Josh Marshall

Josh Marshall is editor and publisher of TalkingPointsMemo.com.

Articles by Josh

Joe Wilson has just posted a piece at TPMCafe on whether the Post should do an internal inquiry into the Woodward matter as the Times did with Judy Miller. Hint: He's for it.

Rep Geoff Davis (R-KY) today on Rep. Murtha: "I think it's important to understand the political climate in which these shameful statements have been made. Ayman Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's deputy, as well as Abu Musab Zarqawi, have made it quite clear in their internal propaganda that they cannot win unless they can drive the Americans out. And they know that they can't do that there, so they've brought the battlefield to the halls of Congress. And, frankly, the liberal leadership have put politics ahead of sound, fiscal and national security policy. And what they have done is cooperated with our enemies and are emboldening our enemies."

Remember Rep. Heather Wilson (R) of New Mexico?

She was the one who spent weeks early this year trying to use word games to bamboozle her constituents about what her position was on Social Security. (See this post from February when it finally occurred to me to try calling Wilson's press secretary from my new cell phone rather than my office number and -- voila! -- the guy who never seemed to be at the phone for days on end suddenly answered.)

Now she's got an opponent. And apparently she's a top-tier one, New Mexico AG Patricia Madrid.

Last week Roll Call said that "Wilson's outlook changed dramatically when state Attorney General Patricia Madrid (D) announced recently that she would run." And they put Wilson in the list of top ten most vulnerable members of the House.

Murtha on Cheney: "I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

Mark Schmitt: "We're asking very traditional questions: Was information withheld? Was there deceit about the information? Those are the familiar Watergate/Iran-contra questions. But they overlook the Ideology of Information that the administration created. By this I mean the whole practice of evaluating all information going into the war not for its truth value, but for whether it promoted or hindered the administration's goal of being free to go to war. The President could have been given every bit of intelligence information available, and he and/or Cheney would have reached the same decision because they would have discarded, discounted, or disregarded most of it. Information that was Useful to that goal was put in one box, Not Useful put in another. Entire categories of information were assigned to the Not Useful box because their source was deemed an opponent of U.S. military action, or assumed to have some other motive."

House Republicans just had another legislative trainwreck this afternoon as they failed to pass another big spending bill because of defections by GOP moderates.

If you look in this AP story you find this ...

Twenty-two Republicans voted against the measure, many of them moderates who also are swing votes on the budget-cutting legislation.


The defeat upset Republican plans to finish up nearly all the spending bills before leaving for the Thanksgiving recess. Rep. Ralph Regula, R-Ohio, manager of the bill, said it may now get thrown into a year-end "omnibus" over which members have little control.

The point here is, who cares about this vote? Republicans control the body. So they can just stick this stuff back in the big omnibus bill at the end of the year when everything comes down to just one vote. Presumeably, then, these moderates will feel obliged to vote for the whole thing.

Doesn't this set these twenty-two moderates up for one of those juicy, 'I voted for it before I voted against it' moments?

Of course, it does.

And the same thing applies to the ANWR stuff from last week and a bunch of these other recent legislative defeats. Somebody needs to compile the lists of who these Reps are, what they voted against today and keep the list on hand to see if they vote for it later this year.

Roll Call (sub.req.) ...

The partisan spat over the veracity of testimony by oil company executives last week spilled over into personal barbs on the Senate floor Wednesday, with Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) accusing Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) of impugning his character on the chamber floor.

“It’s been brought to my attention that the Senator from Illinois has unfairly maligned my character,” Stevens declared on the floor almost three hours after Durbin accused Stevens of making it easier for oil executives to lie to Congress about whether their companies were involved in closed-door energy policy meetings with Vice President Cheney in 2001.

How often do witnesses not get sworn in when they go before congressional committees?

Ivo Daalder explains what Rep. John Murtha's (D-PA) call today for a US military withdrawal from Iraq means and questions whether he's right.

There will be many such resources. But Knight-Ridder today has a good article summarizing and discussing several of the key falsehoods and distortions the president and his aides are now pressing on the public.