P8kice8zq6szrqrmqxag

Josh Marshall

Josh Marshall is editor and publisher of TalkingPointsMemo.com.

Articles by Josh

Are we blocking an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza until after the November election?

This is the last graf in an article running on the Associated Press wire ...

Earlier this week, Dov Weisglass, a senior Sharon aide, discussed the proposed withdrawal with top U.S. officials. The Maariv daily said Friday that Weisglass was told the Bush administration would not like to see a withdrawal before the U.S. election because of concerns of growing instability in Gaza. However, Sharon adviser Assaf Shariv said Friday that no dates for a possible withdrawal were raised during the meetings with U.S. officials.


A couple points. I'm pretty sure <$Ad$>there's no English language edition of Maariv. So I'd really be curious to find out precisely what this article in Maariv said, not just this clipped reference.

Secondly, there are a host of legitimate issues about how this disengagement might take place -- not least of which is whether it's done unilaterally or through some sort of bilateral agreement. So there are various reasons we might want them to hold their horses. One might even speculate that the Israelis are using supposed US domestic political concerns as an excuse to delay action in Gaza.

But if the administration is pushing back turmoil in the Middle East to game the election, we should know more about that.

Late Update: This article in the Israeli daily Haaretz adds credence to the conclusion that that is precisely what's happening.

Here are two key grafs from the Haaretz article ...

Also Friday, security sources said that, bowing to White House pressure Israel intends to wait until after the U.S. presidential election in November before uprooting the Jewish settlements in Gaza.

The security sources said Sharon recognized the Bush administration's concern that implementing his unilateral pullout plan during the U.S. campaign could cause political problems by fuelling instability in Palestinian areas.


This should get more attention in the American press.

Questions about the Plame investigation from today's <$NoAd$>gaggle ...

QUESTION: Can you also confirm that Air Force One documents -- been handed over to a federal grand jury?

McClellan: Well, I would just say that we are, at the direction of the President, cooperating fully with those who are leading the investigation. We are complying with every request, and we will continue to comply fully with the requests from those who are leading this investigation. No one wants to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States.

QUESTION: So they were handed over?

McClellan: Well, we did send -- the White House Counsel's Office did send a letter out to White House staff, urging everybody to comply fully with the request from the investigators, and that's exactly what we are doing. But, yes, at this point we're still in the process of complying fully with those requests. We have provided the Department of Justice investigators with much of the information and we're continuing to provide them with additional information and comply fully with the request for information.

QUESTION: -- these latest subpoenas that were reported today?

McClellan: I think that's the context in which Heidi was asking her question.

QUESTION: But you're answering more broadly. I'm looking for confirmation you got the subpoenas and that you responded to them.

McClellan: Yes, our Counsel's Office immediately sent a letter to White House staff, directing everyone to cooperate fully and comply with the request from those leading the investigation.

QUESTION: What was the date of that letter?

McClellan: I can double-check the specific date. It was -- you know, part of our complying fully with the request of the Department of Justice investigators was not making this document public, as well.

QUESTION: But this was not the broad directive from --

McClellan: It was the latter part of January. I didn't check the exact, specific date, but it was the latter part of January.

QUESTION: Was it in response to this set of subpoenas we're hearing about today?

McClellan: Was what in response --

QUESTION: The White House Counsel's directive.

McClellan: Yes. Yes.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

McClellan: We immediately sent a letter out to White House staff, urging everyone to comply fully with the request.

QUESTION: Can you say how many subpoenas were received, Scott?

McClellan: Mark, I think you ought to direct those specific questions to those who are leading the investigation. Again, as I said, we're complying fully with their request, and that includes not making that letter that we sent to White House staff public.

QUESTION: Scott, does either the President or Secretary Card have a policy on whether it's acceptable for White House aides to take the Amendment when they're asked questions in this case?

McClellan: Well, keep in mind that by law, grand jury investigations are closed, and prosecutors and grand jurors cannot reveal anything about the proceedings. The President has made it very clear he wants everybody inside government and outside government to provide those who are leading the investigation with information that might help them get to the bottom of this. He's been very clear about this, but let me make clear that -- well, go ahead, Mike.

QUESTION: Go ahead.

McClellan: No, no. You were going to ask a question; go ahead.

QUESTION: Are you willing to say that White House aides who ask questions in this investigation should not take the 5th Amendment?

McClellan: Our policy, at the direction of the President, is that everybody should cooperate fully with those who are leading the investigation. That's our policy. I'm not going to speculate about grand jury proceedings. I have no knowledge of anyone invoking their legal right against self-incrimination. I checked with White House Counsel's Office, and they have no knowledge of anyone invoking their legal right against self-incrimination.

Jeff, go ahead.

QUESTION: Scott, it was a little difficult to hear the exchange that was going on, I want to make sure I understand what you've acknowledged responding to, subpoena-wise. You have responded to the subpoena for telephone records from Air Force One?

McClellan: Yes, we are complying fully with the request from the Department of Justice. I think you can ask them about the specific questions and issues -- the investigators, that is -- and, like I said, we prefer that you direct those questions to them, in our belief that that is helping them move the investigation forward.

QUESTION: Okay. One more thing on the jobs issue. You said the President --

McClellan: We are complying fully with that request, and we are continuing to comply with certain matters that have been requested. We're working very closely with the investigators on that.


More on this soon.

As I've noted in these pages before, I remain very conflicted about the politics of opting for gay marriage as opposed to civil unions. As I've also told you, my feelings and thoughts about this issue have moved a lot, even in the last few weeks.

But set aside for a moment what I think.

A group called Massequality is taking up the fight for gay marriage within the state of Massachusetts. Given the standing Massachusetts Supreme Court decision and the unlikelihood of a federal constitutional amendment actually getting enacted, that means that to make gay marriage a reality in the state (and not just a brief blip) supporters of gay marriage will have to prevent the state from amending its own constitution to overturn that court decision.

In Massachusetts, to amend the constitution the amendment needs to be approved in two consecutive joint legislative sessions and then voted on in a statewide referendum.

The state legislature will try to act on this for the first time on March 11th, i.e., next Thursday. Given what I just described above, the soonest the court ruling could be overturned is in 2006.

But if supporters of gay marriage can defeat that amendment in this session, they'll gain another two years before gay marriage can be banned in the state and likely go a long way to making it permanent.

That's what Massequality is trying to accomplish. March 11th is less than a week away. If you care about this issue, they need your support right now. Visit the site.

Here's a somewhat (but somewhat is better than none!) optimistic take from CBS News on the Dems' chances of taking back the Senate this year. The author mentions Alaska, Colorado and Pennsylvania as states where the Dems could pick up Republican seats. Of course, the Dems also have a slew of vulnerable seats they'll need to hold to prevent themselves from falling even further behind.

Here's today gaggle exchange on <$NoAd$>the 5th Amendment question ...

Question: Scott, does either the President or Secretary Card have a policy on whether it's acceptable for White House aides to take the Amendment when they're asked questions in this case?

McCLELLAN: Well, keep in mind that by law, grand jury investigations are closed, and prosecutors and grand jurors cannot reveal anything about the proceedings. The President has made it very clear he wants everybody inside government and outside government to provide those who are leading the investigation with information that might help them get to the bottom of this. He's been very clear about this, but let me make clear that -- well, go ahead, Mike.

Question: Go ahead.

McCLELLAN: No, no. You were going to ask a question; go ahead.

Question: Are you willing to say that White House aides who ask questions in this investigation should not take the 5th Amendment?

McCLELLAN: Our policy, at the direction of the President, is that everybody should cooperate fully with those who are leading the investigation. That's our policy. I'm not going to speculate about grand jury proceedings. I have no knowledge of anyone invoking their legal right against self-incrimination. I checked with White House Counsel's Office, and they have no knowledge of anyone invoking their legal right against self-incrimination.


Many of those reporters in that room think Scott McClellan is a pretty decent guy -- certainly in comparison to his predecessor; reasonably candid in off-the-record situations, and so forth. And this was a tough question to answer. But I think we can infer pretty clearly that his boss is not willing to say that his aides shouldn't be taking the fifth when Patrick Fitzgerald's investigators come calling. And that puts his call for cooperation in a certain context.

A number of other Plame related questions were discussed today. We'll bring you those a little later this evening.

Just to keep the record <$NoAd$>straight ...

"I am confident that this economic recovery will now be sustained and will produce loads of new jobs. Everything we know about economics indicates that the sort of economic growth expected for next year, 3.8 to 4 per cent, will translate into two million new jobs from the third quarter of this year to the third quarter of next year. That’s an average of about 200,000 new jobs a month ... What gives me confidence? Everything we know about economics and history. Consumption and housing remain strong. Now capital spending is clearly coming back and inventories are at astonishingly low levels. Jobs are always a lagging indicator which follows economic growth. I would stake my reputation on employment growth happening before Christmas. I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that we are going to see a pick-up in employment in 2004."



Treasury Secretary John Snow
interviewed in July 2003
quoted in the London Times
October 20th, 2003


"U.S. employers added a paltry 21,000 workers to their payrolls last month, according to a surprisingly weak government report that appears certain to weigh on President George W. Bush as he seeks re-election ...

The report also showed job creation in December and January was weaker than previously thought, adding to the gloomy tone of the report. The department revised lower its count of jobs gains in January to 97,000 from 112,000 and for December to just 8,000 from 16,000."

"U.S. Jobs Growth Surprisingly Weak"
Reuters
March 5th, 2004


"This Administration is not satisfied with today’s job creation numbers. Although our economy added jobs for the sixth straight month and the unemployment rate remains at a level below the average of the past three decades, the recent pace of job growth is not as strong as we'd like to see. This is particularly true given the recent rapid rate of economic growth.

The critical issue as we move forward is what must be done to encourage job creation through continued economic growth. One thing we know for certain – raising taxes on millions of American families is not the answer. It is imperative that Congress act to make the tax cuts permanent."

Treasury Secretary John Snow
Treasury Dept. Press Release
March 5th 2004


Special thanks to TPM reader JS.

Scott McClellan finally got asked the 5th amendment question this afternoon with respect to the Plame investigation.

He said that he had "no knowledge" of anyone taking the 5th.

He said he checked with the Counsel's office too; and their response was apparently the same, i.e., no knowledge.

I'm told part two of the question (i.e., whether President Bush's order of cooperation would be consistent with members of his staff taking the fifth) got asked in some form. And McClellan's response was simply to restate in general terms the president's "policy" that everyone should cooperate with the investigation.

We'll bring you more details later.

A reader wrote in this morning noting CNN's report that US forces will "soon implement high-tech surveillance tactics in the region [where bin Laden is thought to be], enabling them to monitor the area 24 hours a day, seven days a week." He said this sounded like a pretty good idea since the 9-5 M/F approach hadn't panned out so far.

That's a cheeky line; but it does point to a valid question. Why now?

Now, one of the dangers of any sort of opinion commentary, and blogging in particular, is that you're constantly tempted to comment on or venture an opinion on a topic that you know something about, but yet not all the relevant details. And this is certainly one of those cases. But this sudden rush of new resources into the bin Laden hunt really does seem to cry out for some explanation about timing, doesn't it?

There does seem to be a certain post-winter seasonal logic to the ramping up of the effort. But then this is the third spring since 9/11, not the first.

Why didn't we throw all these resources into the search in early 2002 or early 2003?

We know that too few resources were put into the search for bin Laden in the months just after the fall of the Taliban. At a minimum it seems we left too much of the effort in the hands of local allies -- the Northern Alliance, tribal allies, the Pakistanis -- whose motivation to capture bin Laden wasn't as clear or strong as ours, though that is, to be fair, probably more clear in retrospect than it was at the time.

We also know that we were drawing forces out of Afghanistan over the course of 2002 to build up for our invasion of Iraq. And making a full-court press in the spring of 2003 likely would have been difficult while we were focusing so many resources on Iraq.

But that's an argument the administration is presumably wary of making since it would show, in the most direct way, that the rush to invasion in Iraq sidetracked our battle against al Qaida. The decision-making in 2002/2003 is arguably more problematic since, unlike what may have been the case a year earlier, the trade-offs in that decision should have been clear at the time.

One possible answer to the 'why now' question is that it's now possible because of the deal we just cut with Pakistan. But that begs the question of why that deal happened now as opposed to two years ago and what we had to give up to get it.

In any case, as I say, I don't want to presuppose the answer to this question. The timing may be tied to changes in the internal political situation in Pakistan or the deal we just cut over the A.Q. Khan nuclear network.

But I think we do have to ask this question. We've been after bin Laden for more than two and a half years. Why the rush of new ground forces and high-tech gizmos in the lead-up to the presidential election?

Now that the Newsday article -- discussed below -- has provided a new hook for the Plame story, it's really time for some member of the White House press corps to pose the 5th amendment question to Scott McClellan.

The question has two parts.

First: Does the White House know whether any White House appointees or employees have invoked their fifth amendment rights in the Plame investigation?

Second: Is the president's order to his staff to cooperate with the investigation consistent with his aides or appointees invoking their fifth amendment rights while remaining on the White House payroll?

The first question probably won't generate much of an answer because he may well not know. And he could credibly say that he has no way or knowing what's going on in confidential interviews and grand jury sessions.

But the second question should clarify just how much cooperation the president is calling for.

File this one under friggin' unbelievable.

You'll remember the much-touted mobile biological weapons labs which now seem never to have existed. The overwhelming consensus within the US Intelligence Community now seems to be that those trailers we found soon after the war ended were actually for making hydrogen for weather balloons.

That didn't stop Dick Cheney from claiming less than two months ago that they were in fact for making biological weapons. But, alas, I digress.

In any case, in all the investigations now underway, we're trying to retrace our steps and see how we went wrong on these trailors.

According to an article by Walter Pincus in tomorrow's Post, it turns out that the main source for the claim -- an Iraqi chemical engineer -- was never even interviewed by American intelligence officers.

In fact, we didn't even know his name. We relied entirely on a foreign intelligence agency -- in whose custody he then was and in which he apparently remains -- to vouch for his credibility.

Really, this goes beyond issues of credibility since we'd want to have our own people interview the guy to get an idea whether he even had any idea what he was talking about, let alone whether he was on the level.

The only other person who could support or confirm this guy's story was another defector, a Iraqi major supplied to the US by Chalabi's folks at the INC.

He, it turns out, had already been "red-flagged" by the DIA for having provided unreliable information about Iraq's mobile bioweapons program. But DIA analysts, it seems, hadn't circulated that judgment widely enough through the rest of the Intelligence Community.

Now we know the engineers name. And that's only made us more eager to have him sit down with our guys. Because it turns out that the engineer is related to a senior member of the INC.

Imagine that.

It's bad enough that Chalabi and the INC helped scam us into war. But the ultimate indignity they've subjected us to has to be forcing us to endure investigations of our own intelligence services that read like Monty Python scripts.

LiveWire