For the second time in a week, Fox News has been caught using old video to give the false impression of larger-than-actual turnout at appearances of politicos they supported.  Sufficiently embarrassed at having been caught, Fox executives are promising “serious disciplinary action” for those responsible.

While the incidents add fuel to the fire that Fox is a Republican shill outlet rather than real news — and there’s growing truth to that charge — the real story here is that Fox has joined the larger trend in broadcast journalist of becoming a hype machine.

I was a big fan of Fox News when I first came across it a decade or so ago.  Mostly, I just watched Brit Hume’s nightly “Special Report” newscast, although I did occasionally watch some of the talking heads.  At the time, I found it a refreshing alternative to the networks and CNN, all of which had a significant leftward bias but pretended otherwise.  Fox — or, again, at least the Hume show of that time — had a slight rightward bias but it seemed genuinely interested in being “Fair and Balanced” and more-or-less living up to its “We Report, You Decide” mantra.

Somewhere along the way, it became both more partisan and more shrill.  Everything was Breaking News and hype.

The thing is, it’s not just Fox.

As I’ve mentioned perhaps too many times, I’ve long since drifted away from watching television news on a regular basis, finding the Internet a much more efficient and less aggravating means of getting information.   But I catch news shows from time-to-time, usually while traveling or because someone else has the television on.   And everything from “Good Morning America” to the nightly network news promos to local news radio is in the same hype mode.  It’s all crisis this, emergency that, and tragedy the other.

It’s like Jerry Springer is suddenly in charge of all news programming.

Still, Fox is in a special category because it is perceived as the conservative network.   Too many of these episodes and it will simply be dismissed as hackery by all but the most die-hard Republicans.

There are already a goodly number of conservative-leaning outlets such as Drudge, WorldNetDaily, and CNS that even unabashed Republicans are embarrassed to cite as sources for their arguments.

Fox isn’t there yet.  It would be a shame if it crossed into that territory, however, as there’s no road back.

I’m amused by Nico Pitney’s headline, “Shepard Smith Uncensored: “We Are America, We Do Not F**king Torture!” (VIDEO).”  Mostly because it censors Shepard Smith.

But the Left’s sudden embrace of Smith is interesting, too. It may have begun with this recent Esquire profile.

He has always managed to be a part of Fox and apart from it at the same time, and in 2008 he distinguished himself by treating Republicans as aggressively as Fox News normally treats Democrats — by seeming fed up with Republicans, and maybe with the strictures of Fox News itself. Now, in 2009, people are asking what’s up with Shep Smith as a way of asking what’s up with Fox — as way of asking how Fox is going to cover the news as it goes back to its oppositional role in the age of Obama.

“There has to be news at a place called Fox News,” he says, and he’s not the only one. It’s the mantra of the network, the fallback equation that — until the recent entrance of Glenn Beck, anyway — has enabled its employees to distinguish between the programming that takes place between nine in the morning and eight at night, which is called News, and the programming that takes over thereafter, which is called Opinion. “I think we do a pretty good job of labeling it for the viewer,” Shep says. “But we are under intense scrutiny because of our opinion shows. Are there people who want the news done a certain way? You bet there are, and some are in this building. But they don’t affect what I do. The inner pressure and outer pressure that everyone thinks exists doesn’t. When I hear people say that Fox News is right wing, I know that’s not true, because I’m the one doing the news. It’s my show, and there’s no place for opinion on my show. It’s uninteresting to me. I don’t care what Sean Hannity thinks and I don’t care what Alan Colmes thinks and I guarantee they don’t care what I think and they don’t know, either. You know what’s interesting to me? What’s interesting to me is that the thing people want to know about is the part on which I spend absolutely no time.”

My exposure to Smith was in the promos that came on during Brit Hume’s “Special Report,” which aired immediately prior to his show.  His bombastic style always struck me as clownish and I could therefore never take him seriously as a newsman.  Further, he came across as a huckster, so I always presumed that he’d deliver a Drudge-esque slant on the news.

Via Memeorandum, I see that MRC is hammering ABC on a story that I somehow missed:

Media Research Center MRC President L. Brent Bozell, III has written a letter to ABC News President David Westin calling on him to publicly address and resolve what appears to be a clear violation of journalistic ethics by ABC’s Chief Washington Correspondent George Stephanopoulos. Last week a Politico story broke the news that Stephanopoulos has participated in daily phone strategy sessions with now White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel throughout his tenure at ABC.

Mr. Bozell on Thursday issued a statement demanding an explanation, and calling for Stephanopoulos to recuse himself from reporting on an Obama Administration whose plans and messaging he spends every morning helping to craft. Stephanopoulos has remained silent.

I was always dubious of ABC’s giving such a position to Stephanopoulos, who came to “journalism” immediately from being a senior operative at the Clinton White House.  Still, in the only venue where I’ve seen him operate — the Sunday morning “This Week” program — he does a solid job, playing the moderator’s role with fairness.  Further, it has been the norm for a quarter century or more for “objective journalists” to go on TV roundtable shows and put on their opinionated talking head hat.   Brit Hume, recently retired from the same role at Fox News, did that quite well.

But there’s a difference between simply being opinionated and actually taking part in the policial process. If [Bozell's characterization of] the Politico story is true, then Stephanopoulos should certainly step down from his managerial and reporting assignments.  There’s no reason he can’t keep hosting “This Week,” though, so long as he makes it clear when appropriate that he has a dual role.

UPDATE:  A friend of mine who’s a former Democratic Senate staffer objects, correctly I think, to Bozell’s characterization of the daily phone call.  Looking at the original Politico piece, I see why it didn’t make my radar screen previously.  The feature, titled “Power, politics, gossip on daily call,” is about “Washington’s longest-running conversation — a street-corner bull session between four old friends who suddenly find themselves standing once more at the busiest intersection of politics and media in Washington.” Even Mary Matalin, a Republican operative from way back, sees nothing sinister here:

Mary Matalin, who as Carville’s wife has overheard probably thousands of the group’s calls, describes the conversation as more profane, more sports-centric versions of a knitting club. “They talk like they are girls,” she said. “The conversations start in the middle and they end in the middle, and if they talk at night, they’ll start in the morning with no break in the flow.” “To me, the first purpose is friendship,” said Matalin, “and the second purpose is information-sharing.”

Here’s how Politico editor-in-chief John Harris, the feature’s author, describes it:

Everyone likes to deride the “conventional wisdom.” In fairness, though, the wisdom is not yet conventional at the moment it is hatched. And in any given news cycle, it is quite likely that Washington’s prevailing political and media interpretation — at least on the Democratic side — is being hatched on these calls. The process happens not by design but as the byproduct of pre-dawn badinage — a smart-set take on the world that gets amplified by the prominent platforms all of them hold and by the dozens of later calls and lunches and rants that they will carry on with others throughout the day.

In that sense, the morning calls — no single one of which usually lasts more than a few minutes — among this gang of four is the headwaters of at least one major tributary of Washington politics.

Really, it’s not a bad thing that ABC’s chief Washington correspondent is plugged into an active political network.

Post title changed from “Stephanoupolos Advises Obama – Conflict of Interest?” for the sake of accuracy.

There’s a minor hubbub brewing over the fact that Gwen Ifill, who will once again moderate the vice presidential debate, is publishing a pro-Obama book shortly after the election, apparently unbeknownst to the McCain-Palin campaign.

Questions are being raised about the objectivity of Thursday’s vice presidential debate moderator after news surfaced that she is releasing a new book promoting Barack Obama and other black politicians who have benefited from the civil rights struggle.

Gwen Ifill, of PBS’ “The NewsHour,” is expected to remain as moderator, however.

“The book has been a known factor for months, so I’m not sure what the big deal is,” said NewsHour spokeswoman Anne Bell.  She told FOXNews.com that there were no concerns about Ifill’s neutrality, and that the debate Thursday between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden would go forward as planned. Ifill also moderated the 2004 vice presidential debate. “We were pleased that the (debate) commission once again turned to Gwen to moderate the debate,” Bell said. “They’ve known and trusted her as a moderator and that’s wonderful.”

Ifill’s book, “The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama,” is due to be released about the same time the next president takes the oath of office.  In her book, Ifill contends that the black political structure of the civil rights movement has cleared the way for post-racial politicians to ascend to new heights.

Now some are wondering whether Ifill can be fair and balanced, and whether she should be the moderator of Thursday’s 9 p.m. ET debate.  “Clearly her books aren’t going to do as well unless Obama wins, so it looks like she has some investment, literally, in one candidate or the other. And she’s supposed to be sitting there as a neutral arbiter during the debate,” said NPR’s Juan Williams, a FOX News contributor. “I think the world of Gwen Ifill but I know there’s a perception problem.”

John McCain told FOX News Wednesday he believes Ifill will be “objective” at the debate. “Does this help if she has written a book that’s favorable to Senator Obama? Probably not,” McCain said. “But I have confidence Gwen Ifill will do a professional job.”

Andrew Sullivan thinks even raising the question is slimy, if not racist and misogynistic.

It’s straight out of Rove. Attack the debate moderator. The best that can happen from the Rove-Schmidt point of view is that Ifill softens her questions to Palin out of fear of being smeared by the McCain camp, as they have tried to smear me and any other journalist doing their job. The worst is that Ifill does not get intimidated, asks tough questions, and then gets the post-debate spin by the GOP focused on her, not Palin. It helps too that Ifill is black: it shores up the racist vote McCain needs to win.

Why not ask Couric instead? Or Campbell Brown? It should be a woman. And removing Ifill will only help black turnout. But I really miss Tim Russert right now, don’t you?

But, surely, it’s fair to ask whether Ifil is objective here.   Presumably, Democrats would raise similar questions if a pro-McCain moderator had been chosen.  Goodness, the Democrats canceled primary debates that were hosted by Fox News because they’re viewed as pro-Republican even though there were not going to be any Republicans in the debates!

Of course, anyone who’s ever read any of Jim Lehrer’s novels (I’ve read several; they’re good) knows that he’s sympathetic to the Democrats and has a visceral dislike for certain types of conservatives.  Indeed, any network anchor aside from Fox’s Brit Hume would be presumed to be biased in favor of the Democrat — and he’d be presumed to be based in favor of the Republican.     Perhaps the answer is to get someone other than a network answer to do the job?  Or, perhaps, get someone like C-SPAN’s Brian Lamb who’s scrupulously neutral?

I honestly don’t think it’s that big a deal.   The late Tim Russert was an unabashed Democrat but he generally managed to be pretty tough on anyone in his line of fire.  Lehrer does a decent job at these things, bending over so far to be neutral that he’s sometimes accused of being too soft on the candidates.  Ifill’s not a great moderator, frankly, but, as McCain says, she’s a professional.  To the extent that she’s in the tank for Obama, it would have been the case regardless of the book deal.

Are Republicans who are raising this trying to create a ready-made excuse in advance of the debate?  To make Ifill more self conscious about asking Palin tough questions?  Absolutely!  It’s a time honored game tactic employed by the best coaches.

UPDATE: I’m a fan of Howie Kurtz but can only chuckle his assertion, of a book whose subtitle proclaims this The Age of Obama, that, “There is no evidence that the book will be favorable to the Democratic nominee.”

Craig Henry rounds up other reactions and is less nonchalant than I am.  Indeed, I tend to take the view expressed in his title, albeit as a statement rather than a challenge.

Brit Hume is going into semi-retirement, Howie Kurtz reports.

Brit Hume, a top anchor and executive with Fox News since the channel was launched 12 years ago, plans to step down at year’s end. But he won’t disappear entirely.

Sources familiar with the situation say that Hume, 65, will give up his job as Washington managing editor and anchor of “Special Report.” They say he is near a deal to continue with Fox in a senior statesman role, not unlike that of Tom Brokaw at NBC, for roughly 100 days a year.

In his new role, Hume would be a senior political analyst, anchor special events, serve as a panelist on “Fox News Sunday” and occasionally substitute for the host, Chris Wallace.

This was apparently expected.  Certainly, the man’s got plenty of money and has earned the right to a lighter schedule.

As I’ve noted many times, I’ve all but stopped watching television news since starting the blog.  I always enjoyed Hume, though, as an anchor or as a panelist.

UPDATE: Reactions are starting to pour in.

• Matt Sheffield, Newsbusters: “He’ll be missed. Special Report was a rare island of sanity in the chaotic sea of cable news.”

• Matt Corley, Think Progress, reports without comment.  His commenters stay classy, as always.

• David Hauslaib, Jossip: “Perhaps he’ll use the opportunity to make the official transition from hard news anchor to opinionated pundit.”

“The CIA will declassify hundreds of pages of long-secret records detailing some of the intelligence agency’s worst illegal abuses — the so-called ‘family jewels’ documenting a quarter-century of overseas assassination attempts, domestic spying, kidnapping and infiltration of leftist groups from the 1950s to the 1970s.”

Jason Zengerle has found this among many interesting tidbits in the story by Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus that fronts today’s WaPo:

Personal surveillance was conducted on [Jack] Anderson and three of his staff members, including Brit Hume, now with Fox News, for two months in 1972 after Anderson wrote of the administration’s “tilt toward Pakistan.”

Somewhat ironic, I suppose, given Fox’ position on electronic surveillance in the War on Terror.

Stop The ACLU got a brief glimpse of fame on Brit Hume’s “Grapevine” segment on “Fox Special Report.” He has recorded the moment for posterity.

Twice today I have heard a variation of the following: “no war has ever been won by withdrawing.” It was used by a commenter at OTB and by Fred Barnes on Special Report with Brit Hume this evening. It has the feel of new political catch phrase.

While this phrase may well be true, it strikes me as simplistic reasoning, as if we are poised for victory in Iraq and a withdrawal would ruin that.

Now, let me be clear: I am wholly uncertain at this time as to whether withdrawal in the short (or medium) term is the appropriate policy. However, I am certain of one thing: victory is not just around the corner. We are not at a stage where there choice is victory or defeat, we are at the stage where we are managing a failed policy. Recognizing and accepting this is rather important if proper decisions are to be made going forward.

And I would note: the likelihood of a swift and immediate withdrawal strikes me as highly unlikely, regardless of whatever rhetoric may be flying out there.

Even if one believes that that is exactly what the Democrats want to do, they do not have the power to make it happen at the moment.

[Cross-posted at PoliBlog]

NY Post gossip columnists George Rush and Joanna Molloy report that on-the-job marital squabbling between Brit and Kim Hume have led to the latter’s leaving the Fox News Channel.

Marital sniping may have led to the departure of Brit Hume’s wife, Kim, from Fox News last week. Kim Hume’s imminent exit as Fox’s D.C. bureau chief was announced Thursday. The buzz out of Washington is that she and the anchorman had been tattletaling on each other to the chairman and CEO of Fox Television Stations. “They’d been calling Roger [Ailes] in New York separately,” reports our source. “They’d complain to him about each other.”

A Fox spokeswoman denied that either Hume has bothered Ailes. “Nothing could be further from the truth,” she said. But another source told us that the couple, who together weathered the suicide of Brit Hume’s son, Sandy, in 1998, often argued in front of staffers. “Brit’s not the easiest guy to get along with,” said the source. “You disagree with him, and it’s an argument. It’s his way or the highway. [Kim] is a tough cookie, but he speaks down to her in front of other people.”

[...]

There are indications Kim Hume stepped down on her own. She told U.S. News & World Report columnist Paul Bedard that Brit supported her feeling that she was “done.” “He gets husband points galore,” she said.

I have no idea what sort of relationship the Humes have but would find it quite odd if they were unable to maintain professionalism in the workplace. Still, it’s probably not a great idea for a husband and wife to work together, let alone in a high stress environment.

Gone Hollywood

Tom Shales has a blistering review of Katie Couric’s debut last night as anchor of the “CBS Evening News.”

He begins:

A title change would seem to be in order. Maybe “The CBS Evening No-News.” Or “The CBS Evening Magazine.” Or “30 Minutes.”

Better than “30 Minutes II,” I guess. Still, that’s all unfair.

I didn’t watch the program but have little doubt about his characterization of the show as being mostly gimmicks designed to bring attention to the various CBS personalities. After all, that’s what television news has evolved into over the past twenty years.

As Shales himself notes,

In fact, if Murrow were going to spin in his grave, he would have started long ago, when “infotainment” first appeared on the TV horizon and newscasters became pop personalities akin to movie stars and actors appearing in sitcoms. Murrow must be all spun out by now. It’s been downhill for a long time.

Couric’s broadcast did not seem to hasten the decline and fall of TV news, but it didn’t offer anything really new, either — and on its first outing, it didn’t offer anything news. A stranger from another planet tuning in the show would have to assume nothing happened in America or the world yesterday except that a photo of Tom Cruise’s baby materialized.

Michelle Malkin, who makes her living writing about the news, observes, “I haven’t been a regular prime-time evening news viewer in years. Decades, it seems. Katie Couric isn’t going to change that.”

Same here. I stopped regularly watching the network news at least 15 years ago. For a while, I watched Brit Hume and the gang on “Fox Special Report,” because it was fresh and its hour length gave it the ability to provide depth. Well over a year ago, though, I started just TiVo’ing it and fast forwarding to the roundtable discussion segment at the end. Lately, I let the TiVo replace one episode with the next, only very rarely bothering to sample part of the show.

In the Internet age, television news is virtually obsolete. I’m accustomed to being able to quickly scan through the stories to get only those that interest me. Even with TiVo and fast forward, television makes that more trouble than it’s worth.

Aside from the occasional debate or press conference, I’d rather just read about the story rather than wait for it to unfold in real time while the blowdried blowhards on camera figure out new ways to say the same thing they’ve been saying for the past two hours as they wait for something to happen.

People can simply get news more efficiently nowadays. The only way to save the nightly network news shows, then, is to make it about the personalities rather than the news. Katie Couric may be the perfect choice for the job. After all, she managed to get people to sit around watching her for a couple hours in the mornings rather than spending five minutes scanning the Internet or just listening to NPR in the background.

Bob Novak–who unintentionally kicked off the political melodrama called Plamegate in a now infamous column–is set to reveal the double super secret extent of his involvement in the affair tomorrow in both his column and in interviews on FOX News on both Special Report with Brit Hume and Hannity & Colmes.

Here’s what we know now via Drudge:

BOB NOVAK, My Leak Case Testimony: ‘I learned Valerie Plame’s name from Joe Wilson’s entry in ‘Who’s Who in America’… MORE Published reports that I took the Fifth Amendment, made a plea bargain with the prosecutors or was a prosecutorial target were all untrue… MORE… My primary source has not come forward to identify himself… Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer who was my CIA source for the column confirming Mrs. Wilson’s identity. I learned Valerie Plame’s name from Joe Wilson’s entry in ‘Who’s Who in America’… I answered questions using the names of Rove, Harlow and my primary source.

[UPDATE (James Joyner): David Shuster and Chris Matthews talk about it on yesterday's edition of Hardball. John Amato and Think Progress have the video.]

And here’s a little more from Howard Kurtz:

In a column to be published on Wednesday, Novak said he told Fitzgerald in early 2004 that White House senior adviser Karl Rove and then-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow had confirmed for him, at his request, information about CIA operative Valerie Plame. Novak said he also told Fitzgerald about another senior administration official who originally provided him with the information about Plame, and whose identity he says he cannot reveal even now.

“I’m still constrained as a reporter,” Novak said in an interview. “It was not on the record, and he has never revealed himself as being the source, and until he does I don’t feel I should.” (my emphasis)

Novak triggered one of the capital’s most tangled investigations with a July 2003 column reporting that Plame had suggested sending her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, to Niger to investigate whether Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was trying to obtain nuclear material from that country. Fitzgerald, who decided last month not to pursue charges against Rove, is prosecuting I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, a former chief of staff for Vice President Cheney, for allegedly lying to a grand jury. Judith Miller, then a New York Times reporter, went to jail for 85 days last year for initially refusing to name Libby as her source.

Novak says in the forthcoming column that he initially refused to reveal he sources in an October 2003 interview with three FBI officials. He says he remained reluctant to testify before Fitzgerald, even with the waivers the three officials had given the prosecutor, but that his lawyer told him he was sure to lose a costly legal battle and be cited for contempt of court. Novak says he testified before a grand jury a few weeks later, in February 2004, after reading a statement about his discomfort in discussing confidential sources.

He said he is speaking out now because Fitzgerald has notified his attorneys that the investigation, as it relates to him, has been concluded.

Novak’s role in revealing Plame’s CIA employment, which was classified, was the most controversial of his 49-year career as a Washington reporter. “What was frustrating,” he said, “was that there were a lot of crazy things being said, that I had taken the Fifth Amendment or I had made a plea bargain. . . . It’s obviously caused me a lot of trouble. If I had it to do all over again, would I have done it? It’s a hard question to answer.”

The general consensus at the moment seems to be that the identity of the “primary source” is former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. This is important because it would suggest that Novak learned of Plame’s identity and employment inadvertently as gossip–as Novak has maintained all along–rather than through some concerted effort by the Bush administration to “out” Plame as retribution for her husband Joe Wilson’s attacks against the administration.

UPDATE: More reaction at Hot Air, Stop The ACLU, Wizbang, Protein Wisdom, and Blue Crab Boulevard.

UPDATE: Randy at RightWinged notes a suspicious happening at DailyKos in regard to this story.

UPDATE: Human Events has a link to Novak’s column but only provides the first two paragraphs and then notes: “Full column to be available here tomorrow…” Despite the tease at Human Events, the full column was available at a popular liberal blog so I’ve posted an “extended taste” below the fold. Enjoy.

Some journalists have badgered me to disclose my role in the case, even demanding I reveal my sources — identified in the column as two senior Bush administration officials and an unspecified CIA source. I have promised to discuss my role in the investigation when permitted by the prosecution, and I do so now.

The news broke Sept. 26, 2003, that the Justice Department was investigating the CIA leak case. I contacted my longtime attorney, Lester Hyman, who brought his partner at Swidler Berlin, James Hamilton, into the case. Hamilton urged me not to comment publicly on the case, and I have followed that advice for the most part.

The FBI soon asked to interview me, prompting my first major decision. My attorneys advised me that I had no certain constitutional basis to refuse cooperation if subpoenaed by a grand jury. To do so would make me subject to imprisonment and inevitably result in court decisions that would diminish press freedom, all at heavy personal legal costs.

I was interrogated at the Swidler Berlin offices Oct. 7, 2003, by an FBI inspector and two agents. I had not identified my sources to my attorneys, and I told them I would not reveal them to the FBI. I did disclose how Valerie Wilson’s role was reported to me, but the FBI did not press me to disclose my sources.

On Dec. 30, 2003, the Justice Department named Fitzgerald as special prosecutor. An appointment was made for Fitzgerald to interview me at Swidler Berlin on Jan. 14, 2004. The problem facing me was that the special prosecutor had obtained signed waivers from every official who might have given me information about Wilson’s wife.

That created a dilemma. I did not believe blanket waivers in any way relieved me of my journalistic responsibility to protect a source. Hamilton told me that I was sure to lose a case in the courts at great expense. Nevertheless, I still felt I could not reveal their names.

However, on Jan. 12, two days before my meeting with Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor informed Hamilton that he would be bringing to the Swidler Berlin offices only two waivers. One was by my principal source in the Valerie Wilson column, a source whose name has not yet been revealed. The other was by presidential adviser Karl Rove, whom I interpret as confirming my primary source’s information. In other words, the special prosecutor knew the names of my sources.

When Fitzgerald arrived, he had a third waiver in hand — from Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer who was my CIA source for the column confirming Mrs. Wilson’s identity. I answered questions using the names of Rove, Harlow and my primary source.

I had a second session with Fitzgerald at Swidler Berlin on Feb. 5, 2004, after which I was subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury. I testified there at the U.S. courthouse in Washington on Feb. 25.

In these four appearances with federal authorities, I declined to answer when the questioning touched on matters beyond the CIA leak case. Neither the FBI nor the special prosecutor pressed me.

I have revealed Rove’s name because his attorney has divulged the substance of our conversation, though in a form different from my recollection. I have revealed Harlow’s name because he has publicly disclosed his version of our conversation, which also differs from my recollection. My primary source has not come forward to identify himself.

When I testified before the grand jury, I was permitted to read a statement that I had written expressing my discomfort at disclosing confidential conversations with news sources. It should be remembered that the special prosecutor knew their identities and did not learn them from me.

In my sworn testimony, I said what I have contended in my columns and on television: Joe Wilson’s wife’s role in instituting her husband’s mission was revealed to me in the middle of a long interview with an official who I have previously said was not a political gunslinger. After the federal investigation was announced, he told me through a third party that the disclosure was inadvertent on his part.

Following my interview with the primary source, I sought out the second administration official and the CIA spokesman for confirmation. I learned Valerie Plame’s name from Joe Wilson’s entry in “Who’s Who in America.”

I considered his wife’s role in initiating Wilson’s mission, later confirmed by the Senate Intelligence Committee, to be a previously undisclosed part of an important news story. I reported it on that basis.

And Ironically, it’s been almost 3 years to the day since Novak’s original column on Plame ran.

I’ll start the live blog at 8 EST or thereabouts. Feel free to link and send a trackback to this post in the meantime if you’re doing the same.

NZ Bear is keeping a list of those liveblogging as well.

Update (1915): AP’s Nedra Peckler already has a story written based on the advanced text of the speech. Refreshingly, it’s written in future tense.

President Bush is to order as many as 6,000 National Guard troops to increase enforcement at the Mexican border, part of a $1.9 billion drive to tighten security and win conservative backing in Congress for a broad election-year overhaul of the nation’s tattered immigration laws. “We do not yet have full control of the border and I am determined to change that,” Bush is expected to say in remarks prepared for a prime-time speech from the Oval Office.

The speech will come as the Senate begins work on legislation to strengthen border security, authorize new guest worker programs and give an eventual chance at citizenship to most of the estimated 12 million people already living illegally in the United States.

“Tonight I am calling on Congress to provide funding for dramatic improvements in manpower and technology at the border,” Bush is expected to say.

While more honest than the old style of reporting speeches that had not yet happened as if they had, it makes for some rather awkward prose.

AP also has some excerpts of the speech that look similar to the one’s emailed to me (and who knows how many other bloggers) earlier this evening.

Other White House talking points on their Comprehensive Immigration Reform page.

Hot Air promises video.

Hugh Hewitt, perhaps the ultimate GOP loyalist, is talking about party schism over immigration.

Update (1946): Tuning in early to the Fox News feed hoping the adults (i.e., Brit Hume) would be in charge. Instead, the insipid Shepard Smith is on. My, he’s annoying even in small doses.

(1955): Yay: Brit and the gang.

Mort Kondracke notes that Bush was prepared to propose something very much like this bill before 9/11 and then got sidetracked.

Bill Kristol thinks this is pure legislative politics and not a “major speech” or anything that will be memorable.

Hume asks if there is any way for Bush to win back the “border security” part of the base. Fred Barnes and Kondracke think Bush erred by focusing too much on amnesty and not enough on security but that Bush can recover.

(2001): The president is on.

Strong language: “A matter of national importance,” “intense emotions,” “time of decision,” “make it clear where I stand,” “Problems with our immigration system,” “Not in complete control of our borders,” and “sneak across.”

(2003): “Vast majority” are decent, hardworking, folks outside protection of law. “Nation of immigrants” and we “must uphold that tradition.”

(2005): Technological measures and fences. Military force to help with admin side for one year while this put in place. NOT militarizing border or having military make arrests.

(2008): Most actually deport those who are caught. Not currently happening with non-Mexicans. “Catch-and-release” unacceptable.

(2010): “To secure our border we must create a temporary worker program.” While I agree with the policy, it’s absurd to think this adds to our security. He’s right that it would have a whole lot of anciliary benefits. Oddly, exactly the same benefits would acrue from legalizing illicit drugs that are smuggled across our border. . . .

(2011): Tamper-proof ID card with biometrics

(2013): “I oppose amnesty” but also think rounding up those already here is unrealistic. A middle ground recognizes those who broke the law a long time ago and have families here should be treated differently than recent lawbreakers. Why, I don’t know. Regardless, it’s silly to pretend this program isn’t amnesty.

(2014): Repeated emphasis on learning English, both from a cultural assimilation standpoint and a benefit to immigrants standpoint. Very smart, although a little late in the speech. He’s already lost most of the rabid anti-immigration crowd.

(2016): Recounts story of illegal alien Marine master gunnery sergeant as example of all illegal aliens?

POST-SPEECH UPDATES (2023): The full text of the speech (As Prepared for Delivery) via Glenn Reynolds:

Good evening. I have asked for a few minutes of your time to discuss a matter of national importance – the reform of America’s immigration system.

The issue of immigration stirs intense emotions – and in recent weeks, Americans have seen those emotions on display. On the streets of major cities, crowds have rallied in support of those in our country illegally. At our southern border, others have organized to stop illegal immigrants from coming in. Across the country, Americans are trying to reconcile these contrasting images. And in Washington, the debate over immigration reform has reached a time of decision. Tonight, I will make it clear where I stand, and where I want to lead our country on this vital issue.

We must begin by recognizing the problems with our immigration system. For decades, the United States has not been in complete control of its borders. As a result, many who want to work in our economy have been able to sneak across our border – and millions have stayed.

Once here, illegal immigrants live in the shadows of our society. Many use forged documents to get jobs, and that makes it difficult for employers to verify that the workers they hire are legal. Illegal immigration puts pressure on public schools and hospitals … strains state and local budgets … and brings crime to our communities. These are real problems, yet we must remember that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are decent people who work hard, support their families, practice their faith, and lead responsible lives. They are a part of American life – but they are beyond the reach and protection of American law.

We are a Nation of laws, and we must enforce our laws. We are also a Nation of immigrants, and we must uphold that tradition, which has strengthened our country in so many ways. These are not contradictory goals – America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time. We will fix the problems created by illegal immigration, and we will deliver a system that is secure, orderly, and fair. So I support comprehensive immigration reform that will accomplish five clear objectives.

First, the United States must secure its borders. This is a basic responsibility of a sovereign Nation. It is also an urgent requirement of our national security. Our objective is straightforward: The border should be open to trade and lawful immigration – and shut to illegal immigrants, as well as criminals, drug dealers, and terrorists.

I was the governor of a state that has a twelve-hundred mile border with Mexico. So I know how difficult it is to enforce the border, and how important it is. Since I became President, we have increased funding for border security by 66 percent, and expanded the Border Patrol from about 9,000 to 12,000 agents. The men and women of our Border Patrol are doing a fine job in difficult circumstances – and over the past five years, we have apprehended and sent home about six million people entering America illegally.

Despite this progress, we do not yet have full control of the border, and I am determined to change that. Tonight I am calling on Congress to provide funding for dramatic improvements in manpower and technology at the border. By the end of 2008, we will increase the number of Border Patrol officers by an additional 6,000. When these new agents are deployed, we will have more than doubled the size of the Border Patrol during my Presidency.

At the same time, we are launching the most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history. We will construct high-tech fences in urban corridors, and build new patrol roads and barriers in rural areas. We will employ motion sensors … infrared cameras … and unmanned aerial vehicles to prevent illegal crossings. America has the best technology in the world – and we will ensure that the Border Patrol has the technology they need to do their job and secure our border.

Training thousands of new Border Patrol agents and bringing the most advanced technology to the border will take time. Yet the need to secure our border is urgent. So I am announcing several immediate steps to strengthen border enforcement during this period of transition:

One way to help during this transition is to use the National Guard. So in coordination with governors, up to 6,000 Guard members will be deployed to our southern border. The Border Patrol will remain in the lead. The Guard will assist the Border Patrol by operating surveillance systems … analyzing intelligence … installing fences and vehicle barriers … building patrol roads … and providing training. Guard units will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities – that duty will be done by the Border Patrol. This initial commitment of Guard members would last for a period of one year. After that, the number of Guard forces will be reduced as new Border Patrol agents and new technologies come online. It is important for Americans to know that we have enough Guard forces to win the war on terror, respond to natural disasters, and help secure our border.

The United States is not going to militarize the southern border. Mexico is our neighbor, and our friend. We will continue to work cooperatively to improve security on both sides of the border … to confront common problems like drug trafficking and crime … and to reduce illegal immigration.

Another way to help during this period of transition is through state and local law enforcement in our border communities. So we will increase federal funding for state and local authorities assisting the Border Patrol on targeted enforcement missions. And we will give state and local authorities the specialized training they need to help federal officers apprehend and detain illegal immigrants. State and local law enforcement officials are an important resource – and they are part of our strategy to secure our border communities.

The steps I have outlined will improve our ability to catch people entering our country illegally. At the same time, we must ensure that every illegal immigrant we catch crossing our southern border is returned home. More than 85 percent of the illegal immigrants we catch crossing the southern border are Mexicans, and most are sent back home within 24 hours. But when we catch illegal immigrants from other countries, it is not as easy to send them home. For many years, the government did not have enough space in our detention facilities to hold them while the legal process unfolded. So most were released back into our society and asked to return for a court date. When the date arrived, the vast majority did not show up. This practice, called “catch and release,” is unacceptable – and we will end it.

We are taking several important steps to meet this goal. We have expanded the number of beds in our detention facilities, and we will continue to add more. We have expedited the legal process to cut the average deportation time. And we are making it clear to foreign governments that they must accept back their citizens who violate our immigration laws. As a result of these actions, we have ended “catch and release” for illegal immigrants from some countries. And I will ask Congress for additional funding and legal authority, so we can end “catch and release” at the southern border once and for all. When people know that they will be caught and sent home if they enter our country illegally, they will be less likely to try to sneak in.

Second, to secure our border, we must create a temporary worker program. The reality is that there are many people on the other side of our border who will do anything to come to America to work and build a better life. They walk across miles of desert in the summer heat, or hide in the back of 18-wheelers to reach our country. This creates enormous pressure on our border that walls and patrols alone will not stop. To secure the border effectively, we must reduce the numbers of people trying to sneak across.

Therefore, I support a temporary worker program that would create a legal path for foreign workers to enter our country in an orderly way, for a limited period of time. This program would match willing foreign workers with willing American employers for jobs Americans are not doing. Every worker who applies for the program would be required to pass criminal background checks. And temporary workers must return to their home country at the conclusion of their stay.

A temporary worker program would meet the needs of our economy, and it would give honest immigrants a way to provide for their families while respecting the law. A temporary worker program would reduce the appeal of human smugglers – and make it less likely that people would risk their lives to cross the border. It would ease the financial burden on state and local governments, by replacing illegal workers with lawful taxpayers. And above all, a temporary worker program would add to our security by making certain we know who is in our country and why they are here.

Third, we need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire. It is against the law to hire someone who is in this country illegally. Yet businesses often cannot verify the legal status of their employees, because of the widespread problem of document fraud. Therefore, comprehensive immigration reform must include a better system for verifying documents and work eligibility. A key part of that system should be a new identification card for every legal foreign worker. This card should use biometric technology, such as digital fingerprints, to make it tamper-proof. A tamper-proof card would help us enforce the law – and leave employers with no excuse for violating it. And by making it harder for illegal immigrants to find work in our country, we would discourage people from crossing the border illegally in the first place.

Fourth, we must face the reality that millions of illegal immigrants are already here. They should not be given an automatic path to citizenship. This is amnesty, and I oppose it. Amnesty would be unfair to those who are here lawfully – and it would invite further waves of illegal immigration.

Some in this country argue that the solution is to deport every illegal immigrant – and that any proposal short of this amounts to amnesty. I disagree. It is neither wise nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United States, and send them across the border. There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant, and a program of mass deportation. That middle ground recognizes that there are differences between an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently – and someone who has worked here for many years, and has a home, a family, and an otherwise clean record. I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law … to pay their taxes … to learn English … and to work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship – but approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law. What I have just described is not amnesty – it is a way for those who have broken the law to pay their debt to society, and demonstrate the character that makes a good citizen.

Fifth, we must honor the great American tradition of the melting pot, which has made us one Nation out of many peoples. The success of our country depends upon helping newcomers assimilate into our society, and embrace our common identity as Americans. Americans are bound together by our shared ideals, an appreciation of our history, respect for the flag we fly, and an ability to speak and write the English language. English is also the key to unlocking the opportunity of America. English allows newcomers to go from picking crops to opening a grocery … from cleaning offices to running offices … from a life of low-paying jobs to a diploma, a career, and a home of their own. When immigrants assimilate and advance in our society, they realize their dreams … they renew our spirit … and they add to the unity of America.

Tonight, I want to speak directly to Members of the House and the Senate: An immigration reform bill needs to be comprehensive, because all elements of this problem must be addressed together – or none of them will be solved at all. The House has passed an immigration bill. The Senate should act by the end of this month – so we can work out the differences between the two bills, and Congress can pass a comprehensive bill for me to sign into law.

America needs to conduct this debate on immigration in a reasoned and respectful tone. Feelings run deep on this issue – and as we work it out, all of us need to keep some things in mind. We cannot build a unified country by inciting people to anger, or playing on anyone’s fears, or exploiting the issue of immigration for political gain. We must always remember that real lives will be affected by our debates and decisions, and that every human being has dignity and value no matter what their citizenship papers say.

I know many of you listening tonight have a parent or a grandparent who came here from another country with dreams of a better life. You know what freedom meant to them, and you know that America is a more hopeful country because of their hard work and sacrifice. As President, I have had the opportunity to meet people of many backgrounds, and hear what America means to them. On a visit to Bethesda Naval Hospital, Laura and I met a wounded Marine named Guadalupe Denogean. Master Gunnery Sergeant Denogean came to the United States from Mexico when he was a boy. He spent his summers picking crops with his family, and then he volunteered for the United States Marine Corps as soon as he was able. During the liberation of Iraq, Master Gunnery Sergeant Denogean was seriously injured. When asked if he had any requests, he made two – a promotion for the corporal who helped rescue him … and the chance to become an American citizen. And when this brave Marine raised his right hand, and swore an oath to become a citizen of the country he had defended for more than 26 years, I was honored to stand at his side.

We will always be proud to welcome people like Guadalupe Denogean as fellow Americans. Our new immigrants are just what they have always been – people willing to risk everything for the dream of freedom. And America remains what she has always been – the great hope on the horizon … an open door to the future … a blessed and promised land. We honor the heritage of all who come here, no matter where they are from, because we trust in our country’s genius for making us all Americans – one Nation under God. Thank you, and good night.

(2025): Kondracke thought the speech well balanced, not too much emphasis on enforcement. That’s fine for people like me; not so much for the immigration hawks. They’re the folks Bush needs to win back. Barnes, reasonably, notes that legislation that would appeal to that group wouldn’t pass the Senate.

(2028): Bill O’Reilly thinks Bush and the inside the Beltway crowd doesn’t get it. He understands why Bush soft peddled this thing but thinks more emphasis on security was necessary.

(2030): Greta van Sustern has torn herself away from Natalie Holloway’s family long enough to talk to some Border Patrol agents, who she thinks will be happy with the help from the military.

I may update more later based on text reactions. Turning off the television for now. It’s a great way to get speeches and quick reactions but rather mindnumbing.

It’s all but official.

Conservative pundit Tony Snow will be named White House press secretary, Republican officials said Tuesday night, in the latest move in President Bush’s effort to remake his troubled White House.

[...]

Snow, a Fox News commentator and speech-writer in the White House under Bush’s father, has written and spoken frequently about the current president — not always in a complimentary way. While Snow is an experienced Washington hand, he is an outsider when it comes to Bush’s tight core of advisers.

The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, circulated unflattering observations by Snow about Bush. “His (Bush’s) wavering conservatism has become an active concern among Republicans, who wish he would stop cowering under the bed and start fighting back against the likes of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Wilson,” Snow wrote last November after Republicans failed to win the governor’s race in Virginia. “The newly passive George Bush has become something of an embarrassment.” Last month, Snow wrote that Bush and the Republican Congress had “lost control of the federal budget and cannot resist the temptation to stop raiding the public fisc. (treasury)”

Snow, in an Associated Press interview on Tuesday, said: “It’s public record. I’ve written some critical stuff. When you’re a columnist, you’re going to criticize and you’re going to praise.” Unofficially, the White House tried to put the best face on Snow’s criticism, suggesting it showed that the administration listens to different voices and noting that Snow’s job called for him to be opinionated.

[...]

One factor in Snow’s decision was that he had his colon removed last year and underwent six months of chemotherapy after being diagnosed with cancer. He had a CAT scan last week and delayed a decision while he consulted with his doctors.

Being a pundit is definitely a different animal from being a spokesman for someone else. It would be difficult to find a strong candidate for the job who had not criticized the president’s policies. Maybe Hugh Hewitt? One’s partisans are never completely satisfied with the actions of a president, who can never be ideological enough to satisfy the base.

Howie Kurtz has an interesting roundup of reactions to the impending announcment. This one helps answer the question I’ve had from the beginning:

Brit Hume, Fox’s Washington managing editor, said he was “a little surprised” that Snow would give up his new radio show to take one of the capital’s most demanding jobs. “I think he’s excited by the idea of being on the inside,” Hume said. “He believes he will be at the table when decisions are made. For someone of his bent, that’s too good to pass up.”

And, for once, I completely agree with Dee Dee Myers:

Dee Dee Myers, a press secretary in the Clinton White House, said that if Bush wants smoother relations with journalists, “Tony has stature. He understands how the press works from both sides. He has a big personality, and that can be helpful.” But she noted that Snow has “a long paper trail” and would have to defend policies he has criticized.

And this is encouraging as well:

Snow, 50, is particularly interested in economic and immigration issues. He intends to insist on greater access for White House reporters, said sources familiar with his plans. He has described the press corps as a beast that must be constantly fed. In a December 2000 column in the Washington Times, he referred to “Democrats and journalists (but I repeat myself).” He has told associates he plans to function as an advocate for reporters, an approach that would run counter to the administration’s previous philosophy about the position

While it’s dangerous to trust the press too much, the opposite has caused the White House substantial problems. Everything looks like a scandal when the reflex is to go into bunker mode.

Michelle Malkin has an advanced look at Snow in his new gig.

If nothing else, judging from the reactions I’ve seen in the blogosphere, this appointment will help excite the Faithful. That’s something the president desperately needs at the moment.

Update: Hugh Hewitt makes an interesting observation:

[T]he daily work of preparing for and hosting a three hour talk show on radio as well as the television work will make Snow supremely confident on many issues that others have never covered. One of the joys of doing what we do is that it allows us read widely and constantly, to interview experts and opposities, and, crucially, to practice the hardest words for anyone in Washington to say: “I don’t know.”

We confront churlish folks and gentle but ill-informed folks, and passion and bigotry and patriotism and honor and every other sort of American virtue and emotion every day. There isn’t much the WH press can throw at Snow that he hasn’t aleady fielded afew hundred times.

Good point.

Related:

Tony Snow Negotiating for Press Secretary Gig
Scott McClellan Resigns, Rove Stripped of Policy Role
Tony Snow’s Cancer Surgery a Success
Tony Snow Has Colon Cancer
SNOW GONE?

That a few retired generals have spoken criticially of SECDEF Donald Rumsfeld continues to gather a surprising amount of attention. The Washington Post’s lead editorial today is entitled “The Generals’ Revolt” and carries the ominous subhead, “There are many reasons for Donald Rumsfeld to leave. Finger-pointing by retired officers shouldn’t be one.” The nut ‘graph:

The president’s signal failure to hold his defense chief accountable no doubt has helped to produce the extraordinary — and troubling — eruption of public discontent from the retired generals. A couple of those who have spoken out, including retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of U.S. Central Command, opposed the war all along, but three others served in top positions in Iraq.

I should note that these are not mutually exclusive options. Soldiers, including general officers, frequently have misgivings about their assigned missions. They nonetheless salute smartly and carry out their orders. Indeed, that’s what the editorial is about, no?

Much of their analysis strikes us as solid — but the rebellion is problematic nonetheless. It threatens the essential democratic principle of military subordination to civilian control — the more so because a couple of the officers claim they are speaking for some still on active duty.

That, I agree, is problematic. Still, people claim to be speaking for groups all the time. See Jesse Jackson, for example.

Anyone who protested the pushback of uniformed military against President Bill Clinton’s attempt to allow gays to serve ought to also object to generals who criticize the decisions of a president and his defense secretary in wartime.

Actually, those are separate issues. Retired generals are, by definition, not “uniformed military.”

If they are successful in forcing Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation, they will set an ugly precedent. Will future defense secretaries have to worry about potential rebellions by their brass, and will they start to choose commanders according to calculations of political loyalty?

There has been no rebellion of the brass. John Batiste, who seems to have catalyzed this debate with his call for Rumsfeld’s resignation, reportedly turned down a third star rather than continue to serve under Rumsfeld. Perhaps others also left the service earlier than they might otherwise have for similar reasons. But what brass–i.e., still serving officers of high rank–have spoken out on this issue?

Indeed, it strikes me as far more problematic when serving officers and officials issue leaks to the press to air out their disagreements with administration policy. Now, that undermines the trust of policymakers in their bureaucratic subordinates. Let, strangely, the WaPo editorial boards seems to support that practice.

Tony Blankley has a somewhat more nuanced take on the debate, albeit a prospective one, entitled, “Seven Days in April — Generals Prepare to ‘Revolt’ Against Rumsfeld.”

Consider two hypothetical situations. In the first, a United States Army general officer in a theater of war decides by himself that he strongly disagrees with the orders of the secretary of defense. He resigns his commission, returns to private life and speaks out vigorously against both the policy and the secretary of defense. In example two, the top 100 generals in the Army military chain of command secretly agree amongst themselves to retire and speak out — each one day after the other.

In example one, above, unambiguously, the general has behaved lawfully. In example two, an arguable case could be made that something in the nature of a mutinous sedition has occurred in violation of Article 94 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice procedure. When does an expanded version of the simple honesty and legality of the first example cross over into grounds for a court martial? More specifically, can a series of lawful resignations turn into a mutiny? And if they are agreed upon in advance, have the agreeing generals formed a felonious conspiracy to make a mutiny?

The answer, presumably, is Yes. Still, it seems farfetched, Richard Holbrooke or no. Frankly, there just aren’t that many generals willing to sacrifice their careers for their beliefs, even if there were a critical mass against Rumsfeld and/or the war. For that matter, even if there were, there are plenty of others where they came from far more highly competent colonels are qualified to wear stars than can be selected under our present system.

E. J. Dionne entitles his contribution “Roots of the Uprising.” It is, in typically Dionne fashion, nonsensical.

It’s amusing to hear the administration’s supporters worry that these courageous former generals are a threat to civilian control of the military. The claim reflects this administration’s willingness to muster any argument it can put its hands on to silence opposition.

But it’s the press making the argument, not the administration. Indeed, administration officials, including the president and Rumsfeld himself, have gone out of their way to defend the right of these men to speak out.

Some smart and patriotic generals are telling us that a policy is not wise or respectful of our troops just because it is put forward by politicians on the right end of our political spectrum. We may be witnessing the weakening of partisanship in the top echelons of the military. That would be very good for our republic.

If it were true, yes. But, while military officers have been more Republican than the society as a whole over the last quarter century or so, it’s about philosophy rather than partisanship. The GOP has been the party in favor of building up the force, raising military pay, buying more high end weapons systems, and the like. It’s hardly surprising that the warrior class would support those positions.

Bucking the trend against the civilian control conventional wisdom, David Broder says we should “Lesten to the Brass.”

Rumsfeld and President Bush insist that the manpower and strategy have been exactly what the commanders in the field thought best, but now general after general is speaking out to challenge that claim. The situation cries out for serious congressional oversight and examination; hearings are needed as soon as Congress returns. These charges have to be answered convincingly — or Rumsfeld has to go.

The problem is that, while a handful of retired generals have spoken out, those actually in charge have not. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is not only empowered but required by statute to serve as the president’s chief military advisor and give his unvarnished professional opinion, regardless of their harmony with those of the SECDEF. Similarly, all general and flag officers are confirmed by the Senate. When called to testify before Congress, it is their sworn duty to answer truthfully, irrespective of the chain of command.

As Brit Hume implies, some of the pronouncements of the retired generals amounts to good old fashioned CYA.

Former Clinton CENTCOM commander, Anthony Zinni — the most prominent of the retired generals attacking Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld — now says that, in the run-up to the war in Iraq, “What bothered me … [was that] I was hearing a depiction of the intelligence that didn’t fit what I knew. There was no solid proof, that I ever saw, that Saddam had WMD.”

But in early 2000, Zinni told Congress “Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region,” adding, “Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, [and] retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions … Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months.”

Further, even if the generals were united and Rumsfeld made decisions that went contrary to their views, so what? We have elections to hold presidents accountable. George W. Bush was re-elected and empowered to decide who he wanted as his SECDEF. As of today, that man is still Rumsfeld. To the extent one thinks Rumsfeld is doing a bad job, the beef is with Bush, not Rumsfeld.

Update: Dean Godson has a scathing piece in the London Times entitled, “Why America’s Generals Are Out For Revenge: The US top brass are ducking their responsibilities – and beleaguered Donald Rumsfeld is just doing his job.”

The generals’ criticisms will certainly strike a chord among critics of the war in Iraq, who contend that neoconservative ideologues at the Pentagon rode roughshod over professional military advice. They particularly alight on the supposed insufficiency of troop numbers sent to Iraq for post-conflict operations and the failure to plan for the insurgency.

What of these charges? Mr Rumsfeld was right in believing that the war itself could be won with a much smaller force than was used in the first Gulf War of 1991, not least because the Iraqi army had halved in size. He was right effectively to send Tommy Franks away with a flea in his ear when the then US commander presented the original war plans, as General Franks has conceded. Pace George Galloway, there was no Stalingrad by the Tigris.

This was no McNamara-style micromanagement of targeting when Pentagon “whiz-kids” constantly encroached upon professional military prerogatives. Rather, Mr Rumsfeld’s big picture approach is exactly what civilian control of the military is supposed to be all about: in other words, asking what would be the price in blood and treasure of a particular plan? Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, did much the same as Defence Secretary in 1990 when he asked Norman Schwarzkopf to revise his plans for a costly frontal assault on the Iraqi forces in Kuwait.

What about the postwar period? General Jack Keane, the Army Vice-Chief of Staff during this critical period, told me that it was just as much the military’s responsibility to anticipate the insurgency, if not more so. “We had no plans for that”, he said. “It was our fault, not Donald Rumsfeld’s.” The point was inadvertently underscored in Franks’s autobiography when he told Pentagon civilians that he would not involve himself in the detailed work on Phase 4 or “stability” operations — that is, after major combat was over. “I’ll do the day of and you’ll do the day after,” he snorted. He also refused to work alongside “Free Iraqis” ready to take up postwar security tasks. All of this cost the US dearly when the looting began in Baghdad. Yet Rumsfeld et al acquiesced.

The real issue in postwar Iraq was less that of numbers than of the mix of forces. The Americans did not need many more GIs who cannot speak Arabic patrolling the streets in heavy body armour; rather, they could have done it with the existing size of force, but with more military policemen, intelligence officers and civil affairs specialists.

[...]

Mr Rumsfeld, by contrast, has had far more success than Kennedy in shaking up the US Army. Until September 11 it was still too much of a garrison force, geared up for Cold War contingencies. Or, in the quip of one of Rumsfeld’s intimates, it was full of “Fulda Gap warriors”, rather than the kind of expeditionary forces required for the War on Terror.

The Defence Secretary has trod on toes in this process. He has insisted on interviewing every appointment to four and three-star rank — something that was more of a pro forma process under his predecessors. He appointed a retired Special Forces general, Peter Schoomaker, as US Army Chief of Staff, thus passing over stacks of serving officers. And with his greater emphasis on high-tech “jointery”, he has forced both the Army and the Marines to depend more on Air Force and Navy supporting fire.

The real criticism of Mr Rumsfeld is not that he “kicked to much butt”, but that he kicked too little. At George Bush’s behest, he sent the US armed forces into a war that they weren’t yet fully ready to fight: they are much more prepared now, but the insurgency genie is out of the bottle. He was part of the Republican consensus that was contemptuous of Clinton-era peacekeeping operations, believing that real soldiers don’t do social workerish stuff. Like so many reformers, his problem is that his changes discomfit existing interest groups before the benefits become fully visible.

This strikes me as largely right. While Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld all deserve their share of blame for things that have gone wrong under their watch, those who are career professionals get far too little criticism. Generals spend their careers learning to plan for and fight wars. Foreign Service and Intelligence Officers likewise spend decades learning to do their jobs. They have a responsibility to do their best to carry out the plans of those elected to direct policy.

________

Related:

Outspoken Retired Generals and Civilian Control, Redux
Firing Donald Rumsfeld
Retired Generals Call for Rumsfeld Resignation

Howie Kurtz has an interesting look at the decisionmaking that went on by both Vice President Dick Cheney and the Fox News crew that led to the exclusive interview on last night’s “Special Report.”

Brit Hume was in his morning staff meeting at Fox News yesterday when his cell phone rang. It was Dick Cheney. The network’s Washington managing editor had been pressing for the interview that every news organization was hotly pursuing, and now the vice president was saying that he would talk to Hume — and only Hume — about the hunting accident that has put him at the center of a fierce Beltway storm. “I felt the need to ask the questions my colleagues would want to ask,” said Hume, who taped the 25-minute sitdown yesterday afternoon for his 6 p.m. show “Special Report.”

While Hume was quite respectful, he accomplished that objective in my view. He followed up and asked tough questions without being antagonistic. Kurtz seems to agree, given his assessment later in the piece, “Hume, who has interviewed President Bush twice, has an understated style that avoids long-winded, but he touched the major bases in his discussion with the vice president.”

So, why Hume rather than a press conference or another venue?

Mary Matalin, a former Cheney aide and informal adviser who accompanied him to the interview in the vice president’s ceremonial office, said the vice president likes Hume but that “our objective was to get the whole story out in a consecutive way. He wanted a long form. We had no desire for anything other than comprehensive and hard questions.” Matalin said Cheney considered holding a news conference, but that “would have meant a lot of grandstanding” by reporters. “Everyone asks the same questions so they can get on their networks,” she said. Matalin said she didn’t think “any purpose would be served” by the vice president doing further interviews because every news organization will excerpt the Fox session.

This is almost certainly true. While the fact that Hume and Fox News generally are the most Republican friendly of the networks surely played no small role in the decision, Cheney was right to choose a solo venue. A press conference would indeed have been a zoo, as David Gregory’s recent conduct has demonstrated.

Hume, who has known Cheney since he was a House member from Wyoming, said he believes the vice president chose Fox because it is the top-rated cable network, and picked him because he hosts the only Washington-oriented hour on Fox’s schedule.

Hume made the ratings comment last night on the show’s roundtable but his tongue was firmly planted in cheek.

While some liberal commentators have criticized Hume over the years, two of Bill Clinton’s White House spokesmen say he was always fair in his dealings with them. Mike McCurry said Hume was “impartial and balanced and fair” as an ABC correspondent covering Clinton, but that “he’s in advocacy journalism now.” Joe Lockhart, who worked for Walter Mondale’s 1984 presidential campaign, said that Hume “was a real favorite of Mondale’s. You can’t spend a lot of time with Brit and not know he’s a conservative guy, but it was our belief that never showed up in his journalism. Now he’s got a more edgy and opinionated program.”

Emily Rooney, a talk show host for Boston’s WGBH-TV who worked with Hume at ABC News, praised Hume’s intuitive grasp of politics. Hume has “never hidden” his conservative leanings, she said, and Cheney “chose Brit Hume for a reason — because he’s always given a fair hearing to the Republican Party, which not every journalist did along the way.”

Quite so.

One can simultaneously have a worldview and be fair. Tim Russert is unabashedly liberal but tough with all his guests. I suspect C-SPAN’s Brian Lamb is moderately conservative but he is so balanced in his questioning that few people have any real idea. In his days as White House correspondent, Sam Donaldson was sometimes obnoxious but applied his zeal to both parties.

Hume is in that class. Yes, he sometimes wears a pundit hat and sometimes and anchor hat. Donaldson and many journalists who are both reporters and weekend television pundits have been doing that for years. It’s a tough trick that few pull off.