President Bush moved to distract the nation from the fact that his White House is the first to sustain an indictment of one of its most senior officials in 130 years by nominating Appellate Court Judge Samuel Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court.

As friends I was with this morning said, "Now we can finally say with certainty that Harriet Miers would have been a better choice."

Alito apparently ruled that a woman would have to notify her husband before getting an abortion. I need to learn more about this case, and about other decisions he has participated in, but when I hear Fox News gleeful that he cuts a profile similar to Antonin Scalia, I can't think of a worse "type" to add to the Supreme Court now.

As I watched the President's announcement of the Alito nomination on one station this morning, I watched C-Span 2's live coverage of American citizens streaming past the coffin of Rosa Parks in the Capitol Rotunda.

Would Judge Alito have viewed the Supreme Court's orders on desegregation as judicial activism? One wonders.

I know little of Alito other than the fact that he is adored by Gary Bauer, believes in a limited role for the courts in our society (as he stated this morning), he has significant legal and judicial experience, and is a dependable conservative who apparently has ruled in the past that a woman's reproductive decisions are not hers alone.

And stating the obvious, Bush clearly negated the opportunity to further extend either the racial or gender diversity of the Supreme Court.

This blog -- and many other commentators -- have bemoaned the behavior and decisions of this President who believed he was only subject to a reality of his own making, that he "made his own weather." There were few constraints from Congress or the Courts on this monarchial President.

Now, George W. Bush is far weaker than he was. He is being knocked back by constraints and is playing to his base now of fundamentalist social conservatives. The pretense of playing to any sort of middle is over.

Now battles will rage over Alito, and they should. But regrettably, it's not clear to me that Democrats or moderate Republicans who believe in a woman's right to make her own decisions -- or in gay civil rights -- are organized and ready for this fight.

To make matters worse, Karl Rove is chomping at the bit to show that he has shaken off the Fitzgerald scare and is back in control.

Those opposed to a major redirection in the ideological direction of the Supreme Court better not go "wobbly" now. Accommodationists and weak players on either side are going to be severely judged by their constituents.

-- Steve Clemons

After Fitzgerald's announcement of five indictment charges against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, I have to admit that I felt sick to my stomach about this whole affair. It is a great national tragedy to have someone of Libby's stature fall from his post -- but it is something that had to happen.

Some of the joy felt by those who have been sending notes of "Merry Fitzmas" to celebrate the coming of the Fitzgerald indictments was tempered by the fact that Karl Rove (or "Official A" in the Libby indictment materials) was not indicted for any crime, as of yet.

I have no idea whether mighty Karl Rove will be felled at a later time, though most who have watched Fitzgerald operate in Chicago suggest that they would not be surprised.

On the right, there have been comments by the likes of William Safire and David Brooks on "Meet the Press" this morning that Fitzgerald has demonstrated that there was no sinister cabal at work that conspiratorially sought to leak the name and covert role of Valerie Plame Wilson. Brooks has asserted that there is "no cancer on the White House." Safire said that we should all note that the crime that Fitzgerald was sent out to investigate: a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, was not specified.

Taking this a step beyond Brooks and Safire, David Rivkin Jr. and Lee Casey suggest that there should be "No More Special Counsels" because what Fitzgerald has charged Libby with has arisen not from the core cause of the investigation -- the outing of Plame-Wilson -- but rather from the investigation itself: lying to investigators.

There will be many who dissect Patrick Fitzgerald's every move. This blog will probably be among those because his work is essential for our democracy to be and "feel" democratic.

This White House has shown incredible disdain for the public's right to know about what contributed to any number of important presidential decisions and behaviors -- from the administration's energy policy, to a focus on a non-existent Iraq nuclear WMD program, to the president's and his team's relationship with Kenneth Lay and Enron executives, to the decision to send men and women of our armed forces into Iraq with none of the core "nation-building" blueprints in hand.

What is tragic is that during the Clinton administration, the American public was appropriately miffed, in this writer's view, with revelations of fundraising coffees inside the White House, with Lincoln Bedroom stays for top donors, and with the well-reported and now-cliched revelations about President Clinton's illicit affair with Monica Lewinsky.

But compare all of that, at its worst, with Tom DeLay's brand of pay-for-access-and-favors mega-fundraising from America's wealthiest firms and individuals. Compare that to a hyping of intelligence estimates about Iraq's danger to the world and to us that proved to be wrong and which have led to not only the death and injury of tens of thousands of people on both sides of this conflict. Compare that to the savage wounding of American mystique in the world, to showing America's military and financial limits to enemies and friends. Today, American power and leverage is falling precipitously in the eyes of those who want America to be a strong, albeit benign, nation.

Scooter Libby had a tilting hand in the affairs that have trashed this nation's status in the world. But he did not do it alone.

We should all fell sick about this. Out stomachs should churn with revulsion and anguish about what he has done -- and we should be careful with too much joy over this victory for accountability.

Libby did not do his work alone. There are many other culprits who helped him, but it would be quite wrong to think that Patrick Fitzgerald alone can bring all to justice. It's too big a problem when the President and Vice President cultivated a "culture" where Libby's type of alleged skull-duggery was encouraged.

For some time, I have been arguing with moderate Republicans and progressives and liberals that the only way to knock back the White House from its outrageous behavior was to (1) embarrass those in power with the spotlight of media attention on their most irresponsible and wrong-headed decisions and (2) to sue them in courts.

It is a useful contrast to consider that during the Clinton administration, the Clinton White House was under legal siege from the moment it moved into 1600 Pennsylvania.

George Bush has had no such challenge (until recently) to his operation -- not even against chief Congressional henchman Tom DeLay (for the first few years) despite DeLay's grossly public displays of corruption. Democratic Congressman Barney Frank once told me in DeLay's defense that his brand of corruption was "not self-dealing." Since then, we have read of the fact that he dealt well to his family, but that is besides the point. We have had a modern day Tammany Hall emerging in Washington -- this time in Republican circles -- and very little response from the Democratic opposition and quite successful distraction from these matters because of the "time of war" we are in.

It will be interesting and important to see how Cheney and Bush respond. Will they admit missteps? Will they level with the American public? Men and women in Iraq and in the U.S. armed services -- innocents there and innocents here -- died because of decisions that this White House made based on evidence that prominent neoconservative adherent Scooter Libby and others were hyping.

When America's system of checks and balances worked, on one level we should be pleased.

Knocking back the powers of a pretentious wannabe monarch is exactly what the founding fathers intended in our system of checks and balances. But no one said that it should "feel good" when it happened. It probably should feel terrible when the judicial, legislative, and executive branches grind ferociously at each other.

So, while I'm sick about what has happened this week, this is all about taking back the blank check and unconstrained power that the American public gave this White House because of the war.

To close, I just read the Los Angeles Times op-ed penned by Joe Wilson. It's worth reading the entire piece which is very interesting -- but the end really got me.

I excerpt it here:

The attacks on Valerie and me were upsetting, disruptive and vicious. They amounted to character assassination. Senior administration officials used the power of the White House to make our lives hell for the last 27 months.

But more important, they did it as part of a clear effort to cover up the lies and disinformation used to justify the invasion of Iraq. That is the ultimate crime.

The war in Iraq has claimed more than 17,000 dead and wounded American soldiers, many times more Iraqi casualties and close to $200 billion.

It has left our international reputation in tatters and our military broken. It has weakened the United States, increased hatred of us and made terrorist attacks against our interests more likely in the future.

It has been, as Gen. William Odom suggested, the greatest strategic blunder in the history of our country.

We anticipate no mea culpa from the president for what his senior aides have done to us. But he owes the nation both an explanation and an apology.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Bolton in the clear.

This from a tuned-in TWN reader. His comment seems right:

The Undersecretary of State referenced in the indictment is not John Bolton -- it is Marc Grossman, the former U/S for Political Affairs. Because Powell and Armitage were out of the country at the time, Grossman was Acting Sec State. Hence, the State Department's INR forwarded Grossman the memo on the Niger stuff and Plame and Wilson's role, and Grossman forwarded it on to the White House. Nothing sinister -- Grossman was just peforming his bureaucratic function.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

ed note: thanks to J for this advisory.

Here is the current roster of senior State Department officials.

Robert Joseph now holds the portfolio previously held by John Bolton.

My hunch -- given the other options at the Under Secretary level -- is that John Bolton was one of Libby's four sources on Valerie Plame Wilson. It would be nice to have confirmation.

Frederick Fleitz, Bolton's Chief of Staff was concurrently a senior CIA WINPAC official, and may have been Bolton's source. I'm not sure, but he may also have been the "senior CIA officer" referred to as one of the four Plame sources for Libby.

-- Steve Clemons

According to Patrick Fitzgerald comments now being made, Libby had four sources for his information on Valerie Plame:

1. Senior CIA Officer

2. An Under Secretary of State

3. Vice President Cheney

4. another member of the Vice President's staff

-- Steve Clemons

Here is text of Vice President Cheney's Statement:

Mr. Libby has informed me that he is resigning to fight the charges brought against him. I have accepted his decision with deep regret.

Scooter Libby is one of the most capable and talented individuals I have ever known. He has given many years of his life to public service and has served our nation tirelessly and with great distinction.

In our system of government an accused person is presumed innocent until a contrary finding is made by a jury after an opportunity to answer the charges and a full airing of the facts. Mr. Libby is entitled to that opportunity.

Because this is a pending legal proceeding, in fairness to all those involved, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the charges or on any facts relating to the proceeding.

-- Steve Clemons

One count obstruction of justice.

Two counts of false statements.

Two counts of perjury.

Nothing on Intelligence Identies Protection Act or Espionage Act.

More here.

-- Steve Clemons

I'm off this morning to meet with Nancy Roman, Washington Director of the Council on Foreign Relations, to discuss her report that calls for a bipartisan foreign policy. (. . .but just popped a couple of pain pills.)

My colleague and good friend Mark Schmitt took the CFR and Roman to task for the report, pretty harshly in fact.

I am very interested in this subject of re-building an "enlightened, pragmatic center" in foreign policy circles -- not to be a compromise between right and left -- but mostly to get us back to some groove that blends realism about America's opportunities and challenges with a strong sense of inspired (and inspiring) ethical behavior and humanitarian concern.

So, we are going to chat about bipartisanship. I really do think that the problem lies less between parties -- and rather with factions inside each party -- but should be an interesting discussion.

I need to do something to fill the time before the Fitzgerald announcement.

Be back with you later.

-- Steve Clemons

In my report the other morning after my accident, I mentioned that a prominent journalist had shared this:

My sense is that the Rove team is feeling more confident today, the Libby team despondent

This squares with the New York Times report this morning that Libby is up for indictment this morning -- and Rove has missed the bullet for the time being:

Lawyers in the C.I.A. leak case said Thursday that they expected I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, to be indicted on Friday, charged with making false statements to the grand jury.

Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, will not be charged on Friday, but will remain under investigation, people briefed officially about the case said. As a result, they said, the special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, was likely to extend the term of the federal grand jury beyond its scheduled expiration on Friday.

Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser, was the subject of intense speculation Thursday as he arrived at the White House.

As rumors coursed through the capital, Mr. Fitzgerald gave no public signal of how he intended to proceed, further intensifying the anxiety that has gripped the White House and left partisans on both sides of the political aisle holding their breath.

So, today -- shortly -- we should see whether this is on track. We should also get an indication of whether Fitzgerald will seek extension of the investigation to pursue new questions that have emerged -- particularly if he has chosen to pursue questions regarding the source of "Niger/Uranium documents" and the promulgation of those by sources in the administration as part of a scheme inside the administration to hype the WMD threat.

Stay tuned.

-- Steve Clemons

After yesterday's goof -- I'm letting all know that all I have is an ongoing swirl of rumors.

But here is a note I received from a friend:

Steve:

First, I hope you're feeling better. A conspiracy theorist would have a field day with this incident.

So, random story: I was speaking with a few friends, and I mentioned, "wouldn't it be intriguing if Fred Fleitz was the link in the leak case?" Not surprisingly, since my friends don't work in the foreign policy field, they'd never heard of Fleitz. I explained why he might be a logical link, but made the very serious disclaimer that it was not a prediction and that I had heard no suggestions, no evidence, no rumors even to support it.

Turns out one of those friends just got a rumor e-mail today saying Fleitz is being investigated. The sources are apparently two Senate staffers, a reporter, and aides to some of the people being investigated. I'm not saying this is happening, but I wanted to point out that the rumor that Fleitz is involved is now circulating. I'm intrigued because when the Bolton thing was going on, I was never comfortable with the Fleitz link.

So, that's that.

But then, a short while ago -- one of America's top journalists called me to ask what I knew about Fleitz. He said rumors were swirling everywhere and that a "really wild rumor" was that Bob Woodward had a piece appearing in tomorrow's Washington Post focusing on Fleitz. Realize -- NOTHING substantiated here.

Part of the rumor is that Fleitz is on leave.

I just tried to track that down. I just called Fred Fleitz, but got his answering machine and nothing seemed out of the ordinary. I then called Under Secretary of State Bob Joseph's office and talked to a person who told me that Fleitz was on leave for two days but would return to the office Monday morning.

I know nothing more. But here is what I wrote on Fleitz and the possibility of a Plame connection a while back. . .plus if you use the search function on the site for "Fleitz", you will find a lot of commentary on this website about him. He's an interesting, swashbuckling, rough-and-tough character who kept his CIA WINPAC portfolio despite being seconded to the State Department.

If this were true -- and Fleitz was in Fitzgerald's cross-hairs, then what law was broken?? One must now wonder if Fleitz was Robert Novak's source.

This is speculation, unsubstantiated. . .but really, really interesting.

I still think that there are a lot of reasons why the Fred Fleitz rumor might be very wrong -- and why someone like then-Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley might be the guy.

But this is what it is: RUMOR.

Those in the know though, email me -- or call.

-- Steve Clemons

Brent Scowcroft was not asked by the President to return to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board when Scowcroft's term expired at the end of 2004. Most had assumed that Scowcroft would not only continue to serve on the PFIAB but would continue as Chairman as well.

At a weekend gathering at the home of Zbigniew Brzezinski just after the New Year, Scowcroft reportedly shared with those gathered, "I just got fired."

Shortly after, Scowcroft gave a humdinger of a speech before the New America Foundation -- along with Zbig Brzezinski -- on the 6th of January.

The President has now just announced that his new Chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board will be former Goldman Sachs executive and former National Economic Advisor to the President Stephen Friedman.

Friedman was probably the least known head of the National Economic Council this country has seen -- particularly given the profile of the presciently accurate Larry "Iraq War = $200 Billion" Lindsey, Gene Sperling, Laura Tyson, and Robert Rubin. He never embarrassed the President. He's viewed as "safe" by the White House.

This from a White House Press release a short while ago:

The President intends to appoint Stephen Friedman, of New York, to be a Member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, for a term of two years, beginning on December 20, 2005. Upon appointment, the President intends to designate him Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and Member and Chairman of the Intelligence Oversight Board.

The President intends to appoint the following individuals to be Members of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, for a term of two years:

James L. Barksdale of Mississippi

Arthur B. Culvahouse of Virginia

William O. DeWitt, Jr. of Ohio

Admiral James O. Ellis (Ret.) of Georgia

Donald L. Evans of Texas

Martin Faga of Virginia

Lee Hamilton of Indiana

Ray Hunt of Texas

David E. Jeremiah of Virginia

John L. Morrison of Minnesota

Elizabeth Pate-Cornell of California

The President intends to appoint Stefanie R. Osburn, of Virginia, to be Executive Director of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Ms. Osburn currently serves as Chief of Staff for the Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Management at the Central Intelligence Agency. Prior to this, she served as Chief of Staff for the Deputy Director of Center Intelligence for Community Management. Ms. Osburn, who has been with the CIA for over 20 years, has also served as Chief of Program Analysis, Chief of Policy, the Hard Target Executive Secretary, Chief of Security, Chief of Plans and Senior Program Analyst. Ms. Osburn received her bachelor's degree from the University of Georgia Southern.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Part of the process of reporting is doing the best one can do to source information, and seek double confirmation regarding stuff we post.

The source of mine in the real estate brokerage arena has called to retract information shared with me that the Office of the Special Counsel was expanding into 1401 New York Avenue. He states that "he just got it wrong."

In addition, the second source -- in the building -- says that he had a miscommunication with someone about this.

This was a flop. I believe in telling what I hear -- on both sides -- whether TWN got it right or wrong.

And in this case it was wrong.

On other fronts, thus far I am standing with what I posted the other day about the mult-point run-down of what Fitzgerald was doing. While he hasn't called a press conference today, which was told to me, there seems to be some likelihood that the other pieces have occurred.

I am not an expert on idictment process, but I did speak to someone who is such an expert today. As I have been informed, the Special Prosecutor can ask the grand jury to issue an indictment. That indictment request is filed with the judge in a case. If a request is made to "seal" the indictment -- it shrouds everything, and keeps the process secret.

Thus, indictments may have been filed yesterday -- and some are reporting that they were. Letters -- according to my sources -- were received by Tuesday by all indictment targets.

I am still a bit confused by the on-off information on the office space -- but I have to step back from this retracted information. If, however, Fitzgerald was expanding office space in Washington (he has office space at 1400 New York Avenue), that expansion could serve either an extension of the investigation -- or prosecution.

But for the time being, that is a dead end. Not fun.

-- Steve Clemons

A have just heard that the White House revenge-team is out to get Brent Scowcroft for the revelations he provided in this week's New Yorker.

Apparently, a roster of talking points was issued in an email to Cheney fellow travelers via a "Michael Neece."

If anyone has this document, I'd love to see it.

-- Steve Clemons

I am one who believes that we need to do all we can to move expeditiously towards a two-state settlement between Israel and the Palestinian leadership.

But I have to say that statements like this from the President of Iran really muck up efforts of both sides to be responsible in trying to generate stability and fairness in an agreement, maintain security, and to work towards a very different environment in the Middle East.

This kind of statement deserves attention and condemnation -- but at the same time -- we need to find out quickly whether Mahmud Ahmadinejad is someone we can eventually work with though we may dislike him -- or whether this guy is completely irreconcilable.

Here's an excerpt:

Iran's President Mahmud Ahmadinejad yesterday cited comments by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic revolution, when he declared, "As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

Ahmadinejad told an audience of 3,000 students that there was "no doubt the new wave [of attacks] in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world."

The remarks were immediately condemned by a number of countries including Israel, which said that Iran should be expelled from the United Nations.

I'm not supportive of any effort to expel Iran from the United Nations -- but clearly some brave diplomacy has to occur here. It won't come from the U.S. -- but I suspect China has incentives to begin getting involved in Iran's reckless diplomacy.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Big News. Harriet Miers has withdrawn. Next in line may be a Bork-like nominee.

Senator Sam Brownback said on NPR's "Morning Edition" this morning that the "hill to get to the Supreme Court is already pretty big -- and her hill was just getting bigger." He also said that much of the Senate (read, Republican Senate) opposition to her was the difficulty in accessing her record and documentation of her views from the Executive Branch.

File that one away for future use.

Someone just emailed me that CNN is saying again today that Fitzgerald will make no public comments today. This is odd -- and if true, is definitely different than my sources shared. I'd advise keeping our powder dry -- and seeing what unfolds. I'll do what I can to learn more -- but clearly, there is incedible confusion and anxiety proliferating about Patrick Fitzgerald's next move.

On the rumor front -- unsubstantiated -- I was told by the source that had said John McCain had been approached by intermediaries about the possibility of accepting a VP appointment if Cheney developed "health problems" that McCain turned down the offer. . .definitively.

More soon. Thanks for all the good wishes.

Those who said it hurts worse the second and third days after an accident were right.

-- Steve Clemons

Sources of TWN's retract information on this story -- see link.

Patrick Fitzgerald's intermediaries denied that there was any significance to the establishment of a new website, minimalist as it is, for the Office of the Special Counsel which is investigating the "outing" of Valerie Plame Wilson's covert CIA responsibilities to the media.

Fitzgerald's people said that the investigation coming to a close and the website going up was just coincidence.

Well, news has just reached TWN that Patrick Fitzgerald is expanding not only into a new website -- but also into more office space.

Fitzgerald's office is at 1400 New York Avenue, NW, 9th Floor in Washington.

What I have learned is that the Office of the Special Counsel has signed a lease this week for expanded office space across the street at 1401 New York Avenue, NW.

Another coincidence? More office space needed to shut down the operation?

I think not. Fitzgerald's operation is expanding.

-- Steve Clemons

This will be a short, quick entry. . .I think.

First of all, for those of you who have heard that I was in a car accident last night -- thanks for your notes. I am ok. For those of you who did not know, I was hit by a car last night while walking in a crosswalk shortly after I filed this article with The Australian. It focuses on the Wilkerson speech and Scowcroft commentary and their collective impact on neoconservative ambitions.

The driver was a decent guy -- and didn't mean to do it -- but still, I had to spend about five and half hours at George Washington Hospital trying to get a CAT scan (however that is spelled) and make sure that my bones are intact. They are, but I'm sore.

Ok. . .on last night's post. I think that everything I wrote still stands. Fitzgerald convened and adjourned the grand jury today. Fitzgerald met the judge.

According to my sources, the letters to "indictment targets" were received yesterday. According to my legal sources, the standard practice would be for the grand jury to send indictment requests via the judge -- and these would be "filed" today. I have no idea how transparent that process is -- but I was told that the indictments are sealed.

I had also been told -- and reported yesterday -- that Fitzgerald would not call a press conference today, but that he would call one tomorrow. I have not spoken to my sources to learn whether this has changed -- but I was informed that the press conference would be called tomorrow, Thursday. There are rumors now flying that the press conference may be Friday -- but I have not spoken to any source about that.

The one interesting tidbit that came my way by way of an unnamed senior American journalist is this:

My sense is that the Rove team is feeling more confident today, the Libby team despondent

This is quite fascinating -- and could mean nothing. . .or everything. If Rove did not receive a letter yesterday and Libby did -- then Rove may have missed a bullet.

Alternative, Rove may be cited for lying to an FBI officer and not with full-fledged perjury and obstruction of justice, which many think Libby will be facing.

I have no other information on the number of individuals to be indicted, and can't offer substantiation of any kind for the nuanced comment above -- but I share it because it's intriguing and may mean that the VP's office is going to carry the heavy load of responsibility for the Plame affair. Karl may survive -- but still not sure.

On other fronts, Maureen Dowd tied the prospect of Fitzgerald indictments to the Scowcroft and Wilkerson revelations this week in an New York Times piece today.

I also did a lot of interviews today, one of which included a session that included Col. Lawrence Wilkerson as a guest as well on Warren Olney's "To the Point."

Lastly, before I go take some more pain killers for my back pain, the hip crowd will be interested to know that Lawrence Wilkerson's talk at New America will be used, clips anyway, on Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central.

Amidst all this tragedy, confusion, and scandal -- a little levity may be helpful. . .just a little.

-- Steve Clemons

An uber-insider source has just reported the following to TWN (since confirmed by another independent source):

1. 1-5 indictments are being issued. The source feels that it will be towards the higher end.

2. The targets of indictment have already received their letters.

3. The indictments will be sealed indictments and "filed" tomorrow.

4. A press conference is being scheduled for Thursday.

The shoe is dropping.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

Update: further commentary from CBS's John Roberts

This just out.

Scott McClellan has just thrown Karl Rove and Scooter Libby to the wolves today when a reporter asked whether White House press responses could be trusted give Scott's earlier denials that anyone in the White House had anything to do with outing Valerie Plame Wilson.

My question is: Can we be confident that when we hear statements from the White House in public that they are truthful?

MCCLELLAN: I think you can be, because you know that our relationship is built on trust. And I have earned that trust with you all. As you pointed out, you pointed back to some past comments that I made, and I've talked to you about the assurances that I had received on that.

The pressure is building.

-- Steve Clemons

This just in from a close friend who worked inside the pinnacle of Republican power in the Senate a few years ago, so while this is rumor -- it's Republican rumor, which makes it interesting:

Steve, just heard from trusted friend that McCain was approached about serving as VP if Cheney has "health problems" or otherwise steps down.

Beyond that, speculation that Miers will step down to be replaced by a Bork-like sub (even better, Bork himself...). In other words, Cheney takes a bullet, a titanic battle over SCOTUS ensued to change the subject. You didn't hear this from me, but feel free to pass on such unsubstantiated rumors.

The politics of distraction and wag-the-dog style political machinations happen in this town.

I still have a hard time believing Cheney would step down, but it could happen. And we all know that the Miers effort is not going well.

If Cheney did step down and McCain ascended, the question is to what degreet McCain would be given the latitude to "clean up things" -- otherwise, he runs the risk of sinking with the Bush administration and having his name sink with it.

Alternatively, only two U.S. Presidents in history have gone directly from the Senate to the White House. McCain getting the VP position in a time of crisis would make him the stand-out among all other candidates.

And you can be darn sure that the fundamentalist right would be stuck in a corner.

-- Steve Clemons

With revelations now out that Vice President Cheney was Scooter Libby's source for some of the Valerie Plame information, his week -- which was already going to be bad -- just got a heck of a lot worse.

Former State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson just intensified the pressure on Cheney today with his pull-no-punches Los Angeles Times op-ed, "The White House Cabal"

An excerpt:

In President Bush's first term, some of the most important decisions about U.S. national security -- including vital decisions about postwar Iraq -- were made by a secretive, little-known cabal. It was made up of a very small group of people led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

When I first discussed this group in a speech last week at the New America Foundation in Washington, my comments caused a significant stir because I had been chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell between 2002 and 2005.

But it's absolutely true. I believe that the decisions of this cabal were sometimes made with the full and witting support of the president and sometimes with something less. More often than not, then-national security advisor Condoleezza Rice was simply steamrolled by this cabal.

Its insular and secret workings were efficient and swift — not unlike the decision-making one would associate more with a dictatorship than a democracy. This furtive process was camouflaged neatly by the dysfunction and inefficiency of the formal decision-making process, where decisions, if they were reached at all, had to wend their way through the bureaucracy, with its dissenters, obstructionists and "guardians of the turf."

But the secret process was ultimately a failure. It produced a series of disastrous decisions and virtually ensured that the agencies charged with implementing them would not or could not execute them well.

Wilkerson also slips us nuances about the insider role that Colin Powell played -- in graphic language. The importance of these views beyond their rationality and logic, particularly about the way the Bush administration has "flummoxed" the 1947 National Security Act, is that they are also the best bellweather of what Colin Powell and Richard Armitage thought about Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and Bush.

It takes firm leadership to preside over the bureaucracy. But it also takes a willingness to listen to dissenting opinions. It requires leaders who can analyze, synthesize, ponder and decide.

The administration's performance during its first four years would have been even worse without Powell's damage control. At least once a week, it seemed, Powell trooped over to the Oval Office and cleaned all the dog poop off the carpet. He held a youthful, inexperienced president's hand. He told him everything would be all right because he, the secretary of State, would fix it. And he did — everything from a serious crisis with China when a U.S. reconnaissance aircraft was struck by a Chinese F-8 fighter jet in April 2001, to the secretary's constant reassurances to European leaders following the bitter breach in relations over the Iraq war. It wasn't enough, of course, but it helped.

Today, we have a president whose approval rating is 38% and a vice president who speaks only to Rush Limbaugh and assembled military forces. We have a secretary of Defense presiding over the death-by-a-thousand-cuts of our overstretched armed forces (no surprise to ignored dissenters such as former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki or former Army Secretary Thomas White).

It's a disaster. Given the choice, I'd choose a frustrating bureaucracy over an efficient cabal every time.

That's right, Lawrence Wilkerson states that Colin Powell went over to the White House to clean up "dog poop" at the White House and to try and fix all those things Condoleezza Rice had gotten wrong.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

I have just been tipped off that the Los Angeles Times plans to run a rip-the-veneer-off the White House cabal op-ed by Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former State Department Chief of Staff, in the morning.

I have read it...It's 998 words of honest patriotism that Americans need to hear -- and 998 tons of dynamite on the Executive Office of the President.

Here is a short teaser, but you must read the entire article in the Los Angeles Times that I will link as soon as it us up:

But many of the most crucial decisions from 2001 to 2005 were not made within the NSC process.

Scholars and knowledgeable critics of America's decision-making process may rightly say, so what? Haven't all of our presidents in the last half century failed to conform to the statutory process at one time or another? Isn't it the President's prerogative to make decisions with whomever he pleases? Moreover, can he not ignore whomever he pleases? Why should we care that President Bush gave over much of the critical decision-making to his vice president and his secretary of defense?

Both as a former academic and as a person who has been in the ring with the bull, I believe there are two reasons we should care. First, such departures from the statutory process have in the past led us into a host of disasters, including the last years of the Vietnam War, the Iran-Contra scandal, and now the ruinous foreign policy of George W. Bush.

That's not even the best part, or even the second best part.

I'll post more on this important article in the morning.

And catch the post below. Dick Cheney was Libby's source. Do you remember Bush demanding that his staff tell him who did it?

President Bush and Cheney have deceived the American public about Valerie Plame Wilson and her covert role on behalf of the national security interests of this nation -- and they did this during a time of war. Their words.

-- Steve Clemons

Scooter Libby has been caught in a very serious lie about the source of his knowledge that Valerie Plame Wilson was a CIA agent. He apparently testified before the grand jury that his source had been a journalist.

However, the New York Times now reports that his source was his boss, Vice President Cheney.

From this jaw-dropping article that will certainly lead in the Times tomorrow:

I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday.

The notes, taken by Mr. Libby during the conversation, for the first time place Mr. Cheney in the middle of an effort by the White House to learn about Ms. Wilson's husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who was questioning the administration's handling of intelligence about Iraq’s nuclear program to justify the war.

Lawyers said the notes show that Mr. Cheney knew that Ms. Wilson worked at the C.I.A. more than a month before her identity was made public and her undercover status was disclosed in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak on July 14, 2003.

Mr. Libby's notes indicate that Mr. Cheney had gotten his information about Ms. Wilson from George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, in response to questions from the vice president about Mr. Wilson. But they contain no suggestion that either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby knew at the time of Ms. Wilson's undercover status or that her identity was classified. Disclosing a covert agent's identity can be a crime, but only if the person who discloses it knows the agent's undercover status.

It would not be illegal for either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby, both of whom are presumably cleared to know the government's deepest secrets, to discuss a C.I.A. officer or her link to a critic of the administration. But any effort by Mr. Libby to steer investigators away from his conversation with Mr. Cheney could be considered by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, to be an illegal effort to impede the inquiry.

This is amazing information. You may ask why?

First of all, this means that Vice President Cheney has known all along that he was Scooter Libby's source -- and whether Libby had license from him or not to try and slaughter the reputation of Joe Wilson -- CHENEY KNEW.

The entire charade of President Bush stating that he wanted to get to the bottom of who leaked Plame's name -- and who was involved -- is no longer believable at any level. Cheney would not have failed to disclose this to Bush, and Bush played along as if none of his staff were involved. They confessed nothing -- accepted no responsibilty -- until forced by Fitzgerald.

According to Scooter Libby's notes, George Tenet was the source for the information about Valerie Wilson lining up the trip -- so to speak -- for her husband, but did not necessarily include the information that she was a covert operative.

This is where things get interesting. Although Fitzgerald may not need to establish this connection, it seems increasingly plausible to TWN that Tenet and Cheney had some kind of exchange regarding Joe and Valerie Wilson. Cheney then passed off the information to Libby along with a few expletives about Wilson, implying that the @#$%@%er should be done in.

The question is how did Libby then churn up more info on Wilson without other parts of the "untrusted" bureaucracy spitting in his face or reporting his sins?

My hunch is that he went to trusted spear-carriers for Vice President Cheney -- the office and staff of Under Secretary of State John Bolton. Fred Fleitz, Bolton's chief of staff, maintained his CIA WINPAC portfolio and access as an active duty CIA staff member while he operated as Bolton's "acting" chief of staff. We know that Fleitz was a key part of the intelligence cherry-picking/stove-piping operation when it came to both the intel and policy response to various global WMD concerns -- in North Korea, Libya, Iran, and Iraq.

We also know that David Wurmser and John Hannah, who have both apparently cooperated after threats of legal action (i.e., time behind bars) with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald worked both for John Bolton's operation and the Vice President's office.

I recently consulted with a number of senior State Department officials about the level of interaction between Vice President Cheney's office and John Bolton's office -- and was informed that there was "intense" exchange between them, constant. One said that "Bolton and his team were operatives of Vice President Cheney inside the State Department establishment -- there to subvert Armitage and Powell wherever they could, and if not subvert, then there to spy on the them and report back.

TWN knows nothing more than what it speculates to be a plausible scenario. Tonight, I consulted with three senior State Department officials, one currently at the State Department and two who are now outside the Department. All three of them agreed that the scenario I have described about Fleitz being the source of information about Plame's covert WINPAC role -- and this information then passing from Fleitz and/or Bolton to Scooter Libby "is not unbelievable."

Patrick Fitzgerald does not need to prove that Fleitz and Bolton added to the information that Libby had from Vice President Cheney. It's not part of the case if Fitzgerald is focusing narrowly on discrepancies and untruthfulness in Libby's testimony -- or focusing on the act then of spreading these rumors about Plame to non-cleared members of the media.

But TWN hopes that those in the know will join me at Starbucks at Connecticut & R Streets and fill in the holes that Fitzgerald does not fill.

For now, we can know that the Vice President of the United States was neck-deep in this affair and knew it ALL along.

Fascinating and deeply, deeply disturbing.

-- Steve Clemons

Bob Herbert, in this morning's New York Times, lays out some of the key themes raised by Lawrence Wilkerson in his candid and thoughtful talk at the New America Foundation last Wednesday. Herbert starts the article by noting that the White House is waiting for word of indictments of some of its heaviest guns -- and into this pensive camp, Wilkerson has dropped one hell of a bomb.

From "How Scary is This?", Herbert writes:

Lawrence Wilkerson, a retired Army colonel who served as chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, addressed the administration's arrogance and ineptitude in a talk last week that was astonishingly candid by Washington standards.

"We have courted disaster in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran," said Mr. Wilkerson. "Generally, with regard to domestic crises like Katrina, Rita we haven't done very well on anything like that in a long time. And if something comes along that is truly serious, something like a nuclear weapon going off in a major American city, or something like a major pandemic, you are going to see the ineptitude of this government in a way that will take you back to the Declaration of Independence."

Herbert also notes Wilkerson's passionate anger about the treatment of prisoners under American control. While Herbert's article does not mention it, Wilkerson actually went further and said that he and Colin Powell knew that such pervasive behavior among the military ranks was not possible unless he had been "condoned."

Nevertheless, he is appalled at the way the war was launched and conducted, and outraged by "the detainee abuse issue." In 10 years, he said, when this matter is "put to the acid test, ironed out, and people have looked at it from every angle, we are going to be ashamed of what we allowed to happen."

And on why Wilkerson spoke out now. . .

Mr. Wilkerson said he has taken some heat for speaking out, but feels that "as a citizen of this great republic," he has an obligation to do so. If nothing is done about the current state of affairs, he said, "it's going to get even more dangerous than it already is."

As I have written already, I believe that Larry Wilkerson should be applauded and embraced by all of those who want to see not only a more honest and transparent national security apparatus -- but a more "effective" foreign and national security course for the country.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Jeffrey Goldberg has written a critique in The New Yorker of the Bush White House that equals Ron Suskind's devastating critique of Bush before the last election titled "Without a Doubt."

In "Breaking Ranks: What Turned Brent Scowcroft Against the Bush Administration?", Jeffrey Goldberg coaxes Brent Scowcroft to delineate his differences with the foreign policy proclivities of George W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney, and others.

And in the piece, George H.W. Bush is interviewed about Scowcroft -- and while Bush 41's comments are more elliptical, he stands clearly by Scowcroft's side in clear criticism of the decisions his son made.

This critique by Scowcroft hardens the foundation of critique that others have recently put in place -- particularly from Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former State Department Chief of Staff under Colin Powell who spoke at the New America Foundation last Wednesday. Wilkerson's remarks have swept like wildfire through the media and are the subject of a Richard Holbrooke article today in the New York Times and also a core column of discussion on this morning's "Meet the Press."

Jeffrey Goldberg's article is a devastating, serious critique of George W. Bush's foreign policy and national security team.

I have read the entire article -- which I recommend that TWN readers access as quickly as possible. I don't believe that The New Yorker provides links to articles, but buy this magazine. . .it's way, way, way worth it.

I am going to provide some longish excerpts to give insight into some of the most intriguing and useful commentary.

From "Breaking Ranks: What Turned Brent Scowcroft Against the Bush Administration?", Jeffrey Goldberg, The New Yorker, 31 October 2005

Scowcroft on Iraq and Neocon Idealism

A principal reason that the Bush Administration gave no thought to unseating Saddam was that Brent Scowcroft gave no thought to it. An American occupation of Iraq would be politically and militarily untenable, Scowcroft told Bush. And though the President had employed the rhetoric of moral necessity to make the case for war, Scowcroft said, he would not let his feelings about good and evil dictate the advice he gave the President.

It would have been no problem for America's military to reach Baghdad, he said. The problems would have arisen when the Army entered the Iraqi capital. "At the minimum, we'd be an occupier in a hostile land," he said. "Our forces would be sniped at by guerrillas, and, once we were there, how would we get out? What would be the rationale for leaving? I don't like the term 'exit strategy' -- but what do you do with Iraq once you own it?"

Scowcroft stopped for a moment. We were sitting in the offices of the Scowcroft Group, a consulting firm he heads, in downtown Washington. He appeared to be weighing the consequences of speaking his mind. His speech is generally calibrated not to give offense, especially to the senior Bush and the Bush family. He is eighty and, by most accounts, has been content to cede visibility to the larger personalities with whom he has worked.

James Baker told me that he and Scowcroft got along well in part because Scowcroft let Baker speak for the Administration. I learned from people who know Scowcroft that he finds it painful to be seen as critical of his best friend’s son, but in the course of several interviews prudence several times gave way to impatience. "This is exactly where we are now," he said of Iraq, with no apparent satisfaction. "We own it. And we can't let go. We're getting sniped at. Now, will we win? I think there's a fairchance we'll win. But look at the cost."

The first Gulf War was a success, Scowcroft said, because the President knew better than to set unachievable goals. "I'm not a pacifist," he said. "I believe in the use of force. But there has to be a good reason for using force. And you have to know when to stop using force." Scowcroft does not believe that the promotion of American-style democracy abroad is a sufficiently good reason to use force.

"I thought we ought to make it our duty to help make the world friendlier for the growth of liberal regimes," he said. "You encourage democracy over time, with assistance, and aid, the traditional way. Not how the neocons do it."

The neoconservatives -- the Republicans who argued most fervently for the second Gulf war -- believe in the export of democracy, by violence if that is required, Scowcroft said. "How do the neocons bring democracy to Iraq? You invade, you threaten and pressure, you evangelize." And now, Scowcroft said, America is suffering from the consequences of that brand of revolutionary utopianism. "This was said to be part of the war on terror, but Iraq feeds terrorism," he said.

Scowcroft on Iraq & Israel

In August of 2002, seven months before George W. Bush launched the invasion of Iraq, Scowcroft upset the White House with an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. The headline read, "DON'T ATTACK SADDAM." Scowcroft would have preferred something more nuanced, he told me, but the words accurately reflected his message.

In the article, he argued that an invasion of Iraq would deflect American attention from the war on terrorism, and that it would do nothing to solve the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, which he has long believed is the primary source of unhappiness in the Middle East. Unlike the current Bush Administration, which is unambiguously pro-Israel, Scowcroft, James Baker, and others associated with the elder George Bush believe that Israel's settlement policies arouse Arab anger, and that American foreign policy should reflect the fact that there are far more Arabs than Israelis in the world.

"The obsession of the region . . . is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," Scowcroft wrote in the Journal. "If we were seen to be turning our back on that bitter conflict -- which the region, rightly or wrongly, perceives to be clearly within our power to resolve -- in order to go after Iraq, there would be an explosion of outrage against us." Scowcroft went on to say that the United States was capable of defeating Saddam's military. "But it would not be a cakewalk. On the contrary, it undoubtedly would be very expensive -- with serious consequences for the U.S. and global economy -- and could as well be bloody. In fact, Saddam would be likely to conclude he had nothing left to lose, leading him to unleash whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses."

Scowcroft's Frustration Communicating with Bush 43

Like nearly everyone else in Washington, Scowcroft believed that Saddam maintained stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, but he wrote that a strong inspections program would have kept him at bay. "There may have come a time when we would have needed to take Saddam out," he told me. "But he wasn't really a threat. His Army was weak, and the country hadn't recovered from sanctions." Scowcroft's colleagues told me that he would have preferred to deliver his analysis privately to the White House. But Scowcroft, the apotheosis of a Washington insider, was by then definitively on the outside, and there was no one in the White House who would listen to him. On the face of it, this is remarkable: Scowcroft's best friend's son is the President; his friend Dick Cheney is the Vice-President; Condoleezza Rice, who was the national-security adviser, and is now the Secretary of State, was once a Scowcroft protege; and the current national-security adviser, Stephen Hadley, is another protege and a former principal at the Scowcroft Group.

Scowcroft on Cheney: "The Real Anomaly"

"The real anomaly in the Administration is Cheney," Scowcroft said. "I consider Cheney a good friend -- I've known him for thirty years. But Dick Cheney I don't know anymore." He went on, "I don't think Dick Cheney is a neocon, but allied to the core of neocons is that bunch who thought we made a mistake in the first Gulf War, that we should have finished the job. There was another bunch who were traumatized by 9/11, and who thought, 'The world's going to hell and we've got to show we're not going to take this, and we've got to respond, and Afghanistan is O.K., but it's not sufficient.'" Scowcroft supported the invasion of Afghanistan as a "direct response" to terrorism.

On George W. Bush Not Hearing Dissent or Considering Alternative Views -- With A Nudge from Bush 41

A common criticism of the Administration of George W. Bush is that it ignores ideas that conflict with its aims. "We always made sure the President was hearing all the possibilities," John Sununu, who served as chief of staff to George H. W. Bush, said. "That's one of the differences between the first Bush Administration and this Bush Administration."

I asked Colin Powell if he thought, in retrospect, that the Administration should have paid attention to Scowcroft's arguments about Iraq. Powell, who is widely believed to have been far less influential in policymaking than either Cheney or the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, said, pointedly, "I always listen to him. He's a very analytic and thoughtful individual, he's powerful in argument, and I've never worked with a better friend and colleague."

When, in an e-mail, I asked George H.W. Bush about Scowcroft's most useful qualities as a national-security adviser, he replied that Scowcroft "was very good about making sure that we did not simply consider the 'best case,' but instead considered what it would mean if things went our way, and also if they did not."

Bush 41 Unable to Mend Fences Between Bush 43 and Scowcroft

According to friends of the elder Bush, the estrangement of his son and his best friend has been an abiding source of unhappiness, not only for Bush but for Barbara Bush as well. George Bush, the forty-first President, has tried several times to arrange meetings between his son, "Forty-three," and his former national-security adviser to no avail, according to people with knowledge of these intertwined relationships. "There have been occasions when Forty-one has engineered meetings in which Forty-three and Scowcroft are in the same place at the same time, but they were social settings that weren't conducive to talking about substantive issues," a Scowcroft confidant said.

Few Areas of Foreign Policy Agreement Between Scowcroft and George W. Bush

When I asked Scowcroft if the son was different from the father, he said, "I don't want to go there," but his dissatisfaction with the son's agenda could not have been clearer. When I asked him to name issues on which he agrees with the younger Bush, he said, "Afghanistan." He paused for twelve seconds. Finally, he said, "I think we're doing well on Europe," and left it at that.

Scowcroft's Deteriorarting Relationship with Condoleeza Rice

The disintegrating relationship between Scowcroft and Condoleezza Rice has not escaped the notice of their colleagues from the first Bush Administration. She was a political-science professor at Stanford when, in 1989, Scowcroft hired her to serve as a Soviet expert on the National Security Council.

Scowcroft found her bright -- "brighter than I was" -- and personable, and he brought her all the way inside, to the Bush family circle. When Scowcroft published his Wall Street Journal article, Rice telephoned him, according to several people with knowledge of the call. "She said, 'How could you do this to us?'" a Scowcroft friend recalled. "What bothered Brent more than Condi yelling at him was the fact that here she is, the national-security adviser, and she's not interested in hearing what a former national-security adviser had to say."

Scowcroft on Rice's Foreign Policy Deficits & Israel Policy

Scowcroft told me that he still has a high regard for Rice. He did note, however, that her "expertise is in the former Soviet Union and Europe. Less on the Middle East." Rice, through a spokesman, said, "Sure, we've had some differences, and that's understandable. But he's a good friend and is going to stay a good friend."

Yet the two do not see each other much anymore. According to friends of Scowcroft, Rice has asked him to call her to set up a dinner, but he has not, apparently, pursued the invitation. The last time the two had dinner, nearly two years ago, it ended unhappily, Scowcroft acknowledged.

"We were having dinner just when Sharon said he was going to pull out of Gaza," at the end of 2003. "She said, 'At least there's some good news,' and I said, 'That's terrible news.' She said, 'What do you mean?' And I said that for Sharon this is not the first move, this is the last move. He's getting out of Gaza because he can't sustain eight thousand settlers with half his Army protecting them. Then, when he's out, he will have an Israel that he can control and a Palestinian state atomized enough that it can’t be a problem." Scowcroft added, "We had a terrible fight on that."

They also argued about Iraq. "She says we're going to democratize Iraq, and I said, 'Condi, you're not going to democratize Iraq,' and she said, 'You know, you're just stuck in the old days,' and she comes back to this thing that we've tolerated an autocratic Middle East for fifty years and so on and so forth," he said. Then a barely perceptible note of satisfaction entered his voice, and he said, "But we've had fifty years of peace."

Scowcroft's Realism on the Middle East

Scowcroft is unmoved by the stirrings of democracy movements in the Middle East. He does not believe, for instance, that the signs of a democratic awakening in Lebanon are related to the Iraq war. He sees the recent evacuation of the Syrian Army from Lebanon not as a victory for self-government but as a foreshadowing of civil war. "I think it's something we have to worry about -- the sectarian emotions that were there when the Syrians went in aren't gone."

Scowcroft and those who share his views believe that the reality of life in Iraq at the moment is undermining the neoconservative agenda. Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, who served as Colin Powell's chief policy planner during the first Bush Administration (and who was Scowcroft's Middle East expert on the National Security Council during the first Gulf War) said that the days of armed idealism are over. "We've seen the ideological high-water mark," he said. "I mean wars of choice, and unilateralism, and by that I mean an emphasis, almost to the point of exclusion of everything else, on regime change as opposed to diplomacy aimed at policy change."

Scowcroft on Wolfowitz

One day, I mentioned to Scowcroft an interview I had had with Paul Wolfowitz, when he was Donald Rumsfeld's deputy. Wolfowitz was the leading neoconservative thinker in the senior ranks of the current Bush Administration. (He is now the president of the World Bank.) I asked him what he would think if previously autocratic Arab countries held free elections and then proceeded to vote Islamists into power. Wolfowitz answered, "Look, fifty per cent of the Arab world are women. Most of those women do not want to live in a theocratic state. The other fifty per cent are men. I know a lot of them. I don't think they want to live in a theocratic tate."

Scowcroft said of Wolfowitz, "He's got a utopia out there. We're going to transform the Middle East, and then there won't be war anymore. He can make them democratic. He is a tough-minded idealist, but where he is truly an idealist is that he brushes away questions, says, 'It won't happen,' whereas I would say, 'It's likely to happen and therefore you can't take the chance.' Paul's idealism sweeps away doubts."

Wolfowitz, for his part, said to me, "It's absurdly unrealistic, demonstrably unrealistic, to ignore how strong the desire for freedom is." Scowcroft said that he is equally concerned about Wolfowitz's unwillingness to contemplate bad outcomes and Kagan's willingness to embrace them on principle. "What the realist fears is the consequences of idealism," he said. "The reason I part with the neocons is that I don't think in any reasonable time frame the objective of democratizing the Middle East can be successful. If you can do it, fine, but I don't think you can, and in the process of trying to do it you can make the Middle East a lot worse."

He added, "I'm a realist in the sense that I'm a cynic about human nature."

An Odd Exchange with Sharansky: Insight into Bush 43's Views of his Father

In September, Sharansky was in Washington at the invitation of Condoleeza Rice; he gave the closing speech at a State Department conference on democratization. "Can you believe it?" he said to me just before the session. "Rice gave the opening speech and I give the closing?" Of his complicated relations with the Bush family, he said, "A few days after my book comes out, I get a call from the White House. 'The President wants to see you.' So I go to the White House and I see my book on his desk. It is open to page 210. He is really reading it. And we talk about democracy.

This President is very great on democracy. At the end of the conversation, I say, 'Say hello to your mother and father.' And he said, 'My father?' He looked very surprised I would say this.” Sharansky went on, "So I say to the President, 'I like your father. He is very good to my wife when I am in prison.' And President Bush says, 'But what about Chicken Kiev?'"

Sharansky smiled as he recounted this story. "The President looked around the room and said, 'Who is responsible for that Chicken Kiev speech? Find out who wrote it. Who is responsible?' Everyone laughed." Sharansky paused, and looked at me intently. He had a broad grin. "I know who wrote Chicken Kiev speech," he said. "It was Scowcroft!"

Scowcroft may have had a hand in the speech, but when I asked George H.W. Bush about it he answered as if it had been his own idea. “I got hammered on the Kiev speech by the right wing and some in the press, but in retrospect I think the Baltic countries understood that we were being cautious vis-a-vis the Soviet Union," Bush said. "And their freedoms were established without a shot being fired."

Jeffrey Goldberg does a masterful job of telling the Scowcroft story -- and of getting into what makes him tick.

I happen to know that Scowcroft did not know that the article was coming out this week and would have preferred his views to air some time after a week of potential indictments by Patrick Fitzgerald of White House heavyweights.

Nonetheless, the article is out. Scowcroft has significant disdain for the negative consequences of Bush's decisions on the nation's well-being. Lawrence Wilkerson filled in many of the other pieces not covered here in his revelations about a "cabal" in the White House that cast away essential guidance from the 1947 National Security Act.

Get the full article.

-- Steve Clemons

Here is the release today from The New Yorker on the important article by Jeffrey Goldberg on Brent Scowcroft:

Brent Scowcroft on the War in Iraq and the Bush Administration

In "Breaking Ranks" (p. 54), in the October 31, 2005, issue of The New Yorker, Jeffrey Goldberg reports on the growing divide between the Bush Administration and its Republican critics. The criticism from Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to George H.W. Bush, has been particularly pronounced, Goldberg writes. Scowcroft recalls advice he gave the first President Bush at the conclusion of the first Gulf War, when there was pressure to remove Saddam Hussein.

It would have been easy to reach Baghdad, Scowcroft said, but what then? "At the minimum, we'd be an occupier in a hostile land. Our forces would be sniped at by guerrillas, and once we were there, how would we get out? What would be the rationale for leaving? I don't like the term 'exit strategy' -- but what do you do with Iraq once you own it?" Scowcroft then said of Iraq, "This is exactly where we are now. We own it. And we can't let go. We're getting sniped at. Now, will we win? I think there's a fair chance we'll win. But look at the cost."

Scowcroft has known George W. Bush for decades, but since the beginning of the Iraq war, he has been frozen out of the White House. "On the face of it," Goldberg writes, "this is remarkable," because Scowcroft's best friend is the former President Bush; the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, was a Scowcroft protege; and Vice-President Dick Cheney is also a friend. "The real anomaly in the Administration is Cheney," Scowcroft told Goldberg.

"I consider Cheney a good friend -- I've known him for thirty years. But Dick Cheney I don't know anymore." When, in an e-mail, George H.W. Bush was asked about Scowcroft's most useful qualities as an adviser, the former President wrote that he "was very good about making sure that we did not simply consider the 'best case,' but instead considered what it would mean if things went our way, and also if they did not."

According to friends of the elder Bush, the "estrangement of his son and his best friend has been an abiding source of unhappiness," Goldberg writes. Scowcroft said he hoped for a better relationship with the son, and adds, "I like George Bush personally, and he is the son of a man I'm just crazy about." Of the differences between father and son, Scowcroft said, "I don't want to go there."

Colleagues have paid particular notice to the relationship between Scowcroft and Rice, who worked closely during the first Bush Administration. Friends of Scowcroft recall a dinner in September of 2002, when discussion of the impending war in Iraq became heated. As Goldberg reports, Rice finally said, irritably, "The world is a messy place, and someone has to clean it up."

Goldberg talks to the former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky, whose book, "The Case for Democracy," came to national attention when George W. Bush told the Washington Times, "If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy, read Natan Sharansky's book." In the book, Sharansky criticizes Bush's father for a speech he gave in 1991, in Ukraine, opposing a break with the Soviet Union -- a speech critics labelled "Chicken Kiev."

Sharansky tells Goldberg that soon after his book was published, he was invited to the White House to see the President. He says, "So I go to the White House and I see my book on his desk. It is open to page 210. He is really reading it. And we talk about democracy. This President is very great on democracy. At the end of the conversation, I say, 'Say hello to your mother and father.' And he said, 'My father?' He looked very surprised I would say this."

Sharansky went on, "So I say to the President, 'I like your father. He is very good to my wife when I am in prison.' And President Bush says, 'But what about Chicken Kiev?'"

The Administration, Goldberg writes, "remains committed to the export of democracy, and is publicly optimistic about the future in Iraq." Paul Wolfowitz, an architect of the Iraq war, tells Goldberg, "Wilson thought you could take a map of Europe and say, 'This is the way things are going to be.' That was unrealistic, but the world has changed a lot in a hundred years. The fact is that people can look around and see the overwhelming success of representative government."

"For Scowcroft," Goldberg writes, "the second Gulf war is a reminder of the unwelcome consequences of radical intervention, especially when it is attempted without sufficient understanding of America's limitations or of the history of a region." Scowcroft says, "I believe in the fallibility of human nature. We continually step on our best aspirations. We're humans. Given a chance to screw up, we will."

The October 31, 2005, issue of The New Yorker goes on sale at newsstands beginning Monday, October 24th. Selections from the magazine, as well as additional features, are available at www.newyorker.com.

More later on the article itself.

-- Steve Clemons

The revered-in-tons-of-corners former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft definitively breaks ranks with the Bush administration in an article by nearly the same name, "Breaking Ranks," appearing in the upcoming Monday issue of The New Yorker.

The article will outline what decisions and events have built up to turn Brent Scowcroft against this Bush administration. Yes, that's right. . ."turned Brent Scowcroft against this Bush administration."

Jeffrey Goldberg, the author of the piece, has pulled off a stunning coup by not only getting Brent Scowcroft to talk -- but also getting some incredibly juicy commentary from President George H.W. Bush on the performance of his son's national security team.

I don't have the full piece yet -- but I know it will be a blockbuster.

I also know that for all of those who had difficulty (read Rush Limbaugh; alternative site here) adjusting to former State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson's candid commentary on the White House's broken national security decision-making process, you are going to have an even more difficult time with revelations from Scowcroft.

They will be saying largely similar things about a "cabal" that undid our nation's security.

For those of you interested, here is a link to the transcript of the presentations by General Brent Scowcroft and former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski that I helped host on January 6th of this year. Scowcroft's comments about "incipient civil war" in Iraq made global news and started a jousting match between my blog and David Frum's.

You can look back at the January archive here for more on that important Scowcroft battle.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

UPDATE

Here is a short UPI piece on Scowcroft's coming profile and interview in The New Yorker that has just run without a byline -- but I suspect that Martin Sieff or Shaun Waterman wrote it. It's quite good. I don't have a link for the UPI piece, so will post in entirety:

UPI -- 21 October 2005

Old Bush vs. New

The Bush administration is bracing for a powerful new attack by Brent Scowcroft, the respected national security adviser to the first President George Bush.

A Republican and a former Air Force general, Scowcroft is a leading member of the bipartisan foreign policy establishment, and his critique of both of the style and the substance of the Bush White House, is slated to appear in Monday's editions of the New Yorker magazine.

The article also contains some critical comments on the handling of U.S. foreign policy by the current President Bush from his father, whose 1989-1993 presidency is hailed for deft management of the end of the Cold War, German unification, the first Gulf war and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The new attack comes hard on the heels of the denunciation of "the cabal around Cheney's office" by Col. Larry Wilkerson, the chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell in a widely reported speech to the New American Foundation in Washington this week. Wilkerson said the national security decision-making process was effectively "broken."

Scowcroft's criticisms will be taken seriously at the highest levels of the Bush administration because he is seen as a mentor by some of its senior figures, notably Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, whose political career began when she worked under Scowcroft as an adviser on Soviet affairs.

The attack also comes as President Bush's opinion poll approval ratings have sunk to around 37 percent, partly reflecting the ill-handled federal government response to Hurricane Katrina's devastation of the Gulf coast. But majorities of Americans are also telling pollsters the country "is on the wrong track" and saying the Iraq war was a mistake.

The beleaguered Bush administration is also nervously waiting to see whether indictments in the CIA leak case are to be handed down next week against two key White House aides, Karl Rove and "Scooter" Libby. The White House is facing heavy flak from its conservative base over the controversial nomination of the president's counsel, Harriet Miers, to the vacant seat on the Supreme Court. And traditional balanced-budget conservatives have been dismayed by the double deficit, a combined deficit on the federal budget and on the current account that adds up to over $1 trillion this year.

A cartoon in the Washington Post Friday depicted the Bush White House being inundated by "The Perfect Storm" of Miers, Hurricane Katrina, Iraq, Rove, the budget deficit and the indictment this week of the Republican leader in the House of Representatives, Tom DeLay, on charges of money laundering campaign funds.

-- Steve Clemons

Note to TWN Readers: There has been huge coverage of Col. Lawrence Wilkerson's talk at the New America Foundation -- and soon I will create a listing of all of the best items for the sake of future perusal.

However, Chris Nelson's no-holds-barred style of commentary in the uber-insider Nelson Report on these national security matters is unbeatable, and he gets at issues that no other writers are getting at.

I have secured permission to reprint his entire missive below. Don't ask for the link to his website. He has none. He became a blog-like pundit before blogs were around. You have to be a pal of Chris Nelson's or have a lot of money to subcribe to his report.

Read it -- and then come back in a few minutes. I have some very important news about an article about to appear that will secure the foundation beneath much of Larry Wilkerson's talk.

The Nelson Report, 20 October 2005

POWELL AIDE NUKES CONDI/RUMMY/CHENEY

SPEAKING FOR POWELL? NOT EXACTLY. . .BUT. . .

SUMMARY: Bearing in mind Oscar Wilde's advice that "revenge is a dish best eaten cold", how does one grasp the intention of former Colin Powell aide, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson's highly emotional, if fact-based and personal eye-witness account of the massive, collective failures and misdeeds of Condi Rice, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld. . .and the current President Bush? (see link to full transcript below. . .)

Either first hand at The New America Foundation, or vicariously, courtesy of the Financial Times and IPS, Washington types watched this latest example of Republican auto-genocide with the delighted, if slightly stunned expressions of a pack of hyenas on the receiving end of fresh elephant, with no lions in sight. But what they wanted to know was "Is Wilkerson speaking directly for Powell and Armitage?"

The answer: not exactly. On the one hand, there is no question from private remarks and public grimaces, some reaching back to early 2001, neither Powell nor Armitage had or has much trust or respect for Rice, and they share with other senior Republican wisemen the conviction that Rumsfeld is quite literally mad, and Cheney a dangerous, vindictive monomaniac.

On the other hand, such views are normally dispensed as pearls before very closed groups of friends and retainers, often with the intent that rumors, if not full quotes, reach the ears of eager ink-stained wretches of the press, so that the Powell/Armitage reputation for speaking truth about power remains unsullied, and hopefully well-represented in the history books.

Just how brave they were up-front, in the face of the misdeeds of Rummy/Cheney/Rice being decried, is a question on which the history books may be slightly less generous than the daily press, but that's not our topic for tonight. . .except to note Wilkerson's stunning frankness in stressing the obstacles placed in the Powell/Armitage path directly by Rumsfeld/Cheney, or indirectly, through Rice's failure to perform the intended function of a National Security Advisor.

Implicitly, President Bush must be faulted for not seeing how he was being manipulated by Rumsfeld/Cheney. We noted in a Report several years ago an eye-witness account of Cabinet meetings discussing Iraq WMD which confirms the picture painted yesterday by Wilkerson: the gist of our quote was that "Rummy and Cheney spend their time spinning-up Bush, while Condi sits there saying nothing, leaving Powell totally isolated and ineffective." This was from a then-DOD source, we should add.

Back to Wilkerson: a careful read of the full transcript shows that he spent most of the time in a calm, if impassioned examination of how the national security function is supposed to work, both according to the 1947 law establishing the modern structures of power, and the practice of successful NSC's and good "foreign policy presidents".

Wilkerson and Powell worked for GHW Bush, and Wilkerson is unstinting in his praise of Poppa. And it must be noted that for all of his harsh words about the current President Bush's foreign policy operation, Wilkerson gives credit to Bush for taking a strong stand (by implication against Cheney and Rumsfeld) on not having a war with N. Korea. And he is complimentary of Rice as Secretary of State, crediting her successes to her strong personal relations with Bush. . .in fatal contrast to the Powell/Bush dysfunction.

But he blasts Bush for "cowboyism" for the disastrous treatment of Nobel Peace Prize winner Kim Dae-jung, when the then-president of South Korea was publicly humiliated by Bush in March, 2001, thus setting the stage for what became the current nuclear standoff with N. Korea.

Another topic of emotional importance in Wilkerson's talk, which clearly echoes Powell's personal concerns, was his denunciation of the "torture memo" and its effects, predicting "ten years from now, when we have the whole story, we are going to be ashamed."

What is he hinting? In some of the private chats noted above, Powell and Armitage have quoted President Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney as leading a collective round of ridicule when Powell, at Cabinet meetings, and Armitage, at Subcabinet, sought to put limits on mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo. . .long before the cancer of Abu Ghraib. We reported on this at the time of last year's Senate hearings (the title of one was "A Fish Rots From The Head"). It will be interesting to find out if any of this was discussed with Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald, as he ponders conspiracy indictments. . .but that may be another story.

Our point in mentioning it tonight is that we think this casts light on Wilkerson's performance yesterday. . .it's hard to read between the lines and escape with anything less than his profound sense of shame and remorse that he and colleagues he so obviously considers authentic American heroes could have failed so badly to overcome the calculated, willful ignorance and mendacity of their opponents in the Bush Administration.

We cannot quote what Wilkerson actually said about DOD's Doug Feith, for example, because many of your spam-gards will block the words. Given the locale, it was quite astonishing, however accurate. Just cast your mind back to what the deposed Gen. Tommy Franks said about Feith. Wilkerson’s point wasn't to show-off by being obscene. . .we think it was just one of many genuine cris de cour that came pouring out yesterday.

This leads to our final point for tonight. The Bush Administration may well be imploding before our eyes, with incalculable complexities for the country, as a leadership vacuum makes rational government even more difficult that it is already, and Democrats remain rudderless and devoid of a coherent idea. Yet the number of deeply patriotic, honest, self-less and effective men and women in this Administration is no less than any other, and a great deal more than some. It is literally heart-breaking to witness the death of a dream.

As a Democrat who has spent his professional life in Washington, you have to feel deeply for your Republican friends, and what they are going through right now. That it brings back memories of Bill Clinton's personal abuse of his colleagues, and his country, is just one shared moment.

For a professional soldier like Wilkerson it surely goes beyond that, to a sense of betrayal. Men and women are being asked to lay down their lives for liars, incompetents. . .the Doug Feith's of this world. . .and the superiors who do no better. . .Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice. . .and Bush.

No wonder Colin Powell looks ashamed as he talks about his pre-Iraq war WMD testimony to the UN. . .he was the witting tool of fools. What could be worse, for any patriot?

For the full text of Wilkerson's remarks at The New America Foundation:

Dear Colleagues & Friends: This is a link to the full transcript of former State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson's talk yesterday at the New America Foundation:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001020.html

If you have further questions, you can reach me at:

Steven Clemons
Senior Fellow & Director, American Strategy Program, New America Foundation
and
Publisher, TheWashingtonNote.com
202-276-1176
clemons@newamerica.net

-- Steve Clemons

Here is the full transcript of Col. Lawrence Wilkerson's speech yesterday, including Q&A.

This has not been edited or fully reviewed yet -- but wanted to get up ASAP and may revise if there are mistakes found.

-- Steve Clemons

I should have the full transcript, complete with Questions & Answers, shortly.

I have published posts on Wilkerson's talk here and here.

Until then, here are some of the most outstanding pieces of coverage of former State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson's comments yesterday which I moderated and chaired at the New America Foundation.

U.S. News & World Report World Watch: Ex-State Official Blasts 'Cheney-Rumsfeld' Cabal by Thomas Omestad

Financial Times
Cheney Cabal Hijacked U.S. Foreign Policy
by Edward Alden

Washington Post
Colonel Finally Saw Whites of Their Eyes
by Dana Milbank

Newsday
Powell's Ex-Aide Rips Leaders
by Timothy M. Phelps

Asia Times/Inter-Press Service
U.S. Policy and the 'Oval Office' Cabal
by Jim Lobe

A partial transcript is available by clicking here. (Full transcript will be posted on TWN shortly.)

A full video link is available here.

I think Larry Wilkerson has done the nation a great service by sharing his perspectives on the national security decision making process and how far this administration has diverged from the 1947 National Security Act.

His loyalty to Colin Powell is clear in his talk. They have worked together for more than 16 years.

But it's clear that Wilkerson felt he had to go farther than Powell and Richard Armitage probably ever will -- at least while President Bush is still in office -- because of the loyalty that Col. Lawrence Wilkerson feels to the nation as a whole. Although some don't understand, Richard Armitage and Colin Powell feel that it is important to maintain a decorum and etiquette of public loyalty and obeisance to the Commander in Chief, in public and private life. Wilkerson has clearly struggled with this -- but he should be applauded for his decision to reveal his views and perspective.

I have written about the need for some kind of "Conscience of a Conservative" award, based on Barry Goldwater's book, and Wilkerson is another who by doing the right thing deserves a place on such a roster of truly admirable citizens.

-- Steve Clemons

Listen. . .I'm at a conference on Israeli-Palestinian issues now and am writing this as I sit in the audience -- but today I hosted one of the single most important meetings I have put together with former State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson.

We are rushing -- and spending some serious bucks -- to get the transcript ready by tomorrow, but the video link is up now.

Watch it -- It blows the roof off of the White House.

More on this important session later. To reiterate, transcript will be up tomorrow afternoon.

-- Steve Clemons

This article by New York Daily News DC Bureau Chief Thomas DeFrank reveals some startling news about President Bush's reaction to Karl Rove's 'clumsiness' in trying to discredit Joe Wilson.

Here is an excerpt from this interesting piece:

"Karl is fighting for his life," the official added, "but anything he did was done to help George W. Bush. The President knows that and appreciates that."

Other sources confirmed, however, that Bush was initially furious with Rove in 2003 when his deputy chief of staff conceded he had talked to the press about the Plame leak.

Bush has always known that Rove often talks with reporters anonymously and he generally approved of such contacts, one source said.

But the President felt Rove and other members of the White House damage-control team did a clumsy job in their campaign to discredit Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, the ex-diplomat who criticized Bush's claim that Saddam Hussen tried to buy weapons-grade uranium in Niger.

A second well-placed source said some recently published reports implying Rove had deceived Bush about his involvement in the Wilson counterattack were incorrect and were leaked by White House aides trying to protect the President.

"Bush did not feel misled so much by Karl and others as believing that they handled it in a ham-handed and bush-league way," the source said.

None of these sources offered additional specifics of what Bush and Rove discussed in conversations beginning shortly after the Justice Department informed the White House in September 2003 that a criminal investigation had been launched into the leak of CIA agent Plame's identity to columnist Robert Novak.

What seems clear is that Bush was disturbed by his staff's behavior and did nothing at that point. He told the nation he would fire any staff involved -- and then did nothing other than privately scold Karl Rove.

The other fascinating revelation is that the act of revealing Plame's identity does not seem to be part of Bush's irritation. It was getting caught, the "ham-handedness" of the effort. Bush seems not to have been angered by the revelation of Plame's covert CIA role.

We were at war. Bush's dad was the former Director of the CIA. And Bush only cared that his black-bag guys screwed up and got caught.

This ought to take another ten points of Bush's approval ratings.

-- Steve Clemons

For those of you in the Washington, D.C. area, we will be hosting a gathering of some of the nation's leading diplomatic and military affairs journalists and other policy practitioners to hear former State Department Chief-of-Staff (2002-2005), Col. Lawrence Wilkerson.

Larry spoke at our mega-conference in September and gave some pretty straight talk about what he saw as deficits in America's national security portfolio. His speech then is available at the America's Purpose website.

Today, Wilkerson is going to be addressing the Bush administration's national secutiy decision-making "process." I am going to wait to hear what he says today -- but my hunch is that he is going to blow the roof off the subject and argue that the administration's preference for 'secretive cabals' have led the nation and the President down some very bad paths.

This event today is part of an ongoing series of programs that I have helped organize on American national security strategy and policy. Al Jazeera chief terrorism investigative correspondent Yosri Fouda was the last speaker, and these sessions seem to be stirring up the right kind of dust.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

George Bush says that he looked into the hearts and souls of his staff regarding the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson and that none of them said that they were "involved."

It is clear that a number of his key staff either lied to Bush -- or he was in on it all along.

Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei lay out the stakes in an insightful piece this morning on the Patrick Fitzgerald-led investigation:

As the investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's name hurtles to an apparent conclusion, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has zeroed in on the role of Vice President Cheney's office, according to lawyers familiar with the case and government officials. The prosecutor has assembled evidence that suggests Cheney's long-standing tensions with the CIA contributed to the unmasking of operative Valerie Plame.

In grand jury sessions, including with New York Times reporter Judith Miller, Fitzgerald has pressed witnesses on what Cheney may have known about the effort to push back against ex-diplomat and Iraq war critic Joseph C. Wilson IV, including the leak of his wife's position at the CIA, Miller and others said. But Fitzgerald has focused more on the role of Cheney's top aides, including Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, lawyers involved in the case said.

And more. . .

is not clear whether Fitzgerald plans to charge anyone inside the Bush administration with a crime. But with the case reaching a climax -- administration officials are braced for possible indictments as early as this week-- it is increasingly clear that Cheney and his aides have been deeply enmeshed in events surrounding the Plame affair from the outset.

It was a request by Cheney for more CIA information that, unknown to him, started a chain of events that led to Wilson's mission three years ago. His staff pressed the CIA for information about it one year later. And it was Libby who talked about Wilson's wife with at least two reporters before her identity became public, according to evidence Fitzgerald has amassed and which parties close to the case have acknowledged.

By most accounts then, what we know at a minimum is that Scooter Libby -- during a time of "war" -- discussed a covert CIA agent's name and role with a reporter. Who cares at this point where Libby got the information. He was discussing a CIA agent with members of the press.

Karl Rove did the same -- exactly the same.

The question at this point must be what did President Bush and Vice President Cheney KNOW about this. I remember when the Plame scandal broke, and Bush went on television full of indignation that anyone on his staff would stoop so low and commit such a heinous crime against the national security interests of this nation.

And yet, two of the most powerful players in the White House were "involved." It is inconceivable that their respective bosses were not aware all along.

Or did they construct some byzantine system of plausible deniability? If so, then that is worse because it implies Presidential awareness of their misbehavior and recklessly illegal acts.

Bill Clinton deserves to be rebuked for the public statements he made that he "did not have sex with that woman," in the Monica Lewinsky case. However, President Bush's crimes are far greater if he pretended to know nothing about the Plame outing -- and in fact knew that Rove, Libby and his team were enmeshed up to their necks in a vindictive scheme to get Joe Wilson back for unveiling the Niger Uranium scam.

Bush AND Cheney had to know what was up -- and if not, then this scandal reflects on their management.

How does the Oval Office's deniability scam work? If indictments follow this next week or two, hopefully we'll learn more.

-- Steve Clemons

I have been interested in a number of large gaps in perception about American foreign policy and politics in general -- and digging into them for a longish essay/polemic I am writing. While I don't think that these gaps are just between the two major political parties -- but exist even within both parties -- this paper published by Third Way is pretty interesting, particularly the sections on foreign policy (beware. . .it's 71 pages long).

I believe that there is a reasonable middle out there -- but it has to be fought for -- and can't be a weak-kneed compromise between right and left. I've been stimulated -- but not convinced -- by Nancy Roman's interesting call for a bipartisan foreign policy via the Council on Foreign Relations. I think her call needs to be "more savage" -- but more on that later.

Yet at the same time, this chart stunned me.

Perhaps others have seen it before -- but it looks empirically at the reading/purchasing patterns of liberals and conservatives. We just read very different things. Very few conservatives read Chalmers Johnson's Sorrows of Empire. And while Clyde Prestowitz sold himself as a conservative who wasn't buying George Bush's foreign policy, his readers of Rogue Nation were liberals as well -- not on the "right" side of the aisle.

Steve Coll's Ghost Wars, Jim Mann's Rise of the Vulcans, Bob Baer's Sleeping with the Devil (of which I have just seen an early cut of a fictionalized account starring George Clooney), and Woodward's Bush at War were among the relatively few that made it on to the nightstands of conservatives and liberals.

While I do believe that there is an enlightened centrism in foreign policy that is achievable and desirable, an "ethical realism" to borrow the term from my colleague and friend Anatol Lieven, there is still a huge gap in perspective and basic inputs to that perspective that will be tough to bridge. This will probably remain the case for a long time -- until the nation is yet again shocked into a consensus groove.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

David Brooks asks a very good question about Harriet Miers in his New York Times column this morning: Can Harriet Miers write a lucid Court decision?

Did Bush ask for a writing example? Did he ask Laura to review it?

While I think it's useful to have fundamentalists and establishment Republicans divide over Harrier Miers, her appointment is still not a net gain for the nation. If she has difficulty writing and communicating her positions on important judicial decisions (perhaps we could get her a legaleze ghost writer?!), she won't be perceived as a force of her own but rather as a stooge of the President, even after he has left office.

Brooks offers tidbits of her fuzzy, uncompelling prose:

Of all the words written about Harriet Miers, none are more disturbing than the ones she wrote herself. In the early 90's, while she was president of the Texas bar association, Miers wrote a column called ''President's Opinion'' for The Texas Bar Journal. It is the largest body of public writing we have from her, and sad to say, the quality of thought and writing doesn't even rise to the level of pedestrian.

Of course, we have to make allowances for the fact that the first job of any association president is to not offend her members. Still, nothing excuses sentences like this:

''More and more, the intractable problems in our society have one answer: broad-based intolerance of unacceptable conditions and a commitment by many to fix problems.''

Or this: ''We must end collective acceptance of inappropriate conduct and increase education in professionalism.''

Or this: ''When consensus of diverse leadership can be achieved on issues of importance, the greatest impact can be achieved.''

Or passages like this: ''An organization must also implement programs to fulfill strategies established through its goals and mission. Methods for evaluation of these strategies are a necessity. With the framework of mission, goals, strategies, programs, and methods for evaluation in place, a meaningful budgeting process can begin.''

Or, finally, this: ''We have to understand and appreciate that achieving justice for all is in jeopardy before a call to arms to assist in obtaining support for the justice system will be effective. Achieving the necessary understanding and appreciation of why the challenge is so important, we can then turn to the task of providing the much needed support.''

I don't know if by mere quotation I can fully convey the relentless march of vapid abstractions that mark Miers's prose. Nearly every idea is vague and depersonalized. Nearly every debatable point is elided.

It's not that Miers didn't attempt to tackle interesting subjects. She wrote about unequal access to the justice system, about the underrepresentation of minorities in the law and about whether pro bono work should be mandatory. But she presents no arguments or ideas, except the repetition of the bromide that bad things can be eliminated if people of good will come together to eliminate bad things.

Maybe a soccer mom type is the right choice for the next slot on the Supreme Court, but there seem to be numerous people out there who are not part of the "judicial monastery" but can still communicate their views in a way that adds to rather than blurs America's legal infrastructure.

-- Steve Clemons

This Financial Times article is a must read.

Those whose expectations have been "dashed" and who played such a pivotal role in directing America's armies to invade Iraq need to be held accountable for their recklessness. It's not enough to lament and say, after the fact, that things didn't go well. "It's too bad. We miscalculated."

Not enough -- particularly given the vile way that those who raised principled concerns and questions about the Iraq War were treated.

Those who feared the current outcome -- like TWN -- were depicted by some as unpatriotic, as not "believing" in American righteousness in this battle. Humility among those who led this crusade is welcome, but serious minds should deal with why it was practically impossible to have a fair and informed discussion that included those who favored and those who opposed Bush administration policy in the months leading up to the invasion.

Like Judith Miller, many of these enthusiasts who did not recognize that America might stumble badly in this encounter, are responsible for the outcome -- for America showing its limits -- and the diminished state of America's perceived position in the world.

An excerpt:

Over the past week, two of Washington's most influential conservative think-tanks, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Heritage Foundation, held conferences on Iraq where the mood among speakers, including Iraqi officials, was decidedly sombre.

Kanan Makiya, an outspoken proponent of the war who is documenting the horrors of the Saddam regime in his Iraq Memory Foundation, opened the AEI meeting by admitting to many "dashed dreams".

He said he and other opposition figures had seriously underestimated the powers of ethnic and sectarian self-interest, as well as the survivability of the "constantly morphing and flexible" Ba'ath party. He also blamed the Bush administration for poor planning and committing too few troops.

The proposed constitution, to be taken to a referendum on Saturday, was a "profoundly destabilising document" that could "deal a death blow" to Iraq, he said.

The constitution was a recipe for greater chaos, said Rend Rahim, a former exile who had been designated as Iraq's first postwar ambassador to the US. Unless revised, it would lead to such a devolution of power that the central government would barely exist, she said.

Qubad Talabani, Washington representative of the Kurdistan regional government, delivered a stinging indictment of the central government that echoed the growing divisions in the ruling alliance of Shia and Kurds.

Danielle Pletka, senior analyst at AEI and conference moderator, called the constitution deeply flawed, describing it as the result of political machinations between Iraqis and Americans. She said the process had been reduced to a benchmark for the exit of US troops.

I'm glad that AEI and Heritage are holding such conferences -- but make sure that some of the families of soldiers killed and wounded as well as family members of innocents killed in Iraq are there to hear the introspective commentary of those who gambled American prestige and blood (of Americans and Iraqis) without a reasonable road map for success.

-- Steve Clemons

John Bolton has preempted a Security Council briefing on Darfur. It was over Bolton's ambivalence about coordinated international action in the case of genocide that Senator Russell Feingold -- a staunch believer that the President should nearly always have the team he or she wants -- decided to oppose Bolton's nomination to the United Nations.

During the Battle over Bolton, the U.N. Security Council voted to refer war crimes suspects from Darfur to the International Criminal Court. The United States abstained in that vote -- but most believe that had Bolton been Ambassador at that time, America would have opposed the referral.

Stygius has more on this.

John Bolton may be sending a signal that he prefers action to words. But at the same time, he has not suggested a course of action for Darfur that can be taken seriously. In the mean time, it seems appropriate to know more -- and to monitor the growing, gnawing horror there.

Bolton's behavior reminds me of what the AFL/CIO told me once when I worked in Senator Jeff Bingaman's office, when the Democrats had slipped into the minority. I was working on a number of policy matters involving labor and was trying to get some new ideas and "solutions" on the table. An AFL representative chided me, saying that "We are about telling the American public what the problems are. This isn't our time to fix things."

Shame on them.

I am waiting for John Bolton to show more of himself in this new job, but if he is there to obstruct and to complain -- but not there to constructively engage, innovate, and fix problems -- then Bolton Watch will be launched, not to taunt him but to expose and make transparent his every move.

Some Bolton observers have written to suggest that this stuff is old now -- and that Bolton is doing a reasonably good job. My objection to Bolton was never exclusively his personal behavior or demeanor. It was his perspective, his record of performance, his judgment about the ethics of non-profits and partisanship, his lack of respect for the system of checks and balances in government, his subversion of the Secretary of State's foreign policy initiatives, and his desire to lead this nation towards reckless and unnessary potential conflicts and even wars.

John Bolton is hampered where he is -- but not completely so. The Darfur briefing in the scheme of things is small, though many will disagree. It is small, compared to what are likely to be enormous collisions in the Security Council over Iran and other matters.

However, Bolton needs to be pushed to be a constructive force in the U.N. If there is too much talk and not enough action -- then produce the action. Inspire it.

But don't just silence those who want to make sure that global neglect of Darfur is not allowed to stand.

-- Steve Clemons

I was reading about Condoleeza Rice's trip to Kyrgyzstan and her efforts to secure ongoing U.S. access to bases there. She succeeded, but in the various reports, it was noted that she skipped Uzbekistan -- where Americans have had a base which will soon be abandoned.

I have long thought that America's deal-making with Uzbekistan's President Islam Karimov was a few notches past disgusting -- and that this character was very much like Saddam Hussein was via America two decades ago.

But if you have not heard it, Galima Bukharbaeva's talk at the recent mega-conference on America's "next phase" response to terrorism is profoundly important. She was the only reporter on hand to bring the world news (and a chilling recording) of the slaughter of innocent people in the name of fighting "Islamic extremists" by Karimov's soldiers in Andijon, Uzbekistan.

Her talk is only about ten minutes long -- and can be heard by clicking here. ("Windows Media" format)

Just thought that you should hear this again, if you did not the day she spoke.

-- Steve Clemons

Economist Peter Morici, with whom I used to work many years ago at the Economic Strategy Institute, has sent out a superb note outlining the "self-dealing" among top executives at Delphi, which has just declared bankruptcy.

He writes:

Delphi CEO Robert S. Miller is proposing a sweetheart severance packages for 21 top executives and improved compensation for 600 executives in the form of stock options. This is a raid on bondholders and should be disallowed by the bankruptcy court.

These top managers bear considerable responsibility for Delphi's sad situation. As experience in the airline industry demonstrates extra pay for failed managers will do little to improve their performance. There is no reason to believe, as Miller claims, these executives are being paid less than they are worth right now. In fact, they are likely not worth what they are currently being paid.

If his top executives are being paid below market, as Miller claims, why have they not left Delphi already? Over the last several months, Delphi's top managers were in the best position to know the company was in deep trouble and that their future with the company was uncertain at best. Yet, they could not identify better employment alternatives?

Benchmarking against Delphi managers pay against other auto companies, suppliers and durable goods manufacturers is silly. Executive pay in the automobile sector, like blue collar pay, is more than the automobile and parts markets will bear. That is what matters.

When companies are in long-term decline, the shareholders would be best served by managers selling off assets and distributing the cash to the stockholders; rather, profitable assets are sold to sustain employment and above market salaries, and to keep uncompetitive activities going.

Consider Ford's sale of Hertz and GM's sale of its stake in Fiji. If you had a billion dollars to invest would you give it to Bill Ford or Rick Waggoner? Of course not! It follows that shareholders should not let them sell Hertz and Fuji and invest the money in Ford and GM, because they are not really investing. They are using the proceeds to support inefficient enterprises and overpaid managers and workers a bit longer.

The same goes for compensation packages at Delphi. The company has some residual value now that it is in Chapter 11. Ultimately, the extra pay for executives will come out of what goes to bond holders. That's legalized pilfering.

This is a sizeable excerpt of a longer piece. I recommend that folks contact Peter Morici directly for his full note -- and ask to be put on his distribution list.

Compare what Delphi's CEO is doing for top executives compared to the lead graph, front page, above the fold, "Business and Finance" box in the Wall Street Journal:

DELPHI'S CEO SAID the auto supplier could save its pension plan if unions agreed to work for about a third of their old pay.

There are probably deep structural reasons why Delphi is struggling -- but to reward those at the top who failed while workers struggle continues the story of outrageous 'structural corruption' in our economy.

-- Steve Clemons

Today's session with Yosri Fouda was fascinating.

C-Span is re-playing the 2 hour segment tonight at 9:56 p.m. and then again at 1:52 a.m. (for those recently back from Asia).

Fouda outlined, despite his characteristic modesty, some startling and important new observations about al Qaeda's leadership. Specifically, he argued that the most recent tape from Ayman Al-Zawahiri showed some yearning to move out of the dominant shadow of Osama bin Laden. He also suggested that he didn't think that Al-Zawahiri knew where bin Laden was.

Al-Zawahiri's recent loquacious, 6000-word letter to Abu Masab al-Zarqawi in Iraq also indicates some subtle discomfort regarding the public relations impact of public executions by Zarqawi. Al-Zawahiri also decries the seeming lack of control or organization of attacks by al Qaeda led or inspired operations and also implies a need for money or more resources.

Fouda also indicated that he had knowledge from those who know the al Qaeda network that bin Laden himself may not be happy with how things are going and "feels a need to speak." Fouda mentioned that a colleague of his has been approached by those who have some knowledge of bin Laden that he would like to be interviewed by al Jazeera.

Yosri Fouda also made a long roster of compelling points. First and foremost, though he agreed with those who want to knock out the "careerists" in the Al Qaeda network, Fouda thinks that we need to do a better job of listening to what the terrorists are saying about their objectives and course of action. Fouda argues that they are more transparent than most Americans and other observers believe. He says that the challenge is to strip them of their "believers" by deconstructing what the believers think that they are getting from someone like bin Laden and directing their aspirations and hopes another direction.

Fouda implied that the kind of public diplomacy Karen Hughes was initiating at the State Department, though well intentioned, is not enough. America needs to rethink its "entire strategy with the Muslim world, particularly the Arab Muslim world, and initiate a new, serious, constructive approach." He suggested that even then, so much has gone wrong -- and there are such "deep roots" of ill will and problems -- that the situation will not improve for some time.

There is much more I could add -- and will -- at a later time. Suffice it to say that I think that Yosri Fouda is worth watching if you haven't seen it -- and re-watching if you have.

Although I am having trouble with the link, apparently one can find the Fouda event listed here and then click the link to watch over the web at one's convenience.

Yosri Fouda will also be appearing on C-Span's Washington Journal Tuesday morning from 9:30 - 10:00 a.m. (tomorrow).

Fouda's remarks at my recent terrorism conference can also be heard here (just scroll down page to the 11 a.m. panel on the "Grievance Challenge" and click link).

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Today, from 12 noon to 2 p.m. eastern, Al Jazeera's star investigative journalist Yosri Fouda will be speaking about his views about the current struggle against terrorism, a potential split inside Al Qaeda leadership, and his view of American foreign policy.

I will be moderating the program.

Folks can watch the show live on C-Span 1 from noon til 2 p.m. either on their television or at the C-Span website. Just scroll down the homepage and there are links to watch streaming video over your website at no charge.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

It's clear that the world is absorbing a set of incredibly devastating natural disasters -- the tsunami in Southeast Asia, the massive earthquake in December 2004 and December 2003 in Iran, the recent mudslides in Guatemala, the hurricanes in the Gulf (which pale in terms of lives lost but are on scale with general infrastructure destruction), and now the massive quake in Pakistan/Kashmir.

America has committed $50 million. This is a world to which Americans must reconnect. Many muslims in the world are ambivalent about us -- and as one scholar told me recently, muslims don't believe that we value them as people and value their lives.

These quakes that have created such devastation in Kashmir, Pakistan and India -- are tragic -- and America should send as much of its machinery of support there to do something real for these people.

-- Steve Clemons

I have no idea how this Valerie Plame leak investigation is going to come out. No one has inside information that is credible -- because Fitzgerald does not leak.

But he's the sort who inspires all of us to understand that independent investigations mean independent. It's fascinating to watch him operate.

And glad he's meeting Judy.

In my view, Fitzgerald is the sort who deserves the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

-- Steve Clemons

Mohamed ElBaradei has just won the Nobel Peace Prize for his and his agency's efforts trying to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

John Bolton must have a headache over this as ElBaradei was one of his targets when Bolton was Under Secretary of State. Bolton apparently screened intelligence intercepts of ElBaradei's conversations to find material to help block his efforts to serve a third term as Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

But as much as I find ElBaradei an interesting person, a celebrity-bureaucrat given his high profile, I haven't found him overwhelmingly successful in his job. We clearly have a collapse in the global proliferation regime. The IAEA may be doing all it can to reverse or stall trends, but still. . .success has not been very evident.

Perhaps this is a pat-on-the-back Nobel, a keep working hard carrot, a congrats-on-your-third-term "shot in the arm" as ElBaradei called it.

But still. . .this should have gone to someone who was making real sacrifices on behalf of global peace. Despite his being a reasonably good global civil servant, I don't think that ElBaradei cuts that profile.

-- Steve Clemons

Michael Moore has nothing to do with the following bit of news.

Bush has been telling foreign leaders that God is talking to him and told him to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Apparently, God also told Bush to get the Palestinians their state.

Seriously.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

As one of the follow-on meetings from the recent mega-forum on America's "Next Phase" response to terrorism, I will be moderating an event with Yosri Fouda on Monday at the New America Foundation.

We will be posting a link to a digital recording of the session shortly after the meeting.

Fouda will be discussing "al Qaeda's Shia-Sunni Problem: New Developments on the Terrorism Front."

Yosri Fouda is Senior Investigative Reporter and London Bureau Chief for Al-Jazeera. In the past, he has interviewed senior Al Qaeda leaders Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh. He is also Co-Author of the book, Masterminds of Terror.

Noon on Monday at the New America Foundation. It's a brown bag lunch session. Join us if you can.

-- Steve Clemons

It's remarkable to see how Republicans are dividing over Harriet Miers.

By my count, these are the Republicans in the U.S. Senate who are considering running for President: John McCain, Bill Frist, Sam Brownback, George Allen, and Chuck Hagel.

Let's see what they have to say about Miers.

First, here is a passage on what Senator George Allen has stated:

Concerns by conservative U.S. Senate Republicans about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers persisted on Wednesday despite President George W. Bush's assurances that his White House counsel is the best person for the job.

"That's the president's, his description. It would not be mine at this point," said Sen. George Allen, a Virginia Republican. "Who knows, maybe a month from now, I'll say 'gosh no wonder he thought that.' At this stage I don't know enough," Allen said, echoing the sentiment of many critics.

George Allen was looking as if he was inheriting from Bill Frist the "favorite son" position from Bush in the next context -- and Allen has been courting at the same time fundamentalist conservatives. So Allen is being disloyal to Bush while favoring the religious right's views thus far.

Sam Brownback's views are captured in this excerpt from the Washington Post:

Republican Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, appearing on ABC's "Good Morning America," asked whether he would vote against Miers if she says the abortion decision Roe v. Wade is settled law.

"There's a good chance then that I would," said Brownback, a potential 2008 presidential contender and a staunch abortion foe. He plans to meet with Miers on Thursday.

So, Brownback and Allen are at odds with the White House.

John McCain, in contrast, is sticking with George Bush on Miers. McCain has stated:

I commend the President for his nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court of the United States. Over the course of thirty years, Ms. Miers has accumulated vast experience as a legal practitioner, led her peers as the head of state and local bar associations, and worked tirelessly as a dedicated public servant. Her record is one of deep commitment to the law and service to our nation.

If the Senate confirms Ms. Miers, she will be only the third woman to have served on the highest court of our nation. Her accomplishments demonstrate that the distinction would be well deserved. I trust that Ms. Miers will have a smooth confirmation process and receive a swift up-or-down vote in the Senate.

Senator Chuck Hagel is keeping his powder dry but seems to be tilting towards supporting Miers. His statement on her was non-committal:

President Bush has chosen someone he trusts and who has a record of accomplishment. I look forward to learning more about her as the confirmation process moves forward.

But the Nebraskan Senator's local press is spinning this as Hagel support for Miers -- and is also highlighting Senator Ben Nelson's very clear indication of support for Miers as reported by WOWT Omaha:

Senator Ben Nelson says Miers appears to be a sound choice. The Nebraska Democrat says Miers would bring new perspective and balance to the nation's highest court. He says the best scenario for the country would be for Miers to be confirmed with strong support.

My hunch is that Hagel votes "aye."

Majority Leader Bill Frist is going to be in the "aye" column also with his stong statement of support for Miers:

President Bush's choice of Harriet Miers demonstrates a thoughtful, careful, and discerning selection.

Once again, the President reached out in a bipartisan and inclusive way, listening to the views of 80 Senators.

And once again, the President chose a qualified nominee for our High Court.

During her distinguished 35-year legal career, Ms. Miers has demonstrated her expertise as a talented attorney in both private practice and in public service.

In every sense, Harriet Miers has been a true trailblazer and a role model for women in the legal profession.

The choice over who will serve on the Supreme Court has been a vital issue to privacy advocates, those who advocate for gay rights, and those who want to constitutionally protect a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. But the Supreme Court choices made this year are also vital to the social conservative right.

It's clear that Bush has frustrated the fundamentalist right-wing who don't see a dependable ally in Harriet Miers. They may overplay their hand and actually mobilize her sympathies against their agenda -- wheras right now she is nearly a blank slate on most moral issues while mostly being an advocate of George Bush's agenda.

But McCain, Frist, and probably Hagel are standing by Bush.

Brownback is defecting.

And George Allen may see his presidential aspirations go up in flames depending on the choice he makes.

-- Steve Clemons

For German speakers, this piece on Jeffrey Gedmin appeared in today's Financial Times Deutschland -- quoting The Washington Note on the rumors that Gedmin will soon find himself in John Bolton's shop at the United Nations:

Gedmin fuer neuen Posten im Gespraech

Hubert Wetzel, Financial Times Deutschland, 4 October 2005

Der Direktor des Aspen Institute in Berlin, Jeff Gedmin, koennte demnaechst auf einen hochrangigen Posten an der US-Vertretung bei der Uno in New York wechseln. Der Politanalyst Steve Clemons schreibt in seinem Internetblog "The Washington Note", Gedmin sei das Amt des Vize-Botschafters angeboten worden.

Die US-Regierung wollte dies gestern nicht bestaetigen, bestritt das Geruecht aber nicht. "Das Weisse Haus wird ziemlich bald eine Ankuendigung machen", so ein Sprecher der US-Botschaft in New York.

Gedmin gilt wie sein kuenftiger Chef, Uno-Botschafter John Bolton, als neokonservativer Hardliner. Sie sind seit langem befreundet. Anders als Bolton ist Gedmin aber im persoenlichen Umgang freundlich und offen. In Berlin erwarb er sich den Ruf, US-"Schattenbotschafter" sein. Die Befoerderung auf den Posten des Vizebotschafters waere ungewoehnlich: Normalerweise uebernimmt ein Karrierediplomat das Amt, kein politischer Kandidat.

The only new information that is potentially significant in the above news clip is that the writer, Hubert Wetzel, called a State Department press source who would neither confirm nor deny the rumor about Gedmin. The spokesman then offered: "The White House will make an announcement about this quite soon."

Although it has not yet been reported, TWN has heard from another news source who contacted Gedmin that he has stated that "the rumors are untrue" -- in my book, a classic non-denial denial.

The potential appointment of Jeffrey Gedmin may still be in a fragile stage. I don't know if John Bolton secured all the support needed to bring in a significant neoconservative voice into his fold. Perhaps he did, and perhaps not.

Gedmin was considered by many, according to the Financial Times Deutschland piece to be America's "shadow Ambassador" in Germany. He is very personable and considered by many to be a genuinely nice and complex person. Those less accomodating think Jeff Gedmin has done serious damage to U.S.-German and broad transatlantic relations.

Nonetheless, this is a battle about Bolton's judgment and about the ideological dimensions of this appointment. The fact is that Bolton is trying to hire a quite effective spear-carrier for the neoconservative movement.

Should be interesting to see what unfolds.

Update -- Another link on the rumor of Jeffrey Gedmin going to the United Nations: Der Tagesspiegel.

-- Steve Clemons

Judy Miller seems to be engaged either in some kind of perverse self-deception, or she is simply brilliant at manipulating the rest of us. As has been widely reported, she seems to have unnecessarily gone off to jail as she was protecting a source who never wanted protection. . .or she strong-armed a deal with Prosecutor Fitzgerald in which she didn't have to tell anything beyond her interactions with Vice President Cheney's Chief-of-Staff Scooter Libby.

Nonetheless, we have all been duped. It felt like moment after Matt Cooper was ordered by the courts to testify, he not only suspended his resistance, he immediately told his story in Time magazine.

But in Judith Miller's case, NOTHING has appeared under her by-line in the New York Times explaining this case or her behavior. She's no reporter. She's a huckster, and we are all being duped.

Arianna Huffington seems to have insider knowledge that Miller is securing a $1.2 million book deal from her public swindle:

P.S. Oh, she also told the Times that "she was uncertain whether she would write her own account, either in the newspaper or in a book." Two questions: (1) Does she really, really, think anybody will believe that? (2) If she intended to maintain her completely selfless pose a little longer, she simply should have refrained from talking to her friends about her $1.2 million book deal because, as she herself proved last week, people talk.

The New York Times should immediately fire her and discredit her immediately. This whole episode has been as fake and contrived -- and corrupt -- as Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, and Armstrong Williams.

She is planning to get rich off her shenanigans, which included misreporting about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and helping to set up an environment conducive to America's invasion of Iraq.

An apologist for Judith Miller -- and someone very close to her legal team -- told me recently that "George Bush did not go to war because of or inspite of Judy Miller's reporting. These soldiers didn't die because of her."

Well, I disagree. Judith Miller helped tip the balance. She carries a significant portion of the blame and bears a burden of responsibility for the deaths of American service men and women as well as tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

But what is more disgusting is that she is planning to CASH IN on this war and on her contrived battle that had nothing to do with freedom of the press and the protection of sources.

Judith Miller is a war-profiteer of the grossest kind.

-- Steve Clemons

Via Julian Sanchez, I was directed both to Randy Barnett's interesting anti-Miers piece today in the Wall Street Journal and to Federalist Papers No. 76.

I think Hamilton, Barnett, and Sanchez stake out a very different kind of opposition to Miers than the fundamentalist right. I think that they have a point, though I personally enjoy watching the White House run roughshod over its own right-wing, fundamentalist base.

It will be interesting to hear to what degree Miers holds sacred the delicate but vital system of checks and balances that make this nation a democracy and which the Bush administration has spent so much political capital trying to undermine.

All that said, there could have been far worse choices for the Supreme Court -- so I am of mixed views on Miers.

Nonetheless, I think that it should become standard practice for ALL committees of the United States Senate tasked with considering the credentials of an Executive Branch political nominee to read the following short passage ALOUD at the opening of a confirmation hearing:

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers, "The Appointing Power of the President," No. 76

To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. . . . He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

There is an odd connection between Harriet Miers and John Bolton.

The President stuck with Bolton despite mountains of testimony and evidence that compellingly demonstrated that John Bolton's collective dossier was something that most Americans could not be inspired by or of which they could be proud. Bolton, however, was a devoted Bush-loyalist -- and Bush would not buckle in his support of Bolton, even when the Senate failed to give him a stamp of approval and legitimacy.

I have been told by people both inside and outside (but close to) the White House that the President's team hated being put in a position that they had to proceed with a recess appointment. I've been told that they will have long memories about this -- and that once the President decides to give his support to someone, he and his closest advisors do everything possible not to take "no" for an answer.

It will be interesting to see if Bush's trademark tenacious, bull-headed loyalty will stand as strong against the fundamentalist conservatives in his own party who are convulsing over the Miers nomination to the Supreme Court.

Just read this line from David Frum today:

I'm signing off here for the next 24 hours, in which I'll be contemplating my own sins rather than those of the Bush administration. . .One thing I'll be praying for: wisdom to understand better the events of the past 24 hours.

I'll confess that I have been more shaken by the Miers nomination than by almost anything President Bush has done since the night of September 11 itself. I foresaw its coming, and yet I never quite believed in the end that the president would go through with it. Yet here it is - and we must all decide what we are to do: passively accept it? actively justify it? or something else?

Bush's fan club is seriously booing him.

Well....Harriet Miers, on paper, has a pretty decent record of non-judicial accomplishments and seems to be pretty ideologically reasonable, other than turning a blind eye to President Bush's transgressions.

But for those on the fundamentalist right who need to be calmed down a bit, a friend found this link (scroll down to the bottom) to the "Creation Evidence Museum" as an "unendorsed" but "fun" link on associated links of the Valley View Christian Church, Harriet Miers' place of worship in Dallas.

I bet she never saw the link -- but those on the right who need to really "stretch" to find something to support in her past and profile may be comforted by this.

-- Steve Clemons

Ed. Note: Thanks to JP for the fun links.

That is a parody of a very thoughtful note that came into TWN this morning from a loyal reader regarding Jeffrey Gedmin's pending "rumored" nomination as one of John Bolton's right-hand people at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.

Gedmin, while a self-described spear-carrier for the neoconservative movement, is a very personable and smart guy. We run in a lot of the same circles -- and folks that know both of us are divided 50/50 on whether he is appropriate for John Bolton's close staff. I am opposed -- not because of Gedmin -- but because Bolton wants to get a number of "Mini-Me's" into place in the State Department and elsewhere. To have two senior neocons at the U.N. is simply a mistake.

Gedmin is somewhat of a protege of former National Review editor (and now NR editor-at-large) John O'Sullivan -- and Gedmin is responsible for including me in some of the most stimulating foreign policy meetings I have attended, including the Congress of Phoenix at which I hung out with Margaret Thatcher for what seemed to be an inappropriately long period of time over a weekend given her stature then. (Lady Thatcher is now being queried about "other company" she has kept of late.)

There has been some confusion as to whether Gedmin is being brought by Bolton into the "Deputy" job at the U.N. or as "Representative for Special Political Affairs." The Deputy spot is traditionally reserved for career foreign service officers who have an intimate understanding of the micro-policy coordination required between America's U.N.-deployed mission, which is a very large operation, and the work done in various bureaus at the State Department in Washington. The "Representative for Special Political Affairs" is, well, political.

Most of those who have spoken to TWN about what they know refer to the "Deputy" job when referring to Gedmin's aspirations, but they may be making a mistake in nomenclature.

However, Kenneth "Iraq will be a Cakewalk" Adelman served as Deputy Permanent Representative to the U.N. during the Reagan administration. And according to one TWN loyal reader who himself was a former senior-level American national security official, "Ken was as noxiously partisan as political appointees can get."

It is interesting to note that Kenneth Adelman was one of the seven officials in American history whose nomination (as Director of the Arms Control & Disarmament Agency) went to the floor of the Senate without recommendation from the respective Senate Committee. John Bolton's nomination as Ambassador to the United Nations was one of those seven as well.

Someone wake up Secretary Rice. If John Bolton is out there paving the way for ideological fellow-travelers like Jeffrey Gedmin, she should know about it. And if she does -- what is she thinking?

For those of you who don't get the importance of John Bolton bringing in Jeffrey Gedmin to his team, imagine an alternative universe where Ralph Nader was appointed (but not confirmed) to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

Shortly after that, Ambassador Nader began to work the machinery so that Michael Moore became Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations.

Some readers out there might love that alternative universe -- but stacking the deck so strongly in one ideological corner -- is bad for American interests.

-- Steve Clemons

Republican heavyweights are scrambling to hold their team together after the President's nomination of someone whom no one other than President Bush seems to want.

Republican National Committee Chief Ken Mehlman finally laid out the rationale for the right as to why they should be jumping for joy at Bush's selection. It's all about "the war on terror."

No kidding -- he said that.

From an interesting essay by Alexander Bolton (no relation to our unimpressive Ambassador at the U.N.) in The Hill:

White House and Republican Party officials are scrambling to rein in conservative activists critical of President Bush's nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, yesterday held a conference call with conservative leaders to address their concerns about Miers. He stressed Bush's close relationship with Miers and the need to confirm a justice who will not interfere with the administration’s management of the war on terrorism, according to a person who attended the teleconference.

And this past weekend, Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff, sought to persuade conservative leaders that Miers was a nominee they could trust if confirmed to the high court. In particular, Rove "worked over" Dr. James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family, who is one of the most influential conservatives in the country, according to one conservative leader.

Conservatives began expressing their anxiety about Miers soon after Bush announced her nomination early yesterday morning.

An aide to a Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee told The Hill yesterday that he had received many calls from conservatives complaining about Miers's nomination and urging that his boss oppose her. But the aide said that was unlikely.

One member of the Senate Judiciary Committee closely allied with the conservative base, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), declined to state his reaction to Miers yesterday.

It is clear that Harriet Miers is now a wedge issue in conservative circles.

The question now is whether Dems can exploit this Republican fault line -- or will Miers also divide Dems?

For more, check out this site.

-- Steve Clemons

Tom DeLay thinks he can beat one indictment and be back at his Majority Leader helm in no time.

But news is now just out that DeLay has been indicted by a separate grand jury on a different charge -- this time, money laundering.

From the Austin American-Statesman:

A Texas grand jury on Monday indicted U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay on a new charge of money laundering.

A different grand jury whose six-month term ended last week indicted him on a conspiracy charge, forcing DeLay to temporarily step down as House majority leader.

Both indictments accuse DeLay and two political associates of conspiring to get around a state ban on corporate campaign contributions by funneling the money through the DeLay-founded Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee to the Republican National Committee in Washington. The RNC then sent back like amounts to distribute to Texas candidates in 2002, the indictment alleges.

The new charge was the first action from a new Travis County grand jury, which started their term Monday. Another grand jury, which ended its term Sept. 28, handed up 41 indictments in the three-year investigation.

I think Mr. DeLay is out long-term, and American democracy may have some time to piece itself back together after the devastation that DeLay has inflicted on American affairs at home and abroad.

Do I hear a third or fourth indictment out there?

Keep suing him. Haul him in for questioning.

DeLay has been the boss of America's 21st Century Tammany Hall machine.

-- Steve Clemons

Sources say today that the Jeffrey Gedmin announcement will be made soon, probably within days.

Since TWN first posted the news that Gedmin would join John Bolton's senior team at the U.S. mission to the United Nations, we have been deluged with emails in support of and opposed to Gedmin.

I want to be clear that I think Jeffrey Gedmin is a complex and interesting person -- a deeply committed neoconservative thinker and policy entrepreneur, who is proud of that distinction. He is personable, a nice guy -- open to debate -- but nonetheless ferocious in his convictions. The issue I have raised is less about Gedmin, though I disagree with him on various fronts. This is all about JOHN BOLTON and his judgment.

John Bolton is bringing an ideological fellow-traveler to the U.N. to bolster his views within the State Department bureacracy and to joust with other factions in the Republican foreign policy establishment. This strategy argues that Bolton is building a power base to do battle from his current spot; it is not indicative of someone who is going to be managed by or converge closely with the State Department bureaucracy and leadership.

One interesting question is the role that Jeffrey Gedmin is being appointed to. Most of those TWN has confirmed this story with have reported that it is Anne Patterson's job, the "Deputy" position, that has been offered to Gedmin. It is that job, they say, that he thinks he is getting.

That said, I have no confirmation from Gedmin -- and since that time -- I have had a flurry of emails from some of the nation's most famous and capable former diplomats. They generally say the same thing: that the Deputy position is always a career foreign service officer and that to try and put a political appointee in the Deputy Ambassador position would seriously breach long-held understandings and agreements with the foreign service corps.

So, TWN does not know what to make of this. There is a possibility that those who have interacted with Bolton and Gedmin are making a mistake in how they describe the position.

There is an alternate and vacant high profile "Ambassadorship" in the U.S. Mission that others like Nancy Soderberg held during Clinton's term. This position is titled "Representative for Special Political Affairs," and this spot is ALWAYS political.

There is a possibility that those who have interacted with Gedmin and leaked news to TWN are thinking that this is the "deputy" position which Gedmin is seeking. Gedmin himself may have called this "Representative for Special Political Affairs" job a Deputy job -- when formally, it is not.

Alternatively, Gedmin may really be in line for Anne Patterson's position -- which the foreign policy bureaucracy seems positioned to fight tooth-and-nail.

In any case, rumors now indicate that Gedmin's nomination will be announced rather quickly.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

This is very strange politics.

Reid seems to be on board as one of Harriet Miers' chief advocates.

Click here to see Harriet Miers and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid.

-- Steve Clemons

Now the question is whether the Dems should just declare victory and call it a day regarding the Supreme Court -- or whether there should be serious, open-ended deliberations about Miers' views and qualifications ahead.

This report suggests that the Democratic Leadership gave Miers "pre-approved" status:

President Bush today nominated a Texas lawyer who serves as White House counsel, Harriet Miers, to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court -- a pick that apparently was pre-approved by Senate Democratic leadership.

In choosing Miers, Bush tapped a person who has never been a judge and therefore has no judicial record for opponents to criticize.

"She has devoted her life to the rule of law and the cause of justice," Bush said, announcing his choice from the Oval Office with Miers at his side. "She will be an outstanding addition to the Supreme Court of the United States."

Added the president: "She will strictly interpret our Constitution and laws. She will not legislate from the bench."

The Miers choice will likely be a disappointment to conservatives who hoped Bush would choose someone with a stronger "originalist" record.

"It looks like he flinched," commented Fox News analyst Bill Kristol. "It looks like a capitulation."

If Bush had nominated a jurist with a long "paper trail" of decisions and conservative writing, he would have faced a much tougher confirmation fight in the U.S. Senate.

Harry Reid's commentary seems to indicate an early embrace of Meiers.

However, Ted Kennedy isn't on board:

The record we have so far is simply insufficient to assess the qualifications of this nominee. While her resume lists impressive qualifications as a practicing attorney, it simply does not give the Senate -- or the public -- sufficient information to determine her qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice and her commitment to core constitutional values.

Under the Constitution, no Supreme Court appointment can be made until and unless the Senate gives its advice and consent and the Senate -- and the American people -- must have the same amount and quality of information in approving the nomination as the Executive had in making it. I look forward to meeting Ms. Miers and hearing from her at the Senate Judiciary hearings, and receiving the documents necessary for us meet our joint constitutional role with the President in the appointment of Supreme Court Justices.

The tone of Kennedy's note compared to that of Reid's is totally different.

This may be a case where the left and right oppose Miers. The middle embraces her because they think she's pragmatic and not an ideologue.

But all I see at the moment is that Bush likes her because she's dependable and loyal.

Why should those traits get an easy pass on to the Supreme Court?

Air America Radio's Al Franken Show producer Ben Wikler has done a great job of documenting David Frum "moving the target" on Miers:

David Frum, former White House speechwriter, has come down hard against Miers. From his blog at the National Review:

Harriet Miers is a taut, nervous, anxious personality. It is impossible to me to imagine that she can endure the anger and abuse - or resist the blandishments - that transformed, say, Anthony Kennedy into the judge he is today.

Nor is it safe for the president's conservative supporters to defer to the president's judgment and say, "Well, he must know best." The record shows I fear that the president's judgment has always been at its worst on personnel matters.

But earlier this morning, he came down even harder -- and then quietly backpedaled. Some time between 9:52 AM and 10:18 AM this morning, he removed a paragraph from between the two paragraphs posted above. Here it is, recovered from the cache in my Google Desktop search:

She rose to her present position by her absolute devotion to George Bush. I mentioned last week that she told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met. To flatter on such a scale a person must either be an unscrupulous dissembler, which Miers most certainly is not, or a natural follower. And natural followers do not belong on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Why the retreat? Did David Frum get an angry phone call from an upset White House -- a White House discovering that the conservative movement isn't as blindly loyal as the Supreme Court nominee it's supposed to rally behind?

I realize that bloggers who make comments revise and adjust their entries. I have done such revision as well -- particularly when it was clear that I got something wrong at the outset.

Frum should be given the opportunity to provide some context -- but the contrast in temperature of his reaction from his earlier post to his later one is indicative of something.

We'd love to know more.

-- Steve Clemons

President Bush nominated White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the vacant Associate Justice position on the Supreme Court.

Bush had this to say about Miers:

This morning, I'm proud to announce that I am nominating Harriet Ellan Miers to serve as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. For the past five years, Harriet Miers has served in critical roles in our nation's government, including one of the most important legal positions in the country, White House Counsel. She has devoted her life to the rule of law and the cause of justice. She will be an outstanding addition to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Harriet was born and raised in Dallas, Texas. She attended public schools. When illness struck her family during her freshman year in college, Harriet went to work to help pay for her own education. She went on to receive a bachelor's degree in mathematics and a law degree from Southern Methodist University.

Over the course of a distinguished legal career, Harriet has earned the respect and admiration of her fellow attorneys. She has a record of achievement in the law, as well as experience as an elected member of the Dallas City Council. She served at high levels of both state and federal government. Before state and federal courts, she has tried cases, and argued appeals that covered a broad range of matters. She's been a leader in the American Bar Association, and has been recognized by the National Law Journal as one of the most powerful attorneys in America.

Harriet's greatest inspiration was her mother, who taught her the difference between right and wrong, and instilled in Harriet the conviction that she could do anything she set her mind to. Inspired by that confidence, Harriet became a pioneer in the field of law, breaking down barriers to women that remained even after a generation -- remained a generation after President Reagan appointed Justice O'Connor to the Supreme Court.

Harriet was the first woman to be hired at one of Dallas's top law firms, the first woman to become President of that firm, the first woman to lead a large law firm in the state of Texas. Harriet also became the first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association, and the first woman elected president of the State Bar of Texas. In recognition of her achievements paving the way for women lawyers, Harriet's colleagues in Texas have honored her with numerous awards, most recently the Sandra Day O'Connor award for professional excellence.

Harriet has built a reputation for fairness and integrity. When I came to office as the governor of Texas, the Lottery Commission needed a leader of unquestioned integrity. I chose Harriet because I knew she would earn the confidence of the people of Texas. The Dallas Morning News said that Harriet insisted on a system that was fair and honest. She delivered results.

Harriet has also earned a reputation for her deep compassion and abiding sense of duty. In Texas, she made it her mission to support better legal representation for the poor and under-served. As president of the Dallas Bar, she called on her fellow lawyers to volunteer and staff free neighborhood clinics. She led by example. She put in long hours of pro bono work. Harriet Miers has given generously of her time and talent by serving as a leader with more than a dozen community groups and charities, including the Young Women's Christian Association, Child Care Dallas, Goodwill Industries, Exodus Ministries, Meals on Wheels and the Legal Aid Society.

Harriet's life has been characterized by service to others, and she will bring that same passion for service to the Supreme Court of the United States. I've given a lot of thought to the kind of people who should serve on the federal judiciary. I've come to agree with the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who wrote about the importance of having judges who are drawn from a wide diversity of professional backgrounds. Justice Rehnquist himself came to the Supreme Court without prior experience on the bench, as did more than 35 other men, including Byron White. And I'm proud to nominate an outstanding woman who brings a similar record of achievement in private practice and public service.

Here are some thoughts and things about Harriet Miers that Bush did not share.

1. While this nomination is a lot like Roberts in that there is little in the way of "judgments" and legal actions to easily document the nominee's views, it is clear that Bush is avoiding people who are clearly and unequivocably ideologically right-wing. Harriet Miers appeared on few lists of those whom the left feared might get the seat. But at the same point, we don't know enough about her core views to easily assess her -- and she could be a "trojan horse" for any political view on the spectrum.

2. Miers is politically wily. She's been a political operator for some time in Texas and has made political donations to Republicans and Dems. Miers contributed to Al Gore in 1988, Lloyd Bentsen in 1987, and the Democratic National Committee in 1988. (According to one comment from a friend, "sounds like Ms. Miers didn't want George H.W. Bush to be President.) Since 1988, however, she has stayed on the Republican side of the fence.

3. Issues like abortion may be part of her portfolio if one follows the money. Her only political contribution to a non-Texan has been to former Nebraska Attorney General Donald Stenberg who has been waging war over the practice of "partial-birth abortions" and plans to run against Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) in 2006. Apparently, the Bush administration is trying to push cases up to the Supreme Court that would get decisions against such late-term abortions, and Miers could be counted on to be an ally.

4. It turns out that in 1994, Harriet Miers was in charge of running checks on anything in Bush's past that might be embarrassing. What did she find? What did she do when she discovered papers or issues of concern?

She also headed the Texas State Lottery Commission under Bush's tenure as Governor and during the Commission's "most controversial period". From the Houston Chronicle:

As his personal attorney, Miers conducted a background check on Bush before he ran for Texas governor in 1994 to look for potentially embarrassing information. And Miers headed the Texas Lottery Commission under his direction during the agency's most controversial period.

5. David Frum thinks that Bush has made an error in nominating Miers and should have gone with a more "steely", dependable conservative -- but he has this to say about Harriet Miers:

I worked with Harriet Miers. She's a lovely person: intelligent, honest, capable, loyal, discreet, dedicated ... I could pile on the praise all morning. But there is no reason at all to believe either that she is a legal conservative or - and more importantly - that she has the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left.

6. In contrast, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) seems to have already given up the fight on this nominee and seems ready to have her on the Supreme Court.

Here is Reid's statement today:

I like Harriet Miers. As White House Counsel, she has worked with me in a courteous and professional manner. I am also impressed with the fact that she was a trailblazer for women as managing partner of a major Dallas law firm and as the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association.

In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer. The current justices have all been chosen from the lower federal courts. A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the Court.

I look forward to the Judiciary Committee process which will help the American people learn more about Harriet Miers, and help the Senate determine whether she deserves a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.

7. I don't have a real sense of Miers yet.

The real issue here is that she is a deeply embedded loyalist to George W. Bush. She helped clean up his past, it seems, and has been there in the White House both as Deputy Chief of Staff and then White House Counsel seeing all the dirt and problems that passed by. She has had to have turned a blind eye to may ethical questions -- such as the absurd notion that the White House can't find who leaked Valerie Plame's identity to the press as well as many other matters.

What is clear about her is that she is a cog in the Bush political machine -- and that machine intends on being around a long time, even after this President steps down in three years.

However, given the contrast between Frum who in principle thinks that the nomination was bad and Reid who thinks it can be good, I don't see the stomach among Dems yet for a fight.

-- Steve Clemons

For more on our recent conference, Beyond Bullets: Economic Strategies in the Fight Against Terrorism, the links are up.

Check out the site.

-- Steve Clemons