JustOneMinute

The Nifong Watch: WaPo Wants Charges Dropped

The Washington Post joins the lengthening list of heavy mainstream media outlets criticizing DA Mike Nifong:

Prosecutorial Indiscretion
It's past time to drop all charges in the Duke lacrosse case.

Just before Christmas, Mr. Nifong dropped rape charges after the accuser said she "could no longer testify with certainty that it occurred." But the three men remain charged with kidnapping and first-degree sexual offense, which carry equally severe penalties. Mr. Nifong should drop those charges as well.

It's been clear for months that Mr. Nifong's case -- to the extent he has a case -- is riddled with flaws that raise serious questions about his motives and ethics. The accuser's story has been inconsistent and unreliable -- and that was even before the latest interview with the prosecutor's office, in which, according to his filing, she said she could no longer be certain she had been penetrated with a penis. The physical evidence was scant at best; the identification procedure -- the woman was shown photographs of only Duke lacrosse players -- was shockingly shoddy; one defendant seems to have an alibi.

In recent weeks, Mr. Nifong has admitted that he failed, as required, to turn potentially exculpatory information over to the defense: test results that showed the presence of semen from several other men, but not the Duke players, in swabs taken from the woman's body and clothing. Mr. Nifong says it was an accidental oversight. Yet the director of the DNA laboratory says that he and the prosecutor agreed to leave that information out of his report because it was so "explosive." If so, Mr. Nifong has a bigger problem than a botched prosecution. He should be subject to further ethics proceedings by state bar authorities, who filed charges Thursday against him for making inflammatory and misleading comments about the case in its early days.

KC Johnson notes the politcal implications:

With the voices of the Capitol’s left and right speaking as one, AG Gonzales has more than enough political cover to launch a federal investigation into Nifong’s misconduct.

Let me offer the perfunctory Federalist push-back - although federal intervention may have been appealing a few weeks back, at this point the process seems to be reining Nifong in at the state level. 

I do recognize we are talking about an Administration with very unpredictable Federalist impulses.

PICKY, PICKY:  When I spot what loks like an error in a KC Johnson post, I immediately question my own sense of reality.  However, in his long and lovely lambasting of Wendy Murphy, I think he goes awry here in quoting her:

15.) (2 May 2006) “She was under the influence of a date rape drug.”

In fact, a toxicology report indicated no such finding.

My recollection was that the no toxicology report was ever prepared, but that information from May may have been overtaken by subsequent filings.

Regardless, Ms. Murphy's statement, as of May 2, was contradicted by the discovery made available later in May.

 

Bash Bush, Find Guaranteed Audience

There is an assured audience for any Bush-bashing, however implausible and easily debunked. The latest example of this truism has been provided by PEER, the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility:

HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON’T SAY — Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology

Washington, DC — Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review [link] of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.’”

In a letter released today, PEER urged the new Director of the National Park Service (NPS), Mary Bomar, to end the stalling tactics, remove the book from sale at the park and allow park interpretive rangers to honestly answer questions from the public about the geologic age of the Grand Canyon. PEER is also asking Director Bomar to approve a pamphlet, suppressed since 2002 by Bush appointees, providing guidance for rangers and other interpretive staff in making distinctions between science and religion when speaking to park visitors about geologic issues.

Oh, please - Ronald Bailey at Hit and Run and Red State Mike, commenting at Political Animal, had the same seemingly-obvious idea - check the Park Service website for the Grand Canyon (OK, I had the same idea, so I'm sure it was not that brilliant).

Let's see - among the Frequently Asked Questions, these are third and fourth:

How old is the Canyon?

That's a tricky question. Although rocks exposed in the walls of the canyon are geologically quite old, the Canyon itself is a fairly young feature. The oldest rocks at the canyon bottom are close to 2000 million years old. The Canyon itself - an erosional feature - has formed only in the past five or six million years. Geologically speaking, Grand Canyon is very young. (top of page)

Are the oldest rocks in the world exposed at Grand Canyon?

No. Although the oldest rocks at Grand Canyon (2000 million years old) are fairly old by any standard, the oldest rocks in the world are closer to 4000 million years old. The oldest exposed rocks in North America, which are among the oldest rocks in the world, are in northern Canada.

In the Natural Features and Ecosystem section, we find this:

Geologic formations such as gneiss and schist found at the bottom of the Canyon date back 1,800 million years.

And the Park brochure has similar geologic information on page three.

As to the notion that Park Rangers are not allowed to provide honest answers to the great unwashed, I note that school tours covering the geologic history of the canyon are available, as well as this presentation to the public:

Introduction to Grand Canyon's Geology Why is the Grand Canyon so deep, wide, and grand? Why does it exist only here in the world? Come and participate in this fascinating talk to learn how Grand Canyon was formed.

What, one wonders, do the Rangers talk about? I would bet they present the same material found at the website and in the pamphlet, but I have not sat through a presentation, so for all I know, they do three hours of Marcel Marceau impressions.

As to what is motivating this PEER press release I can only guess, but here we go - from the letter sent by PEER to the National Park Service, it appears that PEER is hoping to create an embarrassing situation for some Bushies:

At the same time, Park Service leadership has blocked publication of guidance for park rangers and other interpretative staff that labeled creationism as lacking any scientific basis. As a consequence, NPS staff has no official guidance as to how to answer questions from the public concerning topics such as creationists’ “young earth” claims.

So PEER wants a specific memo explaining that creationism is bunk, and the Bushies don't want to write it. However, PEER goes on to note the not-so-subtle finesse adopted by Evil BushCo:

Ironically, in January 2005, your Director’s Order # 6 was amended to provide:

8.4.2 Historical and Scientific Research

Superintendents, historians, scientists, and interpretive staff are responsible for ensuring that park interpretive and educational programs and media are accurate and reflect current scholarship...

The interpretive and educational treatment used to explain the natural processes and history of the Earth must be based on the best scientific evidence available, as found in scholarly sources that have stood the test of scientific peer review and criticism...

Interpretive and educational programs must refrain from appearing to endorse religious beliefs explaining natural processes.

OK, I think I get it - PEER wants some senior Bushie to take pen to paper and and write that creationism is bunk.   Rather than undertake career suicide, the Bushies are slyly dodging this by ordering their minions simply to teach the best available science - hardly the mortification that PEER was seeking, and hardly the outrage described in the press release.

But PEER does know its audience - I have yet to find a lefty site that did not swallow this whole.  Among the credulous are Steve Benen of Political Animal, Mona of Inactivist [Yike!  Not a lefty, a libertarian.], Tim F of Balloon Juice, and the Huffers.

I will pray for them.  And wish them a Happy New Year.

UPDATE:  Mona turns out to be a libertarian, and I wouldn't be shocked if Tim F is as well - I am trying to recall the intellectual arc of John Cole's blog and I should keep in mind that not every Bush basher is on the conventional left, especially with issues that involve the religious right.  My apologies.

The Nifong Watch

How much longer will DA Mike Nifong continue his charade of a case against the Duke Three?  TIME magazine has joined in:

Now that the North Carolina State Bar has filed a 17-page, 41-count ethics complaint against District Attorney Michael Nifong's handling of the Duke rape case, there's a different kind of New Year's countdown taking place in Durham: when and under what circumstances will Nifong leave office.

The Dec. 28 ethics charges are expected to be expanded when the state bar's grievance committee meets again Jan. 18. Like a grand jury, the committee meets periodically; the current ethics charges stem from its most recent meeting in October and cover public statements Nifong made about the case last March and April. At its next meeting, the committee will deal with revelations from a Dec. 15 court hearing in which the state's DNA expert admitted he and Nifong agreed to keep secret from the defense early DNA results showing no Duke lacrosse player could be implicated in an attack upon one of two exotic dancers hired for the March 14 house party.

"That was a shocker. That was huge," says one defense attorney. So much of a shocker, in fact, that on Friday, defense lawyers filed a motion asking that the state's DNA expert be granted the status of a defense witness if a trial occurs.

Blogger and professor KC Johnson continues to be the must-read on this topic.  However, for those scoring at home, among the mainstream media we have seen recent editorials from the LA Times, the Washington Times, USA Today and the Daily News criticizing Nifong, as well as a guest piece in the WSJ by KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor; there is the ethics charge filed by the NC State Bar Association against Nifong; and there is the public letter from the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys calling on Nifong to step aside.  KC Johnson rounds up the last 200 hours here.

That said, Mr. Nifong still has defenders!  My favorite is Wendy Murphy [bio], who offered this on Dec 27:

For nine months, we've heard only from defense attorneys in the Duke case, and they've refused to release certain evidence. The prosecutor cannot reveal evidence without risking sanctions (such as dismissal of charges) for tainting the jury pool. The defense lawyers are not subject to similar punishment, which is why they can speak more freely. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't be skeptical about what they're hiding.

Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong may have eyewitness statements from the defendants' friends and photos of the incident. If so, Nifong should be rewarded for respecting the defendants' rights by not leaking the type of evidence that could help him personally respond to criticism.

"[E]yewitness statements from the defendants' friends"?  We have seen accounts of the evening in question from the police reports released by the defense, from the second dancer, and from the members of the lacrosse team, including the accused.  One point is not in dispute - the accuser and the second dancer showed up together and were not accompanied into the party by a third friend or acquaintance into the party.  Unless the accuser has befriended a member of the lacrosse team subsequent to the night's events last March, Ms. Murphy is engaging in wishful thinking here.  [Ooops!  An alternative theory is that when she writes "defendants" she means, well, uhh, "defendants", i.e., the lacrosse players.  I can not quite recreate the brain freeze that led me to read that as "accuser", but I will leave the balance of this paragraph in place as a cautionary tale.]  And why not - isn't the holiday season a time for dreaming about what might be?  I imagine this eyewitness friend clothed in flowing silks, dramatically riding up to the courtroom steps mounted on a unicorn.  Regrettably, Ms. Murphy does not share her vision here.

Everyone learned last spring that DNA in the rape kit did not match that of the defendants. Information "held back" involved other men's DNA. This constitutionally protected private information should never be disclosed unless a judge deems it relevant. The defense argued that the evidence provides an alternative explanation for the victim's vaginal injuries, and the judge agreed.

Huh?  Ms. Murphy falls a bit short of explaining why the defense and the judge were only apprised of this in an October discovery filing, rather than April.  Nor does she note that it was not Mr. Nifong that brought this relevant evidence to the judge's attention.  Oh, well.  More from Ms. Murphy:

Days later, the prosecutor withdrew the "rape" charge, which under North Carolina law consists only of penile-vaginal penetration. Other penetration crimes are covered by the remaining equally serious "sexual offense" indictment. This may have been a brilliant move, because with no rape charge, the victim's sexual past is irrelevant — and the cause of justice is spared a salacious and distracting sideshow.

I'll bite - if withdrawing the rape charge was "brilliant", why did Nifong wait until December to do so?  Why didn't he withdraw the charge in April and save himself the trouble of conspiring to conceal evidence with the DNA lab?

Stick a fork in Nifong; he's done.  Right, Ms. Murphy?

Enough - show me a dead horse and I'll be ready with a stick.

Gerald Ford, RIP

Pajamas Media has a huge roundup.

Profiles In Courage: The Times Answers Mickey Kaus

Mickey Kaus aired his Obama problems a few days back:

And on the issues, what's Obama done that's original or pathbreaking? I don't know the answer.

As if by magic the NY Times, in a loving appraisal of Obama, provides the answer!

He has demonstrated an occasional willingness to break from liberal orthodoxy, including his vote to confirm Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, which at the time infuriated liberals (13 Democrats opposed her).

So Obama boldly stood with a mere 86 fellow Senators and voted to confirm the black woman.  That is the sort of political courage I am sure Mickey is looking for.

Bold Prediction - Duke Case To Be Dropped On/By Feb 5

Having read through the NY Times account of their interview with DA Mike Nifong, I Boldly Predict that Mr. Nifong is planning to drop the remaining charges against the Duke Three at the Feb 5 hearing, or before.  Here is the key excerpt:

Mr. Nifong declined interview requests Friday, but said in an e-mail message that his decision to dismiss the rape charges showed he was “willing to go in whatever direction the evidence takes me.” And in a three-hour interview on Thursday, Mr. Nifong said he would not hesitate to drop all the charges if the accuser expressed doubt about the identity of the men she has accused when she sees all three defendants at a pretrial hearing set for February.

“If she came in and said she could not identify her assailants, then we don’t have a case,” Mr. Nifong said. On the other hand, he continued, “If she says, yes, it’s them, or one or two of them, I have an obligation to put that to a jury.”

...

Although the woman identified three lacrosse players as her rapists from an array of photographs, Mr. Nifong said she would get a better look at them at the pretrial hearing in February. “You can’t always tell from a photograph,” he said, adding, “The only real time that you’re able to say if you have a misidentification is to put the person in the courtroom with the other people.”

Mr. Nifong said he intends to ask the woman about her level of certitude after February’s hearing. “It’s an opportunity to say, ‘Yes, I’m 100 percent certain these are the people who did it,’ ” he said. “It’s also an opportunity to express doubt.” Given the absence of physical evidence, he said, any doubts from the woman could end the prosecution for one or more of the defendants.

As KC Johnson notes, Nifong does not have any obligation at all to present the latest iteration of the accuser's story to a jury.  And honestly - if she says "yes, it’s... one or two of them", how can he possibly go to trial after her conclusive ID of all three?  A summary of her effort to date with the photo ID process is already crippling to her credibility.  And considering how many times the photos of these three have been printed and aired, if she wavers in an identification it is because she wants to waver (or Nifong wants her too).  But here is a helpful hint for the courtroom appearance - the three younger, athletic looking men at the defense table are the accused; the older folks are attorneys (Hey - unless the defense puts a few fillers at the table, or some athletic associates).

Setting that aside, the above excerpt reads to me as if Nifong chose an interview with some sympathetic Times reporters to begin laying the groundwork for his eventual surrender.

And why would he do that?  There may be several small benefits to Nifong if he collapses the case on his own initiative.  First, if he announces during the Feb 5 hearing that, due to newly-discovered uncertainty by the accuser, the remaining charges must be dropped, then the judge will not have to rule formally on the question of whether Mike Nifong orchestrated a photo ID process that was flawed.  Keeping such a ruling out of the record may be of small help in a civil suit or disbarment proceeding.

And in a similar vein, by throwing in the case himself Nifong can argue that he has been acting in good faith and simply tried to give his witness her day in court.  Again, that is not much, but a little show of belated reasonableness may look better than having the judge formally throw out the photo IDs, thereby forcing Nifong to drop the case unwillingly.

I am convinced that at this point Nifong is simply looking for a resolution that does not include his eventual disbarment and a hefty civil suit against Durham.  A long excerpt about his precarious legal situation is here.

Other Bold Predictions are welcome in the comments.

COMEDY CLASSIC: 

On Thursday, Mr. Nifong acknowledged knowing about those [DNA] test results before any players were indicted last spring. He also acknowledged that the results were relevant and “potentially exculpatory,” and he said he should have given the results to the defense before May 18, the day he signed a filing that said “the state is not aware of any additional material or information which may be exculpatory in nature.” 

But Mr. Nifong denied the defense team’s contention that he had deliberately tried to hide the results or delay their release. Mr. Nifong, who is personally overseeing this case, said that given the volume of evidence he had not realized that he had failed to turn over those specific DNA test results. “That wasn’t something I was concentrating on,” he said.

Don't let the DNA results distract you, Mike!  Focus on the big picture, not pesky details.

HE SHOULDA CONCENTRATED HARDER:  Fron the Times follow-up on Nifong's suppression of DNA evidence, it is clear that it was not just one May 18 filing that went awry:

As Mr. Meehan and Mr. Nifong now agree, the two discussed all of DNA Security’s main findings, including those that were omitted from the final report, during two meetings in April.

Defense lawyers point to court hearings in which they repeatedly pressed Mr. Nifong to reveal all the evidence he discussed with Mr. Meehan during those two meetings.

According to transcripts of those hearings, Mr. Nifong repeatedly told Judge Smith that there was no evidence discussed during those meetings other than the test results reflected in the DNA Security summary report.

On June 22, when questioned by Brad Bannon — the discovery expert on the defense team — Mr. Nifong denied that Mr. Meehan and he had talked about anything else he had to disclose to the defense.

“The report itself they have,” Mr. Nifong told Judge Smith.

At a hearing on Sept. 22, Judge Smith asked: “So you represent there are no other statements from Dr. Meehan?”

“No other statements,” Mr. Nifong said. “No other statements made to me.”

Defense lawyers also point to a court filing Mr. Nifong signed on May 18, when he gave the defense some 1,200 pages of evidence records, including DNA Security’s 10-page report. “The state is not aware of any additional material or information which may be exculpatory in nature with respect to the defendant,” Mr. Nifong said in the filing. “Should we learn of the existence of any such material or information in the exercise of due diligence, we will notify the defendant.”

Mr. Nifong acknowledged in the interview this week that he was keenly aware of the test results Mr. Meehan had omitted from his report when he signed that court filing on May 18.

He denied, though, any effort to hide the results or delay their release. He has long been known locally for giving defense lawyers open access to his evidence, even before a state law required that. And, he said, even if the test results should have been turned over months earlier, the defense still had the evidence well in advance of any trial date — which had not yet been set.

“So it’s not like this is something we discover on the fourth day of a five-day trial and say, ‘Oh, by the way,’ ” he said. “I mean, that’s not what’s going on.”

Lest there be any doubt, the defense attorneys are getting ready to switch over to offense:

Trial judges in North Carolina have broad authority to impose sanctions when prosecutors violate discovery rules. The state’s criminal discovery law requires prosecutors to share test results, regardless of whether they were delivered in writing or orally. Likewise, the North Carolina State Bar puts the onus on prosecutors to “make timely disclosure” of evidence that “tends to negate the guilt of the accused.”

If these rules are violated, the judge can dismiss charges or hold lawyers in contempt. In extreme cases, North Carolina law allows a judge to remove a district attorney from office for “willful misconduct.”

But the severity of the sanction often turns on whether the error was innocent sloppiness or a deliberate attempt to conceal evidence.

Mr. Nifong insists it was innocent, but defense lawyers are scouring transcripts of hearings and other records to build a case that Mr. Nifong’s error was in fact a calculated strategy to withhold or at least greatly delay the release of crucial evidence. Joseph B. Cheshire of Raleigh, a lawyer for one of the players, said he intended to take “specific legal steps” to seek sanctions or Mr. Nifong’s removal from the case.

Nifong is going down - the question is, how far?

 

Holiday Libby Filings

Here are some new filings in the Libby case - at a quick glance I didn't see any newsbreakers, but the Ghost of Christmas Present is distracting me.

1.  Judge Walton's opinion re substitutions for classified info (40 page .pdf).  On page 20 there is a mention that Libby's calendar for July 11, 2003 has him working on Tenet's statement regarding Niger and uranium.  IIRC, Tenet's side disputed White House involvement, which may be true - just because Libby proposed something, it does not follow that Tenet adopted it.

2.  Proposed jury instructions, round two: Fitzgerald's response to Libby's proposal (21 page .pdf); Libby's team's response to Fitzgerald's proposal (7 page .pdf)

3.  Libby's supplementation of his filing to exclude evidence on the reporters First Amendment litigation - this is stuff we have seen before, such as Libby's classic letter to Judy ("they turn in clusters, because their roots connect them"), articles about Judy Miller or a column by Robert Novak.  Cover filing (2 page .pdf), exhibits (21 page .pdf).

Happy hunting, and Happy Holidays.

Duke: Rape Charges Dropped, Assault And Kidnapping Remain

We are long past an abuse of prosecutorial discretion and fully into a fantasy land where DA Mike Nifong needs to present some sort of case in order to delay the day that Durham faces a civil suit and he faces disbarment.  The latest plot twist, via the Times:

DURHAM, N.C., Dec. 22 — The district attorney today dropped rape charges against three former Duke University lacrosse players, but plans to go forward with sexual assault and kidnapping charges, his office said.

Michael B. Nifong, the Durham district attorney, made the decision after learning on Thursday that the woman who complained of rape could not be sure that she had been penetrated with a penis, a distinction that would determine whether what happened to her meets the legal definition of forcible rape in North Carolina, according to court papers filed today.

When she was interviewed on Thursday by an investigator from the district attorney’s office, the woman said she was penetrated from behind while she was bent over with her face toward the floor, but did not know with what, according to a person close to the investigation who would only speak on condition of anonymity.

Penetration with an object is considered sexual assault, not rape, officials said.

There also is no DNA evidence found on the woman from any of the accused men, investigators have said.

“With the absence of DNA and her not knowing what was going on, it’s the right thing to do and it probably makes the rest of the case stronger,” the source said.

And as new facts emerge, her story will change to accomodate them as well - Nifong has already bent the rules of space-time and decided that alibis don't matter.

KC Johnson is ballistic, as am I.  He also has some worthy Times-bashing here and here.  I especially like his guess as to why we are learning thie now as opposed to, say, last April:

The decision to accept the accuser's latest version of events has nothing [i.e., a lot] to do with the fact that it might make Nifong's decision to withhold the DNA evidence seem less pernicious.

Let Me Hype A Book Here

As a sidebar to the news that Dick Cheney will not be called by Special Counsel Fitzgerald but will be called by Libby's defense, let me say that, although I have not received a review copy, the promised Murray Waas book, "What Cheney Told Libby - Dispatches from a White House on Trial" ought to be quite topical.

However - although I am finding it listed at Amazon UK and at BestPrices, the US Amazon does not seem to have it yet.  The book was originally slated for release following Christmas.

"We're Calling The Vice President"

Looks like Dick Cheney will be a witness for the defense in the Libby trial:

"We're calling the vice president," attorney Ted Wells said in court. Wells represents defendant I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who is charged with perjury and obstruction.

Early last week, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said he did not expect the White House to resist if Cheney or other administration officials are called to testify in Libby's trial, expected to begin in January.

...That conversation is a key to Fitzgerald's perjury case. Libby testified that he learned about Plame's job from a reporter.

Cheney, who would be the trial's most anticipated witness, has said he may be called to testify. If so, prosecutors could ask how the White House responded to Wilson's criticisms. Cheney was upset by Wilson's comments, Fitzgerald has said, and told Libby that Plame worked for the CIA.

Actually, Libby testified that he heard it from Cheney, forgot, then heard it as if for the first time from Tim Russert.

Cheney could also help prosecutors undermine Libby's defense that he was so preoccupied with national security matters, he forgot details about the less-important Plame issue. Prosecutors argue that Plame was a key concern of the vice president, and thus would have been important to Libby.

Sure, Cheney might help the prosecutors make their case, but if that were so, one might expect him to be called by the prosecution rather than the defense.  Cheney has given a statement to Fitzgerald and the Libby team should have seen the parts related to Libby in discovery.  Murray Waas had good background on this.

MORE:  This looks like an "I told you so" moment for Cecil Turner, who has been saying for a while that Cheney would make a ghastly prosecution witness and a good defense one.

UPDATE:  From the Times, it seems that Fitzgerald did not want to hear from Cheney:

Mr. Wells disclosed the plan to call Mr. Cheney after the special prosecutor in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, told United States District Judge Reggie B. Walton that prosecutors had no plans to call the vice president as a witness – after they had said in legal papers that they might call him.

Cheney is going to take the stand and say the same thing he said in his statement to Fitzgerald, which I'll bet was, he was very concerned about Joe Wilson's phony accusations and distortions and utterly unconcerned about Wilson's wife.

From the various filings I would say it is clear that Fitzgerald cannot prove otherwise. 

Just for example, the indictment alleges that Libby discussed Ms. Plame with Ari Fleischer and David Addington following the Wilson op-ed on July 6 (paragraphs 16 and 18).  Yet there is no mention that Cheney discussed Ms. Plame with Libby in July, either in the indictment or the many follow-up filings - why not?  Surely, if Cheney had included that tidbit in his 2004 statement tio Fitzgerald we would have heard it by now.  So, should we infer that Fitzgerald never asked about that, or that Cheney denied discussing Ms. Plame with Libby in July?  What do we think Cheney will say on the stand?  And, given the pre-trial discovery noted above, do we think the defense is in doubt on these points?

THE EXPECTATIONS GAME:  Unless Dick Cheney really does appear with horns and a tail in a puff of sulphorous smoke, the jury is bound to be pleasantly surprised by his seemingly-human demeanor.  I'll make the same bet as the Libby team - Cheney will out-perform the expectations.

POLITICIZE THE CASE!  Stretch your imagination and pretend with me that Dick Cheney delivers testimony that exculpates Libby but the jury does not believe him.  That gives Bush one more excuse to deliver a pardon, saying "I believed my Vice-President even if the jury didn't".  The further unrelenting spin argument will be that disbelieving Cheney had to do with Iraq, Katrina, WMDs, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and global warming rather than the specifics of the case at hand.

Max Boot and Geoffrey Wheatcroft On Iraq

The NY Times is hosting an on-line discussion between Max Boot and Geoffrey Wheatcroft (who is "an English journalist and author, whose books include "The Controversy of Zion" (which won a National Jewish Book Award) and the forthcoming "Yo, Blair!" ').

Let me know if the Times Select wall is blocking that and I can excerpt more, but here is Max, looking for a miracle - he would love a democratic government, would happily settle for an effective strongman, and doubts we can achieve even that:

It's awfully hard to know where Iraq is going, or what our policy should be, because the situation has become so apocalyptic. Debates over whether a "civil war" is raging obscure the reality, which is that what's happening is far messier than the American or English or Russian Civil Wars. This is not a war of two well-defined sides but a war of all against all -- Sunnis and Shiites are not only fighting each other but various gangs of Sunnis and Shiites are fighting among themselves. Some of these disputes are ethnic or religious; others are simply criminals squabbling over how to divide the spoils.

Given the almost complete breakdown of law and order outside the Kurdish north, we need to redefine our expectations downward. At this point I would be happy if Iraq were simply to stabilize a bit and if violence were to start declining rather than continuing to increase. Democracy is still a nice dream, but a more practical hope at this point would be any kind of government that can maintain a modicum of control and prevent Iraq from becoming a terrorist haven -- without resorting to atrocities on a Saddam Hussein level.

It's hard to see how this goal could be achieved anytime soon, given how hopeless most of the Iraqi Security Forces are. We need to devote more resources to expanding, training, and equipping the Iraqi army (though not the more sectarian police), even at the risk of having soldiers dominate a future state. But that's a long-term project. In the short term the only hope of greater stability is to send more American troops -- an option favored by a number of military experts (not only Sen. John McCain but also retired generals Jack Keane, John Batiste, Paul Eaton and Tony Zinni).

It's possible that 20,000 to 40,000 more U.S. troops could bring Baghdad under control -- and that's a force level that could be sustained, just barely, even given how overstretched the Army and Marine Corps are already. That would hardly solve all our problems but controlling the capital, which has about a quarter of the country's entire population, is a sine qua non for making any progress...

Well, Then, I'll Sleep In A Bit Longer...

I'll just sleep in today - as Man of the Year, I think I'm entitled.

MORE:  The Man of the Year was greeted by his wife with a cup of coffee, a plunger, and a request to unblock the toilet.  How's your celebration going?

THANKS FOR ASKING:  Of course I got the toilet unblocked - I'm the Man of the Year.

BUT SERIOUSLY:  I endorse the prestigious TalkLeft Man of the Year:

Who would I have picked? The lawyers representing the Guantanamo detainees. In defending the rights of those most demonized and persecuted, they are defending the rights of all of us.

Let's put a name to that:

Guantanamo defense lawyer forced to retire by Navy

By Carol Rosenberg

McClatchy Newspapers

NEWARK, N.J. - The Navy lawyer who took the Guantanamo case of Osama bin Laden's driver to the U.S. Supreme Court - and won - has been passed over for promotion by the Pentagon and must soon leave the military.

Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, 44, said last week he received word that he had been denied a promotion to full-blown Navy commander this summer - "about two weeks after" the Supreme Court sided against the White House and with his client, a Yemeni captive at the U.S. Navy base in southeast Cuba.

Under the military's "up or out" promotion system, Swift will retire in March or April, closing out a 20-year career of military service.

A Pentagon appointee, Swift embraced the alleged al-Qaida's sympathizer's defense with a classic defense lawyer's zeal - casting his captive client as an innocent victim in the dungeon of King George, a startling analogy for the attorney whose commander-in-chief is President George Bush.

He wore Navy whites to his client's war-crimes tribunal at Guantanamo, dress blues to challenge the administration on the steps of the Supreme Court and turned up last week at a symposium at Seton Hall Law School in more sober, workaday khakis.

"It was a pleasure to serve," said Swift, who added that he would defend Salim Hamdan all over again, even if he knew he would have to leave the Navy earlier than he wanted.

"All I ever wanted was to make a difference - and in that sense I think my career and personal satisfaction has been beyond my dreams," he said.

Swift, a University of Seattle Law School graduate, also said he will continue to defend Hamdan as a civilian. The Seattle law firm of Perkins Coie, which provided pro bono legal work in Hamdan's habeas corpus petition, has agreed to support Swift's defense of Hamdan in civilian life, he said.

...

In June, the prestigious National Law Journal listed Swift among the nation's top 100 lawyers, with such legal luminaries as former Bush administration Solicitor General Theodore Olson, 66; Stanford Law constitutional law expert Kathleen Sullivan, 50, and former Bush campaign recount attorney Fred H. Bartlit, 73.

Navy Lt. Cmdr. Jeffrey D. Gordon, Pentagon spokesman on Guantanamo topics, did not respond to a query about the up-or-out system by which Navy lieutenant commanders are retired if they don't get promoted.

More at Wikipedia and the National Law Journal, which adds this:

Swift said that Katyal, Perkins Coie, the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch, his judge advocate general colleagues and others have made "incredible contributions" to an effort that he described as "all-consuming in a way that I would never have guessed.

"My father says it was the case I was born to take," Swift recalled. "He said it has my two propensities: to both believe absolutely in country and military and, at the same time, to question everything."

The Duke Debacle

[The LA Times surely counts as major media, and they lead with the real story:

Lab director says he withheld evidence in Duke case

By David Zucchino, Times Staff Writer
5:53 PM PST, December 15, 2006

Durham, N.C. -- In the latest setback to the prosecution in the Duke University lacrosse rape case, the director of a private lab hired by the district attorney testified Friday that he withheld exculpatory DNA evidence after conferring with prosecutors.

Under questioning from defense lawyers, the lab director confirmed that DNA samples taken from the body and clothing of a stripper who accused three lacrosse players of rape did not match any of the defendants. The tests found DNA from several unknown males, Brian Meehan testified, but none matched DNA taken from 43 other lacrosse team members.

... Meehan testified that he and Nifong had decided to withhold certain results of the DNA tests in order to protect the privacy of the Duke lacrosse players who had submitted samples. Asked by a defense attorney how lab results clearing all 46 players would violate their privacy, Meehan fumbled for an answer as Nifong sat with his head lowered, staring at documents.

"It was just simple me trying to do the right thing and say: 'Let's not put that information out there in the public,' " he said. He admitted that he had violated his own lab's protocols, which require that results of all tests be reported in court cases.

Meehan added that he withheld some results in his final report in May "so as not to drag anyone else through the mud."

The media normally loves a cover-up - let's see if they love this.

Newsday, which competes in the NY Times area, also leads with the lab cover-up.  We await the Times coverage.  From Newsday:

DURHAM, N.C. -- Defense attorneys continued to hammer away at the Duke lacrosse rape prosecution case Friday, questioning a private lab director who acknowledged his report on DNA testing had omitted information that none of the Duke players were a match for genetic material recovered from the accuser.

The lab report, by DNA Security Inc., did not specifically note that all three accused players had been excluded as possible matches. "We were concerned about a report that would be explosive," lab director Dr. Brian Meehan testified. He said he and District Attorney Mike Nifong "agreed that it be limited in its scope." Under later questioning he said, "It was not an attempt to withhold information. ... Maybe it could have been done better."]

ABC News has coverage of the Duke debacle, and stand by with a calendar:

Dec. 15, 2006 — The alleged victim in the Duke rape case is expected to give birth in the first week of February, Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong said in court today, adding that "the child was not the product of any activities'' from the night of the infamous Duke lacrosse team's party.

Nevertheless, attorneys for accused players Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans, who took issue with the coincidental pregnancy's effect on their defense, sought and were granted permission from a judge to get a paternity test.

It has been more than nine months and three weeks since the March 14 party at which the woman said the three men raped her.

Help me out - from March 14, 2006 to Dec 15 2006 is "more than nine months and three weeks"?

Well.  As we handicap this case, the blessed event raises a new possibility - DA Nifong may move for a dismissal because his lead witness is too tied down with child care responsibilities to deal with the stress of a trial.

That may work better from a PR perspective than the notion that the accuser will simply plead stress, harassment, and intimidation and back out.  We had this hint of such a strategy in June:

The woman's father said in an interview Thursday that she was seeing a psychiatrist and was in no condition to testify. "I don't know how long it'll be before she gets back in her right frame of mind," he said. "It could be years."

Let's open the floor to nominations - how will this case end?  Some ideas:

1 - The judge grants the defense motion and strikes the absurd photo IDs;

2 - Accuser cites baby, withdraws;

2A - Accuser cites intimidation, withdraws;

3 - The Justice Department intervenes - KC Johnson notes that Nifong *may* be vulnerable to a conspiracy charge:

The summary: Nifong knew there were male DNA other than that of the lacrosse players before indicting, and acted anyway--and, in technical terms, he entered into a conspiracy with [DNA Security head] Meehan to prevent this information from coming to light.

Let's catch Nifong backing and filling here:

Meehan’s testimony differed from a stateme

Who Are The Two And Where Is the Coverage?

I. Lewis Libby's defense team is planning to subpoena "several" reporters as defense witnesses in his upcoming trial, per recent court filings [Filing, Exhibit].  Two reporters are making legal noises suggesting they will resist being called.  But who are the two?  And wouldn't a bit of disclosure be appropriate here - reporters are in a legal tussle with Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, but that won't affect their Washington coverage?  Please.

We can rule out Judy Miller, Tim Russert, and Matt Cooper, all of whom should be prosecution witnesses.

Bob Woodward is mentioned separately in the filing as being inclined to cooperate with his subpoena.

So which reporters are being balky?  My first pick is Andrea Mitchell - what did Andrea know, when did she know it, and did she discuss it with Tim Russert are issues the defense will want to explore. 

I have a lot more detail here but briefly: in late June Ms. Mitchell had a scoop from State about the misplaced INR dissent (on Saddam's nuclear aspirations) in the NIE; she sat in for Russert and interviewed Joe Wilson on the July 6 'Meet The Press'; on July 8, she told the world that CIA sources told her that Wilson was sent by low-level CIA "operatives" (a word later used by Novak, to great controversy); on July 20, she had a public spat with Richard Armitage, who was no longer returning her phone calls; and on Sept 26 she broke the news of the CIA criminal referral of the Plame case.

And of course, there was her famous Oct 3, 2003 response that prior to Novak's column it was "widely known" amongst the journalists covering the Niger story that Wilson's wife was with the CIA.  She has since disavowed that.

So - she was covering the Niger-uranium story; she was talking with Armitage, until they fell out; she claimed at one time that Ms. Plame's CIA employment was "widely known" among reporters; and she works with Tim Russert.  She might have something helpful for the defense.

As to a second balky reporter, Nick Kristof comes to mind as a fellow who has managed to keep a very low profile on this, considering that it was his May and June 2003 columns that got Washington buzzing about the then-unnamed Ambassador.

AP coverage is here.  Oddly, none of the subpoenaed reporters seem to have considered their situation to be newsworthy.

STRAW-SPECK IN WIND:  The filing does use "he" in describing one reporter who may resist testifying, but is gender-neutral with the other one.  Just the luck of the way the sentences were written, or was that skill?

If someone can convert this file to HTML or text, we might deliver some relevant excerpts.  Thanks.

MORE:  Here are Libby's proposed jury instructions and Fitzgerald's status report.

UPDATE:  MSNBC does note the reporter issue:

Former New York Times reporter Judith Miller and NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert are expected to be prosecution witnesses. Libby's lawyers said in court papers Thursday that several reporters will testify on Libby's behalf.

Two unidentified reporters may resist testifying, Libby's attorneys said, but they expect to resolve that issue before trial .

Libby also has sought a subpoena for the tape of Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward's interview with former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Armitage has admitted he discussed Plame's job with Woodward in 2003 but said it was a passing, inadvertent comment.

If admitted into evidence, the tape could be played at trial. The tape has been turned over to prosecutors, and Libby's attorneys said they expect no objection to their subpoena.

C'mon - these reporters know who they are.  How can they be covering the Washington scene while secretly fending off this legal issue?  MSNBC ought to name some names, or start collecting denials.

Jon Henke - Sooo Busted!

In response to the report that the campaign for James Webb may have been doing some opposition research on assorted bloggers, Jon Henke delivers some cursory auto-oppo research:

I've gotten two tickets: one for speeding (guilty) and one for running a red light (for which I was not guilty, but the judge insisted that the cop 'wouldn't lie' so I had to pay a reduced fine).

Sure, sure, that is the edited version of the speeding ticket incident.  However, my unimpeachable sources assure me that Mr. Henke was busted for DUI at 95 MPH in a mad dash to a Hunter Thompson book-signing, accompanied by an underage miner; the drug paraphernalia and unlicensed firearms were never satisfactorily explained.  Oh, the police caught him riding dirty all right - the shocking arrest video is available here.

Fortunately the Webb campaign never needed to stoop this low.

So Who Controls The Intel Budget?

Nancy Pelosi announces what might be a sensible reform - as usual, the devil is in the details:

Pelosi Calls for New Oversight of Intelligence Spending

By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 — Representative Nancy Pelosi, soon to be speaker of the House, said today that she will create a new panel to oversee spending on intelligence and enable lawmakers to better determine whether the money is being spent wisely.

Ms. Pelosi said the formation of the panel, which would work within the House Appropriations Committee, is in response to recommendations of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks and is part of an effort to make spending on intelligence more transparent.

The new unit will be called the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel and be composed of members of the House Intelligence and Appropriations committees, Ms. Pelosi said at a news conference. “Its purpose is to protect the American people with the best possible intelligence, recognizing the role that Congress plays in all of this,” Ms. Pelosi said.

The independent, bipartisan commission that investigated the 9/11 attacks criticized Congress for not revamping its methods of supervising intelligence-related issues, and Ms. Pelosi said today that some lawmakers have felt frustrated by not being able to discuss classified budget matters with their colleagues.

Here is the AP:

Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that she will create a new congressional panel to examine the administration's intelligence budget and to make sure the money is being spent properly.

...

The Select Intelligence Oversight Panel proposed by Pelosi would be made up by members of the Appropriations Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence, and would work within the Appropriations Committee.

It would examine, through hearings, the president's intelligence budget, prepare the classified annex to the annual defense spending bill and conduct oversight of the use of appropriated funds by intelligence agencies.

Here is our earlier hyper-critical coverage spurred by this WaPo story.

Will this new sub-committee have the budget authority to match oversight with money?  How much power will it have relative to the Appropriations and Intel committees?  And if it has real budget authority, shouldn't the chair of the House Intel Committee also chair this?  Time will tell.

 

Best Wishes To Sen. Johnson And His Family

The WaPo reports on Sen. Johnson's medical condition:

Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) underwent emergency surgery overnight to repair bleeding inside his brain and was "recovering without complication" this morning, according to the U.S. Capitol physician.

Johnson, 59, who is in the critical care unit at George Washington University Hospital, fell ill at the Capitol yesterday, introducing a note of uncertainty over control of the Senate just weeks before Democrats are to take over with a one-vote margin.

Johnson "was found to have had an intracerebral bleed caused by a congenital arteriovenous malformation," Adm. John Eisold, attending physician of the U.S. Capitol, said in a statement issued by the senator's office shortly after 9 a.m. today. "He underwent successful surgery to evacuate the blood and stabilize the malformation." Eisold said it was too early to offer a long-term prognosis.

*IF* Johnson is unable to serve, a replacement will be selected by the Republican Governor of South Dakota.  Doesn't this mean that the Senate will be 50-50, with Dick Cheney putting the Reps back in power?  Not so fast:

The only time that partisan control of the Senate changed in mid-session, historians say, was in 2001. Republicans began the year controlling the 50-50 chamber with Cheney's tie-breaking vote. But Democrats, mindful of the recent sudden death of Sen. Paul Coverdell (R-Ga.), were aware they could be a heartbeat away from the majority.

In order to adopt new rules organizing the Senate, the two parties must reach nearly unanimous agreement. Democrats in 2001 blocked the naming of committee chairmen and members, demanding concessions before agreeing to the rules. Among those concessions: Should the numerical advantage change, all committee assignments and chairmanships would be nullified, and a new organization would have to be submitted.

That's what happened, not because of a death but because disgruntled moderate Republican Sen. James M. Jeffords (Vt.) decided to caucus with the Democrats, giving them a 51-49 edge and the powers of the majority. Senate Republican sources said yesterday that their party is likely to press for similar concessions when negotiating the operating rules for the next Congress. But even if Johnson were incapacitated, Democratic aides say, they would resist.

A different scenario unfolded in 1954, after the deaths and replacements of several senators over two years. Republicans remained the majority party even though Democrats eventually outnumbered them, 48 to 47, with one independent. Democratic leader Lyndon B. Johnson did not challenge the GOP's control, in part, historians said, because the independent, Wayne L. Morse of Oregon, warned that he would caucus with the Republicans if need be. That would have led to a 48-48 chamber, and Vice President Richard M. Nixon would have broken the tie in Republicans' favor.

The fact that the only other time time was so recently suggests that turnabout is fair play and the 2001 rules will be picked up again. My guess is that Dems hads been hoping to drop the 2001 rules in order to assure that Joe Lieberman could not hold the party hostage past the reorganization votes in Jan 2007.  Now the Johnson situation gives added urgency to re-writing the rules in their favor.

As to this report that "even if Johnson were incapacitated, Democratic aides say, they would resist", well, resistance is futile.  Maybe.

If I had to pick a side, I suppose that Dems actually have a slightly better argument for a deal which would allow them to keep control.  Unlike the aftermath of the ghastly Florida 2000 election, the vox populi seemed to be fairly clear last November.  And as I recall, various commentators have pointed out that, by total population represented, the 50 remaining Democratic Senators have a much larger constituency than their 50 Republican counterparts (Johnson, coming from South Dakota, hardly affects that calculation).  Well, with any luck Johnson will recover nicely and this will not be an issue.

Meanwhile, we rely on the Huffers and DUmpsters to suggest that doctors check Johnson for traces of polonium 210.  Cui bono?

UPDATE:  The DU administrators are battling it out with insurgents:

A message from the DU admins: Please stop posting baseless conspiracy stuff about Senator Johnson.

I have instructed the mods to lock or delete any threads that engage in baseless conspiracy speculation about Senator Johnson.

In anticipation of the most likely complaint, here is my reply: If at any point in the future some reliable evidence of foul play were to come to light, then you of course would be permitted to discuss it. But unless that happens, you're just making stuff up, and looking silly in the process. And making the rest of us look silly.

Thank you for your understanding.

Can the central government at DU hold or is partition inevitable?

The Pentagon Plan

The WaPo reports on Pentagon proposals for Iraq.  The 80% Solution gets a mention late in the story:

The Pentagon chiefs also are urging that any new strategy be sensitive to regional context, particularly the impact of political or military decisions. They are concerned that any decision to effectively throw U.S. support to the Shiite majority may lead Sunni governments in the region to take a more active role in supporting Sunni insurgents.

So many people don't like this idea that I think it's a winner.

Foreign Affairs: ISG Roundtable

Foreign Affairs presents a must-skip roundtable on the Iraq Salvage Group.  I skipped to the presentation by Leslie Gelb to see if he was using this forum to re-launch his Biden-Gelb "Plan for Iraq", but no such luck.  However, I liked this on Iran and Syria:

Another element is talking with Iran and Syria, a move long overdue and also long opposed by President George W. Bush. But while the report talks about the strategic goodies that Washington can offer Iran and Syria, it says little about how and why Tehran and Damascus should help in Iraq. All it really says is that they have an interest in preventing chaos there. If so, then why aren't they helping already? The fact is that right now, they don't have such an interest, and there's nothing serious in the ISG's bag of tricks about creating a viable political deal in Iraq that might make these neighbors likely to change their mind.

Mr. Gelb alludes to his partition plan in his Big Finish:

The ISG's members knew they had no real hope of settling things down in Iraq without a political power-sharing arrangement, and yet they rejected the decentralizing plan that Senator Joseph Biden and I advanced (on the grounds that federalism means partition) and didn't offer any plan of their own, save to ask Maliki to do the impossible. Thus, the ISG's members ended up with a contradiction and set themselves and everyone else up for failure at some point down the road.

This failure could ultimately be used for two ends: either to blame Maliki and the Iraqis and grease the skids for full withdrawal, or to halt the whole withdrawal process and put the United States back in the very same strategic box it is in today. The result is likely to be the latter. Six months or a year from now the ISG's report will be a memory and the ball will be back in the hands of the man who got the United States into the quagmire to begin with: the decider in the White House. At that point, Bush is likely to revert to his gut and heart, and decide not to be the president who lost Iraq. That honor he will pass on to his successor.

The 80% Solution In Iraq - Maybe Not

The Times reports that the Administration is not embracing the 80% solution:

The administration is also debating whether to back a Shiite government in the conflict with the Sunnis, or to seek a new strategy for national reconciliation between Sunni and Shiite factions that would be intended to expand the political base of Mr. Maliki, at Mr. Sadr’s expense.

Some members of the administration, including some in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, have argued that the administration needs to provide clear support to a strong Shiite majority government, but the State Department, led by Condoleezza Rice, views that as a recipe for perpetual civil war. Ms. Rice has instead advocated a proposal intended to woo centrist Sunni leaders to Mr. Maliki’s side, including provincial leaders. One senior administration official said reports of internal arguments on this issue were “overblown” because “everyone believes in national reconciliation.”

...

Several officials said the administration was currently leaning away from a plan advocated by some in Mr. Cheney’s office in which the United States would effectively choose sides and direct outsized support to Iraqi Shiites at the expense of the Sunnis. Some administration officials say the discussion about tilting toward Shiites may be intended in part to put pressure on Sunni leaders who might crack down on extremists within their ranks to pre-empt any such policy change.

Ms. Rice has instead advocated propping up moderate Sunnis and encouraging them to support Mr. Maliki. As part of that approach, the United States would work with Sunni tribal leaders who have become disenchanted with the Sunni insurgency, a move long advocated by Saudi Arabia.

The Times also reports on Saudi unhappiness with a US policy that does not protect Sunni interests in Iraq:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 12 — Saudi Arabia has told the Bush administration that it might provide financial backing to Iraqi Sunnis in any war against Iraq’s Shiites if the United States pulls its troops out of Iraq, according to American and Arab diplomats.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia conveyed that message to Vice President Dick Cheney two weeks ago during Mr. Cheney’s whirlwind visit to Riyadh, the officials said. During the visit, King Abdullah also expressed strong opposition to diplomatic talks between the United States and Iran, and pushed for Washington to encourage the resumption of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, senior Bush administration officials said.

...The Saudis have argued strenuously against an American pullout from Iraq, citing fears that Iraq’s minority Sunni Arab population would be massacred. Those fears, United States officials said, have become more pronounced as a growing chorus in Washington has advocated a draw-down of American troops in Iraq, coupled with diplomatic outreach to Iran, which is largely Shiite.

This is not exactly news, as noted here:

The Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who told his staff on Monday that he was resigning his post, recently fired Nawaf Obaid, a consultant who wrote an opinion piece in The Washington Post two weeks ago contending that “one of the first consequences” of an American pullout of Iraq would “be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis.”

The Nov 29 Nawaf Obaid piece is here (or excerpts).

Sister Souljah Opportunity

Hillary Clinton has a Sister Souljah opportunity in the Duke lacrosse case:

A North Carolina congressman has asked the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong's handling of the Duke lacrosse case.

In a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, U.S. Rep. Walter B. Jones said Nifong may have engaged in prosecutorial misconduct and violated the civil rights of the three lacrosse players charged with raping an escort service dancer hired to dance at a team party in March.

The players have emphatically said they are innocent and have said the accusations are lies.

Three former players, Dave Evans, 23, of Bethesda, Md.; Collin Finnerty, 20, of Garden City, N.Y.; and Reade Seligmann, 20, of Essex Fells, N.J., are charged with rape, kidnapping and sexual offense.

...Jones' letter apparently came in response to a letter from a defense lawyer for Finnerty. Michael Cornacchia of New York City had written to federal officials, senators and congressional representatives, including the entire North Carolina delegation, asking them to support a federal investigation into Nifong's actions.

Since Collin Finnerty is from NY and has a pretty good alibi, Ms. Clinton might want to get behind her constituents.  But I'll bet she is far too cautious to do so.

Let's Do Lunch - I'll Call Ya

Ted Kennedy is swimming as quickly as only he can from the foundering SS Kerry:

Senator Edward M. Kennedy Monday dropped his public commitment to support Senator John F. Kerry in a 2008 presidential race, saying that he won't wait "indefinitely" for Kerry to declare his intentions while the Democratic primary field takes shape.

Kennedy said he doesn't currently plan to endorse another candidate and still might support Kerry if Kerry decides to run. But in an hourlong interview with the Globe's Washington bureau, Kennedy offered strong praise for two of Kerry's possible presidential rivals: senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, calling them "formidable figures" who are connecting with rank-and-file Democrats.

Kennedy said his oft-stated commitment to support Kerry again was based on the assumption that Kerry would state his intentions by early 2007. Since Kerry pushed back his decision in the wake of following an election-eve "botched joke" that damaged his public standing, however, Kennedy said he has informed Kerry that he may get behind another Democrat for president.

A dating tip for Tall John: "I have to wash my hair tonight" does not mean "Let's get together this afternoon".

Or as a wise near-leader nearly said, if you study hard and survey the alternatives you may get a good candidate with Hillary or Obama.  Otherwise, you get stuck with Kerry.

Send In The Clowns

Silvestre Reyes, incoming Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is in a deep fog over the difference between Sunni and Shi'ite.  Naturally, this also leaves him a bit hazy on possible mutual interests or conflicts amongst Iran, Hizbollah, Saudi Arabia, Al Qaeda, and the various factions in Iraq.

Jeff Stein, who mousetrapped Reyes, had fun with Republicans prior to the election.

Oh, well - give the quiz to Harman and Hastings and pick a real chairman.

Lots of reax at Memeorandum.  Hilzoy had the most helpful table-pounding:

Actually, it's not more complicated than the Hatfields and McCoys -- at least if you're talking about keeping Shi'a and Sunni groups straight, rather than figuring out all the various subgroups into which each can be divided. Moreover, even the most minimal knowledge of the Middle East would help. For instance, could anyone who knows that Osama bin Laden is Saudi and that Saudi Arabia is Sunni -- not exactly arcane facts -- possibly be in doubt as to whether al Qaeda is Sunni or Shi'a? If it comes to that, could anyone who knows that Saudi Arabia is the guardian of the holiest places in Islam not figure out that it must be Sunni, given that Sunni Islam is the mainstream orthodoxy from which Shi'a Islam split off? I mean, this is like wondering whether the Vatican City is Protestant or Catholic: its structural features tell you what you need to know, given any understanding at all of the history of the religion in question.

The only way one could possibly be confused on this question would be if one had no background whatsoever in the history of Islam or the Middle East, and were instead trying to memorize various people's religious allegiances using flash cards. If all you had were unfamiliar names, it might be difficult. If you had any sense at all of the underlying story -- even in its broadest outlines -- it wouldn't be.

We Have Something Behind Each Of Three Doors...

The WaPo reports on the Bush Administration deliberations for a Way Forward on Iraq:

Iraq Strategy Review Focusing on Three Main Options

By Robin Wright and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, December 9, 2006; A01

As pressure mounts for a change of course in Iraq, the Bush administration is groping for a viable new strategy for the president to unveil by Christmas, with deliberations now focused on three main options to redefine the U.S. military and political engagement, according to officials familiar with the debate.

The major alternatives include a short-term surge of 15,000 to 30,000 additional U.S. troops to secure Baghdad and accelerate the training of Iraqi forces. Another strategy would redirect the U.S. military away from the internal strife to focus mainly on hunting terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda. And the third would concentrate political attention on supporting the majority Shiites and abandon U.S. efforts to reach out to Sunni insurgents.

Ms. Wright reported on "The 80 Percent Solution", i.e,. support the Shiites, last week (my thoughts; Laura Rozen broke this three weeks ago, and Dan Drezner added some poli-sci.)  Let me add that the Wall Street Journal editors endorsed last week the 80% Minus Solution - their gist was, we should embrace and empower the Good Shiites, thereby giving them the clout and confidence to negotiate generously with the Sunnis and disarm the Bad Shiite militias and death squads.  Hmm - the Christmas spirit of good-will is everywhere.

Whatever strategy we pursue should be directed towards a targeted end-state in Iraq , or so says the memo from the Department of the Obvious (never to be confused with the Department of Redundancy Department).  So, where are we headed in Iraq?

At one time the goal was a stable, unified, democratic Iraq. My impression is that at this point, Washington (and the world) would be delighted with "stable".  Some alternatives:

(1) Iraq united under a strongman, presumably Shiite.  Kurdistan would be highly autonomous in this (or any other) scenario, but a strongman could emerge following implementation of the 80% solution.

(2) Three federated states, with Baghdad as a federal city with its own population-based share of oil revenue and run by the central government -  basically, the Biden plan.

(3) Three independent states.  There was a time when Turkey would have objected to an independent Kurdistan.  However, that was at a time when the three broad choices appeared to be a unified Iraq, separate states, or chaos.  At this point, with the alternatives whittled down a bit, Turkey may settle for an independent Kurdistan.  Maybe the three states become four, if partitioning Baghdad makes no sense.

(4) Chaos.

I think we are aiming for (2).

As to the three strategies on offer - I like the troop surge to secure Baghdad but politically it is not wholly consistent with telling the Iraqis we are not in Baghdad to stay.

Hunting Al Qaeda smells like a cop-out - essentially, we re-define the mission and withdraw.

And I am not afraid of the 80% solution, it if is accompanied with an oil-revenue deal as noted below.

So, if I must order off of this menu, I would pick the 80% Solution.  The goal would be a Shiite government strong enough to more or less present the Sunnis with their own state and oil revenue stream.  The end-state would look like the Biden plan of three states plus Baghdad.

A Deal On Iraq's Oil?

The Baker Commission gets results!  From the NY Times:

Iraqis Near Deal on Distribution of Oil Revenues by Population

By Edward Wong

BAGHDAD, Dec. 8 — Iraqi officials are near agreement on a national oil law that would give the central government the power to distribute current and future oil revenues to the provinces or regions, based on their population, Iraqi and American officials say.

If enacted, the measure, drafted by a committee of politicians and ministers, could help resolve a highly divisive issue that has consistently blocked efforts to reconcile the country’s feuding ethnic and sectarian factions. Sunni Arabs, who lead the insurgency, have opposed the idea of regional autonomy for fear that they would be deprived of a fair share of the country’s oil wealth, which is concentrated in the Shiite south and Kurdish north.

The Iraq Study Group report stressed that an oil law guaranteeing an equitable distribution of revenues was crucial to the process of national reconciliation, and thus to ending the war.

Without such a law, it would also be impossible for Iraq to attract the foreign investment it desperately needs to bolster its oil industry.

Officials cautioned that this was only a draft agreement, and that it could still be undermined by the ethnic and sectarian squabbling that has jeopardized other political talks. The Iraqi Constitution, for example, was stalled for weeks over small wording conflicts, and its measures are often meaningless in the chaos and violence in Iraq today.

But a deal on the oil law could be reached within days, according to officials involved in the drafting. It would then go to the cabinet and Parliament for approval.

The major remaining stumbling block, officials said, concerns the issuing of contracts for developing future oil fields. The Kurds are insisting that the regions reserve final approval over such contracts, fearing that if that power were given to a Shiite-dominated central government, it could ignore proposed contracts in the Kurdish north while permitting them in the Shiite south, American and Iraqi officials said.

The national oil law lies at the heart of debates about the future of Iraq, particularly the issue of a strong central government versus robust regional governments. The oil question has also inflamed ethnic and sectarian tensions. Sunni Arabs, who preside over areas of the country that apparently have little or no oil, are adamant about the equitable distribution of oil revenues by the central government.

The oil revenue will be distributed to regional governments, rather than directly to the people.  Given their lack of financial infrastructure that seems sensible.  Since the central government is deprived of this revenue stream then Iraq is pretty clearly on the path to semi-autonomous regions, unless the central government can exercise vigorous control over who amongst the local governments receives the funds.

Oh, well - given the opportunities for graft and abuse, we can imagine Ben Franklin's description of what the Iraqi politicians have delivered: a gravy train, if you can ride it.

The Foley Report Is Out

The NY Times and WaPo cover the newly released report covering the Foley-Congressional page scandal (This page links to the report and the exhibit list).  The Times utterly ignores the report's conclusions about how various Democrats shopped the initial emails to the media for political gain; the WaPo does not.

From the Times:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 — The House ethics committee  said Friday that a nine-week investigation into former Representative Mark Foley’s conduct  had found that Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and other Republican leaders were negligent in not shielding teenagers from inappropriate advances by Mr. Foley.

But the panel also concluded that neither Mr. Hastert nor other officers of the House had violated any House rules, and recommended no sanctions for their failure to stop Mr. Foley’s conduct.

The bipartisan report, released in the waning hours of the Congressional session, concluded that “political considerations played a role” in some of the decisions made by lawmakers or their aides after learning about Mr. Foley’s contacts with former Congressional pages.

“A pattern of conduct was exhibited among many individuals to remain willfully ignorant of the potential consequences” of Mr. Foley’s untoward behavior, the report said. “The failure to exhaust all reasonable efforts to call attention to potential misconduct involving a member and House page is not merely the exercise of poor judgment, it is a present danger to House pages and to the integrity of the institution of the House.”

...

The committee found that there was “a disconcerting unwillingness to take responsibility for resolving issues regarding Representative Foley’s conduct.” Those in the chain of command, the report said, “did far too little, while attempting to pass the responsibility for acting to others.”

The committee said it could not conclusively say why Republicans failed to address Mr. Foley’s conduct. But the investigation found that Republicans “may have been concerned that raising the issue too aggressively might have risked exposing Representative Foley’s homosexuality, which could have adversely affected him both personally and politically.”

...

In a written statement on Friday, Mr. Hastert noted that the investigation found no evidence that anyone knew about the sexually charged instant messages that led to Mr. Foley’s resignation. “I am glad the committee made clear that there was no violation of any House rules by any member or staff,” he added.

Still, the investigation concluded that the speaker’s chief of staff, Scott Palmer, first learned of Mr. Foley’s conduct with pages in 2002 or 2003. And the speaker’s chief counsel, Ted Van Der Meid, had been aware of concerns about Mr. Foley’s behavior for nearly a decade.

The committee’s findings validated the accounts of Kirk Fordham, Mr. Foley’s former chief of staff, and Jeff Trandahl, then the House clerk, both of whom testified that they repeatedly warned the speaker’s office about Mr. Foley, described in the report as a “ticking time bomb.” The concerns heightened in November, 2005, when a former page sent e-mail messages he had received from Mr. Foley to the office of Representative Rodney Alexander, a Louisiana Republican. It was this exchange, in which Mr. Foley asked for the teenager’s photograph, that prompted Republican leaders to confront Mr. Foley.

And the WaPo:

The House ethics committee concluded yesterday that House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and his top staff probably knew for months, if not years, of then-Rep. Mark Foley's inappropriate contact with former House pages but did nothing to protect the teenagers.

Top GOP House leaders also "failed to exercise appropriate diligence" in the matter, the committee's report found, and tried "to remain willfully ignorant of the potential consequences of Foley's conduct." The ensuing scandal contributed to the Republicans' losses in the midterm elections. The report speculated that some officials were reluctant to act too aggressively for fear of exposing Foley's homosexuality or for political reasons.

And here is a swipe at the Dems that the Times inexplicably overlooked:

Democratic aides are also criticized, for shopping around inappropriate Foley e-mails to media outlets as far back as November 2005, apparently for political gain.

...

Democrats receive their share of scrutiny in the report. In August 2005, a former page of Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.) sent Alexander aide Danielle Savoy e-mails he had received from Foley asking him for a picture and asking what he wanted for his birthday. Savoy passed them on to a friend, who showed them to her boyfriend, Justin Field, who worked for the House Democratic Caucus.

Democratic Caucus communications director Matt Miller saw the e-mails as inappropriate, but rather than taking them to authorities, he shopped them to the press, first to the Miami Herald and the St. Petersburg Times that November, then to the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call. He also gave the e-mails to the communications director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, a point apparently validating Republican charges that senior Democrats were behind the revelation of Foley's conduct.

However, re the shopped e-mails:

Hastert issued a statement late yesterday stressing that the investigation had uncovered no evidence that any House member, officer or employee, or any member of the media, knew of the overtly sexual instant messages that led to Foley's sudden resignation.

Just a reminder - there were the first emails to the Louisiana page that were borderline ("send me a picture", and then a second wave from other pages who cam forward after the story broke that were not ambiguous.

Saudi Private Citizens Funding Sunni Insurgency

The AP follows up on the assertion in the ISG Report (p. 29 / p. 47 of the .pdf) that

Funding for the Sunni insurgency comes from private individuals within Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, even as those governments help facilitate U.S. military operations in Iraq by providing basing and overflight rights and by cooperating on intelligence issues.

From the AP:

Private Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq and much of the money is used to buy weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, according to key Iraqi officials and others familiar with the flow of cash.

Saudi government officials deny that any money from their country is being sent to Iraqis fighting the government and the U.S.-led coalition.

But the U.S. Iraq Study Group report said Saudis are a source of funding for Sunni Arab insurgents. Several truck drivers interviewed by The Associated Press described carrying boxes of cash from Saudi Arabia into Iraq, money they said was headed for insurgents.

Two high-ranking Iraqi officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity, told the AP most of the Saudi money comes from private donations, called zaqat, collected for Islamic causes and charities.

Some Saudis appear to know the money is headed to Iraq's insurgents, but others merely give it to clerics who channel it to anti-coalition forces, the officials said.

...

Saudi officials vehemently deny their country is a major source of financial support for the insurgents.

''There isn't any organized terror finance, and we will not permit any such unorganized acts,'' said Brig. Gen. Mansour al-Turki, a spokesman for the Saudi Interior Ministry. About a year ago the Saudi government set up a unit to track any ''suspicious financial operations,'' he said.

But the Iraq Study Group said ''funding for the Sunni insurgency comes from private individuals within Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.''

Saudi officials say they cracked down on zakat abuses, under pressure from the United States, after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.

The Iraqi officials, however, said some funding goes to Iraq's Sunni Arab political leadership, who then disburse it. Other money, they said, is funneled directly to insurgents. The distribution network includes Iraqi truck and bus drivers.

Several drivers interviewed by the AP in Middle East capitals said Saudis have been using religious events, like the hajj pilgrimage to Mecca and a smaller pilgrimage, as cover for illicit money transfers. Some money, they said, is carried into Iraq on buses with returning pilgrims.

ISG - Military Perspective

The NY Times talked to some generals about the military component of the ISG pla, which means they went one step further than Messrs. Baker and Hamilton:

The group’s final military recommendations were not discussed with the retired officers who serve on the group’s Military Senior Adviser Panel before publication, several of those officers said.

The one-year timetable is not realistic:

“The new Iraqi Army will need years to become equal to the challenge posed by a persistent insurgency and terrorist threat,” Lt. Col. Carl D. Grunow, a former military adviser, wrote in a recent issue of Military Review, a journal published by the United States Army.

...The rapid withdrawal of American combat forces would also deprive the Iraqi military of the opportunity to work as partners with the Americans in combined operations. “There is no meaningful plan for creating a mix of effective Iraqi military forces, police forces, governance and criminal justice system at any point in the near future, much less by 2008,” noted Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, referring to the group’s study.

The method of implementation is tactically suspect:

Barry R. McCaffrey, a retired four-star general, said in an interview that the overall concept of withdrawing American forces as the Iraqis built up their military capability was sound. But he argued that the specific recommendations by the panel raised a second problem: if American combat brigades were withdrawn from Iraq, the thousands of American advisers who remained might find themselves dangerously exposed, particularly if the fighting in Iraq grew into a full-scale civil war. The advisers could be killed or taken hostage.

“They came up with a political thought but then got to tinkering with tactical ideas that in my view don’t make any sense,” General McCaffrey said. “This is a recipe for national humiliation.”

And the Times is not impressed:

The study contains all the ingredients of a Washington compromise. What is less apparent is a detailed and convincing military strategy that is likely to work in Iraq.

I Was Assured That Richardson Could Never Run

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is picking up his hat and preparing to toss it into the 2008 Presidential ring.

Two years ago I was assured, by a Dem fundraiser who seemed quite certain, that Richardson could never run, due to a private life that, in his phrase, made Bernie Kerik look like a choir boy.  (If you have forgotten Bernie Kerik's failed bid to head up Homeland Security, well, he would have done a heck of a job.)

Yet Another Measure Of Media Bias

Austan Goolsbee, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, writes about a paper on media bias written by two U of Chicago profs, Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse M. Shapiro.  Their conclusion - newspapers are simply delivering what the readers want:

Any politician will tell you that sometimes what we call things is the most political decision of all. Political consultants like Frank Luntz, a Republican, have become legendary for their way of spinning language to partisan advantage: ”death tax” instead of “estate tax,” “war on terror” instead of “war in Iraq.” But most people expect spin from politicians. When they perceive partisan slant in the news itself, they typically interpret it as evidence of underlying bias by reporters or media owners.

But one of the most interesting things coming out of research on the economics of the media industry has been the notion that media slant may simply reflect business rather than politics.

New research by two University of Chicago economists, Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse M. Shapiro, entitled “What Drives Media Slant? Evidence From U.S. Daily Newspapers” (www.nber.org/papers/w12707.pdf)   compiles some compelling and altogether unusual data to answer the question.

(A free and direct link to the paper is here.)

Dr. Gentzkow and Dr. Shapiro started in the world of the political. They parsed the words of politicians — all the words — from the 2005 Congressional Record. They found the 1,000 most partisan phrases uttered in the year. They measured this by comparing how frequently a phrase was used by one side or the other.

In 2005, phrases like “death tax,” “illegal aliens,” “Terri Schiavo,” and “nuclear power” came mostly from Republicans. Phrases like “minimum wage,” “public broadcasting,” “middle class” and “oil companies” came mostly from Democrats. Using those phrases, the two economists made a simple index of partisanship that comported nicely with standard measures like a politician’s score on the Americans for Democratic Action ideological scale.

The study then analyzed 417 newspapers in the United States (accounting for some 70 percent of total newspaper circulation) as if they were politicians. The researchers measured, for example, all the times in articles about Social Security that a newspaper referred to “personal accounts” (Republican) or to “private accounts” (Democratic). Their measure of partisan slant came only from the news coverage. They did not include anything from the editorial page.

The index matched most popular perceptions of newspaper partisanship. Papers like The Washington Times or The Deseret Morning News of Salt Lake City used Republican phrases while papers like The San Francisco Chronicle and The Boston Globe used Democratic ones.

From the paper:

We find that the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post are similar to one another and to a fairly liberal congressperson; Groseclose and Milyo (2005) identify these papers as liberal and (statistically) fairly similar to one another. Groseclose and Milyo (2005) find that USA Today is somewhat closer to the center than these papers, a finding that we replicate but with a smaller magnitude. We also strongly confirm their finding that the Washington Times is significantly to the right of the other newspapers they consider. Our most significant point of disagreement is that we identify the Wall Street Journal as fairly right-leaning, whereas Groseclose and Milyo (2005) estimate that it is the most liberal newspaper in their sample.

As to Groseclose and Milyo, we had comments and links (some of which may still be working) from June 2004 and Dec 2005.

But Don't Blame (or Name!) Nancy Or Harry

The NY Times has a plaintive editorial calling on "Democratic leaders" to fulfill their campaign promise to reform Congressional oversight of intelligence.  However, the Times seems to be unable to actually come up with any names for these leaders, so let me help - Nancy Pelosi is the incoming Speaker of the House; Harry Reid is incoming Senate Majority Leader:

Cherry-Picking Campaign Promises

Weeks before they take majority control of the Capitol, the Democrats are reported to be wriggling out of one of their most important campaign vows: to repair Congressional oversight of the nation’s intelligence agencies. Congress was found to be nothing less than “dysfunctional” on this duty by the Sept. 11 commission, which wisely recommended a full-scale revamping of the committee structure.

This necessarily means a wrenching change in the budget powers over intelligence exercised by the bulls of the defense appropriations process — a monopoly that reduces the intelligence committees to secondary lap dogs. When the Republican-controlled Congress showed no appetite for a turf fight, Democrats eagerly made a campaign vow to promptly enact all of the panel’s recommendations.

Now that they can taste power again, however, the victors seem to be having second thoughts. Instead of attempting wholesale committee reform in the first weeks of Congress, Democratic leaders may punt the idea toward oblivion in some sort of a study panel, according to The Washington Post. Nothing could be more disappointing to voters.

The Sept. 11 commission report was not sacred writ. And Democrats still vow to enact major commission recommendations to bolster port security and screen airport cargo. But the lawmakers cannot ignore the fact that they were found to be an organic part of the problem. Surely, the leaders of the new Congress know they will be risking the nation’s security, far more than their credibility, if they retreat from the vow to do a stronger job of oversight.

We did a bit of Nancy-bashing on this very topic a mere week ago, in a post centered on what seems to be the same WaPo article to which the Times editorial refers.

You Can't Always Get What Nobody Wants

Hilzoy of Obsidian Wings is appropriately gloomy about the Iraq Salvage Group, highlighting three obstacles - training Iraqis has not been working and probably can't; the Iraqis themselves aren't committed to a stable, unified Iraq; and US leadership may be, hmm, sub-optimal (Hilzoy did not use a phrase including the "George Bush" and "miserable failure", but I read carefully between the lines).  Some highlights:

Taking [the ISG's] major recommendations in turn:

(1) We should train the Iraqi armed forces and the police. Here I'll just reiterate a point I've made before: if the main problem with the Iraqi army is that they lack training, then training them is a solution. If, however, the main problem is something else -- say, the fact that the armed forces have no loyalty to the Iraqi government, that they therefore have no real motivation to fight for it, and that they are moreover heavily infiltrated by militias and thus are likely to obey those militias' orders, not their commanders', when push comes to shove -- then providing them with more training will not address their actual problems.

...There's no reason to think that training troops will produce a competent and motivated Iraqi army that is loyal to the government. And the commanders on the ground don't think this will work in anything like the time frame the ISG report uses, or that it can be carried out while drawing down combat troops.

2): We should push the Iraqi government to take various steps to strengthen the country and resolve sectarian differences. Matt Yglesias has already explained what's wrong with this part, so I'll just quote him:

"As the report outlines, the fundamental problem in Iraq is the absence of broad-based national reconciliation. Absent such reconciliation, it's impossible for the US military to provide security to the country, impossible to create effective Iraqi institutions, and impossible to isolate hard-core extremists on either side of the sectarian divide.

As the report also recognizes, the main obstacle to broad-based reconciliation is that none of the relevant parties seem to want it...

(3) Diplomacy. We very badly need to engage in diplomacy in the region. However, I don't think this is going to work. For starters, just ask yourself who is going to do the negotiating. The ISG itself says that it should be done at the cabinet level or above. "Above" means Bush. Does anyone think that George W. Bush has the temperament, the patience, the knowledge, the command of detail, the anything to do a good job at this? I didn't think so.

However, he's the only person who could do it, for one simple reason: anyone else would have to be empowered to speak for the President.

To illustrate this Hilzoy includes a TIME report that had already troubled me:

To bring Bush aboard, Solomon, Hamre and Abshire approached the one person in Bushland who still had a reputation for realism and who could command the President's ear, alone: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Condi may be the best we've got, and I think she is a terrific person in a terrible spot, but I am not a fan - her effort at the NSC did not exactly produce a smoothly humming National Security apparatus that either resolved differences or highlighted them in order to produce a Presidential decision.

Gregory Djerejian was more upbeat than I on this point, which is not to say he was upbeat:

Recommendation 6:

The New Diplomatic Offensive and the work of the Support Group should be carried out with urgency, and should be conducted by and organized at the level of foreign minister or above. The Secretary of State, if not the President, should lead the U.S. effort. That effort should be both bilateral and multilateral, as circumstances require.

With all due respect to a very accomplished Secretary of State (putting POTUS aside for obvious reasons), one wonders whether she'd be up to this hugely complex task, keeping in mind all her other responsibilities, with each of Bob Zeollick and Philip Zelikow no longer around, and given her lack of Middle East expertise. Worth noting too, this isn't giddy "transformational" diplomacy (whatever that means) but rather the plain, old fashioned crisis management and damage control kind.

Mr. Djerejian is also interesting on the proposed diplomacy with Iran and Syria:

P.S. On moving Syria away from Iran, see importantly "Recommendation 15" and "Recommendation 16", which might signal to Asad (if Bush signs on to this approach, of course) that the U.S. could be re-emerging as an 'honest broker' on the Arab-Israeli front:

RECOMMENDATION 15: Concerning Syria, some elements of that negotiated peace should be:

Syria’s full adherence to UN Security Council Resolution 1701 of August 2006, which provides the framework for Lebanon to regain sovereign control over its territory.

Syria’s full cooperation with all investigations into political assassinations in Lebanon, especially those of Rafik Hariri and Pierre Gemay el.

A verifiable cessation of Syrian aid to Hezbollah and the use of Syrian territory for transshipment of Iranian weapons and aid to Hezbollah. (This step would do much to solve Israel’s problem with Hezbollah.)

Syria’s use of its influence with Hamas and Hezbollah for the release of the captured Israeli Defense Force soldiers.

A verifiable cessation of Syrian efforts to undermine the democratically elected government of Lebanon.

A verifiable cessation of arms shipments from or transiting through Syria for Hamas and other radical Palestinian groups.

A Syrian commitment to help obtain from Hamas an acknowledgment of Israel’s right to exist.

Greater Syrian efforts to seal its border with Iraq.

RECOMMENDATION 16: In exchange for these actions and in the context of a full and secure peace agreement, the Israelis should return the Golan Heights, with a U.S. security guarantee for Israel that could include an international force on the border, including U.S. troops if requested by both parties.

US troops to guarantee the Israel-Syria border?  That gets us out of one quagmire and into another but may well be worth it.

 

Flying Grievance Theater

We don't know the motivation of the Six Flying Imams, but the WSJ and Q&O have coverage.  We agree that the captain and crew acted correctly, but an unanswered question vexes us - was Borat filming this incident?

"Grave And Deteriorating"

The Iraq Salvage Study Group issues its report.

Stop The ACLU has a round-up of reaction from the right.

Let me clip this from the report's "Letter fom the Co-Chairs":

We believe it is still possible to pursue different policies that can give Iraq an opportunity for a better future, combat terrorism, stabilize a critical region of the world, and protect America’s credibility, interests, and values. Our report makes it clear that the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people also must act to achieve a stable and hopeful future.

Hmm - the goal of a unified, stable, democratic Iraq seems to have slipped a bit - at this point, "stability" is looking pretty desirable.

Yet U.S. foreign policy is doomed to failure—as is any course of action in Iraq—if it is not supported by a broad, sustained consensus. The aim of our report is to move our country toward such a consensus.

Well, then - I blame the other side for failing to get with the consensus!  I suppose they blame me, too, but there it is.

Winning The Battles, Losing The War

Robert Gates made news and then modified it as his confirmation hearing yesterday.  In the morning session Gates told the Senators that

"the United States was not winning in Iraq and that American failure there could ignite “a regional conflagration” in the Middle East".

However, Mr. Gates asked for a mulligan in the afternoon:

As the day wore on and his confirmation appeared increasingly secure, Mr. Gates seemed to absorb the weight of the job. He asked to expound on his morning remark about not winning in Iraq, saying he did not want the troops to believe they were being unsuccessful.

“Our military wins the battles that we fight,” Mr. Gates said. He added that “where we’re having our challenges, frankly, are in the areas of stabilization and political developments,” and that he believed that other federal agencies should contribute more assistance in Iraq.

The same has been said of the US experience in Vietnam - we won every battle but lost the war.

For an idea about why that might be, let's cut to Vanity Fair:

To former C.I.A. director Woolsey, one of this saga's most baffling features has been the persistent use of military tactics that were discredited in Vietnam. Since 2003, U.S. forces have "fought 'search-and-destroy' instead of 'clear-and-hold,'" he says, contrasting the ineffective strategy of hunting down insurgents to the proven one of taking territory and defending it. "There's never been a successful anti-insurgency campaign that operated according to search-and-destroy, because bad guys just come back in after you've passed through and kill the people that supported you," Woolsey explains. "How the U.S. government's post-fall-of-Baghdad planning could have ignored that history of Vietnam is stunning to me." But Rumsfeld and Bush were never willing to provide the high troop levels that Woolsey says are necessary for clear-and-hold.

Support for Woolsey from "Daddy" in the comments:

Talked to a good friend last night, just returned from Afghanistan, and his comment about his area of that theater was almost precisely what Woolsey said. Essentially he said we defeat the enemy handily when encountered in whatever little hamlet, but then instead of leaving even a token presence, we pull out. The bad guy's return, and then when we go back in to roust them out again, we've lost the cooperation and trust of the locals because they don't believe in the long run we can be depended upon to keep them safe. Thus the job gradually gets more difficult.

That does not sound like rocket science to me.

Thank You For Speaking English

Some French-bashing in the NY Times brightens our day:

As the [European Union] has grown, so, too, has the number of its official languages. One side effect is that English is emerging increasingly as the union’s lingua franca, much to the chagrin of the French, once the guardians of the group’s foremost tongue.

It was not always this way. When the union was born in the 1950s, Britain was not among the founding nations and French was the accepted language of diplomacy and international affairs.

...

“The weight of English grows each year,” said Nicolas de la Grandville, the spokesman for the French permanent delegation. The scales tipped further in favor of English in 1995, he said, with the entrance of Sweden, Finland and Austria, where English, not French, is the common second language. And the language situation is set to become more complicated yet, probably reinforcing the dominance of English.

In January, Bulgaria and Romania will enter the union, and Gaelic will be formally recognized as one of Ireland’s official languages, alongside English. With Bulgaria’s entry another alphabet, Cyrillic, will go into use in Brussels along with the Latin and Greek alphabets. Moreover, Spain has obtained the right to have the regional languages Basque, Catalan and Galician recognized as “semiofficial” languages.

This will bring the number of official union languages to 23. That means that all official documents, including 90,000 pages of past treaties and agreements, will have to be translated into all those languages.

The cost is immense: the union budgets $1.3 billion a year and employs about 3,000 people for translating and interpreting. Little wonder, then, that most officials and others working here tend to use English — to the point at times of making the French want to scream, in any language.

And here is a sobering tidbit for David Gregory, as well as any US newscaster who ocassionally has trouble with their language skills:

Dispassionate is probably the best way to describe the reaction to all this of Indrek Treufeldt, who for the last four years has been the correspondent of Estonian State Television at the European Union.

Mr. Treufeldt works comfortably in English, French and German, he said over coffee in fluent English recently, in addition to his native Estonian, a Baltic language somewhat akin to Finnish. His Finnish is also quite good, he said, since in the old days, when Estonia was a Soviet republic, Estonians would often watch Finnish television.

“You know, ‘Dallas’ in Finnish,” he said. “It was our window to the West.” And at 37, he belongs to the last generation of Estonians to serve in the Soviet Army, so his Russian is good.

Only six languages?

Name That Candidate

Byron York has a very funny post about Barack Hussein Il Jong Obama.  His intro:

Maureen Dowd is worried that the Republican smear machine is at it again, attacking Barack Obama by using…his middle name.  It seems Ed Rogers referred to Obama by his full name on "Hardball" a while back, setting off indignation among some on the left.  I don't know why it came to Rogers' mind, but it is true I included Obama's middle name in an NR story (not available on the web) in early November:

Obama has joked that he worried his political career was over after 9/11 because his name sounded too much like Osama. In fact, it's better than that: Named after his father, his full name is Barack Hussein Obama Jr.

Maureen Dowd and Keith Olbermann are foaming (this is news?), so you know we are having fun now.

Folks old enough to remember gibes at 41 as George Herbert Hoover Bush may not be too impressed with the current complaints.  But fair's fair!  If Obama, the People's Choice as the Anybody But Hillary Alternative, must carry the burden of his names, the Evil Republican Noise Machine really ought to come up with a suitably scary monicker for Hillary! as well.

I suggest - brace yourself - Hillary Clinton.

Whither The NSA Warrantless Surveillance?

The Anon Lib made a good point a few days back about the limited significance of the Lanny Davis endorsement of the NSA warrantless surveillance program.  His gist - even if it is well designed to protect our privacy, it is still not in compliance with FISA.  I push back in his comments, and now the WaPo has more on the likely fate of the program:

The Bush administration is unlikely to allow the incoming Democratic majority in Congress to learn details about its domestic spying program and interrogation policy, a Republican senator said on Thursday.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who has criticized the Bush White House's secrecy about national security issues, said he would welcome detailed congressional oversight of the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping.

"It would be ideal," said Specter, whose committee was blocked by the administration this year from conducting a full review of the program, despite an outcry among some lawmakers that the spying was illegal.

"We have to really get into the details as to what the program is, as to how many people they are tapping, what they're finding out," he told an American Bar Association conference on national security.

But he said he had "grave reservations" that Congress would end up getting the information from the administration.

...

Now, after victory in the November 7 election, Democrats will take control next year and are vowing to press the White House for greater cooperation on domestic spying as well as the CIA's detention and treatment of terrorism suspects.

"Only then, can we conduct thorough oversight of these programs and determine whether they are legal," Sen. John Rockefeller, incoming Democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a recent statement.

I am leaning on the fact that Rockefeller is unwilling to state that the program is not legal - doesn't he read the blogs?  [Or, one cup of coffee later, let's note that he may be shrewdly insulating himself from the charge that he has pre-judged any hearings.]

My Bold Prediction - the fate of the NSA program will mirror that of the detainee bill: look for Dem huffing and puffing and hiding.  Eventually, somethig will be passed that lets Dems pretend the program was then illegal and is now OK, and which lets Reps (and me!) pretend that the issue was never in doubt.

A Day In The Life Of Lewis Libby

Judge Walton's latest opinion foreshadows the dramatic national security issues that engaged I. Lewis Libby during critical phases of the Plame case.  Matt Apuzzo of the AP has coverage; a link to the opinion is here (38 page .pdf).

My impression is that the two sides have whittled the pile of classified info down to a reasonable size, and that this will not be the reason the case founders.

AN AP excerpt:

Libby plans to testify that he had other, more weighty issues on his mind and simply misspoke or forgot when interviewed by the FBI and the grand jury.

Among those issues were the 2003 rise of Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, a diplomatic crisis in Turkey, the ousting of Liberian President Charles Taylor and the role of the Iraqi military after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

And ley us not deny Judge Walton his fun:

Walton said he tried to balance national security concerns with Libby's right to a fair trial. The judge stressed that pre-approving classified evidence "requires a court to play the role of Johnny Carson's character Carnac the Magnificent by requiring it to render rulings before knowing the exact context of how those rulings will coincide with other evidence that has actually been developed at trial."

Shouldn't that be a Jon Stewart reference?  His age (and mine) is showing.

I'll Start By Calling 'Bullshit' On This

Dan Froomkin solves the problem of the MSM:

Mainstream-media political journalism is in danger of becoming increasingly irrelevant, but not because of the Internet, or even Comedy Central. The threat comes from inside. It comes from journalists being afraid to do what journalists were put on this green earth to do.

What is it about Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert that makes them so refreshing and attractive to a wide variety of viewers (including those so-important younger ones)? I would argue that, more than anything else, it is that they enthusiastically call bullshit.

Calling bullshit, of course, used to be central to journalism as well as to comedy. And we happen to be in a period in our history in which the substance in question is running particularly deep. The relentless spinning is enough to make anyone dizzy, and some of our most important political battles are about competing views of reality more than they are about policy choices. Calling bullshit has never been more vital to our democracy.

Uh huh - and the media needs to do more of it, and we would trust them to do so.  Not.

As to the media failing to call bullshit - please.  They do so all the time by simply stonewalling stories that are awkward and inconvenient, such as Kerry's Swift Boat misadventures in Vietnam.

Even in 2006 Kate Zernike of the Times is woefully and wilfully misinformed and tilted towards Kerry on this subject.  Has anyone at the Times pushed Kerry for access to his War Notes, or his Form 180? 

Has anyone at the Times pushed to resolve the odd emergence of Zaladonis in the dispute about Kerry's first Purple Heart - Zaladonis was interviewed repeatedly by historian Douglas Brinkley and at least once by a Boston Globe reporter but apparently never mentioned to them that he was with Kerry when Kerry won his first Purple Heart.  However, when kerry's conduct came under fire in 2004, Zaladonis stepped forward to vouch for Kerry's conduct - does that intrigue any reporters?

No - they called "bullshit" on the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, because they "knew" there was nothing there.  I should add that to their (partial) credit, the WaPo took a stab at getting Kerry's War Notes, but were rebuffed and lost interest.

The 80 Percent Solution

The WaPo has more details on the story Laura Rozen broke two weeks ago:

The Bush administration is deliberating whether to abandon U.S. reconciliation efforts with Sunni insurgents and instead give priority to Shiites and Kurds, who won elections and now dominate the government, according to U.S. officials.

The proposal, put forward by the State Department as part of a crash White House review of Iraq policy, follows an assessment that the ambitious U.S. outreach to Sunni dissidents has failed. U.S. officials are increasingly concerned that their reconciliation efforts may even have backfired, alienating the Shiite majority and leaving the United States vulnerable to having no allies in Iraq, according to sources familiar with the State Department proposal.

Some insiders call the proposal the "80 percent" solution, a term that makes other parties to the White House policy review cringe. Sunni Arabs make up about 20 percent of Iraq's 26 million people.

I stand by my post of two weeks back, and do see Doc Drezner from then (but not now; not yet, anyway).

Matt Yglesias merits a link just for advising us that "in this case more rubble would bring more trouble"; we should also include the stern warning from Nawaf Obaid (an adviser to the Saudi government) that ran in last Wednesday's WaPo:

Stepping Into Iraq
Saudi Arabia Will Protect Sunnis if the U.S. Leaves

By Nawaf Obaid
Wednesday, November 29, 2006; A23

In February 2003, a month before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, warned President Bush that he would be "solving one problem and creating five more" if he removed Saddam Hussein by force. Had Bush heeded his advice, Iraq would not now be on the brink of full-blown civil war and disintegration.

One hopes he won't make the same mistake again by ignoring the counsel of Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who said in a speech last month that "since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited." If it does, one of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis.

Well - they may protect the Sunnis after we leave, but who will protect them while we are there, hmm?

The scenario Mr. Obaid paints seems utterly plausible: with Iran aiding the Shia and Saudi Arabia aiding the Sunnis, we would have at least a war-by-proxy between those two states, and at worst, a full war:

As the economic powerhouse of the Middle East, the birthplace of Islam and the de facto leader of the world's Sunni community (which comprises 85 percent of all Muslims), Saudi Arabia has both the means and the religious responsibility to intervene.

Just a few months ago it was unthinkable that President Bush would prematurely withdraw a significant number of American troops from Iraq. But it seems possible today, and therefore the Saudi leadership is preparing to substantially revise its Iraq policy. Options now include providing Sunni military leaders (primarily ex-Baathist members of the former Iraqi officer corps, who make up the backbone of the insurgency) with the same types of assistance -- funding, arms and logistical support -- that Iran has been giving to Shiite armed groups for years.

Another possibility includes the establishment of new Sunni brigades to combat the Iranian-backed militias. Finally, Abdullah may decide to strangle Iranian funding of the militias through oil policy. If Saudi Arabia boosted production and cut the price of oil in half, the kingdom could still finance its current spending. But it would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties even with today's high prices. The result would be to limit Tehran's ability to continue funneling hundreds of millions each year to Shiite militias in Iraq and elsewhere.

...

...remaining on the sidelines would be unacceptable to Saudi Arabia. To turn a blind eye to the massacre of Iraqi Sunnis would be to abandon the principles upon which the kingdom was founded. It would undermine Saudi Arabia's credibility in the Sunni world and would be a capitulation to Iran's militarist actions in the region.

To be sure, Saudi engagement in Iraq carries great risks -- it could spark a regional war. So be it: The consequences of inaction are far worse.

Gee, what happened to Bush and the Prince holding hands?

Reyes Of Hope!

Silvestre Reyes will be the next Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.  Let's just flash back to that ringing MinuteMan endorsement of Nov. 9 when I wrote that Mr. Reyes "also has something resembling qualifications".

Welcome aboard and good luck sir (said the greeter at the Titanic).

LATER: Right, Then, The Era of Good Feeling Is Over:

From 2005, an investigation involving waste, fraud, and Reyes' daughter:

Surveillance Scandal

Congressman Mike Rogers, a Republican from Alabama, and chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Management, Integration and Oversight, conducted a hearing on June 16, 2005, to probe why L-3 has botched a key border surveillance project.

"In 1998, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service launched the Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System, known as ISIS. This system was originally designed to detect illegal aliens and drug traffickers crossing our borders.

"A major component of the system is the Remote Video Surveillance Program. This network integrates multiple color, thermal and infrared cameras, which are mounted on 50- to 80-foot poles along the borders, into a single remote-controlled system.

"In December 2004, the inspector general of the General Services Administration issued an audit. This report found numerous problems with the Border Patrol's contract for the Remote Video Surveillance Program. (download report here)

"For example, the initial $2 million award was made to the International Microwave Corporation, known as IMC, without documented evidence of a competition. Interestingly, however, one year later IMC received a $200 million extension for many of the tasks that had fallen outside the scope of the original contract.

"GSA also found problems with the equipment. At the Border Patrol location in Blaine, Washington, for example, auditors found cameras and other pieces of equipment that did not work. Some needed frequent repair.
"At three other locations, including Detroit, auditors found surveillance sites where no equipment had even been delivered and no work was underway. At other sites in New York, Arizona and Texas, some equipment had been installed, but was not operational.

"GSA also noted these deficiencies: 60-foot poles that were paid for but never installed; sensitive equipment that failed to meet electrical codes; an operations center where contractors, and government employees did little or no work for over a year; and, not surprisingly, numerous cost overruns.

"In September 2004, GSA abruptly halted extending the contract, leaving approximately 70 border sites without monitoring equipment. It also forced the contractor to ship truckloads of equipment back to the Border Patrol. Today, that equipment is gathering dust in a warehouse.

"What we have here, plain and simple, is a case of gross mismanagement of a multimillion dollar contract. This agreement has violated federal contracting rules. And it has wasted taxpayers' dollars.

"Worst of all, it has seriously weakened our border security."

Despite the sub-committee hearing last year, the investigation has since been dropped. Robert Samuels, a spokesman for the General Services Administration, emailed an update to CorpWatch: "The results of the investigation were not sufficient, however, to pursue further legal action."

It might just be coincidence but the manager of the border security project was Rebecca Reyes, who is now director of policy, procedures and administration at L-3 subsidiary, MPRI. She also happens to be the daughter of Silvestre Reyes, a member of the U.S. Congress from Texas, a former Border Patrol agent who is now a senior member of both the Armed Services and Select Intelligence Committees of the House of Representatives.

More here.