Kucinich Wins Debate Poll, ABC Covers Up Results

Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich's supporters (and, according to his website, even some non-supporters) are demanding that ABC explain its actions of the last few days.

On Monday afternoon, Congressman Kucinich took a significant lead in the ABC online poll: Who won the Democratic debate? About the time that he took that lead, ABC removed the poll from its prominent position on the ABC website. Then a new poll suddenly went up, "Who is winning the Democratic debate?"

Those events could be seen as technical glitches, but there was more to come. Kucinich took the lead in the second poll, also, and that poll, too, was dropped. ABC also "forgot" to announce the results (Kucinich tied with Sen. Hillary Clinton as the winner), and news about the poll is nowhere to be seen on the ABC website. Kucinich was also cut out of a group photo of all the candidates in the debate.

It's a wonder viewers were even able to vote for Kucinich in the poll. He was not permitted to answer a question from debate moderator George Stephanopoulos until the debate had been under way for half an hour.

So far, the network has failed to respond to questions about these events.

Two days ago, I pointed our readers to a New York Times op-ed written by seven active duty American soldiers in Iraq. The soldiers argued the surge isn't working and that "four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise." Their call for withdrawal was a direct rebuke of Michael O'Hanlon and his recently-stated pro-surge views. Witness the opening line of O'Hanlon's pro-war op-ed ("A War We Just Might Win"):

Viewed from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel... the political debate in Washington is surreal.

And the opening line from the soldiers ("The War as We Saw It"):

Viewed from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal.

Now, O'Hanlon is acknowledging the smackdown. But he won't back down, insisting that the American military is partnering better with the Iraqis, is getting better intelligence, and is on the offensive against the insurgents. Civilian casualties are down in Iraq, he argues, though that's been contested.

What O'Hanlon refuses to recognize is that the surge was designed to slow violence in Iraq only in service of political ends. Going on the offensive against the insurgents is fine, but it's only an important development if Iraqi politicians seize the opening and make progress towards a reconciled nation and a functioning government. They haven't done that. They haven't even come close.

Without political progress, the surge (and the military success O'Hanlon believes it is having) is just another swing in the cycle of war. We're doing better now, but the insurgents will return with new and different tactics in a few months. Military officials agree. Check out this sentence from a recent McClatchy article: "Without reconciliation, the military officers say, any decline in violence will be temporary and bloodshed could return to previous levels as soon as the U.S. military cuts back its campaign against insurgent attacks."

Oh, and as to why the troops writing in the Times might not be impressed with the surge's so-called "success," maybe it has something to do with the fact that this summer has been the deadliest summer of the war for American troops.

June-July-August 2003: 113 Americans killed
June-July-August 2004: 162 Americans killed
June-July-August 2005: 217 Americans killed
June-July-August 2006: 169 Americans killed
June-July-August 2007: 229 Americans killed so far

Breach of Contract

A front-page story in this morning's Washington Post reveals that federal no-bid contracts are not the exception to the rule: to a growing extent, they are the rule. Such contracts are awarded without "full and open" competition and often go to a small group of well-connected companies. Those companies appear to be cleaning up: a recent congressional report found that spending on no-bid contracts has tripled to $207 billion since 2000. Proponents say that foregoing competition by-passes delays, permitting important work to be completed more quickly. Now, one could argue there are situations in which no-bid contracts are appropriate. Say, in New Orleans after Katrina, where there was a desperate need for immediate action.... or in the reconstruction of Iraq. But the potential for (and, sadly, the reality of) abuse is ever present.

For that, reference the Post's Business section. In what is said to be the largest bribery case to come out of the Iraq reconstruction, investigators say that Army Major John L. Cockerham, his wife Melissa, and his sister Carolyn Blake took $9.6 million in bribes from contractors and expected to receive another $5.4 million before they were arrested. Cockerham was a contracting officer deployed to Camp Arifjan near Kuwait City. His position allowed him to approve contracts for up to $10 million. He quickly leveraged his authority to suit his own needs. From the Post:

The Cockerhams and Blake were arrested in late July after investigators searched the Cockerhams' house at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio and allegedly found evidence linking them to the bribery scheme. Aspects of the case read like a spy novel: a briefcase with $300,000 in cash in a Kuwaiti parking lot; handwritten ledgers that identify money sources with code names like Destiny Carter; and instructions telling co-conspirators to, in a pinch, toss safe-deposit keys out a window, stash key documents in the bosom and, lastly, destroy the instructions.

But, if you believe Cockerham's lawyers, the Major and his co-conspirators were motivated by a desire to please God.

Defense attorneys, however, say the Cockerhams and Blake are hardworking, church-going people. The Cockerhams have confessed to taking money in exchange for the awarding of contracts, according to an affidavit from an Army criminal investigator, but put the amount at a little more than $1 million. Blake told investigators the money was to be used to set up a church, according to the affidavit...
By all accounts, the Cockerhams had not recently gone on any visible spending sprees. As of July 31, the most recent hearing in the case, the couple owed $13,000 in car payments and were driving a 2004 Toyota minivan and 1993 Isuzu pickup. John Cockerham reported an additional $54,000 in debt, in part from credit cards and student loans...
According to the investigator's affidavit, Blake acknowledged that she kept a ledger [of bribes she accepted], but she says it was for a different purpose. She said she wanted to start a church in Africa. On a trip to South Africa, she visited a school for poor girls funded by television star Oprah Winfrey. Blake says she was inspired to do something similar, according to Wilson, her attorney. "She thought this was a calling from God," Wilson said.

Remember Freedom Fries?

It was only four years ago that Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) and Walter Jones (R-NC) announced the official name change in Congressional cafeterias from French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast. "This action today is a small, but symbolic effort to show the strong displeasure of many on Capitol Hill with the actions of our so-called ally, France," said Ney at the time.

My, how les temps have changed!

Now ex-Rep Ney is serving 30 months jail time, Jones has become a fierce war critic, and lo and behold, the French may be coming to the rescue in Iraq. From the Washington Post:

Meanwhile, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner used a surprise trip to Baghdad to call on European countries to help the United States repair Iraq. Kouchner's comments represent a major departure from former French president Jacques Chirac's stance on Iraq. Relations between France and the United States were severely damaged after Chirac led global opposition to the 2003 invasion.
Since his election in May, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has sought to strengthen ties with the United States. Kouchner told a French radio station that Iraq's leaders are "expecting something" from the French government and that he planned to assist U.S. efforts.
"The Americans can't get this country out of difficulty all alone," Kouchner said.

Kouchner's humanitarian background as co-founder of the medical relief group Medecins Sans Frontieres may begin to explain the willingness to overlook the anti-French GOP posturing of the not-so-distant past and to let bygones be bygones. Pass the pâté.

So when is the best time for an ex-Peruvian dictator to have an extradition hearing in front of Chile's full Supreme Court? While Peru is recovering from a devastating 8.0 earthquake that has killed more than 500 civilians.

Today, Chile's Supreme Court is convening to decide the fate of former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori. He is wanted in Peru for human rights violations he committed while leading a so-called "war on terror" against two insurgencies in Peru between 1990 and 2000. Fujimori's capture and extradition process has been long and twisted. Many Peruvian officials and human rights organizations want his head for the atrocities he oversaw, but many suspect that Peru's current President, Alan Garcia—although you wouldn't know from all his government's posturing over the extradition—would rather Fujimori escape justice and return to Japan, where he lived in exile for nearly five years. To pass his conservative economic legislation, Garcia's dealings with the Fujimoristas in Peru's congress came with an implicit quid pro quo—the Fujimoristas want Fujimori to escape trial.

So while Peruvians are distracted by a natural disaster, Fujimori's final extradition hearing is conveniently taking place months before anyone predicted it would. The Chilean Supreme Court has been dragging its feet for the last year, ratcheting up tensions inside Peru.

Earlier this month, I bet Fujimori would be home for Christmas, but it looks like he could be home well before Thanksgiving.

—Rafael Valero

Breaking: Report Reveals CIA Failures Before 9/11

From the Los Angeles Times:

The CIA never developed an overall strategy for confronting Al Qaeda and let precious expertise and resources go unused in the years leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks, according to an internal investigation...

Some key findings:

  • The CIA failed to spend all its funding for counter-terrorism, even while agency officials expressed concern about the growing threat of terrorism and asked for increased funding.
  • The CIA let its battles with other agencies get in the way of its efforts.
  • The report points to overall incompetence rather than any smoking gun.

The CIA has tried to suppress its own report for more than two years.

Read more on the CIA's role in 9/11 here.

RudyCare! Is Useless!

I overreached in my blog post earlier today when I said that the Republican presidential candidates don't have plans on any of the issues. Rudy Giuliani has a health care plan, it's just counterproductive and dumb.

A Big Thank You

My heartfelt thanks to everyone who has supported the campaign to open Mother Jones' new Washington, D.C., news bureau and expand our Investigative Team. The campaign is still rolling, and we'll keep you posted as we close in on our goal of raising $60,000.

For those who contributed at a level that qualifies you for our prize drawing, the drawing will be held within the next several days, and we'll notify the winners by email. To everyone who has made a donation, regardless of the dollar amount, we are grateful for your generosity and inspired by your confidence that there's an important place inside the Beltway for this brand of independent, investigative journalism.

I hope you'll check back regularly with motherjones.com and Mother Jones magazine—you'll be able to see your investment at work.

While the deadline for our prize drawing has passed, you can still help our D.C. campaign with a tax-deductible gift to the Mother Jones Investigative Fund. For any gift of $45 or more, you'll receive a one-year subscription to Mother Jones magazine (new or renewal).

Again, thanks for your generous support. We'll make every dollar count.

Sincerely,

Jay Harris
President & Publisher

Fred Thompson in Hot FEC Water

There are rules that govern how presidential candidates and their campaigns can act. And it turns out, if you try to circumvent those rules by refusing to officially declare your candidacy, but you travel the country campaigning anyway, you are in violation of the law.

That's the hard lesson currently being learned by Fred Thompson, or as you know him, the big, bald guy that is supposedly the next Reagan but is actually just really, really lazy. A liberal blogger has filed a complaint against Thompson with the Federal Elections Commission.

The complaint appears to have real legitimacy, and may result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines for Big T. We'll keep you posted.

What's Needed in Coverage of GOP Candidates

Unlike a lot of people, I don't have a problem with certain kinds of superficial campaign coverage. Take, for example this recent Boston Globe story that analyzed the "Leave it to Beaver" language used by Mitt Romney on the campaign trail.

"Whoop-de-do!" he says of John Edwards's proposal to let Americans save $250 tax-free. "Gosh, I love America," Romney said during one GOP debate. After hitting a long golf drive in one of his campaign videos, he shouts, "Holy moly!"
Romney often sounds as if he has stepped out of a time machine from 1950s suburban America...

Okay, fine. That's not really interesting, but whatever. If a reporter and an editor want to put in the time to dissect this sort of stuff, that's their choice. If you or I, as serious consumers of news, want something more substantive, we can just find it somewhere else. Right?

Wrong! This campaign season, we have not seen the Globe or anyone else publish a dissection of Romney's language one day and a dissection of his Iraq policy the next. No one is paying attention to the complete and utter lack of substantive issue positions from the Republicans. They have no serious ideas on Iraq, on health care, or on climate change — they're running on rhetoric, personality, and resume. The Democrats have all of that, plus incredibly detailed plans for America's most pressing priorities. Until that truth appears in the mainstream media regularly, superficial coverage like the Globe's remains troubling.

One possible exception here, by the way, is the American Prospect, which has written about this once and blogged about it as well. (We've noted it too.)