David Corn

Washington Bureau Chief

Corn has broken stories on presidents, politicians, and other Washington players. He's written for numerous publications and is a talk show regular. His best-selling books include Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War.

Get my RSS | Follow @davidcorndc

What's More Important: White House Pastries or Nuclear Weapons?

—By David Corn

| Wed Mar. 3, 2010 1:01 PM PST

It's not often you get to write a column that covers White House pastry desserts and nuclear weapons policy. But I had that opportunity today with my DailyPolitics.com gig. And that column went something like this:

On Monday, as I walked to the White House for the daily press briefing, I bumped into a Canadian journalist who was heading there as well, and we engaged in a common practice: guessing what topic would dominate the questions for press secretary Robert Gibbs. Health care, I said, explaining that this was still the main narrative of Washington's political theater: Would President Obama resolve to use the reconciliation procedure to push his health care overhaul over the finish line? "Not the new Nuclear Posture Review?" she asked, almost incredulously. I chuckled and politely shook my head. "But it's on the front page of The New York Times," she exclaimed.

Indeed it was. That day, Times reporter David Sanger was reporting that Obama was putting the finishing touches on a nuclear weapons policy review that would seek to reduce the U.S. arsenal by thousands of warheads but that would reject a proposal long-advocated by arms controllers -- for the United States to declare it would never be the first to launch nuclear weapons. The article noted that Obama has yet to resolve a crucial matter: Would the United States reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in response to a biological or chemical attack, even if the attacker were a country that didn't possess nuclear weapons? Also under consideration, the Times noted, is withdrawing U.S. tactical nuclear weapons -- essentially, smaller nukes on smaller missiles -- now based in Europe. The big issue, not yet decided, is whether Obama should declare that the "sole purpose" of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is to deter any other nation from firing nuclear weapons at us, or whether he should leave some wiggle room so the U.S. could use its nukes in another extreme situation.

[Read more in the MoJo blog]

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Ex-Intel Committee Chair Blasts GOP Successor for Killing Torture Probe

Former Sen. Bob Graham says Sen. Pat Roberts went AWOL on investigating CIA interrogation.

—By David Corn

| Wed Mar. 3, 2010 3:00 AM PST

A former Democratic senator who chaired the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at the start of the US government's campaign against Al Qaeda tells Mother Jones he cannot fathom why his Republican replacement squashed his request for an independent review of the interrogation techniques then being used by the CIA. That onetime senator, Bob Graham of Florida, says he believes Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) neglected his obligations as head of the intel panel by smothering Graham's proposal for a committee assessment of so-called enhanced interrogation practices.

On February 4, 2003, according to a CIA memo released last week, senior CIA officials—including Stanley Moskowitz, the agency's head of congressional liaison; Scott Muller, the agency's top lawyer; and James Pavitt, the deputy director for operations—presented a classified briefing in a Capitol Hill office to Roberts and an aide to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the senior Democrat on the committee. Over the course of nearly two hours, the briefers covered the CIA's brutal interrogation (or torture)—including waterboarding—of two detained terrorist suspects, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, and told Roberts of the agency's plan to destroy videotapes of the Zubaydah sessions. The memo noted that Roberts "posed no objection to what he had heard" and "supported the interrogation effort."

During the meeting, a Roberts aide asked Moskowitz if he had "taken up the line" a request Graham had made in late November 2002 for an independent committee inquiry into the CIA's interrogation program. (At that time, Graham had been chairing the intelligence committee, but he left the committee in January 2003, as Republicans took over the Senate.)

Moskowitz told Roberts and the others that the CIA would not allow any additional committee staffers to be briefed on the interrogation program. Nor would the spy service permit any committee staffer to review the interrogations in real time or visit the secret site where these sessions were occurring. Roberts didn't protest. In fact, at that point, according to the CIA memo, Roberts "interjected that he saw no reason for the committee to pursue [Graham's] request and could think of 'ten reasons right off why it is a terrible idea' for the committee to do any such thing as had been proposed." No committee investigation ensued.

[Read the full article]

DC "Insiders" and Question Time

—By David Corn

| Tue Mar. 2, 2010 9:06 AM PST

Proponents of Question Time will be interested in a survey the National Journal conducted of over 200 "insiders"—mainly Democratic and Republican consultants, strategists, and pollsters. The question: Would your party benefit from another televised session between President Obama and Hill Republicans? Democrats said yes (82 to 15 percent). Republicans, though, said no (52 to 46 percent).

The magazine provides sample quotes from unidentified respondents explaining their support or opposition. Here's some of what the pro-Question Time Dems said:

"Anytime the debate becomes a choice between our ideas and theirs, we win. Anytime it becomes a defense solely of our plan, we lose."

"It benefits President Obama more, but it helped Republicans on the margins."

"Have several: Obama comes off as in touch and knowledgeable, while the Republicans come off as political."

"The contrast between Obama talking to the nation and Republicans talking to the 'tea party' is wonderful."

"He appears as a leader and willing to reach across the aisle and get something done."

"The speeches, while beautifully delivered, may have run their course. But one-on-one, the contrast between the president putting forth practical solutions and the Republicans' bleating and posturing becomes clear."

"Anytime Peyton Manning can operate against a high school defense, it's good for Peyton Manning."

"Can we do it in prime time, please?"

The Republicans supporters of Question Time noted,

[Read more in the MoJo blog]

Actually, It's 50 Votes, Not 51

—By David Corn

| Mon Mar. 1, 2010 8:44 AM PST

From Monday's Washington Post:

Increasingly, the White House appears to favor having the House pass a version of the measure that cleared the Senate with 60 votes in December. The Senate would then pass changes to the bill to satisfy some demands of House Democrats. That Senate vote would take place under a parliamentary procedure known as reconciliation, which requires 51 votes rather than 60.

If this is President Barack Obama's path to health care reform—and it seems like his only option at this point (though I'm told some in the White House have not given up on the idea of a bipartisan deal)—he won't need 51 votes in the Senate. He will need 50. On a 50-50 tie, Vice President Joe Biden will get to be the decider. That would, no doubt, prompt futher howls from Republicans who already are trying to denigrate reconciliation as the absolute antithesis of constitutional democracy. But a close win is a win, whether it's with 51 or 50 votes. And given that the vote count in the Senate seems unclear but rather close, it's important for anyone following the debate to realize that the magic number is 50, not 50-plus-one.

The Health Care Summit Was Fine. Question Time Would Be Better.

—By David Corn

| Fri Feb. 26, 2010 8:22 AM PST

The health care summit hosted by President Barack Obama on Thursday predictably did not yield any bipartisan breakthrough. But as I explained in my PoliticsDaily.com column, it was quite valuable:

It clarified the situation. Though much of the conversation consisted of participants pushing pre-existing talking points, the debate made the obvious really obvious: Obama and his Republican foes are miles apart in ideological and policy terms. As the hours went by, Obama engaged in wonky exchanges with the Rs—sometime calling them out on key factual disputes, such as whether the Congressional Budget Office said his overhaul would lead to higher premiums. (Obama got the better of that argument.) But all this back and forth kept illustrating the basic divide. The Republicans do not believe it is Washington's mission to take major action to challenge the insurance industry and extend coverage to most of the nation's citizens without health insurance. Instead, they want to move, as they repeatedly said, "step by step." But the Democrats believe that the only way to cure the health system of its ills is to adopt comprehensive change.

This gabfest highlighted the irreconcilable differences. The Rs don't think the Ds and government can handle such a big and expensive job. The Ds don't think the Rs and the insurance industry can remedy the problems with small measures. And the meaning of all this unavoidable: if the president and the congressional Democrats want to pass any version of comprehensive health care reform, they will have to do it by themselves, using whatever legitimate legislative procedures are available. The summit clarified the situation.

The health care summit also showed the value of direct engagement between the president and the opposition—and the need for establishing the practice of Question Time. After Obama and House GOPers last month held a gripping Q&A at a Republican retreat, a cross-partisan group of bloggers, techies, and political consultants (myself included) initiated the Demand Question Time campaign, calling on Obama and the Republicans to hold such public and televised sessions on a regular basis. Neither the White House nor the House Republican leaders have yet signed on. But the health care summit has been cited by political observers as a sequel to that earlier face-off.

[Read more in the MoJo blog]