Josh Marshall

Josh Marshall is editor and publisher of

Articles by Josh

One more note on the Neil Bush-Taiwan story.

This is the story about the meeting between the president's brother and the Taiwanese president and charges that $1 milion was paid to arrange it.

Charges get thrown around a lot in Taiwan. They have a vituperative politics and a vituperative press. The country is heading into an election and the folks making the charges are the ones trying to unseat the president.

But what caught my eye about this story (noted below) is Neil Bush. However the meeting was arranged, why does the President of Taiwan want a meeting with the president's ne'er-do-well brother? Foreign policy advice? Insights on fighting an air war over the Taiwan Strait? Seems hard to figure.

What's more, Neil's got a history. And I'm not talking about the Silverado business. See this piece I wrote on Neil for Salon in the spring of '02.

And for more on the history of the use of cash in Taiwanese foreign policy, see this Salon piece from a week earlier.

Wow, that's not a positive development.

When you can your campaign manager it's almost never a good sign. But there's always the chance it is or, at least, can be presented as a clean break for a stalled operation. Al Gore sorta kinda pulled that off when he hired Donna Brazile in 2000 -- at around the same point in the cycle, if I remember right.

But now comes word that two more senior officials in John Kerry's campaign have bailed in protest over Jim Jordan's firing -- Robert Gibbs, Kerry's spokesman and his deputy finance director.

That takes a lot of the wind out of any potential 'decisive break' storyline and makes it look a lot more like a campaign in disarray, if not heading for collapse.

Okay, a little more on Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian's meeting with Neil Bush, the president's brother, during a brief visit to New York City recently.

Opposition leader James Soong, formerly of the Kuomintang (KMT) and now Chairman of the People First Party, has accused President Chen of paying $1 million to have a meeting with Mr. Bush.

(A little background is necessary here: because the US has no official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, meetings with US political leaders are highly coveted by members of the Taiwanese government.)

It's not clear from the news reports what direct evidence Soong had for his charges. But part of the evidence he put forward was an overture allegedly made to the head of the KMT Lien Chan. "A broker for the [Bush] family member told Lien he could meet with the US president's brother if he was willing to pay US$1 million. I believe Chen was well received by the US because he paid the money," Soong said.

Representatives of President Chen have roundly denied the charges and refuse even to discuss whether he met with Bush under any circumstances. And a spokesman for the president has said the the airing of the charge is an affront to the Bush family.

Now this update from Taiwan News ...

Meanwhile, DPP Legislator Parris Chang, who along with Chien accompanied President Chen for his U.S. and Panama trip, confirmed that the president had indeed met Neil Bush, but the summit had nothing to do with Neil Bush's older brother George Bush.

"The opposition party is simply too desperate (for the presidential election). The accusation is extremely ridiculous," Chang said.

He explained that a Taiwanese businessman based in Houston arranged the summit for President Chen, and revealed that no deal was made behind the meeting.

"I don't think the summit has anything to do with his brother. President Bush would probably send government officials from the State Department, if he really wants to deliver a message to President Chen," Chang said.

In addition, DPP Secretary-General Chang Chun-hsiung held a press conference yesterday morning to criticize the PFP accusation as inaccurate and potentially damaging to bilateral ties between the U.S. and Taiwan.

Who's the 'Taiwanese businessman based in Houston'?

What's the deal with this? <$NoAd$>I've heard hints of this from my Taiwan sources over the last 24 hours and now it's all over the Taiwan press. This from the English-language Taipei Times ...

President Chen Shui-bian yesterday defended himself against accusations by People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong that he paid US$1 million to meet with a family member of US President George W. Bush during his visit to the US earlier this month.

Although Soong did not say who the family member was, PFP and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) officials later identified the person as Bush's brother Neil Bush.

Speaking to a crowd of more than 500 people in Yunlin County on Sunday, Soong said the US' high-profile reception for Chen was a result of the US$1 million that Chen gave to the Bush family.

A broker representing the Bush family had contacted KMT Chairman Lien Chan before Lien went to the US last month, Soong said.

"A broker for the family member told Lien he could meet with the US president's brother if he was willing to pay US$1 million. I believe Chen was well received by the US because he paid the money," Soong said.

I'll be on the phone with my sources trying to find out more.

An email from a <$NoAd$>friend about the Dean post below ...

From: "John B. Judis"
To: "Joshua Micah Marshall"
X-Mailer: Poco3 Beta (1700) - Licensed Version
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 08:42:41 -0500
Subject: Dean

I share your sentiments completely. The only thing I'm semi-certain about is Dean's lack of electability in November. I think it is because I lived through the McGovern campaign, as did some of those ex-Clinton people who have tried to pump up Clark. The similarities grow with every day. Not just the insurgent voter enthusiasm, the new ways of fundraising, and the bevy of flummoxed opponents, but also the economy (artificially stimulated by Nixon through the Fed and by Bush through the dollar just in time for election year) and the war (raging, but bound to quiet some by election time, and to raise prospects of peace). The economy deprives the Democrat of the issue that would allow him to attract working class votes; the war splits the Democrats, but not the Republicans. True, there are more "Starbucks" voters now than in 1972, but on the other side Bush is far more popular than Nixon was. Nixon was actually trailing Muskie in polls, which is why he thought he needed all the dirty tricks. I fear a cataclysm in the fall if the Democrats nominate Dean. Unfortunately, the alternatives are only slightly better.

John B. Judis Senior Editor, The New Republic Visiting Scholar, Carnegie Endowment

We'll see. As I said in the post below, I think this race is far from over.

Okay, have to say it. I’m still not convinced. Everyone I know seems to think that Howard Dean is close to having the Democratic nomination all wrapped up. AFSCME’s apparent endorsement, for instance, seems premised almost entirely on the perception that Dean’s going to be the winner.

But I just don’t see it.

I’m not saying there’s another candidate who I’d say is more likely to win. I just think Dean’s strength is overstated.

A few points and then we’ll follow up with other posts later.

First: Every primary and caucus this year distributes delegates proportionally. You get 30% of the vote and you get 30% of the delegates. So winning a primary by a couple points in a big field isn’t necessarily all it’s cracked up to be.

Second: I continue to think that Dean’s style of candidacy only has a real purchase on a portion of the Democratic primary electorate. And I think he has most of those people already. Yes, this is a standard criticism of Dean: he’s the candidate of the Starbucks crowd (not that that’s a criticism: I write about half of my posts from the neighborhood Starbucks) and so forth. And the endorsements of SEIU and AFSCME are supposed to change that --- giving his candidacy a broader demographic sweep.

But I remain unconvinced. I’m not sure Dean can break out of the very energized and mobilized constituency he already has. And that’s what strong showings out of Iowa and New Hampshire are supposed to accomplish.

Third: Our models for primary campaigns are based on frontrunners who are supported, by and large, by the party establishment. That’s not the case here. And that makes a difference. So there's an asterisk by his frontrunnerdom.

Fourth: Dean clearly now has the biggest constituency. It’s activated, mobilized and it’s big. But he’s in a large field. I think there’s a much larger slice of the Democratic primary electorate that doesn’t want him than the one that does. And as the field narrows, that will become the salient fact. (Isn't #4 kind of like #2? Okay, maybe a bit.)

Fifth: Electability, another salient fact.

Now, many things I write on TPM, I write with great confidence. This isn’t one of those cases. For a host of reasons I find this primary campaign very hard to get a handle on. And it’s quite apparent to me that I could have this all wrong. What I'm telling you is just what my gut tells me.

Live by the word game, die by the <$NoAd$>word game.

Andrew Sullivan arguing that no one said the threat was imminent (emphasis added) ...

We can fight over words in this way, but the fundamental reality also undermines Marshall's case. The point about 9/11 is that it showed that we were in a new world where we could be attacked by shadowy groups with little warning. The point about Saddam is that he was a sworn enemy of the U.S., had been known to develop an arsenal of WMDs, was in a position to arm terrorists in a devastating way, and any president had to weigh the risk of him staying in power in that new climate. The actual threat hangs over us all the time. It is unlike previous threats from foreign powers. It is accountable to no rules and no ethics. We know it will give us no formal warning. But we cannot know it is "imminent".

Webster’s, well-known dictionary manufacturer, defining ‘imminent’ …

Main Entry: im•mi•nent
Pronunciation: 'i-m&-n&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin imminent-, imminens, present participle of imminEre to project, threaten, from in- + -minEre (akin to Latin mont-, mons mountain) -- more at MOUNT
Date: 1528
: ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one's head (was in imminent danger of being run over)
- im•mi•nent•ly adverb

Some curveballs hang too temptingly over the plate.

Who you gonna believe? Me, or <$NoAd$>your lyin' eyes?

Check out this gem, from an article from Hearst Newspapers' Eric Rosenberg, which I found through Atrios ...

For example, on Feb. 20, a month before the invasion, Rumsfeld fielded a question about whether Americans would be greeted as liberators if they invaded Iraq.

"Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?" Jim Lehrer asked the defense secretary on PBS' "The News Hour."

"There is no question but that they would be welcomed," Rumsfeld replied, referring to American forces. "Go back to Afghanistan, the people were in the streets playing music, cheering, flying kites, and doing all the things that the Taliban and the al-Qaeda would not let them do."

The Americans-as-liberators theme was repeated by other senior administration officials in the weeks preceding the war, including Rumsfeld's No. 2 - Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz - and Vice President Cheney.

But on Sept. 25, - a particularly bloody day in which one U.S. soldier was killed in an ambush, eight Iraqi civilians died in a mortar strike and a member of the U.S-appointed governing council died after an assassination attempt five days earlier - Rumsfeld was asked about the surging resistance.

"Before the war in Iraq, you stated the case very eloquently and you said . . . they would welcome us with open arms," Sinclair Broadcasting anchor Morris Jones said to Rumsfeld as the prelude to a question.

The defense chief quickly cut him off. "Never said that," he said. "Never did. You may remember it well, but you're thinking of somebody else. You can't find, anywhere, me saying anything like either of those two things you just said I said."

Let me guess, we're gonna get hung up on "open arms"?

(Just between you and me, what's really pitiful about this exchange is that the Sec Def could have easily and correctly said that being welcomed by the majority of the population as liberators is not necessarily inconsistent with follow-on paramilitary or guerilla resistance -- even on a substantial scale. But Rumsfeld just can't help himself.)

I almost missed this brief, crisp critique of the administration's Iraq policy by Jacob Weisberg. Glad I didn't.

It all reminds me of what one of my best military sources for my first Iraq article kept coming back to, a phrase drilled into all Army officers: Hope is not a plan.

Department of revealing <$NoAd$>projection ...

The United States [i.e., the Bush administration] is deeply frustrated with its hand-picked council members because they have spent more time on their own political or economic interests than in planning for Iraq's political future.

From today's Washington Post on the US rethinking the Interim Governing Council.

Of course, one can project but also be on to something.

See this clip from Tom Friedman's column on Thursday ...

The reason this happened is that the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, which is supposed to come up with a plan for forming the constitution-writing committee, is becoming dysfunctional. Several key G.C. members, particularly the Pentagon's favorite son, Ahmad Chalabi, have been absent from Iraq for weeks. Only seven or eight of the 24 G.C. members show up at meetings anymore.

Where's Ahmed? My neocon friend and I came up with a short list of Washington, London or Tehran. But who knows?