The Next Hurrah

The Cognitive Style of "Victory"

by emptywheel

Reading Billmon's helpful summary of Bush's strategery for "Victory," I couldn't help but think of Edward Tufte's great pamphlet, the Cognitive Style of PowerPoint. My copy of it seems to be out on permaloan, so I can't include any swell snippets to explain what it's about. But the cover of the pamphlet should give you an idea.

The main jist of the Tufte pamphlet is that horrible things happen when you think in bullet points (as you're virtually forced to when you live and breath PowerPoints). One famous Tufte example is the cause behind the Challenger explosion (he uses it a lot, so I can quote here from his Visual Explanations, which isn't out on loan). As he explains:

Thus, the exact cause of the accident was intensely debated during the evening before the launch.

[snip]

Regardless of the indirect causes of the accident, there was a clear proximate cause: an inability to assess the link between cool temperature and O-ring damage on earlier flights.

More on Alito and Roe

by DemFromCT

I'm thinking elections matter, and if you don't like conservative Justices, stop voting for Republican Presidents. But this is beginning to bother me.

   Samuel A. Alito urged the Justice Department in 1985 to suggest to the Supreme Court that it consider overruling Roe v. Wade.

    In a memo from Alito circulated in the department, he suggested filing a friend of the court brief stating that "we disagree with Roe v. Wade and would welcome the opportunity to brief the issue of whether, and if so to what extent, that decision should be overruled."

   In the memo, Alito said he found "this approach preferable to a frontal assault on Roe v. Wade. It has most of the advantages of a brief devoted to the overruling of Roe v Wade," he wrote. "It makes our position clear, does not even tacitly concede Roe's legitimacy, and signals that we regard the question as live and open.

  "At the same time," Alito wrote, "it is free of many of the disadvantages that would accompany a major effort" to overturn Roe, in part because if the court declines to do so, "the decision will not be portrayed as a stinging rebuke."

  The document was among those released this morning by the archives.

This isn't Roberts keeping an open mind, nor is this Alito respecting precedent. This is, in fact a problem.

Back To The Future In Iraq

by DemFromCT

With a fractious and divided GOP, a speech on immigration was going to rescue Bush from the political dwindles? I don't think so. No speech will do that with a President the country has lost faith in. And that brings us right to Iraq, since that's the major cause of Bush's credibility chasm.

President Bush confronted doubts about his war policy Wednesday, asserting that more Iraqi security forces are taking the lead in battle but saying it's still uncertain when U.S. forces can be withdrawn.

"No war has ever been won on a timetable," according to a new White House strategy document.

Facing criticism and impatience about the conflict, Bush went on the offensive with the release of a 35-page plan titled "Our National Strategy for Victory in Vietnam Iraq."

Gee, that will work.

Bush's emphasis on the readiness of Iraqi security forces comes at a time when continued violence in Vietnam Iraq and the death of more than 2,000 U.S. troops have contributed to a sharp drop in Bush's popularity.

Sixty-two percent of Americans, in an AP-Ipsos poll taken in November, said they disapproved of Bush's Vietnam Iraq policy. Thirty-seven percent approved of his policy _ down from 43 percent in May. The president's overall job approval rating is at 37 percent, the lowest level of his presidency.

Or not. Has anyone besides the American people gotten tired of this game plan yet? Rather than change policy, Bush announces a "major speech" so cable will cover it for a few minutes instead of some blonde chick missing in Aruba. The speech is given at a military base so that ordinary citizens come as close as dirt did to Howard Huges. The key words are repeated over and over throughout the speech as Bush smirks into the camera – this is hard, things take time, stay the course. Bush takes a nap and more Americans and Vietnamese Iraqis die.

So we'll train Shi'a forces (with no loyalty to the state) and death squads to torture and kill Sunnis, pat ourselves on the back for preventing civil war and then draw down? I wish that was hyperbole, but the news from Vietnam Iraq says otherwise – check the supplied links.

Message to the WH: no one believes you care. But no one believes you know what you're doing, either. if there's a better policy in Vietnam Iraq, your subordinates haven't informed you; they didn't want to spoil your nap or your work-out, and you might have yelled at them.

What's that? There are complaints that this piece isn't a serious dissertation of American policy in Vietnam Iraq? Well, guess what? Neither is the President's speech.

Time to Remind the Press about the K Street Project

by emptywheel

It's clear what the GOP talking points are regarding their ever-expaning collective rap sheet. "Corruption is just a natural outgrowth of money in politics, and besides, did you know that Democrats are implicated as well?"

After years in which big-dollar dealings have come to dominate the interaction between lobbyists and lawmakers, both sides are now facing what could be a wave of prosecutions in the courts and an uprising at the ballot box. Extreme examples of the new business-as-usual are no longer tolerated.

Republicans, who control the White House and Congress, are most vulnerable to this wave. But pollsters say that voters think less of both political parties the more prominent the issue of corruption in Washington becomes, and that incumbents generally could feel the heat of citizen outrage if the two latest guilty pleas multiply in coming months. [emphasis mine]

Um, well, no. I mean, I'll grant you that William Jefferson is probably a crook and I'm happy to see him pay for whatever crimes he has committed. But the current batch of political corruption cases is no innocent side-effect of political lobbying and the consequent corruption is by no means shared equally. No. This batch of political corruption is the logical outcome of the GOP K Street Project.

Secret prisons, the EU, and a very strong warning

by Plutonium Page

Little by little, over the last year or so, we've begun to learn the extent of the Bush administration's War on Terror^TM as waged by the CIA.  I'm not referring to something they'd put on their website.  I'm talking about "extraordinary rendition", the practice of transferring terrorism suspects to interrogation camps, often in countries where torture is legal.

Recently, the extent of the CIA's rendition program has become clearer, as a number of European countries have reported that they suspect the CIA has been using their airports - without permission - for their rendition flights (click here for a summary as well as a descriptive EU map, pdf).

Three European countries (Spain, Germany, and Italy) have been discussing challenging the CIA's use of their airports;  also, the Council of Europe, as well as the EU parliament have been discussing launching an investigation into reports of CIA interrogation centers in Europe.

Well, things came to a head today with an announcement from the EU Justice Commissioner:

The European Union's top justice official has warned that any EU state found to have hosted a secret CIA jail could have its voting rights suspended.

Franco Frattini said the consequences would be "extremely serious" if reports of such prisons turned out to be true.

This comes amid an EU investigation into claims the US secret service ran clandestine jails in eastern Europe.

The US has refused to confirm or deny the reports, which surfaced in the US earlier this month.

He said a suspension of voting rights would be justified if any country is found to have breached the bloc's founding principles of human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

As the article says, the move would be unprecedented.  Also, it would be difficult to achieve, because the other 25 EU member states have to vote unanimously to suspend the voting rights of one state.

Frog Viveca-section

by emptywheel

Just a couple of thoughts on the Viveca Novak development.

First, some following up on kathyp's observation that Fitzgerald is interested in Luskin's conversations with V Novak going back to the time when Matt Cooper was first subpoenaed.

In May 2004, Cooper was subpoenaed at the same time as Tim Russert. Obviously, he was subpoenaed to validate or refute Libby's operative story--that Libby had heard of Plame's identity from journalists. (Incidentally, this suggests Libby may have left Judy out of the story at first.) Anonymous Liberal's post on the timing of Rove's involvement with Cooper is handy here. Basically the scenario went something like:

• Cooper is subpoenaed in May about his conversation with Libby
• Luskin starts leaking to V Novak
• Cooper makes a deal that limits his testimony to Libby--and then testifies in August
• Once Fitzgerald figures out that someone else has told Cooper of Plame's identity, he subpoenas Cooper more generally
• Rove "finds" the email indicating he had a conversation with Cooper
• Rove testifies October 2004

Rove Over and Over

by emptywheel

I guess, when I noted in July that Rove was probably counseling Luskin on what to leak more than Luskin was counseling Rove on how to beat the rap, I was late to the party. Because apparently Luskin was leaking profusely--and obstructively--as early as May 2004. At least that's what we can surmise from the news that Viveca Novak (no relation to Bob) of Time magazine has a little appointment with Fitzgerald to talk about the leaking Luskin was doing.

Novak specifically has been asked to testify under oath about conversations she had with Rove attorney Robert Luskin starting in May 2004, the magazine reported.

Novak, part of a team tracking the CIA case for Time, has written or contributed to articles in which Luskin characterized the nature of what was said between Rove and Matthew Cooper, the first Time reporter who testified in the case.

This is the most complete Viveca Novak article I can find on Rove's testimony from 2004. There's nothing of interest, at least not that I can see. The most interesting speculation I've seen is from kathyp at DKos:

May 2004 Cooper was supoened so this timeframe is very interesting.  Rove's attorney was talking about Cooper even though they DENIED Rove spoke to Cooper.  It wasn't until the attorney Luskin "discovered" an email in October 2004 about Rove meeting with Cooper that a conversation was acknowledged --- and Rove had already met with investigators and testified once before the grand jury, all the while "not recalling" a conversation with Cooper. So how can Luskin be talking about it in May when they denied it ever occured until October. 

But while we're discussing Luskin leaks I'd like to look at the leak Luskin someone close to Rove gave John Solomon right after Rove testified last month.

Political Consulting -- 5¢: Open Thread

by Kagro X

Mostly cut off from blogs this holiday weekend -- which for me has extended from last Wednesday, and continues through Monday -- I don't know what I can offer by way of interpretation of current events. Even my access to television news has been limited. I understand that terrorist balloons caused some concern at the Macy's parade, but other than that, all I know is what my relatives have told me at various holiday-themed functions. The few "conservatives" I've encountered have mostly complained about the impact of "all this talk of withdrawal," whereas the liberals have mostly repeated the litany of anti-Bush complaints that blog readers by this time find boring, even if encouraging to hear coming from the non-blog reading "muggle" public.

Were you also asked to render five cent consulting advice this weekend? Did you force it on anyone? If so, will you be having dinner with the same group next year?

What's Coming, Continued

Yesterday I posted about Abramoff and Iraq as the twin daggers pointing at the heart of the Bush Presidency. Today I want to focus more on Iraq (we'll hear more on the Abramoff front in the coming weeks). Frank Rich gets the ball rolling with this concise summary:

The Washington line has it that the motivation for the Bush-Cheney rage is the need to push back against opponents who have bloodied the White House in the polls. But, Mr. Murtha notwithstanding, the Democrats are too feeble to merit that strong a response. There is more going on here than politics.

Much more: each day brings slam-dunk evidence that the doomsday threats marshaled by the administration to sell the war weren't, in Cheney-speak, just dishonest and reprehensible but also corrupt and shameless. The more the president and vice president tell us that their mistakes were merely innocent byproducts of the same bad intelligence seen by everyone else in the world, the more we learn that this was not so. The web of half-truths and falsehoods used to sell the war did not happen by accident; it was woven by design and then foisted on the public by a P.R. operation built expressly for that purpose in the White House. The real point of the Bush-Cheney verbal fisticuffs this month, like the earlier campaign to take down Joseph Wilson, is less to smite Democrats than to cover up wrongdoing in the executive branch between 9/11 and shock and awe.

There's so much they do and they've done that they don't want you to know about. Imagine a complete and objective study of FL 2000 elections for starters, including the use of ringers as protestors in the counting halls post-election. There was a general view of 'it's settled, move on' by the media and the  Congress (Gore conceded - we all need to call this legitimate). I bring up 2000 because 2000 has to be brought up. Dishonesty and dirty tricks started then, not after 2003 when we invaded Iraq. The scare tactics have been perfected and honed, but they're not new.

Bush In Retreat

by DemFromCT

Two stories, different in their substance, but together in their implications, will dominate the next week of politics. One is about the exploding Abromoff scandal:

The Justice Department's wide-ranging investigation of former lobbyist Jack Abramoff has entered a highly active phase as prosecutors are beginning to move on evidence pointing to possible corruption in Congress and executive branch agencies, lawyers involved in the case said.

Prosecutors have already told one lawmaker, Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio), and his former chief of staff that they are preparing a possible bribery case against them, according to two sources knowledgeable about the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The other is about the Iraq non-debate (are we losing or are we losing? - apparently an important distinction for some), which Josh Marshall sums up:

We've just witnessed a ferocious two weeks of attacks over the future direction of our policy in Iraq. And in that brawl, the White House and its surrogates have launched all manner of attacks against those who would 'cut and run' before 'our job is finshed' in Iraq,

Now comes this article in Saturday's Los Angeles Times which reports that said turbo-testicular worthies have reviewed the situation and -- surprise, surprise! -- our job appears to be almost done.