Posts

Dick Cheney, the “Not Available” Briefer?

/40 Comments/in /by

I’m going to make a wildarsed guess and suggest that when the CIA lists "not available" in a series of 2005 torture briefings to Republicans in Congress, they really mean "Dick Cheney attended, but we don’t want to tell you that."

At least, that seems to be the case for a briefing of John McCain the CIA describes as taking place in "late October 2005." As I pointed out earlier, that briefing appears to have been an attempt–partly successful–on the part of the Bush Administration to convince McCain to water down the Detainee Treatment Act that had passed the Senate earlier that month. 

As it turns out, whereas the CIA can’t seem to come up with details about that briefing (such as the date or the briefer), the WaPo covered a McCain meeting with Dick Cheney and then-CIA Director Porter Goss not long after it happened. 

The Bush administration has proposed exempting employees of the Central Intelligence Agency from a legislative measure endorsed earlier this month by 90 members of the Senate that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoners in U.S. custody.

The proposal, which two sources said Vice President Cheney handed last Thursday [October 20] to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the company of CIA Director Porter J. Goss, states that the measure barring inhumane treatment shall not apply to counterterrorism operations conducted abroad or to operations conducted by "an element of the United States government" other than the Defense Department.

[snip]

Cheney’s proposal is drafted in such a way that the exemption from the rule barring ill treatment could require a presidential finding that "such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack." But the precise applicability of this section is not clear, and none of those involved in last week’s discussions would discuss it openly yesterday.

McCain, the principal sponsor of the legislation, rejected the proposed exemption at the meeting with Cheney, according to a government source who spoke without authorization and on the condition of anonymity.

I guess maybe the CIA needs an introduction to the Google so it can refer to the public record to flesh out its briefing list?

If this was, in fact, McCain’s briefing, it might explain why McCain has imagined great heroism on his part in his one briefing on torture. Read more →

McCain’s Tortured Briefing Memory

/43 Comments/in /by

I guess it’s "why can’t Glenn Thrush read? day."

In addition to finally getting schooled on facts that have been in the public record for three weeks, Thrush gives John McCain a soapbox from which to scold Nancy Pelosi for not doing more when she learned–in 2003, reportedly via a staffer–that CIA was engaging in torture.

"If she felt it was wrong she should have acted," the former GOP Presidential hopeful said on his way into the Republican Senate lunch on Tuesday.

"Let me just tell you — I was briefed on it — and I vehemently objected to it. We did the Detainee Treatment Act, which prohibited cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. So we felt, I certainly felt, I could act on it."

He dismissed her claim she was barred from acting on what she learned in the briefings with a shrug.

"I’m sure she has her argument and we’ll see if the American people agree."

Set aside, for the moment, McCain’s completely erroneous premise, that Pelosi should have responded to "what she learned in the briefings." Pelosi’s entire point (not one I’m entirely sympathetic with) is that since she wasn’t briefed that waterboarding was being used, but instead learned that CIA was torturing detainees through a staffer and not the CIA, it would have been inappropriate for her to intervene directly.  

“She felt that the appropriate response was the letter from Harman, because Jane was the one who was briefed,” said the person. Pelosi “never got briefed on it personally, and when Harman got a ‘no response’ from the CIA, there was nothing more that could be done.”

Maybe McCain just doesn’t get Pelosi’s point; or maybe Thrush didn’t understand what he earlier reported on Pelosi and botched his own question. So for the moment set aside McCain’s faulty premise.

But look at what McCain claims about his own actions. McCain suggests that he was briefed on torture and then, because he objected so strenuously to what he learned in the briefing, he passed the Detainee Treatment Act. Briefing, then DTA, McCain tells the tale.

Yet according to the CIA briefing list the Republicans are so intent to use to attack Pelosi, John McCain was briefed on torture in "late October 2005" (in the chronology, McCain’s briefing appears after Thad Cochran and Ted Stevens got their briefing on October 18, 2005). 

The Senate passed its version of the DTA on October 5, 2005.

The chronology, at least according to CIA’s admittedly questionable timeline, went DTA, then briefing.

Read more →

McCain on the Torture Memos

/146 Comments/in /by

When asked about his feelings about the release of the torture memos, McCain recalled his efforts in 2005 to make torture (more) illegal.

As you know it was my legislation, the Detainee Treatment Act, that prohibited torture, that said we had to abide by the Geneva Convention for treatment of enemy combatants and wish that we had done that. But release of these memo helps no one, doesn’t help America’s image, does not help us address the issue, and I think it was a serious mistake.

I wonder what McCain thinks about this footnote from the May 10, 2005 "Techniques" memo? Though it reflects an earlier Congressional effort than McCain’s attempt to make torture (more) illegal passed later that year, the bill Bradbury mentions was part of the effort in 2005 to bring interrogation under the rule of law.

Finally, we note that section 6057(a) of H.R. 1268 (109th Cong. 1st Sess.), if it becomes law, would forbid expending or obligating funds made available by that bill to "subject any person in the custody or under the physical control of the United States to torture," but because the bill would define "torture" to have "the meaning given that term in section 2340(1) of title 18, United States Code, 6057(b)(1), the provision (to the extent it might apply here at all) would merely reaffirm the preexisting prohibitions on torture in sections 2340-2340A.

Maybe McCain doesn’t like having these memos released because they demonstrate the disdain with which the Bush Administration treated Congressional attempts to end the torture program?

Sign the petition telling Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate torture here. 

The McCain Economic Leadership that Might Have Been

/47 Comments/in , , /by

Just for shits and giggles, I thought I’d compare how one Villager regurgitated the myth–propagated after McCain "suspended" his campaign in September "to respond to the economic crisis"–that John McCain might lead us out of our financial woes…

Sen. John McCain’s surprise announcement that he would temporarily suspend his campaign to return to Washington to help broker a deal to save the financial industry is the latest in a series of political gambits surrounding the financial crisis on Wall Street, and is sure to reshape political calculations and voter attitudes around the volatile issue.

The move is an obvious attempt by McCain and his campaign to paint the Arizona senator as above politics, willing to put aside his campaign for the good of the country.

It comes as two new national polls — including one conducted by the Washington Post — show McCain slipping in the head-to-head matchup against Barack Obama due in large part to voters’ inclination to trust the Illinois senator to solve the financial problems of the country.

The McCain campaign believes that their candidate is at his best when he is seen as a deal-maker, willing to reach across party lines to get things done for the good of the country. This economic crisis, they believe, provides McCain a chance to show the sort of leadership that voters value in the Arizona senator.

"John McCain’s leadership and experience credentials outrank Barack Obama’s," said Sarah Simmons, a McCain campaign strategist, this morning. "[We are] walking through a crisis and people are looking to see how it is going to be handled."

With the news that, 167 days later, McCain is attempting to put together a "definitive" economic platform.

Sen. John McCain is putting together a major economic plan that will be structured, in some ways, off of Newt Gingrich’s famous Contract With America.

In an email obtained by the Huffington Post, the Arizona Republican’s chief of staff, Marc Buse, asked an outside adviser for help with a "ten principles" program that the senator could use as a "definitive" platform.

"We are looking for some guidance on a definitive plan (aka contract with america style) on the economy…principles," writes Buse. "Ten principles that JSM could point to on what MUST BE DONE to address the problems our nation faces."

Buse doesn’t offer specific suggestions of his own, save "NO TAX INCREASES."

Because that’s my definition of leadership: 167 days after a failed photo op, Read more →

Vicki Iseman: Blanket Defamation

/75 Comments/in /by

I’m looking forward to Vicki Iseman’s defamation suit against the NYT, if only because we’re bound to see an argument over whether or not Iseman asked McCain to share a blankie with her. And an argument about the proper role of a lobbyist.

Iseman alleges two counts of defamation:

The first defamatory meaning was that Ms. Iseman exploited an alleged personal and social friendship with Senator McCain to obtain favorable legislative outcomes for her clients, engaging in "inappropriate" behavior that constituted a conflict of interest and a violation of professional and ethical norms in breach of the public trust. This meaning was communicated through the literal words of the article and also by implication, by what was intentionally suggested and implied "between the lines."

The second defamatory meaning was that Ms. Iseman and Senator McCain had engaged in an illicit and inappropriate romantic relationship while Ms. Iseman was a lobbyist conducting business on behalf of clients before the committee chaired by Senator McCain. This was also defamation per se under Virginia law. This meaning was also communicated through the literal words of the article and by implication, by what was suggested and implicated "between the lines."

Focusing on the second allegation first, they’re going to be relying heavily on the "between the lines" meaning here, since the original NYT article clearly printed Iseman’s and McCain’s denial of an affair and instead focused on the appearance of close ties–of any sort–with a lobbyist.

Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.

What was at issue in the article was the appearance of an affair, not an affair itself, and the beliefs of McCain staffers about that appearance of an affair.

By then, according to two former McCain associates, some of the senator’s advisers had grown so concerned that the relationship had become romantic that they took steps to intervene.

A former campaign adviser described being instructed to keep Ms. Iseman away from the senator at public events, while a Senate aide recalled plans to limit Ms. Iseman’s access to his offices.

Read more →

Republican Bad Faith Negotiation, Again

/42 Comments/in /by

If you need any more proof that the Republican attempt to break the UAW a week ago Thursday was really just a political stunt, read this article. In it, Republican after Republican attacks Bush for providing relief to the auto industry. That includes four of the Republican Senators who–Bob Corker has assured us–would have supported his "compromise" deal from last Thursday:

John McCain:

John McCain is leading the way, saying it is “unacceptable that we would leave the American taxpayer with a tab of tens of billions of dollars while failing to receive any serious concessions from the industry.” 

John Kyl:

“I’m very disappointed,” said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). “The president justified his action with a false choice: it’s either this plan or abrupt liquidation of the companies. The White House seems to think that the industry didn’t have time to deal with the problem or prepare for an orderly bankruptcy, which is false.”

Judd Gregg:

“These funds were not authorized by Congress for non-financial companies in distress,” Gregg said, “but were to be used to restore liquidity and stability in the overall financial system of the country and to help prevent fundamental systemic risks in the global marketplace.”

Mitch McConnell:

“I have strong objections to the use of Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) funds for industry specific bailouts. And I do not support this action,” McConnell said. “But since the administration has chosen to use these funds to aid the automakers, it is important that the date-specific requirements on all the stakeholders be enforced.” 

Yet this is virtually the same bill, with one caveat: that the manufacturers, "can deviate from the quantitative targets above, providing that the firm reports the reasons for these deviations and makes the business case to achieve long-term viability in spite of the deviations."

In other words, the Republicans are pissed because the President’s plan allows the auto manufacturers to "deviate" from Bob Corker’s demand that the UAW lower wages below that of Japanese manufacturers’ workers by the end of the year if the manufacturers can make a business case to do so.  

These Republicans are pissed that GM and Chrysler don’t have to cut costs even if there’s a good business reason not to do so!!!

Not surprisingly, these Republicans are not alone in disavowing Bob Corker’s plan. Read more →

Negative Advertising … Epic Fail

/31 Comments/in /by

Exactly a month before Tuesday’s election, the McCain team announced they were going to go negative.

Sen. John McCain and his Republican allies are readying a newly aggressive assault on Sen. Barack Obama’s character, believing that to win in November they must shift the conversation back to questions about the Democrat’s judgment, honesty and personal associations, several top Republicans said. 

With just a month to go until Election Day, McCain’s team has decided that its emphasis on the senator’s biography as a war hero, experienced lawmaker and straight-talking maverick is insufficient to close a growing gap with Obama. The Arizonan’s campaign is also eager to move the conversation away from the economy, an issue that strongly favors Obama and has helped him to a lead in many recent polls.

"We’re going to get a little tougher," a senior Republican operative said, indicating that a fresh batch of television ads is coming. "We’ve got to question this guy’s associations. Very soon. There’s no question that we have to change the subject here," said the operative, who was not authorized to discuss strategy and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Being so aggressive has risks for McCain if it angers swing voters, who often say they are looking for candidates who offer a positive message about what they will do. That could be especially true this year, when frustration with Washington politics is acute and a desire for specifics on how to fix the economy and fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is strong.

And the result???

 Obama’s favorable rating is 62% — the highest that any presidential candidate has registered in Gallup’s final pre-election polls going back to 1992.

McCain’s Nostalgia for Victory and Relevance Tour

/42 Comments/in /by

I think the press is misreading McCain’s plan to finish his campaign in Prescott, AZ on Monday, suggesting it’s part of Obama’s success at "forcing" McCain to campaign in Arizona. Sure, the tight race in Arizona has forced McCain to buy some robocalls. But the visit to Prescott–not exactly a center of population–is not likely to affect the results in Arizona. Rather, it’s partly McCain’s superstitious habit, and partly a concession by McCain that he’s not going to win and therefore he can spend the final days of the campaign making symbolic gestures.

Consider McCain’s travel plans:

Sen. John McCain will finish nearly two years of campaigning at an emotionally significant place — Prescott, Ariz., where one of his role models, Barry Goldwater, began and ended his own presidential campaign.

The next morning, he plans to vote in Phoenix, see a movie — an Election Day tradition — and await the results.

[snip]

Sen. McCain campaigns in Virginia and Pennsylvania on Saturday before ending the day with an appearance on "Saturday Night Live." On Sunday, he returns to New Hampshire, where he won big in the 2000 Republican primary and staged a remarkable comeback to win again there in this year’s primary. It will be his final town hall meeting. He winds up at a late-night rally in Miami.

On the final day of the campaign, Monday, Sen. McCain will make his way across the country — from Florida, to Virginia, Pennsylvania, Indiana, New Mexico and Nevada before finishing in Prescott.

He was last there in April, at the conclusion of a biographical tour of places that were formative in his life.

"Prescott, Arizona’s territorial capital, occupies a special place in the history of Arizona, and in the Goldwater legend," he said that day. "As everyone familiar with Arizona politics knows, Prescott is where Barry Goldwater formally began his Senate campaigns and his campaign for the presidency on the steps of the Yavapai County Courthouse. As his successor and in deference to his tradition, I have ended all my Senate campaigns here."

The Ohio trip yesterday made sense–it is one of the several states he needs to win, and one he actually might have a shot at (though, as with Georgia, North Carolina, Colorado, New Mexico, and Iowa, enough people have already voted that late visits may have limited value). Virginia and Pennsylvania today? Miami tomorrow? A frenzied rush through Virginia, Pennsylvania, Indiana, New Mexico, and Nevada on Monday? Read more →

Advertisements Can’t Hold Hands

/10 Comments/in /by

This is the story I’ve been anticipating since August, in which McCain cannibalizes his GOTV resources to buy more ads.

Sen. John McCain and the Republican National Committee will unleash a barrage of spending on television advertising that will allow him to keep pace with Sen. Barack Obama’s ad blitz during the campaign’s final days, but the expenditures will impact McCain’s get-out-the-vote efforts, according to Republican strategists.

McCain has faced a severe spending imbalance during most of the fall, but the Republican nominee squirreled away enough funds to pay for a raft of television ads in critical battleground states over the next four days, said Evan Tracey, a political analyst who monitors television spending.

The decision to finance a final advertising push is forcing McCain to curtail spending on Election Day ground forces to help usher his supporters to the polls, according to Republican consultants familiar with McCain’s strategy.

The vaunted, 72-hour plan that President Bush used to mobilize voters in 2000 and 2004 has been scaled back for McCain. He has spent half as much as Obama on staffing and has opened far fewer field offices. This week, a number of veteran GOP operatives who orchestrate door-to-door efforts to get voters to the polls were told they should not expect to receive plane tickets, rental cars or hotel rooms from the campaign. 

Because GOP enthusiasm was so low this year (especially GOP enthusiasm for McCain personally), McCain got a very late start on ground game–it didn’t really get started until he put Palin on the ticket. That means that the McCain campaign was recruiting volunteers when they should have been IDing voters, and IDing voters when they should have been persuading undecided voters and now–having realized that they not only have to deliver on McCain’s pollster’s promise that all undecided voters at this point will break for McCain, but they also have steal away some of those voters presently committed to Obama–they’re eating their seed corn to try to win this election. 

Aside from the problem I’ve pointed out before–that it’s probably not the best tactic to surge your ad spending after up to half the voters in a particular state gave voted–there’s one more huge problem with this tactic. McCain might persuade these undecideds, at least some of them. But he’s also got to make sure they go to the polls. Read more →

McCain’s Foxy Insta-Republicans

/34 Comments/in /by

I just voted.

Yeah!

After I voted, I came home and looked at who else has voted nationally–14% of the electorate so far, and that’s not including my vote (which technically doesn’t get "counted" until election night). 

And looking at those numbers, I gotta believe the folks at Fox–who just switched their likely voter model to jimmy up a poll that showed McCain closing–are smoking crack.

Fox would have you believe that the electorate will be made up of 41% Democrats and 39% Republicans. What’s even more crack-worthy is that they suggest the make-up of the election has changed in the last week; last week, they said the electorate would be made up of 43% Democrats and 37% Republicans.

So here’s what has been happening in the interim time frame (most numbers are rounded except for Colorado):

Colorado: 52.3% of voters (based on 2004 numbers) have voted. Of the early voters 38.6% are Democrats; 37.9% are Republicans.

Florida: 33% of voters (based on 2004 numbers) have voted. Of the early voters 45% are Democrats; 39% are Republicans.

Iowa: 26% of voters (based on 2004 numbers) have voted. Of the early voters 48% are Democrats; 29% are Republicans.

Louisiana: 14% of voters (based on 2004 numbers) have voted. Of the early voters 58% are Democrats; 28% are Republicans.

Maine: 17% of voters (based on 2004 numbers) have voted. Of the early voters 44% are Democrats; 28.5% are Republicans.

Nevada’s Washoe County (Reno–a swing county): 43% of voters (based on 2004 numbers) have voted. Of the early voters 50% are Democrats; 34% are Republicans.

North Carolina: 52% of voters (based on 2004 numbers) have voted. Of the early voters 53% are Democrats; 29% are Republicans. (In 2004, early voting split 47% Democrats; 37% Republicans.)

West Virginia: 12.5% of voters (based on 2004 numbers) have voted. Of the early voters 59% are Democrats; 31.5% are Republicans.

Of all these swingy and right-leaning states, only Colorado shows Republican and Democratic turnout to be close. Only Florida shows Republicans performing as well as Fox says they will, across the whole election. And some of these numbers–particularly North Carolina and Iowa–show breath-taking leads right now for Democrats. 

I realize that it’s still possible that Republicans will flock to the polls in droves on Tuesday and these numbers will even out. But these numbers do provide proof that Democrats are voting. Republicans? Not so much. 

Read more →