October 14, 2005

10/14: All The World's A Stage

The ongoing controversies over the Harriet Miers nod and CIA leak investigation have been temporarily overtaken by debate about what happened before, and during, Pres. Bush's live teleconf./interview with troops stationed in Iraq. The left is outraged, charging that Bush is using the troops as props for his own political benefit. They note, with some schadenfreude, that the press appears to have turned against him, reporting behind-the-scenes details about how the event was set up. Meanwhile, the right is outraged about this exact same point, and argue that what an AP report calls a "staged" interview was routine who-goes-first-who-goes-next arrangements, adding that there's no evidence the troops were coached on their answers. While the furor over the teleconference itself will likely pass into yesterday's news over the weekend, the question of whether the press a) has finally woken up to reality or b) is vindictively out to get the Bush admin. (pick one) has grown louder in recent weeks, and is likely to stick around for awhile.

BUSH: Staged Fright?

AP's Deb Riechmann delights liberals and infuriates conservatives with her report titled "Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged."

Documentary filmmaker Bryan Young points out that NPR played a segment of audio prior to the interview, with handler Allison Barber giving "very specific instructions to the troops about what to do in case Bush goes off script. She then goes through a list of questions Bush is going to ask and rehearses the answers with the troops, coaching them along the way." Pam Spaulding calls the soldiers "props for the Chimperor," and notes: "The sorry state of affairs for the President-now-without-a-mandate is such that even the coverage of the event points out the fact that the whole event is a sham." The Carpetbagger Report: "Needless to say, this comes as a surprise to absolutely no one. ... My question is: did the Bush gang assume they could just lie and no one would notice? Or are they past the point of caring?" The Agonist's Sean-Paul Kelly: "So at last it seems we have come to that point in the life of one George W. Bush when everything 'W' has tried to do fails, and miserably at that. In the past he had Daddy's friends or connections in the oil business or the SEC or somewhere to come bail him out. Today, however, he is alone. No one can solve his problems for him. We all sit, mute, and watch the disaster unfold in slow motion. And we all will be made to suffer for it." A few liberal blogs, including Talking Points Memo, quote a section from the 10/13 press briefing where WH spokesperson Scott McClellan denies the soldiers' answers were "pre-screened." Crooks and Liars has video.

On the other hand, conservative Dafydd Ab Hugh thinks the coverage badly missed the mark: "Aren't the questions always choreographed? During an interview, for example, the interviewer always knows in advance the major questions he will ask, the order he will ask them ... Often the subject also knows, to allow him to do whatever research is necessary to come up with a more detailed answer. Typically, major questions spawn follow-up questions; we have no clue from the AP story whether this happened this time, even though that would reveal much about the charge of being 'staged.'" He also disputes the notion that the troops were "coached," arguing that Barber didn't change a soldier's response or "give him any feedback whatsoever." Lorie Byrd agrees, noting that "Special Report" showed how "at the end of the actual event with the President, he asked the Iraqi soldier a question that was not prepared and the Iraqi soldier's answer was quite positive." Little Green Footballs' Charles Johnson argues, "if any 'staging' took place, it happened right in front of the reporters who were covering the event. No one hid anything. The main beef seems to be that the producers of the event took questions and comments only from soldiers who supported the Iraq effort. So what?" Countercolumn: "I have an agenda, distributed in advance, listing what I want to talk about when I hold a company level training meeting. These guys understand that. I understand that. The AP, apparently, doesn't. I guess none of their reporters ever interviewed a source and told them what they were interested in discussing."

NBC anchor Brian Williams writes at his Daily Nightly blog: "While this kind of thing gets reported when germane, it's ... part of politics and both parties have made it something of an art form. In this case, however, the advance billing and final execution were at odds." He adds, "McClellan has since admitted to our own Kelly O'Donnell that he did NOT know the extent of the situation and how it played on television when he answered reporters' questions about it today from the podium."

THE MIERS NOMINATION I: The Pros And Cons Of Pros And Cons

Early last p.m., righty radio talker Hugh Hewitt writes: "I spoke to Karl Rove an hour ago. His support for the Miers nomination is not merely enthusiastic, but adamant and even vehement. The judicial philosophy question? She has been a member of the White House's judicial selection committee for three years, not the one I had thought ... her participation in the process described discredits any idea that her core philosophy is unknown to the president or other senior aides. It defies common sense to imagine three years of such meetings leaving other senior staff and the president in the dark about her commitment to originalism." Conservative Ankle Biting Pundits comments: "No offense to Rove or Hugh, but this defense is lame. ... In her job at the White House screening judges, she was simply acting in the best interests of [Bush], and thus her work there tells us nothing about her own judicial philosophy."

Also early last p.m., Wall Street Journal blogger/columnist James Taranto posted a lengthy commentary on Miers' testimony from the '89 voting-rights case Williams v. Dallas, wherein the city was successfully sued for having at-large members (of which Miers was then one), which the plaintiffs argued diluted minority representation. Reviewing her testimony, Taranto says she comes across as a "left-leaning centrist, not a conservative." Miers, in one passage he quotes: "I have strongly advocated the restoration of the $200,000 dental program as a model program in terms of public partnership. I have supported the maternal nurse care that was eliminated, be restored. The day-care money that was deleted I have asked be restored because they principally benefit women and minorities in my view." She also testifies to having "cast the deciding vote in favor of spending taxpayer money, purely for symbolic purposes, on something the city 'really could get for free.'" Taranto opines, "in the absence of a record on issues of constitutional law, it's understandable that one might look at her approach as a politician and worry that she, like fellow ex-politician O'Connor, may be inclined to put politics above principle in interpreting the Constitution." David Cohen at conservative Brothers Judd argues: "In this sort of suit," the examining atty "will want to show that she doesn't represent the minority community and Ms. Miers will want to show that she does. In other words, without calling into question her truthfulness under oath, Ms. Miers every legitimate interest as a witness and as a councilor at-large was to show that she was a legitimate representative of the entire city. Thus, Taranto, in poking fun at her for testifying that 'I do intend to vote based on the best interests of the entire community' completely misses the point."

Meanwhile, the Drudge Report also notes that Miers testified "that she would not join the 'politically charged' Federalist Society," though she was then a member of the "Democratic Progressive Voters League," plus Miers said she did not consider the NAACP to be "politically charged." A Confirm Them commenter, in her defense: "Remember the context of her comments. If you're a pseudo-defendant ... in a voting rights case, wouldn't you try to sound a little left of center -- hence the view that the NAACP is not overtly political." Expecting that Miers' position on the NAACP would outrage GOPers, liberal Matt Yglesias is a bit disappointed: "So far ... I haven't seen any conniptions. Let me help out! Here's a sampling of press releases from the apolitical NAACP" -- he lists a few, such as "NAACP Chairman Calls Bush Judicial Nominees Anti-Civil Rights."

THE MIERS NOMINATION II: The Write Stuff

David Brooks' 10/12 10/13 New York Times column argues that Miers "quality of thought and writing," as evidenced by a Texas Bar Journal column she wrote in the early '90s "doesn't even rise to the level of pedestrian." A sample from her "relentless march of vapid abstractions": "An organization must also implement programs to fulfill strategies established through its goals and mission. Methods for evaluation of these strategies are a necessity. With the framework of mission, goals, strategies, programs, and methods for evaluation in place, a meaningful budgeting process can begin." For a column hidden behind a notoriously unpopular subscription wall, much has been made of it -- enough that "David Brooks" was the top search on Technorati (where Times column-seekers go to find bootlegs) for most of this a.m. It even made the Times' top 5 on its much-vaunted most e-mailed list, a rarity for post-TimesSelect op-ed columns. Conservative Lump On A Blog wonders if Miers supporters "will argue that having someone on the high court incapable of offering a coherent argument and communicating thoughtfully would be refreshing and representative of an often ignored section of the American populace." WisPolitics' The Xoff Files: "If you doubt him, use this link to read the columns she wrote as president of the State Bar of Texas. But you were warned -- it's deadly stuff." Noting the column, Instapundit affixes an asterisk to Brooks' name, leading to this footnote: "* Brooks writes a column for a private, subscription-only website."

RedState's Confirm Them rumor scout Erick Erickson: "The rumor is that several senators have begun attempts to send the message to the WH that Miers should be withdrawn. They are bypassing Andy Card. Also, the senior Senator from South Carolina [Lindsey Graham] is rumored to have started up the Karen Williams drumbeat as a replacement candidate." Over at RedState's RedHot, he posts a blind item: "Which very public supporter of Harriet Miers is contemplating a very public break off of that support?"

Earlier in the week, Ashland Univ. prof Robert Alt quoted FNC's Brit Hume on the 10/9 "FNS" explaining why Judge Alice Batchelder was cut from the list: "She was very, very closely vetted. And you know what they found? They found all kinds of evidence of activism in her record. And they were quite surprised and not pleased to find that." Alt writes, when Bill Kristol "questioned this new smear tactic, Brit incredulously suggested that this is something he found on his own. But, as Brit's first statement makes clear," the original source seems to have been the WH. Conservative Jonathan Adler at Bench Memos: "If the White House was the source of this charge ... it is very troubling. As Alt observes, smearing qualified candidates for the court is no way for this administration to win back the trust and loyalty of the conservative base. Liberal Armando at Daily Kos: "How very freaking rich of them. Tsk Tsk-ing smears from the White House. Shocked to find out they do that are you NRO?"

World Class Federalists in Paradise posts the image of a trendline of the Tradesports line on confirmation/rejection -- while it still predicts confirmation, the numbers came down hard in the early hours after her announcement, and have sunk a bit more since. The current asking price is just under 65. Professor Bainbridge notes, "it would be interesting if we could go back and find the price on Roberts at a comparable point in his process. According to my archives, on September 5, the contract for his confirmation had an ask price of 97.7."

Having trouble keeping track of all the arguments being made by conservatives for and against Miers? Right Side Redux has done a pretty damned good job of rounding up quotes from official records, MSM columnists and blog commentators.

ROVE-PLAME-MILLER-LIBBY I: Abjured Or Perjured?

"If you're keeping score at home," UCLA public policy prof Mark Kleiman rounds up the pros and cons of the so-called "Mousetrap Theory," which seeks to explain New York Times reporter Judy Miller's recently surfaced notes. In short, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knew Miller and VP Cheney CoS Scooter Libby had spoken in 6/03, Miller did not disclose this to him (as Libby apparently did not), Fitzgerald caught her lying about this, and induced her to turn over the notes, and possibly testify against others. Kleiman's mostly in favor of the theory, listing arguments for it: "Apparently Miller didn't mention the June meeting with Libby in her earlier testimony. It's hardly conceivable that the questioning was so sloppy as to not have required her to disclose such a meeting." And Fitzgerald "lifted the contempt citation against Miller after today's testimony, but hadn't lifted it after last week's testimony," perhaps because he knew of the notes last week. And via Arianna Huffington, "by turning over the notes and testifying about the June conversation, Miller went way beyond the scope of her waiver letter from Libby," plus "Miller and her colleagues, triumphant after last week's testimony, were much less so after today's." Against the theory: "Miller's testimony lasted only 75 minutes ... unless Fitzgerald wants to issue a new subpoena and fight it back up through the courts, she's done as a witness until it's time to start impanelling trial juries." Tom Maguire isn't so sure Fitzgerald knew that Miller and Libby spoke in June until the notes surfaced, quoting from a Washington Post article saying so. Maguire: "So, here is an alternative to the perjury theory -- Ms. Miller testified to something vague, such as 'I may have met with Libby earlier and had a discussion relevant to the inquiry of this grand jury; I would need to check my notes, which have not been subpoenaed.' No perjury there. But afterwards, Fitzgerald will surely ask for the notes. And since his subpoena called for notes relevant to the July conversations, and since the July conversations *may* have been a follow-up to the June conversation, those June notes are, arguably, covered by the subpoena as well. ... The upshot -- cooperation, but no perjury."

The Left Coaster's eRiposte is aghast that Miller, "one of the top liar-propagandists for a criminal administration," will be accepting a First Amendment Award from the SPJ at their '05 convo in Las Vegas on 10/18: "What the hell is wrong with these people? What has this country come to?" eRiposte advises, "if anyone lives in or near Las Vegas or Cal State Fullerton [where Miller has another scheduled public appearance], please consider making an appearance there to voice your disagreement."

A New York Times header this a.m. reads: "Jitters at the White House Over the Leak Inquiry." Conservative Mark Coffey turns this around for a header at Decision '08: "Nervous Times as PlameGate Investigation Nears Its End"

ROVE-PLAME-MILLER-LIBBY II: Cohen Balls And Strikes As He Sees Them

Liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen drew some attention for his 10/13 column arguing that Fitzgerald should "go home" without filing charges -- mostly negative from the left, and somewhat positive from the right. Lefty Atrios names him "Wanker of the Day": "It's all there. The insider's anger at being kept out of the loop. The Beltway class's belief that they are above the law. Clinging to the fantasy that this case is about press freedom. The pundit's arrogance that he knows what's best for Washington..." Steve Gilliard: "Judy Miller's own colleagues don't believe this has to do with the press. Nor do any of the reporters who testified before the grand jury, including Bob Novak. This is about the security of the United States and those who help provide it." Righty Don Surber agrees with Cohen, adding: "Will someone please tell news side this ain't a scandal?" On the other hand, conservative The Anchoress thinks Cohen is just concerned now that "some on the left might get flamed over Valerie Plame": "As usual, Cohen is utterly dishonest in writing about this issue -- he again hauls out the tired old lie that President Bush lied about the 'Niger yellowcake' story -- hello! Britain STILL stands behind that intelligence to this day! The whole damn 'scandal' is manufactured! Hello!"

One of the more controversial Cohen passages is: "In the Plame case, it might technically be one, but it was not the intent of anyone to out a CIA agent and have her assassinated (which happened once) but to assassinate the character of her husband. This is an entirely different thing. She got hit by a ricochet." Democracy Cell Project advises, "please give up the mind-reading act as well. You have no way of knowing what anyone's intent was in identifying Valerie Plame to the media. As the administration so often reminds us, we are engaged in a global war on terrorism. Identifying and revealing the names of covert agents is not the same as, say, identifying and naming who's gay and who's not in homophobic" GOP-controlled DC.

Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum opines: "I think Cohen is fundamentally wrong to treat the outing of a covert agent in the same way that he treats the nonstop revelation of minor secrets that practically defines official Washington. Outing an agent represents a far more serious kind of breach ... That said, though, I'm on his side when it comes to charges. ... Like Cohen, I really don't want to see him hand down indictments solely for tangential perjury or conspiracy charges or some other consolation prize." Drum's own readers reacted negatively, filling up the comment section with 400+ comments (compared to 40-ish comments for the posts immediately above and below). He updated again: "Well, this is going to go down in history as one of my most unpopular posts ever. All I can say is: Let's wait and see what Fitzgerald comes up with. If he hands down serious charges, great. If they're fundamentally trivial, like the stuff that Ken Starr brought against Bill Clinton, not so great."

IRAQ: In This Case, Do Shoot The Messenger

The purported letter from Zawahiri to Zarqawi, released on the web by Centcom with commentary, has been touted by conservative bloggers as an example of how al Qaeda is concerned that its Iraq strategy has been a mistake. Among the many, Secular Blasphemy writes: "While the letter reveals al-Qaeda's grand strategic goals, Zawahiri is obviously worried that the extreme brutality of Zarqawi's jihad in Iraq is causing a backlash among sympathisers, and also risks drawing hostile action from Iran. ... The relationship between Iran and al-Qaeda is one of "the enemy of my enemy" but sooner or later the Iranian leadership may start worrying who is their worst enemy."

But it also has been been criticized by some on the left as a likely forgery (see 10/12 Blogometer). And according to the AP, an al Qaeda-affil. website calls the letter a fake. Power Line comments, "It's easy to see why they don't want to stand behind Zawahiri's exposition of al Qaeda's strategy ... It will be interesting to see whether American liberals, embarrassed by the contents of Zawahiri's correspondence, will join with al Qaeda in claiming that the U.S. military faked the letter."

Liberal Nitpicker cites a Reuters version of the story, which quotes an in-House (i.e. Congress) terrorism expert who has doubts about its authenticity. Writes Nitpicker: "Look, you can't help but question these guys. Their intelligence is too often either wrong or made up. Are those words too harsh for you? Then how about 'inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading' as Colin Powell put it?" AMERICAblog's John Aravosis adds: "[T]his smacks of something they -- or more aptly, the Bush DOD folks -- would create out of thin air, a forgery. And now, surprise surprise, questions are being raised."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Going Nucular

On 10/12, NAM VP Pat Cleary -- cross-posting to RedState -- criticized ABC News for a report on univ.-based nuclear research facilities, titled "Loose Nukes," which essentially consisted of getting a tour of the facilities, bringing in hidden cameras, and "bombarding their hosts with questions about security." The facility owners then contacted the authorities. He follows up on 10/13, calling it the "Dan Rather-ization of ABC," and points out if you "go to Google News and type in 'Loose Nukes' and -- like Rather, at the end -- the first or second choice is our highly critical piece on this bogus story." NEI Notes, a group blog featuring nuclear engineers and experts, posts snail mail contact info for ABC execs, encouraging readers to write in. TV Newser picks up on the controversy, noting "some interest groups are raising red flags about the report."

POLLS: A Ten Percenter?

On 10/12, Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey wrote, Washington Post online columnist Dan Froomkin "wrote a breathless column" today "that should have been pulled." The column highlighted a WSJ/NBC poll showing Bush with just a 2% approval rating among blacks; problem is, the figure comes from just 89 black respondents out of a poll of 807, a fact which Froomkin does mention. Morrissey cites a recent Pew poll putting the number at 12%. More: A "CQ reader ... just saw Conan O'Brian use the 2% polling number on his show. Welcome to the birth of an urban legend, yet another one from the fertile womb of Katrina." Froomkin later updated his column with the same included Pew numbers also cited by Captain's Quarters; Morrissey argues the low sample size in the WSJ/NBC poll and comparison to Pew should have been enough for the column to be held back. Black GOPer Robert George notes the low sample size, but asks, "ultimately, who cares? The fact that a Republican president is polling low among black people isn't exactly a man-bites-dog story." George adds that he too disapproves, and though his reasons "are generally going to be a lot different than" black liberals, "we are going to be listed as part of the 88/98 of black disapproval."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: What's The Near Opposite Of Double-Secret Probation?

Slate's Mickey Kaus: "If Congress does grant special First Amendment rights (i.e. protection from testifying) to professional journalists, but not to amateur citizen-journalists, can the amateurs sue under the Equal Protection Clause? That seems to me the interesting question. If Congress said professional reporters had more votes than ordinary citizens, after all, it would be struck down instantly. What's different about speech? ... I know, I know. The press professionals are doing it for our benefit! But you could say the same about, say, giving more votes to the more educated. They'd be doing it for the rest of us. Did someone add a Condescension Clause to the Constitution when I wasn't looking? ... Anyway, we're blogging for their benefit. Who do you think reads blogs? Reporters! That means we should be double super privileged!"

LEST WE FORGET: Where The Elite Meet To Bleat

The highly (highly) unofficial Harriet Miers' Blog!!! finally gets around to something important in a post titled: "DISCLAIMER -- LETS PRETEND I PUT THIS UP AT THE BEGINNING." And tweaks a passage that should be familiar to anyone who has received an e-mail from a law firm account:

****************************
This communication, is for the exclusive use of reader and may contain proprietary, confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended reader, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended reader, please notify the blogger immediately by e-mail or comments, delete this communication and destroy all copies.
****************************

Adds "Harriet Miers": "I forgot to put that up on Oct 3 ('cut me some slack' people, I'd just been nominated to the SUPREME COURT!!), but this applies to the whole blog not just from now on."

Posted by at October 14, 2005 12:36 PM