TPM News

Things started out rough for Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

First he only managed confirmation by the skin of his teeth, because he refused to brand waterboarding as torture. Then he ticked everybody off when the Justice Department asked Congress to shut down their investigations of the CIA torture tapes' destruction until the DoJ finished up. And then there's the KBR rape case.

But Mukasey's a man with a big heart and big plans. Or something like that. Roll Call reports (sub. req.) that Mukasey "has shelved any animosity he might feel toward Democrats."

Among the signs of good will: occasionally consulting with members of Congress (with Alberto Gonzales as your predecessor, it's easy to impress). He's already reached out to a number, Roll Call reports, including Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), whose questions caused all that waterboarding-trouble, and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). A Justice Department aide is quoted saying "The new attorney general’s view is whether we’re going to agree or disagree on the merits, I want to have a good personal relationship with Pat Leahy.”

That will be put to the test when Mukasey appears before the Senate Judicary Committee at the end of this month (Update: the hearing has been scheduled for January 30th). Leahy has promised to grill Mukasey about the CIA tapes investigation and his views on waterboarding. And a Leahy aide tells Roll Call that the proof is in the pudding: “The relationship between the attorney general and the Judiciary Committee is still developing, and there are outstanding requests from the chairman and others for information and cooperation.”

And about House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-MI)? He got a "courtesy call," before Mukasey was confirmed and though "they got along personally, Justice Department aides said, the House is particularly partisan." So it seems that the charm offensive won't be concentrating on the House.

The House intelligence committee had a choice: Hear what the CIA official who actually ordered the destruction of the torture tapes has to say -- inevitably compromising the ongoing criminal investigation? Or kick the can down the road.

The House intelligence committee will deal with this later:

Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., the former Central Intelligence Agency official who ordered the destruction of interrogation videotapes in 2005, will not be required to appear on Wednesday at a closed Congressional hearing on the matter but may be called to testify later, an official briefed on the inquiry said Monday.


The House's probe goes on, though, even without its star witness. The CIA's general counsel John Rizzo will testify tomorrow, the Times reports.

In response to investigations by the Justice Department, the CIA Inspector General, and Congress, the CIA has begun a search for more audio or videotapes of interrogations. Officials believe that the CIA does not have any more recordings that it made itself, but that it may have recordings made by other intelligence services. (Newsweek)

Congressional leaders and government watchdog groups are continuing to ask questions about no-bid contracts awarded by federal prosecutors to former Bush administration officials to monitor corporations as part of settlements in fraud and corruption cases. Questions about corporate monitors - who are paid by the companies they monitor - first arose when it was revealed recently that former attorney general John Ashcroft was awarded a no-bid contract worth over $25 million. (Washington Post)

The competition for former Rep. Roger Wicker's (R-MS) seat on the House Appropriations Committee is shaping up as a battle over the Republican Party's disposition towards earmarks. Former Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) says that the appointment of Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who has been critical of the earmark process, would make a "major statement" that the Republican Party is serious about "ending wasteful earmarks and bringing transparency to the Appropriations Committee." (The Hill)

Read More →

Back in November, President Bush and Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki hashed out the principles for the two countries' "enduring relationship": a long-term American troop presence in Iraq and preferential treatment for American investments in return for a guarantee of security for the Iraqis. It was a deal we summarized at the time as "U.S. To Stay In Iraq Forever."

So it shouldn't come as a surprise that when the two sides sit down at the table, the definition of "enduring" raises some eyebrows.

The Iraqi defense minister, Abdul Qadir, is in Washington, D.C. to continue work on defining the American commitment in Iraq. A formal agreement will emerge by July, The New York Times reports. As TPM alum Spencer Ackerman reported here, such an agreement would not require Congress' approval, but would require the Iraqi parliament's OK.

So... the numbers. Qadir tells the Times that 2012 and 2020 are his target dates -- for full internal security and security against external threats, respectively. What that means for the size of our "enduring presence" isn't so clear:

“According to our calculations and our timelines, we think that from the first quarter of 2009 until 2012 we will be able to take full control of the internal affairs of the country,” Mr. Qadir said in an interview on Monday, conducted in Arabic through an interpreter.

“In regard to the borders, regarding protection from any external threats, our calculation appears that we are not going to be able to answer to any external threats until 2018 to 2020,” he added.

He offered no specifics on a timeline for reducing the number of American troops in Iraq.


The Times' notes that Qadir's projections were slightly less dire last year, when he projected full security by 2018. But if there's anything the Iraq War has taught us, it's to take government prognostications very lightly.

Here's another section from Lawrence Wright's New Yorker piece on Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell that shouldn't be overlooked. Wright reports on McConnell's Cyber-Security Policy, a plan that "will propose restrictions that are certain to be unpopular....

In order for cyberspace to be policed, Internet activity will have to be closely monitored. Ed Giorgio, who is working with McConnell on the plan, said that would mean giving the government the authority to examine the content of any e-mail, file transfer, or Web search. "Google has records that could help in a cyber-investigation," he said. Giorgio warned me, "We have a saying in this business: 'Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.'" (my emphasis)

Read More →

A TPM Reader writes in about Common Sense Issues' calls in Michigan:

I got a call from Huck's "independent" push pollers [Friday night]. It was a robo-call with a script that was micro-targeted for my Democratic union household. The robo-voice, which asked "poll" questions and left me time to answer, was an African-American male voice. Wanted to know if I was aware that "there is no real choice in the Michigan Democratic primary this year" and encouraged me to vote in the Repub primary instead.

Also asked if I was aware that the Machinists Union had endorsed Huckabee "for the first time in history..." (I assume by tonite they will add the Painters, too.) And if I knew that Huckabee was a fighter for working families, etc.

At the end, the robo-voice said the poll "was not affiliated with or authorized by any candidate or committee," but all the "questions" were designed to communicate positive information about the Huckster.


It's a classic ploy for these types of calls to play on ethnic and racial stereotypes -- though in this instance, the pollsters seem to have chosen their voice with the idea that a typically African-American male voice would appeal to Democrats. (When I asked Common Sense Issues' executive director Patrick Davis* whether it was accurate to characterize the voice in these calls as "an African-American male voice," he said "it could be.") Former dirty trickster Allen Raymond writes in his book How to Rig An Election that he had an array of actors available to portray a range of stereotypes, including "angry black man," which was deployed to frighten middle-class whites.

Unfortunately for the group, one of the Michiganians to get one of the group's two million calls in the state (most of which are going to Republicans) was Mitt Romney supporter Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI). He told the Politico that it was "an attack call masquerading as a poll."

Hoekstra also said that there was no disclaimer at the end of the call identifying the group behind the call. Davis says that the calls always have such a disclaimer, which is required by law. So please: TPM readers, if you get one of these calls, let us know what you hear. And if you're lucky enough to get one on your answering machine, we'd love to hear it.

*Update/Correction: This post originally referred to the group's executive director as Rick Davis. His name is Patrick.

5 million calls and counting.

The push polling group supporting Mike Huckabee, Common Sense Issues, has added Nevada to their list of target states in a big way. They've made over 300,000 calls there, the group's executive director Patrick Davis* told me, and plan to "call every household in the state" (there were approximately 750,000 households in the state as of the 2000 census).

The automated calls fit the same model as those in the other primary states -- South Carolina (over a million), Iowa (850,000), New Hampshire (800,000), Michigan (2,000,000), Florida (hundreds of thousands, though less than a million) --, where a voice asks the voter which candidate he/she supports, and then goes on to provide a battery of facts meant to demonstrate why Huckabee is preferable. Davis told me that the calls frequently begin with "this is a call from Election Research with a 45-second survey."

As Nevada journalist Steve Friess writes on his blog, he got a call from the group Sunday evening. After saying that he supports Giuliani, he was informed that Giuliani supports gay marriage and "sanctuary cities" for immigrants and that Huckabee is a lifetime hunter. That's substantially similar to what a TPM reader reported from Michigan.

There seems to be a specifically Nevadan component, though. Friess says that the call asked if he had a favorable view of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).... "After I answered, the voice says something to the effect of what I think of the fact that Reid wants to surrender in Iraq and hand over our freedoms to Islamo-fascists." When I asked Davis if that was an accurate characterization of the call, he said "yes."

The group will go up with a TV ad in Michigan tonight and into tomorrow, Davis said, saying that the it wasn't a very large buy -- in the range of less than $50,000. It's the same ad that the group ran in Iowa, which you can see on their website, TrustHuckabee.com.

*Update/Correction: This post originally referred to the group's executive director as Rick Davis. His name is Patrick.

It's time for a EPA-chutzpah update.

Both Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and House sleuth Henry Waxman (D-CA) have set their sights on EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, who made the unprecedented and arbitrary decision (over the unanimous recommendation of the staff) to deny California's petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. They both requested documents related to the decision. But Johnson is apparently having real trouble getting all those documents together.

In a letter today, Waxman noted that Johnson missed his first deadline (last Friday), and though his staff has responded by letter to Waxman's request, they haven't indicated when they'll have those documents ready (there are "tens of thousands of emails and documents" responsive to his request, they plead). So Waxman has asked to work out a timeline.

In the meanwhile, he says that the committee will be interviewing a host of EPA employees about Johnson's decision. If the reports are correct, all of them will be telling Waxman about how they told Johnson there was no legal justification for blocking California's law and he overruled them anyway.

Johnson has a date next Thursday with Boxer's Senate environment committee, but Waxman seems likely to wait until his interviews are done before he puts Johnson in the hot seat.

Waxman's letter is below.

Read More →

From The Washington Post:

In its first couple of weeks after it returns tomorrow, the House is likely to take up contempt-of-Congress resolutions against White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers for their refusal to appear before Congress for questioning about the 2006 removal of nine U.S. attorneys, Democratic leadership aides said.


For those keeping track at home, it's been nearly six months since the House Judiciary Committee initially approved the contempt citations. As for what the timing might be on the Senate side, where the Senate Judiciary Committee recently approved contempt citations for Karl Rove and Bolten, it's not yet clear.

For the record:

The small, boxlike objects dropped in the water by Iranian boats as they approached U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf on Sunday posed no threat to the American vessels, U.S. officials said yesterday, even as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff charged that the incident reflects Iran's new tactics of asymmetric warfare.

After passing the white objects, commanders on the USS Port Royal and its accompanying destroyer and frigate decided there was so little danger from the objects that they did not bother to radio other ships to warn them, the officials said.


At least now a more complete picture of what happened one week ago in the Strait of Hormuz has developed. The Iranian speedboats maneuvered aggressively, dropped white boxes in the water, and a menacing threat was heard over the radio, so the initial alarmed reaction of Naval commanders was certainly reasonable. But commanders apparently quickly determined that the boxes weren't mines or any other kind of threat, and the radio transmission likely came from a prankster. And it took a week for that to become clear.

LiveWire