David Corn

When director of national intelligence Dennis Blair, defending the CIA's not informing Congress of an anti-al Qaeda assassination program, told The Washington Post, "It was a judgment call" and that "we believe in erring on the side of working with the Hill as a partner," was he creating a new precedent for the intelligence community? For decades, the CIA and other intelligence agencies have often taken the less-said-the-better road when it comes to keeping Congress posted on its doings.This hasn't always been an ideological or partisan matter. Washington geezers should recall that back in the 1980s, Senator Barry Goldwater, the die-hard conservative Republican chair of the Senate intelligence committee, often decried Bill Casey, Ronald Reagan's CIA chief, for not being forthcoming with the committee.

So when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the CIA has lied to her or when it turns out that an assassination program--operational or not--has not been briefed to Congress, it really ought not to be a big surprise. There are plenty of hard-working, diligent folks at the CIA,and I imagine some might have argued that the assassination program ought to have been shared with the agency's congressional overseers. Yet institutionally, the CIA has frequently been more tight-lipped than it should have--which is, of course, a natural tendency for spies and covert operators.

And when you throw into the mix Dick Cheney, who reportedly urged that this program be kept secret from Capitol Hill, the inclination to keep legislators out of the loop probably increases by a factor of 10--or 100.

There's still a lot not known about this kill-al-Qaeda program, as Slate points out. But that Post article reports that it was dormant but about to be reactivated. Thus, it was brought to CIA director Leon Panetta's attention--but months after he had taken the job. He then quickly notified Congress that Congress had never been notified about it. And since then, the rest of us have been left to puzzle over what really went on with this project.

Which brings me to this point: it would not be too hard for a congressional intelligence committee to mount a quick probe to determine what did happen and to produce a report safe for public consumption. WIthout disclosing all the details of the program--some of which might have to remain classified--the House or Senate intelligence panel certainly could tell the public what Cheney's role was in keeping the program from Congress and examine whether the CIA violated any laws (or just good Washington manners) by doing so.

This dust-up has generated a lot of smoke this past week. The public deserves some light. Will Congress deliver?

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter.
 

I've been wondering if the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings, like Barack Obama's victory last November, signal an end to the culture wars--and a strategic setback for the right. Then I received this email from Ruy Teixeira:

So why are all these culture wars attacks on Sonia Sotomayor going nowhere?  Here's what I argue in my new report, The Coming End of the Culture Wars.
 
Looking back on Barack Obama's historic victory in 2008, culture wars issues not only had a very low profile in the campaign, but where conservatives did attempt to raise them, these issues did them little good. Indeed, conservatives were probably more hurt than helped by such attempts—witness the effect of the Sarah Palin nomination.
 
Attempts to revive the culture wars have been similarly unsuccessful since the election. Sarah Palin's bizarre trajectory, culminating in her surprise resignation from the Alaska governorship, has only made culture war politics appear even more out of touch. And culture warriors' shrill attacks on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor have conspicuously failed to turn public opinion against her.
 
Is this just a temporary breathing spell in the culture wars due to the sudden spike in concern about other issues, first Iraq, then the economy, or is a fundamental shift in our politics taking place? I believe the latter is the case since, as this report establishes, ongoing demographic shifts have seriously eroded the mass base for culture wars politics and will continue to erode this base in the future. That means that the advantage conservatives can gain from culture wars politics will steadily diminish and, consequently, so will conservatives' incentive to engage in such politics.

In other words, there are fewer folks these days obsessing about gay marriage and abortion and feeling threatened by the legacies of 1960s. Rick Perlstein has a similar take on this, but from a different angle. He notes that conservative elites, gazing upon the unwashed anti-intellectuals who were at the center of the Republican campaign last fall--Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber--feel, well, embarrassed. And they're sick of these folks and their followers, perhaps realizing that this group is, as Teixeira contends, a declining population slice.

In politics, it's always perilous to pronounce a last hurrah. But as the Senate GOPers question Sotomayor about guns, gay marriage and other issues dear to their hearts and their shrinking base, their lukewarm efforts do have a retro feel to them. (Talk about retro: Senator Tom Coburn at one point said to Sotomayor, "You have lots of 'splaining to do".) It seems that time--and politics--is passing them by.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter.

Frightening report from NPR's website:

A scary anecdote from Iran. A trusted colleague - who is married to an Iranian-American and would thus prefer to stay anonymous - has told me of a very disturbing episode that happened to her friend, another Iranian-American, as she was flying to Iran last week. On passing through the immigration control at the airport in Tehran, she was asked by the officers if she has a Facebook account. When she said "no", the officers pulled up a laptop and searched for her name on Facebook. They found her account and noted down the names of her Facebook friends.

This is very disturbing. For once, it means that the Iranian authorities are paying very close attention to what's going on Facebook and Twitter (which, in my opinion, also explains why they decided not to take those web-sites down entirely - they are useful tools of intelligence gathering).

Social networking can empower political opposition and dissidents. But it can also help security forces track them. During the red scare witch hunts in the United States, suspected communists were asked to name the names of friends and relatives in the party. These days, the authorities could just check out your Facebook or MySpace pages.

Speaking of excessive security activity, I was on NPR's Diane Rehm Show this morning to discuss the recent news reports about a possible torture probe at the Justice Department, the CIA withholding information from Congress regarding a super-secret assassination program that targeted al Qaeda leaders, and Dick Cheney's role in all of this.

One point I hammered: the House and Senate intelligence committees can and should investigate why the CIA did not brief Congress about this assassination program, focusing on the reports that Cheney ordered the spies not to tell the nation's elected representatives about this operation (which may not have become operational). Cheney's been mum about this. (What, no big speech at AEI?) But the public has a right to know if the vice president blocked an intelligence agency from meeting its obligations to inform Congress about its actions. Such an investigation could be conducted quickly and without blowing details of the program at issue. All you have to do is examine any emails or memos related to this and call in a few intelligence officials, a couple ofaides in Cheney's office, and Cheney himself, and ask them what happened. What are they going to do? Take the Fifth? That would be within their rights, but it would speak volumes about their fidelity to republican-style government. 

Want some amazing summer reading? Check out the Unclassified Report on the President's Surveillance Program.

The title may not be a grabber. But this report, which was produced by the inspectors general of the Defense Department, the CIA, the Justice Department, the National Security Agency, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, is a scorcher. It covers how the Bush administration went about implementing its warrantless wiretapping program--which, the report makes clear, was just one of several new and top secret intelligence programs initiated after 9/11 that were legally dicey.

The report was released on Friday--the day of choice for government spinners trying to draw as little attention as possible to information. (Saturday newspapers--especially during the summer--are the least read editions of the week.) The report did get full write-ups in the major papers, and these reports focused on the obvious point: the warrantless wiretapping was of limited value and did not, as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have claimed, lead to counterterrorism operations that saved countless lives. The news stories also zeroed in on another key element: that the legal analysis supporting the warrantless wiretapping program and the other hush-hush intelligence programs (which the report does not identify) was of questionable merit.

But to get a full view of how far off the tracks the Bush-Cheney administration went, you have to read the full 36 pages. They detail how one mid-level attorney in the Justice Department--the infamous John Yoo--was able to cook up for the White House legal justification for these intelligence operations without any oversight from others at Justice. it's hard to consider this part of the report without coming to a harsh legal conclusion: this was nuts. Completely nuts.

The report also notes that because the White House--at Cheney's insistence--wanted to keep information about the warrantless wiretapping restricted to a small circle, this data could not be put to good use. The IGs also reveal that after senior Justice Department officials and FBI director Robert Mueller raised questions about all these programs, the White House modified or nixed some of them. Ponder that for a moment: the Bush administration ended anti-terrorism intelligence programs because of legal objections. If the Democrats ever suggest or do anything like this, Cheney and other GOPers go ballistic. More rank hypocrisy.

So put down that thriller or romance novel, and grab a copy of this report--a compilation of five separate classified reports--and read all about Bush era hijinks. You'll laugh. You'll cry.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter.

On the run today, but let me point out my favorite mini-meme in political journalism these days: do GOPers want Sarah Palin on their side or not?

AP reports:

New Jersey Republican gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie has ended speculation that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will campaign for him.

Christie told Millennium Radio 101.5 FM on Thursday that he will not ask Palin to come to New Jersey.

Palin associates say her decision to quit as Alaska governor was partly driven by her wish to help Republican candidates across the country. But Christie says the failed vice presidential candidate would detract from the New Jersey issues he wants to emphasize.

Whoops. There goes that explanation. Only the most die-hard conservative Republican candidate in the most die-hard conservative area and in a tough fight will want to have Palin at his or her side--for wherever she campaigns, she will become the story.

This ain't liberal bashing of Palin. It's recognition of practical politics. The Hill reports:

Republicans facing tough elections in 2010 don't want Sarah Palin campaigning with them.

Though the soon-to-be-former Alaska governor is seen as popular with the conservative grass roots, several Republicans said she'd help them by staying home in Wasilla.

Several of these Republicans hail from districts or states carried in 2008 by President Obama, a frequent target of Palin's criticism. Republicans must keep these districts and win others where Obama is popular if they are to gain seats next year.

GOP Rep. Lee Terry (Neb.), who squeaked out a victory despite his district's overwhelming turnout for Obama, said he'd rather have House colleagues campaign for him than Palin.

"There's others that I would have come in and campaign and most of them would be my colleagues in the House," Terry said.

Rep. Frank Wolf, a Republican from Northern Virginia, which is increasingly becoming Democratic territory, offered caution when asked whether he'd welcome a Palin fundraiser.

"I don't generally need people from outside my district to do a fundraiser," Wolf said.

Several other lawmakers indicated a wariness about accepting help from Palin, but did not want to criticize the GOP's vice presidential candidate from last year. They said Palin could hurt them by firing up Democrats.

You betcha. Turns out that if Palin really wanted to help her party comrades, the best thing for her to do would have been to remain as governor and not reinforce her--to be kind--unconventional image. If she quit so she could better assist Republican candidates, she made one big mistake.

Here's a related question: will Palin raise money through her political action committee, SarahPAC, to share with Republican candidates elsewhere? And will these candidates be in states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina?

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter.

In a classic example of newsmagazine overthink, Time profiles Sarah Palin with a cover story that practically celebrates her thin résumé and essentially makes the case that know-nothingism could be good for America. Seriously:

Palin's unconventional step speaks to an ingrained frontier skepticism of authority — even one's own. Given the plunging credibility of institutions and élites, that's a mood that fits the Palin brand. Résumés ain't what they used to be; they count only with people who trust credentials — a dwindling breed. The mathematics Ph.D.s who dreamed up economy-killing derivatives have pretty impressive résumés. The leaders of congressional committees and executive agencies have decades of experience — at wallowing in red ink, mismanaging economic bubbles and botching covert intelligence.

If ever there has been a time to gamble on a flimsy résumé, ever a time for the ultimate outsider, this might be it. "We have so little trust in the character of the people we elected that most of us wouldn't invite them into our homes for dinner, let alone leave our children alone in their care," writes talk-show host Glenn Beck in his book Glenn Beck's Common Sense, a pox-on-all-their-houses fusillade at Washington. Dashed off in a fever of disillusionment with those in power, Beck's book is selling like vampire lit, with more than 1 million copies in print.

Citing Glenn Beck as proof that many Americans are eager to turn to a pol with little expertise in national policy? But didn't the country just have an election? And didn't a significant majority vote for the guy with two Ivy League degrees who talked about bringing professionalism, science, and expertise back to policymaking in Washington? (Anyone remember Palin's climate change denialism? Not the Time people.)

The Time crew obviously was punching up the subject matter so it could punch up the copy—and sell magazines. One dramatic theme in the piece is that Palin is pure Alaska and that to know her—really know her—you have to know Alaska and the rugged individualism and practical fatalism this far-away land breeds in its denizens:

Palin's breakneck trajectory from rising star to former officeholder — with more twists sure to come — has everything to do with her Alaskan context.

Only to a degree. The sole reason most Americans know anything about Palin is that a fellow from Arizona picked her to be his running mate. Without that, she would still be the answer to a political trivia question. So, obviously, it was the unique and rough-hewn libertarian frontier spirit of the American Southwest, where lone riders settled on arid plains to escape the confining conventions of back-East civilization, that was responsible for Palin's comet-like ascent to public prominence. Or maybe not. Perhaps it was just John McCain's bad judgment.

Without breathlessness and a contrary-for contrary's-sake thesis, Time would not have much to add to all the words spilled and spewed about the Palin pull-out. But give the newsmagazine credit. Through the efforts of five of its talented journalists, Time has managed to craft a more coherent depiction of Palin and her decision to resign than she has herself. So what's her beef with the media?

This was first posted at motherjones.com. You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter.

Is President Barack Obama's stimulus doing anything to help the economy? GOPers have been bitching it's a bust. And I confess: it's hard to suss out a good answer. You could also ask, has it done any harm?

A press release I received this morning contains some information that may help us evaluate the stimulus:

A small fraction of the total federal stimulus bill has been awarded in contract awards thus far, and while the pace of contract awards has increased in the last four weeks, the full effect on job creation has yet to be felt, according to Mike Pickett, CEO of Seattle technology company Onvia, whose data powers Recovery.org.

Testifying before the House Government Reform Committee today, Pickett described the most current state of stimulus spending.

Recovery.org is reporting that 1,330 contracts - totaling $21 billion in stimulus spending - have been awarded to local contractors. Applying the White House's Council of Economic Advisors' formula to the $21 billion in awards, Recovery.org estimates that 230,000 jobs have been created or retained so far.

"Employers are not going to retain or hire new employees until they have the contracts in-hand." said Pickett. "The job creation will come once the contracts are awarded."

Overall, Recovery.org is currently tracking $90.7 billion in stimulus spending over 18,451 projects. This is the total stimulus funding figure for projects that are in the "pipeline," having been publicly reported by Federal, state, local or regional government agencies...

"The good news regarding the nation's employment picture is that the pace of stimulus spending has accelerated dramatically over the last month," Pickett continued. "There is fifty percent more stimulus spending in the pipeline now than there was one month ago."

Of the $90.7 billion in stimulus funding currently being tracked, $18 billion is presently at the RFP stage, up from $11 billion at the RFP stage at the start of June.

"Since job creation comes from businesses winning government contracts and thereby hiring or retaining employees to perform on the contract, we are now in a position to determine how many jobs have been created by the Stimulus Bill," Pickett continued.

If  indeed only $21 billion of the $787 billion stimulus bill has actually hit the pipeline, then no one should expect much of a bang yet. And by Pickett's analysis, the pace is picking up dramatically.

Obama has called for patience in assessing his economic policies--including the stimulus plan--and has said that the best way to judge the stimulus spending will be to look at the jobs picture next year. He might be right.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter.

After joking on Twitter that I was scheduled to appear on Hardball to discuss Michael Jackson's impact on politics--after having been booked to review the latest on embattled Governor Mark Sanford and new Senator Al Franken--I then went on Hardball and actually had to talk about Michael Jackson. That's because both President Barack Obama and ex-President Bill Clinton made statements about MJ today. So we shifted subjects. Jackson, in. Sanford, out. Franken, still in. (Sanford, who was censured by the South Carolina GOP on Monday night, has lucked out. His love life just can't compete with Sarah Palin's wackiness or Michael Jackson's demise.) Here's how it went:

 

Yesterday I posted an entry--or at least thought I did--and when I checked hours later, it wasn't there. Technical gremlins? Human error? Mongolian hackers? I don't know. Here's that item. 

After Mark Sanford (from MIA scandal to sex scandal), Michael Jackson (from comeback to drop dead), and Sarah Palin (from political Cover Girl to inexplicable cover story), it's refreshing to return to policy wonkery. After all, it seems like ages since the national discussion was dwelling on the details of a possible public health insurance option or the pros and cons of taxing employee health care benefits. In the past week or so, it's as if a genii had granted the editors of PEOPLE magazine three wishes. (Well, I suppose if that had really occurred one wish would surely have involved Brad and Angelina.)

So how refreshing to receive several policy-drenched fact sheets and handouts from the White House on arms control and US-Russian relations. For instance. One declared:

On April 1, Presidents Obama and Medvedev agreed in London that America and Russian negotiators would begin work on a new, comprehensive, legally binding agreement on reducing and limiting strategic offensive arms to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which expires on December 5, 2009.

On July 6, Presidents Medvedev and Obama signed a Joint Understanding to guide the remainder of the negotiations. The Joint Understanding commits the United States and Russia to reduce their strategic warheads to a range of 1500-1675, and their strategic delivery vehicles to a range of 500-1100.  Under the expiring START and the Moscow treaties the maximum allowable levels of warheads is 2200 and the maximum allowable level of launch vehicles is 1600.

Good news: the United States and Russia are on the road to significant cuts in their nuclear arsenals, though each side will still retain enough nukes to cause a real mess should they be fired. Both governments also agreed to increase their joint efforts to prevent loose nukes from reaching the wrong hands and to work together on a number of issues related to Afghanistan. Moscow also gave Washington permission to transport weaponry destined for the war in Afghanistan through Russian airspace.

These were not total breakthroughs. But after George W. Bush bumbled US-Russian relations for eight years, this was not a bad start. And President Barack Obama (so far) has said nothing about seeing into the soul of Russian President Medvedev. A joint press conference held by Obama and Medvedev--only two questions a side--was televised live by MSNBC. So millions--make that, thousands--of Americans could hear the two leaders discussing strategic arms control issues and their still-unresolved differences on ballistic missile defense. What a change from mega-coverage of the latest on the MJ story. But look, there's live video of police chasing a car on Beltway 8 in Texas. Gotta go.

Today, of course, it's back to Michael Jackson, Michael Jackson, Michael Jackson--at least in TV land.  Fun fact of the day: "Michael respected artists like van Gogh" (c/o some expert on MSNBC whose name I didn't catch).

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter.

Are Sarah Palin's true-believers crying, "Say it ain't so"? No, abiding by the spin-is-all rule of modern politics, they are praising Palin's decision to quit as yet more evidence of her leadership abilities.

Team Sarah, a group of conservatives who fancy the soon-to-be-ex Alaska governor, released this statement on Friday night:

WASHINGTON, July 3 -- Today Team Sarah commented on the announcement that Sarah Palin will step down as Governor of Alaska on July 25, 2009: "Sarah Palin has always been an intensely independent woman -- always true to her faith, her family and call to public service. She has taken vast numbers of Americans to a new place: politics without cynicism. And she has provided women with a new political role model," said Team Sarah Co-Founder Marjorie Dannenfelser. "Her entrance onto the public stage has had an immensely positive effect, drawing in massive numbers of Americans new to the political process. We have every confidence she will have an equal and profound impact in whatever projects she undertakes now."

"Team Sarah members anxiously await Palin's next decision on how she believes she can best serve our nation. Since the 2008 Election, the continual presence of personal attacks on both Governor Palin and her family indicate that she remains a threat to the liberal feminist political establishment," said Team Sarah Co-Founder Jane Abraham. "Despite criticism, Governor Palin's success will endure. Team Sarah's thousands of members remain as engaged as ever on TeamSarah.org. The Governor has inspired millions, and her audience of enthusiastic support will only grow in the future."

Team Sarah is a coalition of Americans dedicated to advancing the values that Sarah Palin represents in the political process. Its political networking website, www.teamsarah.org, has grown to over 70,000 activists. Co-Founders of Team Sarah include Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the Susan B. Anthony List, and Jane Abraham, the organization's General Chairman.

Perhaps once you've found your dream gal it's hard to let go.

You can follow my postings--including a string of observations about Palin's retreat--and media appearances via Twitter.