David Kurtz

David Kurtz is Managing Editor and Washington Bureau Chief of Talking Points Memo where he oversees the news operations of TPM and its sister sites.

Articles by David

I referred to Cheney's appearance today on Meet the Press as an artificat that historians will be puzzling over for years to come. Not so, says TPM Reader JL:

Speaking as a historian, no historians won't be puzzling, not at all. A future historian might state, matter of factly, "Vice President Cheney, one of the administration's most ardent advocates of war with Iraq, continued to maintain that there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda long after the existence of such a connection had been disproved. Critics at the time noted that the Bush administration was unable to respond to changing circumstances in the Middle East because, instead of responding to new information, it simply reasserted its ideological premises. Subsequently historians have concluded this approach to problems was the chief reason for the Bush administration's multiple failures, of which the debacle in Iraq is the most stunning - and, because of its lasting impact on America's standing in the world - unfortunate example."

Crooks and Liars has the video up of Cheney being Cheney this morning on Meet the Press:

VICE PRES. CHENEY: So you’ve got Iraq and 9/11, no evidence that there’s a connection. You’ve got Iraq and al-Qaeda, testimony from the director of CIA that there was indeed a relationship, Zarqawi in Baghdad, etc. Then the third...

MR. RUSSERT: The committee said that there was no relationship. In fact...

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I haven’t seen the report; I haven’t had a chance to read it yet, but the fact is...

The "report" he hasn't bothered to read is the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report released Friday, which revealed publicly for the first time the existence of an October 2005 CIA assessment which concluded that Saddam Hussein's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates."

Go read the transcript. Historians will be puzzling over this artifact for the rest of our lives and beyond.

Some readers took my post about a Dutch TV network airing "Farenheit 9/11" and "Loose Change" tonight--as opposed to "The Path to 9/11"--as an endorsement of one or both of those films. It wasn't intended as such. The post was really about the Netherlands, and its sometimes deliberate cultural funkiness, which I find endearing.

Wild Bill's still got it:

"They've trotted that dog out for the last three elections - and it's got mange all over it."

--Bill Clinton, on Republican efforts to make national security the top campaign issue

OK, I'll admit to a bias here. I think the Netherlands is one of the best places on the planet. They have our entrepreneurial spirit, but with good taste. Like us, they have completely altered much of their natural environment, but to aesthetically pleasing effect. They have their own exotic language, but nearly everyone speaks English better than we do.

So chalk this up as just another reason to love the Dutch: While Britain, Australia and New Zealand are broadcasting "The Path to 9/11" on Sunday evening, one Dutch network is airing Michael Moore's "Farenheit 9/11" and the conspiracy flick "Loose Change." Thanks to Dutch reader JWK.

One of the assurances ABC has given to placate critics of the docudrama "The Path to 9/11" is that a disclaimer would run "throughout" the airing of the miniseries.

Apparently only in U.S. broadcasts.

Reports from a couple of TPM readers in New Zealand, where the first installment of the miniseries has now aired, are that the disclaimer ran once, at the beginning of the broadcast.

One last takeaway from the WP story on the search for bin Laden. Remember how one of the key breakdowns leading to the failure to prevent 9/11 was institutional resistance to sharing intelligence across agencies?

Looks like things have really improved:

Bureaucratic battles slowed down the hunt for bin Laden for the first two or three years, according to officials in several agencies, with both the Pentagon and the CIA accusing each other of withholding information. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's sense of territoriality has become legendary, according to these officials.

In early November 2002, for example, a CIA drone armed with a Hellfire missile killed a top al-Qaeda leader traveling through the Yemeni desert. About a week later, Rumsfeld expressed anger that it was the CIA, not the Defense Department, that had carried out the successful strike.

"How did they get the intel?" he demanded of the intelligence and other military personnel in a high-level meeting, recalled one person knowledgeable about the meeting.

Gen. Michael V. Hayden, then director of the National Security Agency and technically part of the Defense Department, said he had given it to them.

"Why aren't you giving it to us?" Rumsfeld wanted to know.

Hayden, according to this source, told Rumsfeld that the information-sharing mechanism with the CIA was working well. Rumsfeld said it would have to stop.

A CIA spokesman said Hayden, now the CIA director, does not recall this conversation. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said, "The notion that the department would do anything that would jeopardize the success of an operation to kill or capture bin Laden is ridiculous." The NSA continues to share intelligence with the CIA and the Defense Department.

. . .

Today, however, no one person is in charge of the overall hunt for bin Laden with the authority to direct covert CIA operations to collect intelligence and to dispatch JSOC units. Some counterterrorism officials find this absurd. "There's nobody in the United States government whose job it is to find Osama bin Laden!" one frustrated counterterrorism official shouted. "Nobody!"

If Republicans don't pay a steep price politically this November for this kind of malfeasance, I really don't know what it will take to convince voters it's time for a change of course.

Back to the excellent WP story on the hunt for Osama bin Laden. While the story goes on at length about how Bush pulled operatives out of the region for use in the invasion of Iraq and about how the trail is now "stone cold," it also contains this pertinent piece of reporting:

But in the last three months, following a request from President Bush to "flood the zone," the CIA has sharply increased the number of intelligence officers and assets devoted to the pursuit of bin Laden. The intelligence officers will team with the military's secretive Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) and with more resources from the National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies.

The problem, former and current counterterrorism officials say, is that no one is certain where the "zone" is.

Playing politics with terrorism? See, just as I'm trying to break the stranglehold cynicism has on me, something like this comes along. I'm not sure there is such a thing as too cynical with these guys.

It's a constant battle not to fall victim to complete and unrelenting cynicism about this President and his Administration. Here's a perfect example of where the president is saying all the right things, yet I catch myself rolling my eyes in disbelief:

U.S. President George W. Bush personally signed off on a visa allowing former Iranian president Mohammed Khatami to visit the United States because he wanted to hear his views, the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday.

. . .

"I was interested to hear what he had to say," Bush told the Wall Street Journal in an interview. "I'm interested in learning more about the Iranian government, how they think, what people think within the government."

. . .

"My hope is that diplomacy will work in convincing the Iranians to give up their nuclear weapons ambitions. And in order for diplomacy to work, it's important to hear voices other than Ahmadinejad's," Bush added.

Part of me says, hopeful sign! The other side of me laughs darkly.

The CIA has a videotape that shows Osama Bin Laden walking on a trail toward Pakistan at the end of the battle of Tora Bora in December 2001, when he eluded capture by U.S. forces, according to the WP. Since then his trail has gone "stone cold":

The clandestine U.S. commandos whose job is to capture or kill Osama bin Laden have not received a credible lead in more than two years. Nothing from the vast U.S. intelligence world -- no tips from informants, no snippets from electronic intercepts, no points on any satellite image -- has led them anywhere near the al-Qaeda leader, according to U.S. and Pakistani officials.

. . .

On the videotape obtained by the CIA, bin Laden is seen confidently instructing his party how to dig holes in the ground to lie in undetected at night. A bomb dropped by a U.S. aircraft can be seen exploding in the distance. "We were there last night," bin Laden says without much concern in his voice. He was in or headed toward Pakistan, counterterrorism officials think.

That was December 2001. Only two months later, Bush decided to pull out most of the special operations troops and their CIA counterparts in the paramilitary division that were leading the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for war in Iraq, said Flynt L. Leverett, then an expert on the Middle East at the National Security Council.

"I was appalled when I learned about it," said Leverett, who has become an outspoken critic of the administration's counterterrorism policy. "I don't know of anyone who thought it was a good idea. It's very likely that bin Laden would be dead or in American custody if we hadn't done that."

Several officers confirmed that the number of special operations troops was reduced in March 2001.

In another indication of how seriously the Bush Administration takes the pursuit of bin Laden, his FBI Most Wanted Poster makes no mention of the 9/11 attack.