Bush / GOP

Was it all political? Were Rove and co trying to put political operatives into these 8 positions to help their 2008 electoral chances?  It certainly seems from all the stories that this was all about politics, and about better using these powerful offices as they did in New Jersey in 2006, to go after the Democrats and weaken their position in the 2008 elections. 

So assuming this was all political, and not based on performance, lets take a look at what could be driving these picks. 

The 4 in the Southwest - The immigration debate has significantly weakened the Republican brand with Hispanics, making the greatest new threat to their 2008 chances the four heavily Hispanic states in the Southwest, AZ, CO, NM and NV.  If you take the Gore/Kerry states and add these four, all of which have been won by Democrats in recent years, Democrats win the Presidency.  Looking to 2008 Republicans will have to defend there weakened position in these 4 states with everything they have - and amazingly, 4 of the 8 fired US Attorneys came from these critical battleground states.   We also know of the remarkable efforts by Senators Dominici and Rep. Wilson in NM to use the post for shortterm partisan gain in 2006. 

Carol Lam - A year ago the greatest threat to the Republican Majority were not the Democrats, but career prosecutors in DoJ's Office of Public Integrity and US Attorneys who were taking down errant GOPers for their historic and rampant corruption and betrayal of the public trust.  No prosecutor had done more to damage the Republicans than the San Diego US Attorney, Carol Lam, who secured the longest jail sentence for a sitting US Congressman in history, was moving against the #3 in the CIA and reportedly was also looking at what may end up being the greatest of all the corruption scandals, Cong. Jerry Lewis's handling of the earmark process (something he has already spent more than a $1m defending against).  Lam was a huge threat to the GOP and needed to be removed.  She was. 

Arkansas - Perhaps the most brazen move.  The White House actually tried to put a Rove political deputy in as US Attorney in the home state of the Clintons, and what could be a pivotal battleground in 2008. 

San Francisco - Speaker Pelosi. 

Washington - Punishment for not moving more aggressively on the 2006 Guberatorial recount.  Sends a signal to the remaining 90 plus US Attorneys and career prosecutors in DC. 

Michigan - Not sure.  Perhaps a diversity pick.   A core 2008 battleground nonetheless with Romney as possible GOP nominee. 

Given the "rules don't apply to us" worldview of the Bush era, it is not a great leap to believe that the White House decided to use these slots to stack the deck for 2008, remove their greatest prosecutorial threat, and punish folks who had not played ball in using these offices for partisan means.  Given how highly political all this was, and that Rove had already in 2002 helped remove a US Attorney in Guam who was going after Jack Abramoff, it is not believable that Rove, the political boss of this era, was not directly involved, if not supervising the whole campaign.   

No wonder Bush doesnt want his team to testify under oath. 

Later this week the House will debate a $124 billion dollar bill to fund the War the Iraq through the end of FY 2007.  As you probably already know, Speaker Pelosi is walking a political tightrope between conservative members of her caucus who may oppose the eventual drawdown of troop numbers and restrictions on the President in the bill, and anti-war Democrats who don't think there are enough strings attached to the bill.  Here's how she pitched the bill in a floor speech last night:

Again and again, Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic Leader, and I, have urged President Bush to adopt a plan for Iraq containing the following elements: transition the mission from combat to training; responsibly redeploy our troops; build consensus for political accommodation in Iraq; encourage a robust diplomatic effort, primarily involving Iraq’s neighbors.  We must then reform and reinvigorate the reconstruction effort; and refocus on the real war on terror – the war in Afghanistan.

Later this week we will debate a plan to bring the war to an end.  The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Health, and Iraq Accountability Act will rebuild our military, protect our troops, provide for our veterans, and hold the Iraqi government accountable. 

The benchmarks for the Iraqi government set forth in this bill are the benchmarks endorsed by President Bush on January 10.  They are: improvements in the performance of the Iraqi security forces; a greater commitment by the Iraqi government to national reconciliation; and reductions in the levels of sectarian violence in Iraq.

After four years of war, it is reasonable to expect these benchmarks to be met this year.

I welcome the debate over this bill and the opportunity it provides for Members of Congress to express themselves on what the greatest ethical challenge facing our country.

Outside of Congress, the influential progressive advocacy group MoveOn has decided to support the bill, after polling its 3.2 million members.  And they're running radio ads beating-up on Republicans who oppose the bill.

Of course, the President is strongly opposed to the bill, has threatened to veto it and in yesterday's Iraq War anniversary speech - at the end of the bloodiest year so far - said, "They [Congress] have a responsibility to get this bill to my desk without strings and without delay."  Of course, he gave the speech under a portrait of Teddy Roosevelt in heroic Rough Rider garb.  One thing that can be said for this White House, they still know how to pull-off a photo-shoot as delusion of grandeur.

The new issue of Foreign Affairs has an excellent piece on the future of of our policy in Iraq.  Written by James Fearon, a Stanford professor, the article takes a look at the history of Civil Wars since WWII, and asseses the likelihood of the success of our current policy.   He is not optimistic. 

Suppose that the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad continues and Sunni insurgent groups and Shiite militias continue to fight one another, U.S. troops, and civilians. If the Bush administration sticks to its "stay the course toward victory" approach, of which the surge option is the latest incarnation, it will become increasingly apparent that this policy amounts to siding with the Shiites in an extremely vicious Sunni-Shiite war. U.S. troops may play some positive role in preventing human rights abuses by Iraqi army units and slowing down violence and ethnic cleansing. But as long as the United States remains committed to trying to make this Iraqi government "succeed" on the terms President Bush has laid out, there is no escaping the fact that the central function of U.S. troops will be to backstop Maliki's government or its successor. That security gives Maliki and his coalition the ability to tacitly pursue (or acquiesce in) a dirty war against actual and imagined Sunni antagonists while publicly supporting "national reconciliation."

This policy is hard to defend on the grounds of either morality or national interest. Even if Shiite thugs and their facilitators in the government could succeed in ridding Baghdad of Sunnis, it is highly unlikely that they would be able to suppress the insurgency in the Sunni-majority provinces in western Iraq or to prevent attacks in Baghdad and other places where Shiites live. In other words, the current U.S. policy probably will not lead to a decisive military victory anytime soon, if ever. And even if it did, would Washington want it to? The rise of a brutal, ethnically exclusivist, Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad would further the perception of Iran as the ascendant regional power. Moreover, U.S. backing for such a government would give Iraqi Sunnis and the Sunni-dominated countries in the Middle East no reason not to support al Qaeda as an ally in Iraq. By spurring these states to support Sunni forces fighting the Shiite government, such backing would ultimately pit the United States against those states in a proxy war.

To avail itself of more attractive policy options, the Bush administration (or its successor) must break off its unconditional military support for the Shiite-dominated government that it helped bring to power in Baghdad. Washington's commitment to Maliki's government undermines U.S. diplomatic and military leverage with almost every relevant party in the country and the region. Starting to move away from this commitment by shifting combat troops out of the central theaters could, accordingly, increase U.S. leverage with almost all parties. The current Shiite political leadership would then have incentives to try to gain back U.S. military support by, for example, making more genuine efforts to incorporate Sunnis into the government or reining in Shiite militias. (Admittedly, whether it has the capacity to do either is unclear.) As U.S. troops departed, Sunni insurgent groups would begin to see the United States less as a committed ally of the "Persians" and more as a potential source of financial or even military backing. Washington would also have more leverage with Iran and Syria, because the U.S. military would not be completely bogged down in Baghdad and Anbar Province -- and because both of those countries have a direct interest in avoiding increased chaos in Iraq..

As I've been writing for months, I think it is now clear that the Administration did not understand the fundamentally new regional dynamic creating the first Shiite-led Arab government in history would create.  In hindsight there was almost no chance we could have ended up in Iraq in any other place than where we are today.  The frustration of 1300 years of Shiite oppression by the region's Sunnis was never going to lend itself to a quick and stable outcome.  Or for Iran, the region's most powerful Shiite regime, to do anything than work to consolidate their position with their extraordinary new ally, run, with America's help, by political parties closely aligned with the their own government. 

What this means is that we have very little to celebrate on this 4th Anniversary of the Iraq War, and must marvel at the incredible stupidity of the man who got us into this mess without a plan, and had the audicity to declare in front of the world "Mission Accomplished."

In Salon, the always insightful Glenn Greenwald goes deep into the newly uncovered abuse by the FBI of their already generous ability to issue National Security Letters, and of course, its connection to the about-to-be former Attorney General.

Throughout his tour of Latin America President Bush said, again and again, it was time to move forward on immigration reform here in the U.S.  It is long past time for the President to do more than say the words.  He has to get to work and bring his unwilling Party along.  As our recent event with Senators Reid, Kennedy, Menendez and Salazar, and House Members Zofgren, Gutierrez and Becerra showed, Democrats are ready to go.   The question is will the Republicans and the President show. 

As the Washington Post opines this morning, we are long past time for action:

THE HYPOCRISY of U.S. immigration law was on lurid display last week in a raid on a defense contractor in New England. Accompanied by dogs and a helicopter swooping overhead, hundreds of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents charged into Michael Bianco Inc., a leather-goods factory in New Bedford, Mass., that makes backpacks, ammunition pouches and other gear for GIs.

When the dust settled, the agents had arrested some 360 illegal immigrant employees at the plant, many of them women from Guatemala and other Central American nations. The workers had toiled in sweatshop conditions that allegedly included draconian restrictions on bathroom breaks, toilet paper supply, and snacking and talking at their workstations. They were seized, handcuffed, questioned and, in about 200 cases, whisked away to detention centers in New Mexico and Texas without regard to their roots in the community, their spouses or their children, including American-born children who are U.S. citizens.

Amid the pandemonium, families and communities were split, and children were left with babysitters, relatives, siblings or other families. Immigration and Customs Enforcement insisted it had released about 60 of the immigrants -- including nursing mothers and sole or primary caregivers for young children -- for "humanitarian" reasons. But reports of confusion and mistakes were common, and state officials said scores of children were separated from their parents. In one case, doctors treated an 8-month-old baby, Keylyn Zusana Lopez Ayala, for pneumonia and possible dehydration after her mother was detained and unable to breast-feed her. Keylyn is an American citizen. Three days after the raid, a federal judge was sufficiently concerned that he barred immigration officials from transporting any more detainees out of state. The raid, said Massachusetts Gov. Deval L. Patrick (D), "reflects, for me, not what this country is about."

Two weeks ago a CNN poll put the President's approval rating at 29%, the lowest of his Presidency, and one of the lowest in recorded Presidential history.  29% for a two term President means 40% of those who voted for him twice believe he is not doing a good job.  A remarkable feat by any measure. 

That 29% came before a two week period of truly terrible developments for the Administration - the mistreatment of our veterans at Walter Reed, the overzealous and perhaps illegal use of National Security Letters by the FBI, the conviction of Scooter Libby, the new Plame testimony, continued violence in Iraq, the scandal of the Rovian-led firing of 8 US Attorneys and the resignation of senior Army officials and the Chief of Staff at Justice.  Who and what is next? Rove, Gonzales, Nicholson? Is there a Bush Administration without these guys?

Wherever these next steps take us they will take us further into the inner of the inner core of the architects and enablers of the Bush era. The political chief, the chief counsel, the former RNC Chair.  Just as the President's support has drilled into his bedrock of support, these new scandals are drilling into personnel bedrock, a place where no one ever thought we could go.  But here we are, and the ending of Bushism and its leaders seems to much closer than ever before.

At NDN our tech team works hard to try and keep our email free of spam, and they do a damn decent job - thanks, Gillian and Ben.  The one drawback to our spam filter is that it blocks outgoing emails that contain offensive words.  So when I accidentally slip the kind of word that gets you detention in high school into an email, that email will be deleted.  That's ok, that's why I use my personal email account outside of work, and quote "Midnight Run" to my hearts content. 

Our friends at CREW have found a much more nefarious use of personal email accounts though.  It turns out that Karl Rove's Deputy Scott Jennings has been using a personal email -linked to a domain owned by the RNC no less - to send emails about the purged US Attorneys.  It isn't the first time Rove's office has pulled this kind of thing either.  Susan Ralston, another Rove Deputy, used to use a personal email account to get in touch with her old boss, Jack Abramoff.  The problem with all this personal email is that it may well amount to a purposful and illegal evasion of the Presidential Records Act, if Congress, a Special Prosecutor (fingers crossed), etc don't know about your personal email account, they can't read the damaging contents, right? 

The deceptive and maybe illegal practices of the Bush/Rove team are a a disgrace to the institution of the Presidency, and yet another sign of the moral degradation of the conservative movement. 

Think you've heard every possible sordid development regarding the actions of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and the Bush White House.  Think again, because this one may top everything that has been revealed to date.  Murray Wass of the National Journal is reporting that last year, Attorney General Gonzalez advised President Bush to shutdown an internal Justice Department investigation into the warrentless wiretapping program.  Most ethically and legally troubling was the fact that Gonzalez had been told that his actions as White House Counsel and Attorney General would be at the center of the investigation.  The President's response:

Bush personally intervened to sideline the Justice Department probe in April 2006 by taking the unusual step of denying investigators the security clearances necessary for their work.

It is unclear whether the president knew at the time of his decision that the Justice inquiry -- to be conducted by the department's internal ethics watchdog, the Office of Professional Responsibility -- would almost certainly examine the conduct of his attorney general.

Sources familiar with the halted inquiry said that if the probe had been allowed to continue, it would have examined Gonzales's role in authorizing the eavesdropping program while he was White House counsel, as well as his subsequent oversight of the program as attorney general.

Both the White House and Gonzales declined comment on two issues -- whether Gonzales informed Bush that his own conduct was about to be scrutinized, and whether he urged the president to close down the investigation, which had been requested by Democratic members of Congress.  

This investigation by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility was not looking at the legality of the warrentless wiretapping program, just "allegations of misconduct involving department attorneys that relate to the exercise of their authority to investigate, litigate, or provide legal advice."  In other words, the investigation was honing in on potential misbehavior and ethical and legal violations by Gonzalez.  He knew this and still went to the President to ask him to end the investigation, which he did using what amounted to extraordinary means. 

Now there is one very important question Gonzalez and the President have to answer.  Did Gonzalez tell the President that he was a target of the investigation?  If he did not, he would be guilty of a serious, if not illegal deception.  And if he did, then the President knowingly interfered in a Justice Department investigation to shield his Attorney General.  Either way, somewhere Tricky Dick Nixon must be blushing.

During his trip to Latin America, President Bush referred to the hard work of Mariano Can, an indigenous farmer in the Guatemalan highlands who built a thriving business made possible by a loan backed by the U.S., saying: "You have proven that if given a chance, you and hundreds of others can succeed, and that's what we want."

Those comments were probably aimed at a different aspect of policy, but they also apply to the over-arching goal of his trip: immigration reform.

His comments aren't surprising. They really never are, because the President has continuously been a strong (at least in terms of what his position allows) advocate for comprehensive immigration reform. Yet these comments were directed towards a people whose continent needs, for so many reasons, to believe the words of the President of the United States. And they couldn't have come at a more important time for a President who needs to be believed.

After all, speaking to Congress versus speaking to leaders and citizens of Latin American countries about immigration reform seems somewhat different. The level of understanding is somewhat different, especially when the President of Mexico told President Bush that he has relatives who have probably handled the food he eats.

So the President returns from Latin America. He has, as always, said some very compassionate things about the idea of immigration, what it means and what its realities are. He returns from a place where he found inspiration to do the right thing everywhere he looked. But now he has to deliver. He has as many of the pieces in place that he could ask for. The rest he'll have to fight for.

The time is ripe for meetings with Senate Majority Leader Reid, Senator Kennedy and Speaker Pelosi. The time is also ripe to step up his lobbying efforts if he is going to hit his unofficial deadline of August for an immigration overhaul to get through Congress.

We've seen the word legacy attached to immigration reform so many times. We know the President wants to get this done and we've seen what he'll do to get what he wants. If he goes to work to pass comprehensive immigration reform, he will at least be able to add that to his compassionate conservative resume.

We want to believe in that compassion, Mr. President; and so do our neighbors to the South.

From the Times this morning:

WASHINGTON, March 4 — Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, said Sunday that he had urged the Justice Department to dismiss the state’s top federal prosecutor, who in December was one of eight United States attorneys ousted from their jobs.

In addition, Mr. Domenici said in a statement that last year he called the prosecutor, David C. Iglesias, to ask about the status of a federal inquiry in New Mexico. The case centered on accusations of kickbacks in a courthouse construction project in which a former Democratic state official was said to be involved.

“I asked Mr. Iglesias if he could tell me what was going on in that investigation and give me an idea of what time frame we were looking at,” Mr. Domenici said. “It was a very brief conversation which concluded when I was told that the courthouse investigation would be continuing for a lengthy period.”

Mr. Domenici apologized in the statement and said he regretted making the call, but added that he had not urged any course of action in any investigation. “I have never pressured him nor threatened him in any way,” he said.

A Justice Department spokesman said on Sunday that records at the agency showed that the senator complained about Mr. Iglesias in calls to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales in September 2005 and again in January and April 2006. The senator made a brief call to Paul J. McNulty, the deputy attorney general, in October 2006 when the deliberations over Mr. Iglesias’s dismissla began.

In each of these calls, said Brian Roehrkasse, a Justice Department spokesman, Mr. Domenici expressed general concerns about Mr. Iglesias and questioned whether he was “up to the job.” Mr. Roehrkasse added, “At no time did they discuss the public corruption case.”

A Justice Department official said Mr. Domenici’s criticism of Mr. Iglesias was a factor in the decision to remove the prosecutor, adding that the decision was also based on an internal evaluation at Justice Department headquarters regarding his handling of the job.

Why does all this matter so much? Because the people taking down the corrupt conservatives these last several years have not been the Democrats, but career prosecutors at the Office of Public Integrity at Justice and US Attorneys like the 8 just let go.   At some point the Administration had to do what it could, short of dismantling the Office of Public Integrity, to stop or slow the march of indictments and jail time being handed down to leaders of their movement and those that ran our government in recent years.  Since the 8 just fired included a San Diego US Attorney responsible for baging Duke Cunningham and the former #3 at the CIA, Dusty Faggo, this all just smelled of politics.  For why should we assume that this Administration, as political as it is, would be willing to stand by while their allies got taken down by a bunch of overzealous lawyers? Somehow I think there is going to be more to this story. 

I believe history will show that those running the country in the Bush era to be the single most corrupt set of leaders the nation has ever seen.  To make sure that justice is served, and all the many cases in front of the Office of Public Integrity are investigated fully, Congress should give this office and the hardworking career prosecutors there much more money, perhaps double their budget.  They need the resources necessary to ensure that any lead is followed, any corrupt official brought to trial.  After all they are dealing with the largest set of official corruption cases in modern times.

UPDATE: Oops, appears Congresswoman Heather Wilson also tired to get Iglesias fired.