Members of the Senate intelligence committee have requested the withdrawal of the Bush administration's choice for CIA general counsel, acknowledging that John Rizzo's nomination has stalled because of concerns about his views on the treatment of terrorism suspects.
The decision followed a private meeting this week in which committee leaders concluded that the troubled nomination could not overcome opposition among Democratic members. It comes less than a month after a key member, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), announced his intention to block the nomination indefinitely.
Rizzo, a career CIA lawyer, has drawn fire from Democrats and human rights groups because of his support for Bush administration legal doctrines permitting "enhanced interrogation" of terrorism detainees in CIA custody.
In other intelligence news, Newsweekreports that intelligence czar Michael McConnell has asked to withdraw a statement to Congress that a recently passed electronic surveillance law contributed to the capture of German terrorism suspects earlier this month. Turns out, it didn't have anything to do with it.
Potentially lacking the wit of our other esteemed bloggers, I hope to let the site speak for itself here... Our tech team has been working late into the night to make the Mother Jones website better looking, more readable, and more useful to you. Yesterday we launched what we might call a "first step" in a much fuller redesign project. We're eager to know what you think so far!
We're even more eager to know what you think about how far we have to go to build the best looking, best performing online media experience you can't get enough of.... I'll be popping on the blog periodically to inquire, but here's the first step: Drop us a comment or two. What do you love and hate about the site? Are you a designer? How about throwing some scrawled on napkins my way? naster-at-motherjones is the address.
We've got some great things up our sleeves — this is only the beginning.
Funny how much difference a few days can make, huh? Kanye West is known for his egotistical outbursts and random baloney-spewing, but with his new album getting great reviews and headed for #1, suddenly he's also making a lot more sense. First of all, his statements about the MTV VMAs "scandal" on a Sirius Satelite Radio morning show Tuesday are pretty much right on. Describing Britney Spears' terrible show-opening performance, he blamed MTV, telling Sirius the network was "just trying to get ratings, and they knew she wasn't ready and they exploited her." West wanted to perform "Stronger" as the show opener, but was apparently told to host a "suite party" in a hotel room instead, where his performance of the hit track was under-lighted and attended only by pre-selected industry zombies.
"They exploited her, they played me and I really don't mess with MTV," he said. "So why do you have me do 'Stronger' in a suite, but you end the show with Justin? I looked at 50 like, yo, we need to help each other as much as possible."
Considering the massive sales for "Stronger" over the last few weeks (and now for the full album), it does seem a little cynical of MTV to give the show-opening performance to Britney, while Kanye is so clearly on top, but what else is new?
Well, no matter what you think of the whole debacle, West is making great music, and if you think he's got a bad attitude, check this out: French duo Justice, you'll remember, are supposedly the rapper's arch-rivals after they beat him for "Best Video" at the European VMAs in 2006. This year, in a cute rematch, the animated-T-shirt-featuring video for their track "D.A.N.C.E." was up against West's "Stronger" for "Video of the Year." Rihanna won, so now, everybody's best friends: the director of the video, So Me, was recruited by West to direct his own new video, which turned out so spectacularly you'd forgive a hundred tantrums. The liquid animations help you focus on West's intricate phrasings, and give added "oomph" to the track's already-high spirits. More Franco-American collaborations, please, and you go, Kanye.
Ignite!, Neil Bush's educational company, has received thousands of dollars from school districts through the federal No Child Left Behind program even though it doesn't meet the program's standards, a DC watchdog group reported today.
"NCLB requires any kind of educational products to have been scientifically peer-reviewed, and Ignite! has not," Melanie Sloan, Executive Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told me. Today CREW sent a letter to the Dept. of Ed Inspector General asking him to investigate the company. "NCLB is really benefiting cronies rather than kids," Sloan added. "I frankly don't understand why so many Democratic senators and congressmen, like George Miller and Kennedy are being so supportive [of NCLB] in the face of these problems."
Ignite! did not return a call from Mother Jones.
Neil Bush, the family's ne'er do well, is best known for his adventures in the savings and loan industry, which led to a taxpayer-funded bailout of $1.3 billion and a lifetime ban from the banking industry. In 1999, with no educational experience, he founded Ignite! with money from his family and international investors. For years Ignite has been dogged by questions about its effectiveness, and its reliance on donations from foundations to fund its purchase in schools. Last year, the Houston Chroniclereported that a donation from Barbara Bush to a Katrina relief fund was earmarked to Ignite! None of this has really slowed the company down of course. As of late it has been working in Russia and China, where I'd expect business will soon be booming.
ABC reports that Barack Obama denies he gave an interview to French journalist and counterterrorism expert Alexis Debat that appeared in a French journal, Politique Internationale. Debat himself acknowledges that he conducted the interview through a third party, and has provided an email from that person who says he carried out the interview and asked Debat to sign it and keep his name off it. An Obama spokesperson told ABC that they are not aware of that third party interview taking place either. Debat also acknowledges that he made a mistake. There's just one problem. Debat has been working since 2001 as a consultant for ... ABC News. Many of his reports are co-signed by other reporters at ABC, and one can presume that after an extensive investigation, ABC will determine that all of the stories he worked on as a "source" (but many also with a byline or co-byline) were multiply sourced and therefore they stand by all of them. As a colleague suggests, "Clearly they want to distance themselves from him, while still protecting" the institution. It may well be that all of his reporting is solid, and Debat has personally offered to discuss his sources and reporting with me, at my soonest possible availability. Sources suggest that ABC is not going to take Debat back, even if the investigation outcome is that his stories hold up. Debat firmly stands by all of his reporting for ABC, writing "ABC is currently taking all of my reporting apart, and has not found any reason to doubt it. It will not. I stand completely by 100% of the information I provided ABC."
Questions about Debat's interviews and representations were first raised earlier this week by former Liberation correspondent Pascal Riche at the website, Rue89. Debat has threatened legal action against Riche and Rue89, claiming the article "puts my entire professional life in jeopardy." ABC has indicated it demanded Debat's resignation in June, three months before the Rue 89 piece, saying that a French government official told ABC that Debat did not have the Sorbonne PhD he claimed to have. Debat has written that he recently learned there were administrative problems with his PhD and is working to resolve them.
Update: ABC's Jeffrey Schneider writes in reference to a post at my own blog, here "is a link to our blotter story about Debat. ... We have reviewed that story (and all the other stories he worked on) and we had multiple US and European government sources that informed our reporting. As you will see from the blotter story above, we acted expeditiously to sever ties with Debat when we could not establish his credentials and we did immediately investigate his work."
Meantime, we hear the Washington Post is working on its own story on the matter.
Slide 1: Interesting that the PKK is included, though not the MeK (Mujahedeen e-Khalq) or Pezak (the Iranian offshoot of the PKK, also known as PJAK). No reference to the Kurd-Arab/Turkomen violence around Kirkuk. All the yellow boxes list threats... except "anti-AQI Tribal Success" in Anbar --unless that success is being counted as itself a threat to Iraq. Foreign fighters appear to come only from Syria, not Saudi Arabia.
Slide 2: Probably the most effective slide. Long view, since October 2004. al-Askariyah shrine destruction appears to NOT have sparked an overall increase in attacks, but is merely a point on a steady increase from about March 2005 through December 2006. Mid-February listed as "Baghdad Security Plan," with testimony saying "forces began to flow in January." Most reports I've seen suggest the "surge" began in March; this has been difficult to track down. "Surge" was complete in June 2007, at which point the # of attacks drops rapidly. Not clear what is meant by "attacks:" does this include all acts of violence in Iraq, or only those aimed at coalition or Iraqi government targets? If the latter, that could explain the lack of a spike after Samarra, and also the discrepancy between the timing of this drop in attacks and the drop in deaths noted on later slides.
Slide 3: Starts in January 2006. Civilian deaths are down since Dec 06, by 50% in Iraq and 75% in Baghdad. Trend since Jan 06 is up 200% in Iraq and up 400% in Baghdad. Most of the decline is from Dec 06 to Feb 07 -- during the surge period, deaths in Iraq are down 15% and in Iraq down 33%. Baghdad now represents a smaller share of the violence: about 70% at the peak, but now only 33%. That is about its "share" of the Arab population of Iraq, but suggests that violence may have been tranferred to other places.
After cancelling their upcoming appearance at Austin City Limits , Detroit duo White Stripes have gone one step further and cancelled their entire Fall U.S. tour. Yesterday the band announced they would be pulling out of the Austin City Limits festival this weekend due to a "nervous breakdown" on the part of drummer Meg White; the reason being given for the full tour cancellation is that Meg "is suffering from acute anxiety and is unable to travel at this time." Refunds are available at points of purchase.
All the best to Meg, but I do have to say this clears up a bit of a conflict here in the Bay Area: the Stripes' 9/21 show in Berkeley was to be the same night as the Arcade Fire and LCD Soundsystem show at the Shoreline in Mountain View, as well as Simian Mobile Disco's local debut, although I'm probably the only one who cares about that last one.
Former Sen. Chaffee wasn't particularly activist on behalf of drug companies, but it was clear today on the Hill that some of those companies are extremely unhappy with his replacement, former Rhode Island attorney general Sheldon Whitehouse. To big companies and the tort-reform industrial complex, Whitehouse is evil incarnate. That's because, before coming to the Senate, he was the attorney general of Rhode Island, where he had the nerve to hire the big-shot plaintiff firm Motley Rice on a contingency basis to represent the state of Rhode Island in litigation against lead paint manufacturers. Motley Rice scored a major jury verdict for the state last year that potentially puts the paint companies on the hook for billions of dollars in paint clean-up costs.
In 2006, the companies campaigned aggressively against Whitehouse, who also earned the wrath of groups like the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA), which has since been pushing legislation to ban states from contracting with plaintiff lawyers. But here he was today, presiding over a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the mind-numbing question of whether federal regulatory agencies have been improperly inserting "preemption" language into regulations that would ban lawsuits over dangerous products from coming into state courtsan issue near and dear to the drug companies' hearts.
As we reported earlier in the rumor stage of things here on the Riff, seminal British rock band Led Zeppelin will reunite for one show only at the 22,000-capacity O2 Arena in London on November 26th. Jason Bonham, son of original drummer John Bonham, will join the three surviving members of the band for a two-hour set. The show will be part of a tribute to Ahment Ertegun, the co-founder of Atlantic Records, who died last year; other performers include The Who's Pete Townsend, Foreigner's Mick Jones and Paolo Nutini, as well as former Rolling Stone Bill Wyman and possibly current Rolling Stone Mick Jagger.
The chance to buy a pair of £125 ($254) tickets was to be awarded via lottery, but the event's website, Ahmettribute.com, crashed within minutes of its 4pm (UK time) opening, and appears to still be offline. In the meantime enjoy a couple Led Zeppelin mashups.
Please donate a few dollars to the Mother Jones Investigative Fund! We're a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and we rely on YOU to support our fiercely independent reporting. Your donation is fully tax-deductible, and it takes just a moment to give. Thanks!