Josh Marshall

Josh Marshall is editor and publisher of TalkingPointsMemo.com.

Articles by Josh

Now, that's classic. A month or so after the Texas House Democrats hightailed it to Oklahoma to prevent the Tom DeLay re-redistricting, a state court ruled that the attempt to use the Department of Public Safety to track them down had in fact been illegal.

Since Gov. Rick Perry (R) and crew insist on knocking down every precedent in the state to get it done, the state senators have now gone to New Mexico in replay of the earlier saga. (New Mexico was apparently the choice because one of the abscondees recently had a heart attack and there were better or more convenient medical facilities nearby.) The most recent precedent down the drain is the one which requires a 2/3 vote in the state senate to bring a bill up for debate -- thus the senators' departure.

In any case, without the ability to use the state police, Republican state officials are now considering sending bounty-hunters across state lines to bring them back -- an idea you can certainly understand since bounty-hunters are such an upstanding and constitutionally-minded group of characters. Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) has helpfully obliged by issuing an opinion okaying the bounty hunter idea.

Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico, has provided the Dems with a state police detail to protect them and, reportedly, has vowed to press kidnapping charges against any bounty hunters who try to take them into custody.

Meanwhile, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, the ultimate author of all this ridiculousness, is off on a tour of the Middle East where, one would imagine, he'll fit right in.

Joe Conason nicely tracks the Republicans' new "So Sue Me" defense on intel manipulation. Also, don't miss this nice piece by Fred Kaplan in Slate, detailing how the president's actions on how well things are going in Iraq are speaking louder than his words. Note to my neocon friends: I think your "flypaper" line may be about to be withdrawn by HQ. Just a heads-up. Don't be the last one to find out.

"The Pentagon," according to the Associated Press, "is setting up a commodity-market style trading system in which investors would be able to bet on political and economic events in the Middle East — including the likelihood of assassinations and terrorist attacks ... A graphic on the market's Web page showed hypothetical futures contracts in which investors could trade on the likelihood that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat would be assassinated or Jordanian King Abdullah II would be overthrown."

Maybe this is a hot idea. But somehow I'd imagine we'd probably want to set this up as a front company, no?

On the other hand, progress is progress.

In the old days, all you could accomplish with mass-casualty terrorism was physical destruction, human suffering and death on a massive scale. Now, through effective market manipulation, you can achieve those ends and reap immense profits. Maybe even enough to fund the next terrorist attack.

Will there be derivatives?

As you know, Texas is a whole 'nother country. And they ain't kiddin'.

A little while back Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) called a special session of the Texas State legislature to reconsider re-redistricting. The effort couldn't be stopped in the Texas House. So now it came down to the state Senate.

There is a long-standing tradition in Texas that bills have to clear a super-majority (2/3) vote to get to the floor for a vote. And Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst (R), who runs the Senate, had promised he'd abide by that rule. Democrats had only barely enough Senators to block that two-thirds vote. So they'd have to hold very tight if they were going to have any shot at stopping this power-grab for a second time.

Now, it turns out they did hold tight. Improbably, they even got one Republican to come over to their side.

Then Dewhurst thought up a way to wiggle out of his pledge. It turns out he'd been misunderstood. He didn't say he'd never break the 2/3 rule. He just said he'd never break it in this special session. If the governor wanted to call yet another special session ... well, then all bets would be off.

This afternoon Perry called another special session (see the proclamation, with the time hastily marked in with felt-tip pen, here.).

Eleven of twelve Texas Democratic senators just grabbed a flight for Albuquerque.

The trio of quotations listed below called attention to the growing popularity of what conservatives are now calling the "flypaper" theory of our presence in Iraq.

The thinking goes something like this. These guerilla engagements we're seeing in Iraq may not be such a bad thing. What we're doing is attracting all the terrorists to Iraq (i.e., like "flypaper") so that a) they won't be attacking us in America and b) we can fight them there on our own terms. As Andrew Sullivan put it early this month, "Continued conflict in Iraq, in other words, needn't always be bad news. It may be a sign that we are drawing the terrorists out of the woodwork and tackling them in the open."

Now I can imagine a number of problems with this approach -- moral, tactical and strategic.

But isn't the main fallacy that there isn't some finite number of "terrorists" out there whom we can draw to one place, kill or arrest, and then be done with it? I mean, let's be honest: Is there really any shortage of these dudes? Are they gonna run out?

Do you remember Afghanistan? Not this 'Afghanistan', but the last 'Afghanistan.' The US-Pakistan-backed jihad against the Soviets made Afghanistan into a sort of jihad Club-Med where young Saudis could go for a few weeks or months of firing guns and fighting for God. (Of course, some stayed on rather longer.)

The idea is supposed to be to drain the swamp, not create a new swamp and spend all your time swatting all the mosquitoes that come to hang out and breed.

As a reader (Tom R.) wrote last night in an email to TPM, the "flypaper" theory makes about as much sense as a public health director saying "By creating a dirty hospital, we're going to create a place where we can fight the germs on our terms."

An interesting progression ...

But doing it as the Bush administration now intends is something like going outside and giving a few good whacks to a hornets' nest because you want to get them out in the open and have it out with them once and for all.

"Practice to Deceive"
Joshua Micah Marshall
Washington Monthly
April 2003

Being based in Iraq helps us not only because of actual bases; but because the American presence there diverts terrorist attention away from elsewhere. By confronting them directly in Iraq, we get to engage them in a military setting that plays to our strengths rather than to theirs'. Continued conflict in Iraq, in other words, needn't always be bad news. It may be a sign that we are drawing the terrorists out of the woodwork and tackling them in the open.

"Bring Them On"
Andrew Sullivan
July 3rd, 2003

Separately, Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, commander of coalition ground forces, told CNN that "we still have a long way to go" before eliminating resistance.

Iraq had become "a terrorist magnet," drawing some anti-American extremists from abroad to "a target of opportunity."

"But this," General Sanchez added, "is exactly where we want to fight them."

"U.S. Must Act on 'Murky' Data to Prevent Terror, Wolfowitz Says"
International Herald Tribune
July 27th, 2003

Are we all straight now on what the plan is?

Is Dick Morris a closet proponent of the Judis-Teixeira thesis? Look at this line from his July 23rd column in The Hill ...

Bush seems to have no firewall to arrest his drop. His ratings seem to depend on yesterday’s news. Because the empowerment of the Republican Party in all three branches of government masks the demographic shift to the Democratic Party, when things get rough, there is nothing to hold up the ratings of a Republican president.
John, Ruy, seriously, give the guy a call. He's changed sides before!

I just re-read the Rice piece in the Post again and it's really pretty devastating. You read it and it's hard not to come to the conclusion that Rice is either really incompetent or really ... well, less than honest in a few of the answers she's given on the Niger debacle. Or maybe it's fifty-fifty? In any case, it ain't good.

The only serious beef I have with the article is that the authors -- Dana Milbank and Mike Allen -- mocked a line I'd been planning to mock for several days. But they mocked it in a sufficiently understated manner that, if you'll indulge me, I'm going to try to get a little more mileage out of it.

Back during Steve Hadley's ritual sorta-kinda defenestration last week, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett, who was there to oversee the event, piped in to dispute one of the alleged instances in which the CIA tried to warn the White House off the Niger claims.

He said ...

There is a conspiracy theory out there that there was some protracted negotiation, or that this was information that was in a clandestine way being forced into the speech by various factions of the administration. It's simply nonsense.
Now, as I've said before a number of times, calling something a 'conspiracy theory' has become what amounts to the lazy man's way of discrediting an argument. In fact, I recently experienced this myself.

Just before the war, I wrote an article ("Practice to Deceive") which claimed that the administration wasn't leveling with the public about its real reasons for going to war. Out of nowhere a gaggle of giddy smear-meisters popped out of the woodwork accusing me of hatching a conspiracy theory and smearing all manner of upstanding gentlemen to boot.

Now, maybe I was right; maybe I was wrong. But it was never quite clear to me how any of this amounted to a conspiracy theory.

As it happens, one of these smackdowns came on the Wall Street Journal editorial page website. And, interestingly enough, last week the same folks ran an OpEd saying more or less exactly what I said four months ago. Only now they're celebrating the deception as key to success.

Why did President Bush play the WMD card rather than just level with the American people about the real reason for the war, asks Steven Den Beste. Simple, he says ...

Honesty and plain speaking are not virtues for politicians and diplomats. If either Mr. Bush or Mr. Blair had said what I did, it would have hit the fan big-time. Making clear a year ago that this was our true agenda would have virtually guaranteed that it would fail.
It's always bracing to see how quickly the party line can change, ain't it? It sort of reminds of Gene Genovese's line about getting kicked out of the Commnunist Party when he was in college "for having zigged when I was supposed to zag."

But, alas, I digress. Back to Mr Bartlett.

Bartlett was talking about the conversation between CIA officer Alan Foley and NSC staffer Bob Joseph about the uranium line in the State of the Union speech. Foley says the two haggled about the line after he raised the Agency's concerns with Joseph. (Bear in mind too that he apparently also said this before a congressional committee; thus, presumably, under oath.) Joseph, a lot less convincingly, says he has no recollection of Foley raising these concerns.

In any case, according to Bartlett, believing Foley rather than Joseph amounts to a buying into a 'conspiracy theory.'

Hey, weren't we going to get lunch?


Yeah, remember, I called. We were going to meet at noon at ...

Stop with your conspiracy theories!

In any case, if Bartlett is going to live up to true Fleischerian standards of press browbeating and intimidation, won't he have to learn how to pull off the bullyboy tactics without sounding like such a goof?

Sheesh! Sometimes a meme's time has really come. A couple hours ago I quoted a blurb in US News' Washington Whispers column about how Condi Rice might end up taking the fall for the recent intel unpleasantness. (And not a Tenet/Hadley style fall. I mean a real fall, as in losing her job.) I said that jibed with a lot of what I'd been in hearing in recent weeks and months, though I thought the complaints about Rice went far beyond the uranium flap. Now I hop over to the Washington Post website and see this article ("Iraq Flap Shakes Rice's Image") on the front page of tomorrow's paper.

"As White House officials try to control the latest fallout over President Bush's flawed suggestion in the State of the Union address that Iraq was buying nuclear bomb materials," says US News' Washington Whispers, "there's growing talk by insiders that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice may take the blame and resign."

Even I find such an eventuality a bit hard to imagine, but it actually jibes well with a lot of what I've been hearing over recent weeks and months. With Steve Hadley taking the latest rap for the Niger-uranium debacle, Rice has for all intents and purposes taken the rap without having herself uttered the words. As I wrote to someone who knows her earlier today, "Everyone's spin aside, the nuke issue was the biggest issue in terms of threat. And this was one of our best pieces of positive --- as opposed to inferential --- evidence. If she really didn't read the memo that was sent to her --- which I agree is possible --- it's inexcusable."

At the end of the day I think it's quite likely we'll find that the true pressure for pushing the uranium story came from the Office of the Vice President, pressure quite possibly exerted through Hadley, who is generally seen as a Cheney-man at NSC.

But if Rice goes it won't just be as a fall-gal for the uranium business. Because this unsightly view into the Bush NSC has only crystallized an increasingly widespread perception that she has simply done a poor job as National Security Advisor.

Mind you, it's no surprise that any National Security Advisor steps on a lot of toes and makes enemies. It's her job to discipline and force consensus -- if only operational consensus -- from the various ideological and organizational factions in the national security establishment. So the job requires slapping all sorts of people around.

But the criticism in most every case is that she's exercised little of that disciplining, consensus-forcing, BS-catching role. That shortcoming doesn't bear directly on the stuff we're seeing now. But it helped set the stage for it in a number of important ways -- a point we'll get to in greater detail in a later post.

The point is that many people from both sides of the administration's pragmatist-hawk dividing line criticize Rice in very similar terms: for not settling these ideological and inter-agency debates with any finality so that the execution of policy is not overwhelmed by continuing in-fighitng over just what it should be. One hears many stories of her presiding over meetings in the professorial manner of a seminar leader, asking interesting questions, and leaving the issue as unresolved at the end of the meeting as it was at the beginning. In essence, you hear many folks on both sides saying: Hey, choose our plan or choose theirs. But, for God's sake, you have to choose!