Greg Sargent

Recent Articles

BUSH'S WARS: MORE...

BUSH'S WARS: MORE EXPENSIVE THAN VIETNAM. Now here's a way Dems can argue against a possible war with Iran. Not long ago, during this site's informal debate about how Dems should handle the Iran question, Ezra rightly suggested that Dems level with Americans about the cost -- human and monetary -- of Iraq and potentially of Iran. Now we have new info that helps us make that case -- on the financial end, anyway -- in a devastatingly simple and convincing way. Check out the Washington Post article about a new Congressional Research Service study of war costs that Matt flagged below. From the piece: When factoring in costs of the war in Afghanistan, the $811 billion total for both wars would have far exceeded the inflation-adjusted $549 billion cost of the Vietnam War. ( Emphasis added. ) Bush is set to spend more on his wars than the cost of the entire Vietnam War. Yes, yes, I know, adjusted for inflation. Still, that was clearly the news in the CRS report. The Post buried the lede...

"AUTHENTICITY" ACT PROVIDES...

"AUTHENTICITY" ACT PROVIDES COVER FOR PANDERING TO THE RIGHT. Kevin Drum aptly observes that the press corps shouldn't allow itself to be snookered by George Allen 's authenticity schtick the way it got snowed by John McCain 's rendition of the same act back in 2000. Let me add another point about this. The key to this game, as practiced by Allen, McCain and George Bush , is that it has a pernicious underside: The "regular-guy" schtick is crucial partly because it provides cover for the politician in question to pander relentlessly to the right. Here is some of what Crooks and Liars offers as a transcript of Allen speaking on Hardball : The thing that's good about Tony Snow is that being on talk radio ... he bring[s] the pulse of people in the real world to the White House, understanding how people react to it and whether they are on Rush Limbaugh's show or Hugh Hewitt's show or Laura Ingraham's show or who knows who, the Sean Hannity's or any other radio show -- the fact that he...

A QUESTION ABOUT...

A QUESTION ABOUT KARL ROVE'S SELF-DEFENSE. Can anyone explain this? Here's how today's Washington Post described part of the testimony that Karl Rove offered yesterday: Rove's testimony focused almost exclusively on his conversation about Plame with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in 2003 and whether the top aide later tried to conceal it, the source said. Rove testified, in essence, that "it would have been a suicide mission" to "deliberately lie" about his conversation with Cooper because he knew beforehand that it eventually would be revealed , the source said. ( Emphasis added. ) But wait. At the time of his earlier testimony -- the testimony being examined by Patrick Fitzgerald -- Rove is supposed to have forgotten about his conversation with Cooper. In other words, he was then supposedly unaware that it had happened. So how could he have at that time worried that it would eventually be revealed , as he reportedly said yesterday? If he didn't remember it having occurred at...

MORE DELAYING TACTICS...

MORE DELAYING TACTICS ON IRAQ INTEL PROBE FROM PAT ROBERTS. Senator Pat Roberts is so determined to delay a real probe into the Bush administration's prewar deceptions that he's breaking the promises he makes in his own press releases. On March 14, Roberts, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, put out a press release that purported to lay out a timetable for the committee's ongoing probe. One of Roberts' key promises in the release was that on April 5 -- over three weeks ago -- a preliminary draft of the probe into the "public statements" section of the investigation would be delivered to committee members. This would be a very important step. That's because the "statements" section is the most critical and controversial part of the ongoing "Phase II" of this probe -- it's supposed to investigate White House conduct, i.e. , whether prewar public statements were supported by intelligence. From Roberts' release: April 5, 2006 - Preliminary draft on �statements� section of Phase...

YET ANOTHER DELAY...

YET ANOTHER DELAY IN PROBING BUSH'S PREWAR DECEPTIONS. Can this be true? From The Hill : Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), who chairs the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said he wants to divide his panel�s inquiry into the Bush administration�s handling of Iraq-related intelligence into two parts, a move that would push off its most politically controversial elements to a later time.... An aide to Sen. Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), the panel�s ranking Democrat, said that Democrats are aware Roberts is mulling a decision on whether to divide the inquiry and that Rockefeller is unlikely to oppose such a move if Roberts goes through with it . But one Democrat who has followed the probe said separating the controversial elements would relieve pressure on Roberts to complete the entire inquiry soon... Roberts would like to wrap up work quickly on three relatively less controversial topics of the second phase of the inquiry... Left unfinished would be a report on whether public statements and...

Pages