TPM Reader JE:
I notice that Gates is getting good press for being decisive and acting quickly. I concede that he has not been on the job long. But haven't the conditions at Walter Reed been bad for a very long time? Relatives of military people and military personnel would typically first complain to those in authority and in the service. What happened to those complaints? Haven't dozens of senior officers and doctors known? Haven't at least mid-level White House people known? Wouldn't it be interesting to learn what, if anything, Rumsfeld knew? Don't the quick firings and positive publicity for Gates seem like intentional distraction for a more serious, long-standing problem?
Yes on all counts.
--David Kurtz
To what extent are the problems at Walter Reed the result of privatization of services? Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) wants to find out.
--David Kurtz
From TPM Reader RB:
As I read the reaction/fallout from Ann Coulter’s remarks at CPAC this week I’m annoyed by the entire progressive reaction to it and most of the many other outrages committed on a daily basis by the Republican Party.Why doesn’t a progressive with an audience say something to the effect “This is who and what the once proud and honorable Republican Party has turned itself into. It is a party of hate, intolerance, incompetence, greed, treason, fanatical, hostile to science and reality, and totally corrupt. They have no honor and no shame. They’re fascists and a cancer on our great nation, plain and simple and this is just another example of that.”
Around here we focus on showing it rather than just saying it. But with Coulter and her ilk, it's probably necessary to just say it from time to time. So, yeah, what RB says pretty much covers it. (Treason is not a charge to throw around lightly, so I'll hedge on that; and we probably flatter ourselves by saying the GOP is fascist, although I agree its fascist tendencies are alarming.)
So which of the Democratic presidential candidates are willing to say it?
Late Update: Not so fast, says TPM Reader FN:
Can someone please explain why a comment from Ann Coulter draws such a flood of responses from progressives? Seems like such a waste. I thought the time was ripe for having substantive political discussions. Yet here we go wringing our hands and expressing moral outrage over a comment from someone who is really a cartoon character. Who cares what she says?The whole reaction comes across as phoney and pathetic. Instead of demonstrating toughness it, instead, shows weakness. We seem to be trying to perfect our holier than thou, righteous indignation persona. It's fine to learn how to fight back but then we have to learn when to fight back. There is a difference between a bird shot and a cannon ball. Can't we try to focus on building a discussion about the war, health care, climate change and economic disparity and save our new found "toughness" for the major battles?
--David Kurtz
That so?
TPM Reader FF just flagged this article in today's Oregonian. According to the article, Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) was at a Republican conference defending his changed position on Iraq and specifically his opposition to the 'surge'. And in the course of defending himself he said that even Gen. Patraeus says the plan has only a one in four chance of success.
"If you're really going to do a surge, you don't do it with 20,000, you do it with 250,000," he said, noting that Baghdad is a city of nearly 7 million people. But he said the United States cannot afford such a response; instead it has to come from the Iraqi Army.Smith said he recently spoke with Gen. David Petraeus, the new top military commander in Iraq, who told him the troop surge has only a one in four chance of succeeding.
Anyone follow up with Smith or Petraeus about this?
--Josh Marshall
GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney spends casual moments with Ann Coulter backstage at the CPAC conference moments before Coulter goes on stage to call John Edwards a 'faggot' ...
Good times, good times ...
Late Update: ThinkProgress has the vids of the speeches.
--Josh Marshall
New Mexico Republican bigwig on Rep. Heather Wilson (R), the member of Congress at the center of the canned US attorneys scandal. From the Albuquerque Tribune ...
"If I was Heather Wilson, I'd be thinking about taking a long trip to Baghdad, where the conditions are a little more subdued," said former Gov. Dave Cargo.Cargo, a Republican, was only half-joking.
Claims that Wilson and Domenici pressured Iglesias to bring indictments in a politically charged corruption investigation of local Democrats ahead of last year's election - when Wilson was locked in a battle for her political life - are "terribly serious," Cargo said.
"This has the potential to really cripple the (state) Republican Party," he said. "And the way Heather and Pete are handling it, by essentially taking the Fifth (Amendment), isn't helping them."
Locked in a battle for her political life is right. But I'm not sure how many people outside of New Mexico get that yet.
--Josh Marshall
"If I was Heather Wilson, I'd be thinking about taking a long trip to Baghdad, where the conditions are a little more subdued."
--former New Mexico Gov. Dave Cargo, a Republican, on the fallout from the U.S. attorney purges
--David Kurtz
Former New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid, who lost her 2006 bid to unseat Rep. Heather Wilson by just 861 votes, has a few things to say about the claims by ousted U.S. Attorney David Iglesias that he was pressured, reportedly by Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Wilson herself, to bring criminal indictments before the mid-term elections for political purposes.
In an interview with Heath Haussamen, who blogs on New Mexico politics, Madrid claims that Iglesias may have succumbed to similar internal GOP political pressure in another public corruption case:
In an exclusive interview, Madrid said she wouldn’t be surprised if Iglesias is telling the truth, because she believes Domenici and Wilson may have had a hand in another massive public corruption scandal prosecuted by his office.She said Iglesias, a Republican, kept her office from having any involvement in prosecution of the state treasurer scandal. She believes that was “probably” done at the urging of Republican operatives and designed to give Wilson fuel to attack Madrid for doing nothing about the scandal.
. . .
Madrid said her office was involved in 2005 in the early stages of the investigation of the treasurer scandal, along with the state’s Taxation and Revenue Department, but the FBI stepped in, took control of the investigation and ordered her to stay away.
Madrid contends that was likely done at the urging of Republicans, who may have been preparing to fight what, at the time, was only a potential Madrid campaign against Wilson. The congresswoman repeatedly attacked Madrid during the campaign for doing nothing about the corruption in the treasurer’s office.
“We were deliberately kept out by the Justice Department, the U.S. attorney and the FBI,” Madrid said, adding that she believes it is likely that Iglesias, Domenici, Wilson and Bush political adviser Karl Rove “had these prosecutions so intertwined with this campaign.”
Madrid's claims are short on specifics; but, given Iglesias' recent charges of political interference, her suspicions certainly seem more plausible than they would have a month ago.
The thing about Iglesias is that his own account of the calls from Wilson and Domenici doesn't cast him in a particularly flattering light. He admits that according to Department of Justice policy he should have notified his superiors of the calls but failed to do so. It also looks like Iglesias was prepared to take the fall and go quietly until Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty testified to Congress that the U.S. attorney dismissals were for performance reasons. Only after he was smeared did Iglesias speak out.
It would have been nice if Iglesias had put the same value on defending the rule of law as he has on defending his own reputation.
--David Kurtz
Those golden oldies that just keep on giving. Remember the Denver Three? Their civil suit is proceeding, and today the Denver Post reports: "A former White House official who ordered three activists expelled from a 2005 Denver public forum with President Bush says it was White House policy to exclude potentially disruptive guests from Bush's appearances nationwide."
--David Kurtz
John Edwards starts raising "Coulter Cash," a.k.a. campaign contributions, off of her "faggot" slur at yesterday's CPAC conference.
Relatedly, let's not forget another equally tasteful Coulter remark from last year's CPAC event.
--Greg Sargent
Hard to imagine any high-level heads rolling over the Walter Reed scandal if Don Rumsfeld were still secretary of defense. So give Bob Gates at least some credit, but he's still got his work cut out for him if the Pentagon is littered with Rumsfeld hires like Army Secretary Francis Harvey:
Pentagon officials said Gates was angry that as the scandal unfolded, the Army relieved the commander of Walter Reed, Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman, who had been in that job for only about half a year, and replaced him with Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley, the Army surgeon general, who had previously commanded Walter Reed and was said by soldiers, their families and veterans' advocates to have long been aware of problems at the medical complex.Harvey defended his decision to temporarily appoint Kiley as Walter Reed's commander. He said Kiley called him a few days ago and lambasted The Washington Post's series on the medical center. "He called me and said, 'I'm willing to defend myself. . . . I want to have an opportunity to defend myself, and it was wrong and it was yellow journalism at its worst, and I plan on doing it. Trust me.' " Harvey said. "I said, 'Okay, Kevin.' " Harvey added that Kiley was to be in the job only about a week until they could make a "thoughtful decision on who should replace him."
Okay, Kevin? Now that's leadership.
--David Kurtz
So there you have it: the White House's side of the canned US Attorney story provided by the Post's John Solomon.
It turns out the whole thing is just one of those 
unfortunate misunderstandings the Bush White House now and again finds itself in. The ouster of the US attorneys had nothing to do with political payback or stymieing investigations. It's just that the White House wanted to get rid of a hand full of US attorneys who weren't doing a good enough job enforcing administration policy on immigration, guns and other issues.
As Solomon puts it, "Privately, White House officials acknowledged that the administration mishandled the firings by not explaining more clearly to lawmakers that a large group was being terminated at once -- which is unusual -- and that the reason was the policy performance review."
Now, there's a certain inattention in the piece to the growing body of evidence which casts doubt on the new administration story. But when a White House tries to get out ahead of a story like this it's key to note the admissions of salient facts that come along with the larger bamboozlement.
The key point is that the White House signed off on the firings, as did Attorney General Gonzales and his deputy Paul McNulty.
Now, let's join Mr. Solomon recounting what 'officials' told him ...
Officials portrayed the firings as part of a routine process, saying the White House did not play any role in identifying which U.S. attorneys should be removed or encourage the dismissals. The administration previously said that the White House counsel recommended a GOP replacement for one U.S. attorney, in Arkansas, but did not say that the White House approved the seven other firings.
And again ...
The seven prosecutors were first identified by the Justice Department's senior leadership shortly before the November elections, officials said. The final decision was supported by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and his deputy, Paul J. McNulty, and cleared with the White House counsel's office, including deputy counsel William Kelly, they said.
There's a lot of signing off ons, supportings and clearings and such. But it is a little tough to get a handle on just whose idea this was and who actually came up with the list, isn't it?
Another interesting point.
Sen. Domenici's spokesman tells the Post that, yes, the senator "raised concerns" with the Justice Department about Iglesias. But not about his alleged unwillingness to buckle to Domenici's pressure to indict a Democrat before the election. Not at all. Domenici's beef was immigration.
"We had very legitimate concerns expressed to us by hundreds of New Mexicans -- in the media, in the legal communities and just regular citizens -- about the resources that were available to the U.S. attorney," Domenici's chief of staff told the Post.
So Domenici's office is willing to say that it 'raised concerns' with DOJ, which I take to mean pressed for his ouster or disciplining. But the senator himself still refuses to answer the pretty straightforward question: did he call Iglesias to discuss the corruption investigation into a New Mexico Democrat which his office then had underway.
Let's remember what Domenici is alleged to have done.
Yesterday, McClatchy's Marisa Taylor spoke to "two people familiar with the contacts" between Iglesias and Wilson and Domenici.
The two people with knowledge of the incident said Domenici and Wilson intervened in mid-October, when Wilson was in a competitive re-election campaign that she won by 875 votes out of nearly 211,000 cast.David Iglesias, who stepped down as U.S. attorney in New Mexico on Wednesday, told McClatchy Newspapers that he believed the Bush administration fired him Dec. 7 because he resisted the pressure to rush an indictment.
According to the two individuals, Domenici and Wilson called to press Iglesias for details of the case.
Wilson was curt after Iglesias was "non-responsive" to her questions about whether an indictment would be unsealed, said the two individuals, who asked not to be identified because they feared possible political repercussions. Rumors had spread throughout the New Mexico legal community that an indictment of at least one Democrat was sealed.
Domenici, who wasn't up for re-election, called about a week and a half later and was more persistent than Wilson, the people said. When Iglesias said an indictment wouldn't be handed down until at least December, the line went dead.
Call me overly suspicious. But it seems to me that any reporter really interested in getting to the bottom of this story needs to get a straight answer from Domenici about whether this alleged call took place in any degree as described above.
If it didn't then Domenici's being slandered. If it did, then Domenici's claim that his only beef with Iglesias was over immigration prosecutions just isn't credible.
Let's find the answer to that question.
And while we're at it, I'll be curious to find the answers to these questions.
If this whole business was about US attorneys not implementing White House policy on immigration and firearms enforcement, why all the secrecy about it?
The White House didn't let members of Congress know what they were doing when they did it. When called on it in an open hearing recently Deputy AG Paul McNulty said the US Attorneys were fired for performance issues. When called on the apparent falsity of those claims, it became a matter of policy disagreements. Again, if the US attorneys were canned for not following administration policy, why was this fact withheld even from the fired US Attorneys themselves? Remember, when called on December 7th and informed that they must resign, apparently none were given any explanation for their ousters.
Here's the funny thing.
Of all the reasons an administration might have to fire serving US attorneys, a willful refusal to follow the administration's law enforcement policies would seem to be a pretty good one. Given the fact that so many of the fired prosecutors were also in the midst of major public corruption investigations, you'd think they'd be more forthcoming with this exculpating explanation. Even more so when you consider that one of the fired US Attorneys was the target of two sitting members of Congress trying to pressure him to subvert justice to alter the outcome of a 2006 House race.
Lots of potential for misunderstanding. And yet the White House has been so resistant to revealing this exculpating explanation until now. Their own worst enemies, I guess.
And one other thing. What the White House folks told Solomon was that the list was drawn up at the Department of Justice. White House signed off on it. But they weren't involved.
But how does that square with what Dan Eggen (who has a co-byline on the Solomon piece) came up with back on February 4th.
There is also evidence that broader political forces are at work. One administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in discussing personnel issues, said the spate of firings was the result of "pressure from people who make personnel decisions outside of Justice who wanted to make some things happen in these places."
So who are these folks "who make personnel decisions outside of Justice who wanted to make some things happen in these places"?
Anybody have an answer?
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader JC from Wustah ...
As a resident of Massachusetts (and well happy to be rid of do-nothing Mitt) I have to wonder, when I hear that part of his traveling road show is to ridicule the very people that made him governor, if he wins the White House, can we as a nation look forward to him traveling the globe making fun of the entire country? Might someone ask him that? Please?
There are many apt descriptions of Romney: dangerous, opportunist, flipflopper. But, really, the guy just has no class. I think even a lot of dyed in the wool conservatives, who have no use for the Bay State, would see it as just shabby for a guy to bash and ridicule folks whose votes he campaigned for and who, until a couple months ago, he was pledged to serve.
--Josh Marshall
At the CPAC conference today, only Mitt Romney outdid Rudy -- Mitt bashed the state he served as Governor, gave a shout out to Ann Coulter, and teamed up with his wife to cleverly deflect the Mormon issue. We have video highlights for you right here.
Meanwhile, Mitt's flattery of Coulter appears to have paid off: She endorsed him today.
--Greg Sargent
Here's the latest on the state of play in the House over the coming showdown between Congressional Dems and the White House over Iraq.
Relatedly, check out this GOP pushback against the Dems.
--Greg Sargent
Watchdog vows to follow through with ethics complaints against Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) and Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) if U.S. Attorney David Iglesias names them on Tuesday.
--Paul Kiel
Senate committee requests testimony (and threatens subpoenas) for six of the ousted prosecutors.
--Paul Kiel
Rudy's heavily-anticipated speech before the Conservative Political Action Conference wound down just a little while ago. We have some video highlights for you here.
--Greg Sargent
CNN: "Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey has resigned in the wake of the Walter Reed hospital scandal, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday."
--Paul Kiel
Romney angles for corruption vote, has Grover Norquist introduce him at CPAC.
Late Update: Romney's pandermonious speech is really turning out to be a laugh riot. After yakking about the press and how they're out to get him, he bragged that the right-wingers will be around even after the news media is no more. And of course, a scenario like this is something that more than a few of us are worried about.
Half of Romney's speech turns out to be making fun of Massachusetts, which I think just makes him look cheesy and like a jerk, considering he just spent four years pledged to the state. I guess he didn't mention to the voters that he thought the state was an embarrassment.
He even flagged his crack about Dorchester, Mass. from his 1994 campaign against Ted Kennedy. Folks who've been watching Romney for years like I have will remember that moment which came during one of the debates if I remember correctly. It was a churlish and juvenile moment -- making fun of people whose votes he was allegedly campaigning for. It was a small but important turning point in that campaign. And the same part of the guy is coming out now.
Later Update: Watching Romney pander to every line item in the right-wing catechism in this speech is a good window into his character. And the view shows the same shortcomings as the Dorchester comment and the Massachusetts-bashing in this speech. People can think what they want of Massachusetts. It's a liberal state. It's on one end of the spectrum of American political culture. But, not long ago, Mitt Romney was running to be the governor of that state, to represent its people. A month or so out of office, now they're the punchline of his jokes. They're tossed like a tissue after it's used. And of course now he's telling these right-wingers everything they want to hear too even though it contradicts pretty much everything he used to say he believed. He'd drop them in a flash and denigrate them too. That's a window into who someone is. He's dangerous.
--Josh Marshall
Today at TPM HQ we're watching the CPAC (aka Conservative Political Action Committee's) annual conference. CPAC's the big right-wing get together every year. So it's a big deal. But it's sort of a sad sack event this year. And here's a kind of funny example of the scraping the bottom of the barrell. It's GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway explaining why Obama is toast because you didn't know who he was before 9/11 ...
It's the best they can do now.
Sad.
--Josh Marshall
Point of publisher's privilege.
The canned US attorney story is now really picking up steam. Two members of Congress -- a senator and a representative -- are scurrying from office to car and vice versa refusing to confirm or deny whether they tried to interfere with a federal corruption investigation to help save an endangered Republican House seat. But if you're a regular reader of TPMmuckraker.com you've been following this story for almost two months. Here's Muckraker's collection of coverage and original reporting going back to January 13th, chronicling it, advancing it, being first on the story.
So this is a shout-out to TPMmuckraker's Paul Kiel and also former TPMer Justin Rood (now with ABC), who was still with us when we first started on the story. And thanks to the almost 3000 TPM Readers who contributed start up funds, subscribed if you will, to get the site up and off the ground.
More soon on the new stuff we have coming.
--Josh Marshall
The Politico piece attacking liberal bloggers should have disclosed that author Dan Gerstein is taking fees from Joe Lieberman, says Howard Kurtz.
--Greg Sargent
House Dem leaders nearing compromise of sorts on approach to scaling back American presence in Iraq.
--Greg Sargent
Today's Must Read: what will the ousted U.S. attorneys be telling Congress next week? A rundown.
--Paul Kiel
Iglesias not the only one with a story to tell?
Remember Bud Cummins. He was the US Attorney from the Eastern District of Arkansas who got canned so Karl Rove's opposition research chief could take over the job. Look closely at what he just told the Associated Press ...
Cummins, U.S. attorney for Arkansas' Eastern District from 2001-2006, said Thursday that he and other fired attorneys had "politely declined" previous requests from the committee. He said he "didn't have any desire to stir up the controversy any further.""If given the choice, I'd elect to stay home and mind my own business," Cummins told The Associated Press. "Now that I'm under subpoena, I'll go and give cooperative, truthful answers."
When asked if officials in the Justice Department or White House had asked him to decline the earlier requests, Cummins said he had no comment.
Again, one of those 'no comments' that says plenty.
While this story has been unfolding, has the White House been leaning on these fired US attorneys not to come before Congress?
And what might they have said?
Consider what Sen. Schumer (D-NY) said on Wednesday on the floor of the senate. He said pretty clearly that his staff has talked to other fired US attorneys, beside Mr. Iglesias, and that they believe nefarious motives prompted their suspicions too ...
And before going further, let's be clear about one thing. I suspect many of the press lords haven't awoken yet to the potential magnitude of this story. The Iglesias story could drag down a member of Congress. On its own though it's a small matter. What makes it a big deal is that it's the tell about what happened in San Diego.
--Josh Marshall
McClatchy still running that ball down field ...
Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico pressured the U.S. attorney in their state to speed up indictments in a federal corruption investigation that involved at least one former Democratic state senator, according to two people familiar with the contacts.The alleged involvement of the two Republican lawmakers raises questions about possible violations of House of Representatives and Senate ethics rules and could taint the criminal investigation into the award of an $82 million courthouse contract.
The two people with knowledge of the incident said Domenici and Wilson intervened in mid-October, when Wilson was in a competitive re-election campaign that she won by 875 votes out of nearly 211,000 cast.
Further down into the article we learn that Wilson called first. That was followed up by Domenici who ... well, listen hear how Marisa Taylor of McClatchy puts it ...
Domenici, who wasn't up for re-election, called about a week and a half later and was more persistent than Wilson, the people said. When Iglesias said an indictment wouldn't be handed down until at least December, the line went dead.
When I first heard about this latest development in the USA attorney story, I could believe that Wilson pulled something like this. I'm not saying she strikes me, or struck me, as particularly unethical. And I'm not saying that someone like Pete Domenici -- who must basically own the New Mexico Republican party -- would be above it. But I'm surprised someone who's served in the senate for 35 years or so wouldn't know to put a little distance -- an intermediary or two -- between him and the US attorney he was trying to muscle under.
Anyway, I think at this point we basically know that Wilson and Domenici are the culprits. They tried to pressure Iglesias into issuing an indictment of a prominent local Democrat to help Wilson win reelection. And if you really don't believe that Iglesias's firing had anything to do with his not lending Wilson a prosecutorial helping hand last fall, well, then you're probably one of those goofs who was still believing we'd find the WMD well into 2004.
Now we know Wilson and Domenici were the first links in the chain. Who they'd talk to? Walk it back.
--Josh Marshall
I'm sorry. But I don't think that cuts it as a denial. That roving band of reporters finally caught up with Sen. Domenici (R-NM) regarding the Iglesias firing matter. So was he one of the guys who called?
According to the AP he said, "I don't have any comment. I have no idea what he's [i.e., Iglesias] talking about."
The AP called that a denial. But I'm sorry. That's not a denial. Each of the other members of the New Mexico congressional delegation had little trouble making a clear denial. 'I don't know what he's talking about' is almost the definition of a non-denial-denial.
And Heather Wilson (R-NM), the other probable caller? Heck, she wouldn't even get that close to the flame. "You should contact the Department of Justice on that personnel matter," Wilson told the AP.
The House has now issued a subpoena for Iglesias to come and testify about what he knows. The senate seems certain to do the same. There are only five members of the New Mexico delegation. Iglesias says two pressured him with calls. Three of them have categorically denied it. The leaves Wilson and Domenici.
Someone's lying. There are only six players involved. It shouldn't be hard to find out who.
--Josh Marshall
Two candidates: Barack Obama and John McCain. Same mistake: Saying lost American lives in Iraq are "wasted."
Media coverage of both: Very, very different.
--Greg Sargent
Attention, Congressional Dems: A new poll finds that more respondents favor Congressional defunding of the war than oppose it.
--Greg Sargent
Romney: You know I'm the real conservative in the race 'cause the media's out to get me.
--Greg Sargent
Another flip-flop from Rudy on abortion. That makes two Rudy abortion reversals and counting.
--Greg Sargent
Uh-oh. DC Madam "considering" selling 13 years of her service's itemized phone records to the highest bidder to raise money for her legal defense fund.
Late Update: Now the Madam's lawyer tells us this: "The records identify the telephone number of the customer. Since 2000, the customers and the independent contractor escorts of the service almost exclusively used their personal cellphones, their identifying information is readily and publicly available. Jeane will cooperate with whoever acquires the information to supplement it with other information at her disposal."
A deeply unfortunate situation. Deeply.
--Josh Marshall
We hear there are more than a few reporters on the Heather Wilson/Pete Domenici stake out watch today. Drop us a line. All confidential.
--Josh Marshall
Howard Kurtz gives some gentle publicity to Michelle Malkin's latest attack.
--Greg Sargent
So there it is. Former US Attorney David 
Iglesias has now all but named Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) and Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) as the two members of Congress who pressured him to indict a New Mexico Democrat before the November election. He didn't use their names. But he said they were "two members of the New Mexico delegation." The other three have each categorically denied it was them. And Domenici and Wilson still refuse to give any answer to the press.
I hear through the grapevine that reporters are staking out Sen. Domenici this morning on Capitol Hill. So I suspect strongly that we'll have some answer very soon. Needless to say, we continue to place follow up calls to each office. And they're still not answering any questions.
--Josh Marshall
McCain wants to deliver some "straight talk" to conservatives -- but only behind closed doors.
--Greg Sargent
White House: Okay, maybe the North Koreans don't have a uranium enrichment program after all.
You have to be relatively deep into the minutiae of North Korea policy for this story. But it's a big one. The Bush administration is now saying they're really not even sure the North Koreans have a uranium enrichment program for the production of nuclear weapons.
A 'senior administration official' tells the Times, "The question now is whether we would be in the position of having to get the North Koreans to give up a sizable arsenal if this had been handled differently."
That, as they say, is something of an understatement.
This gets a tad tedious. But bear with me because it's important.
Speaking very broadly, there are two big ways to make nuclear weapons -- with uranium and plutonium. Each involves different technical challenges and processes. And each has a different bang you get versus the complexity of the task of putting the thing together.
The big issue with North Korea has always been their plutonium production. Back in 1994, they were on the brink of being able to produce bombs with the plutonium they were making. The US came close to war with the North Koreans over it. But the two countries settled on something called the 'Agreed Framework' in which the North Koreans' plutonium production operation was shuttered and placed under international inspection in exchange for fuel oil shipments and assistance building 'light water' nuclear reactors.
We don't need to get into the details of the agreement at the moment. The relevant point is that from 1994 to 2002 the North Korean nuclear weapons program was frozen in place. The strong consensus judgment was that they had not yet made any nuclear weapons. And during that period they could not access the plutonium they had already produced.
It was on the basis of this alleged uranium enrichment program -- which may well not even have existed -- that the US pulled out of that agreement. This allowed the North Koreans to get back into the plutonium business with a gusto. And they have since produced -- by most estimates -- at least a hand full of nuclear weapons, one of which, albeit a rather feeble one, they detonated last October.
So now let's review that quote from the senior administration official: "The question now is whether we would be in the position of having to get the North Koreans to give up a sizable arsenal if this had been handled differently."
Frankly, it's not much of a question.
Because of a weapons program that may not even have existed (and no one ever thought was far advanced) the White House the White House got the North Koreans to restart their plutonium program and then sat by while they produced a half dozen or a dozen real nuclear weapons -- not the Doug Feith/John Bolton kind, but the real thing.
It's a screw-up that staggers the mind. And you don't even need to know this new information to know that. Even if the claims were and are true, it was always clear that the uranium program was far less advanced than the plutonium one, which would be ready to produce weapons soon after it was reopened. Now we learn the whole thing may have been a phantom. Like I said, it staggers the mind how badly this was bungled. In this decade there's been no stronger force for nuclear weapons proliferation than the dynamic duo of Dick Cheney and George W. Bush.
--Josh Marshall
Arthur Schlesinger Jr. has died at the age of 89.
According to the Times obituary, he had a heart attack at a restaurant in Manhattan and died at New York Downtown Hospital.
Because of my background I think of him primarily as an historian, though his influence is at least as much as an intellectual on the stage of politics stretching over more than half a century. My favorite of his books -- I think his first -- is The Age of Jackson. In some ways it's a very dated book, but also a timeless one. In its own broad and expansive narrative fashion it is as good a book as any you'll read about the period. I recommend it to anyone who wants to know more about America.
Then there's The Vital Center, the touchstone of Cold War Liberalism and liberal anti-Communism, published only three or maybe four years Age of Jackson, though now saddled with a title that, as a catchphrase, has been cheapened out of all recognition.
Three years ago, at an awards ceremony, I saw my chance, buckled up my courage, and introduced myself in one of those awkward 'I'm introducing myself because I want to be able to remember that I met you' moments and had the unexpected gratification of learning that he'd heard of me. Here's a post I wrote later that day recounting my not-so-successful attempt to explain to this octogenarian what a 'blog' was with very few common points of reference.
If you're not familiar with Schlesinger or know him only as a name, take the time to read the Times obit. This is one of those passings that, in a small but deep way, marks the passing of an era.
--Josh Marshall
A few more nuggets from the Post piece on the Iglesias charges.
In his interview with the Post Iglesias speculates on the probable chain of events that got him fired ...
"I didn't give them what they wanted. 
That was probably a political problem that caused them to go to the White House or whomever and complain that I wasn't a team player."
If you're a nervous member of Congress in a tight election and you're pissed you can't get any action out of Iglesias, you probably don't call the DOJ. You call the White House, specifically the political office. So who at the White House got called? And what did they do?
There's another interesting tidbit down at the bottom of the article -- a few brief comments from former Deputy AG James Comey. Remember, when the Plame case started to heat up in late 2003 and Attorney General Ashcroft had to recuse himself from participation in the case, it was Comey, the Deputy AG, who appointed a prosecutor he knew would get to the bottom of the mess, Patrick Fitzgerald. Here's Comey ...
Former deputy attorney general James B. Comey this week praised Iglesias as "a fired-up guy.""David Iglesias was one of our finest and someone I had a lot of confidence in as deputy attorney general," said Comey, now general counsel for Lockheed Martin.
But Roehrkasse said Justice "had a lengthy record from which to evaluate his performance as a manager, and we made our decision not to further extend his service based on performance-related concerns."
Who do you believe?
--Josh Marshall
The silence is starting to get a tad deafening. Fired US Attorney says two members of Congress contacted and nudge him on getting a Democrat indicted before election day. Everyone seems to be denying it was them. Except for two folks. No one seems to be able to get a call returned from Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) or Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM).
Here's the Post's succinct, if vaguely oblique, summary of the relevant reporting ...
Spokesmen for Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) and the state's two Democratic lawmakers, Sen. Jeff Bingaman and Rep. Tom Udall, said the lawmakers and their staffs had no contact with Iglesias about the case. The offices of New Mexico's two other Republican lawmakers, Sen. Pete V. Domenici and Rep. Heather A. Wilson, did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
Heather? Pete?
--Josh Marshall
Golden oldies ... (Jay Carney, Jan. 17th 2007)
Running Massacre?That's how Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo describes a story that his blog and its offshoot, TPMMuckraker.com, have played a laudable role in uncovering: the resignations of more than a dozen United States Attorneys across the country, and their replacement, under an obscure provision in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, by "interim" candidates hand-picked by the attorney general without the consent of the Senate or any constraint on the duration of their service.
It's all very suspicious-sounding. The provision smacks of a power-grab, an attempt to put a leash on federal prosecutors in the name of efficiency. It looks even worse when it turns out one of the "interim" US attorneys appointed by Alberto Gonzales is Tim Griffin, a veteran GOP operative who worked in Karl Rove's shop at the White House and as director of research (i.e., chief dirt digger) at the Republican National Committee. Not only that, but Griffin was appointed to be the USA in his home state of Arkansas, which can only mean he's being sent by Rove, armed with subpoena power, to dig up fresh dirt on the Clintons in time for the 2008 presidential campaign cycle.
Of course! It all makes perfect conspiratorial sense!
Except for one thing: in this case some liberals are seeing broad partisan conspiracies where none likely exist.
--Josh Marshall
The Politico takes a beating from CJR Daily's Paul McLeary over the Dan Gerstein flap:
There comes a time in the life of most every publication when it runs into some ethical quandary concerning the affiliations of one of its contributors. More often than not, the trouble could have been avoided by a couple of words in the author's bio, or a line or two in the article itself disclosing whatever ties the author has to a person or group that smacks of impropriety...While [Gerstein's] right that his piece barely mentions Lieberman (he refers to the Lieberman-Lamont Senate race twice in order to show how nasty liberal bloggers are), he's sidestepping a crucial point -- that he's still on Lieberman's payroll, and that the liberal blogosphere ain't anywhere near through bashing his boss.
And that, friends, is one important reason why we have bio lines, to announce such connections.
We're not saying that Gerstein is hiding his affiliation with Lieberman -- he is quoted as working for him in the other Politico story, but from a journalistic standpoint, his continuing relationship with Lieberman, and all the history with liberal bloggers that that relationship entails, does in fact taint his piece.
While Gerstein claims innocence, it's important to remember that he's a political operative, and thus he works under a very different set of rules than a journalist. His goal is to push the interests of his clients, period. It's the editors of the Politico who should have known better.
The rest is here.
--Greg Sargent
House committee schedules vote on whether to subpoena ousted U.S. attorneys.
--Paul Kiel
It's truly TPM entering Nirvana: Doug Feith sets up his own website to clear his good name! (via WashingtonWire)
Late Update: It seems some awful, awful person has now created a parody version of Doug's site.
--Josh Marshall
Was it Heather Wilson (R-NM) who helped get US Attorney David Iglesias fired?
As we first reported earlier this afternoon, Rep. Steve Pearce, the other Republican member of Congress from New Mexico, denies he called Iglesias to nudge him to drop an indictment on a state Democrat just in time for the November election.
We called Wilson for comment at the same time. And we haven't gotten a response. Now we learn that the Post hasn't gotten their calls to Wilson returned either.
Now, yesterday when we reported that Iglesias had emailed a friend telling him that his firing was a "political fragging", we picked that story up from the blog of Joe Monahan, a New Mexico politics insider.
A short time ago TPM Reader BL sent us a link to this post on Monahan's blog from December 20th. It's about Iglesias's ouster, but before the fired US Attorney issue caught on nationally. And it includes this passage ...
There was another angle that surfaced too. That one had ABQ GOP Congresswoman Heather Wilson egging on Justice to axe Iglesias. Was she unhappy with the Vigil prosecution that played a role in her campaign? Was she displeased that the U.S. attorney failed to come with indictments in the investigation of the construction of two Bernalillo county courthouses in time for her to use in her difficult re-election battle with Democrat Patsy Madrid? Those were the questions being posed in light of her rumored involvement in the Iglesias matter, coming as it did from reliable legal sources.
So it seems like Wilson's meddling in this matter was at least being traded as scuttlebutt well before Iglesias made his accusations. She doesn't seem inclined to deny was one of the two callers. And she was involved in a super tight race last Fall against Democrat Patricia Madrid.
I pretty much guarantee that Iglesias's explosive claims are the story in all New Mexico politics today. We first called Wilson's office just before 2 PM and we've placed repeated calls since then. The Post apparently get an answer either. And a staffer in Wilson's DC office just told us that Wilson's spokesperson, Bryce Dustman, is in the office today.
So if Dustman can deny that Wilson was one of the two members of Congress who called him, we're all ears and we're waiting by the phone.
--Josh Marshall