Photo of the Day: Same-sex marriage proposal at the White House

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Via Mustang Bobby, from here:

U.S. Marine Corps captain Matthew Phelps gets down on one knee to propose to partner Ben Schock on Saturday night in the first same-sex marriage proposal at the White House.

Busted in a nutshell

By Mustang Bobby

There's been a development in the long-running kerfuffle over the bust of Winston Churchill and the horrendous slight that Barack Obama made by taking it out of the Oval Office and sending it back to the British postage due. Well, guess what:

Like a plot twist in a sitcom, IT TURNS OUT THERE ARE TWO CHURCHILL BUSTS!!!!!

The one in the White House residence was a gift to the White House from the British Embassy during the Johnson administration.

The other one was loaned to President George W. Bush by British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

And the one in the residence is still there.

Wingnuts find the silliest things to get upset about. That is why they are wingnuts. 

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

George W. Bush's White House portrait

By Richard K. Barry

Hey, that's a picture of me. Well, whadaya know?

Oh, what the hell. Let's be nice. Yes, Barack Obama has been saying for some time that electing Mitt Romney as president would be to return to the failed policies of George W. Bush. But today he had George over to the house for a little party and the unveiling of W.'s portrait. No snarky talk at all.

Sometimes partisanship takes a holiday, and yesterday was one of those days.

Obama played it pretty safe, though, in saluting Bush for his role in pulling the country together after 9/11. As The New York Times reported:

Hailing Mr. Bush as a steadfast leader after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Mr. Obama said Americans would never forget the image of Mr. Bush standing atop a pile of rubble at the World Trade Center, bullhorn in hand.

And then Barack thanked George for leaving him a really good TV sports package. George thanked Barack for "inviting our rowdy friends to my hanging."

The interesting thing about it, though, was that it's almost like Bush isn't quite a part of the electoral scene at all any more. Again, the Times:

[R]elatively few members of Mr. Bush's inner circle are working on the campaign of Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee. Mr. Bush himself has been in a self-imposed political exile, absent from the Republican campaign trail. A couple of weeks ago, he did offer a fleeting endorsement of Mr. Romney — "I'm for Mitt Romney," he said to ABC News — as the doors of his elevator closed after giving a speech on human rights in Washington.

There's George, seemingly enjoying his retirement and no longer a threat to anyone, pretty well invisible. Anyway, ceremony is important, and even this dog gets his day.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Fox News moves to the front

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So who's getting Helen Thomas's front-and-center seat in the White House briefing room? The AP. (Which is bad, but it means not having to pick a specific network, newspaper, or magazine.) And who's getting AP's spot in the front row? A legitimate outlet like NPR, perhaps? Of course not. It's Fox News -- and this, as John Cole notes, is "a reward for their excellent achievements in propaganda."

Not that we should care -- after all, who really cares about the seating chart in the White House briefing room, other than the insiders themselves? -- but it is rather telling that at this time, with Fox News's agenda so utterly obvious, an agenda all about right-wing, pro-Republican sectarianism, not journalism, and with the whole Shirley Sherrod debacle still fresh in everyone's mind, that manufactured scandal pushed by Breitbart and promoted by Fox News, the insiders would effectively promote Fox News to the ranks of the supposed elite.

A Sign of the Apocalypse? Not really, given that Fox News is widely popular and hugely influential already, and given how pathetic the news media establishment is, and how predictable, but certainly a confirmation that the Apocalypse is at hand.

Financial Reform

By Creature

I still have hope that the White House and Congress will get their shit together and pass strong financial reforms, but with the GOP using the Frank Luntz's, up-is-down talking point that the proposed regulations will make future bailouts more, not less, likely I fear the GOP will control a message that should clearly be on the Democrats side.

While I don't think the GOP's Luntzing of financial reform will succeed (and kudos to the White House for pushing back already), I do think it will lead to a protracted fight and a glum electorate (which I assume is the GOP's plan) and this is something the Democrats cannot afford after the long health-care reform fight.

Update: Dodd's on the case. He calls out McConnell's lie, waves Luntz memo. Love it.

Condescension

By Creature

I simply don't understand why the White House continually wants to piss off the left of the left. This time it's the "Internet left fringe." If there's one group standing up to the lies, misinformation, and general jackassery of the Right, it's the Internet left fringe. I get that spitting on the base is cool to Villagers, but I'd like to see them combat the stupid without them.

No prayer day ceremony at new White House

By Creature

Now, if only we could get god out of every other aspect of our public lives maybe this country could progress as our founders intended.

Gibbs responds to Rick's ridiculous rant

By Creature

I like this very much.

World's shortest meeting

By Carl

Headline today: Bush Prepares Crisis Briefings to Aid Obama:

WASHINGTON — The White House has prepared more than a dozen contingency plans to help guide President-elect Barack Obama if an international crisis erupts in the opening days of his administration, part of an elaborate operation devised to smooth the first transition of power since Sept. 11, 2001.

*****

Mr. Bush said Tuesday that a top priority in his final days in office is to help Mr. Obama get ready to govern. "We care about him," he said in an interview with CNN. "We want him to be successful, and we want the transition to work."

The subtitle should read "Everything I Know About What's Going On In The World." It should be written on a fucking gum wrapper.

Seriously, can anyone think of a President who, after eight fucking years in office, is so embarrassingly unprepared for the job???

When Bill Clinton handed the reins of power over to George W. Bush, his staff spent weeks alerting Bush's staff to the troubles they perceived in the world: Al Qaeda, a coming recession, Korea, China, the rise of Russia.

Bush played golf. He cleared brush. And his staff took their cues from the Moron-In-Chief and likewise ignored nearly every single warning -- rumour has it that Condi Rice perked up only when Russia and China were mentioned. The hubris exhibited in the following eight years was on display before the Oval Office phone was cold.

We could play the "if only" game for years with Bush: if only he had listened to warnings about Al Qaeda, if only he had listened to his dad about Iraq, if only he had realized that Saddam Hussein was contained under the embargo, if only...

If only 8,000 Americans, roughly half of them civilians, could be alive today, and another 100,000 soldiers uninjured, rather than providing an object lesson in the foolishness of war in general and invasions in particular.

If only the SCOTUS had selected Al Gore.

If I were Barack Obama, I'd give Chimpy fifteen minutes... squeeze him in between smokes and a game of hoops...to let him explain what he thinks the consequences of what he has wrought upon the world will be. Yes, he publicly says that, in the end, a free and democratic Iraq will yaddayaddayadda, but I call bullshit. I suspect Bush has sat up nights in the second term thinking, "Holy shit, what have I done?"

Maybe not many, but even if he did that even once, it would be enough for me.

It seems clear from Obama's picks and the rapidity of them that he's aware that he has to hit the ground running. It's a scary world out there and the economic crisis is a megaphone for terrorists and unrest, which means the violence in the world is only going to increase.

In case the lesson of Mumbai was lost on you. Poverty breeds contempt and fear and anger. Imagine what famine and pestilence will breed.

So goodbye, George. You are the weakest link.

(Cross-posted at Simply Left Behind.)

White House actively opposing limits on greenhouse gas emissions

By Michael J.W. Stickings

He may be the lamest of lame ducks, but George W. Bush -- Our Current President (OCP), as our Carol Gee calls him -- is still doing immense damage. Consider:

As the Bush administration prepares to issue its ruling on whether to limit greenhouse gases, it's sending out a message to some of its allies: Tell us how much you don't want us to regulate emissions linked to global warming.

Last week, the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs sent an e-mail to mayors reminding them that time was running out if they wanted to comment on the proposal the administration issued in July, which laid out how the government might curb greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. A 2007 Supreme Court decision required the Environmental Protection Agency to issue such a ruling, but the White House made it clear in its e-mail that it does not think that is a good idea.

In other words, the White House (i.e., OCP) is actively marshalling support for its long-standing opposition to limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Some mayors may actually be concerned, but the White House is not just encouraging them but inciting them to tow the line.

As S. William Becker, executive director for the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, put it: "It appears there is no bottom to the administration's pit of disdain for regulating greenhouse gases. On the eve of the comment deadline on one of the most important environmental issues of our time, the White House is resorting to scare tactics, including rhetoric from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to incite opposition among elected county and city officials."

Inauguration Day cannot come soon enough.

Monday in the Bush

By Carol Gee

White House:

On the official White House website (above) "Transition" is listed above "The Economy." That actually reflects an apparent reality. Politician to the end, our current president (OCP) intends to use a successful transition to attempt to refurbish his badly tarnished image. If, at the end of the day, our next president (ONP) does not feel like he has made a safari into the bush, it will be of benefit to the tenor of the transition.

Today "Obama heads to White House for first post-election visit," is the headline from Deborah Charles' (11/10/08) story at Reuters. The visit takes place earlier in the transition than in the past, because of all the crises facing the nation. I imagine both men were eager to make it happen for that reason. It fits in well with President-elect Obama's "hit the ground running" governing agenda. To quote:

Accompanied by his wife Michelle, Obama will visit for about 90 minutes. The Obamas will look around the house that will become their home, and Bush and the president-elect will then sit down to discuss issues including the transition of power, the ailing U.S. economy and the war in Iraq.

[Bush] . . ."Ensuring that this transition is seamless is a top priority for the rest of my time in office," Bush said on Saturday in his weekly radio address.

"In the coming weeks, we will ask administration officials to brief the Obama team on major ongoing policy issues, ranging from the financial markets to the war in Iraq."

[Obama] . . . "This speaks to a fundamental recognition that here in America we can compete vigorously in elections and challenge each other's ideas, yet come together in service of a common purpose once the voting is done," Obama said on Saturday in his radio address. "And that is particularly important at a moment when we face the most serious challenges of our lifetime."

Since this important meeting appears to be a win/win for both sides, everyone will be on their best behavior. And the two couples may actually have a very pleasant time this afternoon. A good story from Sheryl Gay Stolberg at the 11/9/08 New York Times describes the challenges as: "A Visit Both Historic and Perhaps Awkward." To quote:

As the president-elect, he will be welcomed at the White House as an honored guest of its current occupant, Mr. Bush, for a meeting that could be as awkward as it is historic.

. . . there will also be a subtext to the session: the personal chemistry between two leaders whose worldviews are miles apart.

. . . with Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama over the economy. Mr. Bush has invited world leaders to Washington on Friday and Saturday for an international conference on the economy. Mr. Obama and his team have declined to attend. Mr. Obama supports a new economic stimulus package; the Bush White House is cool to that idea.

Meanwhile the work of transition continues. It looks like this gossipy little column, "In the Loop," by Al Kamen in The Washington Post, will be a good way to stay in touch with the latest. For example, he thinks former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack may have a lock on the Agriculture Secretary position. Kamen also weighs in, in a fun way, on President-elect Obama's official transition website, closing with more information on potential other appointments.

Into the bush, the wilds of Washington, is the way these men, and President Clinton -- relatively speaking -- experienced and will experience the early days and weeks of their terms. Each president had to watch out for carnivores lurking in the grass. Clinton had Gingrich, Bush had terrorists, and Obama will encounter the full import of the decisions and events of the past 8 years. Former Presidents Clinton and Bush 41 will leave town, and President Obama will head home to the upstairs of the White House. To each man on January 20, 2009, we can all rightfully say, "Bon Voyage!"

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Obama names Rahm Emanuel his chief of staff. So what does it mean?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Clintonite and Congressman Rahm Emanuel has accepted Obama's offer to be his chief of staff.

Like David Corn and Ezra Klein, I'm ambivalent about it. On the one hand, Emanuel hasn't exactly been an ally of the liberal-progressive elements in the Democratic Party. On the other hand, he's a tough, hard-nosed insider and aggressive partisan with White House experience. So what does his appointment mean? What does it signal with respect to the Obama presidency?

-- Is Obama signalling that he prefers centrist Clintonism to progressivism, that he'll govern from the center and twist arms as required?

-- Is Obama signalling that he'll be aggressively partisan with respect to Congress, that he's tough and ready to do battle?

-- Is he signalling anything at all?

Here's how I put it on Wednesday: "I'm not sure this signifies much. It's too early to conclude that Obama will govern from the 'center,' or that he will align himself with the less progressive side of the party. What is essential is that Obama have a chief of staff in whom he has full confidence and can place his full trust. Emanuel, in that regard, may be right for the job."

In other words, this is about the very close relationship that a president has with his chief of staff. The president must like and trust his chief of staff. That was certainly the case with Bush and Card and it also seems to be the case with Obama and Emanuel. Emanuel will likely be more of a hands-on, policy-oriented chief of staff, but, in the end, his job will be to run the West Wing and manage Obama's internal and external relationships. If Obama thinks that Emanuel is the right man for the job, then so be it. End of discussion. I trust Obama's judgment.

Then again, as Corn puts it: "Emanuel might make a good CoS for Obama. He knows how the White House operates. He knows how Congress works. He's fierce; he's smart. And Obama needs someone with experience and brains for this tough job. But should the White House of a president seeking change be run by a fellow who has done so well in the conventional and monied ways of Washington?"

For now, I'll give the president-elect the benefit of the doubt.

White House fed talking points to Fox News

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It wasn't so long ago that former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, fresh memoir in hand, was all over the media with his allegation -- and, let's face it, a supremely credible one -- that the Bush Administration had lied about Iraq and took a "permanent campaign approach" to governing and that there was a Rove-Libby conspiracy to cover up their roles in the outing of former CIA officer Valerie Plame.

Well, the ex-mouthpiece is back, telling Chris Matthews last night -- as Think Progress reports -- that the White House fed "script[s]" to certain Fox News hosts ("the nighttime guys," as Matthews described them), essentially using them as "spokespeople." Later, he told Keith Olbermann that "'it was done frequently, especially on high-profile issues' and that Fox often gave the White House 'its desired results.'"

As Olbermann put it, it's "one of those things you assumed to be true all along, yet you are shocked when the hard confirmation actually shows up on your door."

Well, no, we shouldn't be shocked by this. But it's nice to have the confirmation straight from the mouthpiece's mouth.

(Image from here.)

Tony Snow (1955-2008)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Tony Snow -- former Fox News host and Bush press secretary -- has died. He was 53.

Like many who dislike Bush and the Republicans and Fox News, I never much liked Snow. Or, let me be more precise, I never much cared for him in his official capacities as Fox host and Bush mouthpiece. (Of course, I do not know what he was like in person, but he seemed to be a very likeable man, and those who knew him spoke highly of him, and are doing so now -- make sure to check out the reaction at Memeorandum.)

And yet, even as Bush mouthpiece, spewing spin as the spokesperson for a failed presidency mired in lies and delusions, there always seemed to be something genuinely classy and upright about him. Perhaps it was because he was a smooth broadcaster who was comfortable in front of the cameras and chummy with his ex-colleagues, the White House press corps, but he stood out well above Bush's other press secretaries, the arrogant, smarmy Ari Fleischer, the in-way-over-his-head Scott McClellan, and the amateurish, cartoonish Dana Perino. Through his entire time at the White House, I may rarely have liked or appreciated what Snow was saying in defence of his boss, but at the very least I respected him in a way that I haven't most other members of the administration.

But let's put politics and partisanship aside. It is a sad loss and a sad day. Tony Snow, from everything I could tell a good and generous man, will be missed.

The mouthpiece strikes back

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From The Politico's isn't-this-exciting (?!) preview of What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception:

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan writes in a surprisingly scathing memoir to be published next week that President Bush “veered terribly off course,” was not “open and forthright on Iraq,” and took a “permanent campaign approach” to governing at the expense of candor and competence.

And that there was a Rove-Libby conspiracy to deceive the public, and McClellan himself, over their their roles in the Plame Game (you remember, the Valerie Plame CIA leak case).

Well, fine. Guest blogger dday at Kevin Drum's place thinks we could be in for a reputation-saving "free-for-all" as more and more Bush Administration memoirs are published, and that may be true, but, in this case, McClellan's insider revelations only confirm what most people already know: of course the Iraq War has been a disaster; of course propaganda was used to sell the war; of course the media were too soft on Bush in the run-up to the war; of course Rove and Libby were in on the Plame leak. Hardly dramatic stuff.

David Corn thinks McClellan should apologize for being "an enabler." Well, maybe, and Corn makes some good points, but all he was was a mouthpiece for the warmongers and propagandists. And now he's profiting off having been such a mouthpiece, and, obviously, he wants to sell some books.

We'll see if there's more to the book than these few nuggets of obviousness, but let's keep in mind that all we have so far is a preview at a fairly friendly media outlet, one that seems to be helping him sell books. Come on, do you really think a long-time loyalist like McClellan has betrayed Bush in any meaningful way? Do you really think the book is an open and honest look at what went on in Bush's White House?

It's all just marketing. There's no good reason to read McClellan's book, let alone to pay money to buy it in the first place, and so it's being sold to us as a work of betrayal, or conscience.

Sure, maybe he's located his conscience, or decided to cleanse himself publicly, and maybe he wants to save his reputation, or whatever he thinks his reputation should be, or distance himself from some of what he did, which he may or may not know was wrong, but the mouthpiece is still a mouthpiece, now out for himself, cashing in, and one doubts that he is all that different from what he used to be, not so long ago, when he was saying what the warmongers and propagandists told him to say.

**********

Update: Anderson Cooper made a big deal of this tonight, and, well, I suppose it is a big deal, or at least a much bigger deal that I suggest here. I still think McClellan's criticisms are obvious, but it is significant that he has made them in such a public way. And it is significant, too, that the media are making a big deal of them, though of course they are playing right into his hands (and his publisher's hands) in promoting the book and in focusing so heavily on the juicy bits.

In praise of Helen Thomas

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From TP:

On April 9, ABC News reported that in 2002, President Bush's most senior advisers approved the use of harsh interrogation tactics. Days later, Bush confirmed to ABC he "approved" of the tactics. Sadly, the media have largely ignored the story since it was first reported. Moreover, not one White House press corps reporter has raised the issue with the Bush administration... until [yesterday].

And it was Helen Thomas who did it.

(For my post on "torturing from the top," see here. For more, see C&L.)

Bush, fascism, and the war on democracy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(Following up on posts by Carol and Libby yesterday...)

The headline at the Times says it all:

In Senate, a White House Victory on Eavesdropping

Yes, Bush and his Republican enablers are winning this fight -- and the Democrats, some of them, caving in, selling us out, are playing right along:

A White House plan to broaden the National Security Agency’s wiretapping powers won a key procedural victory in the Senate on Thursday, as backers defeated a more restrictive plan by Senate Democrats that would have imposed more court oversight on government spying.

The vote moves the Bush administration a step closer toward the twin goals it has pursued for months: strengthening the N.S.A.’s ability to eavesdrop without court approval, while securing legal immunity for the phone companies that have helped the agency in its wiretapping operations.

*****

As the Senate opened debate on the security agency issue, it agreed by a convincing vote of 60-to-36 to set aside a bill passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee that would have given a secret intelligence court a greater role in overseeing wiretaps on terrorism and espionage suspects. The defeated measure, while imposing more judicial restrictions, omitted immunity for the phone carriers that aided the agency in its wiretapping operations.

The Senate will instead consider a measure passed by the Senate Intelligence Committee that has the backing of the White House. It would give legal immunity to AT&T and the other phone companies against some 40 lawsuits growing out of their alleged roles in eavesdropping. It would also give the N.S.A. a freer hand to eavesdrop on foreign-based communications without judicial checks.

The White House has agreed to "give members of the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees access to internal documents on the N.S.A.’s wiretapping program and the legal foundation for it," and that's a significant concession, but so what? With the Democrats divided and the Republicans backing the White House, as usual, Bush's anti-freedom agenda is moving forward.

And just what is that agenda? It is an agenda to enhance executive authority by removing, or at least restricting, legislative and judicial oversight, an agenda to protect corporations and corporate interests friendly to the White House and to the agenda itself, an agenda to wage the so-called war on terror, a war of Bush's defining, autocratically and without regard for civil liberties, an agenda -- let's be frank about this -- to undermine democracy and the rule of law.

Bush's surveillance bill, the Protect America Act, expires next Friday, a week from today. Democrats like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid want a one-month extension so that there can be further debate, but the Republicans have objected to any extension, just as they have objected to Democratic amendments. They want their bill now, a bill that gives Bush wants he wants, extra-legal executive authority and corporate immunity. Besides, the issue isn't about time, or about an extension, or about more debate, but rather about the objectionable content of the legislation. Democrats would cave in a month from now just like they're caving in now.

As usual, Bush is playing the terrorism-is-everywhere fear card: "If Congress does not act quickly, our national security professionals will not be able to count on critical tools they need to protect our nation, and our ability to respond quickly to new threats and circumstances will be weakened." In other words, if he doesn't get what he wants, al Qaeda will get us.

It's the classic strategy of authoritarians and totalitarians everywhere. In using propaganda to stoke public fear, in trumping up or simply manufacturing threats from enemies both at home and abroad, and in protecting corporate friends and interests, Bush is proving once more that he is, in essence, a fascist.

I don't expect Republicans to do anything other than to give Bush what he wants. It may not be wise of me, but I expect more from Democrats, from the party I have long supported, often enthusiastically, sometimes against my better judgement. Unfortunately -- and to our great misfortune -- far too many Democrats either haven't learned a thing or are happy playing along with and even encouraging the undermining of democracy, freedom, and the rule of law.

(See also the Post and Paul Kiel at TPM.)

NIE reaction round-up

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(My own reaction is here.)

Slate's Fred Kaplan, one of my go-to commentators on military and national security issues, examines the recently-released NIE and admits that "President Bush and the administration's hawkish faction, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, can take some solace from the new intelligence estimate. For instance, the NIE states, again 'with high confidence,' that until the fall of 2003, the Iranians were developing nuclear weapons. It also notes that they are continuing civilian work 'related to uranium conversion and enrichment.'"

However, it was "increasing international scrutiny and pressure" that prompted Iran to halt the militarized component of its nuclear program, not the saber-rattling of Cheney and the warmongers.

Kaplan's very sensible conclusion: "If there was ever a possibility that President George W. Bush would drop bombs on Iran, the chances have now shrunk to nearly zero."

**********

But wait. Not so fast.

As I argued yesterday -- see link above -- Bush's NSA/mouthpiece, Stephen Hadley, responded to the NIE by patting the Bush Administration (and himself?) on the back, by praising his boss's "strategy" (which, as spun, includes aggressive international diplomacy, not gearing up for war), and by issuing, between the lines, a carefully and indeed esoterically presented advocation of the warmongering position.

That advocation continued at Bush's press conference yesterday -- needless to say, the scribes on hand were curious: the NIE seems to refute the claims made by Cheney and the warmongers with respect to Iran's nuclear intentions and current capacity. In response to the first question, the president said this: "Here's what we know. We know that they're still trying to learn how to enrich uranium. We know that enriching uranium is an important step in a country who wants to develop a weapon. We know they had a program. We know the program is halted."

In other words, fuck the NIE.

The militarized component of the program may have been halted, but Iran still seeks nuclear weapons and therefore remains a serious threat. Note that this was one of the revisionist arguments made in support of the Iraq War: Saddam may not have had any WMDs, but he once had them and may have sought them again and was therefore a threat -- and so pre-emptive war was justified. The case for immediate war -- Cheney's case -- may have suffered a serious blow with the release of this NIE, but the case for war, according to the warmongers, remains.

To Bush's credit, however, he praised the intelligence community for its "good work" and declared that ongoing international pressure is required -- on the latter point, I agree; on the former point, I assume the intelligence community got this right and is therefore deserving of praise. Still, he argued that "[t]he best diplomacy, effective diplomacy, is one of which all options are on the table" -- this is the thin end of the wedge, an opening for the warmongers. If and when the U.S. determines that diplomacy is not working and/or that Iran is not negotiating in good faith, the "option" of pre-emptive military action can be triggered.

And for all the pro-diplomacy talk from the president, I return to a point made by Kevin Drum (among others): "This NIE was apparently finished a year ago, and its basic parameters were almost certainly common knowledge in the White House well before that. This means that all the leaks, all the World War III stuff, all the blustering about the IAEA -- all of it was approved for public consumption after Cheney/Bush/Rice/etc. knew perfectly well it was mostly baseless." Which means that Bush and his top officials have essentially been lying about, or at the very least misrepresenting, the Iranian threat for at least the past year -- but probably for much longer.

**********

Some important articles/posts to check out:

Scott Horton, Harper's: "[We] have been pointing for the better part of the year to the very strange goings-on surrounding the preparation and issuance of a vital intelligence report on the state of Iran’s nuclear project. The White House, and particularly Vice President Cheney, has been feverishly attempting to stop its issuance. The Director of National Intelligence, McConnell, has been at odds to oppose its declassification. In sum, something was there and the war party was intensely upset about it."

Think Progress: According to The New Yorker's Sy Hersh, "Bush actually knew about the NIE at least two days earlier and had a 'private discussion' about it with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert before the Middle East peace summit in Annapolis, MD, last week."

Think Progress: At his press conference yesterday, Bush admitted this: "I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was John -- Mike McConnell came in and said, We have some new information. He didn’t tell me what the information was. He did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze." So McConnell didn't tell and Bush didn't ask? About something as important as Iran's nuclear program?

TP: "At the same time Bush was ratcheting up the rhetoric on Iran, he was told by his National Intelligence Director that that [sic] have 'some new information.' Yet Bush wants the public to believe he never learned what the information was, nor was he interested." More, WaPo is reporting that "intelligence officials began briefing senior members of the Bush administration" as early as July. Which means that Bush and the warmongers were making their case against Iran even after the new intelligence was first disseminated.

**********

None of this is stopping the warmongers, however. It didn't stop them earlier this year, and it certainly isn't now.

At Commentary, leading neocon Norman Podhoretz is attacking the intelligence community -- blaming the messenger, that is, and thereby casting doubt on the intelligence itself. It is "bending over backward" to avoid another Iraq fiasco, giving Iran the benefit of the doubt, and seeking to undermine Bush, against whom it has a serious grudge.

The Weekly Standard, home to neocon saber-rattling at its most grotesque, picks up on Podhoretz's sophistic attack and runs with it.

Bush at least talks positively about diplomacy, about the intelligence community, and about keeping all options on the table -- however insincerely. The neocons have no such diplomatic touch themselves. From the weeds of their rags, from the luxury of their think tanks, they can afford to be more blunt.

The drumbeat for war is as loud and as demanding as ever.

**********

Andrew Sullivan: "My hunch is that this is the final collapse of the neocon wing of the Bush administration. They simply couldn't survive Iraq."

I'm not so sure. Not yet. (See above.)

Glenn Greenwald:

Over the past year, the rhetoric from our Serious Foreign Policy establishment regarding the supposed threat posed by Iran's active pursuit of nuclear weapons has severely escalated both in terms of shrillness and threats. Opposition to this building hysteria has been led by Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who -- exactly as he did prior to the invasion of Iraq -- has been relentlessly warning that there is no real evidence to support these war-fueling allegations.

Because of that, he has been relentlessly attacked and smeared by our Serious Foreign Policy elite -- yet again. And yet again, ElBaradei has been completely vindicated, and our Serious Foriegn Policy Experts exposed as serial fabricators, fear-mongerers and hysterics.

A long and rewarding post. Make sure to read it all.

Josh Marshall: "If you look closely at what President Bush said this morning about the Iran intelligence, his dodge about what he knew and when is actually worse than the charge he was trying to deny."

John Aravosis: "Bush lied to the media and got us into a war with Iraq. The media refused to do their job, and led us into that war. Now Bush has been caught lying to us again, repeatedly, about going to war with Iran, and the media has, again, rolled over and kicked its legs up in the air.

Not that one should expect much else from the White House press corps.

Steve Benen: "So, let’s review what we’ve learned from the White House over the last 24 hours. The DNI told Bush there was important new information on Iran, but the president didn’t ask what it was. The president was, and was not, told to “stand down” when it came to Iran, advice he both ignored and did not receive. All the while, the White House was publicly making assessments of the Iranian threat, all of which contradicted the evidence they did, and did not, see. Just when it seemed as if the Bush gang couldn’t get any more embarrassing, these guys manage to kick things up a notch. It’s almost impressive."

For more see more Benen, Matt Yglesias, Cernig, Damozel, Clammyc, Kyle Moore here and here, Libby Spencer here and here, and much else at Memeorandum.

Warmongering fabrications: White House spin and the truth about Iran

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The top story at Memeorandum right now -- and, indeed, one of the top stories anywhere and everywhere -- remains yesterday's stunning release of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that directly contradicts, and refutes, the claims made by Cheney and the warmongers with respect to the Iranian nuclear situation. (Creature commented on it briefly yesterday afternoon.) From the NYT:

A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.

The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to reshape the final year of the Bush administration, which has made halting Iran's nuclear program a cornerstone of its foreign policy.

The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran is likely keeping its options open with respect to building a weapon, but that intelligence agencies "do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

Iran is continuing to produce enriched uranium, a program that the Tehran government has said is designed for civilian purposes. The new estimate says that enrichment program could still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade, a timetable essentially unchanged from previous estimates.

But the new estimate declares with "high confidence" that a military-run Iranian program intended to transform that raw material into a nuclear weapon has been shut down since 2003, and also says with high confidence that the halt "was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure."

This is clearly not what Cheney and the warmongers wanted. What they wanted was, at most, ambiguity -- and enough of it to justify pre-emptive military action.

Although the NIE cites "international scrutiny and pressure" -- and not specifically American scrutiny and pressure -- as the reason Iran backed away from its militarized nuclear program, Bush could take credit for Iran's move, or at least try to. It could be argued, after all, if not without stretching credibility to the point of self-annihilation, that it was precisely Bush's toughness that ultimately kept Tehran under control. In these terms, Iran could be presented as another Libya.

But, again, the warmongers -- and Bush may be sympathetic to their position, if not necessarily among them -- want war. They certainly do not want diplomacy, and they certainly do not want to be told that international diplomacy, which they loathe with venomous irrationality, worked.

So what to do? How to respond?

Evidently, walk a fine line between acknowledging the NIE's findings and continuing to play up the Iranian threat. This is exactly what Bush's national security advisor, Stephen Hadley, did. Again from the NYT -- this time verbatim:

Today's National Intelligence Estimate offers some positive news. It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons. It tells us that we have made progress in trying to ensure that this does not happen.

But the intelligence also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem. The estimate offers grounds for hope that the problem can be solved diplomatically — without the use of force — as the Administration has been trying to do. And it suggests that the President has the right strategy: intensified international pressure along with a willingness to negotiate a solution that serves Iranian interests while ensuring that the world will never have to face a nuclear armed Iran.

The bottom line is this: for that strategy to succeed, the international community has to turn up the pressure on Iran — with diplomatic isolation, United Nations sanctions, and with other financial pressure — and Iran has to decide it wants to negotiate a solution.

In other words: Iran was developing nuclear weapons, we were right there, but we -- note the use of the first person here -- we have slowed them down. Note that Hadley does not say that Iran was but is not now seeding nuclear weapons. The implication is that Iran may still be seeking them. We "were right to be worried," and we still are. Furthermore, the threat remains. There is a "risk" that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons, just as there was a risk that Saddam would. But the world is full of risks. Are they all meant to be met with a military response?

Hadley goes on to spin the White House line. Of course we're not out for war, of course we don't want to use force, of course it is diplomacy that is at the forefront, of course Bush is right.

But what is not said here? Read between the lines. There is an admission here that diplomacy worked, but it is hardly a ringing endorsement of concerted international action. For what if "the international community" does not "turn up the pressure," if the U.N. does not enforce sanctions, if Iran does not want to negotiate? More to the point, what if the pressure is not turned up to Bush's liking, or if the sanctions aren't strong enough in Bush's view, if Iran goes not negotiate in good faith according to Bush? Who will ultimately judge whether there is enough pressure, whether the sanctions are strong enough, whether Iran is negotiating in good faith? Bush will, of course. He and the warmongers, in and out of his White House bubble, in and out of his administration.

Yes, what seems to be an admission that diplomacy worked, and may continue to work, is actually, upon reflection, a carefully and indeed esoterically presented advocation of the warmongering position.

**********

An mportant question pertaining to the NIE remains, however, and Kevin Drum (among others) asks it: Why was it released now?

• "This NIE was apparently finished a year ago, and its basic parameters were almost certainly common knowledge in the White House well before that. This means that all the leaks, all the World War III stuff, all the blustering about the IAEA — all of it was approved for public consumption after Cheney/Bush/Rice/etc. knew perfectly well it was mostly baseless."
• "Why were the key judgments finally released? Cheney didn't want them released, Bush surely didn't want them released, and DNI Mike McConnell told Congress a few weeks ago that he didn't want them released. So who did?"

It may have been "congressional pressure," Kevin speculates, and maybe he's right, we'll have to see. But what is certainly the case is that Bush and the top officials have essentially been lying about, or at the very least misrepresenting, the Iranian threat for at least the past year -- but probably much longer. They have been trying to build a case (to fabricate one, more correctly) against Iran -- developing a militarized nuclear weapons program, supplying arms to hostile Iraqi groups, supporting terrorism around the world, operating a terroristic military, threatening its neighbours and, indeed, the entire region -- as apparent preparation for war. In this respect, Iran is very much the new Iraq.

Unfortunately for them, but fortunately for the rest of us, and regardless of the spin coming out of the White House, this NIE has effectively overcome their fabrications with the truth.

What Happened

By Capt. Fogg

What a revelation! Scott McClellan, the guy who used to stand in front of reporters and the minority of Americans not watching Britney and Anna Nicole and "da game" and spout lies, has now revealed that he told us a lie - unwittingly, of course. It wasn't his fault that he failed to check the facts. He wasn't paid to question; he was paid to sneer dismissively at reporters who did.

Scott has a book coming out in April, titled What Happened.

"So I stood at the White House briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. There was one problem. It was not true."

And guess what Scott, you didn't win the Kyrgyzstan Lottery either and the guy trying to get his millions out of Nigeria isn't any more honest than your ex-boss -- and of course there's been a lot of blood under the bridge because of the crime family you covered up for. I don't mean to be cruel, but it's your turn to be sneered at. I really hope you don't make any more money from it than OJ did from If I Did It and I hope you soon get to hear the current mouthpiece defame you with the same sneer and condescension as you used from the same podium you told your lies from.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)