ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Waxman agrees to investigate Clinton White House.

As part of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s investigation into the Bush White House’s potentially illegal partisan briefings at various government agencies, Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) has agreed to a request by Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) to determine whether Clinton did it too. The Clinton White House was thoroughly investigated both during and after its term. Waxman said he believes most of the documents Davis is seeking are already in the committee’s archives:

“You have asked that the committee make a number of document requests of the National Archives for records of the Clinton administration,” Waxman wrote. “The Clinton administration was subject to vastly more scrutiny by this committee than the Bush administration has been, and many of the records you seek may already be in the committee archives.

“However,” Waxman continued, “I do agree that the committee would benefit from requesting copies of any political briefings that the Office of Political Affairs in the Clinton administration may have given to federal agencies.” [...]

Waxman added that the committee’s “own archives of Clinton-era documents are so broad and voluminous that they should already contain” other documents Davis wanted, if they exist.

Politics

McCain: I was right all along.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) “said Tuesday that he was right from the start about the war strategy in Iraq. ‘For almost four years we pursued a failed policy in Iraq. … I condemned it, I was criticized by Republicans and others for doing so, and I saw it was doomed to failure and I argued for the strategy that is now succeeding,’ McCain said.” McCain has repeatedly proclaimed himself as “the greatest critic” of Bush’s Iraq strategy, even while endorsing “stay the course” from the very beginning.

Media

The Syndicate

Media Matters has a report into ideological balance among syndicated columnists which shows that “whether examining only the top columnists or the entire group, large papers or small, the data presented in this report make clear that conservative syndicated columnists enjoy a clear advantage over their progressive counterparts.”

I would be fascinated to see a newspaper editor explain why he thinks this is. One possible answer, of course, is that readers love rightwingers. Maybe you gain a ton of subscribers, at the margin, by carrying Charles Krauthammer or John Podhoretz in your newspaper. Maybe that’s what the editors of newspapers think. Maybe they even have some market research to back that conclusion up. Alternatively — and in my view more plausibly — maybe opinion columns have little measurable economic value (does anyone really believe Washington Post circulation would change in either direction if they sacked Krauthammer and hired Rosa Brooks away from the LA Times?) and basically exist to put forward ideas that newspaper owners find congenial.

Politics

The ‘conservative advantage in syndicated op-ed columns.’

New Media Matters study finds that in newspapers around the country, conservative syndicated columnists receive more space than their progressive counterparts:

– “Sixty percent of the nation’s daily newspapers print more conservative syndicated columnists every week than progressive syndicated columnists. Only 20 percent run more progressives than conservatives, while the remaining 20 percent are evenly balanced.”

– “In a given week, nationally syndicated progressive columnists are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of 125 million. Conservative columnists, on the other hand, are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of more than 153 million.”

– In 38 states, “conservative columns reach more readers in total than progressive columns.”

Politics

Flynt pursues Vitter scandal.

“Hustler publisher Larry Flynt took a fresh jab on Tuesday at scandal-plagued Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), administering a lie detector test to a New Orleans prostitute who contends that she and Vitter had a relationship in 1999. Vitter has denied extramarital relations with Wendy Cortez, who appeared with Flynt in Los Angeles to address reporters. Flynt said the lie detector offers 99.9 percent proof that Cortez, whose ties to Vitter have long set tongues wagging in Louisiana, is telling the truth.”

Politics

Human Rights And Advocacy Groups Blast Bush’s Torture-Approving CIA Nominee

In a letter to the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee today, a coalition of human rights and advocacy groups urged the Senate to reject President Bush’s nominee for General Counsel of the CIA, John Rizzo. The coalition, which includes the Center for American Progress Action Fund, objects to Rizzo’s record of sanctioning the use of torture in American interrogation of detainees.

In 2002, Rizzo approved a memo written by then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee that stretched the definition of torture, arguing that physical pain must be “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death” in order to be considered torture.

During Rizzo’s confirmation hearing in June, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) asked him if he “should have objected at the time” to the Bybee definition of torture. “I honestly — I can’t say I should have objected at the time,” replied Rizzo. Watch it:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/06/rizzo.320.240.flv]

Unsatisfied by Rizzo’s answers at the hearing, Wyden has put a hold on his nomination, saying that he is going to keep it “until the detention and interrogation program is on firm footing, both in terms of effectiveness and legality.”

Given Rizzo’s intimate knowledge of the administration’s use of interrogation techniques that are “tantamount to torture,” and his utter refusal to stop them, confirming Rizzo would “send an extraordinarily negative message” to the world about America’s attitude toward the use of torture.

Yglesias

Après Nous, Le Deluge?

wing%201.jpg

I trust that by now everyone’s already read Kevin Drum’s two mini-essays on the rise of the chaos hawks who warn “that if we leave Iraq the entire Middle East will go up in flames.”

The only thing I would add is that it’s worth looking at this phenomenon, at least in part, through the perspective that to many people the real risk may be that if we leave Iraq the entire Middle East might not go up in flames. We’ve shifted back and forth from the Shah to Saddam to “dual containment” to regime change to stay the course to “surge” over the decades all on the premise that American domination of the Persian Gulf is vitally necessary in order to prevent something terrible from happening.

What if we get chased out and things turn out to be non-catastrophic? What if bloodshed is limited to Iraq and maybe some areas around the Kurdistan-Turkey border that nobody cares about? What if oil keeps flowing? What if it turns out that, a Shiite-dominated government isn’t interested in the kind of pan-Arabist ideology that could make Iraq a threat to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? What if it also turns out that it’s not really feasible for a Persian regime in Teheran to control Iraq? And what if Taliban-style governance and global holy war turn out to be really unpopular?

What, in short, if things turn out to be basically okay for America and for Americans? Well, that’d be good, it seems to me. But it would also call into question a lot of habits of mind, past policies, spending commitments, career paths, sacred cows, delusions of grandeur, etc. That, I think, is why relatively few people in Washington seem interested in entertaining optimistic scenarios about the regional context even though an optimistic scenario seems more likely to me than do frequently discussed worst-case scenarios. The truth of the matter, though, is that there hasn’t been a moment when the United States didn’t try to micromanage events in the Gulf since, well, since the British Empire was doing it instead. There isn’t, however, much in the way of evidence that this kind of policy is actually necessary. It does, however, seem to have succeeded in producing one of the most politically screwed up places on the planet.

Climate Progress

An Update on Climate Science Since IPCC

The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) has released an important document outlining scientific updates to the IPCC since its 2007 reports stopped collecting data at the end of 2005. To grasp the urgency of action, we also need to understand how the physical consequences of global warming have progressed since 2005 and how recent reports (on, say, carbon feedbacks) inform our analysis.

Natural Resources Defense CouncilThe 10-pager can be found here.

Sections of the update cover how the real world is outpacing climate models, particularly in terms of how fast glaciers are melting and sea ice thinning. For a super condensed version, see Daniel Lashof’s blog post why we’re Skating on Thin Ice in the Arctic.

There are also primer paragraphs on species impacts, smog, trees, biofuels and weather extremes, like wildfires. See a recent report, Forecast: Storm Warnings, from the Center for American Progress covering the latest science on intensifying hurricanes and how communities should be preparing for them.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up