The Political Chase

Poll: Hillary and Edwards Up, Obama Down

A new ARG Iowa poll has turned prior polls on their heads, giving Hilary Clinton a 14-point lead. In only three days Clinton jumped five points, John Edwards increased by two points moving him to second place, and Barack Obama dropped a surprising 6 points putting him in third place.

On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee maintained his first place position, but dropped five points. Although still low in the polls, Ron Paul had the greatest increase among Republicans with six points.

It’s hard to put much confidence in the Iowa polls because the state determines their nominee via caucuses and historically things change overnight. I have included a chart of polls spanning the past few weeks (Democrats only), which may help in formulating your own conclusions. The historical chart follows the two current AVG charts.

Democratic Breakdown

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama among women 38% to 21%, which is unchanged from a week ago (Clinton 36%, Obama 23% among women).

Obama has lost ground among men to John Edwards and Clinton.

Among men, Clinton is at 28%, Edwards is at 27%, Obama is at 16%, and Joe Biden is at 11%. A week ago, Obama was at 27% among men, followed by 21% for Clinton and 19% for Edwards.

One item worth mentioning - the new polls include this past weekend when the candidates were doing a full-court press. Assuming they are reasonably accurate, my post about John Edwards’ Fight Club remarks was far from accurate. Or at least received differently than I would have. I perceived Edwards was strongly instructing their thinking, much like he may have done with juries and found it to be successful. The next poll will likely be more telling. Caucus-goers will have had more time to reflect on his remarks, as well as the other candidates. From a personal perspective, I would not have been receptive to what appeared to be a dumbing-down approach.

If you look at the new poll, Hillary’s increase came straight from Obama supporters.

Republican Breakdown

Mike Huckabee has lost support among men. While Huckabee had 31% of men a week ago, Huckabee is now at 20% among men, with Rudy Giuliani at 20%, John McCain at 17%, and Mitt Romney at 17%.

Huckabee and Romney remained tied among women at 26% each, with McCain at 17%, Ron Paul at 11%, and Giuliani at 6%.

Edwards wrongly focuses ‘Fight Club’ strategy

Former Sen. John Edwards

(Update I, Update II below)

If the Washington punditry has been right about anything, they accurately predicted that the early start of the 2008 campaigns would result in substantially greater negativity from the candidates’ camps, and that the normally recognized "pleasantries-only" grace period would be significantly reduced. Democrats, with the exception of Bill Richardson, summarily dismissed Ronald Reagan’s golden rule of not criticizing candidates within their own party during the MSNBC Democratic debate on September 26. Although the criticism levied during that debate was more candidates differentiating themselves, than, as some suggested, personal attacks. Regardless it was indeed a tipping point.

With a little more than eleven months remaining before the general election, candidates no longer are debating the issues; instead they attack their opponents’ character and debate each others’ 30-second ads (candidate authorized or 527’s on their behalf). Sadly enough, these sound bites are the single most influential factor in voter’s decision-making. And moreover the two candidates - Barack Obama and John Edwards - whose campaigns are purportedly premised on change and ushering in a new era of political philosophy are increasingly moving towards the Karl Rove, Lee Atwater brand of campaigning. Although Obama’s attacks pale in comparison to John Edwards, neither of their tactics has been on par with those of the Clinton campaign’s.

John Edwards initiated this past weekend’s last-call campaigning in Iowa with a direct jab at the frequently characterized intellectual-approach of Barack Obama’s campaign.

"What Iowa caucusgoers [sic] are looking for - they’re not looking for academic and they’re not looking for analytical," Edwards said in a Friday interview with Iowa Public Television. "They’re looking for somebody who speaks from right here, from their gut, and who believes deeply and passionately in what they’re talking about."

Edwards not only made a personal attack on Obama, he belittled Iowans. While Iowans and many others are seeking a candidate that speaks truthfully and is willing to vehemently serve as their advocate; that does not by default reduce their capacity or desire to engage in cerebral discussion, reflection, and contemplation.

Obama countered the next day, but far more subtlety and within the boundaries of appropriateness, by questioning Edward’s sincerity about changing politics. He was specifically referencing a 527 group that is allegedly preparing to spend $750,000 on television ads promoting Edwards.

"I don’t just talk the talk, I walk the walk; I’ve been doing this all my life, and John has not had that same record," Obama said in Oskaloosa.

John Edwards is indeed intelligent and considering his proven skills as a highly successful litigator, he should have promptly realized his remarks on Friday were anything but flattering. One could assume human frailty was in play and somehow Edwards innocently misspoke, and consequently he should have quickly recovered his gaffe. However he did not. Instead, he continued to be condescending towards Obama and disparaging towards Iowans.

Edwards, a onetime courtroom lawyer, portrayed Obama, a former constitutional law professor, as cool and abstract in his thinking. "From my perspective, this is not an academic or a philosophical question," Edwards said. "This is about who has the toughness and fight to take on corporate greed and win."

I beg to differ. Selecting a presidential candidate can and should be academic and philosophical. I fail to believe the majority of Iowans or voters from other states perceive they are trying to decide whether Brad Pitt or Ed Norton should be president/leader of the Fight Club.

That is precisely what was done in 2000 and 2004, and I dare say it did not work out that well, nor do voters have an overwhelming desire to repeat the mistake. In fact, according to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, "overwhelmingly, Democrats want a new direction, but so do three-quarters of independents and even half of Republicans. Sixty percent of all Americans said they feel strongly that such a change is needed after two terms of the Bush presidency."

Obviously the majority of voters view negatively the omnipresent Bush-Cheney Fight Club mentality, and I doubt seriously the majority of voters appreciate being reduced to the level of those they seek to remove.

Quite honestly, I am personally disappointed with Edwards’ remarks. I have thought and discussed here that Edwards would be a fitting president, but belittling voters is uncalled for.

It is not hard to understand Edwards’ message that the next president will have a difficult struggle, at best, implementing the programs and policies he and most other Democratic candidates support. But lately it seems as though he’s had his bell rung while dancing in the ring.

Edwards needs to resurrect his erstwhile strategy and leave the Fight Club competition to Pitt and Norton.

Update I:  If the new ARG Iowa poll is  indicative of how John Edwards’ remarks were received, they received them well. Edwards rating increased two points putting him in second place. Obama dropped six points placing him third, and Hillary Clinton jumped 5 points giving her a 14-point lead. More info is available here.

Update II:  Paul Krugman agrees with John Edwards and takes particular exception with Barack Obama. Krugman says Edwards’ "populist message resonates with labor" and that Obama does not enjoy the labor support Edwards does "in part, perhaps, because his message of “a new kind of politics” that will transcend bitter partisanship doesn’t make much sense to union leaders who know, from the experience of confronting corporations and their political allies head on, that partisanship isn’t going away anytime soon."

Generally speaking, I agree with Edwards’ populist message. Moreover, I firmly believe Edwards is firm in his convictions and will follow through if elected. But it was not the populist message I disagreed with. It was my perception that Edwards was dismissing the intellect of the people. Of course I know not everyone has an IQ of 190 nor does everyone have an IQ of 100. Krugman’s argument makes sense and put in the proper context is certainly applicable. On that point I will stand corrected.

Krugman goes on to eviscerate Obama for his attack on Edwards.

O.K., that’s politics. But now Mr. Obama has lashed out at Mr. Edwards because two 527s — independent groups that are allowed to support candidates, but are legally forbidden from coordinating directly with their campaigns — are running ads on his rival’s behalf. They are, Mr. Obama says, representative of the kind of “special interests” that “have too much influence in Washington.”

The thing, though, is that both of these 527s represent union groups — in the case of the larger group, local branches of the S.E.I.U. who consider Mr. Edwards the strongest candidate on health reform. So Mr. Obama’s attack raises a couple of questions.

First, does it make sense, in the current political and economic environment, for Democrats to lump unions in with corporate groups as examples of the special interests we need to stand up to?

Second, is Mr. Obama saying that if nominated, he’d be willing to run without support from labor 527s, which might be crucial to the Democrats? If not, how does he avoid having his own current words used against him by the Republican nominee?

Part of what happened here, I think, is that Mr. Obama, looking for a stick with which to beat an opponent who has lately acquired some momentum, either carelessly or cynically failed to think about how his rhetoric would affect the eventual ability of the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is, to campaign effectively. In this sense, his latest gambit resembles his previous echoing of G.O.P. talking points on Social Security.

Beyond that, the episode illustrates what’s wrong with campaigning on generalities about political transformation and trying to avoid sounding partisan.

Krugman argues his point well, but semantics comes into play with Obama’s criticism of Edwards, which may be the salient point. Where Obama’s message may not be received well by a given audience, the same can apply to John Edwards or any other candidate. It doesn’t make any candidate right or wrong from a general perspective, however, the quibbling over less important matters such as Barack did in his criticism of Edwards’ 527 support are distractive and counterproductive. And unfortunately it is such matters that consume most of the debate between candidates.

The reality of Hillary Clinton’s White House experience

(update below)

Over the past few weeks Hillary Clinton has substantially increased her rhetoric about all the experience she gained during Bill Clinton’s administration, and this week Newsweek focuses on her White House experience. And said experience is what Clinton claims makes her uniquely qualified, above all other candidates, to be president — she, and she alone, can begin effectively and efficiently performing the awesome duties of president from her first day in office.

If her claims are true, and applicable — not some misleading farce — then Clinton deserves to be president. But there are a few aspects of Clinton’s ad nauseam claims of experience that merit a careful review.

With the one exception of a failed health care initiative (iirc), Clinton has offered precious little detail about exactly what applicable “presidential” experience she gained during her years in the White House. Moreover, what about her experience as the Senator from New York? Clinton and her surrogates no longer present her experience in the Senate — to any significant degree — as a qualification for the high office she seeks. Her experience as Senator seems to rise only when an opponent criticizes her record (e.g. voting for Iraq war, the recent Iran army terrorist resolution, etc.) And now there are strong suggestions that as Clinton touts her experience in a broader sense, it is viewed as a racial jab against Barack Obama, not just an effort to present her resume.

Newsweek’s article confirms much of what is known about Clinton — her decisiveness, take-charge-approach, strength and strong opinions — all of which Clinton touts as making her uniquely qualified to be president. However, when her “experiences” are put in context as Newsweek did, Clinton may have experience, but is it what is best suited for the next president or any president?

John Edwards and Barack Obama have called Clinton on her evasiveness, obfuscation, and lack of transparency. They’re not alone. Others with first hand experience, including George Stephanopoulos, speak directly to the issue in the article.

For all the strain and heartache in other areas of their lives, the Clintons have a long history of working together privately on issues and political strategy. Hillary enjoyed operating as a hidden hand. While giving instructions as First Lady, she was known to tell her staff, “Don’t leave any fingerprints.” White House adviser George Stephanopoulos recalled her explaining, “You have to be much craftier behind the scenes.”

The article portrays Clinton as extremely involved in President Clinton’s day-to-day affairs and decision-making, almost to the point of acting as a shadow president, but not necessarily always in a positive light. One could easily draw analogies to Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in the Office of the President to that of Vice President Dick Cheney’s domination in the current administration.

She would routinely turn up at West Wing meetings, and her confrontational style “had a real chilling effect,” said a senior presidential aide who—like several other officials and friends quoted in this article—spoke freely about private matters on condition of anonymity. “People were scared of her,” said Clinton aide Robert Boorstin. “You did not cross Hillary.” Even the president “would try to avoid fighting with her if he could, deflecting her if he could.”

Hillary was not lying when she made her statement about baking cookies in 1992. She spent her time hiring White House staffers, overriding Bill Clinton’s decisions on who would be on his Cabinet, and appointing federal judges to the bench.

Hillary oversaw the hiring of White House staffers and pressed her husband to fill half the top positions with women. In particular, she insisted he choose a woman as attorney general, which led to the derailed nominations of corporate lawyer Zoe Baird and federal Judge Kimba Wood. The president finally settled on Janet Reno, who had been recommended by Hillary’s brother Hugh Rodham. “I don’t think Clinton believed he had a choice,” recalled Dee Dee Myers, his press secretary. “He had painted himself into a corner, and he had to appoint a woman.” Hillary was equally adamant that the president appoint her friend Madeleine Albright as secretary of State.

The First Lady also participated in screening nominees for the federal bench through her chief of staff Melanne Verveer, who met each week with representatives from the Justice Department, the president’s staff and the White House Counsel’s Office.

Clinton has been forced to integrate Edwards’ and Obama’s change strategy. I recall one account recently where Clinton said, paraphrasing, there are those that hope for change, and there are those that demand change, but hoping and demanding don’t necessarily make change happen. Along those lines, Clinton has touted her ability to work with others to get things done. Newsweek provides rather substantial insight into Senator Clinton’s White House experience in working with others, being conciliatory, and bringing change about.

Hillary was widely criticized for making the health task-force deliberations secret, insisting on pushing her proposal as an all-or-nothing package and targeting the health-care establishment as “the enemy” to be fought with a “war room.” When Bill tried to make the plan more flexible, he had to defer to her, in part because of their implicit marital bargain, in which Bill ceded her power as a trade-off for his history of infidelity. In July 1994, he was urged to accept a compromise plan with less than the universal coverage that Hillary wanted. When he unexpectedly told a group of governors in Boston that he would be willing to take 95 percent, Hillary immediately called her husband. “What the f––– are you doing up there?” she screamed, according to a West Wing adviser who was in her office at the time. “I want to see you as soon as you get back.” The next morning the president not only recanted his statement but apologized.

Part of change that Barack Obama and John Edwards refer to in their campaigns is the requirement to do things differently, do things for the American people, and not just for the sake of politics. The country’s approach must change, lest we remain in gridlock. But if Clinton intends to capitalize on her well-developed White House experience, change is no more than a campaign slogan to compete with her opponents.

The First Lady kept a close eye on shifts in public opinion. In 1996 she pressed her husband to veto two Republican welfare reform bills for being too punitive. She then helped persuade him to sign a slightly modified third version when she recognized that the public overwhelmingly favored welfare reform in an election year. “It was pure politics over substance,” recalled Donna Shalala, Clinton’s secretary of Health and Human Services. “Hillary was not torn. She saw the political reality without the human dimension. If Hillary had opposed the bill, we would have gotten another veto.”

Maybe Senator Clinton needs to address the issues raised by Newsweek and tell the public more about the experience she gained in the White House. If experience is her battle cry, then she should be more specific and not just profess she has “the right stuff.”

Update: Bowiegeek at MyDD has a very convincing argument on Hillary’s experiences during the Clinton administration that is in stark contrast to the Newsweek article and my remarks in this post.

Obama Passes Clinton in NH

A new Boston Globe poll has Barack Obama moving slightly ahead of Hillary Clinton and John McCain coming in a very close second to Mitt Romney.

DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL

REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL

Margin of error:  +/ 4.9 percent. Source:  University of New Hampshire Survey Center

Concord Monitor: Romney’s a Phony

Instead of endorsing Mitt Romney, The Concord Monitor (New Hampshire) delivers a smackdown on why he should not be president — he’s a phony.

If you were building a Republican presidential candidate from a kit, imagine what pieces you might use: an athletic build, ramrod posture, Reaganesque hair, a charismatic speaking style and a crisp dark suit. You’d add a beautiful wife and family, a wildly successful business career and just enough executive government experience. You’d pour in some old GOP bromides - spending cuts and lower taxes - plus some new positions for 2008: anti-immigrant rhetoric and a focus on faith.

Add it all up and you get Mitt Romney, a disquieting figure who sure looks like the next president and most surely must be stopped.

…. snip….

When New Hampshire partisans are asked to defend the state’s first-in-the-nation primary, we talk about our ability to see the candidates up close, ask tough questions and see through the baloney. If a candidate is a phony, we assure ourselves and the rest of the world, we’ll know it.

Mitt Romney is such a candidate. New Hampshire Republicans and independents must vote no.

George Bush - Hoover Reincarnated

J. Edgar Hoover did not die 35 years ago. He’s alive, well and currently serving as the 43rd President of the United States.

From the New York Times:

A newly declassified document shows that J. Edgar Hoover, the longtime director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, had a plan to suspend habeas corpus and imprison some 12,000 Americans he suspected of disloyalty.

Hoover sent his plan to the White House on July 7, 1950, 12 days after the Korean War began. It envisioned putting suspect Americans in military prisons.

Hoover wanted President Harry S. Truman to proclaim the mass arrests necessary to “protect the country against treason, espionage and sabotage.” The F.B.I. would “apprehend all individuals potentially dangerous” to national security, Hoover’s proposal said. The arrests would be carried out under “a master warrant attached to a list of names” provided by the bureau.

The names were part of an index that Hoover had been compiling for years. “The index now contains approximately twelve thousand individuals, of which approximately ninety-seven per cent are citizens of the United States,” he wrote.

“In order to make effective these apprehensions, the proclamation suspends the Writ of Habeas Corpus,” it said.

The Constitution says habeas corpus shall not be suspended “unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.” The plan proposed by Hoover, the head of the F.B.I. from 1924 to 1972, stretched that clause to include “threatened invasion” or “attack upon United States troops in legally occupied territory.”

What do we know about Mr. Hoover?

From nearly the beginning of his career with the FBI, Hoover was accused of exceeding and abusing his authority, criticism that grew especially strong in the 1960s. (1) He is known to have investigated individuals and groups because of their political beliefs rather than their suspected criminal activity as well as using the FBI for other illegal activities such as burglaries and illegal wiretaps.(2)

Yes indeed. One in the same.

1. Hack, Richard. Puppetmaster: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover. (2007). Phoenix Books.

2. Cox, John Stuart and Theoharis, Athan G. (1988). The Boss: J. Edgar Hoover and the Great American Inquisition. Temple University Press.

The CIA’s Cover-Up

If the CIA has not been conducting a cover-up of its interrogation techniques, then I don’t know what a cover-up is.

Citing a seven-page memorandum from the former executive director of the 9/11 Commission, the New York Times reports the commission made” formal requests to the C.I.A. that sought ‘documents,’ ‘reports’ and ‘information’ related to the interrogations.” But the CIA refused to provide videotapes of its interrogations because the commission “never specifically asked for interrogation videos.” Instead, the CIA, including George Tenet, told the September 11 commission they had scoured the agency and had produced everything the commission requested.

Merriam-Webster defines cover up as:

1 a: a device or stratagem for masking or concealing <his garrulousness is a cover–up for insecurity> b: a usually concerted effort to keep an illegal or unethical act or situation from being made public

2: a loose outer garment

I believe we can safely eliminate garment as being applicable to the CIA’s masking or concealing its illegal or unethical acts or situations related to detainee interrogations. In fact, the CIA’s current “stratagem” is to cover up the cover-up even when confronted with the revelations made in the memorandum issued by Philip D. Gnomelike, the commission’s former Executive Director.

In an interview on Friday, [John E. McLaughlin, the deputy director of the CIA] said that agency officials had always been candid with the commission, and that information from the C.I.A. proved central to their work.

Well obviously considering Mr. McLaughlin’s high ethical standards and long-standing credibility, the entire matter should be dismissed. No one can doubt the veracity of his current statements as evidenced by the accuracy of his prior statements.

Among the statements that the memorandum suggests were misleading was an assertion made on June 29, 2004, by John E. McLaughlin…that the C.I.A. “has taken and completed all reasonable steps necessary to find the documents in its possession, custody or control responsive” to formal requests by the commission and “has produced or made available for review” all such documents.

But McLaughlin, George Tenet, Peter Goss, nor anyone else at the CIA or in the White House should be overly concerned about investigations into their lawbreaking. Attorney General Michael Mukasey is about as interested in investigating the matter as Alberto Gonzales would be.

Incoming!

I have been been preparing all day for the annual onslaught of family and therefore have not been able to post. As time permits, I will be posting over the next few days, but just not as frequently as usual.

Cheers!

CIA probe today may merit an Emmy

Who may show up (or not) at the House Judiciary Committee hearing* today on the interrogation of detainees and the CIA’s destruction of related videotapes may turn out to be as interesting as any testimony that may be given. Committee Chairman Conyers sent letters on December 7th requesting information from Attorney General Michael Mukasey†, and CIA Directory Michael Hayden††. Mukasey declined to answer any of Conyers’ questions, and moreover told Conyers and the rest of Congress to butt out. The CIA has agreed to provide documents and allow the agency’s top lawyer to testify, but it is unclear when the CIA will testify and if all witnesses requested will be allowed to or are willing to testify.

Simply stated – if testimony from any individual may impugn the “integrity” of the Bush administration in any way, that individual will not testify or produce documents. But the CIA tapes are not the only matter that may be discussed today. The Committee may hear about more nefarious activities of the Bush administration – retaliation against military lawyers that are outspoken against the administration’s policies and procedures on the treatment of detainees

Unsigned subpoenas were sent to two persons in the CIA – Jose A. Rodriguez, the chief of the CIA’s clandestine service — the individual that ordered the tapes destroyed in 2005, and John A. Rizzo, the CIA’s top lawyer. Rizzo has agreed to testify, but as the Times reports, the administration is not eager to allow the one person that allegedly knows the most about the destruction of the tapes to testify.

Officials said Mr. Rodriguez’s appearance before the committee might involve complex negotiations over legal immunity at a time when the Justice Department and the intelligence agency were reviewing whether the destruction of the tapes broke any laws.

Of course Mr. Rodriguez will not be allowed to testify. That might significantly expedite the investigation, which would be a direct violation of the administration’s long-standing policy to obfuscate and obstruct whenever and however possible.

It appears Conyers’ plan is to schedule multiple hearings with only one agency scheduled per hearing. According to the Committee’s web site, the Department of Justice is on the agenda for today, as well as four other witnesses external to the DOJ. Notwithstanding Conyers’ strong rebuttal to Mukasey’s butt-out letter, there will doubtfully be little information provided by the Justice Department today, if any at all. If Mukasey wants his term as Attorney General to be one of the shortest in American history he’ll testify, otherwise Mr. Bush might let him remain until January 20, 2009.

With respect to the witnesses external to the Department, at least one of them may shed light on more nefarious activities by the administration. The witnesses external to the Department are: Stephen Saltzburg, The George Washington University Law School; John Radsan, William Mitchell College of Law; David Rivkin, Baker & Hostetler LLP; and, Elisa Massimino, Washington Director of Human Rights First.

Saltzburg is also general counsel to the National Institute of Military Justice and will likely be a witness hostile to the administration. He has been consulted on and spoken out against the administration in yet another revelation of mischief by the Bush administration.

In an excellent piece of investigative reporting, Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe recently revealed the Bush administration intends to (and probably already has) retaliate against military lawyers that have been outspoken against the administration’s policies and procedures on the treatment of detainees. On December 15th, Savage reported:

The Bush administration is escalating a conflict over the independence of military lawyers who have repeatedly raised objections to White House policies over prisoners held as enemy combatants.

The administration has proposed a regulation requiring “coordination” with politically appointed Pentagon lawyers before the promotion of any member of the Judge Advocate General Corps, the military’s 4,000-member uniformed legal force.

Former JAG officers say the regulation would end the uniformed lawyers’ role as a check on presidential power because politically appointed lawyers could block the promotion of JAGs who they believe would speak up if they think a White House policy is illegal.

If history foretells the future, I would pay close attention to Representatives Artur Davis (D-GA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-NY), and Robert Wexler (D-FL).

————-

* - Hearing on Applicability of Federal Criminal Laws to the Interrogation of Detainees

† - Conyers to Mukasey Dec. 7, 2007 (pdf)

†† - Conyers to Hayden Dec. 7, 2007 (pdf)

Trancredo Drops Out

Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo plans to drop out of the race tomorrow. According to unreliable sources, Tancredo may have been unwittingly subjected to
injections of Promicin by Jordan Collier, head of the 4400.

Jordan Collier - former hotel mogul

NTAK, citing an ongoing investigation, refused to comment on the matter.

Cheney’s Disco Inferno

The timing could not be worse. Cheney torches the Eisenhower Executive Office Building and the screenwriters are on strike. Can you even begin to imagine what Jon Stewart and his crew would do with that?

Take a break from the seriousness of Iowa and all that stuff. Read Andy Borowitz’s post on Cheney’s disco inferno.

John Edwards

I want to get this out before the media blitz takes off like it was covering Anna Nicole Smith again or Britney Spears today.

For two days I have been working on a piece about John Edwards that focuses primarily on lack of media coverage, and a recent positive increase in polls and voter perception. I have not finished my research and therefore, obviously I’m not ready to post. And I will not get it posted before a vicious slanderous rumor takes hold on a logarithmic scale.

I’m not going to dignify the rumor by linking to it or even stating what it is — many already know by now and for those that don’t you will soon I’m sure. I don’t believe it and find it to be reprehensible.

That said, John Edwards will be getting plenty of media coverage - the wrong kind and for the wrong reasons. And that is a basic point I intended to make in my yet-to-be written post. So for the record, I had no knowledge of the trash that is circulating until after I had developed the thesis and was well into researching.

Purveyors of political smut are no better than their product.

White House Rebukes NYT Report

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino issued a statement strongly rebuking the New York Times’ report of substantial involvement by the White House in the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes. In her statement, Perino described the piece as “”pernicious and troubling” and demanded the Times issue a correction.

The New York Times today implies that the White House has been misleading in publicly acknowledging or discussing details related to the CIA’s decision to destroy interrogation tapes.

The sub-headline of the story inaccurately says that the “White House Role Was Wider Than It Said”, and the story states that “…the involvement of White House officials in the discussions before the destruction of the tapes…was more extensive than Bush administration officials have acknowledged.”

Under direction from the White House General Counsel while the Department of Justice and the CIA Inspector General conduct a preliminary inquiry, we have not publicly commented on facts relating to this issue, except to note President Bush’s immediate reaction upon being briefed on the matter. Furthermore, we have not described - neither to highlight, nor to minimize — the role or deliberations of White House officials in this matter.

The New York Times’ inference that there is an effort to mislead in this matter is pernicious and troubling, and we are formally requesting that NYT correct the sub-headline of this story.

It will not be surprising that this matter will be reported with a reliance on un-named sources and individuals lacking a full availability of the facts — and, as the New York Times story itself acknowledges, some of these sources will have wildly conflicting accounts of the facts. We will instead focus our efforts on supporting the preliminary inquiry underway, where facts can be gathered without bias or influence and later disseminated in an appropriate fashion.

We will continue to decline to comment on this issue, and in response to misleading press reports.

(emphasis added)

Perino’s statements focus on the White House not misleading the public in its statements, and was accompanied by a long list of “no comments” issued by the White House, but Perino makes no attempt to deny involvement by the White House.

Moreover, Perino flat out lied in her statement, “we have not publicly commented on facts relating to this issue, except to note President Bush’s immediate reaction upon being briefed on the matter.” But in her December 10th press briefing she specifically stated she was not allowed to comment on the matter including the president’s reaction.

QUESTION: Dana, is the President concerned about the impact on the CIA’s reputation and its integrity, not just here but around the world…

MS. PERINO: Well, one, I haven’t – I’m not allowed to characterize the President’s reaction to this, but what I can tell you is that he — as I said Friday, he has complete confidence in General Hayden, and that remains.

QUESTION: But why can’t you characterize his concern, if there is one, about the integrity of a key governmental agency that operates around the world?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think I — pressed on that, I would say that I think the President feels very highly about all of the members of the intelligence community, and at the CIA. He knows that they work extremely hard in order to keep all of us protected, that they try to do everything that they possibly can. There’s — in regards to this specific issue, regarding these tapes, that the President said that he does not recall being made aware of their existence or their destruction until last Thursday’s briefing. There’s not much more I can say.

QUESTION: But he’s not concerned about the facts as we know them now?

MS. PERINO: In terms of — I can’t talk about that particular — I can’t characterize the President’s thinking on that.

It is patently obvious nothing the White House Press Secretary says can be taken as credible. The current Press Secretary is lying as have her predecessors.

Eisenhower Executive Office Building on Fire

Eisenhower Executive Office Building

The Eisenhower Executive Office Building is ablaze. Vice President Dick Cheney’s ceremonial office is in the building, as well as NSC offices. According to news reports (MSNBC TV), highly classified documents are maintained in the morning, as well as documents required to be kept under the Presidential Records Act. The Secret Service White House visitor logs, which a federal judge recently ordered the administration to release, are also reportedly stored in the building.

Of course, media reporters are rapidly stating what is contained in the building, therefore, their accounts may be inaccurate at this time.

Update:  The Secret Service has determined the fire was accidental and have ruled out any possibility that the fire was an act of arson. Wow! That was fast.

How dare the NYT accuse the WH of impropriety

Not the Bush White House!

At least four top White House lawyers took part in discussions with the Central Intelligence Agency between 2003 and 2005 about whether to destroy videotapes showing the secret interrogations of two operatives from Al Qaeda, according to current and former administration and intelligence officials.

The accounts indicate that the involvement of White House officials in the discussions before the destruction of the tapes in November 2005 was more extensive than Bush administration officials have acknowledged.

Those who took part, the officials said, included Alberto R. Gonzales, who served as White House counsel until early 2005; David S. Addington, who was the counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney and is now his chief of staff; John B. Bellinger III, who until January 2005 was the senior lawyer at the National Security Council; and Harriet E. Miers, who succeeded Mr. Gonzales as White House counsel.

Don’t believe a word of it. Its the media conspiring againt George Bush and Dick Cheney.