Still Getting to No You

by Charles

About six weeks ago I wrote about the apparent Democratic policy of being the "No Party" instead of the "Better Ideas Party".  Well, the results are in.  The strategy is failing.  The Christian Science Monitor wrote the following about a poll conducted by James Carville and Stanley Greenberg:

Some 43 percent of voters said they had warm feelings about the Republican Party, while only 38 percent had positive feelings about Democrats. "Republicans weakened in this poll … but it shows Democrats weakening more," Greenberg said. He attributes the decline to voters’ perceptions that Democrats have "no core set of convictions or point of view.

Read more

Moral Values

by hilzoy Via Freiheit Und Wissen, here’s part of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero’s speech on the occasion of the Spanish vote in favor of legalizing gay marriage and adoption by same-sex couples. It was just too good not to post. “We are not legislating, honorable members, for people far away and not known … Read more

Rove And Plame

by hilzoy

Last night, word began to circulate around the blogs that Lawrence O’Donnell , an MSNBC political analyst, had identified Karl Rove as the person who leaked Valerie Plame’s name. Today, O’Donnell confirmed that he said this:

“I revealed in yesterday’s taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine’s emails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper’s source. I have known this for months but didn’t want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury. (…)

Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an ‘It’s Rove!’ story and will probably break it tomorrow.”

And now the Newsweek story is out:

“The e-mails surrendered by Time Inc., which are largely between Cooper and his editors, show that one of Cooper’s sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to two lawyers who asked not to be identified because they are representing witnesses sympathetic to the White House. Cooper and a Time spokeswoman declined to comment. But in an interview with NEWSWEEK, Rove’s lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove had been interviewed by Cooper for the article. It is unclear, however, what passed between Cooper and Rove.

The controversy began three days before the Time piece appeared, when columnist Robert Novak, writing about Wilson’s trip, reported that Wilson had been sent at the suggestion of his wife, who was identified by name as a CIA operative. The leak to Novak, apparently intended to discredit Wilson’s mission, caused a furor when it turned out that Plame was an undercover agent. It is a crime to knowingly reveal the identity of an undercover CIA official. A special prosecutor was appointed and began subpoenaing reporters to find the source of the leak.

Novak appears to have made some kind of arrangement with the special prosecutor, and other journalists who reported on the Plame story have talked to prosecutors with the permission of their sources. Cooper agreed to discuss his contact with Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s top aide, after Libby gave him permission to do so. But Cooper drew the line when special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald asked about other sources.

Initially, Fitzgerald’s focus was on Novak’s sourcing, since Novak was the first to out Plame. But according to Luskin, Rove’s lawyer, Rove spoke to Cooper three or four days before Novak’s column appeared. Luskin told NEWSWEEK that Rove “never knowingly disclosed classified information” and that “he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.” Luskin declined, however, to discuss any other details. He did say that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury “two or three times” and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him. “He has answered every question that has been put to him about his conversations with Cooper and anybody else,” Luskin said. But one of the two lawyers representing a witness sympathetic to the White House told NEWSWEEK that there was growing “concern” in the White House that the prosecutor is interested in Rove. Fitzgerald declined to comment.

In early October 2003, NEWSWEEK reported that immediately after Novak’s column appeared in July, Rove called MSNBC “Hardball” host Chris Matthews and told him that Wilson’s wife was “fair game.” But White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters at the time that any suggestion that Rove had played a role in outing Plame was “totally ridiculous.” On Oct. 10, McClellan was asked directly if Rove and two other White House aides had ever discussed Valerie Plame with any reporters. McClellan said he had spoken with all three, and “those individuals assured me they were not involved in this.” “

TalkLeft has a summary of earlier reporting on the Plame investigation.

Read more

TypePad Says…

“MAINTENANCE UPDATE: Some published weblogs may currently be experiencing issues with layout and design. We know about the problem and are working hard to resolve it. Over the weekend we will be automatically republishing weblogs on TypePad in order to address this problem.” Right. (IE is the only browser I have — and I have … Read more

It Couldn’t Happen To A Nicer Guy, Part 2

by hilzoy Roll call, via, ThinkProgress, via TPM: “Federal agents on Friday searched the offices of a defense contractor tied to Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.) as well as the boat Cunningham lived on for more than a year, the latest sign of a growing investigation into the relationship between Cunningham and Mitchell Wade, founder of … Read more

SCOTUS Open Thread

CNN: “Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman to serve on the high court and the key swing vote in some of the nation’s highest-profile cases, announced her resignation Friday.” Any thoughts?

Hagel: Even More Powerful Than We Thought

by hilzoy Earlier in the week, we learned that Senator Chuck Hagel, along with his trusty sidekick Ted Kennedy, was placing our success in Iraq at risk by expressing concern about how it was going. I was impressed: what an estimated 16,000 insurgents cannot accomplish with suicide bombs and IEDs, Senator Hagel can do simply … Read more

“Oh, It’s Just Them Killing Each Other.”

Via TAPPED, I found a very interesting article from Sunday’s Mercury News. It’s by Larry Diamond, a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution who served as an advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. Diamond gives us his take on how we ended up in the situation we’re in in Iraq, from the perspective of someone who was involved in the decision-making. He notes the positive developments of that time: the interim constitution, the handover of sovereignty, and so forth. But he also notes the missteps:

“The coalition government relied heavily on a revolving door of diplomats and other personnel who would leave just as they had begun to develop local knowledge and ties, and on a large cadre of eager young neophytes whose brashness often gave offense in a very age- and status-conscious society. One young political appointee (a 24-year-old Ivy League graduate) argued that Iraq should not enshrine judicial review in its constitution because it might lead to the legalization of abortion. A much more senior Iraqi interlocutor (a widely experienced Iraqi-American lawyer) became so exasperated with the young man’s audacity that he finally challenged him:

“You must have thoroughly studied the history of the British occupation of Iraq.”

“Yes, I did,” the young American replied proudly.

“I thought so,” said the Iraqi, “because you seem determined to repeat every one of their mistakes.” “

Let’s stop right there. There are, in the United States, a lot of people who have real experience trying to reconstruct states, advising them on constitutions, and the like. We seem to have reached out to a few of them — Diamond, for instance. But we could have reached out to a lot more; after all, it’s not as though reconstituting a country after decades of brutal dictatorship is the kind of simple task that anyone could do. But no: we actually employed and sent to Iraq a 24 year old whose idea of good advice was to say that Iraq should not have judicial review because it might lead to the legalization of abortion? And did we really allow such a person to negotiate in our name with senior Iraqis? What on earth could we possibly have been thinking?

I mean: judicial review is one of the single most important institutions a country can have if it wants to avoid tyranny. It does many, many things that matter a lot more to the future of Iraq than its possible future effects on abortion law. Things like, oh, allowing unconstitutional usurpations of power to be struck down as unlawful. Only someone who was both a complete idiot and a neocon fantasist bent on importing American political issues into the completely different world of Iraq would advise Iraqis not to have judicial review on the grounds that it might lead to the legalization of abortion. And if that struck him as a good idea, who knows what else he might have recommended? Why not advise them not to protect freedom of assembly on the grounds that it might interfere with some future President’s ability to bar people who disagree with him from his rallies, or to allow searches without a warrant on the grounds that that would make it so much easier for some future Iraqi administration to pass the PATRIOT act, or to allow future Presidents the power to declare war at will so that they would never have to ask Congress for permission to invade Iraq? — Um, something’s wrong with that last one…

But wait: there’s more…

Read more