennett is attempting a reductio ad absurdum argument." He advises: "Never attempt a reductio ad absurdum argument on talk radio. You can't keep exact control over your phrasing in real time, and so somebody is bound to think you are endorsing the horrible absurdity that you are rejecting." At TPM Cafe, so does Matt Yglesias: "Not only is Bennett clearly not advocating a campaign of genocidal abortion against African-Americans, but the empirical claim here is unambiguously true. Similarly, if you aborted all the male fetuses, all those carried by poor women, or all those carried by Southern women, the crime rate would decline. Or, at least, in light of the fact that southern people, poor people, black people, and male people have a much greater propensity to commit crime than do non-southern, non-black, non-poor, or non-male people that would have to be our best guess."

Right Wing News explains a bit more: "The reason Bennett specifically mentioned black Americans was because he was answering a question from a caller who was making an argument that was popularized by Steven Levitt's 'Freakonomics'. As a matter of fact, Bennett specifically mentioned the book just before he uttered the quote the left has focused on." At NRO's The Corner, Ramesh Ponnuru sees this a bit differently: "['Freakonomics' co-author] Steven Levitt took the impolitic racial element out of his overt argument between his 1999 paper and his 2005 book. By leaving it out -- although the argument does, in reality, involve (among other things) the abortion of black babies who would otherwise grow up to be criminals -- he was able to get, so far, three rave reviews in the New York Times. But Bennett's argument was actually stronger ... because it is sadly true that blacks are disproportionately involved in crime." At the Freakonomics blog, Leavitt largely defends Bennett, but adds: "There is one thing I would take Bennett to task for: first saying that he doesn't believe our abortion-crime hypothesis [that Roe v. Wade explains the last decades's falling crime rate] but then revealing that he does believe it with his comments about black babies. You can't have it both ways.

CALIFORNIA CABLE: Wallace, Thurmond, Schwarzenegger?

Swing State Project criticizes Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's (R-CA) veto of the Assembly-approved gay marriage bill, and praises Treas. Phil Angelides (D) for criticizing the move: "It's nice to know that there are still parts of this country not only where people feel comfortable standing up for the rights of others, but where it's also the politically sensible thing to do. ... Wallace, Thurmond and their ilk were not just racists but fools for not realizing they were going to be left in history's dustbin. Schwarzenegger is making the same mistake, and kudos to Angelides for being unafraid to point this out." Conservative Say Anything writes, "the larger issue here is not whether or not the bill is necessary or effective but rather the fact that California's elected legislators attempted to pass a law that was clearly in direct conflict with the interests of their constituents." Center-left Michael Stickings, at The Moderate Voice: "[B]oth the recent votes in the Legislature and the trend in public opinion towards acceptance of same-sex marriage, could mean that the people will soon have the final say. Or will Schwarzenegger find some excuse to reject even that?" Gay conservative Boi From Troy disagrees: "While most headlines will tell you that Schwarzenegger vetoed" the marriage bill, "don't overlook the fact that, today, California's Governor added sexual orientation and marital status to the Unruh Civil Rights Act," "signed legislation prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity in health care plans," and approved several other related measures: "So... um... yeah. George Wallace? Don't think so."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Surely CBS Knew To Expect Just This Scenario ...

On 9/28, Brian Montopoli created a list of "journo-bloggers" for CBS News' Public Eye. The list was carefully considered, explaining who was left out and why. Among them was conservative radio talker Hugh Hewitt, who responded at his blog: "This is really funny. CBS speaks! And I'm 'right on the line' but don't qualify! Egads. Not up to Brian ('I haven't always been a journalist') Montopoli's measure. Out, out, damn spot." The comments to Montopoli's post were heated from the start, with one posing as a crybaby "littlehugh," and another writing: "As if anything C BS says is relevant or important to the blogosphere!" Hewitt invited Montopoli on his radio show to debate the matter -- significantly, who and what constitutes "mainstream" journalism and whether right-of-center bloggers were omitted; Hewitt producer Duane Patterson posts the transcript at Radioblogger. Back at his blog, Hewitt followed up after: "Look, any "journo-blog" list that omits [Michael] Barone, [Jack] Kelly, [James] Lileks, Malkin and Sullivan is self-evidently absurd. ... Thus the CBS neo-blog produces early evidence of all the oafishness and arrogance that crippled Rather and Mapes. The attempt of the gate-keepers to rebuild the gates is amusing." Back at the Public Eye, CBS News editor Dick Meyer posts e-mails between himself and Hewitt, as agreed-to by both parties.

Aiming to do for John Kerry what The Daily Howler did for Al Gore, liberal Pre$$titutes fingers those most responsible for Kerry being cut down from "genuine war hero" to flip-flopper: "We've said this time and again, it's not people like Limbaugh and Hannity and Coulter, it's Russert and Gergen and Fineman and Mitchell and Blitzer and their ilk who shape Americans' views. The former spew the filth, but the latter legitimize it." More: "As we wade through a river of Republican corruption, and as the sham of 'Bush the protector' drowns in the murky waters of Katrina, it would do us well to remind ourselves how we got here, and to recognize the central role played by the media."

AIR AMERICA: The Network Strikes Back

At The Huffington Post, Air America CEO Danny Goldberg writes under the header "Right Wing Media Gets Desperate": "Air America is in strong financial shape. Last week we started broadcasting from our new multi-million dollar studios. Several weeks earlier the Board of Directors of Air America's parent company accelerated re-payment of a loan from the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club of $875,000 two years in advance of a previously agreed upon re-payment plan." As for the "Associates" program asking listeners for money (see 9/22 Blogometer), Goldberg compares it to the "Limbaugh Letter" and "Hannity Insider" offers on conservative talk shows. On Air America's critics: "It is an obsession with stifling debate -- even at the cost of using lies and distortions, which is un-American." Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin comments on a posting at the Al Franken Show Blog announcing co-host Katherine Lanpher's departure: "Guess not enough listeners fell for that panhandling scheme to keep Lanpher on board. Lanpher's actions certainly speak louder than Air America Radio CEO Danny Goldberg's huffy words."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Granger Things Have Happened

At the Political Behavior Blog, Harvard prof Barry Burden posts data for Bush's approval ratings and that of Congress from 2/01 to 9/05, and notes: "A quick Granger causality test on the data shown here suggests that the president's approval ratings affect those of Congress, but not the other way around. In other words, a popular president helps the Congress improve its image, but so too does a disliked president drag them down. This finding is based on a small N of 56 months ... but I am unaware of any argument like this in the literature." Further questions: "Does this result hold more generally? Is it true under divided government?"

LEST WE FORGET: Tho Fobo Olorogotomop Nemo Ha Ha Ha!

If you've never been to Bogol, there's no time like the present. The "chins" post is a good one, and so is "step 3 profitt!!1!" but the latest, "heyyy!" is pretty good, too.

Posted by at September 30, 2005 12:54 PM