The Nation

Al Franken Overrules Antonin Scalia

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is, supposedly, a very smart man.Indeed, he is frequently referred to as the intellectual giant on the current highcourt.

Yet, when Scalia was confronted by comedian and social commentator AlFranken with a basic question of legal ethics, it was the funny man, not the"serious" jurist, who proved to be the most knowledgeable.

The confrontation took place last week in New York City, where Scalia was theguest of Conversations on the Circle, a prestigious series ofone-on-one interviews with Norman Pearlstine, the outgoing Time Inc.editor-in-chief.

After Pearlstine tossed a predictable set of softball questions to thejustice, the session was opened to questions from the audience. Up poppedFranken, the best-selling author and host of Air America's The Al FrankenShow.

According to a scathing article that appeared in the Scalia-friendly NewYork Post, "Franken stood up in the back row and started talking about‘judicial demeanor' and asking ‘hypothetically' about whether a judge shouldrecuse himself if he had gone duck-hunting or flown in a private jet with aparty in a case before his court."

Franken's reference was to Scalia's refusal to recuse himself fromdeliberations involving a lawsuit brought by public-interest groups thatsaid Vice President Dick Cheney engaged in improper contacts withenergy-industry executives and lobbyists while heading the Bush administration task force on energypolicy. A federal court ordered Cheney to release documents related to his work with the task force, at which point the Bush administration appealed to the Supreme Court.

After the administration filed its appeal but before the court took the case, Cheney and Scalia were seen dining together in November, 2003, at an out-of-the-way restaurant on Maryland's eastern shore.

After the court agreed to take the case, Cheney and Scalia spent several days in January, 2004, hunting ducks at a remote camp in Louisiana.

Watchdog groups called for Scalia to recuse himself -- Charles Lewis, director of the Center for Public Integrity, argued that fraternization involving a justice and a litigant with a case before the court "gives the appearance of a tainted process where decisions are not made on the merits" -- but the justice responded by announcing that, "I do not think my impartiality could reasonably be questioned."

Several months later, Scalia and the other justices remanded the case back to the appellate court for further consideration -- a decision that effectively made the issue go away during the 2004 presidential contest.

Scalia, a friend of Cheney's since the days when they worked together in the administration of former President Gerald Ford, had participated in a decision that was of tremendous benefit to the vice president in an election year.

Yet, when Franken raised the issue at the Conversation on the Circle event, according to the Post, Scalia "chidedFranken as if he were a delinquent schoolboy." And Time Warner chairman Dick Parsons said of author: "Al was not quiteready for prime time."

In fact, it was Scalia, not Franken, who was caught with his ethics down.

Scalia took issue with the comic's use of the word demeanor. "Demeanor is the wrong word. You meanethics," the justice claimed, before adding that, "Ethics is governed by tradition. It has neverbeen the case where you recuse because of friendship."

Actually, Scalia was wrong on all accounts. Because U.S. Supreme Court justices decide when to recuse themselves for ethical reasons, they operate under looser standards and softer scrutiny than other jurists. Thus, the term "demeanor" was precisely correct. Legal dictionaries define "demeanor" as one's "outward manner" and "way of conducting oneself." By any measure, with his refusal to recuse himself from a case involving his friend Cheney, Scalia chose to conduct himself in an unethical manner.

How do we know that?

The American Bar Association's Model Code of Judicial Conduct, certainly a reasonable measure for such decisions, is blunt with regards to these questions, stating that:

1.) "(A judge) shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."

2.) "A judge shall conduct all of the judge's extra-judicial activities so they do not cast reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge."

3.) "A judge shall not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment."

4.) "(A judge shall not) convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge."

Unfortunately, the ABA's model code does not apply -- in any official sense -- to high court justices.

But there is still no question that Scalia should have recused himself. The standard for U.S. Supreme Court Justices was set by the court itself in a majority opinion in the 1994 resolution of the case of Liteky v. United States. According to that opinion, recusal is required where "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." The opinion set a high standard, declaring that what matters "is not the reality of bias or prejudice, but its appearance."

Who was the stickler for ethics who wrote those words?

Justice Antonin Scalia.

An expanded paperback edition of John Nichols' biography of Vice President Dick Cheney, The Rise and Rise of Richard B. Cheney: Unlocking the Mysteries of the Most Powerful Vice President in American History (The New Press: 2005), is available nationwide at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com. The book features an exclusive interview with Joe Wilson and a chapter on the vice president's use and misuse of intelligence. Publisher's Weekly describes the book as "a Fahrenheit 9/11 for Cheney" and Esquire magazine says it "reveals the inner Cheney."

"The Rebel Jesus"

Despite the worst efforts of Wal-Mart and its equally carnivorous competitors to hype up an earlier start, Thanksgiving Day still marks something akin to the official opening of the Holiday season. And with this beginning even the most resistant radio stations and elevator operators will now be programming a mix of Christmas music that can charitably be referred to as "lamentable."

A musical tradition that was meant to be inspiring, uplifting and perhaps even challenging degenerates each November into a mind-numbing slurry of "festive" Muzak that will, in short order, have tens of millions of Americans counting the days until December 25.

But, hark, there is redemption to be found -- though perhaps not on the radio dials of our ever most consolidated and rigidly-programmed media monopolies.

A better class of Christmas music is out there, waiting to be heard by those who seek it.

In fact, one of the finest contemporary Christmas songs is rapidly taking on "classic" status as it is recorded by discerning artists.

Canadian singers Kate and Anna McGarrigle's fine new holiday CD, The McGarrigle Christmas Hour, features a stirring rendition of the song in question: Jackson Browne's "The Rebel Jesus."

Originally recorded by Browne for the brilliant 1991 Chieftains holiday collaboration, The Bells of Dublin, "The Rebel Jesus" has taken on a life of its own. Along the way, it has become the most welcome antidote to the deadening dose of commercialism that Americans imbibe each year between Thanksgiving and Christmas.

So let us begin the season with Browne's wise words:

All the streets are filled with laughter and light

And the music of the season

And the merchants' windows are all bright

With the faces of the children

And the families hurrying to their homes

As the sky darkens and freezes

They'll be gathering around the hearths and tales

Giving thanks for all god's graces

And the birth of the rebel Jesus


Well they call him by the prince of peace

And they call him by the savior

And they pray to him upon the seas

And in every bold endeavor

As they fill his churches with their pride and gold

And their faith in him increases

But they've turned the nature that I worshipped in

From a temple to a robber's den

In the words of the rebel Jesus


We guard our world with locks and guns

And we guard our fine possessions

And once a year when christmas comes

We give to our relations

And perhaps we give a little to the poor

If the generosity should seize us

But if any one of us should interfere

In the business of why they are poor

They get the same as the rebel Jesus


But please forgive me if I seem

To take the tone of judgment

For I've no wish to come between

This day and your enjoyment

In this life of hardship and of earthly toil

We have need for anything that frees us

So I bid you pleasure

And I bid you cheer

From a heathen and a pagan

On the side of the rebel Jesus.

Oppose Gutting of US Healthcare

Watch Catapult

Disgusted with the performance of the mainstream media when it comes to Iraq? Then click here to check out Catapult--a Quicktime video--and share it with your friends, family and colleagues. (This video is free to post on blogs and web sites.) Produced by two volunteers, the point of Catapult is "to help independent media tell the truth about the war to more Americans." A very worthy goal indeed.


Fight Further Gutting of US Healthcare

In an attempt to further erode the quality of healthcare in order to expand its bottom line, a big business coalition is currently pressing Congress to pass healthcare legislation that will undermine the safety and security of the health insurance that many American families depend on.

State laws throughout the country require insurers to cover some of the most vital and basic health services--like pre-natal and maternity services, cancer screenings, well-child care, direct access to Ob/Gyns, and mammograms. Many states also currently set limits on how much premiums can be increased, and guarantee the right to appeal denied claims. But the Small Business Health Fairness Act being considered by the Senate guts these protections.

So what's big business' agenda?

* To save money by severely restricting coverage for critical preventative procedures such as mammograms and yearly child checkups.

* To be able to raise rates at any time.

* To be able to deny claims with no guaranteed right to appeal.

The Care 2 coalition is leading the fight against this Orwellian-named Small Business Health Fairness Act. So click here to sign its petition against this reactionary legislation and click here to read more on why passage of this bill would be so damaging.

Cheney's White Flag

"No Q and A." That's what Chris DeMuth, president of the American Enterprise Institute, said to me on the elevator at his think tank on Monday morning. I knew what he meant. Dick Cheney was coming to AEI, the prowar, neocon headquarters, to give yet another speech on the Iraq war. Last week, Cheney blasted critics who claim Bush misled the nation into war, calling these accusations the most "dishonest" and "reprehensible" statements he's ever encountered in Washington. (And he's been around a long time.) But Cheney, as is his custom, refused at AEI to take questions from reporters on this or any other subject. Presumably, if he held a press conference, he'd be asked to explain his prewar claims about Iraq's supposed WMDs and its supposed contacts with al Qaeda that were not supported by the existing intelligence. (I came prepared to inquire if Cheney thought it had been "dishonest" of him to point to a Czech intelligence report that claimed 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague five months before September 11, even though the CIA and FBI had discounted this report.) Cheney also might have been asked about the recent news that executives from four large oil companies did meet with his energy task force in 2001, even though CEOs from these firms testified to Congress this month their executives had not. So many Qs for Cheney. But no As.

When Cheney finished his speech--which consumed only one-third of the hour that AEI had scheduled for the event--he quickly darted off. He didn't even stay to greet the AEI policy wonks who had been seeded in the first rows of seats (thus pushing journalists toward the back) and who had applauded enthusiastically for their man in the White House. MSNBC's David Shuster approached me and remarked, "I thought you were going to shout out a question at Cheney." I had thought about doing so. But before I could close my notebook, Cheney was gone.

His speech was both defiant and yielding. He opened with a White House retreat that George W, Bush began the previous day. Noting that the headlines last week said he had called critics of the war "dishonest and reprehensible," Cheney stated,

I do not believe it is wrong to criticize the war on terror or any aspect thereof. Disagreement, argument, and debate are the essence of democracy, and none of us should want it any other way.

He also praised Representative Jack Murtha, the conservative and hawkish Democrat who last week called for a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Murtha's proposal was initially met by hooting from a White House that didn't address Murtha's policy criticisms but that instead derided him as having been captured by Michael Moore and fringe elements of the Democratic Party. Days later, a Republican congresswoman implied that Murtha, a former Marine, was a coward for advocating disengagement. For his part, Murtha fought back by observing that he was not going to fret about attacks from folks who had ducked the Vietnam War by obtaining multiple deferments--a direct reference to Cheney. At AEI, Cheney, following Bush's lead, hailed Murtha as a "good man" and "a patriot," who "is taking a clear stand in an entirely legitimate discussion." Clearly, the White House (maybe after polling) had concluded that it could not win a ground war against Murtha. It was waving a white flag.

As part of this strategic, rhetorical withdrawal, Cheney also said there was nothing untoward about

debating whether the United States and our allies should have liberated Iraq in the first place. Here, as well, the differing views are very passionately and forcefully stated. But nobody is saying we should not be having this discussion, or that you cannot reexamine a decision made by the President and the Congress some years ago.

In other words, it's fine to refight that war. No critic need worry about being accused of treason or of undermining the troops by denouncing Bush's war.

But then Cheney made his stand:

What is not legitimate--and what I will again say is dishonest and reprehensible--is the suggestion by some U. S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of his administration purposely misled the American people on prewar intelligence.

Here we go again. Prior to the invasion, Bush, Cheney and other administration officials did make many statements that were not backed up by the available intelligence. Were these merely careless mistakes? Why not call for a quick conclusion to the Phase II investigation of the Senate intelligence committee and see what the evidence indicates? Rather, Cheney declared,

The flaws in the intelligence are plain enough in hindsight, but any suggestion that prewar information was distorted, hyped, or fabricated by the leader of the nation is utterly false.

How does he explain that administration officials cited evidence that was in dispute--such as Iraq's infamous acquisition of aluminum tubes that Bush officials said could only be used for a nuclear weapons program--and claimed it was rock solid? Is it not a distortion to repeatedly cite an intelligence report that has been discredited by the CIA and the FBI?


Don't forget about DAVID CORN's BLOG at www.davidcorn.com. Read recent postings on the battle over the prewar intelligence, Curveball-gate, the rise of the new Open Source Media site, Bush's Zarqawi problem, Ahmad Chalabi's weak defense, and other in-the-news matters.


And Cheney, despite his earlier statement, could not help but play the undercuts-the-troops card:

American soldiers and Marines serving in Iraq go out every day into some of the most dangerous and unpredictable conditions. Meanwhile, back in the United States, a few politicians are suggesting these brave Americans were sent into battle for a deliberate falsehood. This is revisionism of the most corrupt and shameless variety. It has no place anywhere in American politics, much less in the United States Senate. One might also argue that untruthful charges against the Commander-in-Chief have an insidious effect on the war effort itself. I'm unwilling to say that, only because I know the character of the United States Armed Forces--men and women who are fighting the war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other fronts. They haven't wavered in the slightest,

Cheney was indeed suggestion that questioning whether he and Bush deliberately oversold the intelligence could be bad for the troops. But since American GIs are so swell, such statements do not unduly affect them. The White House has made an obvious calculation: let's not attack Jack Murtha, let's go after Harry Reid.

Then he pulled out the usual rhetoric. The United States could not afford to withdraw and signal weakness to the "terrorists." He noted that the "terrorists" want to "gain control" of Iraq "so they have a base from which to launch attacks and to wage war against governments that do not meet their demands." And he remarked,

Those who advocate a sudden withdrawal from Iraq should answer a few simple questions: Would the United States and other free nations be better off, or worse off, with Zarqawi, bin Laden, and Zawahiri in control of Iraq? Would we be safer, or less safe, with Iraq ruled by men intent on the destruction of our country?

This is the same simplistic formulation the Bush crowd has been using since the invasion. In this characterization of the war, there is only us and them, the "them" being Zarqawi and the "terrorists" that have flocked to Iraq after the invasion. But Iraq is full of Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites, and the insurgency consists of much more than Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq. Does any reasonable Middle East analyst believe that Zarqawi could take over Iraq, against the wishes of the Shiites and their militias? Zarqawi poses a serious problem, but the more profound dilemma in Iraq involves the rising sectarian conflict and violence within a state that perhaps should not be a state. Bush and Cheney do not fully address this in public.

Cheney, instead, held up a phony argument to assault:

It is a dangerous illusion to suppose that another retreat by the civilized world would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone.

Who says that? Who believes that if the United States disengages in Iraq that al Qaeda would say, "Never mind"? Not Jack Murtha. Not any Democrat or Republican who has questioned the war. One could even ask if in making such a claim Cheney was being a tad "dishonest."

Cheney finished up with the "we will not retreat" mantra. He had nothing new to say about what his administration can do to end the war--or US involvement in Iraq--in the near-term. He was playing to his base, throwing out the same old/same old reasons for keeping US troops in Iraq. That Bush and Cheney still have to explain the war and that they had to reverse course on Operation Smear Murtha indicates that Bush and his lieutenants remain alienated and isolated in a bunker of their own making.

The Plight of Public Universities

There's a crisis in this country in higher education--and the House GOP's reckless fiscal policies are making it worse. To pay for the rebuilding costs associated with Hurricane Katrina, House Republicans just last week passed $50 billion in budget cuts, eviscerating student loan programs, Medicaid and food stamps while simultaneously seeking to enact a five-year $57 billion tax break for millionaires and corporations. ("The beauty of taking the cuts out of Medicaid and student loan programs...is that it doesn't reduce the flow of funds to the Republican campaign committees by a single dime," Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson observed.)

Make no mistake: the loan cuts could be devastating for low- and middle-income students. The Emergency Campaign for America's Priorities which fought to build opposition to the GOP's budget cuts said that New York students and their families would be looking at a $6,000 hike in costs for higher education should the GOP cuts take effect.

This assault on the poor and the middle-class comes at a low moment in higher education in general. Republicans' fiscal policies have made college less affordable for many. And with less money available at the state and federal level, schools have had to raise tuition and impose other costs on families least equipped to bear the burden.

The New York Times recently reported that for the year starting July 2004 inflation increased only slightly, by 2.2 percent, while tuition at public universities rose by 7.1 percent (it increased by 5.9 percent at private colleges.) If you want to send a child to public university in your own state, you'll now pay an average of $15,566 per year. If your child wants to attend a private college or university, you're looking at an average annual cost of nearly $32,000. Predictably, the enrollment gap between rich and poor has widened in recent years.

While costs are rising, affordable student loans are getting harder and harder to find. The website insidehighered.com reported that students are relying on higher-interest private loans which saddle them with debt for many years after graduation. Colleges are also using merit-based aid as opposed to need-based tuition assistance, which traditionally has helped the neediest students afford the costs of attending college.

At the same time as costs are rising, the quality of what those costs are paying for is decreasing. Colleges are using part-time professors to teach their classes. Course size is swelling, and universities, a professor at Cornell who wrote a book about rising education costs told the Times, "are having great difficulty maintaining the quality of the education they provide."

Take Wayne State University, in Detroit. According to Insidehighered.com, the state government cut the school's funding forcing Wayne State to eliminate 200 staff jobs and "close one college and combine two others to save on adminstrative costs."

The University's provost told the website "We literally couldn't pay our bills," and Wayne State increased tuition by 18.5 percent this year alone because the situation was so desperate. And what's happening at Wayne State is happening nationwide as state colleges are victimized by a federal government which is shortchanging education, and state governments which are slashing funding year after year.

Public universities are being targeted for privatization as a result. "Taxpayer support for public universities, measured per student, has plunged more precipitously since 2001 than at any time in two decades," the Times reported last month. Faculty members are devoting more time to research often funded by private interests; college presidents are raising billions of dollars in private funds, and some of the buildings being built on public university campuses now bear the names of corporate donors.

The Right's immoral fiscal policies are bankrupting the very principles we claim to cherish like access to public education and the possibility of upward mobility for lower- and middle-class Americans. To reverse this trend that we've witnessed over the past five years, we can take five common sense steps.

First, as Sen Edward Kennedy proposed this past January, one bold idea for vastly expanding educational opportunity for all is to offer every child a contract that they, their parents and Uncle Sam will sign when a child reaches eighth grade. Kennedy said "the contract will state that if you work hard, if you finish high school and are admitted to college, we will guarantee you the cost of earning a degree." He added that "We should make undergraduate tuition free for any young person willing to serve as a math or science teacher in a public school for at least four years."

Second, Congress should enact the bipartisan Student Aid Reward Act (Kennedy and Rep. George Miller are co-sponsors) which would provide students with $17.2 billion in new college scholarship funds without costing taxpayers a single penny. The STAR Act will encourage colleges to take advantatge of less expensive federal student loan programs instead of relying on and enriching middlemen--the banks and other private lenders. The stakes are high; as Kennedy said, "We cannot allow 400,000 college-ready students to be held back from going to college full time and 200,000 students to be shut of college completely every year, because they can't afford the cost."

Third, as MoveOn and other progressive organizations have pointed out, pressure should be applied to Congress to roll back Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and increase resources for student loans and other programs that offer broader access to oppportunity to Americans.

Fourth, let's encourage all private institutions to steal a page out of Princeton University's playbook. In 2001, the University did away with student loans and replaced them with "grants" that, it said, "need not be repaid" and it made getting an education at Princeton affordable for all enrolled there.

Fifth, and finally, our nation needs to put a new emphasis on the educational principles that the Washington Monthly identified in its groundbreaking First Annual College Rankings issue published this past September. The magazine said that "three central criteria" should determine how we judge the success of a college in fulfilling its public mission to the American people.

"Universities should be engines of social mobility," the Monthly wrote, "they should produce the academic minds and scientific research that advance knowledge and drive economic growth, and they should inculcate and encourage an ethic of service." The survey produced some surprising results. UCLA ranked 25th in the US News College Guide but on the Monthly's list it finished second because it "excelled in research and...social mobility...because of its astoundingly high graduation rate given its large number of lower-income students." Penn St. finished sixth and Texas A&M seventh because they met the Monthly's service-oriented, opportunity-expanding criteria more successfully than Yale (15th) and Harvard (16th).

Democratic Rep. Chet Edwards told the Houston Chronicle that the GOP's effort to eviscerate student loan programs is akin to "taking the most from those who have the least and nothing from those who have the most."

The same, sadly, could be said of our country's deeply uneven commitment to higher education for all Americans. If the country wants to live up to its vaunted principles, the GOP's drive to enact policies that put the privileged few before people-in-need must be ended.

Cities to End the War

As the Iraq war debate rages in the capital, and polls show growing public frustration with the war, keep an eye on the growing groundswell of opposition in cities across the country. The DC-based Institute for Policy Studies is a key player in organizing city councils, towns and municipalities to pass resolutions calling for US withdrawal, in hopes of forcing the hand of the Bush Administration and fence-sitting Democrats in Congress.

To date, 67 cities--including Chicago, Sacramento, Chapel Hill, Gary (Indiana) and dozens of towns in Vermont--have done so. The resolutions usually call on the US government "to commence an orderly and rapid withdrawal of United States military personnel from Iraq," while also shipping non-military aid "necessary for the security of Iraq's citizens and for the rebuilding of Iraq." (Disclosure: I am a longtime IPS board member.)

As IPS Director John Cavanagh concedes, cities alone cannot make foreign policy. But, he adds, "we're at a fascinating tipping point." He "can imagine a majority within a year to 18 months that would vote to cut off the money for the war. That is a goal.There are different ways to end the war, but that's the one that feels clearest."

For more, click here to read today's Washington Post story on Cities for Peace.

And in another heartening sign that opposition is growing to a war and occupation which undermines our security, this past weekend more than 2,000 delegates at the national convention in Houston of the Union for Reformed Judaism voted overwhelmingly to call on the Bush Administration to produce an exit strategy for American forces in Iraq and to begin withdrawing troops after the December 15th elections there. The union, with 1.5 million members, represents the largest branch of Judaism in the US and it joins a host of other religious groups in calling for an end to Bush's war.

The Ice Age Has Ended

"The ice age has ended in Washington," writes Tom Hayden. In the last twenty four hours, the momentum in Congress has shifted. "It's a flawed policy wrapped in an illusion" is how Representative Jack Murtha--a 37 year Marine corps veteran--described the Iraq quagmire. In an emotional speech, this most hawkish of hawks, said that it is time for the war to end and for the troops to come home. Murtha also blasted Vice-President Cheney ("five-deferment Dick") for his distort, distract and divide attacks against opponents of this war.

What next? Hayden lays out what needs to be done to bring this war to a speedy end.

Senate Strands Bush in Iraq by Tom Hayden

Congress finally got the message and began its own withdrawal from the Bush war policies this week, after many months of silent paralysis. On Wednesday I met with a staffer involved for three months in "slow, painful" internal Senate negotiations which had resulted in the murky bipartisan resolution passed with 79 votes the day before. The Washington Post headline summarized it well: "Senate Presses for Concrete Steps Toward Drawdown of Troops in Iraq." Would there be follow-up?, I asked the longtime insider. "I doubt it, because it took so much to get even to this point," was the reply. It would be "premature" to expect much more in the short term, I was advised.

The aide was wrong. The Senate may have been exhausted for the moment, but in the next 24 hours:

**Nineteen House members attended a press conference to endorse various resolutions to end funding (McGovern) or set withdrawal timetables (Abercrombie-Jones).

**The once-hardline Rep. Jane Harman advocated an exit strategy proposal in a Capitol Hill publication.

**Rep. John Murtha stunned the pundit class by advocating a six-month withdrawal, too much for Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi.

**In the previous few days, Sen. John Kerry and former senators John Edwards and Tom Daschle stepped up their calls for a withdrawal plan.

It is much too early to predict a flood, but the ice age has ended in Washington. It is a time reminiscent of Watergate, when the US intervention in Vietnam collapsed as the White House was weakened by scandals arising from its covert operations against the antiwar movement.

The strategy of "Iraqization" seems finished except as a figleaf. The new Iraqi constitution, which damages the interests of Sunnis and women, barely passed amid widespread accusations of voter fraud. Then came the discovery of the Saddam-style torture chamber operated by Shiite militias under cover of the Iraqi army. The discredited Ahmad Chalabi brazenly flirted with high US officials about returning to power. If US and British troops redeploy, it is hard to imagine the Iraqi army standing up against the Iraqi resistance.

Reeling from internal turmoil, scandals and declining poll numbers, the White House has lost its sound bite. When Bush and Cheney accused Democrats of changing their minds, as if they should continue to embrace fabricated evidence, Murtha blasted Cheney as a five-deferment Dick.

The media's humiliating wartime collaboration with the Bush Administration, shown last week by the New York Times' dismissal of Judith Miller, was underscored anew by revelations that Bob Woodward, considered a media "god" according to the Washington Post, had kept from his own editors his secret interviews with White House officials about Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame.

These were dizzying, stupifying role reversals. The former hawks were calling for peace! The former investigative reporters were keeping state secrets! And of course it all was defined as an inside game of jockeying among the powerful, when in fact it was the outside pressure of thousands of activists, letter-writers, marchers, door-knockers, bloggers, anti-recruiters, quakers, code pinkers, moveon.niks and angry military families who were the motors turning the fans that blew the wind.

Those at the top can't cope with the idea that movements with an outside game are capable of upsetting the future that the inside elites have planned. It's as hard for them as for pigs seeing what they are stepping in. So in explaining the sudden Congressional shift, Dan Balz of the Post made eight references to "public opinion" without a single acknowledgement of organized public opinion. Balz notes "growing public frustration" (twice), "public anxiety," "increasingly unhappy" constituents, and quotes Sen. John Warner as "'not unmindful' of widespread unease in public opinion."

It is a moment for antiwar activists to claim some measure of success, after many months of pounding against the walls of war.

But progress has a painful price. Americans and Iraqis continue to die everyday in a widely-rejected war, and not a single American soldier has been withdrawn. While the antiwar talk in Washington is a welcome development, it is also prompted by an incumbent desire to lull the public into trusting their leaders during an election year. According to one insider, the official debate "has now shifted to how to get out of Iraq" because "that is where the public is, and the senators were making sure that were on the right side of the political debate."

The question is how the invisible antiwar movement can intervene to make the politicians keep up their forced march out of Iraq. The Nation magazine, in an historic front-cover editorial, has one suggestion for starters: refuse to support any candidate in either party unless they commit to a speedy end to this war. In an election year promising to be relatively competitive, that's a message any candidate can hear.

Cheney Picks a Fight With a Marine

When Dick Cheney, a Wyoming congressman who had never served in the military and who had failed during his political career to gain much respect from those who wore the uniform he had worked so hard to avoid putting on during the Vietnam War, was selected in 1989 by former President George Herbert Walker Bush to serve as Secretary of Defense, he had a credibility problem. Lacking in the experience and the connections required to effectively take charge of the Pentagon in turbulent times, he turned to a House colleague, Pennsylvania Democrat John Murtha, a decorated combat veteran whose hawkish stances on military matters had made him a favorite of the armed services. "I'm going to need a lot of help," Cheney told Murtha. "I don't know a blankety-blank thing about defense."

Murtha, a retired Marine colonel who earned a chest full of medals during the Vietnam fight and who has often broken with fellow Democrats to back U.S. military interventions abroad -- most notably in Latin America, where Murtha often supported former President Ronald Reagan's controversial policies regarding El Salvador and Nicaragua in the 1980s -- gave that assistance.

During both the first and second Bush administrations he emerged as a key ally -- often, the most important Democratic ally -- of the Republican presidents. Cheney frequently acknowledged their long working relationship, describing Murtha in public statements as a Democrat he could "work with."

In the 2004 vice presidential debate, Cheney noted that, "One of my strongest allies in Congress when I was Secretary of Defense was Jack Murtha, a Democrat who is chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee." The vice president was particularly complimentary over the years of the Pennsylvania representatives decision to provide high-profile backing of the administration's 2002 request for authorization to use force against Iraq.

But the cross-party relationship has soured as Murtha, whose concern has always been first and foremost for the men and women who serve in the military, has reached the conclusion that the Iraq intervention has steered U.S. troops into a quagmire from which they must be extracted. Typically blunt, Murtha said this week: "The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring (the troops) home."

Cheney's response to the man he begged to help him understand military affairs during the first Bush administration was to rip into Murtha and other Democrats who had tried to work with the administration. "Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorising force against Saddam Hussein," the vice president growled in a speech to the conservative Frontiers of Freedom Institute. In another clear reference to Murtha, Cheney said, "The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone -- but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history."

Of course, it is not Murtha but Cheney who is rewriting history -- or, at least, attempting to obscure it.

As Murtha noted, he's the one who put on a Marine uniform, took his shots in Vietnam and went on to a long career of working with and defending the military, while Cheney is the one who did everything in his power to avoid serving in southeast Asia and has never been seen as a friend of the men and women who actually fight the wars the vice president so shamelessly -- and disingenuously -- promotes. "I like guys who got five deferments and (have) never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done," said Murtha, referencing the vice president's long record of draft avoidance in the 1960s.

The clearest evidence that Cheney still does not "get it" when it comes to defense policy is his decision to take on Jack Murtha.The draft dodger who not all that many years ago admitted that he "(didn't) know a blankety-blank thing about defense" will come to regret picking a fight with the Marine he called in to help him understand military matters.

An expanded paperback edition of John Nichols' biography of Vice President Dick Cheney, The Rise and Rise of Richard B. Cheney: Unlocking the Mysteries of the Most Powerful Vice President in American History (The New Press: 2005), is available nationwide at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com. The book features an exclusive interview with Joe Wilson and a chapter on the vice president's use and misuse of intelligence. Publisher's Weekly describes the book as "a Fahrenheit 9/11 for Cheney" and Esquire magazine says it "reveals the inner Cheney."

Who Was Woodward's Source?

This week, Bob Woodward didn't break a story. He entered the story. On Wednesday, The Washington Post, Woodward's home base, disclosed that two days earlier the nation's most prominent reporter had given a sworn deposition to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. According to a statement issued by Woodward, the week after Fitzgerald indicted Scooter Libby, Fitzgerald asked Woodward to come in for a chat--under oath. What had happened was that a senior administration official had recently revealed to Fitzgerald that in mid-June 2003--a month before conservative columnist Bob Novak published the administration leak that outed Valerie Wilson as an undercover CIA official--this Bush official had told Woodward that Valerie Wilson worked for the CIA as a WMD analyst. (The official apparently has not permitted Woodward to disclose his or her name publicly.) This revelation changes the chronology of the leak case. Previously, Libby's June 23, 2003 conversation with New York Times reporter Judith Miller was the first known instance of a Bush administration official telling a reporter about former ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife and her employment at the CIA. Now, it turns out, another top administration figure shared this classified information with Woodward a week or so earlier.

Yet another round of Plamegate guessing has exploded. Who wasWoodward's source? Was this person Novak's original source? (As of now, only the second of Novak's two sources--Karl Rove--has been fingered.) Why did Woodward sit on this information and not even tell the editor of his paper about this conversation until late last month? (Woodward has apologized to Post executive editor Len Downie Jr.) Did Woodward's possession of this inside information prompt him to criticize the leak investigation repeatedly on talk shows? Was he putting down Fitzgerald to protect or curry favor with one of his insider sources? Will this have any impact on the case against Libby?

As for the big who-is-it question, no sooner had the speculating begun that several obvious suspects denied being Woodward's source. An unnamed administration official quickly told The New York Times that neither Bush, White House chief of staff Andrew Card Jr, nor White House aide Dan Bartlett had spilled this secret to Woodward. Spokespeople for Colin Powell, former CIA chief George Tenet and former CIA director John McLaughlin did the same. (By the way, how can an administration official issue such a denial when the White House position is that it will not comment on the leak case while the investigation remains open?) A lawyer for Rove said that Rove was not the one. (Rove only talked about Wilson's wife with Novak--supposedly as Novak's second source--and Time's Matt Cooper.) As the Times noted--slyly?--"Mr. Cheney did not join the parade of denials." Nor, it seemed, did Richard Armitage, who was deputy secretary of state under Powell.

After these denials came out, a smart columnist called me and asked isn't it now clear the available evidence indicates that Cheney, who was previously interviewed by Fitzgerald, was Woodward's source and that Libby had lied to prevent Cheney from being charged with perjury. Not necessarily, I replied. It's worth noting that, according to the Libby indictment, when Cheney told Libby on June 12, 2003, that Wilson's wife was in the CIA, he said she worked at the Counterproliferation Division, which is part of directorate of operations (aka the DO), the clandestine portion of the CIA. Woodward claims that his source described her as a WMD analyst. The difference in the terminology might be significant. Then again, it might not be. It's also hard to imagine Cheney approaching Fitzgerald and conceding anything, even if he was worried about Libby flipping (and there have been signs of that). But if Cheney--who had been collecting information on Wilson's wife apart from what Libby was doing--did tell a reporterabout Valerie Wilson (particularly after finding out she worked in the DO, where most employees are undercover), that would be a rather dramatic shift in the leak saga. [UPDATE: On Thursday night, the Associated Press reported that a "person familiar with the investigation" said that Cheney was not Woodward's source. Richard Armitage, look out. CNN is reporting that a spokesperson for Armitage said "no comment" when asked if Armitage was Woodward's source--which makes Armitage the only person on the Official Speculation List who has not yet denied it.