And Then There Were Some

The NY Times rounds up a few “I was not Woodward’s source” denials and sets the fox amongst the chickens:

A senior administration official said that neither President Bush himself, nor his chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., nor his counselor, Dan Bartlett, was Mr. Woodward's source. So did spokesmen for former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell; the former director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet; and his deputy, John E. McLaughlin.

A lawyer for Karl Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff who has acknowledged conversations with reporters about the case and remains under investigation, said Mr. Rove was not Mr. Woodward's source.

Mr. Cheney did not join the parade of denials. A spokeswoman said he would have no comment on a continuing investigation. Several other officials could not be reached for comment.

"Mr. Cheney did not join the parade of denials"!  C'mon, where are the spokespeople for Dick Cheney, Stephen Hadley, and Condi Rice, just for starters?

And keep in mind - Woodward’s leak was that Ms. Plame was a CIA analyst, which tracks with the INR memo that circulated at the State Department prior to being discussed at a White House meeting.  Colin Powell is by no means the only senior Administration official at State - let’s get denials from Marc Grossman, Richard Armitrage, and a few others (some of whom were apparently out of town in mid-June).

Hmm, I should have kept reading...

In fact, only a small group of officials - at the White House, the State Department, and the Central Intelligence Agency - are believed to have known by early June 2003 about Ms. Wilson's ties to the C.I.A. They included Secretary Powell, Mr. Tenet, Mr. McLaughlin, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Libby; Marc Grossman, then the under secretary of state for political affairs; Carl Ford, then the head of the State Department's intelligence bureau; and Richard L. Armitage, then deputy secretary of state.

...Mr. Fitzgerald's indictment of Mr. Libby provides some clues about the small number of people who were directly involved in exchanging information about the Wilsons. It says that Mr. Libby first sought information about Ambassador Wilson's trip from Mr. Grossman, on May 29, 2003. It says that Mr. Grossman directed Mr. Ford's intelligence bureau to prepare a report about Mr. Wilson and his trip to Niger, and briefed Mr. Libby about that report as it was being completed, telling him on June 11 or 12, 2003, that Mr. Wilson's wife worked at the C.I.A. and that State Department personnel were involved in the planning of the trip. Mr. Grossman declined to comment on Wednesday, and Mr. Ford did not reply to a telephone call and an e-mail message.

...Other administration officials known to have been interviewed by investigators include Condoleezza Rice, who was then national security adviser and is now secretary of state; Stephen Hadley, then deputy national security adviser and now the national security adviser; Mr. Card; and Mr. Bartlett.

The Times is oddly quiet on whether Ms. Rice or Mr. Hadley responded to a request for a denial.

From a different direction, we can also play “Follow the bouncing source”:

(a)  In Woodward’s own statement, he spoke with “three current or former Bush administration officials”;

(b)  In the WaPo story yesterday, we were told that Woodward’s source was a “senior administration official”.  And they must have gotten that from Woodward, right?  Not exactly:

Woodward declined to elaborate on the statement he released to The Post late yesterday afternoon and publicly last night. He would not answer any questions, including those not governed by his confidentiality agreement with sources.

Emphasis added for comic effect. 

So who promoted Woodward's source - Woodward's attorney, or someone in Fitzgerald's office?  Please.  Irrational exuberance is my preferred theory.

(c) The NY Times reverted to Woodward’s text in their coverage, telling us that Woodward spoke with “a current or former Bush administration official”;

(d) Today’s WaPo compounded the fun - check this:

Woodward testified Monday that contrary to Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's public statements, a senior government official -- not Libby -- was the first Bush administration official to tell a reporter about Plame...

So, the source is “a senior government official”, a “current or former Bush administration official”, or “a senior administration official”?  Lacking elaboration from Woodward, I am mystified.

However, I am taking a bold stand here - I am highly confident that Woodward’s source was neither his mailman nor the security guard at the front desk of the EOB.

Let’s note one other (possibly minor and distracting) point - Woodward said that he spoke with three “current or former” officials.  Two of them have been identified as Andy Card and Lewis Libby. 

So, is the third official the reason the word “former” is used, or was it used simply in a cornucopia of source concealment? [D'oh - Libby is a former official now.]

We await more clues tomorrow.

MORE:  The Anon Lib tells us that Raw Story is tapping Stephen Hadley, and who knows?  We have also said before that "Raw" may be an underestimate of their cooking time - "Half-baked" might be closer.

UNRELENTING:  The Times says this:

Mr. Pincus, who has written that he first heard about Ms. Wilson from a senior administration official in July, said he did not recall that.

Emphasis added, and I don't think so - I question their use of the word "first", and eagerly await evidence that Mr. Pincus denied hearing about a "Wilson and wife" connection earlier.

Here is what Mr. Pincus wrote in the Nieman Watchdog; here is a summary of the Times reporting and sources for their earlier look at Mr. Pincus; and here is his original account from October 2003:

On July 12, two days before Novak's column, a Post reporter was told by an administration official that the White House had not paid attention to the former ambassador's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction. Plame's name was never mentioned and the purpose of the disclosure did not appear to be to generate an article, but rather to undermine Wilson's report.

Comments

[Kate]

OK..I'm going to make a guess on who the leaker was:

-I believe that the leaker to Novak and Woodward were the same person;

-I believe it is definitely not Cheney; he's not a non-partisan; he's wouldn't be chatting up Novak, a war critic and a person who dislikes the VP's office

-I believe Woodward inteviewed for his book in some order ..it makes sense to interview the chief of staff or deputy before interviewing the #1 guy, so therefore it makes sense to interview Card and Libby -the chiefs of staff to lay the groundwork for the interviews w/Bush and Cheney

-the number 2 theory would work and the number 2 at NSC would make sense (Hadley)

-However, since Card was interviewed before Libby I believe they were working down..Handley would have been after Libby (if at all, maybe as he worked down the CoC he went directly to the principals).

-Therefore I believe his early June interview was with a department ...State

-I believe that it was someone reporters would want to protect...not Libby, Rove, Cheney, Hadley.

I believe it Richard Armitage.

The choice was hard because based on the pattern it could have been Powell, but I think it's Armitage.

A boondongle is terminology a State Department official would use more than a General.

[owl]

"It certainly gives the appearance of a conflict of interest. He was taking a advocacy position when he was a party to it," Wilson said.

If that is not the pot calling the kettle, I don't know what is.....

[Marianne]

TM .. Agreed. 90% of Congressmen probably don't read any bills. And 3 days is longer than they get to consider many bills.

[Truzenzuzex]

Drudge is blaring "Wilson says probe Woodward"

Does that Wilson fella have a pair, or what?

Here is a guy who has been caught in repeated lies to the point that he is starting to take on the aspect of a 15 year old blue-tick. Yet now he is calling for the WaPo to investigate the guy that brought down Nixon. Not only that, there are credible people saying that Wilson himself outed his wife before anybody.

How does Wilson hide that wheelbarrow?

[Syl]

Kate

Your reasoning sounds good.

It doesn't depend on the same source for Novak and Woodward though. Good, because Novak had that CPD stuff in there and the name. Woodward wasn't given that. So might not be the same.

[Truzenzuzex]

Jeff:

Well it's obvious none of you bothered to read Murtha's remarks. Accuse him - the guy who goes to Iraq, goes to Walter Reed, 37 year combat and military intelligence veteran - of playing politics. It's pretty clear whose playing and who isn't.

Tell you what - You take Murtha, and I'll take McCain (on this issue, anyway), and you can tell me how it works out for ya.

[topsecretk9]

Truz

Ain't he something to be behold. I believe the countdown clock has started ticking...it should be any day now that Dems start privately then publicly, telling the guy to SHADDUP. And your tick analogy was very good, btw.

[TP]

Wilson never ceases to amaze. I wonder why he didn't call for Fitz to investigate Woodward's source.

[JM Hanes]

Sorry Marianne, but that's always how info gets shared, and there are a lot good reasons why it's done that way. Congress gets the summaries, and their designated hitters get running access to the data.

It's pretty amazing that anybody concerned over the outing of Valerie Plame could possibly insist that the entire Congress should have access to everything that comes across the President's desk. Might as well just kiss covert ops good-bye and get your intel from the papers. It may be hard to swallow, but even the Senate Intel Committee can't tell us everthing they did or didn't know.

[Kate]

Sly, I think you're right. I think they may be different guys because Fitzgerald knows Novak's source. So I think it's someone who did not testify before the GJ.

I think it's Carl Ford...he was also the guy who was very anti-Bolton.

The only thing is Ford would he qualify as a senior administration figure?

Since he was one of the top guys at State I think so.

So Armitage was Novak's source and

Ford was Woodward's source.

[JM Hanes]

"How does Wilson hide that wheelbarrow?"

Like a purloined letter.

[TP]

I wonder if Fox, The Washington Times and NY Post will now run with this new Wilson demand. He's gonna have to switch sides if he wants to continue to be quoted.

[Kate]

Sly, I think you're right. I think they may be different guys because Fitzgerald knows Novak's source. So I think it's someone who did not testify before the GJ.

I think it's Carl Ford...he was also the guy who was very anti-Bolton.

The only thing would Ford qualify as a senior administration figure?

Since he was one of the top guys at State I think so.

So Armitage was Novak's source and

Ford was Woodward's source.

Didn't stick with my original prediction too long, did I?

[topsecretk9]

Kate and Syl

I think Rand Beers. He was State and left in protest and I think Wilson and Kerry people were pumping reporters using Valerie as an asset to give Wilson cred (not the she set up the trip part, but that she worked in WINPAC and back Jo Jo up)

Novak's initial interest was to find out why a former CLinton admin Kerry supporter was picked for this trip, and I think Rand fits the no partisan gunslinger plus FORMER official status. I think hew works for Woddward and Novak.

[Kate]

Sly, I think you're right. I think they may be different guys because Fitzgerald knows Novak's source. So I think it's someone who did not testify before the GJ.

I think it's Carl Ford...he was also the guy who was very anti-Bolton.

The only thing would Ford qualify as a senior administration figure?

Since he was one of the top guys at State I think so.

So Armitage was Novak's source and

Ford was Woodward's source.

Didn't stick with my original prediction too long, did I?

[millco88]

Kate,

I was making the same speculation yesterday. Remember the book Woodward wrote about the buildup to Afghanistan that made Powell look good and Rumsfeld bad. It turns out Powell and Armitage were far more cooperative than Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz (sp?) so there's some history there.

BTW, if it was a military source, what term do you think would have replaced boondoggle?

[Rick Ballard]

Kate,

That's the great fun of Fitzball - none of the stringent rules of Calvinball. It's always up to the moment analysis from a personal perspective.

[Sue]

Boondoggle sounds like a Rumsfeld phrase to me.

[Syl]

Kate

LOL

You may not have stuck with the first one, but you sure did with the second.

Sounds good, though.

[Sue]

Mac would find this interesting. Ray McGovern uses the term boondoggle.

http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=3673>Ray McGovern

[Syl]

Top

Yours sounds good too.

My guess? I don't have one.

But I liked Kate's reasoning about who Woodward was probably interviewing.

[Kate]

Sly, yes I nailed that second prediction...twice!!

Boondoggle is a term used by State/CIA types regularly.

I don't know if the military uses that term much either.

State uses it all the time. People tease each other all the time by accusing them of going on a boondoggle.

jOn another topice...how senior does one have to be to be a senior administration official...

Plus as TM pointed out Woodward did not use senior but the WAPO did. Confusing...

[clarice]

Everyone uses boondoggle here in DC--Geez--Not a good enough clue.

[Lesley]

Had we heard that Wilson's trip was "unhelpful" rather than a boondoggle, I'd say Rumsfeld was the source. Hee.

[Syl]

Lesley

LOL!

[topsecretk9]

Byron York is highlighting Rand Beers best buddy Richard Clarke's one time view Osama might "Boogie to Baghdad"---I'm going with Sue's boondoggle from State

"It was in that context that Clarke believed that if the United States made bin Laden’s situation too hot in Afghanistan, then, in Clarke’s non-famous words, “old wily Osama will likely boogie to Baghdad.”

[clarice]

The more I hear of these national security and diplomatic "experts", the more I think these jobs would be better filled by rotating in random cab drivers for 6 months at a time--

[Lion]

Rob W is simply in error. Tenet and the Senate Select Committee have both publicly demonstrated that Wilson's "findings" (about which he lied in his op-ed piece) were never forwarded to the White House. Wilson sat silent while others, very publicly, asserted that he had been sent by the Vice President. To say that he never "said" that the VP sent him is far from forthcoming, and is an illustration of the essential dishonesty of Wilson's enterprise and its dwindling number of defenders.

[topsecretk9]

Clarice
by rotating in random cab drivers for 6 months at a time--
that's actually a good idea!

LION

I'll second and third that

[Sue]

Clarice,

I have never heard it before. But then I don't live in DC. :)

[Lesley]

"The more I hear of these national security and diplomatic "experts", the more I think these jobs would be better filled by rotating in random cab drivers for 6 months at a time--"

Clarice, fabulous idea! Given that many of these "random cab drivers" speak foreign languages, I'd consider them an improvement. Heck, they can interrogate terrorists in their native languages! Another BIG PLUS,considering that their English skills are somewhat lacking, we wouldn't have to listen to these clowns blather endlessly on talk shows later on.

[clarice]

Let me tell you--I am surrounded by the apparatchniki in upper NW Washington--and the only sensible political discussions I hear most days is from cab drivers. They come from everywhere ,are the base line entrepreneurs, wouldn't send their kids to public schools here(parochial or charter or, if they're lucky private schools) and can tell shit from shinola at a 100 mile distance.

But, I find that almost everywhere I go. I remember a driver I engaged to take me around Rajasthan. He and his wife stinted and saved to send their kids to private school. He taught himself English. He was prudent and sensible and funny. Part of that growing demographic in India--a real middle class.

Or the London cabbie (Arab ) with whom I discussed the awful Parisian suburbs and how dangerous they were. He said quite sincerely he'd never go there either.Wasn't into that phony multiculturalism stuff at all.

[Chants]

A conservative in upper NW?

Clarice, you are an oak.

[JM Hanes]

For the parsing enthusiasts among us, a couple of telling comments from Fitz this evening on the tube in the course of remarks about another case (transcription & emphasis by yrs trly):

I'm going to treat my case as special prosecutor like I treat any other case. I don't discuss it once its.... while its under investigation.

Unless there's some new development, we try our case in court under the rules before the judge at pre-trial proceedings and before a jury and judge at trial, so I'm just not going to comment.

Nifty little course correction in the first instance. As for the second, I could swear he didn't have "pre-trial proceedings" on his mind at his last press conference.

[JM Hanes]

And if it wasn't clear, the Fitz quotes were in response to questions about Plamegate, not in ref to the other case.

[topsecretk9]

Unless there's some new development, we try our case in court under the rules before the judge at pre-trial proceedings and before a jury and judge at trial, so I'm just not going to comment.

I liked the catch .

[clarice]

Yes. It's a good one.
Jim E said there was a report that the WSJ today was going to say Fitz had empaneled a new gj? Anyone hear that or is it emanationfs from the fever swamp?

[TM]

how does the mighty Woodward first learning that Plame was CIA in June...

(1) Until he learned that Wilson was the secret envoy (which presumably happened when he was told about the wife), his cocktail party knowledge of Joe and Val was not relevant to him or anyone else.

(2) Does he say he had no idea prior to this meeting that Val was CIA? The new news might have been her job function ("analyst" - wrong!) and her association with hubby's trip.

Or, it may all have been new to him. Can't tell from this.

[clarice]

Barone thinks Woodward's source was Powell.

[clarice]

For FWIW I remind you that on June 14, 2003 in downtown DC Wilson (EPIC speech) confirmed that he was Kristof and Pincus' source, that his wife was Valerie Plame and he hinted that he knew he'd be attacked for being a whistleblower.

[TM]

From Jay Dee:

Murtha is a 37 year Marine vet retired, just about the most hawkish Dem in the House, who enthusiastically voted for the war and has until recently supported Bush in very strong terms. Always amazing how little you "patriots" know about your own government.

"Until recently has supported Bush in very strong terms".

Good job recycling the talking points, but what is this pushback at the InstaPundit:

May 6, 2004

Signaling a new, more aggressive line against the Bush administration’s policy on Iraq, Rep. John Murtha (Pa.), the House Democrats’ most visible defense hawk, will join Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) today to make public his previously private statements that the conflict is “unwinnable.”

My, goodness, that was eighteen months ago. Does that mean that "until recently" means, say, until nineteen months ago?

[TM]

Here is the Times archive version of the Murtha story, with a laugh-out loud correction that took two weeks:

Political Memo; Partisan Ire At Rumsfeld Over Abuse By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG (NYT) 790 words Published: May 7, 2004

Correction Appended

For months, Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill tap-danced around the war in Iraq. With the election looming, and both sides uncertain about the way the war would go, a kind of uneasy truce reigned. Democrats shied away from criticizing the war too forcefully, while Republicans shied away from making it a centerpiece of their campaigns.

On Thursday, the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal shattered that delicate peace.

It was a day of partisan finger-pointing and recrimination amid growing outrage over photographs of Iraqi prisoners, forced by American soldiers to stand naked in sexually humiliating poses. One by one, leading Democrats in the House, beginning with the party leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, called for Secretary of State Donald H. Rumsfeld to resign or be fired.

Representative Charles B. Rangel, the New York Democrat who called months ago for Mr. Rumsfeld's ouster, called for Mr. Rumsfeld to be impeached. And the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee posted a petition on its Web site, with Mr. Rumsfeld's picture underscored by red letters that declared: Resign Now.

Republicans seethed. Representative Tom DeLay, the Texas Republican and majority leader, convened a press conference to accuse the Democrats of undermining the war effort. Another Texas Republican, Representative Michael C. Burgess, suggested the Democrats ''embellished our enemy, and basically are giving aid and comfort to the enemy.''

The tone was set when Representative John P. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat and one of the party's most respected voices on military affairs, stood by Ms. Pelosi's side and delivered a scathing critique of the Bush administration. The morning edition of the Capitol Hill newspaper, Roll Call, predicted Mr. Murtha would state that the war could not be won. ''Murtha: Iraq 'Unwinnable,' '' the headline blared.

Mr. Murtha did not use that word at the news conference. ''We cannot prevail in this war at the policy that's going today,'' he said. Still, ''unwinnable'' became the Republican catch phrase of the day.

''Calling for Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation is as bad as saying the war is unwinnable,'' Mr. DeLay said.

On the House floor, the parties fought over the language of a resolution condemning the abuses. Democrats demanded that it call for a bipartisan investigation, including an examination of accusations of abuse by civilian contractors.

When Republicans refused, Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, the senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, angrily took his name off the resolution. The tally on final passage was 365 to 50, with 19 members not voting.

In the Senate, ordinarily more sedate than the House, aides to the Republican and Democratic leaders, Senators Bill Frist of Tennessee and Tom Daschle of South Dakota, spent all day trying to negotiate language for a Senate version of the House resolution. Unable to reach agreement, they put it off until Monday.

Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, became the first senator to call for Mr. Rumsfeld's immediate resignation.

''If he does not resign forthwith,'' Mr. Harkin said, ''the president should fire him.''

Senator George Allen, the Virginia Republican who is head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said Democrats were ''going overboard.''

But other Republicans, including Senators John McCain of Arizona and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, were not so quick to jump to Mr. Rumsfeld's defense. Lawmakers of both parties are irked at Mr. Rumsfeld for not informing them of the military's investigation into the abuses, especially because he was in the Capitol briefing them on Iraq just hours before the story broke.

''It's really hard to believe,'' Mr. McCain said.

Still, Mr. McCain said he thought it was ''totally premature'' to discuss the secretary's position, and Mr. Hagel said he wanted ''to get all the facts as to what went wrong.''

Lawmakers will have an opportunity to do so on Friday, when the defense secretary comes to Capitol Hill to testify.

On Thursday morning, some Republican senators went to the Pentagon for a previously scheduled breakfast with Mr. Rumsfeld and warned the defense secretary -- himself a former member of Congress -- to expect the worst.

''We told him it was going to be a very tough hearing,'' said Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada.

Mr. Ensign added: ''My advice was, 'Whatever there is, if there is anything else known, make sure everything is laid out on the table.''

Correction: May 22, 2004, Saturday A Political Memo article on May 7 about partisan recriminations in Congress over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners referred incorrectly to a comment by Representative John P. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, who criticized the Bush administration's Iraq policy. He indeed applied the word ''unwinnable'' -- as the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call reported -- to the Bush administration's strategy: ''The whole point is, this thing's got to -- the direction's got to be changed or it's unwinnable, in my estimation.''

[JM Hanes]

Maybe Murtha can finally force the Dems to fish or cut bait on troop withdrawals. Excellent triangulation potential here.

[JayDee]

Actually, that wasn't talking points, TM. Just conjecture on my part - wrong it turns out - that a big old conservative hawk like Murtha must have been a Bush fan. But I'm learning a lot more about the guy and turns out he's got way too much integrity and loyalty to the armed forces for that. Good for him. He's a hell of an American and did his country a big service yesterday.

Interesting to see how this decrepit WH responded: From Scottie "Somebody Save Me!" McClellan So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party.  These guys really must have intellectual rigor mortis at this point. Jack Murtha = Michael Moore????? Like so many on the right, they just can't get their minds around the REALITY that the overwhelming majority of America (65% in last Pew poll) disapprove of Bush's handling of the war. You know the Rovian "magic" is gone when all they can do in response to a hero like Murtha is accuse him of moonbattery. They have to come up with something better than calling 2/3rds of America traitors and cowards. Like maybe, DEAL WITH REALITY for a change and stop asking us to sacrifice our blood and treasure for slogans and jingo. Like, have some respect for the people whose backs you are breaking this war on. It would be a nice start.

[Cecil Turner]

You know the Rovian "magic" is gone when all they can do in response to a hero like Murtha is accuse him of moonbattery.

Well, Murtha's hardly a leading military operations expert, and saying a war is "unwinnable" whilst in the middle of it is perilously close to moonbattery (among other things).

Like, have some respect for the people whose backs you are breaking this war on.

Are you seriously claiming to be talking for those actually fighting the war? And do you think those fighting (and complaining bitterly about the coverage) feel more disrespected by the Administration than the anti-war crowd?

[JayDee]

And do you think those fighting (and complaining bitterly about the coverage) feel more disrespected by the Administration than the anti-war crowd?

Know what, Cecil? I don't know how they feel and neither do you. Often wingers will point me to milblogs to get a sense that our troops adore their dear leader, without ever mentioning that these blogs are censored. Soldiers are not permitted to express open disagreemnt with their commander in chief. You know that. So NO ONE KNOWS what they are feeling, and all I've heard is anecdotal evidence from both right and left - the testimony of family members, which leads to nothing conclusive.

I'm betting you didn't bother to read Murtha's Statement but I think he explains pretty well whose backs are being broken - the military's, their families and all of us taxpayers and our great grandchildren who will pay literally forever for this asinine debacle.

"I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.

"The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. Choices will have to be made. We cannot allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared. The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls at our bases in the U.S.

"Much of our ground transportation is worn out and in need of either serous overhaul or replacement. George Washington said, "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace." We must rebuild out Army. Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being "terrified" about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden.

Do yourself a favor, read the whole thing, and at least TRY, which is more than your president is willing to do, to understand where TWO THIRDS of your countrymen now stand on this historic disaster.

[Cecil Turner]

Know what, Cecil? I don't know how they feel and neither do you.

I suspect I have a better feel for it than you do. And if opinion polls are the ticket, this one seems pertinent:

Sixty-three percent of respondents approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, and 60% remain convinced it is a war worth fighting.

I'm betting you didn't bother to read Murtha's Statement . . .

You'd lose that bet. (Though since he's been gracing the airwaves with his blather--including my local Fox affiliate--it wasn't really all that necessary.) Needless to say, I don't agree with it. I'm also not sure why it's newsworthy . . . it's not like he changed his tune from "unwinnable." [Pullout . . . Timetables . . . sheesh. This is the Dems' most credible defense spokesman?]

[creepy dude]

CT-that poll is almost a year old. Got any recent numbers. FWIW 60% approval seems shockingly low to me.

But does it really matter anyway? The country is the democracy-not the military, i.e. would you favor withdrawal if less than 50% of the active military supported the war?

[Cecil Turner]

Got any recent numbers. FWIW 60% approval seems shockingly low to me.

That's the most recent one I found. (Apparently they don't do them all that often, or perhaps they're google-resistant.) Concur 60% seems low (Vietnam managed similar numbers among those who fought). I suspect there's some self-selecting among respondents (for those who care enough to answer intrusive questions). And it should be obvious that war zones tend to select for hawks.

But does it really matter anyway?

Only when pusillanimous pundits claim to speak for the boys in blue.

[creepy dude]

Well maybe he's speaking for the 40% of the military who doesn't think the war is worth fighting-or do those pussies not get a voice?

[Sue]

The country is a republic. We don't operate on opinion polls. If we did, we wouldn't recognize our country. :)

[Sue]

Creepy,

No. As you pointed out, the military isn't a democracy.

[Cecil Turner]

Well maybe he's speaking for the 40% of the military who doesn't think the war is worth fighting-or do those pussies not get a voice?

Well, in the first place, it was 21% (others were 8% no opinion, 9% declined to answer). And as long as we're not pretending that's a majority opinion (or that warfighters are clamoring for fearless representatives like Murtha to voice their views), I suppose that's just dandy. (BTW, I think calling someone serving in a war zone a pussy, even in jest, is bad form.)

[Geek, Esq.]

I'm also not sure why it's newsworthy . . . it's not like he changed his tune from "unwinnable."

Cecil:

Tell me if the following two statements are exactly the same:

1) If we don't improve the way we're handling the war and send MORE troops and MORE supplies, this war will be unwinnable;

2) We need to get out of Iraq now.

[JayDee]

Weren't rightwingers saying - like, yesterday - that it's totally cool to criticize the president, as long as you don't say he was "lying"? I believe they were, as was their windup rightwing media.

So here we have Murtha criticizing, in specific terms, the administration approach, saying in effect, they have not done the right things in Iraq and there is no reason to believe they will do so in the future. So what response does he get? Mindless bloviation from a bunch of elitists accusing him basically of treason.

In Wingnut America, it seems we must be willing to die for freedoms that we are, ironically, forbidden to make use of. This is fast becoming one of the sickest episodes in American history - domestically as well as internationally.

[boris]

So here we have Murtha criticizing

and ... AND ... calling for CUT and RUN advocating SURRENDER providing AID and COMFORT to the enemy.

You're damn right the right is pissed.

[Cecil Turner]

Tell me if the following two statements are exactly the same . . .

Okay, I'll allow as how his positions have changed a from one brand of defeatism to another (and between two impractical proposals for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory).

So what response does he get? Mindless bloviation from a bunch of elitists accusing him basically of treason.

Accusing him basically of treason? Hmmmm, didn't find "treason" in there anywhere. And as far as I can tell, Murtha was only cited twice. Here:

I have the utmost respect for my colleague Jack Murtha. . . . And for the first time that I can remember, I totally disagree with his assessment and I believe that it would be an absolute mistake and a real insult to the lives that have been lost and those today who are continuing this struggle for freedom if we were to withdraw. [trimmed for brevity]

And here:

I support our troops. I think that Mr. Murtha was absolutely wrong to start proposing a surrender provision, as far as I'm concerned.

Yep, those darn Repugnicans are poisoning the well of discourse again.

[clarice]

Well, at 7 p.m. tonight the House will be voting on whether to immediately withdraw from Iraq--Calling the traitors bluff, I think. LOL

[Syl]

JayDee

You are mischaracterizing the polls:

the overwhelming majority of America (65% in last Pew poll) disapprove of Bush's handling of the war

That does NOT mean Americans want to surrender. You are just being utterly foolish.

[Syl]

JayDee

this historic disaster

Being hysterical again, I see.

[creepy dude]

Ct-spare me the sanctimony. I was actually mocking your attitude. You basically called Murtha a pussy despite the fact he's a war zone veteran with purple hearts. (Ok-you called him pusillanimous-whoopty shit). Of course, Kerry was basically called a pussy nonstop last campaign. Ok-it was "French-looking" in Limbaugh speak or those fake purple band-aids at the the Repub convention, but that's just because Repubs are too uptight to flatout call someone a pussy.

[Syl]

creepy

Murtha has a right to say what he says. We have a right to say he is wrong. He was a great marine, but he isn't involved in strategy or logistics for Iraq at all. And his surrender resolution, for that is what it is, doesn't tell us how abandoning Iraq will make America safer.

And he thinks we can tame Iraq with diplomacy? As I said, he may have been a great marine, and I thank him for his service to our country, but he doesn't know squat about al Qaeda. Diplomacy? That's just plain nuts.

[Cecil Turner]

Ct-spare me the sanctimony. I was actually mocking your attitude.

Got it. That's why it was worth bringing up. (If you want to put words in my mouth, try putting ones there that I might actually say.)

You basically called Murtha a pussy despite the fact he's a war zone veteran with purple hearts.

Lots of us are war zone veterans; and a "ducked late" medal is not a shield against being held accountable for one's remarks thirty years hence (though I was actually thinking of Ted Kennedy when writing that particular comment . . . nicely alliterative, too, wouldn't you say?). To the extent Rep Murtha claims to speak for all warfighters with his "what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment . . ." (conveniently eliding the effect of preening posturers on military morale), he's full of crap. I think that'd make him a "pussy protector" rather than a pussy himself, but perhaps that's a quibble.

Of course, Kerry was basically called a pussy nonstop last campaign.

In my opinion, Kerry lost his claim to respectful language from fellow vets with his "Gen-jis Khan" tirade. (And yeah, actions like chasing down a purple heart for that first non-wound--after being told he didn't rate one--did not impress.)