Josh Marshall

Josh Marshall is editor and publisher of TalkingPointsMemo.com.

Articles by Josh

Misleading at best ...

On our sister site yesterday, David Gelber called readers attention to a piece by Mark Danner in the New York Review of Books in which Danner writes that "Never in my experience has frank mendacity so dominated our public life."

(The piece is actually an edited version of a recent commencement address.)

There was a good example of the point on the front page of yesterday's Washington Post, in an article by Dan Eggen and Julie Tate.

The upshot of the piece is fairly straightforward. In the push for the renewal of the Patriot Act, the president and other administration officials have been publicly and volubly claiming that the administration's tough anti-terrorism tactics have resulted in some 400 terrorism-related indictments, with more than half of those leading to convictions.

Only, as Eggen and Tate point out, that's not true.

The president is telling people his administration has nabbed some 400 terrorists. But actually the overwhelming majority of the cases don't involve terrorists in any way. They're people who got swept up in this or that terrorist investigation and then got nabbed for some immigration violation or false statement to investigators.

In the words of the Post: "Among all the people charged as a result of terrorism probes in the three years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, The Post found no demonstrated connection to terrorism or terrorist groups for 180 of them." Most of the remainder had nothing to do with al Qaida but were rather narco-traffickers, Palestinians accused of armed violence against Israel, Rwandan war criminals and others.

For the details, see the piece. The point though is that the president is out on the hustings spouting what in common English we call a 'lie'. And yet the best the Post writers can do is say that the president's "numbers are misleading at best."

This isn't so much a criticism of the writers who wrote a thorough and important piece, or even the Post which placed it on A1.

But it does illustrate on aspect of Danner's point: Public mendacity, statements meant to deceive the public on matters of great import, have become so commonplace that they now barely hold any capacity to shock. And the best journalism can do is issue anemic phrases like "misleading at best."

A phrase which is, in this case, itself misleading at best.

It's always curious how some people succeed wildly in one line of business and then fail just as miserably in another.

A fine example seems to be that of Mitchell Wade.

Wade is the owner of MZM, Inc., a defense contractor, which says on its website that it has "Offices in Washington, D.C.; Baltimore, Md.; Charlottesville, Va.; Tampa, Fla.; Martinsville, Va.; San Diego, Calif.; Seoul, South Korea; Stuttgart, Germany; and Baghdad, Iraq."

Back in November 2003, Wade was apparently looking for a house to purchase and 'flip' in the San Diego area. So he purchased the San Diego home of Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R), a prominent member of the House Appropriations Committee's Defense Subcommittee, for $1,675,000.

But pretty much from the start Wade dealt himself deep in the hole because he turned around and put it right back up for sale at about the same price. As you can see, here Wade severely constrained his ability to profit from reselling the house because he was offering to sell it for the same price he'd just bought it for.

But things only got worse from there.

As this article in today's San Diego Union-Tribune explains, the house sat unbought and unoccupied for 261 days. And Wade had apparently seriously overestimated the value of the property.

When the place finally sold, it went for only $975,000, thus saddling the unfortunate Wade with a loss of some $700,000.

I guess it goes without saying that that experience probably soured Wade on the real estate game for good.

But at the same time as all this was happening, according to the article, Wade's defense contracting business started going like gang-busters. In the words of the article, "Wade, who had been suffering through a flat period in winning Pentagon contracts, was on a tear – reeling in tens of millions of dollars in defense and intelligence-related contracts."

(Cunningham is also a member of House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.)

Now, it seems some pesky government do-gooder types are asking whether something might not have been quite above board about all this. When the Union-Tribune tried to get in touch with Wade, it turned out he was "traveling without access to a telephone." But MZM official Scotty Brumett explained that -- contrary to what I had assumed -- the purchase was not part of a money-making venture but the company's effort to raise its profile in the San Diego area: "We were looking at expanding our company presence in San Diego. We looked at the property and thought it would work for us. But after we bought it, we realized that it did not meet our security or our corporate needs."

Meanwhile, Cunningham told the paper that "My whole life I've lived aboveboard. I've never even smoked a marijuana cigarette ... I feel very confident that I haven't done anything wrong."

Cunningham told the paper he couldn't discuss the contracts he'd helped MZM land because they were "very, very classified."

There's a very apt analysis at Gadflyer of the Times piece today on life expectancy and how it affects the Social Security debate. Spot on. Disappointing work.

Times of London ...

MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.

The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier. The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal.

More here ...

Perhaps this shouldn't surprise me; but it does. Sen. Mel Martinez (R) of Florida yesterday gave a partial endorsement of Sen. Biden's call to shutdown the prison camp (let's call it what it is) at Guantanamo Bay.

Martinez isn't a senator like Hagel or McCain. He's Bush's former HUD secretary. And he was elected, more or less, as a Bush proxy.

I'm not sure I have anything to add at the moment to the growing chorus of outrage at what we've collectively allowed to happen just off our shores. But there is some mix of grim appropriateness and shameful symmetry to the fact that we've chosen the one piece of territory in the Americas free of free elections, civil rights and civil liberties to build our own human rights free zone.

I'm a bit embarrassed to say that I hadn't heard of this book before today. But it's one I'm certainly interested in reading and one I imagine a lot of TPM Readers would be too. Please note, I have not read the book yet. So I can't say it's a recommendation per se. But I want to bring it to your attention.

It's called The Plot Against Social Security : How the Bush Plan Is Endangering Our Financial Future. And it just came out in May.

It's by Michael Hiltzik, a business columnist for the LA Times.

Here's part of what Publishers Weekly said about it ...

A Pulitzer Prize–winning financial journalist for the Los Angeles Times, Hiltzik gathers arguments made by a plethora of economists and skeptics into a comprehensive, biting critique of the privatization agenda and what he calls the "astroturf" alliance of right-wing ideologues, Wall Street opportunists and Republican political operatives that "aims to propagate, and then exploit, public ignorance." Prophecies of the Social Security trust fund's bankruptcy, he finds, are based on dubious and politically biased forecasts; more realistic projections have the trust fund growing nicely over the next 75 years. Even if doomsayers' predictions come true, he notes, the system's solvency can be safeguarded by straightforward fixes; simply lifting the cap on Social Security taxes—thus taxing high-income workers at the same rate as everyone else—would make up Bush's projected shortfall and then some, he says.

Sounds about right to <$NoAd$> me.

Late Update: TPM Reader DE sent in this note this morning: "I just finished reading The Plot Against Social Security, and it is an excellent book. A good background on the origins of the program, some depth on the phony assumptions that go into the pessimistic forecasts, what's behind the push for privatization, and some suggestions for truly helping social security. An easy and very educational read."

Later Update: And now TPM Reader NG chimes in: "Hiltzik's columns in the LATimes are uniformly excellent--he's been a must-read for me ever since he covered the supermarket strikes here. He deals with workers with real understanding."

This is interesting. You'll remember that a few months back three opponents of privatization went to one of the president's Bamboozlepalooza events and got tossed by someone who they were told was a Secret Service agent, even though they did nothing to disrupt the event in any way.

(It later emerged that the reason they were ejected was that they came in a car with a 'No Blood for Oil' bumper sticker.

To the best of my knowledge no one now disputes the fact that the three did nothing to merit ejection, even by the most draconian and Bush-true standards of president-fealty. And politicians of both parties in Colorado have condemned what happened.

The three involved as well as their supporters have been trying to find out since March just who the official was who ejected them, what the justification was and who he worked for.

At this point, the Secret Service has confirmed that the person in question did not work for them. And the White House has conceded that Mr. X was working as a volunteer for the White House. Both know the identity of the man. But both refuse to divulge the who he is or reveal any more about what happened.

Here's a piece in today's Rocky Mountain News on the latest. And here's more from the Denver Post.

Here's an important new development in the Social Security story.

According to this article by David Espo of the Associated Press, a group of senate Republicans met privately on Thursday to try to come up with a Republican consensus plan on a Social Security bill they can move through the Finance Committee and presumably on to the floor.

The key point: the plan under discussion not only jettisons private accounts, it seems also to jettison the key elements of the Bush Sorta-Pozen plan released little more than a month ago.

The devil would very much be in the details on this. But according to Espo, the plan under discussion would involve a gradual increase in the retirement age and a freeze, or near-freeze, in the annual wage-linked rise in benefits at retirement for upper-income earners.

Again, Espo's description is less precise than you'd want it to be to know exactly what was discussed. But what he seems to be saying is that unlike the early-May Bush plan (Bush Phase-Out 2.0?) which said it cut benefits for upper-income earners but actually cut them for almost everyone, this plan would really only cut them for upper-income earners.

To my reading, this sounds very much like the phase-out death rattle, the phase of a legislative struggle -- grimly reminiscent for some of us of late 1994 -- in which a doomed legislative initiative rapidly de-evolves into more and more pitiful and anemic forms of its original self before finally disappearing into thin air -- perhaps with not a few of its champions going 'poof' along with it.

Nothing more tasty on a summer day than a good mad-cow-burger. Take a look here at what we may be eating and why.