February 06, 2006

2/6: Semper Infidels

It's a busy start to the week, thanks primarily to the start of the Jud Cmte's hearings on Pres. Bush's NSA wiretaps. But there's more -- conservatives are floating a rumor that the intel community believes Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) leaked details about the program to the New York Times. Meanwhile, Plamegate has roared back to being a major topic of discussion after virtually disappearing from conversation last month (which goes to show how dependent bloggers are on the MSM for certain stories). And while we've been staying away from the controversy over the Danish cartoon depictions of the prophet Muhammad, it has only gotten bigger as the protests have turned from violent to deadly. It's still primarily an int'l story, but it has also entered the domestic MSM, and today we include a brief round-up. Plus, OH SEN Dem Paul Hackett gets booed, the left ponders the dilemma of Iran, and 2 candidates for the next "Washingtonienne."

EAVESDROPPING I: Al The Trouble In The World

At deadline, AG Alberto Gonzales was testifying before the Senate Jud. Cmte to defend the NSA's wiretaps. We'll have more tomorrow. Early reports indicated that Gonzales would say that the program is "not a dragnet" and in "almost every case" the news reports got some part of the story wrong. AMERICAblog was dubious: "Bush came out and, in response, admitted the details of the program publicly. Why would he do that if the media got the story wrong? All he'd have to do is say we're not doing any of that, period." Stirling Newberry interpreted this message as Gonzales saying, "I think you are all f---ing idiots." Once the hearings started this a.m., the cmte agreed on a party-line vote not to put Gonzales under oath. Think Progress already has the transcript.

As AP reported (and Daily Kos' Susan G noted) this weekend, cmte chair Arlen Specter (R-PA) said he believed Bush had violated the FISA law. Meanwhile, conservative JunkYardBlog questioned whether Specter could lead the hearings fairly: "Specter is the man who acquitted Bill Clinton on impeachment charges as prescribed in the U.S. Constitution by invoking irrelevant Scottish law. And as wrong as he was then, he's wrong on this program now." AMERICAblog's John Aravosis posts a "transcript" of Specter's questioning of Gonzales -- instead of quoting their remarks verbatim, he describes his impression of what they said.

With permission, last p.m. Glenn Greenwald posted an e-mail from Sen. Ted Kennedy's (D-MA) staff outlining their strategy in the hearings. The e-mail claims Dems will "emphasize that they take a back seat to no one when it comes to national security," and argue that "working outside of the system in fact harms our national security." Greenwald appeared on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" this a.m. to debate the wiretap case with UVA law prof Robert Turner; click here to find the video. Greenwald is also live-blogging the hearings.

Meanwhile, Washington Post reported on 2/5 that the NSA wiretap program has surveilled thousands, but only a handful "aroused enough suspicion during warrantless eavesdropping to justify interception of their domestic calls." For The Left Coaster and others, it is further evidence that the admin. is misusing its authority: "Tell me again cultists why it is too cumbersome for Bush to follow the FISA law to obtain warrants to spy on Americans, when out of the 5,000 people he has spied upon only ten or so a year trigger the full range of monitoring?" TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt summarizes: "Bush claims he doesn't spy on Americans. Cheney claims the program saved 'thousands of lives. 'The truth, as the Washington Post reports, is that the program has rarely uncovered information about terrorists or terrorists acts; the NSA has eavesdropped on many thousands of Americans without probable cause; and that probable cause or even reasonable suspicion will never exist because of the washout rate and number of false positives." Conservative AJ Strata disagrees with this analysis: "All these leads need to be tracked down to find the one terrorist capable of taking out maybe 1,000 innocent Americans. That one in 1000 we need to be watchful for." Power Line's John Hinderaker defends the NSA wiretaps by analogy: "[E]very time I board an airplane, my luggage is searched. This is done without a warrant, and the government lacks probable cause to believe that I am carrying a weapon. Nevertheless, searching my luggage is constitutional because it satisfies the standard of the Fourth Amendment: it is reasonable. Likewise, the NSA's data mining program, as described by the Post, is reasonable because 1) catching terrorists operating inside the U.S. is absolutely vital to our security, and 2) the program is likely to turn up significant leads to such terrorists."

The story also described the NSA program as a data mining operation, something Gary Farber had been arguing since 12/05, contrary to other left-of-center bloggers, who had taken at face value the Bush admin's word that it was not.

Something interesting we just didn't have more time to cover -- John Amato posts video of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) saying that the POTUS has the authority to order a killing on U.S. soil without due process, and posts skeptical commentary from other lefty bloggers.

EAVESDROPPING II: Smoking Out A Jay?

Hugh Hewitt, on 2/4: "The American Spectator's Jed Babbin was on John Batchelor's radio show yesterday, and stated that the intel community believes West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller is the leaker who illegally supplied the New York Times with the details of the NSA program. ... When the crime was bribery (Abscam) no one protested that a sitting U.S. Senator ought not to be a target. If the crime is much more serious -- and this is -- purported good intentions should not shield the suspect. Has any member of the press asked Rockefeller point blank if he's the law breaker yet?"

Conservative Atlas Shrugs reacts: "This is an act of treason," compared to the "fine and decent" Scooter Libby, who "awaits his penal fate for outing a Vanity Fair cover girl." But as it remains speculation, Jeff Goldstein is holding back: "Wingnut fantasies? Could be. But Rockefeller was in the loop. And for what it's worth, I'm unaware of any NSA member who's authored a strategy memo that essential calls for a plan to gin up an appearance of impropriety against the current administration, even though the pretense may be false or strained."

PLAMEGATE: Covert Band

In the 2/13 issue of Newsweek, Isikoff reports that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found Valerie Plame "had indeed done 'covert work overseas'" for the CIA, countering the Scooter Libby defense team's questioning of whether her status was in fact revealed in the Niger affair. Isikoff also reports that Fitzgerald "concluded he could not charge Libby" for outing a CIA agent because he "lacked proof Libby was aware of her covert status when he talked about her" with Judith Miller.

ReddHedd at Firedoglake counted it as a win for the liberal blogosphere: "Nice of Newsweek to catch up to the lefty blogoverse. It's about time." Intoxination: "It is amazing how many on the right tried to come out and say Plame was not covered under the statue because she was not 'covert' or active in the past five years. Now that argument is laid to rest." Nitpicker posts comments from conservatives who said Plame wasn't covert, and wants apologies. Brilliant at Breakfast: "Do Bush Administration officials routinely blow the cover of CIA agents when they don't know their status, or did Plame 'ask for it' because her husband dared to question the Bush lies that led us to war?" Conservative James Joyner: "[I]t is unclear how exactly this puts 'holes in the defense of ... (Scooter) Libby.' ... If true, however, it undermines the chief moral defense of the leakers, which is that Plame's status with the CIA was common knowledge." Tom Maguire is still skeptical about Plame's apparent covertness, giving weight to circumstantial evidence to the contrary -- that her husband Joe Wilson was "sloppy" in making himself a public figure, and that the CIA press office made only a half-hearted attempt to persuade Novak not to publish Plame's name.

Other Plame developments drawing attention in the 'sphere: Maguire also looks at a redaction from the now-public 8/04 Fitzgerald affidavit [PDF] and speculates as to the identity of Libby's source -- Bob Novak. Meanwhile, atty. Clarice Feldman at The American Thinker questions Fitzgerald's case against Libby, and calls for it to be dismissed. "There was not even an effort here at a fair investigation or even-handed treatment. The prosecutor was only issuing subpoenas to reporters he thought had received leaks from people trying to discredit [ex-Amb. Joe] Wilson's story. Whether or not leaks involved classified material or national security, leaks for other motives to reporters were of no concern to him."

JYLLANDS-POSTEN: Animaniacs

A few of the angles from the ongoing controversy over the Danish cartoon depiction of Muhammad and the violent response:

• Philadelphia Inquirer is the only major U.S. paper to publish the cartoons. Canadian Damian Penny jokes: "I presume the United States, so beloved by radical Islamists up until now, will be the next target of boycotts and angry demonstrations. Meanwhile, as far as I know, Canadian newspapers are sticking to the 'keep your head down and no one gets hurt' strategy."
• Now fake cartoons are circulating; Michelle Malkin posts a few of them. Dutch Islamists have also retaliated with a cartoon depicting Adolf Hitler in bed with Anne Frank; Malkin has that as well.
• Deaths related to the protests have been reported in Afghanistan and Turkey. The Danish embassies in Syria and Lebanon has been attacked, and demonstrations have taken place as far away from the controversy as New Zealand.
• Mickey Kaus, who has previously argued that Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani should have been Time's "Person of the Year," points out that Sistani condemned the cartoons as "misguided," but did not call for protests.
• Talking Points Memo notes that the SCOTUS Building has a frieze of Muhammad on the front and one inside, and in the mid-'90s, CJ William Rehnquist turned down a CAIR petition to remove them.
• The Infidel Bloggers Alliance is hosting a "Mohammed Cartoon Contest."
• At RedState, Erick Erickson offers a "minor dissent" -- although he finds the Muslim response far out of proportion, he also calls the Danish paper "childish" for having commissioned the cartoons in the first place: "Had it been Christ or the Virgin Mary instead of Muhammad, I guess we would also be supporting the Danish media against the protests of Christians."

IRAN: If This Becomes A Reprise Of Iraq, How Will Dems Play Differently?

On 2/4, Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum was one of several L.A.-area bloggers to meet with ret. Gen. Wesley Clark. At the talk, Clark suggested that a 2-week bombing campaign could actually destroy it does suggest that Democrats ought to figure out now what they think about Iran. After all, we've got the Ken Pollack book, we've got the referral to the Security Council, we've got the slam dunk intelligence, and we've got the lunatic leader screaming insults at the United States. Remember what happened the last time all the stars aligned like that?" More seriously, he asks: "What would be the Democratic response if (a) Bush asked for an authorization of force against Iran or (b) simply launched an assault without asking Congress? The chances of this coming up as an issue this year are strong enough that it would be foolish not to be prepared to deal with it."

Mark Kleiman attended as well, and wrote about it. Like Drum, he felt compelled to add a clarification: "Clark was describing an option, not endorsing it. His overall take was that the military results wouldn't justify the political backlash. What was news to me is that we could actually do it." Left-libertarian Arthur Silber, on the diminishing timeline for when Iran can be expected to have nukes: "There is only one word to describe this approach: it is not reasoned discourse -- it is hysteria, pure and simple." Duncan Black agrees: "The point is not that Iran with nukes is a good thing, or that it's not a current foreign policy issue of importance, it's just ludicrous to think it's 'the biggest threat to the Republic.' A few years back the frightened bedwetter crowd was freaking out about scary Iraq and now they're freaking out about scary Iran."

MIDTERMS: Evidence That He Cannot, As An Overused Pun Would Have It, Hackett?

A supporter of OH SEN candidate Paul Hackett (D) writes about an OH Dem candidate forum at Daily Kos: "Today about 20 or so audience members 'booed and catcalled' when Paul Hackett spoke of [primary opponent/Rep.] Sherrod Brown directly, saying Brown had been a 'politician' since he was 21, and asking what was Brown going to accomplish in the Senate that he had failed to in the Congress?" More: "I had to leave before he finished his Q&A and I walked out thinking, gee, what a huge gaffe by Paul Hackett. And then I remembered... Paul Hackett is a Marine. He says what he thinks. Paul Hackett is NOT a politician!" Audio is available at OH 2nd. Pro-Hackett Buckeye Senate commented: "This is going to be tough to write. But this was the worst I have seen Hackett. ... I don't think this forum was the best place to attack Brown, and the attack itself, while true didn't come across well IMHO." More: "My impression was that neither candidate is ready for a general election yet and perhaps this primary is a good thing after all. Perhaps."

The blogger behind TwoGlasses attended an event with businessman Ned Lamont (D-CT), who is mulling a primary challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman. Although he found Lamont "credible enough," he also noted "As he walked in, Lamont noticed the stacks of bumper stickers ... with slogans reading 'Dump Joe!,' 'Joe Must Go!' and 'Anti-War: Anti-Joe.' He remarked that we needed to get some positive stuff out there, not just make this an 'Anybody But Lieberman' campaign. I chuckled inwardly, thinking to myself, 'Dude, the only reason you're here is because of the giant wave of anti-Lieberman sentiment ... Don't question it, just grab a surfboard and hop on for the ride.'"

Liberal Jonathan Singer counters the CW that the postponement of Libby's trial to 1/07 is an electoral boost to the GOP: "Notice that the occasional drip of news stories related to the case are neither making Libby look particularly good nor improving the administration or the GOP in the eyes of voters." And if Libby is "in any way exonerated" in court, that could have given the GOP a boost, but it can't now.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Nothing But Criticism

Daily Howler's Bob Somerby defends MSNBC's Chris Matthews from fellow lefty bloggers' charges that he is soft on Rep. Tom DeLay: "Matthews is erratic, unbalanced, irresponsible, often false. But increasingly, so is the liberal web, which now (after years of ignoring the talker) is devoting itself to luridly stating -- and misstating; and overstating -- the gentleman's manifest sins." Firedoglake is holding a contest to select a nickname for NBC's Norah O'Donnell, on account of lefty bloggers' low confidence that she will cover Plamegate accurately. The winner gets a copy of the forthcoming book by Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong.

MISCELLANY: The Would-Be Washingtoniennes

• Montgomery Advertiser reports, Stormie Janzen, an aide to Sen. Sessions, shut down her MySpace blog after the office received a complaint about "a provocative photo of her bare midriff in unzipped jeans" on the site. Volokh Conspiracy's Eugene Volokh makes a very, very brief appearance: "Blogs have been popular for about five years and are often used for political commentary, said Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor and free speech expert."
• On 2/3, Evansville Courier & Press reported the existence on the web of pictures of IN 08 Dem candidate/Vanderburgh Co. Sheriff Brad Ellsworth's 19-year-old daughter drinking alcohol. The story helpfully notes that it is "against the law for those under the age of 21 to drink alcoholic beverages in Indiana." The pictures were on her Facebook page, and have since been removed. The story identifies Joshua Claybourn, a supporter of Ellsworth opponent Rep. Jeff Hostettler (R), as having discovered the photos. The photos 1st showed up in the comments to a post of his on 1/31. On 2/3 he followed up, writing: "[C]ontrary to what the article implies I did not search for the photos or seek them out. The links to the photos were left as an anonymous comment following that column. ... In the final analysis I think far too much has been made of the issue. I suspect -- and hope -- that this news becomes a footnote."
• Late last week liberal CO blogs such as New West started calling attention to CO GOV candidate/Rep. Bob Beauprez (R) wearing what Colorado Pols called "some sort of military garb." The story is spreading -- more recently, WA-based satire blog Jesus' General posted the photo and a letter to Beauprez: "It takes a lot of guts to parade around in military garb after requesting and receiving three separate draft deferments and then, finally, a medical release."
• N.Z. Bear has updated his Porkbusters site, introducing an actual blog and new resources. The re-design includes a new section, the "Pork Hall of Shame," identifying the "worst pork offenders" in Congress -- starting with those whose "web sites which boast of pork that the Representative or Senator has 'brought home.'" I'll pick on Senator Richard Shelby [(R-AL)] as an example, because, well, he deserves it"Other early nominees include Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI).
• Right Wing News has an interview with ret. fed'l judge Charles Pickering, whose nod was filibustered by Dems in '02, and was eventually appointed to a temporary seat on the 5th Circuit.
• New blog at TPMCafe: Bolton Watch, a joint venture with The Washington Note.

Having participated in a number of blogger conf. calls with Dem pols, The Washington Note's Steve Clemons is worried about the "those on the call -- both the Member of Congress and the bloggers -- are engaged in an informal collusion of interests." He's heard a rumor that one cong. office has told liberal bloggers they must write about their calls, and write favorably, or not be invited back. Clemons is concerned about "the sycophancy that seems to be developing in these meetings -- and the unwritten norm that those bloggers on the call are the running dogs for that particular Senator. There is clearly a 'community' of interests where the line between the journalistic and reporting objectives of the blogger and the interests of the Senator or Representative are becoming practically invisible." He prescribes: "If bloggers are positioning themselves to be the mouthpieces of a Member, then neither the interests of the Member nor the bloggiing community will be served. Any pretense of balance or even of credible, logical thinking will be undermined if Members of Congress view blogs as predictable appendages of their work and interests. There needs to be polite distance, and all sides on these interesting calls need to respect the responsibilities they have in these debates about politics and policy."

LEST WE FORGET: Anybody Else Up For A Bit Of Metablasphemy?

In today's culturally insensitive edition... Fafblog posts a stick figure (crudely drawn even by stick figure standards) of "'Not Mohammed' But It Totally Could Be And You'd Never Know It!" and a meditation on "metablasphemy." Meanwhile, Jim Treacher observes that it is apparently all right to describe these offensive things, but not draw them. Which is good, he writes, because he's been "finding" offensive words all over the place, such as a list of jokes including: "A duck, a goose, and a Muslim walk into a bar. The Muslim has to walk back out because his religion forbids him to drink alcohol!" He concludes: "Just disgusting. Seriously, if I find out who in my neighborhood is leaving this stuff lying around, they're getting a stern talking-to and a sharp blade through the neck."

And apropos of nothing... why are we always the last to know about these things? Lucky for them (and, well, everyone else) Bob Fertik was wrong.

Posted by at February 6, 2006 01:04 PM