February 10, 2006

2/10: Release Mechanism

Today all the major action is reactive, with bloggers reacting to specific newspaper and wire reports. Those include 3 stories about Pres. Bush and his admin. that bring criticism and elaboration from the left, and 1 story about Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid which elicits the same response from the right. While we've omitted coverage of the Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy today, it continues to be a major subject of debate among right-leaning bloggers.

It's a particularly bad news day for Bush, as a National Journal report has emerged that ex-WH official Scooter Libby told a grand jury that VP Cheney approved the release of classified info to reporters, and another report contends that the WH understood the severity of the post-Katrina New Orleans flooding earlier than previously indicated., and some are reacting skeptically to Bush's disclosure of details about a thwarted terrorist. As for Reid, new details have surfaced about his involvement with tribal clients of disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff. As the lefty bloggers gravitate toward the stories that make Bush look bad, so do the righty bloggers swarm on the Reid story. That's usually how it works.

PLAMEGATE: Do Former Government Officials Turn In Clusters, Too?

The hottest story of yesterday afternoon was Murray Waas' report for National Journal that Libby "testified to a federal grand jury that he had been "authorized" by Cheney and other White House "superiors" in the summer of 2003 to disclose classified information to journalists" to defend the admin's pre-war intel. Waas compares Libby's strategy to that of Ollie North during Iran-Contra, but doesn't say that Cheney directed Libby to disclose then-CIA "operative" Valerie Plame's name (as liberal bloggers hoped). TalkLeft makes the full letter from prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to Libby's counsel available in PDF format.

On the left, bloggers compared the report to previously known information, and observe that none of the implications are good for the WH. Steve Soto: "Keep in mind this revelation comes days after Libby's 'faulty memory' defense was neutered when it was revealed that Cheney and Libby were aware in mid-June 2003 that the CIA had discredited the Niger claim, weeks before Libby began talking to reporters." Jane Hamsher: "Given the fact that Cheney and Libby knew as of June 17, 2003 that the Niger uranium claims were bunk and Libby began this crusade with Judy Miller anyway on June 23, the service to which these documents were put remain safely outside of 'ethical' territory. Mark Kleiman: "Libby's boss was Dick Cheney; Libby was Cheney's chief of staff. His only other 'superior' would have been... George W. Bush. So either Cheney or Bush (or both) ordered the release of classified information, which according to Bush is a crime. And anyone who commits a crime has to leave the administration. So which is it? Is Bush going to ask for Cheney's resignation, or offer his own?" Jeralyn Merritt explains why Libby may be bringing in aspects of Plamegate that don't obviously reflect on his charges: "He's asking for everything that came across his desk for ten months, to show how busy he was during this time period, on the theory that it's relevant to his defense of confusion or failed memory. No wonder Fitz is objecting. It's creative lawyering, but I have a hard time believing the Judge will find it relevant and disclosable."

The story didn't raise nearly the same interest on the right, where a few dismiss the significance or focus on other matters. Macsmind: "In case Murray was sleeping during civics class this action would be within the Vice President or other assigned 'superiors' authority." James Joyner is interested in the fact that Plame's name "is not attached to this part of the story. That is, it sounds as if Libby is arguing that he was authorized to divulge classified information on more than one occasion and that he therefore interpreted that as a standing right." Balloon Juice quotes from the piece, adding only: "This could get interesting."

Former Bush supporter Andrew Sullivan is one of a few bloggers who ties this back to the more recent NSA revelations: "So some intelligence matters are so important that the administration will not divulge them even to critical members of Congress. But others are leaked to journalists to win a political war. This is a pointed reminder that when the administration says it is withholding information to protect national security, a hefty dose of skepticism is in order." American Prospect's Laura Rozen: "You have to admit this doesn't do much for the White House's case that we should just trust them on the NSA warrantless domestic spying all going for a legitimate, non-politicized cause, you know?"

Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings: "The idea that Cheney authorized Libby to leak classified information for political purposes doesn't surprise me in the least. The idea that Libby testified to that effect, on the other hand, does." Nor did it surprise The Next Hurrah's Emptywheel, who had surmised as much from Fitzgerald's 1/23 letter. But Shakespeare's Sister admits to being apathetic: "So, in other words, the attempt to discredit Joe Wilson by outing his wife as a covert operative was being orchestrated by the top levels of the administration. Duh. Call me when it's provable and the bastards are in shackles."

ABRAMOFF: A Friend In Need Is A Friend Of Reid? (Really, That's The Best Pun We Could Think Of ... We'll Try Harder Next Time)

AP reported 2/9 that Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid "wrote at least four letters helpful" to tribes represented by Jack Abramoff after receiving money from his clients, and that his staff "had frequent contact with the disgraced lobbyist's team about legislation." The story comes on the heels of the less-noticed report that Reid and other Dems cut ties with the lobbyist running their PACs; conservative watchdog No Agenda was one that noticed.

Ed Morrissey writes, though the Abramoff scandal undoubtedly affects GOPers more, "Democrats have made themselves look foolish by trying to convince people that the corruption only affected the GOP, though, and the revelations about their party leader will make that hypocrisy even more transparent." PunditGuy: "Democrats should immediately repudiate Reid and refrain from attempting to use this issue as a weapon against the Republican party." Dan McLaughlin at RedState: "If there's nothing wrong with what Harry Reid did -- a position Democrats will need to take if they don't want to throw their own leader under the bus -- then the bar for a Republican scandal over ties to Abramoff will have to be set pretty high."

At MyDD, Scott Shields' initial reaction was to post a criticism of Harry Reid, but "as I started to read the article, I smelled a smear." He writes, "The first clue was that Senator Reid has a long history of protecting gambling in Nevada from outside competition. He does, after all, represent Las Vegas. So the fact that he sought to keep Indian casinos from expanding off of their reservations, while I may not necessarily agree, makes sense." But the story "totally lost credibility for me when it got to mentioning the Marianas Islands" -- Abramoff wanted Reid to oppose a bill raising the wages in the Marianas Islands, but Reid never agreed. NV-based radio talker Taylor Marsh agrees, invoking a now-entrenched lefty slang word: "The swiftboating of Senator Reid has begun." From the DNC's blog: "You mean a Senator from Nevada, that represents Las Vegas, has an interest in protecting the expansion of off-reservation casinos? Stop the presses! ... Despite the best of attempts of a desperate Republican Party, Jack Abramoff is not a bipartisan scandal -- it is a wholly owned problem of the Republican Party."

At KnoxViews, liberal Randy Neal is disgusted and wants Reid out as leader, and isn't swayed by Shields' reaction: "It doesn't matter whether it's Rs or Ds doing it, political favors for cash that involve even the appearance of impropriety should not be tolerated in Congress or for any other elected officials." But in the comments, right-libertarian SayUncle disagrees: "Unless the transfer of funds was of questionable legality, I say no harm no foul."

Matt Margolis at No Agenda: "When you add this to the fact that a number of Abramoff's tribal clients only gave money to Reid after becoming clients of Abramoff, it just destroys Reid's credibility on this issue." Conservative Outside the Beltway acknowledges that Shields has a point, but adds, "Reid has, in effect, been snared in the guilt by association trap he helped set." California Conservative waxes conspiratorial, writing that when Reid spokesperson "Jim Manley says that 'Reid's official calendar doesn't list a meeting on June 5, with [Abramoff deputy Ronald] Platt,' does that mean that Reid was trying to keep the meeting secret? That's certainly a possibility but I'd need more than that to confidently state that Reid knew he was mixed up in something unethical and was trying to keep his activities secret."

KATRINA: Knowing Is Half The Battle

The hottest story of this morning is a report from the New York Times on the cong. investigation into Katrina finding that DHS and the WH were told about the seriousness of the flooding New Orleans in the p.m. of 8/29/05, not 8/30 as had been previously believed.

As with the Cheney/Libby story above, this one got more play on the left, and fury was a common reaction. AMERICAblog quotes from the story, but did't even comment on it specifically: "If you want to keep electing liars, if you're happy the way the country has been going the past five years that the Republicans have controled everything, then keep voting Republican. You get the government you deserve." Tristero at Hullabaloo: "I'm too angry to write. Unforgivable. Unforgivable."

Others measure out responsibility. Centrist Justin Gardner: "Sadly, the chain of information obviously broke down. I don't believe for a second that Bush willfully ignored this threat. I simply think he wasn't informed properly." WH spokesperson Trent Duffy is quoted as downplaying the report: "Like it or not, you cannot fix a levee overnight, or in an hour, or even six hours." Left I on the News comments: "Well, no doubt that's true. But you can start reacting to the event by throwing all possible resources into the rescue efforts." Taylor Marsh: "Local and state officials are not blameless, but the scope and destruction known from the beginning at the federal level should have warned everyone at the top that no one below them would be able to handle the carnage."

Not so fast, argues Right Wing Nut House. Going over the time line, RWNH's Rick Moran can see why DHS and the WH didn't jump on the late report: "What ended up 'surprising' the Administration -- and every one else -- was that by early Tuesday evening, the water pouring in from Lake Pontchartrain overwhelmed the pumps causing them to shut down. This is what caused the massive flooding. To say that this could have been foreseen in the dark, on Monday evening, by a PR 'Specialist' is absurd. Again, taking nothing away from [FEMA public affairs specialist Marty] Bahamonde, but if you were Michael Chertoff and received a report that, if acted upon would have meant transferring millions -- perhaps tens of millions of dollars of resources, wouldn't you want that information coming from someone who was in perhaps a little better position to know? Especially when local officials were telling you something totally different."

TERRORISM: What Can Bill Burkett Tell Us About This Story?

In a speech before the Nat'l Guard Assn. last a.m., Bush discussed the details of a thwarted attack on L.A.'s Library Tower (which he called the "Liberty Tower," and anyway is actually called the U.S. Bank Tower now). The Military Outpost has the full text.

Conservative JustOneMinute has a pretty good guess about why Bush mentioned it: "A highlight -- the Administration will not discuss sources and methods, the point of the President's anecdote was the importance of international cooperation, and no connection to the NSA program is meant to be implied." L.A.-based Joe Scott points out that the report isn't news: "While some details are new -- the planned use of a 'shoe bomb' by hijackers to access the cockpit door -- neither Bush nor the White House gave any real reason beyond Rovian spin for releasing details of a plot they first disclosed last October. In fact, most of what Bush said about the plot was already recycled news."

Liberal The Mahablog, on the sarcastic side: "Certain details given by the President -- the use of shoe bombs to blow open the cockpit door, for example -- have met with some skepticism. But, hey, if some guy could take apart the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch without anyone noticing, then why not shoe bombs?" Glenn Greenwald notes that WH reporters were skeptical about the claim, and quotes the transcript of them quizzing WH spokesperson Scott McClellan about it. Markos Moulitsas: "I think Bush confused Season 2 of '24' with reality." John Hinderaker at Power Line, as if comparing "the administration's extraordinary success in preventing terrorist attacks in the U.S. over the last four-plus years has been a mixed blessing, in that many Americans probably underestimate the danger posed by terrorist groups and fail to credit the administration for its remarkable record."

DEMOCRATS: Time To Go To The Bench?

Dem strategist Dan Gerstein comments at his blog, Dangerous Thoughts, on the much-noticed New York Times story (see 2/8 Blogometer) about the Dems' missed opportunity to exploit the GOP's problems. Gerstein lists a few reasons why: "A) we have put in place chronically unpersuasive and ineffectual leaders to try to bring the party together, articulate a common vision and set a common strategy for realizing it; B) many of us have come to realize the error of these leadership choices; and C) yet despite this recognition, we sit on our collective hands, say nothing about the fact that the emperor(s) has no clue, and idly listen to them make excuses about why we can't gain the upper hand on a Republican President with approval numbers hovering in the low-to-mid 40's and a Republican Congress that is badly scarred by scandal." He adds, GOPers "will do anything to win, while we will do anything to avoid confrontation. Which is to say that Senator Kerry, with all due respect, is once again dead wrong -- we are losing not because they have a much bigger megaphone, but mostly because they have a much bigger set of cojones. Worst of all, the public knows it."

MIDTERMS: Yes, You Can Violate Godwin's Law Even Without The Use Of Proper Nouns

Howie Klein of DownWithTyranny! reports on attending the 1st fundraiser for probable CT SEN Dem challenger Ned Lamont: "I was so sure I was going to be unimpressed with Lamont that I didn't even bother to bring my checkbook to this -- his very first -- fund-raiser. I was so completely impressed that the first thing I did when I got home was rush to the computer" and add him to Klein's ActBlue fundraising page. More: "He's as far from a corporate type of Big Business monster as you can be. He completely understands why it's essential for business that reforms like universal health care get hammered out. (He reminded me of Howard Dean when he talked about that.)"

On 2/8, MD LG Michael Steele (R) told a Jewish audience in the middle of a conversation on stem cells: "You of all folks know what happens when people decide they want to experiment on human beings, when they want to take your life and use it as a tool." Nat'l Jewish Dem Council adds at their blog: "And with that shameful comparison of the life-saving efforts by stem cell researchers to the "research" of Nazis like Mengele, Steele has once against demonstrated why he is beloved by social extremists."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Union Leader Primary

At Graniteprof, St. Anselm poli sci prof Dante Scala notes a recent Bush story which the Manchester Union Leader put a negative spin on the header, commenting: "Always striking when the Union Leader writes a less favorable head than the Globe in its news coverage of the President. But after all, this is the same paper whose publisher once described George Bush as an 'empty suit,' and whose editorial page editor just described the President's State of the Union stance on Iran as 'weak' and labeled his domestic policy initiatives "needless" and "goofy." Which raises the question: Over the next two years, will the Union Leader be on the lookout for a successor to the President who is more conservative fiscally and more aggressive on foreign policy?

LEST WE FORGET: DIY Friday Funnies

It's Friday, and we're not inclined to go looking too hard for something funny. Lucky for us (and maybe for you) we just stumbled across the Huffington Post/AOL Contagious Festival -- where people have created funny or annoying or otherwise "contagious" websites and videos and try to get the most traffic. The event is very similar to last year's independent Contagious Media contest (see 5/25 Blogometer), and the sponsor of that contest has some role in this one. To see the winners of last year's contest, click here.

Posted by at February 10, 2006 01:13 PM