Josh Marshall

Josh Marshall is editor and publisher of TalkingPointsMemo.com.

Articles by Josh

Let them eat Adam Smith and keep their invisible hands to themselves ...

U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas Donohue says those who lose their jobs to off-shoring -- about a quarter of a million folks a year -- should "stop whining."

Actually, I think those selfish grumblers should stop their complaining too because they're not the only ones who are suffering.

If it weren't for the million-plus jobs lost to export of jobs overseas since President Bush took office, he wouldn't still be struggling to create his first net new job since the Supreme Court made him president way back when.

So, personally, I'd like to join my voice to Tom Donohue's and advise these whiners to start beating the pavement for a new service sector job and focusing on the sufferings of our fearless leader rather than always having it be about me, me, me!

This month, in The Atlantic Monthly, I have an article on John Kerry's foreign policy and, more broadly, where the Dems are on foreign policy in the post-9/11 and -- one can only hope -- soon-to-be post-Bush era.

In the course of reporting that article I talked to various Democratic bigwigs and smallwigs. And one of those in the former category was Sen. Joe Biden (D) of Delaware, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a possible contender for Secretary of State should John Kerry win in November -- the other two main contenders being Richard Holbrooke and Sandy Berger.

It was an extensive interview covering various contemporary foreign policy debates. And I found it extremely enlightening about the differences that separate the parties today as well as the divisions and directions of the Dems.

In any case, we'll be publishing the interview in three parts, with the first part hopefully coming later this afternoon or early tomorrow.

Imagine that. Back a year and a half ago, we here at TPM went on for several days telling you about the case of Allen Raymond, once head of GOP Marketplace LLC, a phone bank operation, and all-around GOP jack-of-all-trades.

As we reported back then, the New Hampshire GOP had hired him to do phone banking work on election day 2002 when Senator John Sununu pulled off his close-call victory over out-going Governor Jeanne Shaheen.

Somehow, though -- and it's always amazing how these things happen -- that innocent effort turned into a campaign to jam the phone lines of the Democrats' get-out-the-vote operation on election day, with a phone bank out in Idaho making countless five-second hang-up calls to phone numbers of the Democratic coordinated campaign offices as well as the offices of the Manchester firefighters union, which was also doing get-out-the-vote work that morning.

The Executive Director of the New Hampshire GOP, Chuck McGee, resigned -- not because he hired Raymond but because he lied about it to the local paper. McGee, of course, had no idea how things had gone so terribly awry. And before long he had resurfaced as the state head of Citizens for a Sound Economy, C. Boyden Gray's anti-tax outfit that the old Bushie now runs with Dick Armey.

In any case, the hunt was on to find out how this dreadful misunderstanding had taken place.

We did our own bit of sleuthing and found out that Raymond was also the Executive Director of the Republican Leadership Council -- an outfit run by a long list of Republican worthies -- and that his company had done phone banking for them on election day too. And Steve Kornacki of PoliticsNJ.com found out that Raymond also seemed to be behind another phone banking scandal in New Jersey.

(If you're interested in all the gory details, go to the TPM seach page and stick in Raymond's name.)

In any case, as you might expect, Raymond denied the whole thing. Until today that is, when he copped a plea in U.S. District Court in Concord.

In a statement out today, the Executive Director of the state Democrats, Michael Vlacich, says, "While Allen Raymond of GOP Marketplace was charged in this case, the US Attorney makes it clear that there are co-conspirators, both known and unknown. We urge the U.S. Attorney to continue working to bring all of the people involved in this matter to justice."

Another book recommendation: Diarmaid MacCulloch's The Reformation: A History just out from Viking.

I've been hunting around for a good single volume history of the Reformation for years. And this is a very, very good book. The parts of the era about which I have some detailed knowledge -- particularly the English Reformation, and its echo in the American colonies -- are gracefuly and judiciously handled. The rest was told in a way I always found accessible and clear.

A book like this is a joy to read because the author's deep mastery of the topic shines through effortlessly page after page, allowing him to anticipate developments further down in the narrative and refer back to earlier discussions while never letting the reader get lost in the shuffle. With a topic as broad as Reformation history, spanning almost two centuries, fracturing into different confessional histories, with different tempos and outcomes in different parts of Europe, that sort of command is essential for the story not to descend into chaos or a crude textbookish regimentation.

The emphasis is on ideology -- the internal dimensions of religious thought and theological transformation -- rather than the economic and political trends that shaped the period, though those issues are by no means short-changed. Neither are movements of Catholic renewal, reform and reassertion crowded out or shortchanged by the story of the growth of Protestantism.

If there's any criticism I have of the book it's that it is marred by an occasional infelicity of language or perhaps minute editing errors. If every book had so few it would be a blessing. And I mean perhaps as few as a dozen in a book that runs hundreds of pages. But here it presents a certain level of distraction much as one might find listening to a LP of a brilliantly conducted symphony which nonetheless has three or four scratches that stand out all the more for the excellence of the recording.

In any case, that's a minor matter, just something I thought I'd note. If this topic interests you, this book will not disappoint you.

I'm never sure with William Safire where the line is between Safire the snookered and Safire the snookerer. Nor am I sure which is the case in this instance. (With so many permutations of snookerhood I need a language maven to sort out all the possibilities. But I'm not sure he'd take my call.)

Safire is now the first columnist to grab hold of the story which ran in Financial Times on Monday alleging A) a new trove of evidence that Iraq and other nations were illicitly seeking to purchase uranium from Niger and B) that the mystery of who is behind the notorious Niger uranium forgeries has been solved.

The FT story is yet to have been picked up by other news outlets in the United States but it has become a matter of acute interest and frenzied promotion for what I guess we'd call certain interested parties in Washington. And I half suspect that one of them put Safire on to his piece.

In any case, to Safire ...

Safire's claim is that the CIA ignored solid intelligence -- principally from the Italians, but also from the Brits and the French -- and then fumbled the ball irretrievably by getting bamboozled by the phony documents.

Here's Safire ...

A close reading of the article suggests the original human source was Italian, whose tip was confirmed by British and French electronic intercepts. C.I.A. analysts, who often disdain data not gathered by us, ignored the real thing until they were suckered by the forged documents.

That's astonishing. Is that really how it happened? Not really.

This is an object lesson in how if you're going to run with a story based largely on disinformation from two foreign intelligence services, it's worth cranking up the Nexis database at least to get yourself up to speed on what's already known about the story. Otherwise, things can really get messy.

As is known, even from published sources, the Italians first sent Washington their reports about alleged sales of uranium from Niger to Iraq in late 2001. The FT article and Safire suggest that this choice information was ignored by the CIA.

Not so.

For better or worse, the American intelligence community's assumptions about an Iraqi nuclear program -- as opposed to the Bush White House's late, pre-war propaganda campaign, which was quite a different thing -- were not principally tied to the Niger uranium story. But the US government's interest in the Niger uranium story did stem from the information received from the Italians in late 2001.

They weren't ignored at all. Indeed, with no little pressure from Vice President Cheney, it was based on that and a subsequent report from the Italians that Joe Wilson was sent to Niger in the spring of 2002.

The essential falsehood in Safire's tale is the claim that that supposedly choice info from the Italians had no connection to those phony documents. But that's not true. Not true at all.

You can approach this on a different level. Safire would like us to believe the Bush White House, faced last July with a PR catastrophe over the president's use of the Niger uranium claim in the State of the Union address, decided to fold its cards and issue a series of rather abject apologies even though they had this rock-solid intelligence that they could have used to go on the offensive. That make sense to you? Me neither.

There's a lot of disinformation coming down the pike on this and related stories. Safire is just the peddler of the day, enabled by the fact that he's either uninterested or indifferent to checking out the facts of the story.

There's a body of sociological literature which shows that when the world does not come to an end on the day prescribed by this or that messianic cult, the cult usually does not fall apart. Rather, their belief only tends to intensify to still greater levels. Safire seems to be an example of the same phenomenon only applied to Iraqi WMD cult.

Now, before signing off for the evening, another point about Safire and the FT article -- but this one is more speculative.

One premise of the two FT articles was that smugglers were getting uranium from derelict (and thus unguarded and unregulated) mines in Niger to sell to five countries.

Safire mentions three of the alleged countries: Iran, Iraq and Libya. The FT includes the other two: North Korea and China.

On its face, it's not inconceivable that countries seeking nuclear weapons technology like Iran, Iraq, Libya and North Korea would be in the market for illicit supplies of processed uranium.

But China? Last time I checked China is an acknowledged nuclear power and has been for decades. They also have a growing civilian nuclear power program. Perhaps most to the point they have big uranium mines in their own country and a national monopoly company (the China National Nuclear Corporation) charged with the running the mines and the nearby-located processing facilities. The IAEA says the Chinese have the domestic capacity to process 1200 tons of uranium a year.

Now, I don't know the precise needs of Chinese civilian and military nuclear activities. But given their own domestic capabilities, how likely is it that they're going to try to cut a deal with low-rent smugglers to get some uranium from derelict (and thus not very productive) mines in Niger? Does that make sense?

I'd be curious to hear from non-proliferation folks on how great China's need is for foreign imports of processed uranium and whether they're so desperate as to resort to negotiations with smugglers who say they can get some uranium out of some abandoned mines in Niger.

I've had a bunch of readers write in to ask why I haven't had anything to say about Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911 and whether there's anything to be read into my silence.

In a word, no.

I've been out of the country for the better part of the last two weeks. And I simply haven't had a chance to see it yet. Thus, my comments or thoughts on it would seem of vanishing little significance.

I plan to see it soon.

For all its many discontents, and there are certainly many, I enjoy Washington's cadences and tempo. I don't mean Washington as a metaphor or a power center, but the particular place that I live, the way that the early evening sunlight gleams off the building fronts. If for no other reason than the slow accretion of time in the place, it feels like home. And with the exception of a few 24 hour or 36 hour stays, I hadn't been here in many weeks.

I just landed at Reagan National about an hour ago from New York and immediately raced over to my local Starbucks, which seems to emanate some cosmic force which makes TPM posts glide off my fingertips.

One point, before more posts later.

Yesterday I noted a CBS/NYT poll, highlighting a pick-up for President Bush on the horse-race numbers and the seeming advantage he was gaining from a rebounding, if not fiery, economy.

That was, I must admit, a quick post. And looking at the results a bit more closely, I think I got the emphasis wrong. President Bush's approval rating rests at 42%. Meanwhile, 60% say the Iraq war has not been worth the cost. In other words, that it was a mistake.

(See my Hill column out this evening for more on that latter point.)

Those two numbers, particularly the first, are really close to the whole story. Incumbent presidents who fall short of 50% approval are in some danger. Those who aren't much over 40% are fighting for their political lives, with a poor prognosis.

The economy does continue to be an advantage for the president. But Iraq -- and the myriad of assumptions, policies and repercussions it represents -- is what this election is all about. I take it as a given that virtually no Gore voters from 2000 will pull the lever for Bush. But how many lightly-committed Bush voters from 2000 will hold him to account if they believe he gambled big and gambled unwisely with America's honor and safety, and came up short? I think more than a few. And since there were more Gore voters than Bush voters last time anyway, well ...

Travel day -- more posts later this afternoon/evening.

Who would have thought that this year's presidential race would turn on whether a rebounding economy could save President Bush from the public's congealing sense that his entire Iraq venture was a mistake?

CBS/NYT has a new poll out showing a Bush rebound and a neck-and-neck race, with the president's rise due to public perceptions of an improving economy?

One sounding means little in itself, of course. But this does seem to be the general direction -- a slow upward drift based on a recovering economy contending with the majority's belief that the president's foreign policy is fundamentally flawed.

We are all up in arms right now, it seems, about Vice President Dick Cheney, and the fact that Cheney told one of the more irenic of Democratic senators to "f--k off" in a brief exchange on the Senate floor last Tuesday because the senator in question, Pat Leahy (Democrat of Vermont) had earlier had the temerity to raise questions about lucrative no-bid Iraqi contracts secured by his former employer Halliburton.

Certainly, Cheney and his partisans deserve the knuckle-rapping they're now getting. And it's entertaining to watch avatars of dignity, good order and responsibility like Bill Frist and the folks over at the White House call Cheney's antics good clean fun and politics as usual.

But for those who have few good things to say about the vice-president, I think, the correct response is less outrage than the sort of grim (or perhaps not so grim) satisfaction one feels when a malign character unwittingly reveals himself to a larger audience. Because even if Cheney "felt better" after his outburst, this wasn't a show of strength but one of desperation or, perhaps, impatient impotence.

I think Joe Klein has it right in the title of his new column in Time -- ("Plenty More to Swear About: Bush's security team faces a barrage of criticism as the facts about Iraq come to light"). As Klein writes, last week's "assorted temper tantrums appeared to be a leading indicator of a gathering summer storm confronting this presidency."

Consider for a moment. Who is Dick Cheney? What do we know of him? None of us like being questioned or critized. But in him the disinclination runs particularly deep. He prefers to act in secrecy and is a man to whom government transparency has all the allure that a shaft of sunlight has to a vampire. When challenged, violence seems always to be his preferred method of response, that of first resort --- often a literal sort on the world stage, but with bureaucratic (viz. Plame) and what we might call verbal violence at home. By verbal violence I mean specifically tough talk and threats meant to frighten people away from challenging him further, to knock them on their heels. Even this new case -- saying Leahy et al. had it coming -- is but another example. When that doesn't work, he gets sloppy.

Cheney et al. can see all sorts of bad business coming down the pike in the next few months -- much of it already on the public radar screen, some of it still clogged up no doubt in back channels, newsrooms and new rounds of dirty-tricksterism. It seems clearly to be getting to them.