David Kurtz

David Kurtz is Managing Editor and Washington Bureau Chief of Talking Points Memo where he oversees the news operations of TPM and its sister sites.

Articles by David

If you missed the Bill Moyers' segment last night on the U.S. attorney purge, including his extended interview with Josh, you can watch it now online.

Here we go again. Back in December, the guys over at Powerline were having a hard time remembering any Bush Administration officials who had been touched by scandal. It was such a laughable proposition that we decided to help them out and started compiling a rogues gallery of this scandal-plagued administration. You can see the list that readers helped us come up with here. It's a little out of date now, what with Democratic oversight and all.

With such a long list, you wouldn't think Powerline could so easily forget. But I suppose it's easy to forget what you don't really want to know. Here is part of a Powerline post from today (thanks to TPM Reader WB for the link), about all of the "faux scandals" being played up by the left-wing media:

The truth is that the Bush administration has been extraordinarily scandal-free. Not a single instance of corruption has been unearthed. Only one significant member of the executive branch, Scooter Libby, has been convicted of anything. Whether the jury's verdict was right or wrong, that case was an individual tragedy unrelated to any underlying wrongdoing by Libby or anyone else.

Funny. Just yesterday we learned that a deputy secretary of state resigned because of his ties to the D.C. madam sex scandal and that the chief of staff to the head of the Department of Justice's Criminal Division had resigned because of his alleged personal ties to the Abramoff scandal. That's not to mention the fallout from the U.S. Attorney purge scandal, the guilty plea of the former No. 2 at the Interior Department, also in the Abramoff scandal, and the list goes on.

If you're a hard-core conservative reading Powerline, does this sort of nonsense make you feel better about yourself or about your beliefs? For the uninformed, maybe it offers the assurance that things are okay. For the semi-informed, maybe it comforts them that things aren't as bad as they may seem. At what point does the internal dissonance of those who read and write such garbage exact a personal toll--morally, emotionally, spiritually?

To follow up on the post below about the Attorney General Awards, DOJ's highest honor, I couldn't help but notice that one of the recipients of last year's Attorney General Award for Fraud Prevention was Robert E. Coughlin, II.

Coughlin was the chief of staff to the head of DOJ's criminal division until his quiet resignation earlier this month, first reported yesterday, allegedly because he is facing scrutiny in the Jack Abramoff investigation.

The award "recognizes exceptional dedication and effort to prevent, investigate, and prosecute fraud and white collar crimes." Coughlin was part of a team honored for its work on post-Hurricane Katrina fraud.

In September, Coughlin was honored for his work on fraud and white collar crime. By the following April, he was out because of his alleged connections to the one of the largest white collar crime investigations in DOJ's history. Only in the Gonzales Justice Department.

Oversight can produce results:

The Justice Department is removing political appointees from the hiring process for rookie lawyers and summer interns, amid allegations that the Bush administration had rigged the programs in favor of candidates with connections to conservative or Republican groups, according to documents and officials.

This nugget also from the Post, is worth following*:

According to a former deputy chief in the civil rights division, one honors hire was a University of Mississippi law school graduate who had been a clerk for U.S. District Judge Charles W. Pickering Sr. about the time the judge's nomination by President Bush to a federal appeals court provoked opposition by congressional Democrats, who contended that Pickering was hostile to civil rights.

A few months after he arrived, that lawyer was given a cash award by the department, after he was the only member of a four-person team in the civil rights division who sided with a Georgia voter-identification law that was later struck down by the courts as discriminatory to minorities, according to two former Justice lawyers.

The cash payments are part of the Attorney General's Awards, the highest honor bestowed by the Department of Justice.

Late update: For more on the Pickering clerk*, Joshua Rogers, see Paul Kiel's earlier reporting over at TPMmuckraker.

Correction: While cash payments are associated with some of the Attorney General Awards, it does not appear that Joshua Rogers was the recipient of an Attorney General Award. The nature of the cash payment to Rogers remains unclear. I regret the error.

*Update/Correction: The Post has run the following correction to the piece:

An April 28 A-section article about the Attorney General's Honors Program incorrectly said that one lawyer hired through the program had been a clerk for U.S. District Judge Charles W. Pickering Sr. The lawyer was a summer intern for Pickering while he was in law school.

How an incapacitated attorney general spends his time:

For the moment, Gonzales' days will be spent in much the same way they have been for most of the spring: preparing to defend himself before Congress. With the May 10 hearing before Conyers' committee fast approaching, the attorney general is certain to face new questions from members of Congress armed with information gleaned from testimony by McNulty, Moschella, Comey and possibly Goodling. As if that wasn't enough, Gonzales must also prepare for a May 9 Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, in which he'll be asked detailed questions about his management of the rest of the 110,000-person department.

Don't be fooled by the subdued tone and subtle nuance of David Sanger's front page article in this morning's New York Times on the "New Way Forward" in Iraq. It is a milestone in the Bush Administration's public spin of the war, marking the first official acknowledgment that the surge and all the attendant fuss were nothing more than an elaborate stop-gap intended to buy time so that the colossal failure of the President's foreign policy can be pawned off on the next president:

The Bush administration will not try to assess whether the troop increase in Iraq is producing signs of political progress or greater security until September, and many of Mr. Bush’s top advisers now anticipate that any gains by then will be limited, according to senior administration officials.

In interviews over the past week, the officials made clear that the White House is gradually scaling back its expectations for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. The timelines they are now discussing suggest that the White House may maintain the increased numbers of American troops in Iraq well into next year.

If you've been a regular reader of TPM, you know this is nothing new. We've been saying it in one form or another since late last year, when it became clear that Bush would reject the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group in favor of a policy that can charitably be called more of the same. Here is Josh, for example, writing in January:

[T]he most appropriate name for what the president is planning is neither 'surge' nor even 'escalation' but rather 'punt' -- a strategically meaningless increase in troops meant to allow the president to avoid dealing with the failure of his policy and lay the ground work for getting the next president to take the blame for his epochal screw-up.

For all of 2007, Administration defenders--an ever-dwindling number--have loudly and repeatedly called for opponents of the surge to give the so-called new strategy a chance. Even Republicans who have long supported the President began hedging their bets when the surge was announced. Fine, they said, we'll give you one last shot--but this is it. Minority Leader John Boehner told CNN on January 24 that we would know whether the surge was working in 60-90 days. Hmmm, in other words, we would know by now.

But the Administration has employed several sleights of hand (no surprise there) which are designed to allow it to buy more time. The biggest charade has been the deployment schedule, which has phased in the "surge" over a period of five months. The full contingent of troops won't be on the streets of Baghdad until May. So the surge is really more of a ripple.

The deployment schedule is largely a product of an overextended military. The only way, short of a draft, to increase the number of troops on the ground is to juggle the schedule through a combination of extended and accelerated deployments so that units' time in Iraq overlap. But the Administration will argue, come May, that the new strategy is only then fully implementational. We will be told that we have to give the new strategy a chance to work once all of its components are in place. The period from January to May when we thought we were watching the surge for signs of success was merely prelude, we will be told.

Folks like Boehner will be asked about the deadlines they publicly imposed for success and will explain, with barely concealed impatience, that the clock shouldn't begin running until all the troops are in place. So instead of 60-90 days from January, we should measure from May, which buys them at least until August. Well, September actually. That is when the Pentagon is scheduled to do a "comprehensive review" of the surge for signs of success.

In order to make sure there are sufficient "signs of success" by September to justify pressing ahead, the Administration is leaning on Prime Minister Maliki, upon whose fragile shoulders our entire mission in Iraq now rests, to produce "outputs":

Mr. Bush was careful when he announced his new strategy in January to avoid public estimates of how quickly Mr. Maliki might take steps toward political reconciliation. Even now, White House officials are being careful not to describe with any precision the mix of benchmarks they expect Mr. Maliki to deliver.

By the time Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus complete a comprehensive assessment of progress in September, three months after the troop increase has been fully in place, American officials are hoping that some of the pieces of crucial legislation will have passed.

But Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates found himself pressing Mr. Maliki last week to keep Parliament from taking a two-month summer break. If lawmakers remain in Baghdad, said one senior American official who did not want to be identified because he was discussing internal White House deliberations, “we’ll have some outputs then.”

He added, “That’s different from having outcomes,” drawing a distinction between a sign of activity and a sign of success, which could take considerably longer.

Bush is seeking "outputs" as a means of ensuring eventual "outcomes" that will, he hopes, in the end, lead to "signs of success." It's not exactly Churchillian: We will fight for every output and we will never surrender! In the meantime, Bush will be content with any "sign of activity." And as we've seen before from Bush, in the morbid spectacle he made of Terri Schiavo, any sign of activity, no matter how remote, justifies not pulling the plug.

The somber, measured tone of Sanger's piece in the The Times, without a hint of irony in it, conveys that we are all supposed to just play along with what everyone--from congressional Republicans to Petraeus to the poor grunts on the streets of Baghdad--knows to be a huge charade.

TPM Reader MD gamed out the Administration's strategy way back in December:

It hit me the other day that what the surge is going to accomplish for Bush and Cheney is to take them through these next two years. By the time they can claim to have the extra troops in Baghdad it's gonna be May or June. They'll be there a few months till everyone has to admit that it isn't working . . . then it will be the end of 2007 and the argument will be about whether we should remove some of the surge troops. That will take a few months, at least, and we'll be in the throes of a presidential election. Bush won't want to do anything too "political" at that point, of course, so he'll happily leave it to the new prez to make shitcakes out of shit. And Bush and Cheney will spin it for all it's worth for the rest of their lives...
We're right on schedule.

Another thread to follow in the U.S. attorney scandal:

The U.S. attorney position in Alaska opened Jan. 23, 2006, when Timothy Burgess left to become a U.S. district judge. His first assistant, Deborah Smith, was named acting U.S. attorney that day. U.S. attorneys are typically nominated by the president and approved by the Senate. Traditionally, Alaska’s two U.S. senators send the names of one or more Alaskans to the White House for consideration. Sen. Murkowski said her clear choice was Smith, a career prosecutor who started out in the federal prosecutor’s office in Anchorage in 1982 and worked in Boston and Washington.

Sen. Stevens wouldn’t reveal his choices.

After submitting Smith’s name, Murkowski said in a telephone interview, her legislative director periodically called the White House during the first part of 2006 to check the status of the nomination.

“We’d get these vague, 'Oh, we’re still working on it, still working on it,’ ” Murkowski said. “So it gets to the point where you’re thinking, 'Wait a minute, this has been a heck of a long time. What is happening?’ And so the response to my inquiry is, 'We still haven’t, there’s some issues,’ and ultimately what we got back was, 'The picks were not acceptable by the White House,’ and yet no explanation as to why they’re not acceptable.”

When she was in Alaska for the August 2006 recess, Murkowski’s Blackberry vibrated with a message. It was her chief aide in Alaska, Mary Hughes, citing a media report that Nelson Cohen had been named interim U.S. attorney.

“You just think, 'It can’t be, wait.’ There was no consulting, no process, no nothing. That’s where I was certainly caught blindsided,” Murkowski said.

Stevens, himself a former federal prosecutor in Alaska, was enraged. “I am just furious at the way the attorney general handled this,” he said at the time.

In an interview at his office in the Federal Building last week, Cohen said he was unaware of all the political forces that resulted in his appointment. But he knew his boss, [Mary Beth] Buchanan, was well-connected, and it was she who told him about the opening in Alaska.

Mary Beth Buchanan is the U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh and preceded Michael Battle as head of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys. She is on the list of folks that Rep. John Conyers is seeking to interview as part of his committee's ongoing investigation.

So here's a question for Conyers' crew to ask: Why was Cohen's appointment so important to the White House that it bypassed both of Alaska's Republican senators?

Not surprisingly, the flow of congressional campaign contributions has dramatically shifted since the mid-term elections, with the majority Democrats now on par with Republicans.

With apologies to my wife, I would not object if Sheryl Crow touched me. Yet another difference between me and Karl Rove.