October 25, 2005

10/25: Big Time News

Although the CIA leak investigation/Plamegate and the Harriet Miers SCOTUS nod have been splitting time as the hot topic of discussion, Plamegate clearly dominates the blogs this a.m. Meanwhile, Paul Hackett officially announces for OH SEN as netroots infighting continues, and for once in a good long while, Pres. Bush gets some bipartisan praise for his choice of Ben Bernanke as the next Fed chair.

PLAMEGATE I: There Are Bombshells, And Then There Are Bombshells

New York Times' Johnston, Stevenson and Jehl report that VP Cheney was the one who told his CoS Scooter Libby about CIA officer Valerie Plame, and that this appears to "differ from Mr. Libby's testimony to a federal grand jury that he initially learned about" her from journalists. More: "The notes do not show that Mr. Cheney knew the name" Iraq war critic/ex-Amb. Joe Wilson's "wife. But they do show that Mr. Cheney did know and told Mr. Libby that Ms. Wilson was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency and that she may have helped arrange her husband's trip." More still: "Mr. Cheney was interviewed under oath" by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald last year. It is not known what the vice president told Mr. Fitzgerald about the conversation with Mr. Libby or when Mr. Fitzgerald first learned of it." While it's an essential link for any left-leaning blogger last p.m. or this a.m., it is widely discussed on conservative blogs. The right tends to think Libby is looking at an obstruction of justice charge, though others will be spared; the left more or less takes Libby's indictment as a given, and at least this a.m., zeroes in on possible charges against Cheney more than Karl Rove. Some bloggers even speculate the leak of this story came from Rove's attys.

>> From the left -- Ex-CIA officer Larry Johnson, at TPM Cafe: "Although the NY Times story reports that Libby's notes indicate that George Tenet told Cheney about Plame, there are some intriguing unanswered questions. For starters it is highly unlikely that George Tenet showed up at the White House and just happened to know the name of Valerie Plame. Someone at the White House asked for it first. Tenet clearly came prepared to respond to a White House request." More: "I also doubt that Tenet used the name 'Plame,'" which by then she did not use. More: "Someone introduced 'Plame' into the equation. ... Look for other names to emerge in coming days that will reveal who helped work out the 'background' info on Valerie Wilson." Josh Marshall posts a "Meet the Press" transcript with Cheney on 9/14/03. Cheney among other things: "I don't know Mr. Wilson. I probably shouldn't judge him. I have no idea who hired him and it never came..." Marshall: "This would have been three and a half months after Cheney reportedly received a detailed briefing on just what had happened from George Tenet." Digby makes a similar point. Film producer Jane Hamsher argues: "What indication do we have that Cheney lied? Well, if Cheney he had told the truth when he was interviewed last year, i.e., that he was Scooter Libby's source, Fitzgerald would not have needed to threaten Judy Miller and Matt Cooper with jail in order to counter Scooter Libby's testimony that he first heard about Valerie Plame's identity from journalists." David Corn writes, "this new development raises the possibility of an orchestrated cover-up that reaches the vice president. Remember the "unindicted co-conspirators" of the Watergate days? Who would believe the waiting-for-indictments period could become more intense?" Whiskey Bar's Billmon writes, considering "the reports that both Hannah and Wurmser have been flipped, and it becomes increasingly plausible that the special prosecutor has the veep penciled in as the blue plate special on his indictment menu. Was Libby the final flip? And has he, in fact, flipped?" The Washington Note's Steve Clemons: "The entire charade of President Bush stating that he wanted to get to the bottom of who leaked Plame's name -- and who was involved -- is no longer believable at any level. Cheney would not have failed to disclose this to Bush, and Bush played along as if none of his staff were involved. They confessed nothing -- accepted no responsibility -- until forced by Fitzgerald." Markos Moulitsas: "I'm finding it increasingly hilarious how Rove and Libby kept falsely claiming it was reporters who gave them the Plame info. I mean, the news media carries the administration's water for four years, and this is how they get repaid -- getting blamed for the outing." Lean Left: "Plame's status as an employee of the CIA was certainly classified information, else the CIA would have had no grounds to go to the FBI in the first place, not to mention the fact that Libby was on a flight where Plame's identity was clearly marked in a memo as secret." Oliver Willis asks: "Even if no specific law was broken, shouldn't it be cause for removal or resignation if the vice president used the power of his office to uncover classified data as fuel for a political vendetta?"

>> From the right -- Wizbang's Kevin Aylward: "The Tenet connection is intriguing -- especially for any defense attorney -- because if the CIA was the source and the original complainant that could put them in a pretty awkward position. The more interesting question is where the information the Times reported came from? ... The information would seem to favor Rove by shifting additional focus to Libby, so it's not inconceivable that Libby is being, proverbially, thrown under the bus." James Joyner calls the story "pretty thin stuff" and writes: "The irony of the lawyers investigating the leaking of secret information to the press leaking secret evidence to the press is rich, indeed. It amazes me that there never seem to be prosecutions for this action, which are clearly intended to poison the water for those under investigation and which taint the jury pool and harm people's reputations regardless of the disposition of the case." Decision '08's Mark Coffey: "I know many of my readers think there is no case, and there will be no indictments... I would gladly be wrong on this one, believe me. However, the totality of the circumstances, given what we know, suggest that at the bare minimum Libby will be indicted (I am much more hopeful about Rove). Of course, I freely admit that what we know is information that has been leaked, and leakers always have a purpose." JunkYardBlog: "This is probably going to be an ugly week. That whatever happens all stems from a nepotistic and unserious mission to Niger about which Joseph Wilson spun lie after lie -- though not under oath, so he has never faced any legal jeopardy -- is very likely to be lost in the din. It's not the non-crime that gets you -- it's the cover up, if indeed there was one." The National Debate notices that the Times story states that Plame's "identity was made public and her undercover status was disclosed in a syndicated column" by Bob Novak, and comments: "This is a good example of the games played by reporters and editors and the Times in advancing liberal myths. ... It has since come out that Plame had an official cover (i.e., public) as a CIA operative on weapons of mass destruction AND a covert status. What Novak wrote was entirely consistent with Plame's official cover at the CIA." Protein Wisdom's Jeff Goldstein: "Three questions: Did Libby intentionally mislead the inquiry? And if so, why? -- particularly if Cheney hadn't done anything illegal by revealing Plame's CIA affiliation. And did Cheney share this information with Fitzgerald when he was interviewed under oath last year? Because if not, he, too, could be open to perjury and obstruction charges. Of course, another thing to keep in mind is that this leak could be wrong." The Political Teen: "I don't know about you, but I'm waiting until Fitzgerald comes out with the results of the investigation before I believe anything I hear."

>> Prior to this story's posting, Raw Story is reporting that Cheney aide David Wurmser is the one who "told Libby that Plame set up the Wilson trip," and with then-NSA Condoleezza Rice and then-dep. NSA Stephen Hadley. Libby meanwhile passed that info to Rove, and soon after, the sources say, "executives" in the VP's office told Wurmser "to leak her name to a specific group of reporters in an effort to muzzle" Wilson. This "amplification" comes at the end: "They were unaware if Wurmser told Cheney about Plame or if that information was passed to Cheney by Libby. They did say that all three of them met and at the time of their meeting Wurmser told Libby about Plame." The story got linked at Think Progress, Firedoglake, The Sideshow and others. TalkLeft: "If true, it sounds like Wurmser, as previously reported, flipped on Cheney, Libby and Hadley. So, who's providing this new Wurmser information? It doesn't sound like it's Wurmser. It sounds like it's someone who is very angry at him. How this story stacks up against the Times report isn't clear, but there's no question that the Times report is being taken more seriously. Raw Story articles are typically picked up by the left only; it's a rare story that gets attention on both sides, and this isn't one. Since the Times piece went up, we've seem nary a reference to this story.

PLAMEGATE II: The Feast Of St. Fitz

Besides Cheney, there is a great deal of Plamegate discussion out there; the left is considering new, little-reported aspects of the case, and the right is coming toward collective agreement that Fitzgerald's integrity should not be attacked.

UCLA prof Mark Kleiman makes a point about Fitzgerald's new website (see 10/24 Blogometer): "Surely, we hear, Fitzgerald wouldn't open up a website just so he could post a 'never mind' notice. Well, actually, he might. Unless Fitzgerald has his case already in the can -- possible, but not certain -- he's trying to get some potential defendants to plead guilty and testify against other potential defendants. Their incentive to do so depends entirely on their belief that Fitzgerald will indict them if they don't cooperate. Anything Fitzgerald can do to make indictments seem more likely rather than less likely therefore improves his bargaining position."

Marshall introduces an interesting twist -- UPI's Martin Walker reports that Fitzgerald has requested and received "the full, and as yet unpublished report of the Italian parliamentary inquiry into" documents which purported to show evidence of a yellowcake transaction between the gov'ts of Niger and Iraq. Marshall asks: "But what's in it? What might Fitzgerald have discovered? My reporting on this from Italian sources has always suggested that the Italian government had been much, much less than aggressive in its pursuit of the facts in this story." Walker writes that the development suggests that Fitzgerald has "widened to embrace part of the broader question about the way the Iraq war was justified," but Kleiman disagrees, writing that this is "contradicted by Fitzgerald's terms of reference. Fitzgerald may well want to bring in the Yellowcake Road story to show motive for whatever crimes he charges, but the charges themselves will have to be limited to blowing Plame's cover and covering it up." Drum offers the theory that the WH went after Wilson because they "probably figured Wilson still had friends in the State Department who had told him the documents had been debunked long before the SOTU. And if Wilson knew that, maybe he knew about the source of the forged documents as well. Or was on the trail of it. Or something. And that's what scared them: the possibility that someone was about to expose the story behind the forged documents. ... And that's why Fitzgerald wanted to see the Italian report. He figures it might explain the original motivation for the whole affair, and knowing the motivation might help him make his case."

Linking to a Washington Post "cast of characters" feature from last week, Tom Maguire writes, the MSM "probably has some very well-informed guesses as to who did what; over at the WaPo, for instance, Walter Pincus certainly knows who leaked to him. So, for example, when the WaPo does *not* include [ex-interim DCI John] McLaughlin or Tenet on the list of characters, that may be a hint that these CIA bigs were incidental to the leak."

AMERICAblog links back to a 7/8/03 New York Times report wherein the WH "acknowledged" that Bush's so-called "16 words" relied on "incomplete and perhaps inaccurate information from American intelligence agencies," and comments: "The MSM is proving bizarrely insistent on ignoring the single most important fact surrounding RoveGate, the one fact that explains why the White House went to such extremes to scorch-earth Joe Wilson for coming forward. What's that fact? Joe Wilson spoke the truth and Bush admitted it."

Crooks and Liars points out (with video) that Mort Kondracke used "the I-word," i.e. impeachment, on the 10/24 broadcast, saying the left was seriously talking about it. Anchor Brit Hume "sniffed his derision, and said 'That's it for the panel. Shut up!' Then he laughs and says stay tuned ..."

John Hawkins writes: "As far as I'm concerned, [GOP TX Sen.] Kay Bailey Hutchison was out of line ... Anyone who works in the White House should know better than to lie under oath or get involved in a cover-up, and if they did something that foolish, then they should expect to be charged with a crime." At The Corner, Andy McCarthy as well defends Fitzgerald from conservatives who have written to him suggesting "that my friend Pat Fitzgerald may not be as apolitical as his press clippings indicate": " Pat is at least as apolitical as his press clippings suggest. And just because Senator Schumer says something doesn't make it wrong. Pat Fitzgerald is the best prosecutor I have ever seen. By a mile. He is also the straightest shooter I have ever seen -- by at least that much. And most importantly, he is a good man." RedState's Blanton and Pejman Yousefzadeh at A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days concur.

THE MIERS NOMINATION: Well, So Much For Hewitt As A Compromise Candidate ...

To "to the extent that members of the Senate bother to listen to constructive suggestions," Dafydd ab Hugh at Big Lizards asks readers and fellow bloggers to suggest cases to ask Miers about. So far he has posted a half-dozen. Captain's Quarters suggests a handful of specific questions for sens. to ask Miers, including one tipped toward Senate Jud Cmte Arlen Specter's "superprecedent" line of thinking: "Do you think that stare decisis should drive the overall judgment process of the Supreme Court, given the social disruption that overturning precedent can cause? Do you believe in the concept of 'superprecedents'? Please explain Brown against Plessy to illustrate your answer."

At TAPPED, Ezra Klein comments on Miers getting 10x market value for a piece of land in a ruling by a judge who had received significant campaign contributions from Miers' firm: "It's one of the peculiarities of American politics that small but tangible scandals like this can be much more dangerous to a nominee than a simple lack of qualifications, ability, or excellence. There's no reason to believe that a sweetheart land deal actually impairs Miers ability to function as a justice, while her inability to write clearly and her unfamiliarity with constitutional law clearly do. Nevertheless, this is a story the press can seize on, the pundits can harp on, and her nomination can sink on."

Hugh Hewitt responds point-by-point to his critics at NRO's The Corner (see 10/24 Blogometer), including McCarthy, Jonah Goldberg and Rich Lowry. He concludes: "Question: Well into his second term, mired in scandal and obvious unending lies and deepening crisis, did any senior Democrat turn on Bill Clinton? One year into his second term, and days after a huge and historically significant election in Iraq and a month after yet another unfair savaging at the hands of the MSM over Katrina, George Bush surveys his allegedly supportive pundits and the GOP Senate majority that he made, and he finds what? Is the GOP incapable of governing as a majority?"

At TKS, Jim Geraghty writes, "I'm sure Hugh Hewitt feels like NRO has just decided to gang-tackle him lately, so I feel bad for piling on." But re: Hewitt's "Question:" quoted above, he writes: "Is the Democratic Party's steadfast refusal to hold Clinton accountable for anything really the role model that the GOP wants to emulate? When your party's leader has made a lousy choice, there ought to be no shame in calling 'em as you see 'em." In similar fashion, Confirm Them's Paul Zummo writes that he likes Hewitt, but is nevertheless compelled to rebut Hewitt's previous post.

NRO's David Frum has opened up a new site with a few other conservative columnists, Americans for Better Justice, to host his anti-Miers petition. Starting 10/26 they will be running ads on FNC. While the site is not a blog, it does link to several, and the board includes ex-Reason editor/Dynamist Blogger Virginia Postrel.

BROWN V. HACKETT: The Curtain Rises

As Cillizza at Washington Post's The Fix notes Iraq vet/OH 02 special candidate Paul Hackett's 10/24 campaign announcement, where he said: he would "fight to take back our government from the career politicians and their special interest support groups who have hijacked our government." Cillizza observes, "That remark seems easily read as a shot at Brown, who has held public office since 1974." Interviewed by Cillizza on 10/24, likely OH SEN candidate/Rep. Sherrod Brown said: "Paul is new enough to public office that he doesn't understand that no one is entitled to a Senate nomination."

Shortly after his announcement, Hackett posted a diary to Daily Kos asking for more than financial contributions: "In this race, I need more from you, I also need your ideas. How can I best convey why we need real change in Washington, DC? How can we use our unique media potential refocus politics on what matters most? What does matter most to you? What is mostly not talked about that matters to you? How can we facilitate getting more people to serve and participate in our democracy? Our founding fathers started a tradition of the citizen legislator, how can we work together to renew this tradition and get more people involved in politics?"

In a diary at Daily Kos, Armando takes on charges from Buckeye Senate's Pounder, who had argued that Moulitsas had withdrawn support from Hackett for financial reasons (perhaps because Brown was about to make the big blogad buy). Writes Armando: "It was a vile act by him. Am I saying that Pounder should have refrained from criticizing Markos out of loyalty? F--- no. I am saying that before you attack his character, the very least you could do is understand and know the facts on which you wish to base your opinion. And then, when you have that, give kos a chance to explain to you what might be going on, indeed if there is even anything to explain. Pounder didn't do any of that. Instead he ran off and attacked Markos' integrity with lies. When confronted with those lies, he shuffled and ducked, changing his story. It was a despicable performance." In the comments to the same diary, Armando writes: "Pounder lied and said Markos was sharing in [Brown consultant] Jerome [Armstrong]'s revenues for working with Brown. It was a lie, a vile lie, a smearing lie. Disgraceful and despicable." But he also says of Armstrong: "Jerome is playing with fire a bit by blogging and consulting at the same time. The disclosure needs to come early and prominently."

In e-mails with the Blogometer on 10/24, Moulitsas stated that the Armstrong-Zuniga, LLC consulting firm is no longer active, and he has no financial relationship with Armstrong aside from the book they are writing. Likewise, he has never worked for Brown in a paid or voluntary capacity. He also reiterated that whereas he personally "preferred" Hackett in general, he has no "preference" in a head-to-head match-up. He adds: "Ultimately, I think this primary will be great preparation for what should be a nasty general election contest."

In a diary for MyDD, pro-Hackett Bob Brigham argues that Hackett "gets" blogs, whereas Brown does not: "Blogs aren't like political organizations, getting the support of a blogger doesn't mean you have the support of the readers. Blogs operate from the bottom up, not top down. The true story is how this is shaping up between an politician trying to take a top-down, talk-at-you-with-ads approach to the blogosphere vs. an outsider who inspired netroots activists one at a time to have a vast bottom-up movement. That is the story that should be written."

Democracy Guy, who had previously stated his support for Brown, now lists himself as undecided. In particular he cites Armstrong's involvement as a negative factor: "Sherrod lost my support with this nonsense. ... I'm officially checking out Paul Hackett. Nice work, Jerome... never thought anyone could get me to consider voting for a newcomer over Sherrod Brown, but you pulled it off.

SPENDING: Show Them The Money

Michelle Malkin reports, she got a message from Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-OK) office informing her that later today Coburn will chair a subcmte hearing titled "Guns and Butter: Setting Priorities in Federal Spending in the Context of Natural Disaster, Deficits and War." Tim Chapman reports that a group of sens. including Coburn, John McCain and Sam Brownback will sponsor a Senate version of "Operation Offset" (see 9/26 Blogometer) to unveil a "savings package."

FED CHAIR: You Can Bernanke On It

By and large, Bush's appointment of CEA chair Bernanke to replace retiring Fed chair Alan Greenspan is proving popular. A brief round-up of what econ. profs from the left and right are saying:

• Liberal economist Max Sawicky: "Given the likely possibilities, putting Ben Bernanke in charge of the Fed is much the preferable outcome. He is well-qualified, and he has managed to sail through his brief tenure in the Bush Administration with minimal resort to demagogy, in contrast to predecessor Glenn Hubbard."
• Left-leaning Univ. of OR econ. prof Mark Thoma: "I do not believe Bernanke will politicize the job as much as Greenspan did. My worry is the opposite, that he will not speak forcefully enough on issues such as the budget deficit that impact monetary policy."
• Conservative Dartmouth econ. prof Andrew Samwick: "Bernanke is an excellent choice. ... I am particularly pleased that someone with such a talent and insight for research will be at the head of the Fed's staff of professional economists. I suspect that plenty of his former students are already there."
• Liberal Berkeley econ. prof Brad DeLong also supports Bernanke, and criticizes Fred Barnes' Wall Street Journal [sub. req.] explanation of the pick as being "completely impervious to Bernanke's elementary textbook point" about the importance of deficit reduction, and Bush for passing over Hubbard because he reportedly "talked down" to him.
• Right-leaning GMU econ. prof Tyler Cowen, at Marginal Revolution lists 5 contributions he sees Bernanke having made to the field, adding: "I met him once and had lunch. He came across as a nice guy; most importantly, he listened to everyone at the table (or at least seemed to!), no matter what their academic status. In the profession he is popular."
• Liberal Kash at Angry Bear, who studied under "Bernanke is a superb macroeconomist, a nice guy, and, despite his current position as chair of the CEA ... he is not a sharply partisan or ideological person."
• Conservative Suitably Flip, on the coming hearings: "Let's just hope no media-hungry Senators make the mistake of unduly forestalling his nomination solely for sake of combat. I'm sure the resulting debate would be amusingly one-sided, but not quite worth the injurious effect on the process."

IN THE STATES: When Anonyblogging Isn't

Since 7/04, the anonymous Minnesota Democrats Exposed blogger "has been taking pot shots at the" MN DFL while claiming the blog "is not created, endorsed, sponsored, or authorized by any political party, candidate, or candidate's committee." However, center-ish Eva Young at Lloydletta's Nooz and Comments posts evidence that ex-MN GOP comm./research dir. Michael Brodkorb "is at least one of the authors behind" MDE. When posting one entry via e-mail, Brodkorb apparently left his e-mail signature in, which included his name and cell phone number. Although the error "was quickly corrected," but a reader checked Safari browser "downloads the RSS [feeds] as they come in"; Young posts a Flickr-hosted screen shot of Safari's RSS page for the site. Indeed it shows Brodkorb's name and telephone number. On Young's site, MDE is now linked under the name "Michael Brodkorb."

INTRODUCING/ENDTRODUCING: I Say Hello, And You Say Goodbye

As of 10/24, The New Republic has a new blog, The Plank. The primary contributors are Michael Crowley, Franklin Foer, and Jason Zengerle. This also marks the end of TNR's 3-year-old &c. blog. TNR also previously published Gregg Easterbrook's Easterblogg and Spencer Ackerman's Iraq'd, now both defunct.

10/24 also marked the end of NRO's The Buzz, which launched in early '05. K.J. Lopez broke the news in The Corner: "NRO has always been a little experimental. Try things out, see how they go, try different things." So they started The Buzz, with a little Beltway and a little 2008 and a little more. Eric Pfeiffer, a promising young journalist ... has been manning The Buzz admirably since its start--work for which everyone here is grateful. Today, however, marks The Buzz's last day." She adds, "post-Buzz, look for him elsewhere on the site. RedState's Erick Erickson notes the blog's closing, as well as Pfeiffer's reporting on Cindy Sheehan's vigil/protest in Crawford, TX.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Separated At Birth?

Arianna Huffington writes, "Plamegate has brought together" Bush and New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr -- "Two guys who, to borrow a phrase from Pete Hamill, were born on third base but think they hit a triple. And who are now busy trashing the stadium." Both currently "find themselves in deep trouble at the moment, plagued by charges of incompetence and cronyism. This got me thinking: what else do W and Pinch have in common? Turns out quite a bit." Huffington posts 15 questions. Here's 3:

1. "Which of these men had a father who was considered stupid but is now thought to be a genius compared to his son?"
2. "Which of these men is currently on the defensive about his support for an incompetent woman in his office?"
3. "Which of these men may have to ask for the resignation of a subordinate because of a mounting scandal?"

LEST WE FORGET: Working On The Cheney Gang

In recent weeks, lefty bloggers have been photoshopping ex-House Maj. Leader/Rep. Tom DeLay into various photos and situations, and now Cheney is getting the same treatment. The Heretik puts Cheney into the DeNiro-as-Capone movie poster for "The Untouchables." Meanwhile, Billmon puts Cheney, Libby and Miller into a scene from "I Am a Fugitive From a Chain Gang."

We'd also like to note, the above header marks 11th time The Hotline has used that awful pun since its 1st use on 7/19/93.

Posted by at October 25, 2005 12:53 PM