Bn2owu17dada0r4exeyf

Josh Marshall

Josh Marshall is editor and publisher of TalkingPointsMemo.com.

Articles by Josh

Okay, let me say that I'm a bit conflicted. I'd rather leave the post below as the headline post for Thursday morning, seeing as it explains a case of the Bush White House really getting caught with its metaphorical hand in the cookie jar. Especially since the press has thus far shown distressingly little interest in the story.

Having said that, though, look: I don't think I can resist the temptation of another Condit post. So here goes.

Yesterday I said that logic and experience told me that Condit was going to, if not blow this interview, at least put in a very weak performance. It's just his MO. I'm not going to prattle on about how this provides some insight into his character or that it shows that he thinks the rules don't apply to him or anything like that. But what it does show is this: Condit and his advisors seem to lack a sense for what looks good for him to do and what looks imbecilic and offensive for him to do. And tonight's news reports seem to confirm it. According to those reports, Condit will not even admit to having an affair with Levy -- which tends pretty strongly to confirm the pattern.

There's no reason in the world that Condit needs to go on TV and spill his guts about any affair he had, at least as far as I'm concerned. But if he is planning to go on the air and deny even what amounts to the innocent explanation of his recent behavior then obviously he could scarcely be a bigger moron.

Pundits continue to assume he's holed up somewhere with a clutch of media wizards who are spinning him into prime form. The truth is that he has no wizards. And I don't think he's even taking the advice of the wanna-be wizards who've flocked to him since this mystery began.

You'll remember that on the 19th I noted Mike Isikoff's Newsweek article on the Bill Clinton-Ehud Barak phone conversation transcripts. And I made the point that the real story was just how Dan Burton's committee managed to get hold of confidential transcripts of phone conversations between the President of the United States and the then-Prime Minister of Israel only months after the conversations occurred.

To put it mildly, the executive branch doesn't turn over this sort of information to congressional committees easily. It's classic executive privilege territory. And for good reason: How easy would it be in the future for the president to have frank discussions with foreign heads of state if the foreign heads of state knew that Dan Burton would be releasing transcripts of their conversations only a few months later?

You think the White House will be releasing transcripts of Bush's conversations with Ariel Sharon? Jiang Zemin? Tony Blair? As Phil Schiliro, chief of staff to Burton's Democratic counterpart Henry Waxman, told me today, "Given the secrecy of the Bush-Cheney administration, it's inconceivable that they would turn over this sort of information if it affected President Bush."

In any case, the transcripts in question are currently in the custody of the National Archives, where they were deposited after Bill Clinton left office. However, it's still up to the current occupants of the Executive Branch to decide what gets released and what doesn't.

So here's how it went down, according to my sources. Staffers from Burton's committee, the House Government Reform Committee, didn't receive copies of the transcripts. They were given access to them at the National Archives. They were allowed to take notes, but not get actual copies.

So I called the Bush National Security Council press office. They told me to speak with Bill Leary in their FOIA office. I called his number and got another man in the office who said Leary wasn't available. He told me that "the request for information went to the National Archives [and that] the National Archives had made all arrangements" for making the documents available, and that I should call the National Archives. The White House had no role, he said, except for "classification." (As I'll discuss in a later post, this reference to "classification" was a technically true statement which essentially admitted in one word, what he had denied with many a few moments before, i.e., that they had everything to do with the release of the documents. But more on that later.)

When I asked for his name, he hung up on me.

I then called back and in slightly more colorful language asked him why he had hung up on me and whether he would identify himself. He told me that he and his office "don't respond to press inquiries."

This may all seem rather technical. So let's review what this all means. These transcripts are the sort of documents that the executive branch is usually extremely resistant to handing over, and seldom ever does. Especially not so soon after the events occurred. In this case, it seems the Bush NSC changed the rules because the folks there thought they could embarrass the previous administration. In so doing, they also potentially created a terrible precedent for the ability of this and future administrations to conduct foreign policy, by breaching the confidentiality of the president's conversations with foreign heads of state.

The unnamed NSC staffer I spoke to denied that they had been involved in this. But, as a matter of fact, the Bush NSC was intimately involved in the decision to make these confidential transcripts available to the Burton Committee staffers. Do I know this? Yes, I know.

If it was a reasonable decision to make on the merits, why hide behind such juvenile tactics? And since this is an actual abuse of the powers of the executive to further a narrow partisan objective, why no more scrutiny to this aspect of the story by the press?

One of Daniel Patrick Moynihan's standard ploys is to whip out a few historical allusions, a few policy wonk names from the thirties or forties, to wow reporters and other listeners into thinking he's the master of some esoteric knowledge and not just another pol, and perhaps a pretty craven one at that.

Here's an article with some good examples of this tendency, and here's another.

Just now I was watching Moynihan and Bush Social Security Commission co-chairman Richard Parsons giving a little brief talk about their closed-door meeting today. In the course of that Parsons argued that the size of the non-Social Security surplus is really irrelevant to the reform effort since general revenue funds should not and will not be used for Social Security.

Then Moynihan chimed in with some hokum about some public policy worthies from the early days of Social Security, and Frances Perkins (FDR's Labor Secretary), and how they'd done a good job and now it was time to continue their work by reforming Social Security, yada, yada, yada. The implication seemed to be that these worthies would agree with what Parsons had just said. In fact, at earlier points Moynihan has said precisely that, that Perkins et.al, the founders of Social Security, would find using non-payroll tax money (i.e., general revenue funds) for Social Security a terrible thing, anathema, and so on.

The only problem is that this is completely false. Perkins herself believed that general revenue funds would likely eventually be needed to supplement payroll tax dollars. And if my memory serves she believed that point would come late in the last century.

In itself this a relatively minor and fairly technical point, I grant you. But there's an important lesson to glean from it: Moynihan's professor shtick is pretty much all shtick and no substance. He makes it up as he goes along.

Craven dishonesty, surprisingly enough, can actually be a good thing. No, not as personal practice, mind you. More as a tool of symptomatology. When you're taking aim at your political opponents and they start to lie wildly it's a good sign that you've really got them on the run.

Which brings us to George W. Bush and Mitch Daniels.

Let's be clear on what's in the works in this fast-approaching battle over the budget: The question is whether the Bush White House will be able to use the inherently pliable and slippery modalities of rhetoric to overcome the rather more fixed terms of mathematics.

Can they pull it off?

Let's look at one example (of which there will surely be many more to come) from Bush's speech yesterday at Harry S. Truman High School in Independence, Missouri:

Seven out of the last eight budgets submitted by the executive and passed by the Congress have raided the Social Security or used part of the Social Security to fund the budgets. One of the temptations is to use Social Security money for something other than Social Security.

Now the good news is -- is that both political parties and both bodies of Congress have declared that we're not going to do that. But I'm going to watch carefully, to make sure that the old temptations of the past don't come back to haunt us when it comes to budgeting your money in the year 2001.

How many distortions are wrapped together into these four sentences?

Oh,when will the buck stop?!?!?!?!?!

Joe Conason is the only columnist I've seen so far to pick up on the real issue with those leaked Clinton-Barak phone transcripts: that the Bush White House has apparently set a terribly irresponsible national security precedent in order to score a cheap political hit for Dan Burton. Of course, Talking Points got on this a few days ago. But we're always a trend-setter. And Conason gives a much fuller take on the story.

Anyway, there's still more here. And we'll be reporting on that soon.

As nearly as I can figure it, the buzz is that Gary Condit will come off pretty well in his Thursday evening interview. Not because he should or shouldn't necessarily. But because it's a short interview (30 minutes), a ready-made vehicle for contrite pols, and because he'll be endlessly coached by pros who know how this game is played.

My feeling is that this is true (or at least it was). But the more I've thought about it the more I've concluded that it's not true at all, that he'll actually come off pretty badly.

Here's why.

Let's set aside all suspicions or hunches about whether or not Condit did or didn't have anything to do with Levy's disappearance. There have been maybe a dozen moments over the last three months where Condit either had to appear in public, make some comment, or have some representative make a comment on his behalf. As nearly as I can figure, in every single one of these cases, Condit and his reps have either struck exactly the wrong chord (confrontational when conciliatory was the way to go) or said something foolish and damaging.

A few examples?

Shady lie detector test that ended up being a PR fiasco.

Abbe Lowell's botched press conference in which he let himself get baited into offering up his client for a lie detector test.

Lowell's decision to criticize Levys after their Larry King Live interview.

Condit's personal, slashing, angry response to the Modesto and Fresno Bee's editorials calling on him to resign.

Threats to sue various news organizations for stories later admitted to be true.

Endless slew of self-defeating non-denial denials.

Initial gambit: convince the media that Dupont Circle is hotbed of abductions.

Condit flack Marina Ein's decision to call Condit's third interview with police a "home run."

Condit flack Marina Ein's decision to tell Salon.com that Chandra had "a history of one-night stands."

Regrettable watch-box disposal incident.

There are many other examples which cannot be tagged in one line. But the basic point is clear enough: Gary Condit -- who from the start has taken the decisive role in deciding his own PR strategy -- has never had a good feel for the tone to strike in dealing with the public or the press.

That's point one.

Point two is the assumption -- logical and voiced by nearly everyone -- that Condit is being actively and expertly prepped for this interview. I'm honestly not sure that's true. Who is prepping Condit? Who's working for him? Mike Lynch, his chief of staff. Abbe Lowell, his attorney. Marina Ein, his flack. And apparently now Richie Ross, a California political consultant.

These are the same people (with the apparent exception of Ross) who've been advising Condit for several months. And what winners have they come up with so far?

Think about it.

Mike Isikoff has a story in Newsweek this week based on access to transcripts of several conversations Bill Clinton had with Ehud Barak about Marc Rich in the weeks just before Clinton issued the controversial pardon.

The article raises two questions.

First, how were these transcripts obtained? Isikoff writes:

The two leaders had no reason to believe their confidential chat would ever become public. Yet the Clinton-Barak telephone call that evening, like all conversations between U.S. presidents and foreign heads of state, was monitored by a team of note takers sitting at computers in the White House Situation Room. Last week congressional investigators probing the Rich pardon received access to National Security Council-prepared transcripts of three Clinton-Barak conversations that dealt with the Rich pardon. NEWSWEEK also has reviewed the contents of the transcripts ...
This sounds a lot like the current White House has control over the National Security apparatus and turned over these documents, or leaked them to Burton's committee. Needless to say, administrations are far less generous with transcripts of presidents' conversations when it's their own president -- and for good reason. And they're supposed to be equally solicitous of previous presidents, that is to say, of the office of the president. But it seems like here they weren't .

This is speculation, of course. Perhaps the documents are already in the custody of the National Archives or some other record keeping body? I'm not sure. But this is worth looking into.

The second, more important, point is the contents of the transcripts themselves. Isikoff editorializes thus:

The transcripts offer no “smoking gun” showing that the former president was motivated by large donations to his presidential library or by generous campaign contributions. But the conversations do show that, in sharp contrast to the picture painted by some of his former aides, Clinton was keenly aware of details of the Rich case, and appeared determined to grant the highly questionable pardon even though, as he admitted to Barak, there was “almost no precedent in American history.”
No smoking gun? I'll say. The transcripts don't seem to contain anything even touching on this point.

Say whatever you will about the wisdom of the Marc Rich pardon, but the transcripts themselves seem to confirm a key component of Clinton's story -- that Ehud Barak, then Prime Minister of Israel, was lobbying heavily on Rich's behalf because, as he says in the transcripts, the fugitive financier had “[made] a lot of philanthropic contributions to Israeli institutions and activities like education" and because "it could be important (gap) not just financially, but [because] he helped Mossad [the Israeli intelligence agency] on more than one case."

In February Clinton wrote that in deciding to issue Rich's pardon one of his key reasons was that:

Many present and former high-ranking Israeli officials of both major political parties and leaders of Jewish communities in America and Europe urged the pardon of Mr. Rich because of his contributions and services to Israeli charitable causes, to the Mossad's efforts to rescue and evacuate Jews from hostile countries, and to the peace process through sponsorship of education and health programs in Gaza and the West Bank.
The one thing that's clear from these documents -- obtained under whatever means -- is that this assertion was true. Perhaps more true than we knew.

The second half of the last decade was unquestionably the heyday of gizmocracy -- rule by gizmocrats. Not technocrats, mind you. But gizmo-crats. Technocrats are the Robert McNamaras, the IBM white shirt and black tie types, the big urban planners. Gizmocrats are another breed entirely, like Marc Andreessen, the dudes who invented the Palm Pilot, and those over-educated, furry-chinned web designers who create all the bells and whistles on web sites (Talking Points actually spent a couple years in grad school as one of those). In other words, a new ruling class of people who create things we really don't need but are just a whole lot of fun to have.

In any case, following up on the last post, the consensus seems to be that the two things which might be helpful to have on TPM are a search function and a printer-friendly version (I'm glad this was the consensus because all the other ideas seemed lame to me). And now that the dot.com economy has gone bust, I'm thinking I can get my own gizmocrat at bargain-basement prices or perhaps for nothing at all through some TPM internship scam.

I've been gratified of late to have received any number of requests for the addition of various and sundry online gizmos to improve what I guess we might call, with a large dollop of grandiosity, the Talking Points experience.

In no particular order, these include:

A special Talking Points search function, preferably, I am told, searchable by post and not just by week.

A button for a "printer-friendly" version of TPM.

A button for an "email to a friend" function.

A mailing list to receive Talking Points by email.

A way to support TPM without using the Amazon.com honor system payment mechanism.

Talking Points weekly chats (I kid you not!).

Special gold-leafed bound editions of Talking Points (okay, I am kidding about that one).

Needless to say the weekly chats are just so so so never going to happen. And for quite different reasons neither will Talking Points be delivered by email. But I'd be interested to hear from regular readers what if any of these other features sound helpful. I've generally tried to avoid doing anything with the site any more complicated than it currently is since the entirety of Talking Points -- graphics, design, coding, haggling with the bonehead tech support people -- is done by TPM's one person staff. And I like to keep the staff from getting overtaxed and expenses from getting too high.

But if some of these features sound like good ideas I will hunt around for some teenage or twenty-something gizmocrat to work on it.

In case you missed it, the word out today is that John DiIulio, Bush's faith-based services czar, is resigning his post. Frankly, this was inevitable, as we noted in these very pages back in March. In fact, let's reprint what we said back on March 22nd about the impossibility of DiIulio's position in the Bush White House.

Here's the key issue with DiIulio, however. There's something deeper at work here than just a disagreement over how faith-based services should function, even deeper than the obvious fissures over racial politics.

The whole debate over social services, poverty, welfare and so forth moves on two separate axes. One is the right vs. left axis that we're all familiar with. But this is often the less interesting of the two.

There's also the 'give a #$%&' vs. the 'don't give a @#&$' axis.

I disagree with DiIulio on all sorts of points. But anyone who's familiar with DiIulio's career knows that he's definitely in the 'give a $%&#' (GAF) category. I would say that someone like James Q. Wilson is also in the GAF category even though I disagree with him on many points.

And that's the problem. What the Bush folks should have realized is that if you're in the DGAF category (which the Bushies indubitably are on urban poverty and social disenfranchisement issues) the last thing you want to do is to hire a GAF to run your shop.

Bad, bad, bad decision. And now they're going to pay the price for that mistake with really embarrassing stories which will almost certainly lead to DiIlulio's eventually getting canned.

Some of the actual details of how it all shook out are in Dana Milbank's afternoon piece in the Post. But this was in the cards from day one.

TPMLivewire