Kkdoq6ejtoq9xs0cnqas

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

Well, now, which is it?

In this evening's painstakingly prepared statement by Speaker Hastert's office on the Rep. Mark Foley matter, it is made to appear that the emails between Foley and the page were never passed on to GOP higher-ups by the page's sponsoring congressman, Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA), in deference to the page's family and their desire for privacy. But a report tonight from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Washington Bureau calls that account into serious question.

First, the relevant portion of the Hastert statement:

The Clerk asked to see the text of the email. Congressman Alexander's office declined citing the fact that the family wished to maintain as much privacy as possible and simply wanted the contact to stop. The Clerk asked if the email exchange was of a sexual nature and was assured it was not. Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff characterized the email exchange as over-friendly.

The Clerk then contacted Congressman Shimkus, the Chairman of the Page Board to request an immediate meeting. It appears he also notified Van Der Meid that he had received the complaint and was taking action. This is entirely consistent with what he would normally expect to occur as he was the Speaker's Office liaison with the Clerk's Office.

The Clerk and Congressman Shimkus met and then immediately met with Foley to discuss the matter. They asked Foley about the email. Congressman Shimkus and the Clerk made it clear that to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and at the request of the parents, Congressman Foley was to immediately cease any communication with the young man.


Now, here's what the Post-Dispatch reports, from an interview today with the aforementioned Shimkus:

Last year, the House clerk grabbed Rep. John Shimkus off the floor during a vote and said they needed to talk.

It wasn’t unusual for the clerk at that time, Jeff Trandahl, to catch Shimkus, in the hallway or on the House floor, since together they oversaw the House page program and often had items to discuss.

This time, though, Trandahl had in his hand an email exchange between one of the House pages, a 16-year-old boy, and Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla.

Shimkus, who serves as board chairman for the House page program, read the emails, in which Foley asked about the boy’s well-being in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, what he wanted for his birthday, and for a photograph. (The boy was from Louisiana and had returned to his home state.)

Although there was nothing sexually suggestive in the emails, Shimkus and Trandal agreed: "That was enough for us to approach Mark," Shimkus recalled an interview Saturday.

Soon after, they met with Foley and his chief of staff in the Florida congressman’s office. "We basically said, ‘We got these emails. And we don’t think this is appropriate. ... You have to stop (contacting this boy)’," Shimkus said.


Shimkus told the paper that he thinks he did the right thing given the information he had at the time, though he regrets not having involved his Democratic colleague on the board overseeing the page program. "If I regret something maybe I should have had Dale (Kildee, a Democratic board member and congressmen from Michigan) with me because now it’s going to be a political football."

On Friday night, the Post-Dispatch reports, Shimkus met with the pages currently in the program. Just days after "reading them the riot act" about behaving in the program, he told them: "I’m embarrassed I’m ashamed. This lecture I gave you I should give to my colleagues."

Earlier, Josh posted on NRCC chair Tom Reynolds' statement that he had told Speaker Hastert about the Mark Foley situation in early 2006. Why is Reynolds throwing Denny from the train?

Republican insiders said Reynolds spoke out because he was angry that Hastert appeared willing to let him take the blame for the party leadership's silence.

A House GOP leadership aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of losing his job, said that Reynolds realizes he has taken a shot at his leader but that it is understandable.

"This is what happens when one member tries to throw another member under a bus," the aide said.


Indeed. When one GOP congressman tries to damage another politically, it's time to speak out. But when a GOP congressman tries to proposition an underage page? Silence is the better part of what passes for GOP valor these days.

The lede in the NYT Sunday piece gets it about right:

Top House Republicans knew for months about e-mail traffic between Representative Mark Foley and a former teenage page, but kept the matter secret and allowed Mr. Foley to remain head of a Congressional caucus on children’s issues, Republican lawmakers said Saturday.


Buried deep in the piece is the suggestion of a possible federal criminal investigation:

At the Justice Department, an official said that there was no investigation under way but that the agency had “real interest” in examining the circumstances to see if any crimes were committed.


The statement that Hastert's office released late today came only "after senior aides, the House clerk and legal advisers huddled for much of Saturday in the Capitol."

It's a bit ironic that while denying for the past two days that they were circling the wagons back when the information about Foley first came to their attention, the GOP leadership has been . . . circling the wagons.

One still doesn't get the sense that their focus is on the alleged victims of Foley, or on the possible unknown victims. If the allegations against Foley are true, the kind of conduct involved is rarely isolated or limited to one victim.

So what does the GOP leadership propose to do to figure out who those victims are and provide them with assistance? A toll-free telephone number for pages and their parents to report concerns. But that pre-supposes that once a report is received, the GOP will actually do something about it.

Ever wonder why it seems like we are enduring a repeat of the Nixon Administration? Now we know. From Bob Woodward's new book, via War and Piece:

A powerful, largely invisible influence on Bush's Iraq policy was former secretary of state Kissinger.

"Of the outside people that I talk to in this job," Vice President Cheney told me in the summer of 2005, "I probably talk to Henry Kissinger more than I talk to anybody else. He just comes by and, I guess at least once a month, Scooter and I sit down with him." (Scooter is I. Lewis Libby, then Cheney's chief of staff.)

The president met privately with Kissinger every couple of months, making him the most regular and frequent outside adviser to Bush on foreign affairs.

Kissinger sensed wobbliness everywhere on Iraq, and he increasingly saw the situation through the prism of the Vietnam War. For Kissinger, the overriding lesson of Vietnam is to stick it out.

In his writing, speeches and private comments, Kissinger claimed that the United States had essentially won the war in 1972, only to lose it because of the weakened resolve of the public and Congress.

In a column in The Washington Post on Aug. 12, 2005, titled "Lessons for an Exit Strategy," Kissinger wrote, "Victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy."

He delivered the same message directly to Bush, Cheney and Hadley at the White House.


The image of Henry Kissinger schooling George W. Bush on the lessons of Vietnam is enough to make a grown man cry.

Yesterday the NRCC put more than $3.5 million into GOP congressional campaigns nationwide. Of that amount, negative ad buys accounted for all but $63,000. The list of expenditures is here.

"It's vile. It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction." --Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), commenting on President Clinton, following release of the Starr Report, September 12, 1998.

I've gotten several emails in response to the earlier post on whether military action against Iran may happen before the election. Most have focused on the political dynamic, but I'm most interested in the nuts and bolts of whether we are in a position to pull such a thing off logistically.

TPM Reader GH thinks not:

Iranians have aced us in a major respect. The largest bunkerbuster we have is good for maybe 100 feet of compacted earth. Iranians have been burying sensitive installations, including about 45 nuclear processing sites, under 200 feet of layered dirt and concrete. We simply cannot, at this time, do a damn thing about it. But a much larger bomb is under development with a contract end date of about a year from now. Assume we can beat that, still leaves us somewhere next summer.

Our support capacity is stretched to breaking. All the airlift (C5 and C17) is pretty well engaged in Iraq and Iran. Can't insert troops you cannot support. Critical hardware (up armored humvees, Strykers, etc) all in use. Hard to scrape up the hardware, even if you activated all the reserves, etc. Shades of WWII, where guys trained with broomsticks, because we did not have enough rifles. This country's logistics capacity is awesome, but it is not "poof" overnight . . .

Still, we have been gearing up for this for a long time. Look at the federal authorization bill over the last few years. Many $ on intel assets in and around the area. We have so many satellites flying over, that there are traffic jams. There is the political drumbeat, which signals preparation of the populace, and the need for Repugs to be the party in control in time of war. Americans do not like to change horses in wars.

Such a war would be no fun, for sure, but I have no confidence these clowns will get it right. Likely they will start shooting just as soon as they can get it loaded. And that is about a year off, minimum.

Today's NYT report describing a U.S. intelligence assessment that the Iraq invasion has worsened global terrorism (no surprise there) is "not representative" of the entire assessment, the White House says.

So what does the entire asssessment say? The White House won't say exactly. The report is still classified. But Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte offers that the assessment concludes that if the U.S. succeeds in stabilizing Iraq "fewer jihadists will leave Iraq determined to carry on the fight elsewhere."

The implication of course is that regardless of whether we succeed in Iraq, jihadists will leave determined to carry on the fight. It's just that if we fail, more will leave determined to fight.

Excellent. Our strategic objective now is to demoralize some of the jihadists.

A nod to TPM alum Matt Yglesias:

Bush, Cheney, and those around them remind me of Nietzsche's line about staring too long into the abyss. They've become transfixed, hypnotized almost, by the evils they believe themselves to be fighting. Obsessed to the point where they've clearly developed an admiration for the brutal methods, ruthless dishonesty, and utter secrecy with which the enemies of liberalism conduct themselves.

Liberal democracy isn't a fluke occurrence that just so happens to have survived despite its drawbacks. It's actually a superior method of organizing a state. The idea that the country is being run by people who don't understand that is sad and frightening. The idea that the very same people claim to be embarked upon a grand mission to spread our system of government around the world is like a horrible tawdry joke . . .

TPMLivewire