Webb and the Post; New Page Scandal(s) Rumor; Corn vs. Greenberg, Day 3

It was no surprise that The Washington Post endorsed Reaganite-turned-Democrat James Webb for Senate in Virginia over Republican incumbent George Allen. Macaca. The n-word. Jewish "aspersions." Allen has made a mess of his reelection bid and displayed his inner-boob. But this line caught my eye:

[Webb] -- former Navy secretary, former assistant defense secretary, former Marine Corps officer and former Republican -- is admirably independent-minded. He was prescient in warning, back in 2002, that the war in Iraq risked stranding the United States in a long-term occupation without an exit strategy.

What's odd with this picture? The paper's editorial board was a leading advocate of the war before the invasion and has continued to insist the invasion was the right call. Now, the paper's editorialists hail a candidate for having issued warnings the paper itself ignored. If only the Post had been as prescient.

RUMOR ALERT. Former Clerk of the House Jeff Trandahl has told the House ethics committee about two Republican House members who had sex with congressional pages, and neither man is page-chaser Mark Foley. That's the rumor circulating in Washington. One of these Republicans supposedly had sex with a male page; one with a female page. The names of the implicated Republicans are on the rumor-mill, but I'm not going to disclose these identities. I assume if there's truth to this, the allegation will become public. (But then I assumed someone would post The List.) In any event, what impact would such a revelation have on the coming elections? Are Republicans bracing for this bombshell? Perhaps they're preparing to blame Democratic operatives.

CORN VS. GREENBERG RE WOODWARD. Day 3. I know many of you have been waiting to see how I answered Greenberg's pressing question: What would you prefer to give up--Woodward or a whole gang of pundits and commentators (Dowd, Matthews, Moyers and others). Well, the wait is over. My reply is posted on The New Republic site today. Tomorrow, Greenberg gets the final word in our exchange. Here is my last shot:

Bob Woodward's State of Denialby David Greenberg & David Corn

Dear David G.,

Civil and enlightening, of course. Let me start with your entertaining but false choice: Dowd, Will, Matthews, Moyers, Brooks, Russert, Limbaugh, and Air America--or Woodward. Hmmmm. But that's apples and aardvarks. I'm hardly suggesting that Woodward should hang up his notebook and become a pundit (though he does do his share of punditing at times). Nor do I wish to see commentary supplant reporting. After all, the new book I co-wrote with Michael Isikoff, Hubris: The Inside Story, of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, is in-depth narrative reporting about the intrigue and fights that occurred at the CIA, White House, State Department, Pentagon, and Congress concerning the Bush administration's sales campaign for the war. And, as I noted before, it covers plenty of important ground Woodward did not examine in his books. But I might prefer to see Chris Matthews challenging an administration's argument for war in real-time than Bob Woodward collecting string behind the scenes (even rather interesting string) and missing the story--in this case, that the White House misrepresented the intelligence to win public support for a war.

The issue is not these op-ed and cable news commentators versus Woodward; it's Woodward versus Woodward. A reporter who uses his unparalleled access to chronicle the inner workings of the palace versus a reporter who exposes government malfeasance or nonfeasance. Before you protest, I'm not saying that this is an absolute, black-and-white dichotomy and that Woodward only takes self-serving dictation from top-dog players and reveals no wrongdoing. But Woodward certainly used to do more of the latter than the former. And, in the George W. Bush years--prior to State of Denial--Woodward got the balance wrong. (THE NEW REPUBLIC'S Jason Zengerle explains this well in his recent GQ article on Woodward.)

You write, "[T]he beef is that Woodward's reportorial skills aren't matched by an equal analytical prowess--or even by an inclination to interpret his material. As a result, it's alleged, he's too credulous toward his sources' accounts or too immersed in the weeds to see the big picture." Yes, his critics have accused him of such. But my beef is not that he doesn't analyze data; it's that, when it counted most, he skated past the big picture by not reporting on it--for whatever the reason. In an interview with Zengerle, Woodward said, "I think the most important story of the Bush administration is the decision to go to war in Iraq. That's what he's going to be remembered for, and, I think, trying to find out how that happened--and why--is worthy." Woodward was not wrong to focus on the Bush administration's decision-making process (such that it was), but his fixation on the internal deliberations of the Bush clan apparently caused him to overlook what was happening elsewhere in the U.S. government (such as the disputes over intelligence in the various intelligence agencies) and to lose sight of an equally (if not more) significant plot line: Bush was not being honest with the public about his case for war.

As Hubris illustrates, the selling of the war was the original sin of the Iraq war. The sales campaign created false public fears and expectations and led administration officials to neglect (in a reckless fashion) planning for the post-invasion period, which quickly became a debacle. Woodward was part of that first failure. In my opening salvo of this exchange, I cited his pre-invasion comments on CNN. While he did (as you note) first refer to what administration officials were thinking, he clearly went on to endorse the administration's case for war by proclaiming, "The intelligence shows...there are massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction hidden, buried, unaccounted for." He was not merely reporting that this was Bush's claim; he was putting the Bob Woodward stamp of approval on the administration's key assertion that the intelligence was solid. With other reporters (though not many) at that time digging deeper and uncovering evidence the White House was misrepresenting the case against Iraq, why wasn't Woodward doing the same? Why did Plan of Attack sidestep this crucial matter? Why does State of Denial, which revisits the pre-invasion period, not cover this?

Here is another tough question, David: Why is it only now that Woodward is reporting that Bush denies reality? This has been evident for years. Yet it was not part of Plan of Attack, which came out in the middle of the 2004 election campaign. I'm not expecting Woodward to be omniscient (even if his books have such a tone) and to know everything before every other reporter (even if he has better high-level access than any other journalist in town). But, before and after the invasion, there were reporters breaking stories on the administration's faulty, flimsy and fraudulent case for war. Warren Strobel, Jonathan Landay, and John Walcott at Knight Ridder come to mind. And Woodward only had to read his own paper to see something was amiss. On March 18, 2003, in a story headlined "BUSH CLINGS TO DUBIOUS ALLEGATIONS ABOUT IRAQ," Post reporters Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank wrote,

As the Bush administration prepares to attack Iraq this week, it is doing so on the basis of a number of allegations against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that have been challenged -- and in some cases disproved -- by the United Nations, European governments and even U.S. intelligence reports.

Woodward didn't employ his talents and superb connections to chase this story--either for his newspaper (which buried the Pincus/Milbank article on page A13) or for Plan of Attack. As you say, that book did break some important news--the early planning of the Iraq invasion, the shifting of hundreds of millions of dollars--but not the most important tale: What went wrong as Bush decided to go to war.

I certainly don't want to ship Woodward off to a home for retired shoe-leather journalists. But it seems clear that he mis-deployed himself during Bush's first term and that State of Denial is an attempt to right his course. Plugging his new book on "60 Minutes," Woodward summed up the volume this way: "It is the oldest story in the coverage of government: the failure to tell the truth." Can you--or he--argue that Bush began to fail to tell the truth only after Woodward published Plan of Attack? If not, why did Woodward's pre-Denial reporting not tackle that subject dead-on?

I admire your loyalty to your former colleague. I am trying to present a balanced criticism of his recent work, acknowledging his successes while pointing out his failings. Judging from your first reply, I assume you believe that not since the days of Nixon has there been an administration so deserving of fierce and vigorous investigative reporting that challenges its assertions and vets its actions. Woodward was well-positioned to take on those tasks. But he opted for a different form of interaction with this administration. Exploiting the relationship he forged with the Bush crowd, Woodward has produced some good journalism, but not the journalism that was most needed.


Thanks for engaging,

David C.


Posted by David Corn at October 19, 2006 03:29 PM

GOP Fear-mongering; Corn v. Greenberg, Day 2; The Republican Civil War

Do Republicans want to win the congressional election if they have to resort to reckless fear-mongering? Apparently, the answer is yes. A Republican National Committee email went out on Tuesday with this headline "Democrats Would Let Terrorists Free." What's the RNC's proof that Democrats would actually set terrorists loose? It's that some Democrats voted against the White House-backed military tribunal bill. But disagreeing with some of provisions of that legislation is hardly the same thing as handing terrorists get-out-of-jail cards. That email declared, "House Democrats Said They Did Not Believe in Interrogating Terrorists." Really? Was there any Democratic ninny who expressed such a view?

Here's the evidence the RNC provided: Representative Solomon Ortiz, a Texas Democrat, said of the military tribunal bill, "Why are we rushing into this?...We should not be in a hurry." There's often a certain poetic license in political hit jobs. But this attack goes beyond the usual truth-stretching boundaries into a realm of bizarro fiction--or, one might say--lying.

CORN V. GREENBERG RE WOODWARD: Day 2. David Greenberg responds to my critique of Bob Woodward (see below) today at The New Republic's site. If you read my opening shot, please read his. Greenberg closes his reply with this parry:

Let me pose a question. If you had to terminate at a stroke the journalistic careers of, say, (a) Maureen Dowd, George Will, Chris Matthews, Bill Moyers, David Brooks, Tim Russert, Rush Limbaugh, and everyone on Air America; or (b) Bob Woodward, which would you choose? If we chose to retire the passel of pundits, I don't think our public discourse would be much the poorer. If we chose to retire Woodward, I think we would be vastly worse off.

My answer to that will be out tomorrow.

CIVIL WAR YET? Not in Iraq, but within the GOP. As regular readers know, I've been reporting that some non-Republican gay politicos have been using the Mark Foley scandal to try to set off a cat-fight within the Republican PArty between social cons and gay Republicans. These politicos are peeved at gay Republicans who serve a party that opposes gay rights and that welcomes (and needs) the support of religious right outfits that demonize gays and lesbians. The Los Angeles Times reports:

Some conservative Christians, who are pivotal to the GOP's get-out-the-vote effort, are charging that gay Republican staffers in Congress may have thwarted their legislative agenda. There are even calls for what some have dubbed a "pink purge" of high-ranking gay Republicans on Capitol Hill -- and in the administration.

The long simmering tension between gays and the religious right within the GOP has erupted into open conflict at a sensitive time, just weeks before a midterm election that may cost Republicans control of Congress.
"The big tent strategy could ultimately spell doom for the Republican Party," said Tom McClusky, chief lobbyist for the Family Research Council, a Christian organization that champions marriage. "All a big tent strategy seems to be doing is attracting a bunch of clowns."

Now the GOP is facing a hard choice -- risk losing the social conservatives who are legendary for turning out the vote, or risk alienating the moderate voters who are critical to this year's midterm outcome....

The tension between gays and evangelicals in the GOP re-emerged in recent weeks during the page scandal involving former Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla. The scandal drew scrutiny to the presence -- and behavior -- of gays in the Republican party, including Foley and several House staff members.
One evangelical leader, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, said in a television interview last week there should be an investigation into whether gay congressional staffers were responsible for covering up Foley's habits of picking up men at parties and sending salacious messages to male pages.

Perkins also has questioned whether gay Republican staffers on Capitol Hill have torpedoed their priority issues, such as a Federal Marriage Amendment that would prohibit civil unions for gays. "Has the social agenda of the GOP been stalled by homosexual members and/or staffers?" he asked in an e-mail to supporters....

This week a list of allegedly gay Republican staffers has been circulated to several Christian and family values groups, presumably to encourage an outing and purge....[F]or gay Republican staffers on Capitol Hill, it feels as if the noose is tightening. Fearful of having their names on such a list and losing their jobs after the election, they are trying to keep a low profile.
There's no outright fight yet, but the provocateurs do seem to be moving things along.

Posted by David Corn at October 18, 2006 09:56 AM

On Woodward: Corn vs. Greenberg

With the media world ga-ga over Bob Woodward and his new book--at least before the Foley scandal hit--The New Republic asked me to participate in an exchange with historian David Greenberg, a Woodwward champion. Given that I have my own book to promote--and that I've already offered critiques of Woodward--how could I resist? So today the battle begins. I go first, Greenberg replies tomorrow, and then we each get another turn on the following days. Here is my opening shot:
Bob Woodward's State of Denialby David Greenberg & David Corn
[Editor's Note: Today, TNR Online introduces day one of a four-part debate between journalist David Corn and historian David Greenberg about Bob Woodward's book State of Denial. The debate begins with Corn's critique of Woodward; it continues tomorrow with Greenberg's rejoinder. ]

Tuesday, October 17

Dear David G.,

I'm glad to be discussing Bob Woodward and his work with you. For me, his latest effort raises issues about his methodology and his position as the nation's number-one journalist. Let me get right into it:

On March 6, 2003, as President Bush was close to invading Iraq, Bob Woodward, the nation's most famous investigative reporter, appeared on CNN's "Larry King Live" and backed the administration's case for war. "They're saying weapons inspection is not working," Woodward said. "That there may be some visible successes and missiles destroyed here and so forth, a few things found. The intelligence shows ... there are massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction hidden, buried, unaccounted for."

Woodward, like many (but not all) in the press corps, missed perhaps the most important Washington story since Watergate: that the Bush administration was taking the nation to war on the basis of faulty, flimsy, and even fraudulent intelligence. The new book I co-wrote with Newsweek's Michael Isikoff, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, chronicles the battles that occurred within the CIA, White House, State Department, Pentagon, and Congress regarding the prewar intelligence and its use in Bush's sales campaign. This is what Woodward did not catch when it was happening, and his new 560-page book, State of Denial, does not directly address the original sin of the Bush-in-Iraq debacle.

Plan of Attack, the book Woodward published in April 2004 about the run-up to the Iraq war, also largely neglected the administration's pre-invasion public distortions. In that volume--in a section covering less than two pages--Woodward reported he had come across several sources before the invasion who had said the intelligence was not as conclusive as the administration was claiming. But Woodward, an assistant managing editor of The Washington Post, did not jump on this critical subject at the time for the newspaper. And, in Plan of Attack--written in the months after the invasion--he did not thoroughly dissect how Bush and his aides had deployed and exaggerated lousy intelligence to make the case for war (even though indications of this had already emerged).

With all his much-acclaimed insider access--which does allow him to break important stories--Woodward had tunneled past the real gold. Why? By focusing on what was transpiring at the highest levels of the palace, he had zeroed in on what was important to his high-placed sources. But that's not always the most significant story. The news often occurs outside the president's court. For example, because Bush and his aides ignored the hotly contested dispute between the CIA and Energy Department before the war over whether aluminum tubes obtained by Iraq were evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program (as the administration claimed), this key fight did not register on Woodward's radar. And, in Plan of Attack, he did not cover this important fight, which concerned the only hard piece of evidence in the Bush administration's WMD case for war. (The Post had briefly mentioned this dispute in September 2002). Nor does he do so in State of Denial, which replows some of the territory of his previous Bush-at-war books.

As I wrote months ago, Woodward failed to nab another major story for Plan of Attack because his sources had described to him a January 2003 meeting between Bush and Tony Blair but had left out a significant part of the tale: that the two leaders had discussed cooking up a provocation to trigger a war with Iraq. The fact that Bush had considered staging a stunt to start a war only emerged this past year with the disclosure of portions of a British government memo. Thus, Woodward's account of this particular meeting--in which Bush came across positively--was slanted, because Woodward had not been told the full truth by his high-level informants. And State of Denial does not include the subsequent revelations about this meeting.

State of Denial has little in it about the Niger uranium controversy and the Valerie Plame leak case--which ended up ensnaring Woodward. It may have been a justifiable editorial decision for him to sidestep these matters (even though the Niger affair did lead to open warfare between the CIA and the White House). But Woodward's entanglement with a source involved in this episode appears to have caused him to misguide the reader. In the book, he reports that, in the summer of 2004, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was asked if he would succeed George Tenet as CIA chief. Woodward notes that Armitage turned it down because he could not stomach working with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. In this telling, Armitage (an important Woodward source) comes across as a fellow rejecting a prestigious job out of principle. But there was more to it than that.

Armitage (as Hubris disclosed) had been under investigation for having leaked classified information on undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson to conservative columnist Robert Novak. Woodward knew that Armitage had leaked the same information to him, and he "had long suspected" (as he said in an interview for our book) that his source--meaning Armitage--had been Novak's. So Woodward must have realized when writing State of Denial that Armitage could not have accepted the CIA job and gone through the confirmation process. At any moment the news could have emerged that the man nominated to be the CIA chief had blown the cover of an undercover CIA employee. But Woodward--apparently to protect a source--tells his reader none of this. Consequently, he paints a not-entirely-true picture. On "60 Minutes," Woodward recently described the anecdotes in State of Denial as "not just kind of right, but literally right." Not so in this case.

With State of Denial, Woodward has come late to the party (as I've already commented). He now maintains--as he did on "Meet the Press" last week--that the Bush administration has "not been telling the truth" about Iraq. But that was true before the invasion (when Woodward was reporting for the Post) and after the invasion (when he produced Plan of Attack). Only now does the Bush administration's competence and credibility (or lack thereof) grab Woodward as a plot line. His previous work on Bush was imbued with no such skepticism. He now even propounds different conclusions based on the same research. In Plan of Attack, he included a long portion of a December 2003 interview he conducted with Bush during which the president insisted, "We have found weapons programs that could be reconstituted." That statement was not true, but Woodward did not make much of this misleading remark. Woodward concludes State of Denial with the same interview excerpts. Yet, in the new book he highlights Bush's comments as evidence of the president's "habit of denial." Why point out Bush's denial of reality in September 2006, but not in April 2004? Does this have something to do with Bush's--and the war's--dwindling popularity?

Better tardy than not at all, one might say. And there's something to that. Woodward still discloses secret documents showing that the administration has misled the public, and he serves up impressive reporting, even as critics suggest he hypes his material.
State of Denial presents two core truths: (1) Rumsfeld has abysmally managed the war, including the post-invasion planning; and (2) the president and his aides have not leveled with the American public about "what Iraq had become." But note Woodward's implied demarcation between Bush's pre-invasion misrepresentations (which he, in a way, endorsed) and Bush's post-invasion untruths (which Woodward now reveals to great effect). For all the book's disclosures, Woodward--who deserves to be judged by a high standard--has partly failed by taking so long to apply his considerable reporting skills, his insider's access, and brand-name cachet to documenting these now self-evident propositions.

Best,
David C.

Posted by David Corn at October 17, 2006 10:41 AM

HUBRIS: The Reviews Are In

HUBRIS: The Reviews Are In

Yesterday, both The New York Times Book Review and The Washington Post Book World weighed in on Hubris: The Inside Story, of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War--and did so in positive fashion. Here are some excerpts.

The Post review by Martin Kettle, a former U.S. bureau chief of the Guardian newspaper (and a fellow I don't know), wrote:

There have been many books about the Iraq war, and there will be many others before we are through. This one, however, pulls together with unusually shocking clarity the multiple failures of process and statecraft that led so many people to persuade themselves that the evidence pointed to an active Iraqi program to develop weapons of mass destruction and that it was in the interests of the United States to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

This is seemingly an eternal theme. The deeper we are drawn into Isikoff and Corn's account, the more we enter March of Folly territory. When the late Barbara W. Tuchman published her masterly 1984 account of the ruinous policies that governments have pursued through the ages, she ranged across a canvas stretching from the Trojan war to Vietnam.

To qualify as folly, Tuchman wrote, a policy must meet three criteria: It must have been seen at the time as counterproductive; a feasible alternative course of action must have been available; and the policy must have been that of a group of people, not merely a single tyrant or ruler. If ever a policy qualifies on all counts, it was the U.S.-imposed regime change in Iraq. Isikoff and Corn are reporters (for Newsweek and the Nation, respectively), not historians, but they still compel the reader to confront a further, essential dimension of folly's march.

In each case -- the Niger uranium papers, the mobile labs, the aluminum tubes, the Atta-Iraq link -- there were people up and down the policy chain, including some at the very top, who either knew at the time or should have known that the claims were false or unreliable.

Many critics of the Iraq War have highlighted the ideological drive behind the invasion. Fewer have grappled with the more complex question of why it was impossible for skeptics, doubters and more scrupulous analysts to stop it. Isikoff and Corn enable us to understand better how this devastating policy tragedy played out. But as Coleridge once observed, the light of experience is but a lantern on the stern, illuminating only the waters through which we have passed. Sadly, Isikoff and Corn can't tell the next generation how to avoid such tragedies.

Sorry, we couldn't tell folks how to do so. But being compared to Tuchman's March of Folly is quite an honor.

In The New York Times, Jacob Heilbrunn, who is writing a book on the neocons and whom I also don't know, noted,

In "Hubris," Michael Isikoff and David Corn chronicle the Bush administration's delusional march to war. Though there has been a deluge of works denouncing the follies of the military and the administration, Isikoff and Corn cover somewhat different terrain. They offer the most comprehensive account of the White House's political machinations, aimed at convincing Congress and the public that Iraq posed a dire threat...The authors, who have interviewed key politicians and government officials, supply a lot of new information. They show that in many ways the administration became the dupe of its own propaganda.

Heilbrunn says "the book makes for fascinating reading." But he slaps us for an "obsessive focus on Judith Miller and The New York Times, as well as on the story of Joseph Wilson, Valerie Plame and Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby." But more than one friend has quipped that being criticized in the Times for criticizing the Times is not all that bad. In any event, check out the full reviews yourself and--if you haven't already--please buy the book and enjoy what I hear is a "fascinating read" of "shocking clarity."

Posted by David Corn at October 16, 2006 11:08 AM

Trouble posting?

Maybe this thread will work?

The Gay-Straight GOP Civil War; Who's in Charge of Afghanistan?; How a Bush Overreaction to N. Korea Could End the World

You might recall that a few days ago, I noted that non-Republican gay politicos had sent The List (of GOP gay staffers on Capitol Hill) to a host of social conservative outfits. Their aim was to set off a civil war within the Republican Party. That is, to get the religious right wing of the party in a cat-fight with the (mostly) closeted Republican gays. Reading a story in Thursday's USA Today, I was intrigued by this paragraph:

"Has the social agenda of the GOP been stalled by homosexual members or staffers?" Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council wrote in an e-mail message to the organization's activists this week. In an interview, Perkins says that while he has not drawn any conclusions, "these are questions that need to be resolved.".

Perkins was sent The List. And that's exactly the conclusion the senders wanted him to ponder. They must be pleased. A civil war may be closer. Plus, I am told that a public outing of gay Republicans is in the works.

WHO'S IN CHARGE OF AFGHANISTAN? NOBODY: That is, who's in charge of Afghanistan policy-making within the Bush administration? The answer is, no one of clout. That's the conclusion of a piece in the latest issue of The Nation--an article that happens to have been written by me. It starts:

Several months ago a leading American expert on Afghanistan was meeting with Meghan O'Sullivan, a deputy national security adviser in the Bush White House. The topic at hand was the attitude of Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani leader, toward the revived Taliban insurgents operating out of Pakistani territory. Musharraf's government seemed (as it does now) to be willfully ignoring the Taliban, or perhaps even providing them with safe harbor and assistance. Why would Musharraf do either?

The expert explained that many factors shape the difficult Pakistani-Afghan relationship. He pointed to the decades-long conflict between Afghanistan and Pakistan and mentioned the Durand Line, the supposed border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The 1,600-mile-long line, imposed on Afghanistan by the British in 1893, divides Pashtun and Baluch regions and separates Afghanistan from territory it has claimed as its own. Afghanistan has never officially recognized the Durand Line, which has been a great source of strife between the two countries.

By referring to the Durand Line, the expert was noting that US efforts in the region are complicated by pre-9/11 history. O'Sullivan, according to this expert (who wishes not to be named), didn't know what the Durand Line was. The expert was stunned. O'Sullivan is the most senior Bush Administration official handling Afghanistan policy. If she wasn't familiar with this basic point, US policy-making on Afghanistan was in trouble.

The article notes:

George Bush has no senior-level official responsible for policies and actions in Afghanistan. "The situation is worsening," notes former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. "We have to have someone in government responsible for the whole picture--military, economic assistance and political. There's a nexus between each. But there's not one person in the government designated to be in charge of that nexus. It could be the ambassador. It could be someone else--if they have resources and clout and accountability. But this Administration has not been keen on accountability."

Armitage also has a few choice words regarding a comment Bush made when he brought Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Musharraf to Washington for a dinner together. With the two bickering in dueling CNN interviews over the Taliban matter, Bush remarked, "It will be interesting for me to watch the body language of these two leaders to determine how tense things are." Referring to that comment, Armitage exclaimed, "I didn't believe it. This is not a high school football game."

For the whole piece, click here.

NO BIG DEAL: Here's an interesting quote from a 2003 Business Week interview with then-Secretary of State Colin Powell:

Q: And if the North Koreans test nuclear arms?

A: If they test we'll take note of their test. The only reason they are testing is to scare the international community. The President has already accepted the possibility that they might test. And we will say “Gee, that was interesting.” The 50-year history of dealing with this regime is that they are marvelous in terms of threats, in terms of rhetoric and actions. Well they might take an action, but this time they would be sticking their finger not just in the eye of the United States, but I think Kim Jong Il will have to think twice about whether he would do such a thing in light of Chinese involvement.

COULD BE A BIG DEAL: I asked former weapons inspector David Kay what would be a smart and not-so-obvious talking point regarding North Korea's apparent nuclear weapons test. He wrote back (with permission to quote):

1. The Bush Admin's policy of maximizing the pain/punishment of the DPRK [North Korea] is the policy most likely to: A. lead to the collapse of NK; B. result in the use of a nuke against ROK [South Korea] and Japan as NK collapses; C. result in the transfer of a weapon/nuke materials to UBL [Usama bin Laden] as all control of NK's WMD disappears in the chaos of collapse.

2. If we have this much trouble determining if NK really conducted a nuke test how much trouble would we have identifying who really set off a nuke in an American city.


Good points. Damn scary points. But good ones.


Posted by David Corn at October 13, 2006 10:41 AM

Just One Question (of Many) for the Foley Investigators

In November 2003, House Republican leaders were having a tough time getting their own caucus members to vote for White House-backed legislation that would add a prescription drug benefit (as spotty as it was) to Medicare. The vote was going to be close and then-Majority Leader Tom DeLay went into full arm-twisting mode. DeLay told one hesitant GOPer, Representative Nick Smith of Michigan, that he would support Smith's son's congressional candidacy if Smith voted for the bill. Of course, this was a threat; DeLay would oppose Smith's son if Smith didn't back the bill. For this exertion of political muscle--or some might call it blackmailing--DeLay was later rebuked by the House ethics committee.

Which brings me to Mark Foley, the now page-less and disgraced former Republican congressman. In late July 2005, the House passed another controversial bill narrowly, CAFTA, by a 217 to 215 vote. Foley cast one of the deciding votes in favor of the trade pact. He had long been opposed to the trade accord, for he represented a district that was home to the sugar industry and the sugar barons of Florida feared CAFTA would lead to a rise in cheap imported sugar in the United States. According to Trade Observatory,

Hours before the House vote, President Bush called Foley, a Bush family friend since the early 1980s, and asked for his support.

Foley told him he was leaning against the bill because his district encompassed the third largest sugar-producing area in the nation. The sugar industry was dead set against the pact.

"I know this is hard for you, but if this is easy work, everyone would want to do it," the president told Foley. Bush did not pressure Foley or offer any incentives, according to the lawmaker.

Foley did vote for the bill. And he was indeed pressured. As The New York Times reported:

"It was difficult, a gut-wrenching night," Mr. Foley said....Republican leaders had already made it clear that they would punish the sugar industry in the next farm bill if they managed to defeat the trade pact.

"If the administration thinks that sugar brought about the demise of this, there would have been hell to pay in the farm bill," Mr. Foley said. "This was somewhat of a vote for the survival of my constituents."

So the Republican leaders were not above threatening to harm the most important industry in Foley's district to get him to support CAFTA. The obvious question is this: did they threaten anything else? According to some congressional aides, the House leadership had already been warned about Foley's sexual interest in male pages. Was this information turned into political ammo?

Yes, I am doing nothing but speculating here. But Roll Call is reporting today that the House ethics committee has begun asking leading House Republicans to testify about the Foley matter. As the ethics committee members question legislators and staffers about what they knew when, they also ought to ask if knowledge about Foley's conduct was ever put to political use. I am not saying it was. But I am saying it's one question--among many--that any thorough investigation would cover.

Posted by David Corn at October 12, 2006 02:24 PM

Bush on HUBRIS--Well, Almost

For some reason, I just don't think George W. Bush is going to read Hubris: The Inside Story, of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War. Here's an exchange from today's press conference:

Q: Mr. President. You spoke of the troubles in Iraq. And as you know, we have Woodward and we have a shelf full of books about Iraq, and many of them claim that administration policies contributed to the difficulties there. So I'm wondering, is there anything you wish you would have done differently with regard to Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: Speaking about books, somebody ought to add up the number of pages that have been written about my administration. There's a lot of books out there -- a lot. I don't know if I've set the record, or not, but I guess it means that I've made some hard decisions and will continue to make hard decisions.

And...this is the -- this is about the fifth time I've been asked this type of question. And as you know, there are some things that I wish had happened differently -- Abu Ghraib. I believe that really hurt us. It hurt us internationally. It kind of eased us off the moral high ground. In other words, we weren't a country that was capable of, on the one hand, promoting democracy, and then treating people decently. Now the world has seen that we've held those to account who are -- who did this.

You know, there's just a lot of look-backs. Presidents don't get to look back, but I will tell you, the decision to remove Saddam was the right decision. And I would look forward to the debate where people debate whether or not Saddam should still be in power....So when it comes to that decision, which is a decision to cause a lot of people to write books, it's the right decision.

Bush was wrong. Far more books have been written about Abraham Lincoln than George W. Bush. (Sorry, Mr. President.) And note how he ducked the question--for the fifth or whatever time. He offered not one example of any action he would now--with hindsight--have done differently. Instead, he said that he wishes that "some things...had happened differently"--as if these "things" had not been his fault or that of anyone in his administration. Who doesn't wish that the abuse at Abu Ghraib hadn't occurred?

Presidents don't get to look back, Bush said. But that's not quite true. There are no do-overs, but presidents certainly can review past actions and decisions to figure out what to do better next time. Perhaps if Bush read Hubris or any of the other books, he might realize this.

Posted by David Corn at October 11, 2006 07:47 PM

What Bush Tolerates? And How Republicans Can Win

Lancet today published a study (pdf) that concludes that there have been 654,965 "excess deaths" in Iraq since the US invasion in March 2003. At a White House press conference, President Bush pooh-poohed the report. He said,

"I don't consider it a credible report. Neither does General Casey and neither do Iraqi officials. I do -- I do know that a lot of innocent people have died, and that troubles me. And it grieves me. And I applaud the Iraqis for their courage in the face of violence. I am, you know, amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they're willing to -- you know, that there's a level of violence that they tolerate."

The Iraqis are tolerating this sectarian violence, which is killing thousands of Iraqis a month? Where does Bush get this stuff? Is he trying to look out of touch with reality for strategic reasons? In any event, at this press conference, Bush wouldn't even stand by the figure of 30,000 civilian deaths he cited last December. Here's a suggestion: if Bush is going to dismiss the Lancet study, he should order the Pentagon to keep track of civilian deaths (which it doesn't) and to conduct its own investigation of civilian casualties in Iraq. Then he might have some standing in any debate over the Lancet figures. Until then, he can...well, tolerate other sources of information.

******

HAPPY DAYS?: Here's my latest "Loyal Opposition" column at www.TomPaine.com. And please remember to check out that site regularly....


Democrats Haven't Won Yet

David Corn
October 11, 2006

David Corn writes The Loyal Opposition twice a month for TomPaine.com. Corn is also the Washington editor of The Nation and is the co-author along with Michael Isikoff of HUBRIS: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War. Read his blog at DavidCorn.com.


Nancy Pelosi measuring the curtains in the Speaker’s office. Ranking Democrats on House committees rushing out to buy gavels. Democratic staffers drafting subpoenas.

Those are the images running through Democrats’ minds as they read the polls from recent days. Public approval of Congress has fallen to the lowest point in over 10 years: 32 percent in a Washington Post/ABC News poll. That poll noted that registered voters favor Democratic congressional candidates over Republicans 54 to 41 percent. A USA Today/Gallup poll gave the Dems an even wider margin: 59 to 36 percent. On every key issue, the polls show Democrats have an edge over Republicans. Asked which party can be trusted to handle terrorism—the Bush administration’s signature issue—the Democrats were ahead in the Post/ABC poll by 6 points. (This comes after the White House spent weeks in September trying to depict the Democrats as wimps on terrorism.) And when a New York Times/CBS News poll asked which party comes "closer to sharing your moral values," the Ds beat the Rs 47 to 38 percent.

George W. Bush’s approval rating has dropped in all the surveys. The Times/CBS poll placed him as low as 34 percent. In the Post poll, 63 percent said his war in Iraq had not been worth fighting—a new record. And the numbers related to the Mark Foley scandal offer no good news either. In the Times/CBS poll, 79 percent said House Republican leaders cared more about their own political standing than the safety of congressional pages. Almost half said House Speaker Dennis Hastert should resign. A CNN poll found that 79 percent believed Republican top-dogs in Congress handled the Foley matter "inappropriately." Slightly more than half said Republican leaders were involved in a "deliberate cover-up."

Political handicapping has followed the numbers. Veteran House-watcher Charlie Cook has upped the number of toss-up seats from 18 to 25. A few of the new at-risk seats are directly linked to the Foley scandal. For instance, Rep. Tom Reynolds, who heads the National Republican Congressional Committee and who has been implicated in the Foley affair, has suffered a free-fall in the polls for his race in upstate New York. And Foley’s seat is probably lost to the GOP. (To vote for Foley’s Republican replacement, a resident of that Florida district will have to pull the lever next to Foley’s name, which could not be removed from the ballot.)

This is more than enough to make a Democrat giddy. Still, Pelosi ought not to order those new curtains yet.

The national political weather is clearly awful for Republicans. The unending war, Hurricane Katrina, Foley—all that trumps falling gas prices and a rising Dow. A storm is heading toward Congress on Election Day. And were the United States a European-style democracy—where voters tend to pick party representatives rather than individual candidates—the Republicans would expect to lose scores of House seats. But congressional districts have been so thoroughly gerrymandered to protect incumbents that only 40 to 50 House seats are considered to be in play. That means that the current political tides will likely affect merely 10 percent of the entire body.

So White House chief strategist Karl Rove, Republican Party chair Kenneth Mehlman and their partners-in-politicking need to fret just about a small number of House races. Do the math: If 50 House races are competitive and the Democrats need a 15-seat gain to take the House, Republicans could thwart the Dems by holding on to 18 or so of these races.

Consequently, Democrats ought to keep in mind another image: At an undisclosed location ("Sorry, Mr. Vice President, we need this for something more important."), a war room is set up, divided into two dozen cubicles. The operatives working in each square are focused on one of these do-or-die races. The Republican Party has given them unlimited resources. They have been instructed to do whatever it takes: negative advertising, rumor campaigns, dirty tricks. Gentlemen and ladies, they have been told, the civilized (that is, Republican) world depends upon you. Do not permit the (Democratic) hordes to breach your gate.

And in the cubicles, computers of massive power hum quietly. Data is being analyzed. The Republican Party is looking for its most sympathetic voters. Block by block. Household by household. It’s called "micro-targeting." This practice goes far beyond identifying folks who have registered for a party and getting them to the polls. What political micro-targeting entails is searching through massive amounts of consumer data on individuals and finding correlations that indicate who is likely to vote one way or another. Who in the 23rd District prefers bourbon to gin? Bourbon drinkers tend to vote Republicans; gin fanciers lean Democrat. Now which bourbon drinkers in that district subscribe to Field & Stream rather than The New Yorker. And so on. The Republicans have been wise to this game for several years, with the Democrats playing catch-up.

With powerful databases in hand, the Republican National Congressional Committee can tailor messages to the individual. It can send one potential Republican voter a mailing that highlights the Republican plan to build a fence at the border to keep out all those scary illegal immigrants. And it can send a mailing that hails Bush’s attempt to concoct a comprehensive immigration reform package to another voter in the same district. (It can do likewise with get-out-the-vote phone calls and door-to-door campaigns.) Not only can there be different messages for each district—remember, whatever it takes—there can be different messages within the district. All according to the data. The point is to assemble winning majorities voter by voter in those hold-back-the-tide districts.

In Washington, the focus is often on the national political narrative. And the Bush White House has naturally been scheming to shape this narrative to its advantage, realizing that doing so would provide general assistance to GOP candidates across the country. Step One was picking a fight with the Democrats on the terrorist detention legislation. The White House eventually got a bill it liked but not the battle it wanted, because Republicans—Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and John Warner—led the opposition (before folding). Whatever Rove had planned for Step Two was blown aside by the Foley scandal. No doubt, he has other ideas on how the GOPers can get their national mojo back. But the game is now on the ground, outside of Washington—and in those cubicles.

Predictions are pointless. However, it does seem that even the Senate has become within reach of the Democrats. Yet if there are more page scandal revelations, more bad news out of Iraq and more Republicans slippage in the polls, Rove and the Republicans might just be able to stem a tsunami by sticking the right fingers in the right holes. If that happens, it will be quite a feat—and another sign the American political order is susceptible to the wily manipulations of well-financed and willing-to-do-anything politicos.

Posted by David Corn at October 11, 2006 02:04 PM

Baker on Cheney: AEI Gave Cheney the Kool-Aid

Another green room tale:

This past Sunday, former Secretary of State James Baker was a guest on ABC News' This Week, and I had the chance to chat with him about his new project: chairing a bipartisan commission investigating what to do in Iraq. (The other cochairman is former Representative Lee Hamilton, a Democrat.) Baker noted that no one should expect his outfit--which will produce a report after the elections--to come up with a "magic bullet." There are no "easy solutions," he said. He noted that the administration had "to admit that big mistakes were made." But he said his commission would not delve into George W. Bush's blunders (that's my word) and instead would "start with the situation we have today." He said the commission and its staff had already spoken to hundreds of people--including "people even the US does not talk to." I gather that was a reference to Iranian and Syrian diplomats or officials.

So will the commission produce a watered-down document with merely general ideas about what needs to be done? Baker said that the group could end up with a report that says "here are the four things you should do." Or, it could list various alternatives and the likely consequences of each. In any event, he said, he wants the commission to produce a consensus set of recommendations. If there are dissenting views, he remarked, the commission's report will have less impact. He hardly seemed upbeat, though, about coming up with a good way out. And he added, "if you can't pacify Baghdad, it's lost."

We also chatted about my new book, Woodward's and Fiasco. He noted that he had raised reservations about the Iraq war the summer before the invasion (which he had) and that in his 1995 book, The Politics of Diplomacy, he had explained why he, the first President Bush, and others in their administration had decided at the end of the first Persian Gulf War not to pursue Saddam Hussein's troops into Baghdad: it would have been a disaster. Postwar Iraq, they figured, would have posed innumerable (and perhaps insoluble) challenges and would have been marked by violent sectarian conflict. I don't have that book in my office, so I can't check. But I'll take Baker at his word on this. After all, it was no radical proposition in 1991 or 2003 that post-Saddam Iraq would be one helluva mess, if not a quagmire. And, Baker added, Dick Cheney agreed--at least back then. "Cheney was with us," Baker said. "Then he went to AEI and they gave him the truth serum." Or some other type of serum?

It will be interesting to see how the realists of the Baker-Hamilton commission interact with the non-reality-based, neoconnish war cheerleaders of the Bush administration. Might there end up being a fight for Bush's heart, brain or whatever between the Baker gang and the Cheney hold-outs? It's hard to believe, but Bush family politics and psychology might still drive US policy in Iraq.

As he was leaving the television studio, I said to Baker, "I truly wish you well and good luck." I never thought I'd say such kind words to the fellow who engineered Bush's manipulative win in Florida in 2000. But bad wars make for strange bedfellows.


Posted by David Corn at October 10, 2006 02:07 PM

The Drip, Drip, Drip of The Foley-Hastert Scandal

This was first posted in my "Capital Games" column at www.thenation.com....

I appeared on ABC News This Week yesterday, as a member of its roundtable. (You can get a podcast of the show here.) Prior to that segment, Representative Adam Putnam of Florida, who chairs the House Republican Policy Committee, debated Representative Rahm Emanuel, the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, on the Foley-Hastert affair. Representative Tom Reynolds, the chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee, was originally scheduled to be in the GOP slot. Though Reynolds has been incriminated in the Mark Foley scandal and is now in danger of losing his seat in upstate New York, he had surprisingly accepted ABC News' invitation to appear on the show and be questioned by George Stephanopoulos. Common sense finally prevailed, and Reynolds pulled out. As Putnam recounted in the green room before the show, Putnam had been in Florida hunting doves when the call came from Reynolds' NRCC with an order for Putnam: you have to go on the Sunday talk show. Putnam saluted and flew back to Washington.

On the show, Putnam, naturally, defended House Speaker Denny Hastert. It was a hard case to argue, but he did the best he could in the face of Emanuel's assault. That's what you're expected to do when you're a junior (though ambitious) member of your party's leadership. But it may not be cost-free--and Putnam seems to know that. After he was done and about to leave the studio, I remarked to him, "You're betting nothing else is going to come out on this." He nodded but rolled his eyes, adding, "In Washington, that's a dangerous bet."

Indeed it is. The news the next day (via The Washington Post) was that Representative Jim Kolbe, an Arizona Republican who is openly gay, confronted Foley in 2000 after a former page complained to Kolbe that Foley had sent him sexually explicit Internet messages. The newspaper noted it was not clear whether Kolbe did anything beyond talk to Foley. But this development means that the Foley problem was known within GOP circles for six years. Hastert, though, has claimed he knew nothing about Foley's conduct until the day the story broke--even though statements from GOP legislators and staffers suggest his office was informed of the Foley problem years earlier.

Putnam's bet doesn't look so hot right now.

The Kolbe revelation might prompt Republicans to revive their criticism of the so-called Velvet Mafia: that small group of gay Republicans. As I've written about earlier (see here), at the start of the scandal, some within the House Republican caucus were griping that the party had been done in by GOP gays on Capitol Hill who had supposedly covered for Foley for years. (At the same time, social conservative allies of the party publicly blamed the gay rights agenda for somehow leading to Foley's page-pursuing troubles.)

Responding to the effort to scapegoat the GOP's Lavender Bund, gay Hill GOPers told reporters they had years ago warned Hastert's office about Foley. These gay Republicans were essentially declaring: we ratted out one of our own, so don't blame us for Hastert having not done anything. As this intra-Republican sniping between gays and heteros transpired, gay politicos outside Republican circles began circulating what they called The List--a roster of two dozen or so gay senior Republican staffers in the House and Senate. With a possible shoot-out about to ensue within the Republican caucus, these gay politicos--who have long been upset with gays who serve a Republican party that opposes gay rights and embraces outfits that demonize gays and lesbians--were hoping to pour gasoline on the fire. They passed the list to social conservative groups outside the Republican party with a message: maybe this is why your political agenda is not racing through this GOP-controlled Congress. Their goal is obvious--to set off a civil war within the Republican party.

The Kolbe news is all the more intriguing because of these behind-the-scenes scuffles. Will Republicans and social conservatives who were looking to blame gay Republicans for the Foley scandal now revive their efforts to dump the blame on Velvet mafioso within their midst? They can argue that Kolbe, one of them, did not do enough in 2000 after he learned of the Foley problem. But can Kolbe really be made the fall guy? Any GOPer who tries to adopt such a strategy will encounter problems. Kolbe is already retiring at the end of this year. That means he cannot resign in disgrace and provide the Republicans cover. Moreover, Hastert has yet to explain away the claims of congressional aides that his office was informed about Foley's sexual interest in pages several years ago. So even if Kolbe did not share the bad news with Hastert's office; others say they did. What's undeniable is that Hastert did not take the appropriate steps. (There is also an allegation that a drunken Foley tried to gain entrance to the page's residence in 2002 or 2003.)

Back to Representative Putnam, the NRCC's loyal foot solider. Drip, drip, drip. This story is hardly over. He may want to rethink that bet.

NO RESPECT: Here's a sentence that must have been cut from The New York Times' article on The List:
The existence and dissemination of The List was first reported by David Corn of The Nation magazine.

Instead the paper only reported:

[A] group of gay activists, angered by what they see as hypocrisy by gay Republicans, have begun circulating a document known as The List, a roster of gay Congressional staff members and their Republican bosses.

News that's fit to print--days after it has broken elsewhere.



Posted by David Corn at October 9, 2006 02:24 PM

Just in case the thread gets slow for Dial-ups

From a List to a GOP Civil War?

Copies of The List (see below) have been sent by gay politicos to a variety of social conservative groups that look to the Republican Party to make their religious right dreams come true. The recipients include the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, the Alliance for Marriage, Concerned Women of America, the Eagle Forum, and the Southern Baptist Convention. Officials at most of these groups have had something to say about homosexuality and gay rights in the wake of the Mark Foley scandal.

What's the point? The senders--gay people of a Democratic bent--seem to be hoping to set off a civil war within the GOP, to turn the anti-gay social cons against the GOP's Velvet Mafia. These Washington gays have been seething for years about gay Republican staffers who serve a party that opposes gay rights and that welcomes the support of people who demonize or dehumanize gays and lesbians. "Maybe now the social conservatives will realize one reason why their agenda is stalled on Capitol Hill," says a gay politico. Another says, "The inherent inconsistency of a coalition that shelters both gay loathing 'Christian' conservatives and conservative gays will soon suffer its final rupture."

Will it? We shall see, as the Foley scandal continues to unfold, and The List continues to circulate.

Posted by David Corn at October 6, 2006 08:39 AM

Yet More on The List

Something interesting has been brought to my attention. The Blogactive site has posted a version of The List--or a list. It contains the names of members of Congress, Bush aides, celebrities and others in addition to Capitol Hill staffers. It claims that Kirk Fordham, Mark Foley's previous chief of staff, is gay. I certainly don't know whether that's true or not. But assume for a moment it is. Fordham yesterday told various reporters that he had warned Speaker Denny Hastert's office about his boss sometime in the 2002 to 2004 period. What's intriguing about this is that after House Republicans had started suggesting that the gay GOP staffers--sometimes called by Washington wags the Velvet Mafia or the Lavender Bund--were somehow to blame for the party's Foley-oriented woes, a staffer who might be a member of this under-fire group fired back, essentially saying, Hey, we warned Hastert about Foley years ago, and he did nothing. So there!

I'm just speculating here--and know nothing about Fordham's particulars. In any event--for whatever the reason--Fordham has made life rougher for Hastert and the leaders. Meanwhile, a source writes:

The fact that some of the GOP gay guys are worried about a right-wing backlash against them is very telling. Their existence in all of these Hill offices would certainly explain (to the right-wingers) the total lack of legislative progress on most of the Christian/social conservative issues. I'd be pissed if I had a social conservative agenda that hadn't been addressed and suddenly it became clear, like now, who might have been subtly blocking it.

That's another dimension that had not occurred to me--and another reason to wonder how messy this might get.

Posted by David Corn at October 5, 2006 12:27 PM

The List Stirs Things Up?

A source sent me the following note:

Your blog [about The List] caused quite a stir, David -- a lobbyist...had a couple of terrified calls from gay GOP Hill staffers wondering if they were on the list you mentioned...and whether there was going to be a right-wing lynch mob coming for them.

Well,I've been sent an updated version of The List. I'm not leading any lynch mob (obviously). But I, too, am waiting to see what's going to happen within the Republican caucus. (See the item below this one.) As I said, things may get ugly.

Posted by David Corn at October 5, 2006 11:10 AM

Hastert Unhinged? (And More on The List)

I've received several requests for The List (see below), but I haven't passed it on. And a few emails have come in with the same sort of query: is So-and-So who works for Senator So-and-So on the list? I haven't answered such questions. But a reporter told me that The List is in other hands. He was told by an official at the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights lobby, that it had a copy. The HRC official refused to talk about it, though. What's intriguing is that there is a Republican strategy to find scapegoats--other than House Speaker Denny Hastert, of course--and the two leading candidates seem to be Democrats (for somehow making this scandal a scandal) and gay Republicans (for presumably protecting the page-pursuing Mark Foley). From what I can tell, some of these gay GOPers are fighting back. I cannot say too much about this without disclosing more than I should about certain individuals. But there does seem to be a conflict brewing within Republican circles between straight cons and gay GOPers. I'm wondering how nasty this will become and if it will become public. Should that occur, things could get rather ugly.

Meanwhile, Hastert is increasing the odds that this sordid affair will continue on. In an interview with the Chicago Tribune he defiantly proclaimed he's not going anywhere. His resignation, he said, "is exactly what our opponents would like to have happen--that I'd fold my tent and others would fold our tent and they would sweep the House." Yes, his position is that he should base his decision not on what's right, but what's politically beneficial. And in classic caught-in-the-act fashion, he blamed others: "When the [GOP] base finds out who's feeding this monster, they're not going to be happy. The people who want to see this thing blow up are ABC News and a lot of Democratic operatives, people funded by George Soros." He claimed that political operatives aligned with Bill Clinton knew about the Foley business and perhaps orchestrated the disclosure in the weeks before the congressional elections. But, as the newspaper noted, "he offered no hard proof."

This is a sign that Hastert is becoming unhinged. He's lashing out at his political enemies (real and imagined) and not accepting full responsibility for his own screw-ups. He's going to have a hard time convincing the public that the real villian in the page scandal is George Soros and unnamed operatives (who, if they did anything, disclosed accurate information about GOP malfeasance and nonfeasance.) After all, Foley's former chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, now says he gave Hastert's office a warning about Foley's conduct sometime between 2002 and 2004.

Last night a person who covers Capitol Hill told me that Hastert would be out within a week. But Hastert is indicating he's digging his nails into the Speaker's desk. That's good news for Democrats and bad news for GOPers. There's blood in the water. And Hastert is signaling he'd rather bleed further than leave. This won't be pretty.

By the way, sorry if you had trouble with this site yesterday. Matt Drudge linked to the entry about The List and that overloaded our server, forcing a hour-long shutdown. But my web wizards quickly bought more server space and got the site back up. It's great to get all that traffic. But it's going to cost me. And the comments section is still down. I've been overwhelmed with other matters, and we're probably going to have to come up with a new system to prevent hackers from shutting down the site again. Thanks for sticking with us.

Posted by David Corn at October 5, 2006 10:38 AM

"The List" (of Gay GOP Aides on the Hill); Hubris on Bloggingheads.tv

There's a list going around. Those disseminating it call it "The List." It's a roster of top-level Republican congressional aides who are gay.

On CBS News on Tuesday, correspondent Gloria Borger reported that there's anger among House Republicans at what an unidentified House GOPer called a "network of gay staffers and gay members who protect each other and did the Speaker a disservice." The implication is that these gay Republicans somehow helped page-pursuing Mark Foley before his ugly (and possibly illegal) conduct was exposed. The List--drawn up by gay politicos--is a partial accounting of who on Capitol Hill might be in that network.

I have a copy. I'm not going to publish it. For one, I don't know for a fact that the men on the list are gay. And generally I don't fancy outing people--though I have not objected when others have outed gay Republicans, who, after all, work for a party that tries to limit the rights of gays and lesbians and that welcomes the support of those who demonize same-sexers.

What's interesting about The List--which includes nine chiefs of staffs, two press secretaries, and two directors of communications--is that (if it's acucurate) it shows that some of the religious right's favorite representatives and senators have gay staffers helping them advance their political careers and agendas. These include Representative Katherine Harris and Henry Hyde and Senators Bill Frist, George Allen, Mitch McConnell and Rick Santorum. Should we salute these legislators for being open-minded enough to have such tolerant hiring practices? After all, Santorum in a 2003 AP interview compared homosexuality to bestiality, incest and polygamy. It would be rather big of Santorum to employ a fellow who engages in activity akin to such horrors. That is, if Santorum knows about his orientation.

Let's be clear about one thing: the Mark Foley scandal is not about homosexuality. Some family value conservatives are suggesting it is. But anytime a gay Republican is outed by events, a dicey issue is raised: what about those GOPers who are gay and who serve a party that is anti-gay? Are they hypocrites, opportunists, or just confused individuals? Is it possible to support a party because you adhere to most of its tenets--even if that party refuses to recognize you as a full citizen? The men on The List might want to think hard about these questions--as they probably already have--for if I have a copy of The List, there's a good chance it will be appearing soon on a website near everyone.

******

BLOGHEADS: Yes, its time for you to check out another edition of Bloggingheads.tv about Hubris: The Inside Story, of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War. This time, there's no argument. There's only me and quirky conservative Jim Pinkerton discussing the contents of the book. We mostly ignore the leak controversy--which sparked an ugly Bloggingheads face-off between Byron York and me two weeks ago--and concentrate on the many other intriguing portions of the book. Pinkerton, who worked in the White House for President George H.W. Bush, offers his own views on what drove W. to invade Iraq--a decision he is not a fan of. Click here to go right to it.


Posted by David Corn at October 4, 2006 11:42 AM

Slate cartoon

Woodward and the CIA/Plame Leak Case

Here's an interesting scene from Bob Woodward's new book. It's the summer of 2004 and George Tenet has resigned as CIA chief:

[White House chief of staff] Andy Card called [Deputy Secretary of State Richard] Armitage to see if he was interested in taking over the CIA.

No, Armitage replied emphatically.

"Can I ask the reason? We're disappointed."

Armitage replied that he could give the reason but he would prefer not to because it might hurt Cards feelings.

Card knew the problem for Armitage was Cheney and Rumsfeld. He nonetheless asked Powell if there was a way to persuade Armitage.
"You can ask him again," Powell replied, "but he doesn't fool around." An Armitage no is a no. "My personal view is he won't do it."

What's missing from Woodward's account? One significant fact disclosed by Hubris: the Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (which I wrote with Michael Isikoff): that Armitage had leaked Valerie Plame Wilson's CIA identity to conservative columnist Robert Novak and had been under investigation by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. At the time he was offered the CIA job, Armitage, who had cooperated with the investigation, might have no longer been a primary target of Fitzgerald (though he would later be reinvestigated by Fitzgerald for having failed to disclose to the special prosecutor that he had also discussed Valerie Wilson's CIA employment with Woodward weeks before mentioning it to Novak), but his role in the leak was still a big secret.

He knew he had leaked classified information that had led to the outing of a CIA officer. Could he accept the CIA position and go through the confirmation process, knowing that at any moment the news could emerge that he had blown the cover of an undercover CIA employee? (And what if a senator asked him about the leak at the confirmation hearing?) There was no way he could place himself in such a possibly perilous position. It was dicey enough for him to remain at the State Department, realizing the Plame time bomb could detonate any time. And Woodward reports that months later--after the 2004 presidential election--the White House considered naming Armitage to the new position of national director of intelligence. Armitage was not interested. Woodward notes this was because, as Armitage told National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, "I just don't know how I can work in an administration that lets Secretary Powell walk and keeps Mr. Rumsfeld." But once again, he could not have accepted this position for the same reasons.

While writing the book, Woodward knew that Armitage had disclosed information to him about Valerie Wilson's CIA connection and, as we report in Hubris, Woodward had suspected his source had been Novak's source. And over a month before his book was published, a Newsweek article based on Hubris disclosed that Armitage had been the source for both Novak and Woodward.

This brief section of State of Denial--a book that does contain important (and sometimes entertaining) disclosures--illustrates a side-problem of Woodward's methodology. He gets close to his high-level sources, almost becoming a player in the narrative he is chronicling. Consequently, he becomes entangled in the story and cannot disclose to the reader all he knows. Woodward came under criticism last year when the news broke that he, too, had been leaked information about Valerie Wilson but had not told his editors (or readers) about this. What compounded his problem was that Woodward had gone on television and radio shows to dismiss the leak investigation and criticize Fitzgerald, without revealing that he had had a personal stake in the matter because a source of his had been a target.

No doubt, Armitage, who was damn fed-up with the White House and the Pentagon, didn't want these jobs. In Hubris, he's quoted referring to the armchair warriors of the White House and the Defense Department as "a bunch of jerks." Woodward's depiction of these episodes places Armitage squarely in a place of principle. Regardless of his feelings toward the White House and the Pentagon leadership, Armitage couldn't accept either post because of his central role in the Plame scandal. Woodward had reason to know that, but he didn't report it.

Woodward's book has little in it about the Plame affair--just a few short mentions. That was his choice. But he does provide an interesting nugget related to the case. He reports that after 2005, Cheney no longer had a visible role in the management of Iraq. Once Scooter Libby was indicted in the leak case in October 2005 and resigned, Woodward writes,

Cheney was lost without Libby, many of the vice president's close associates felt. Libby had done so much of the preparation for the vice president's meetings and events, and so much of the hard work. He had been almost part of Cheney's brain.

So one consequence of the leak case, according to Woodward's account, was that it took Cheney out of the game. Readers of Woodward's book can decide whether that was a positive or negative development.

Posted by David Corn at October 3, 2006 11:55 AM

Reading Woodward; Investigating Foley's Protectors; Squirming Specter

I've been busy reading the entire Woodward book today (and, boy, are my arms tired). Look for my reflections later. In the meantime, a few other observations:

Is the Republican leadership no better than the Catholic Church when it comes to policing its own ranks? The Mark Folly scandal deserves two investigations. One ought to be criminal. Did disgraced Representative Mark Foley break the law in any of his interactions with congressional pages? The Justice Department and the FBI should examine this. But an entirely separate inquiry should focus on another critical matter: did House GOP leaders--including Speaker Denny Hastert--not take sufficient action in response to early warnings about Foley? An outside investigator--perhaps a former prosecutor--should be brought in by the House to do this. (It's beyond the abilities of the House ethics committee and perhaps not even within its purview.) Such an investigation ought to have a tight deadline. It's not inconceivable that an investigator could interview the main players and have a preliminary report out before the elections. (That's how a journalist would conduct an investigation.) Democrats should push hard for this sort of inquiry--and make the Republicans say no and squirm.

Another squirming Republican? A few days ago, Senator Arlen Specter, the Republican chair of the judiciary committee, voted for the detainee bill even though he had earlier said it was "patently unconstitutional on it s face" due to its denial of habeas corpus right to detainees accused of being unlawful combatants. What did he say after voting for it: that "the court will clean it up" by striking out the unconstitutional provisions. So he'll leave the heavy lifting to the judiciary. But what about the oath he took when he entered the Senate? Didn't it say something about protecting the Constitution? Oh well, never mind.

Posted by David Corn at October 2, 2006 07:21 PM