Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

The Essence

by digby

Scotty is having a fit trying to make a distinction between the president leaking classified information and the NSA whistleblowers leaking classified information by saying that the first leak was in the public interest and the second harmed national security. He’s getting very hot under the collar trying to make that case. Clearly, they are very worried about this and they should be.

Here’s the problem. The president pretended that he was disturbed by the leaks in the Plame case and said he wanted the perpetrator to come forward. Now we find out that he was personally authorizing the leak for political purposes. Scotty can call it “in the public interest” but everyone knows it was in the political interest of the president.

The illegal NSA wiretapping program depends upon the nation placing their trust in this same president not to use this warrantless writetapping for political purposes. The fact that he authorized leaking of sensitive classified information for political purposes proves that we should not do this.

They are trying to muddy up the waters with all kinds of arguments about good leaks and bad leaks and what is and isn’t in the public interest. There are issues to be explored of whether or not the president was trying to set the record straight or lying further with the leaking of this NIE. And there are good arguments to be made about all of that. But it is this matter of trust that presents the biggest danger to them.

A reporter needs to ask the following question:

If the president was willing to authorize leaking of national security information to reporters for political purposes, why should we believe he won’t authorize warrantless wiretaps on Americans for political purposes?

Update: Here is the president talking about leaks in October of 2003:

I’ve always interpreted his remarks as a threat. Think how they would sound coming from the mouth of Tony Soprano:

Randy, you tell me, how many sources have you had that’s leaked information that you’ve exposed or have been exposed? Probably none. I mean this town is a — is a town full of people who like to leak information. And I don’t know if we’re going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there’s a lot of senior officials. I don’t have any idea. I’d like to. I want to know the truth. That’s why I’ve instructed this staff of mine to cooperate fully with the investigators — full disclosure, everything we know the investigators will find out. I have no idea whether we’ll find out who the leaker is — partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers. But we’ll find out.

Update II: Haha. The reporter from CNN reports that Scotty was trying to distinguish between a harmful leak and one that serves the public interest. Apparently a harmful leak is one that harms the Bush administration and a leak that serves the public interest is one that helps the Bush administration. Good to know.

Update III: Bush’s leak comments above pertains specifically to Plame so it cannot be used to illustrate his oft repeated admonitions against leaking in general.

Perhaps this one does it better. From the same period in 2003:

Q Mr. President, beyond the actual leak of classified information, there are reports that someone in the administration was trying to—after it was already out—actively spread the story, even calling Ambassador Wilson’s wife “fair game.” Are you asking your staff is anyone did that? And would it be wrong or even a fire-able offense if that happened?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the investigators will ask our staff about what people did or did not do. This is a town of—where a lot of people leak. And I’ve constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks, particularly leaks of classified information.
And I want to know, I want to know the truth. I want to see to it that the truth prevail. And I hope we can get this investigation done in a thorough way, as quickly as possible.

Here’s the president talking about leaks earlier in his presidency:

Q Mr. President, when you meet with the congressional leadership tomorrow, will you be specific about what they can and cannot relay back up to the Hill? Or, do you just expect them not to relay anything?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m going to talk to the leaders about this. I have talked to them about it. I mean, when the classified information first seeped into the public, I called him on the phone and said, this can’t stand. We can’t have leaks of classified information. It’s not in our nation’s interest.

But we’re now in extraordinary times. And I was in the — when those leaks occurred, by the way, it was right before we committed troops. And I knew full well what was about to happen. And yet, I see in the media that somebody, or somebodies, feel that they should be able to talk about classified information. And that’s just wrong. The leadership understands that.

And if there’s concerns, we’ll work it out. I mean, obviously I understand there needs to be some briefings. I want Don Rumsfeld to feel comfortable briefing members of the Armed Services Committee. But I want Congress to hear loud and clear, it is unacceptable behavior to leak classified information when we have troops at risk. I’m looking forward to reiterating that message. And we will work together. We’ve got a great relationship.

Listen, the four leaders with whom I have breakfast on a weekly basis fully understand the stakes. They fully understand the decision I made. And they will have gotten feedback from their members, and we will discuss it. But one thing is for certain, I have made clear what I expect from Capitol Hill when it comes to classified information.

.

The Future Of The United States

by tristero

Be sure to listen to the audio at this link. Be sure that when you do you have access to something to lower your blood pressure as it will, as Rachel says, make you physically sick to hear about the treatment of women in El Salvador.

I’ll be excerpting the article referred to when it comes out. All of this begs the question: Why didn’t this country hear about the abortion laws in El Salvador earlier, like before the 2004 American elections?

Hat tip, Atrios.

(PS I’m travelling right now, in Springfield, MO. My posting will be light to non-existent through Monday/Tuesday.)

He Lies

by digby

What does it mean? Ask Mr CW:

SCHNEIDER: I think is it very damaging for the president to be seen here to have come out after his political enemies by authorizing — no crime — by authorizing the leak of classified information from the National Intelligence Estimate.

Again, we don’t know what classified information that was, it’s only described in the special prosecutor’s report as certain information, key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate, relevant portions that were aimed at discrediting the published views of Ambassador Wilson, who criticized the administration’s intelligence-gathering efforts.

He was out to get his political enemy, to discredit Joe Wilson. And he did it by authorizing intelligence information to be leaked. I think most Americans would say that’s a very dangerous and very foolish thing to do.

WHITFIELD: So, the old issue of legality was a topic of conversation, or at least exchange, on Capitol Hill with U.S. Attorney General Gonzales and New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler.

Let’s listen in to what they had to say.

SCHNEIDER: OK.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JERROLD NADLER (D), NEW YORK: So he could do it for political reasons and that would be — and no one can second-guess that if he wanted to?

ALBERTO GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: This president could make the decision to declassify information based upon national security reasons. NADLER: He could do it for political reasons if he wanted to and no one could second guess that because he’s the commander in chief, right?

GONZALES: The president is going to make the determination as to what’s in the best interest of the country.

NADLER: Yes, he might, but he could — I’m asking you a theoretical question about the authority of the president, not necessarily this president. A president could declassify something for political reasons and no one has the authority to second-guess him because he’s the commander in chief, that’s what you’re saying?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: So, Bill, if the president’s approval ratings were in the toilet before, now you can almost expect that they’re going to drop even some more. And what does a president do? I mean, is he essentially a lame-duck president?

SCHNEIDER: Well, look, his approval ratings have dropped for any number of reasons. I think where this does him damage is, on the one issue, the one characteristic that has always been his strong suit, Americans have for the most part considered Bush to be honest and trustworthy. That is really the thing that got him elected, at least by the electoral college, in the year 2000.

In January 2001, when he first took office, 64 percent of Americans thought he was honest and trustworthy. President Clinton’s ratings was down in the 20s. That contrast was very important for President Bush. But now, questions — or serious questions are being raised, is he really honest and trustworthy? Does he level with the American people?

You just heard the congressman say he was leaking political — sensitive intelligence information apparently for political reasons, political reasons, not national security reasons. And that, I think, is going to be very difficult to explain.

Yes it is. This is not an honest administration and the idea of trusting that they are limiting their illegal national security activity only to “terrorists” is ludicrous, whether it’s the NSA spying, Guantanamo, war profiteering or anything else. They lied about the evidence for the Iraq war, for crying out loud (although as this excellent article examines, the press is still unwilling to properly connect the dots.)

President Bush may be the most dishonest president in history, as I believe — or he may be no more dishonest than most presidents, as others believe. But I think we can all agree that the country should not have to depend upon the president’s reputation for personal honesty as to whether they are allowed to break the law.

The NSA wiretapping scandal turns on exactly this issue. Everyone agrees that the government should be able to wiretap terrorists and terrorist sympathizers in the US. But we should not accept that the president or the people who report to him can make the determination as to who those people are without any oversight. There is a long history of other presidents using their power for political purposes and this one is no exception.

George W. Bush cannot be given a free pass on this. If the Democrats win the congress in the fall, we must insist that they ignore the pundits like that brownnosing GOP sycophant Chris Matthews and call these people to account for their actions. The GOP has been pushing this vision of the all-powerful executive for decades, from watergate to Iran Contra to this, and the Democrats have failed to put the stake into its heart. They have to put a stop to it once and for all.

.

Trust Him Part II

by digby

So we find out today that Bush personally authorized leaking sensitive intelligence information for political reasons.

Explain to me again why we should believe that his Justice Department investigation into the leak of his illegal NSA wiretapping program to the NY Times is not for political reasons?

.

Trust Him

by digby

So we find out today that Bush personally authorized leaking sensitive intelligence information for political reasons.

Explain to me again how we can trust that this President has not used his illegal NSA program to wiretap Americans for political reasons?

.

Signs Of Intelligent Life At The Times

by tristero

The most important thing about this article is not its content, although it does talk about one of the most exciting fossil discoveries in quite a while.The most important thing is that this is the front page lead in the New York Times print edition. This is a hopeful signal that the free pass that creationist Kent Hovind and his ilk got for so long at the Times is finally over. The Times coverage of science issues has improved dramatically since the Dover trial. Let’s hope it continues and they really have stopped pretending as they had for so long that “intelligent design” creationism is a subject worthy of serious discussion.

Meanwhile, it’s a fascinating discovery. Enjoy!

Iraq: Why Won’t They Obey?

by tristero

First, Sistani gets a personal letter from His Emperor-ness, George Bush himself. Then, God’s Avatar On Earth deigns to send a high official over to Iraq so close to His heart, she once unthinkingly called Him “my husband.” One would think they’d get the message: Do as your told!

But no. Sistani doesn’t bother even to get Young Churchill’s immortal words translated. As for the effectiveness of Rice’s visit, read on:

A top adviser to Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said Wednesday that the visit this week by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of Britain had backfired, prolonging a deadlock over a new government and strengthening Mr. Jaafari’s resolve to keep his post.

“Pressure from outside is not helping to speed up any solution,” said the adviser, Haider al-Abadi. “All it’s doing is hardening the position of people who are supporting Jaafari.”

He added, “They shouldn’t have come to Baghdad.”

His comments were echoed by several political leaders on Wednesday, including Kurds and Sunni Arabs.

Mr. Jaafari was nominated by the main Shiite political bloc in February to be prime minister in a new government. But the selection has faced fierce public resistance by a coalition of Sunni Arabs, Kurds, independents and some Shiite leaders.

The visit by Ms. Rice and Mr. Straw appeared to grate even on politicians who oppose Mr. Jaafari. “They complicated the thing, and now it’s more difficult to solve,” said Mahmoud Osman, an independent member of the Kurdistan Alliance, speaking Wednesday about Ms. Rice and Mr. Straw. “They shouldn’t have come, and they shouldn’t have interfered.”

Meanwhile, the killings and the anarchy.

In Baghdad, two car bombs detonated Wednesday afternoon within 20 minutes, killing 3 people and wounding at least 16, an Interior Ministry official said.

Gunmen wearing the uniforms of Interior Ministry commandos and driving ministry vehicles opened fire on guards outside the Baghdad headquarters of the Iraqna cellular phone company, wounding a guard and then abducting him.

[UPDATE: Meanwhile, according to Sidney Blumenthal, State Department reports on the deteriorating situation are being ignored. And that’s not the worst of it:

Under the pretense that Iraq is being pacified, the U.S. military is partially withdrawing from hostile towns in the countryside and parts of Baghdad. By reducing the numbers of soldiers the administration can claim its policy is working going into the midterm elections. But the jobs that the military will no longer perform are being sloughed off onto State Department “provincial reconstruction teams” led by Foreign Service officers. The stated rationale is that the teams will win Iraqi hearts and minds by organizing civil functions.

The Pentagon has informed the State Department that it will not provide security for these officials and that State should hire mercenaries for protection instead. Apparently, the U.S. military and the U.S. Foreign Service do not represent the same country in this exercise in nation-building. Internal State Department documents listing the PRT jobs, dated March 30, reveal that the vast majority of them remain unfilled. So Foreign Service employees are being forced to take the assignments, in which “they can’t do what they are being asked to do,” as a senior State Department official told me…

The State Department was correct in its assessment, contained in the 17-volume “Future of Iraq Project,” of the immense effort required for reconstruction after the war, but it was disregarded. Now the State Department reports from Iraq are correct, but their authors are being punished. Foreign Service officers are to be sent out like tethered goats to the killing fields. When these misbegotten projects inevitably fail, as those inside State expect, the department will be blamed. The passive resistance to these assignments by Foreign Service officers reflects informed anticipation of impending disaster, including the likely murders of diplomats.

Amid this internal crisis of credibility, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has washed her hands of her department. Her management skills are minimal. She has left coercing people to fill the PRTs to her counselor, Philip Zelikow, who, by doing the dirty work, is trying to keep her reputation clean…

“Did you ever imagine in your wildest dreams that after Vietnam we’d be doing this again?” one top State Department official remarked to another last week. Inside the department people wonder about the next “strategy” after the hearts-and-minds gambit of sending diplomats unprotected to help secure victory turns into a squalid, overlooked fiasco. “Helicopters on the roof?” asked one official.]

A Dime’s Worth

by digby

The latest Rasmussen Reports election poll in the Keystone State shows Democrat Bob Casey leading Santorum 50% to 41%. That’s the first time in all six polls we’ve conducted on this race that Casey’s lead has slipped to single digits. It’s also the first time Santorum has moved above the 40% mark since last July.

However, another aspect of the poll might be even more encouraging for Santorum… and troubling for Casey.

After asking survey respondents who they would vote for, we informed them that the National Organization for Women (NOW) is concerned about Casey on the abortion issue and is endorsing another candidate in the primary. We then asked a second time about how each respondent would vote.

Twenty-four percent (24%) of Casey’s initial voters changed their mind upon hearing this news. Half switched to Santorum while the others split between “some other candidate” and “not sure.”

The change was dramatic enough that, having heard the new information, voters favored Santorum by a five-point margin (46% to 41%). This suggests a lack of voter knowledge about Casey that could make the race more competitive than it seems at this time.

News about NOW’s concerns caused Casey’s support to fall 12 points among moderate voters and 13 points among liberal voters. It did not gain him any conservative votes.

From a partisan perspective, Casey lost 7 points of support among unaffiliated voters and 13 points among Democrats. Just as important, however, the highlighting of Casey’s pro-Life views actually increased Santorum’s support among Republicans.

Initially, the GOP voters favored Santorum by a 61% to 27% margin. On the second ask, they favored Santorum 69% to 21%.

Despite all of this, however, it is important to remember the basic fact that Senator Santorum remains in terrible shape for an incumbent. It may be possible for him to mount a comeback, but it will be uphill all the way.

Pennsylvania is a 58% to 42% pro-choice state yet both candidates running for the senate are anti-abortion. Unsurprisingly, then, when certain pro-choice Democrats find out that Bob Casey is anti-abortion, they become disillusioned and want to vote for someone else. When certain pro-choice Republicans find out that Bob Casey is anti-abortion, they figure they might as well vote for Santorum.

He might still beat Santorum. Choice is not the only issue at play in that race. And perhaps those Democrats and unaffiliated will hold their noses and vote for Casey in the end. But Democratic strategists had better wake up to the fact that since the Supreme Court just got another anti-abortion justice and the wingnuts have begun their legal campaign to overturn Roe, pro-choice voters are going to be much more active and as likely as the pro-life forces to decide for whom to vote on that basis. Chuck Shumer had better hope they don’t find themselves too busy to vote in November because they haven’t got anyone to vote for.

.

Back On The Blue Babies

by digby

TBOGG (via media matters) catches Howie Kurtz’s favorite mainstream conservative babbling incoherently and assumes, I think correctly, that he’s hitting the hillbilly heroin again. This is just weird:

CALLER 1: Why is it, do you think, that you haven’t heard hardly anything from Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton about the whole immigration thing? I mean, the silence is deafening from —

LIMBAUGH: Well, they’re busy.

CALLER 1: — the NAACP [National Association for the Advancement of Colored People] and the —

LIMBAUGH: They’re — they’re busy. They’re busy. The Reverend Jackson is in New Orleans. He’s leading a big march there tomorrow. The march is — what is it called? The — the march for the right to return a protected vote and reconstruction. He’s trying to — they got problems down in New Orleans. They don’t have voter base, and Sharpton’s working on a New Orleans deal, too. He’s trying to figure out how he can get involved in the deal down there at Duke where the lacrosse team —

CALLER 1: Yeah.

LIMBAUGH: — uh, supposedly, you know, raped, some, uh, hos.

CALLER 1: But I don’t think they’re very happy about all of this.

LIMBAUGH: Yeah, well, but, the problem — that — that has a possibility down — that Duke thing’s got a possibility of being a Tawana Brawley situation. That — and Sharpton’s got a balance — can he afford another one of those as — as his life’s going on? New Orleans is a big deal to him, and I — I’m gonna tell you something. You’ll — you’ll see these guys — at some point, they will get involved, be-because when Ted Kennedy calls it the new civil rights movement, that’s Jesse Jackson’s turf. He owns it. So —

CALLER 1: Right.

LIMBAUGH: Yeah, anyway, I gotta run here because of the constraints of time out there. [Caller], a great, great question. Uh, exotic dancer, OK, say rape — whatever happened. You know what it is down there at Duke. It’s — you watch what happens in that. That’s —

[…]

LIMBAUGH: It’s open-line Friday, and I am Rush Limbaugh, America’s anchorman and your host for life. This is — this is [caller] from Bryant, Texas. Hello, [caller], great to have you with us.

CALLER 2: Rush, did you just call those young ladies “hos” on the nationally syndicated program?

LIMBAUGH: Yes.

CALLER 2: Do you know something about them that perhaps we don’t know?

LIMBAUGH: Yes, yes I did.

CALLER 2: Oh, you —

LIMBAUGH: It was a, it was — hang on — now, what, what did you say there, [caller]?

CALLER 2: I said, because — and if they are hos, it doesn’t mean that they can still — you can do to ’em whatever you want.

LIMBAUGH: No.

CALLER 2: Well, why would you call them hos on the national —

LIMBAUGH: Well, because, because I’m running on fumes today, [caller], and I felt terrible about it. And I knew somebody was gonna call and give me a little grief so I’m takin’ the occasion of your call to apologize for it. That was, it was a terrible slip of the tongue. I’m sorry. But it wasn’t the worst one that has been said recently. You want — do you know who Keanu Reeves is?

CALLER 2: Yeah, I know who he is. He’s an actor.

LIMBAUGH: Well, he’s, he’s, he’s an actor.

CALLER 2: Yeah.

LIMBAUGH: He’s a whacko. He’s, he’s an — an actor and, he — what was he doing? He was — the Women Against Domestic Violence group was already in a dither because Keanu Reeves told an interviewer he learned something filming a rape scene with Hilary Swank for a movie called The Gift. And he said was, what he learned was that some of these ladies don’t mind it.

CALLER 2: OK. But —

LIMBAUGH: He said he learned that in a rape scene but — so, you know, I’m not the worst offender.

CALLER 2: Well, I hope you —

LIMBAUGH: I just, I’m looking at this case down there at Duke, [caller], and it’s — there’s some things about it, some inconsistencies. You’ve got some timeline differentiations and matriculations and, and so forth. I’m just — but it was, it was terrible slip of the tongue, and I am, I am terribly, I am terribly sorry.

CALLER 2: Well, I was hoping that your animosity for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton wasn’t your motivation for calling them hos.

LIMBAUGH: No — why — they, they have nothing to do with it.

CALLER 2: Oh, OK. Well, but, I — it definitely offended me to hear you say that on the national program. The world’s largest — as you say.

LIMBAUGH: Yeah, well —

CALLER 2: But maybe you should take half your brain from behind your back next time.

LIMBAUGH: You know, I’m thinking what I ought to do, [caller], is something that I used to do in the early days of this program and that is spank myself.

CALLER 2: Well, I don’t know if that’s gonna work. The apology would be good.

LIMBAUGH: I just — how — you want me to apologize again? I’m sorry.

CALLER 2: Oh, no, I’m saying — the apology was good.

LIMBAUGH: I regret that you heard me say it.

The good news is that this country at large is no longer tolerating this kind of thing. That’s why they are throwing the book at that racist Cynthia McKinney.

.

“It was good for me”

“Thanks, I owe you one. No, I owe you two, for today and last night.”

Words of a lover? A John?”

Well yes, in a manner of speaking. These are the words of Chris Matthews verbally fellating Tom Delay during a commercial break yesterday. (Click that link to see the video)

Perhaps that’s just the way all DC insiders behave toward disgraced, corrupt Republicans, I don’t know. However, it does surprise me just a tiny bit that this fellow whom everyone describes as a journalist (and a Democrat!) is offering to send derogatory focus group information about Dem ’08 hopefuls to Tom Delay. Call me crazy, but that looks suspiciously like he feeds information to the Republicans in exchange for access.

Tweety’s misogynist revulsion toward Hillary has been obvious for some time. We all know that he has a codpiece fixation. But watching the two of them gossip like a couple of little boys about her being a “know-it-all” is just precious. Poor little insecure fellas. No wonder Osama scares them so much.

Update: Check out this stultifying segment of Joe Scarborough’s show in which Hillary’s allegedly lousy housekeeping and decorating skills are discussed. I always assumed tha the White House had servants who scrubbed the floors, but I get the impression from this that Laura (the good first lady) is on her hands and knees with a a sponge and a bucket every morning. I thought Junior was joking when he said she was in Crawford sweeping the porch at Crawford getting ready for a visit from the Chinese president, but apparently not.

.