Opinions, Context & Ideas from the TPM Editors TPM Editor's Blog

Discussing it with the

Discussing it with the people <$NoAd$>...

I will continue to speak about the effects of 9/11 on our country and my presidency ... How this administration handled that day as well as the war on terror is worthy of discussion and I look forward to discussing that with the American people.

George W. Bush
March 6th, 2004


The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks won't accept strict conditions set by the White House for the panel's interviews with President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, commission members said Tuesday.

The White House wants the interviews to be limited to one hour, with the questioners limited to the panel's chairman and vice chairman.

Detroit Free Press
March 3rd, 2004


When hypocrisy outruns mockery ...

Lest we miss any

Lest we miss any opportunity to give the White House a hard time over Friday's disappointing employment report, let's not overlook this important detail.

None of those 21,000 new jobs came from the private sector. They were all the result of increased government sector hiring.

Bush 2004: Dirigisme in Times of Change!

Atrios is spot on

Atrios is spot on when he says that the headline of this New York Times article is ridiculous on its face.

The headline of the article discussing the fallout from yesterday's job report is: "Job Data Provides Ammunition for Two Sides in Presidential Race."

Ammunition for both sides? Gimme a break.

You can certainly debate the mixed signals coming out of the economy as a whole. But there's just no way in the world that job report (which reported a meager 21,000 jobs, almost all from the public sector) wasn't bad news for the White House.

How'd they come up with that headline?

Late Update: Oh the infamy! The shame!

A reader notes that the Washington Times headline was: "Job Slump Puts Bush in Bad Light" and Fox News runs the headline as "Jobs Report Doesn't Do Bush Any Favors."

So long trying for false balance that you just fall off the edge?

The shame! The Infamy! Oh the Humanity!

[ed.note: this post originally began "Atrios is dead right when he says..." But a number of readers who use the RSS feed wrote in noting their brief moment of panic when they saw the RSS headline "Atrios is dead." Thus the change.]

The Posts Mike Allen

The Post's Mike Allen seems to have gotten a bit more off the record on the 5th Amendment question than he did at the gaggle.

"White House officials," he writes at the end of his piece in tomorrow's paper, "said that neither Bush nor Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. had forbidden aides called by the grand jury from invoking the Fifth Amendment."

The Times also has a less-detailed piece. But they do add that "lawyers [involved in the case] said that they believed, however, that the prosecutors were nearing a turning point when they would decide whether to charge anyone with a crime or drop the case."

Finally, Newsday, which broke the story yesterday about the subpoenas, adds a hint about what that weird addition of the guest list for Gerald Ford's birthday party might be about.

In two words, Andrea Mitchell, who may have been there with her husband Alan Greenspan.

Final point.

Lawyers note that having your lawyer send the message that you will take the fifth can often get you out of a grand jury appearance altogether or at least be the opening gambit in a negotiation with a prosecutor. So there's probably various levels of wiggle room on this one.

Are we blocking an

Are we blocking an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza until after the November election?

This is the last graf in an article running on the Associated Press wire ...

Earlier this week, Dov Weisglass, a senior Sharon aide, discussed the proposed withdrawal with top U.S. officials. The Maariv daily said Friday that Weisglass was told the Bush administration would not like to see a withdrawal before the U.S. election because of concerns of growing instability in Gaza. However, Sharon adviser Assaf Shariv said Friday that no dates for a possible withdrawal were raised during the meetings with U.S. officials.


A couple points. I'm pretty sure <$Ad$>there's no English language edition of Maariv. So I'd really be curious to find out precisely what this article in Maariv said, not just this clipped reference.

Secondly, there are a host of legitimate issues about how this disengagement might take place -- not least of which is whether it's done unilaterally or through some sort of bilateral agreement. So there are various reasons we might want them to hold their horses. One might even speculate that the Israelis are using supposed US domestic political concerns as an excuse to delay action in Gaza.

But if the administration is pushing back turmoil in the Middle East to game the election, we should know more about that.

Late Update: This article in the Israeli daily Haaretz adds credence to the conclusion that that is precisely what's happening.

Here are two key grafs from the Haaretz article ...

Also Friday, security sources said that, bowing to White House pressure Israel intends to wait until after the U.S. presidential election in November before uprooting the Jewish settlements in Gaza.

The security sources said Sharon recognized the Bush administration's concern that implementing his unilateral pullout plan during the U.S. campaign could cause political problems by fuelling instability in Palestinian areas.


This should get more attention in the American press.

Questions about the Plame

Questions about the Plame investigation from today's <$NoAd$>gaggle ...

QUESTION: Can you also confirm that Air Force One documents -- been handed over to a federal grand jury?

McClellan: Well, I would just say that we are, at the direction of the President, cooperating fully with those who are leading the investigation. We are complying with every request, and we will continue to comply fully with the requests from those who are leading this investigation. No one wants to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States.

QUESTION: So they were handed over?

McClellan: Well, we did send -- the White House Counsel's Office did send a letter out to White House staff, urging everybody to comply fully with the request from the investigators, and that's exactly what we are doing. But, yes, at this point we're still in the process of complying fully with those requests. We have provided the Department of Justice investigators with much of the information and we're continuing to provide them with additional information and comply fully with the request for information.

QUESTION: -- these latest subpoenas that were reported today?

McClellan: I think that's the context in which Heidi was asking her question.

QUESTION: But you're answering more broadly. I'm looking for confirmation you got the subpoenas and that you responded to them.

McClellan: Yes, our Counsel's Office immediately sent a letter to White House staff, directing everyone to cooperate fully and comply with the request from those leading the investigation.

QUESTION: What was the date of that letter?

McClellan: I can double-check the specific date. It was -- you know, part of our complying fully with the request of the Department of Justice investigators was not making this document public, as well.

QUESTION: But this was not the broad directive from --

McClellan: It was the latter part of January. I didn't check the exact, specific date, but it was the latter part of January.

QUESTION: Was it in response to this set of subpoenas we're hearing about today?

McClellan: Was what in response --

QUESTION: The White House Counsel's directive.

McClellan: Yes. Yes.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

McClellan: We immediately sent a letter out to White House staff, urging everyone to comply fully with the request.

QUESTION: Can you say how many subpoenas were received, Scott?

McClellan: Mark, I think you ought to direct those specific questions to those who are leading the investigation. Again, as I said, we're complying fully with their request, and that includes not making that letter that we sent to White House staff public.

QUESTION: Scott, does either the President or Secretary Card have a policy on whether it's acceptable for White House aides to take the Amendment when they're asked questions in this case?

McClellan: Well, keep in mind that by law, grand jury investigations are closed, and prosecutors and grand jurors cannot reveal anything about the proceedings. The President has made it very clear he wants everybody inside government and outside government to provide those who are leading the investigation with information that might help them get to the bottom of this. He's been very clear about this, but let me make clear that -- well, go ahead, Mike.

QUESTION: Go ahead.

McClellan: No, no. You were going to ask a question; go ahead.

QUESTION: Are you willing to say that White House aides who ask questions in this investigation should not take the 5th Amendment?

McClellan: Our policy, at the direction of the President, is that everybody should cooperate fully with those who are leading the investigation. That's our policy. I'm not going to speculate about grand jury proceedings. I have no knowledge of anyone invoking their legal right against self-incrimination. I checked with White House Counsel's Office, and they have no knowledge of anyone invoking their legal right against self-incrimination.

Jeff, go ahead.

QUESTION: Scott, it was a little difficult to hear the exchange that was going on, I want to make sure I understand what you've acknowledged responding to, subpoena-wise. You have responded to the subpoena for telephone records from Air Force One?

McClellan: Yes, we are complying fully with the request from the Department of Justice. I think you can ask them about the specific questions and issues -- the investigators, that is -- and, like I said, we prefer that you direct those questions to them, in our belief that that is helping them move the investigation forward.

QUESTION: Okay. One more thing on the jobs issue. You said the President --

McClellan: We are complying fully with that request, and we are continuing to comply with certain matters that have been requested. We're working very closely with the investigators on that.


More on this soon.

As Ive noted in

As I've noted in these pages before, I remain very conflicted about the politics of opting for gay marriage as opposed to civil unions. As I've also told you, my feelings and thoughts about this issue have moved a lot, even in the last few weeks.

But set aside for a moment what I think.

A group called Massequality is taking up the fight for gay marriage within the state of Massachusetts. Given the standing Massachusetts Supreme Court decision and the unlikelihood of a federal constitutional amendment actually getting enacted, that means that to make gay marriage a reality in the state (and not just a brief blip) supporters of gay marriage will have to prevent the state from amending its own constitution to overturn that court decision.

In Massachusetts, to amend the constitution the amendment needs to be approved in two consecutive joint legislative sessions and then voted on in a statewide referendum.

The state legislature will try to act on this for the first time on March 11th, i.e., next Thursday. Given what I just described above, the soonest the court ruling could be overturned is in 2006.

But if supporters of gay marriage can defeat that amendment in this session, they'll gain another two years before gay marriage can be banned in the state and likely go a long way to making it permanent.

That's what Massequality is trying to accomplish. March 11th is less than a week away. If you care about this issue, they need your support right now. Visit the site.

Heres a somewhat but

Here's a somewhat (but somewhat is better than none!) optimistic take from CBS News on the Dems' chances of taking back the Senate this year. The author mentions Alaska, Colorado and Pennsylvania as states where the Dems could pick up Republican seats. Of course, the Dems also have a slew of vulnerable seats they'll need to hold to prevent themselves from falling even further behind.

Heres today gaggle exchange

Here's today gaggle exchange on <$NoAd$>the 5th Amendment question ...

Question: Scott, does either the President or Secretary Card have a policy on whether it's acceptable for White House aides to take the Amendment when they're asked questions in this case?

McCLELLAN: Well, keep in mind that by law, grand jury investigations are closed, and prosecutors and grand jurors cannot reveal anything about the proceedings. The President has made it very clear he wants everybody inside government and outside government to provide those who are leading the investigation with information that might help them get to the bottom of this. He's been very clear about this, but let me make clear that -- well, go ahead, Mike.

Question: Go ahead.

McCLELLAN: No, no. You were going to ask a question; go ahead.

Question: Are you willing to say that White House aides who ask questions in this investigation should not take the 5th Amendment?

McCLELLAN: Our policy, at the direction of the President, is that everybody should cooperate fully with those who are leading the investigation. That's our policy. I'm not going to speculate about grand jury proceedings. I have no knowledge of anyone invoking their legal right against self-incrimination. I checked with White House Counsel's Office, and they have no knowledge of anyone invoking their legal right against self-incrimination.


Many of those reporters in that room think Scott McClellan is a pretty decent guy -- certainly in comparison to his predecessor; reasonably candid in off-the-record situations, and so forth. And this was a tough question to answer. But I think we can infer pretty clearly that his boss is not willing to say that his aides shouldn't be taking the fifth when Patrick Fitzgerald's investigators come calling. And that puts his call for cooperation in a certain context.

A number of other Plame related questions were discussed today. We'll bring you those a little later this evening.

Just to keep the

Just to keep the record <$NoAd$>straight ...

"I am confident that this economic recovery will now be sustained and will produce loads of new jobs. Everything we know about economics indicates that the sort of economic growth expected for next year, 3.8 to 4 per cent, will translate into two million new jobs from the third quarter of this year to the third quarter of next year. That’s an average of about 200,000 new jobs a month ... What gives me confidence? Everything we know about economics and history. Consumption and housing remain strong. Now capital spending is clearly coming back and inventories are at astonishingly low levels. Jobs are always a lagging indicator which follows economic growth. I would stake my reputation on employment growth happening before Christmas. I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that we are going to see a pick-up in employment in 2004."



Treasury Secretary John Snow
interviewed in July 2003
quoted in the London Times
October 20th, 2003


"U.S. employers added a paltry 21,000 workers to their payrolls last month, according to a surprisingly weak government report that appears certain to weigh on President George W. Bush as he seeks re-election ...

The report also showed job creation in December and January was weaker than previously thought, adding to the gloomy tone of the report. The department revised lower its count of jobs gains in January to 97,000 from 112,000 and for December to just 8,000 from 16,000."

"U.S. Jobs Growth Surprisingly Weak"
Reuters
March 5th, 2004


"This Administration is not satisfied with today’s job creation numbers. Although our economy added jobs for the sixth straight month and the unemployment rate remains at a level below the average of the past three decades, the recent pace of job growth is not as strong as we'd like to see. This is particularly true given the recent rapid rate of economic growth.

The critical issue as we move forward is what must be done to encourage job creation through continued economic growth. One thing we know for certain – raising taxes on millions of American families is not the answer. It is imperative that Congress act to make the tax cuts permanent."

Treasury Secretary John Snow
Treasury Dept. Press Release
March 5th 2004


Special thanks to TPM reader JS.

TPMLivewire