P8kice8zq6szrqrmqxag

Josh Marshall

Josh Marshall is editor and publisher of TalkingPointsMemo.com.

Articles by Josh

Oops. Is the new Committee for the Present Danger hedging its bets in the grand struggle against totalitarianisms large and small? Peter D. Hannaford, CPD managing director, was a lobbyist a few years back for Austria's crypto-Nazi wunderkind Jorg Haider.

Perhaps Jorg was, alas, just misunderstood like so many others.

But I can't imagine he's long for this Committee.

Laura Rozen has the details.

Another point on the matter of forgeries.

Since the end of the Iraq war proper, a number of documents have surfaced in Iraq which on their face appear to connect the former Iraqi regime to al Qaida or similar Islamist terrorist groups.

I'm told there's now a growing consensus within the US Intelligence Community that most and probably all of those documents are forgeries.

The documents came into the hands of the United States through the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). And they were provided to the DIA by the Iraqi National Congress (INC).

In itself, that doesn't mean that the INC is responsible for these apparent forgeries. They may simply have been the unwitting conduit for them.

Of course, as retired CIA officer Bob Baer told the New Yorker last month, the INC was running its own "forgery shop" in Iraqi Kurdistan in 1994.

I'd thought of writing a post on the newly-re-formed Committee on the Present Danger, which took out a full-page ad today in the Washington Post to announce its new mission. But I held back because a mocking effort seemed almost too obvious.

You know, like, "Why did they refound the Committee on the Present Danger?" "Because no one had come up with a list yet of the people most responsible for the Iraq mess, so why not?"

In any case, you get the idea.

Now, I got the URL from the Post ad and went to the website and was looking around the membership list. And on the list of the founding members there's a blurb from each one of them describing the war on terror -- usually with a rhetorical mix of Winston Churchill and Conan the Barbarian.

So for instance you have Ken Adelman saying ...

Just as America defeated totalitarian threats from, first, Nazism and then Communism last century, so must we defeat totalitarian threats from radical Islam this century. It is our duty, and destiny.


Fair enough, encapsulates the basic viewpoint. Or this from Jim Woolsey ...

We are fighting the Long War of the 21st Century, having been targeted by several totalitarian movements rooted in the Middle East. We cannot opt out, and we must not fail.


But what jumped out at me was this one from Ben Wattenberg.

The rules of the game are strange: we win if we win, they win if they win, and we win in case of a tie. There will plenty of other opportunities after Iraq to chase them down in a world which will remain uncertain, but with America as the leader.


Now, is that a blurb or a war on terror haiku? I'm not sure what to make of it. Or has Wattenberg joined forces with that younger generation of weed-smoking neocons? If someone can explain it to me I can then proceed to make fun of it.

A bit more on Berger.

To expand on the post below, all the supposed nefarious motives I've heard for this seem ridiculous on their face. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) says that Berger took information on port security from those documents and gave them to John Kerry so he could use them at a photo op soon after the incident took place last October.

That makes no sense. As someone who runs in those circles, I can tell you that there are at least half a dozen Democratic think-tank homeland security mavens who will happily go on about port security with you until you're ready to strangle them, or even until you do strangle them.

The thought that Kerry needed Sandy Berger to pilfer one of Richard Clarke's after-reports about the millenium terror alerts to get whatever boilerplate he discussed at this particular press conference is truly ridiculous. And Santorum must know it.

Here's the transcript of Berger's lawyer Lanny Breuer on Wolf Blitzer tonight. He makes Berger's case.

(Scroll down to the phrase "Brian Todd, thanks very much for that report" for the beginning of the interview portion.)

I'd be curious to hear what people think after reading that interchange.

In the days ahead I have to imagine that a lot of Democrats -- and not happily -- are going to be asking this question: Why didn't Sandy Berger step aside from his advisory position for John Kerry some time ago?

Set aside all the outstanding questions that will be churned over in the coming days, and consider the following ...

1) At a minimum Berger did something that was quite embarrassing for a man of his standing.

2) No one disputes that there is an FBI investigation and that there has been one for months.

3) Republicans, not to mention Democrats, aren't above a well-timed leak to maximize political damage against their opponents. All the more so since this is virtually the signature of the Ashcroft Justice Department.

Given the timing and other context I don't have much doubt this was a politically motivated and malicious leak. It's as dirty as it comes, but also highly predictable.

I think a lot of Democrats are going to be asking why Berger didn't see this coming down the pike, step aside from his prominent advisory role with the Kerry campaign, and avoid at least the immediate partisan political dimensions of the current predicament almost entirely.

I say it with much less than no pleasure. But I'm wondering. And I don't have a good answer.

From this evening's Nelson Report, here's Chris Nelson <$NoAd$>on the Berger matter ...

Summary: apparent removal of classified documents from the National Archives by Kerry Campaign advisor Sandy Berger is classic "Washington scandal"...friends rush to the defense; enemies issue pious quasi-indictments; everyone tries to measure whether the victim/subject is mortally wounded, or will survive to play in the future. (If so, you'd better watch what you say now...) Quick verdict of the professionals...Berger's lost any chance at Senate-confirmed job in a Kerry Administration (Secretary of State was the presumed desire); timing of the leak was not coincidental (Dem National Convention opens Monday, 9/11 Report due this week). As to whether he's really "guilty", no one knows, perhaps including Berger. One thing is for sure...a political life can change in seconds.

...

1. First, on the scandal de jour, former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, lately a high-profile player in Democrat John Kerry's campaign for the presidency, today found himself publicly accused of illegally removing highly classified anti-terrorism documents from the National Archives, while reviewing the materials to prepare for his testimony to the 9/11 Commission.

-- Berger's friends and former colleagues rushed to his defense, but the Kerry Campaign appeared taken by surprise, and merely offered "no comment about an on-going investigation". Republicans could hardly contain their glee, issuing pious remarks about the seriousness of the matter, without wishing to rush to judgment against Berger. In short, a typical Washington scandal, with everyone looking over their shoulder to see how it might affect them.

2. As in any leak, one must always ask who did it, and why. In leaks, the motives can be played either way...sometimes opponents of something think a leak will stop it; other times, proponents leak to discredit opponents, etc., etc. Since the circumstances of Berger's potential discomfiture have apparently been known to a variety of players for several months, we may never know why this story just surfaced now.

-- for what it's worth, the Justice Department denied any involvement in, or political motivation for leaking word of the probe, implying a pure coincidence that it comes days before the Democratic National Convention opens in Boston, and the further coincidence that the 9/11 Commission report is coming this week. (Democrats, of course, darkly hinted that Berger was being thrown out as a diversionary tactic from what is presumed to be an embarrassing report for the Republicans.)

3. If Republicans and Democrats disagreed as to the motive for the Berger leak, one difference between this scandal and the "usual" is that both sides agree on one thing: to the extent that anyone is willing to discuss events "off the record", both friends and enemies agree that any chance Berger had of continuing a public role as a Kerry foreign policy advisor has been eliminated.

-- and for the future? To quote one old Washington hand who happens to be a Dem, "what do you think Republicans would do if Berger's name was submitted to the Senate for Sec State?" For the immediate future, what remains to be determined is whether Berger's embarrassment also becomes Kerry's embarrassment...and the mere fact of the question helps convince many Democrats of the political motivation of the timing of the leak, since Berger has apparently been under investigation by Justice since last October.

4. To show just why Democrats are upset/worried: Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter, chairman of House Armed Services, lost no time in raising a serious charge, while pretending not to. Speaking to Fox News last night, Hunter suggested that Berger may have removed the classified documents to help the Kerry Campaign (since they apparently cover an "after action" report of things Clinton did, successfully, in the war on terrorism).

-- Hunter then went on to say he "accepted" Berger's "protestations and [his] proclaimed innocence and his good faith and [that] it was just a mistake - he was just sloppy. I think we accept that." Plunging home the knife, Hunter concluded, however, that there is a "certain discipline" required to separate politics from public duty, and that "he's obviously violated that discipline."

(Translation: if Kerry's people are "sloppy" with highly classified materials in the war on terrorism, how can Kerry be trusted with the responsibility of protecting the American people in the future? Especially, Hunter implies, if Dems are so reckless as to use classified information for political advantage. Shocking...shocking. Democrats choke in fury on that one, given Atty. Gen. Ashcroft's record since 9/11. Anyhow, that, in a nutshell, gives you the immediate bottom line.)


I think Chris has the dimensions of this about right.

Our Tolstoyan president ...<$NoAd$>

I'm a war president.

George W. Bush
Meet the Press
February 13th, 2004


Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president.

George W. Bush
Campaign Speech
July 20th 2004




And for good measure, this from today: "For a while we were marching to war. Now we're marching to peace. ... America is a safer place. Four more years and America will be safe and the world will be more peaceful."

More on the "Kerry is bin Laden's man/President Bush is mine" bumpersticker.

As you know from our post last week, the Louisville Kentucky Republican party was handing out copies of this bumper sticker to all that would have them. Actually, Jack Richardon IV, the head of the local GOP, told me he was a little unclear about whether his organization was distributing them or not. But I can't see why he was so uncertain since, according to today's Courier-Journal, the local paper, it was plastered on the front window of their headquarters and available at the front desk.

In any case, local Congresswoman Anne Northup has now asked the local party organization to take the decal down from the window and stop handing them out. So credit where credit is due.

Barzini reveals himself?

In the Wall Street Journal today, the editors return to the Wilson matter and then let the other shoe drop. "Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald should fold up his tent," the editors write. This move was anticipated last week when the Journal lamented the Fitzgerald investigation's "especially paralyzing effect on the office of the Vice President."

As it happens, the claim that Wilson's wife recommended him or selected him for the job -- the peg on which the Journal hangs its hat -- is among the weakest leveled against him. Though the authors of the Senate report chose not to include this point, Plame's bosses at the CIA have always said they came up with the idea to send him, not her. Indeed, only yesterday a senior intelligence official confirmed to me that, according to her bosses, Plame "did not initiate" the idea of sending Wilson on the Niger mission. Her bosses came up with the idea, the official explained, and then she agreed to ask him if he'd be willing to undertake it.

More importantly, however, the whole question is legally irrelevant. Even if Plame pulled strings to get the gig for Wilson and had the Agency arrange for him to stay at Niger's most palatial and exclusive hotels, and even if Wilson had lied about it, all of that would leave the legal case enitrely intact. There's no scoring political points exception to the law in question -- not even if you think they're valid political points, not even if they are valid points.

The folks at the Vice President's office who are under scrutiny might -- as Brown, Douglass, Garrison and Phillips once did -- be appealing to the higher law that transcends mere statutes. But we'll see.

The Times says that Fitzgerald is "expected to announce in a matter of weeks whether he will prosecute anyone." And it's not clear to me that he will choose to bring any indictments. Like everyone else, I have no idea. Yet the Vice President's office would clearly like to see the investigation scuttled or at least lay the political groundwork for a defense against possible indictments. We should thank the Journal for showing us where they're going with this.

A bit more on the Berger story.

As far as I can tell, my comments from last night stand. Notes taken from classified documents are themselves classified, unless and until they are cleared as containing no classified information. That at least appears to be the standard procedure.

However, it seems equally clear that the surfacing of this matter is the product of a malicious leak intended to distract attention from the release of the 9/11 commission report.

Consider the timing.

According to this article in the Post, the National Archives began investigating this matter in October and then referred it to the FBI in January. That is, needless to say, at least six months ago. The article also notes that the FBI has yet to interview Berger, which suggests that the investigation has not reached a critical stage, for good or ill, that would have brought it to light now.

The most obvious, and probably the only, explanation of this leak is that it is intended to distract attention from the release of the 9/11 report due later this week. That would be yet another example of this administration's common practice of using the levers of executive power (law enforcement, declassification, etc.) for partisan purposes.

That doesn't mean Berger doesn't have any explaining to do. The two points are not exclusive of each other.

LiveWire