JustOneMinute

Lieberman V. Lamont

Here is some coverage of the Lieberman-Lamont debate; Times, WaPo, MSNBC, transcript.

Allahpundit of HotAir liveblogged from the right; as a representative of the Angry left, let's pick out Jane Hamsher of firedoglake (rabiddoglake?).

I thought Lieberman swung between aggressive and avuncular, although an aggressive Joe Lieberman sounds like a normal human asking for a bit more sugar on his oatmeal.

Lamont seemed like the perfect realization of the nutroots vision - tense, angry, and a vessel for every tired Democratic nostrum of the last decade.  He's for universal health care!  I was only sorry that no one gave him a chance to complete the pain-relieving coma-induction by asking him to air his views on the minimum wage, or Santa Claus.  I take that back - a Santa Claus question would have posed some tough Church/State issues...

Well, if a guy with the odd $100 million can pick up a Senate seat by passing as an anti-war traditional Democrat, why not?  This is the land of opportunity.

Seeking Its Own Level

This detail about the failed terror plot in NYC has me baffled:

the FBI has uncovered what officials consider a serious plot by jihadists to bomb the Holland Tunnel in hopes of causing a torrent of water to deluge lower Manhattan, the Daily News has learned.

The terrorists sought to drown the Financial District as New Orleans was by Hurricane Katrina, sources said. They also wanted to attack subways and other tunnels.

"Drown the Financial District"?  Eventually, an expert chimes in:

Experts also said that even if the tunnel cracked, the Financial District would not be flooded because it is above the level of the river.

Isn't that obvious, or is there some subtlety in play that is obvious to hydro-engineers, plumbers and terrorists, but not me?

MORE:  Fox News says the plot was to bomb the PATH tunnels; those may be below river level in Manhattan.

Various commenters also point out that the subway tunnels and the basements and sub-basements of NYC skyscrapers may be susceptible to flooding.

Kaus Get Results

Mickey Kaus has said for months that the political viability of the House "enforcement only" immigration plan is being misunderestimated.  Today the Times front-pages this:

Bush Signaling Shift in Stance on Immigration

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, July 4 — On the eve of nationwide hearings that could determine the fate of his immigration bill, President Bush is signaling a new willingness to negotiate with House Republicans in an effort to revise the stalled legislation before Election Day.

Republicans both inside and outside the White House say Mr. Bush, who has long insisted on comprehensive reform, is now open to a so-called enforcement-first approach that would put new border security programs in place before creating a guest worker program or path to citizenship for people living in the United States illegally.

"He thinks that this notion that you can have triggers is something we should take a close look at, and we are," said Candi Wolff, the White House director of legislative affairs, referring to the idea that guest worker and citizenship programs would be triggered when specific border security goals had been met, a process that could take two years.

The shift is significant because Mr. Bush has repeatedly said he favors legislation like the Senate's immigration bill, which establishes border security, guest worker and citizenship programs all at once. The enforcement-first approach puts Mr. Bush one step closer to the House, where Republicans are demanding an enforcement-only measure. 

I am intrigued by this view of the shifting political sands:

Polls show the public is deeply troubled by the problem of illegal immigration, and Mr. Bush, who has made the issue his domestic policy initiative, is eager for a victory on Capitol Hill. But a carefully constructed White House strategy to prod the House and Senate into compromise collapsed last month when skittish House Republicans opted for field hearings instead.

...

The meetings will undoubtedly expose the deep Republican rift just as the elections draw near, and some say they are simply a way to stave off legislation until after November. Democrats, eager to pick up Congressional seats, intend to use the hearings to drive home the idea that Republicans have failed to address illegal immigration, a tactic that could further complicate prospects for a bill before Election Day.

Hmm - are the Democrats planning to both attack a do-nothing Republican Congress and oppose an enforcement-only bill?  Or might a Republican compromise expose some rifts on the Democratic side?

This is also odd:

But one Republican close to the White House, granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, predicted that Mr. Bush would ultimately abandon the idea of a path to citizenship.

Giving up, though, would doom the legislation in the Senate. Mr. Pence met last week with leading Republican senators, including Mr. Specter, John McCain of Arizona and Mel Martinez of Florida.

In an interview Tuesday, Mr. Specter said that proponents of the Senate bill "are determined to see comprehensive" legislation, and that "comprehensive means all parts, including the 11 million." But he also said that he was very interested in Mr. Pence's approach, and that the tenor of the meeting was that the Senate could "move toward a middle ground" with the House.

Ms. Stolberg shifts from "doom the legislation" to "move toward a middle ground" in the space of two paragraphs.

Begala For Lieberman

Paul Begala pounded the table on behalf of Joe Lieberman, although indirectly, and quite a few years ago:

Let's start with the Sixties, the Boomers' dilettante ball. While a few
courageous people like John Lewis and the Freedom Riders risked their lives -- and others like Andrew Goodman, James Chaney, and Michael Schwerner gave theirs -- the civil-rights movement was led by pre-Boomers like Martin Luther King Jr. (who would be 71 if he were alive today) and continued without strong support from the Boomers on college campuses.

Still, I must say this: If you were one of those young people who did risk their lives to fight racism in the Sixties, who put their bodies on the line to
register voters, who marched and sang and taught and preached against
segregation, you stand as the best refutation of my anti-Boomer tirade. In that one moment of conscience and courage, you did more with your life than I've done in all the moments of mine. In a generation of selfish pigs, you were saints.

Joe Lieberman "travelled to Mississippi to help African-Americans register to vote", although I don't see that bandied about too much.  Of course, since he was born in 1942, he is not really a Boomer, but I think we can accept the point about his moral and physical courage.

New Joementum

Joe Lieberman makes plans to run as an independent, and Dems are in a quandary.

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut said on Monday that he would run as an independent Democratic candidate if he loses the state Democratic primary next month. The announcement by Mr. Lieberman, a political moderate and longtime party leader seeking his fourth term, underscores the increasing vulnerability he feels over his support for the Iraq war.

Reacting to a strong challenge from Ned Lamont, a wealthy businessman and political newcomer who has criticized him for supporting President Bush on the war and other issues, Senator Lieberman said that he would begin gathering the 7,500 petition signatures necessary to put his name on the ballot should he lose the primary on Aug. 8.

He said that even if elected as a petition candidate, he would remain "a proud Democrat" and would caucus with other Democratic senators. Still, the prospect that Mr. Lieberman may challenge his own party's nominee is a startling turn for the senator, who has spent his entire three decades in politics within the Democratic Party and ran as its vice-presidential nominee in 2000 alongside Al Gore.

The senator's announcement signaled his growing concern over Mr. Lamont's candidacy. Left-leaning Internet bloggers have marked Mr. Lieberman for defeat, drawing national attention and money for Mr. Lamont — and posing a difficult choice for Democratic leaders, who have vigorously backed Mr. Lieberman.

Personally, I think Ned Lamont is a political genius for his ability to ride anti-war fervor into the Billionaire Boys Club also known as the Democratic Senate Caucus.

FWIW, here are the Poole results for the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congresses.  Lieberman scores to the right of about two-thirds of the Senate Dems.  [The Captain picks up on this.

MORE:  Tim Blair goes to Madison Avenue - reviews of the first Kos/Lamont ad (described here), and a suggested re-write.  Too funny.

Spotlight Off Osama

[Grab the tin foil hats - see UPDATE]

The Times tells us that, while tracking Osama bin Laden remains a CIA priority, the special unit with that specific mission was disbanded late last year:

The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday.

The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said.

The decision is a milestone for the agency, which formed the unit before Osama bin Laden became a household name and bolstered its ranks after the Sept. 11 attacks, when President Bush pledged to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice "dead or alive."

The realignment reflects a view that Al Qaeda is no longer as hierarchical as it once was, intelligence officials said, and a growing concern about Qaeda-inspired groups that have begun carrying out attacks independent of Mr. bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and his deputies remained a high priority, and that the decision to disband the unit was not a sign that the effort had slackened. Instead, the officials said, it reflects a belief that the agency can better deal with high-level threats by focusing on regional trends rather than on specific organizations or individuals.

"The efforts to find Osama bin Laden are as strong as ever," said Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a C.I.A. spokeswoman. "This is an agile agency, and the decision was made to ensure greater reach and focus."

...

Intelligence officials said Alec Station was disbanded after Robert Grenier, who until February was in charge of the Counterterrorist Center, decided the agency needed to reorganize to better address constant changes in terrorist organizations.

MORE:  The Times included this:

Michael Scheuer, a former senior C.I.A. official who was the first head of the unit, said the move reflected a view within the agency that Mr. bin Laden was no longer the threat he once was.

Mr. Scheuer said that view was mistaken.

"This will clearly denigrate our operations against Al Qaeda," he said. "These days at the agency, bin Laden and Al Qaeda appear to be treated merely as first among equals."

I have no idea why the Times failed to mention that Michael Scheur was the author of "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror", which was viewed as a bit of a Bush-basher.  I also don't know why they failed to mention that Scheur was  originally dropped from the Alec Station Bin Laden team in 1999 - had the CIA already predicted the outcome of the Florida recount?

STILL MORE:  I have to bitterly dissent from Macsmind, who writes this:

[Scheur's] jive is old and he's been yaking it up since 2004.  Expect the drive-by media to parade Richard Clarke any time now.

"Any time now"?  We had a Richard Clarke sighting last week!

UPDATE:  In a seemingly unrelated story also released this day, CNN tells us this:

Meanwhile, al-Zarqawi's wife told an Italian newspaper that al Qaeda leaders sold him out to the United States in exchange for a promise to let up in the search for Osama bin Laden.

The woman, identified by La Repubblica as al-Zarqawi's first wife, said al Qaeda's top leadership reached a deal with U.S. intelligence because al Zarqawi had become too powerful.

She claimed Sunni tribes and Jordanian secret services mediated the deal.

"My husband has been sold to the Americans," the woman said in an interview published Sunday. "He had become too powerful, too troublesome."

Could it be?  Well, the Times says the unit was shut down "late last year", so the timeline is tricky, to say the least.  Or in this case, maybe the CIA was clever enough to sell to Zarqawi's foes something they were planning to do anyway, namely close Alec Station.

Who knows?  But what an intriguing coincidence that both these tidbits surfaced today.

We Know Where You Live

I am not sure I grasp the news value of this Times piece describing the summer homes of Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld.

But I'm sure terrorists and protesters already knew all this, so no harm was done.  Or at least, Times apologists will say so.

Of course, if some protester somewhere had not gotten the memo, they have now.

UPDATE:  Greg Sargent of TAPPED follows up on the security issues, and is pleased to conclude there are none:

EXCLUSIVE: SECRET SERVICE SAYS TIMES ARTICLE ON CHENEY, RUMSFELD HOMES IS NOT A SECURITY THREAT;
RUMSFELD'S OFFICE CONFIRMS GIVING PERMISSION FOR PHOTO OF HIS HOUSE.

...But I just got through talking with Hollen Wheeler, director of public affairs for Rumsfeld's office. She confirmed what Glenn Greenwald has reported -- that the photographer, Linda Spillers, had been granted permission to photograph Rumsfeld's house by Rumsfeld himself.

...I also checked in with Jonathan Cherry, a spokesperson for the Secret Service, which guards Cheney. His first response was not direct. It was this:

As you can imagine, we would prefer less information than more in that regard. However, we take necessary steps to provide security wherever one of our protectees lives, and do our best to be as unobtrusive as possible to neighbors and the general public.

Then, when I asked him directly whether the story posed a security threat, Cherry emailed:

No, it is not a threat.

So there you have it. That should settle this, right?

It's interesting to see Mr. Sargent's critical thinking skills go into suspension once he gets the answers he wants.

My evidently-too-banal follow-up questions:

1.  What would have happened if Rumsfeld had refused permission to the Times photographer?  Is there any special reason to think the Times would have honored his request?  Is it possible that Rumsfeld was simply being agreeable in order to make a virture of necessity.

Newsie Greg Sargent does not report on this.

2.  Aren't the two Secret Service messages contradictory?   "[W]e would prefer less information than more in that regard" is at odds with "No, it is not a threat".  Does any explanation for that seeming contradiction suggest itself?  For example, might the Secret Service calculate that asking the Times not to publish is a waste of time?  Or, might the Secret Service figure that a busload of protestors is an annoyance rather than a security threat?

Well, as I said in my post, I had no doubt a determined terrorist or protest group could have found this info without the help of the Times.  Coming as it does a week after President Bush called the conduct of the Times "disgraceful", I remain dubious of the timing.

He's Walking In Memphis

Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan shakes it down in Graceland.  A picture is worth a thousand words.

The SWIFT Decision - Everyone Knew But Congress

Byron Calame, Public Editor of the NY Times, defends the Times decision to break the SWIFT monitoring story.  His gist - it wasn't really a secret anyway, but Congress had not been properly briefed on the non-secret:

My close look convinced me that Bill Keller, the executive editor, was correct in deciding that Times readers deserved to read about the banking-data surveillance program. And the growing indications that this and other financial monitoring operations were hardly a secret to the terrorist world minimizes the possibility that the article made America less safe.

...

So what were the most solid reasons to publish the story?

There was a significant question as to how secret the program was after five years. "Hundreds, if not thousands, of people know about this," Mr. Keller said he was told by an official who talked to him on condition of anonymity. The 25 bankers from numerous nations on the Swift board of directors, and their predecessors going back to 2001, knew about the arrangement. So did some consortium executives and staff members — a group that probably expanded during this period. Starting in 2003, Swift representatives had to be stationed alongside any government intelligence official searching the data.

Further support for the conclusion that the Swift program hasn't remained totally hidden from terrorists, or anyone else, emerged last week. A former State Department official who has served on a United Nations counterterrorism group pointed to a 2002 United Nations report noting that the United States was monitoring international financial transactions. Swift and similar organizations were mentioned in the publicly available report, although there were no details. "The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions," the report noted.

The Times's June 23 article "awoke the general public" to the Swift program and "in that sense, it was truly new news," Victor Comras, the former State Department official, wrote on The Counterterrorism Blog last week. "But," he added, "the information was fairly well known by terrorism financing experts back in 2002."

The administration has sometimes invited press attention to its effort to track terrorist financing. In September 2003, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow and a team of his aides took reporters from The Times and other papers on a six-day tour on a military aircraft "to show off the department's efforts," Mr. Keller and Dean Baquet, the editor of The Los Angeles Times, noted in a joint Op-Ed commentary that appeared yesterday. The aides "discussed many sensitive details of their monitoring efforts, hoping they would appear in print and demonstrate the administration's relentlessness against the terrorist threat," according to the two editors.

Another reason Times editors were right to proceed with the 3,550-word Swift story was the skimpy Congressional oversight of the program. Secrecy is vital for intelligence and national security programs, but so is oversight by the courts or elected legislators. The Swift program, however, doesn't seem to have any specific Congressional approval or formal authorization. The Treasury Department has not provided a list of who in Congress was informed, or when, The Times has reported.

This 'everybody knew but Congress' explanation is, one the one hand, touching - it is nice to see the Times so concerned about the preservation of Congressional prerogatives.  However, it would look a lot less like an ex post rationalization if the original story had run some quotes from outraged Congressfolks deploring a lack of Administration candor - I cannot find any mention of Senators Frist, Roberts, or Rockefeller, or Representative Jane Harman, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, in that first pass.

Supporting The Troops - On Post In Ramadi

Dexter Filkins of the NY Times delivers a poignant profile of Marine Lance Cpl. Joseph Hamlin:

Suddenly, Sand Bags and Potshots at Post 1

By DEXTER FILKINS

RAMADI, Iraq, July 1 — It is a lonely night on the rooftop of the government center in this rubble-strewn town, and Lance Cpl. Joseph Hamlin is talking about his life.

"I'm 19; I'll be 20 in September," he says, his face shrouded in the darkness. "I'm from western Georgia, on the Alabama line. LaGrange. They say it's the biggest little city in Georgia. It means 'the farm' in French. Lafayette was there."

Corporal Hamlin is at Post 1, overlooking downtown Ramadi from the northwest corner of the government center. His post is a concrete-block hut covered in sand bags. It has just enough room for two people.

"This is my first time ever," he says. "I joined in May '05. Right after I graduated high school. Graduated high school on Friday, showed up for boot camp on Monday. Didn't take any time off."

  Set aside your preconsecption - this is not some backwoods Southern kid:

"My dad lived in China," Corporal Hamlin says. "He ran the Duracell plant there. I lived there. I learned martial arts. Aikido, which is Japanese. Tae kwon do, which is Korean. I'm a second-degree black belt."

Girl troubles:

The talk turns to love.

"I did have a girlfriend until two days ago. We were together for five years." It happened in a telephone conversation, he says.

"She doesn't handle my being gone. She says it's hard. I think whatever I'm going through here is harder. Whatever problems she's having at the house, she doesn't have R.P.G.'s being shot at her."

The telephone conversation with his girlfriend, Corporal Hamlin says, has left him feeling a little down. The couple had planned to marry, he says. "Yes, I was wanting to. We were going to get an apartment."

He considers the possibility that she has another boyfriend back in LaGrange. "Absolutely. She probably does. She might be lying. She told me she did."

"She is a full-blooded Indian. Mohawk. I'm just a pale-skinned white boy."

"I'll get with her when I get back, talk to her," he says. "See if I can work things out. It'll be O.K."

As a corollary to Warhol's dictum that everybody will be famous for fifteen minutes, let's add this - every writer will be Hemingway for fifteen minutes.

Times Editors Explain SWIFT Decision

The NY Times editors are unintentionally funny in their editorial defending their decision to break open the SWIFT program:

When Do We Publish a Secret? 

By DEAN BAQUET, editor, The Los Angeles Times, and BILL KELLER, executive editor, The New York Times

SINCE Sept. 11, 2001, newspaper editors have faced excruciating choices in covering the government's efforts to protect the country from terrorist agents. Each of us has, on a number of occasions, withheld information because we were convinced that publishing it could put lives at risk. On other occasions, each of us has decided to publish classified information over strong objections from our government.

Last week our newspapers disclosed a secret Bush administration program to monitor international banking transactions. We did so after appeals from senior administration officials to hold the story. Our reports — like earlier press disclosures of secret measures to combat terrorism — revived an emotional national debate, featuring angry calls of "treason" and proposals that journalists be jailed along with much genuine concern and confusion about the role of the press in times like these. 

Ann Althouse (via Glenn) has a good analysis.

But the Times delivered a laugh with the implicit answer to their "When Do We Publish A Secret" question - they publish a secret, like this defense of their decision, on the Saturday of Fourth of July Weekend.

I guess they didn't think they could hold off until Christmas Day.  But why couldn't they find space for this last week?