A Blue View

"Justice Department decision on terror memos sparks legal debate"

Yesterday's decision by one set of Obama Justice Dept lawyers that Bush Admin Lawyers Used "Flawed Reasoning" On Torture But Weren't Guilty Of Professional Misconduct (and which also overturned a previous set of Obama Justice Dept lawyers' decision) is, not surprisingly, generating controversy. The Wash Post:

A Justice Department decision to reject sanctions against Bush-era lawyers who approved harsh treatment of terrorism suspects provoked a heated exchange among legal experts Saturday over whether the lawyers' actions had constituted unethical conduct or violated professional standards.

Analysts divided bitterly on that question, but the torrent of commentary, unleashed by a senior department official's decision to discard the recommendations of ethics investigators in the case of John C. Yoo and Jay S. Bybee, underscored the murkiness of disciplining lawyers.

Even the ruling, written by Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis and made public Friday, pointed to the malleability of the law and judgments about legal ethics.

"In the hands of capable attorneys, virtually every fact cuts both ways," Margolis wrote. He noted that the two sides -- lawyers defending Yoo and Bybee and ethics investigators -- had accused each other of the same faulty reasoning and preordained bias, and that ethics investigators had repeatedly shifted their own analysis during the course of the probe.

Advocates on both ends of the political spectrum continued to make their case Saturday, with conservatives praising the Margolis decision as a righteous vindication for the government employees, who strained to reach quick legal decisions with the nation's security seemingly on the line after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist strikes.

"Analyzing the quality of legal products out of context is utterly ridiculous," said David B. Rivkin Jr., a former Justice Department and White House lawyer for Republican administrations.

In contrast, Yale University law professor Jack M. Balkin summed up his thoughts in an online posting titled "Justice Department will not punish Yoo and Bybee because most lawyers are scum anyway."

"It's not about what people should do, but about how badly they have to screw things up before they are subject to professional sanctions," Balkin wrote. "This is how the American legal profession simultaneously polices and takes care of its own."

At issue are the sometimes vague standards for professional competence that lawyers must meet. Watchdogs generally focus on basic concepts, such as meeting deadlines and protecting clients' money, four experts said. Rarely, the experts said, are lawyers scrutinized for judgment calls, such as how broadly the constitution and legal precedent inhibit presidential authority, a question that was at the heart of the Yoo and Bybee memos ...

The Brilliance Of Shinseki For Veterans Affairs

From James Fallows:

Barack Obama is all about bipartisanship, conciliation, binding up wounds, and so forth. Great! If only more presidents saw things that way.

But in his choice of Eric Shinseki as Secretary of Veterans Affairs, there is also an extremely refined aspect of sticking in the shiv.

Whenever he talks about this selection, Obama (plus his lieutenants) can describe it completely, sufficiently, and strictly in the most bipartisan high-road terms. They have selected a wounded combat veteran; a proven military leader and manager; a model of personal dignity and nonpartisan probity: an unimpeachable choice. Symbolic elements? If people want them, they can work with Shinseki's status as (to my recollection at the moment) the first Asian-American in a military-related cabinet position, not to mention a Japanese-American honored for lifelong military service on Pearl Harbor Day.

As for the other symbolic element -- that Obama is elevating the man who was right, when Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, et al were so catastrophically wrong -- that is something that neither Obama nor anyone around him need say out loud, ever. The nomination is like a hyper-precision missile, or what is known in politics as a "dog whistle." The people for whom this is a complete slap in the face don't need to be told that. They know -- and know that others know it too. So do the people for whom it is vindication. And all without Obama descending for one second from his bring-us-together higher plane.

The artistry here is remarkable. Along with the inspired nature of this choice.

UPDATE: I see from the MTP webcast that Tom Brokaw directly asked Obama about Shinseki's disagreement with Rumsfeld, and Obama said of his new nominee, "he was right." Consistent with the argument above, that's as much as he ever needs to say.

More from Fallows on the choice here and here.

A Veteran's View Of McCain's Lack Of Support

Vets, You & Your Family Count

The Cancelled Troop Visit NonIssue

From the NY Times:

For four days, Senator John McCain has sought to keep alive a story about how Senator Barack Obama called off a visit to American troops recuperating from war wounds at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany ...

Michael J. Durant, a retired Army soldier, said in a statement released by the McCain campaign. “That Barack Obama believes otherwise casts serious doubt on his judgment and calls into question his priorities.” Mr. Durant said the stop “was canceled after it became clear that campaign staff and the traveling press corps would not be allowed to accompany Senator Obama.”

That assertion is not correct, Mr. Obama’s advisers say. Before his visit to Ramstein Air Base, which is near the medical center, was canceled, the plan called for reporters to stay behind at an airport terminal while Mr. Obama and one adviser met with the troops. Why? The Pentagon does not allow reporters and photographers inside Landstuhl.

For weeks, Mr. Obama had been planning to visit wounded troops in Germany, just as he did in Afghanistan last week and previously had done at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington. Yet the Landstuhl visit carried more risk because it was to come in the middle of an overseas campaign trip.

Robert Gibbs, a senior strategist for the campaign, said Mr. Obama thought he could carry out the visit without being perceived as politicizing it. But two days before the visit, Pentagon officials told the campaign that only Mr. Obama would be allowed inside the medical center in his capacity as a senator. The adviser who had intended to join Mr. Obama, Scott Gration, a retired major general in the Air Force, was told he could not go along because he was a volunteer campaign adviser.

The Increasing Desperation Of McCain

Here his McCain's new TV ad:

And here is Joe Klein's reaction to it:

[The ad] is the sort of thing you put on the air when:

1. You're desperate.
2. Your Middle East policy has been superseded by events and abandoned by your allies.
3. You apparently have nothing substantive to say about America's future role in the region and the world.

If you watched both Obama and McCain on the morning shows today, you saw one candidate who was at ease, confident but not flawless (Obama's answer on the Surge still seems too grudging), and another who was tense and almost entirely negative. There used to be another John McCain--charming, open, unpredictable. I wonder where he went; the McCain who appeared on the air today seemed too much a scold, too little a statesman.

New VoteVets Ad

From VoteVets.org:

Senator McCain once said that if the Iraqis asked us to leave, we would have to leave. Those of us who served agree with that. Senator McCain now either has to back off his refusal to set a plan to leave Iraq, as Prime Minister Maliki requested a number of times in the past week, or tell the American and Iraqi people why he would overrule Iraq's government and turn our troops into an indefinite occupying force. Those are his only two options. Our new ad makes that clear.

Click Here to Donate to help keep ads like this on the air!

Watch The MSM Distort & Twist What Wes Clark Said

A very revealing montage on the The Wes Clark Brouhaha that starts with what Wes Clark actually said and goes on to show how it's distorted to generate controversy (and viewers). A pretty damning indictment of the media:

The Columbia Journalism Review has a critical analysis of what the media is doing (or more specifically, not doing):

The McCain camp, sensing an opportunity, complained that Clark had “attacked John McCain’s military service record.” Of course, Clark had done nothing of the kind. He had questioned the relevance of McCain’s combat experience as a qualification to be president of the United States. This is a distinction that you’d expect any reasonably intelligent nine-year old to be able to grasp. But many in the press have been unable to ...

This is the perfect embodiment of the press’s unbelievably destructive habit of assessing every piece of campaign rhetoric for its political acuity, rather than for its validity and accuracy. Clark’s comments may (or may not) have been impolitic. But that has no bearing on their validity or lack thereof—which is how the news media should be evaluating them ...

It’s crucially important that we have a political debate in this country that’s at least sophisticated enough to be able to handle the following rather basic idea: Arguing that a person’s record of military service is not a qualification for the presidency does not constitute “attacking” their military credentials; nor can it be described as invoking their military service against them, or as denying their record of war heroism.

That’s not a very high bar for sophistication. But right now it’s one the press isn’t capable of clearing.

The Wes Clark Brouhaha

It's funny how the MSM is all in a lather over what Wes Clark said ...doesn't it seem like they're reading straight from the GOP playbook on this? I think Clark's point about honoring McCain's military service while stating that the service is not sufficient experience for being President is a respectful, valid point.

First here is Wes Clark defending himself:

Yesterday, Obama said Clark does not need to apologize:

Then he said McCain's military service is honorable & beyond debate:

Finally, here's a Keith Olbermann piece that sums it all up:

Unbelievable! McCain Now Takes Credit for GI Bill He Opposed

From SusanG:

Not only did John McCain miss the vote on Webb's GI bill, he actively opposed it as overly generous.

But little things like facts don't get in the way of McCain.

Today [27 Jun], in Ohio:

I'm happy to tell you that we probably agreed to an increase in educational benefits for our veterans that not only gives them  increase in their educational benefits, but if they stay in for a certain period of time than they can transfer those educational benefits to their spouses and or children. That's a very important aspect I think of incentivizing people of staying in the military.

Then again, maybe he just forgot his previous stand.

Obama On Veterans

Barack Obama on the obligation we have to our veterans on matching our actions to our rhetoric.  At a pancake breakfast in Sioux Falls, SD.

Best Take On McCain's Hypocrisy On The GI Bill

Not surprisingly, it's from the Daily Show (starting at about the 1:45 mark):

Turns out, however, that Jon (like nearly everyone else) made a mistake in his assumptions.  As Slate's Trailhead points out, the new GI Bill is not neutral but a big win on enlistment:

This is true. The CBO analysis (PDF) does predict that the proposed educational benefits "would result in a 16 percent increase in recruits" while estimating a "16 percent decline in the reenlistment rate, from about 42 percent to about 36 percent" (emphasis mine).

The problem is, the "16 percents" aren’t necessarily equal. You need to know the underlying numbers of recruits and re-enlistments to know whether, as the Times claims, the two figures "offset" each other.

The CBO estimate concluded that the 16 percent increase in recruitment would add an additional 30,000 recruits annually, while a 16 percent decline in re-enlistment would result in 7,000 fewer re-enlistments annually. In other words, new recruits would greatly outnumber soldiers who decline to re-enlist. These numbers make the New York Times case—and Barack Obama’s—even stronger than they thought.

VoteVets Goes After McCain

Following up on the earlier post, Is There A Crack In McCain's Base ... With Vets?, here's a new ad  targeting McCain from VoteVets: