Josh Marshall

Josh Marshall is editor and publisher of TalkingPointsMemo.com.

Articles by Josh

New ICR poll, conducted September 1st-5th ...

With Nader, among 'likely voters': Bush:46, Kerry: 46, Nader: 4.

Without Nader, among 'likely voters': Bush 48, Kerry 47.

Without Nader, among 'registered voters': Bush 46, Kerry 47.

CBS has now gone live with its online promo for the Ben Barnes interview that is running tomorrow evening. But, as I noted earlier, that's not what the headline will be after the segment runs.

The big news won't be how Bush got into the Guard but how he blew off his duties once he got there. Again, new documents -- stuff that is clear and straightforward and apparently puts beyond any debate or doubt that the now-President blew off the duties that he said, as recently as this year, that he fulfilled.

Where would we be without Alan Keyes?

According to this new report, Keyes now says that Barack Obama is a "socialist" and a "liar". He accuses Obama of using anti-black racist code words. And he claims that if Jesus were still walking the earth today in the flesh and eligible to vote in the Illinois Senate election, that he would definitely not vote for Barack Obama.

So much for secret ballots!

Slimy as they wanna be ...

Cheney: Kerry Victory Will Bring Devastating Terrorist Attack.

(The AP's got the story.)

Feel the buzz. Contrary to what I had originally understood, the Ben Barnes interview is running Wednesday evening. But, I'm told by several sources that the Barnes' interview is only a relatively small part of the package 60 Minutes is running. There's other stuff that CBS has -- newly discovered, or at least newly-revealed, documents that shed light on Bush's guard service or lack thereof.

The text of a letter former President Carter sent to Zell <$NoAd$>Miller over the weekend ...

You seem to have forgotten that loyal Democrats elected you as mayor and as state senator. Loyal Democrats, including members of my family and me, elected you as lieutenant governor and as governor. It was a loyal Democrat, Lester Maddox, who assigned you to high positions in the state government when you were out of office. It was a loyal Democrat, Roy Barnes, who appointed you as U.S. Senator when you were out of office. By your historically unprecedented disloyalty, you have betrayed our trust.

Great Georgia Democrats who served in the past, including Walter George, Richard Russell, Herman Talmadge, and Sam Nunn disagreed strongly with the policies of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and me, but they remained loyal to the party in which they gained their public office. Other Democrats, because of philosophical differences or the race issue, like Bo Callaway and Strom Thurmond, at least had the decency to become Republicans.

Everyone knows that you were chosen to speak at the Republican Convention because of your being a “Democrat,” and it’s quite possible that your rabid and mean-spirited speech damaged our party and paid the Republicans some transient dividends.

Perhaps more troublesome of all is seeing you adopt an established and very effective Republican campaign technique of destroying the character of opponents by wild and false allegations. The Bush campaign’s personal attacks on the character of John McCain in South Carolina in 2000 was a vivid example. The claim that war hero Max Cleland was a disloyal American and an ally of Osama bin Laden should have given you pause, but you have joined in this ploy by your bizarre claims that another war hero, John Kerry, would not defend the security of our nation except with spitballs. (This is the same man whom you described previously as “one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders -- and a good friend.")

I, myself, never claimed to have been a war hero, but I served in the navy from 1942 to 1953, and, as president, greatly strengthened our military forces and protected our nation and its interests in every way. I don’t believe this warrants your referring to me as a pacificist.

Zell, I have known you for forty-two years and have, in the past, respected you as a trustworthy political leader and a personal friend. But now, there are many of us loyal Democrats who feel uncomfortable in seeing that you have chosen the rich over the poor, unilateral preemptive war over a strong nation united with others for peace, lies and obfuscation over the truth, and the political technique of personal character assassination as a way to win elections or to garner a few moments of applause. These are not the characteristics of great Democrats whose legacy you and I have inherited.

I contacted President Carter's office for comment and his press spokesperson Deanna Congileo told me that the letter was a private communication and that President Carter would not be issuing further comment.

The lede of this AP article reads: "Democrat John Kerry accused President Bush on Monday of sending U.S. troops to the “wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time” and said he’d try to bring them all home in four years. Bush rebuked him for taking “yet another new position” on the war."

Simple advice for the Kerry campaign: keep the fire concentrated and tightly focused. The Democrats message on this is simple: the president lied the country into the war and then he screwed it up.

One, two. Two points. Simple as that. Everything else obscures the message. Both on principle and for tactical reasons, I don't think one presidential candidate should call the other a liar (call me old-fashioned). But the point can be made with appropriate language and surrogates can be more direct.

And as long as the president keeps misrepresenting Kerry's position on the war, starting him on flipflops. Which ones? Wanting to make Chalabi president of Iraq, now accusing him of being an Iranian spy. Wanting to have Halliburton run Iraq, now pulling their contracts. The list is truly endless.

These are sweeteners to be added for variety and entertainment. The two points above are the keys -- to be hit on again and again and again. They're effective because they're true and any look at the polls shows the public knows it.

I'd be very curious to hear the backstory on this article in the Times. It's a follow-on piece on the Franklin investigation at the Pentagon, entitled 'Spy Case Renews Debate Over Pro-Israel Lobby's Ties to Pentagon.'

It might have been better titled -- All Neocons Get to Place Quotes Saying They Were Framed By CIA, FBI, Other Establishment Wusses.

Whenever the neocons come under investigative scrutiny their defense is always that the investigations are a put-up by their bureaucratic enemies. And this piece seems almost entirely devoted to their unsubstantiated claims of the same.

Bureaucratic infighting happens of course. But these investigations are far more frequently the result of their recklessness, indifference to procedure and simple bad-acts.

On a deeper level, the defense is related to a mindset we often see in their analysis of intelligence. Just as they tend to discount the idea of disinterested intelligence analysis -- i.e., analysis that is not simply a cover for ideologically-driven opinion -- they are similarly unable or unwilling to see investigations such as these as anything other than a manifestation of ideological turf wars inside the executive branch.

Needless to say, I don't impute such views to all who could be classed as having 'neo-conservative' ideas or foreign policy views. But it is very much the case with this particular crew of neoconservative national security street-fighters who circulate in and out of government.

Along those lines, there is also a veritable smorgasbord of schadenfreude contained in this Times article on Richard Perle's latest troubles in the multiple investigations into Hollinger Inc.

Last we left this story, the report into the looting of the corporation had found that Hollinger was "an entity in which ethical corruption was a defining characteristic." And having found the management of the company to be such a model of integrity, the report went on to reserve its harshest criticisms for Perle, accusing him or "putting his own interests about those of Hollinger's shareholders" and "repeatedly breach[ing] his fiducicary duties."

Some passages seem worth quoting in their entirety ...

With the notable exception of Perle, none of Hollinger’s non-Black Group directors derived any financial or other improper personal benefits from their service on Hollinger’s Board. Unlike Black and Radler, Hollinger’s independent directors did not enrich themselves at the Company’s expense, did not misappropriate corporate opportunities belonging to Hollinger, and did not in any other way engage in self-dealing ... It is, of course, possible for a conflicted board member to act at least somewhat responsibly. As a conflicted executive committee member, however, Perle did not. Rather, his executive committee performance falls squarely into the 'head-in-the-sand' behavior that breaches a director's duty of good faith and renders him liable for damages.

In the latest turn of events, Perle has turned on Conrad Black. In a statement Perle released from his redoubt in the south of France, he now says that the conniving Black pulled the wool over his eyes. Perle of course was duped and given millions of dollars in the process, unlike the shareholders in the company who were duped and fleeced of their assets. So it seems things could be worse for him.

Along the lines noted at the head of this post, when I first heard about this, I was almost tempted to wonder when we'd hear that the Breedon Report -- the one which points such a finger of blame at Perle -- was actually a put up job by the Arabists at the CIA. But apparently this is a case where humor can't outrun sorry reality. In the words of the Times, "Mr. Perle's friends say that he is the victim of unjustified attacks that are motivated more by policy vendettas than substance."

And one other passage from the Times article that is worth noting ...

But others who have known Mr. Perle over the years say that he has been a consummate risk taker in both his business dealings and in some of the foreign policies he advocated, and that he ultimately may have been lured by millions of dollars in compensation and benefits to put aside ethical considerations, as the Breeden report concluded.

"Richard has always been willing to take the highest risks, playing for the highest stakes on policy issues over the years and often winning, but this is also really a story of being seduced by money," said Mr. Gelb, a former official at the State and Defense departments and a former columnist at The New York Times. "People in the foreign policy world do not make a lot of money. They go to think tanks, government, academe, and generally get $125,000 to $150,000 a year. When you are touched by lightning and manage to get into the inner sanctum to make money, the opportunities are delicious."

High-risk gamesmanship on other people's dime, cutting ethical and legal corners, blaming it on someone else when the racket goes south ... Sound like anything else Mr. Perle's been associated with recently?