Republicans charged yesterday that Minority Leader Harry Reid was wrong to mention on the Senate floor "a problem" he said is in a Bush nominee's "confidential report from the FBI" as grounds for keeping him off the federal bench.
"He shouldn't be pulling this kind of stunt," said Sen. George Allen, Virginia Republican. "It is not civil, it is unfair, it is hitting below the belt, and it does ultimately show how desperate the democratic leadership is in the United State Senate."
2: Right Wing bloggers assume the most tendentious possible motivation, and prescribe the most harsh possible punishment for Reid:
Captain'sQuarters: "I believe Harry Reid cowardly chose a way in which to smear Henry Saad that would not allow anyone to defend him. Reid should not just be censured by the Senate as a whole, but stripped of his leadership post and his committee assignments. Let him serve the rest of his term as a member at large, gathering dust on the back benches of the Senate, where he can live with his cowardice and his despicable acts."
Michelle Malkin: "Needless to say, if a Republican Senator had pulled this kind of stunt, the ACLU and privocrats would be screaming bloody hell."
WizBangBlog: "Democrats who loudly trumpeted that there was a bipartisan call for investigation into the Valerie Plame affair ... should join us in calling for a Congressional investigation into Reid's reprehensible use of classified information to slander a judicial nominee."
Powerline: "Harry Reid...did the previously unthinkable: he slandered a judicial nominee by referring to a "problem" disclosed in the nominee's confidential FBI file—without, of course, referring to what the "problem" might be. This is really breathtaking; did Joe McCarthy ever stray this far over the line? Not that I can recall."
JunkyardBlog: "Reid should be censured and punished, and possibly expelled from the Senate. His smear based on FBI files should not be allowed to stand."
3: Left Wing Blogs—having assumed the most tendentious possible motivation in the Plame affair—rally to mock the Right Wing blogs for, er, assuming the worst.
Daily Kos: "The GOP Machine: Thieves, Hacks and Shills
MyDD: "The right wing was looking for anything to smear Reid with during this filibuster fight, and it put a lot of effort behind promoting this bullshit story"
The Republicans and Righty Bloggers are liars, you see, because Senators, including Republican Orrin Hatch, had already mentioned the elements of Saad's FBI file almost a year ago...
Levin and Stabenow testified Thursday during the private meeting. They said before the meeting that they would discuss information from Saad's FBI background check that raised doubts about his ability to serve, but they wouldn't elaborate. ... Hatch said after the meeting that no new charges were levied against Saad. 'The allegations were pro and con, but mostly pro,' Hatch said.
Huzzah! Reid didn't "out" potentially negative information in Saad's FBI file, because other Senators had already mentioned it! Therefore, the Righties must be lying, because....er....clearly they knew that (Democratic Senators) Levin and Stabenow had mentioned this last year. Right? I mean, who doesn't follow the minutes of every judicial committee meeting? And besides, Orrin Hatch said that there were allegations that were "con"....clearly, despite not actually referring to it in the statement produced, he must have been referring to the FBI file, and not, let's just say, the allegations that were being made against Saad to hold up his confirmation. Right? I mean, what other explanation could there possibly be.
[sigh] The Blogosphere, at its most partisan and foolish.
Look, aside from the tendentious sillines, there are two interesting components to this story:
Did Orrin Hatch's "The allegations were pro and con, but mostly pro" statement consitute a reference to Saad's FBI file, or were there complementary comments made by Hatch that did so? Will the right side of the 'sphere throw him on the "investigate right now" bonfire?
Despite the fact that Saad's FBI file was previously (explicitly) mentioned by Senators Levin and Stabenow, the file has not been declassified. Does Senator Reid's statement that "All you need to do is have a member go upstairs and look at his confidential report from the FBI and I think you would all agree that there's a problem there" represent personal knowledge of classified information, or did it merely represent his awareness of the already-public information? If the former, and since he is not authorized to see the file, how did he become aware of the "problem"? If the latter, how did he become aware that the classified file previously discussed was "a problem"?
Ultimately, we have the Right (which found quite a lot of plausible alternative solutions during the Plame Affair) assuming the worst possible motivations of a Democrat—and calling for harsh punishments—when a far simpler, less conspiratorial, less sinister assumption would do.
And we have the Left (which accepted nothing short of treason to explain the Plame Affair) calling the Right "liars, etc" for making that assumption of Reid, while not being aware of a vanishingly insignificant year-old comment that bore little resemblemce, but was spoken by a Republican. Oh, and they're not particularly interested in getting to the bottom of this particular breach of classified information.
That's the blogosphere: A Noise Machine that's tremendously capable of finding information...and apparently incapable of being nonpartisan with it.
No where does the letter mention Reid, but the "leak" brings Reid into the story, not Orin Hatch who has also spoke on this.
Well, of course the "leak" mentions Reid. Reid's statement occurred yesterday, whereas the others (Hatch, Levin & Stabenow) happened one year ago.
It's also worth mentioning that Orrin Hatch's statement ("Hatch said after the meeting") does not appear to have referred to the FBI files, while Levin/Stabenow's statement ("[Levin and Stabenow"] said before the meeting that they would discuss information from Saad's FBI background check that raised doubts about his ability to serve) did so explicitly.
A less tendentious read would be this: Senators are notoriously loose-lipped, and—during extemporaneous speech—Senators Levin, Stabenow, Reid and possibly Hatch were all guilty of breaching the confidentiality of classified files. They should be publicly reminded of it.
Did John Hinderaker really write that Reid's statement was worse than anything McCarthy did? ["did Joe McCarthy ever stray this far over the line? Not that I can recall."] Yes, he did. How insufferably ridiculous.
The term "Right Wing Noise Machine" has been gaining steam on the Left. Daily Kos, Atrios, Oliver Willis, etc. Ironically, at some point during complaining about the "noise machine", they've actually managed to become one.
Outrage can be a finely tuned tool to help a special interest group frame stories and manipulate public opinion, the media and politicians. Stories like this drive home my fear that the blogosphere will merely end up being one big Noise Machine—a spontaneously organized Oppo Research team of millions.
It may be less "sinister" and less "conspiratorial" to suggest that Reid was merely babbling; that he had no real idea that even most Senators can’t look over the file as he suggested; or that making vague assertions of incompetence based on documents that must remain secret, is outrageous. Since that requires just as much guesswork and mindreading as allegations that he knew full well what he was doing, I don’t see why it’s "simpler". Or why there should be a presumption of noncoherence and noncompetence when the appointed spokesman of either party makes such statements, from the floor, for the record, unless somehow we prove deliberation.
You make a good point and do it very well. I have no quarrel with anything in your post, per se. I do have a nit to pick about your choice of a proper time to present such a post. One of the things that I see happening quite frequently these days is someone stepping up to the plate to decry both sides of a situation. Usually the piece makes a very decent stand and chides both sides about excesses – very like your post. Remember the western movie where the good (too) old sheriff shows up at the crossing after the evil rancher has taken the hero’s cattle across the river onto his land? The good old sheriff holds up the law-abiding hero and counsels him to settle down and to avoid bloodshed and “trouble” – seemingly ignorant of the fact that the evil rancher has started the trouble and will get away with it if the sheriff doesn’t get the hell out of the way and let the hero put things right. Judging just from the information in your post, four Democrats clearly against the appointment of Judge Saad, have breached the confidentiality of the FBI files and JUST MAYBE one Republican. Then you state: “A less tendentious read would be this: Senators are notoriously loose-lipped, and—during extemporaneous speech—Senators Levin, Stabenow, Reid and possibly Hatch were all guilty of breaching the confidentiality of classified files. They should be publicly reminded of it.” Clearly a version of: “Now, come on boys, both sides are clearly overheated and we need to smooth this over before someone gets into trouble. So go home a sleep it off and we’ll forget the whole thing.” This speech given after the gang of bad guys have unfairly beaten the hell out of the hero after catching him alone in the saloon. Yes, your take would certainly be less tendentious. It’s just that, like the sheriff in the western cliches above, you look a little silly dragging poor Senator Hatch in to make your law and order speech seem appropriate for this point in time. And the over-all effect of your comments is not non-partisan at all. Or it may just be me being too conservative again in evaluating the timing of your post.
One small item in favor of the Republicans: Orrin Hatch is a member of the Judiciary Committee. In other words, he has the legal right to be looking at the FBI file in the first place. He shouldn’t be talking about it, but at least he can legally read about it.
Reid doesn’t even have the right to know what’s in the file, let alone talk about it.
On the one hand it surprises me that they make such a big deal out of things like this, whether its left or right perpetrating the foolish behavior. A leftist congressman engages in an impropriety and the right gets bent out of shape. And ditto if it’s a congressman on the right. These are, afterall, politicians. Their behavior has very little to do with common sense or what’s best for the country. It’s all about personal and political gain. It’s all about getting re-elected. I wish there were an alternate country to flee to where government isn’t all-encompassing. The US used to be that country. But now it’s a leftist mess of thieves and sycophants just like any other socialist "utopia".
On the other hand, this is how it’s always been, so why would I expect anything else?
Sounds like kind of a copout on the issue. There is no way to be "non-partisian" about this. Reid either did something inappropriate (or if he was alerted to the info by the homestate senators, THEY did something inappropriate or he did not.
If he did, taking this above-it-all approach only aids and abets him and his goals. If he did not, you only aid those who would impugn him wrongly.
I enjoyed your comments, because I too get sated with the wrangling. But the "why can’t we all get along?" refrain really doesn’t work. I’m thinking that Reid is shrewd enough to know what he’s doing. It is all very partisan, and to report it otherwise would be to misrepresent the games being played. I did link your post, because the warning that the blogosphere will turn into a giant echo chamber resonates....or echos or something.. anyway it’s NOISY in here and I can’t think!
There seem to be two basic themes to the comments here, so I’ll address a representative sentence for each theme:
1: "Reid doesn’t even have the right to know what’s in the file, let alone talk about it."
Well, you and I don’t have the right to know what’s in the file, either, but we’re talking about it. Is that equally illegal? No. It’s not, because we’re only talking about what we’ve heard in the public domain. It’s not entirely clear that Senator Reid is doing any more than that. It’s been publicly known for about a year that there is potentially negative information in Saad’s file. Reid has the legal right to mention that. He does not have the legal right to view the file, or to mention confidential information, but it’s not really clear that he has seen the file, or that he’s doing anything more than what we are doing in discussing information in the public realm.
Of course, the release of information one year ago would appear to be a different matter. Though, it’s curious that nobody questioned it at the time.
2: "you look a little silly dragging poor Senator Hatch in to make your law and order speech seem appropriate for this point in time"
Well, Hatch did speak of "con" information during the initial (and apparently illegal) release of information from his file. If that was his only statement, I’d tend to think that it doesn’t represent anything illegal, as it doesn’t appear that he mentioned the FBI file at all, but I’d be curious to know if his remarks went beyond that single sentence.
Broadly, I think the Left is accusing Hatch of far more than his remark justifies, but if there’s a need to investigate Reid, then it certainly doesn’t seem unreasonable to include Hatch’s commentary from the time in that investigation.
Finally, I think the Right is going way too far in automatically assuming that Reid’s comments were 1) illegal, and 2) intended as a "smear". It’s quite reasonable to assume that, in discussing negative public information, Reid merely intended to, you know, mention that there was negative public information. This is hardly outside the lines, though it could have crossed them depending on the access he had to the file.
Finally, I think the Right is going way too far in automatically assuming that Reid’s comments were 1) illegal, and 2) intended as a "smear". It’s quite reasonable to assume that, in discussing negative public information, Reid merely intended to, you know, mention that there was negative public information.
Yes, given Reids history of rhetoric and actions, you’re probably right to give him the benefit of the doubt
I’d like to add the "pox on both their houses"-style commentary as part of the "worst of the blogsphere".
Don’t agree that both houses deserve a pox? If you don’t think so, I’d suggest that you’re as ridiculously partisan as Kos, Atrios and the kool-aid drinkers on the Left.
Don’t agree that both houses deserve a pox? If you don’t think so, I’d suggest that you’re as ridiculously partisan as Kos, Atrios and the kool-aid drinkers on the Left.
Actually, of course we all agree to that. To me, it’s a fact that it’s taken as a given.
So why waste time on it? It just seems like a copout to see an issue, state "a pox on both their houses" and move along.
The "They All Do It" defense, sounds rather Clintonian, and I’d have thought you above such, Jon.
Are there fouls from each side? Of course there are... but not nearly at the same depth or frequency, and your statements seem to suggest equality, there. THere is none.
SHARK: Actually, of course we all agree to that. To me, it’s a fact that it’s taken as a given. So why waste time on it?
Ah, good. I like you, and I’d hoped you weren’t so blind to the Republicans equivalence that you’d deny it. Why do I spend time on it? Because I think it’s worthwhile to be critical of those who deserve criticism. And, now and then, I think an interesting point can be made of it.
BITHEAD: Are there fouls from each side? Of course there are... but not nearly at the same depth or frequency, and your statements seem to suggest equality, there. THere is none.
..."Henry Saad would have been filibustered anyway," Mr. Reid said on the floor yesterday, about the Michigan Appeals Court judge who is nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.
"All you need to do is have a member go upstairs and look at his confidential report from the FBI, and I think we would all agree that there is a problem there," Mr. Reid continued.
I don’t see how there’s any ambiguity as to his reference to the FBI file. Or that by urging other Senators to read it, that he had accessed it himself.
....look at his confidential report from the FBI, and I think we would all agree that there is a problem there," Mr. Reid continued.
So what the devil could be in such a report that would preclude an already sitting judge to not be qualified for a different judgeship? And why would such a piece of information be confidential? (This has nothing to do with Senator Reid; I’m wondering just what the hell is in that report.)
The allegation in the file—which *was* brought forward long ago...remember, this story started last year—apparently stems from an email Saad sent regarding the Democrats obstruction. He said something about a politician "paying the price" for it.
The Democrats are taking an awfully tendentious reading of what was very clearly a reference to political consequences.
Jon— Kudos for a another smart piece. Some of the commenters here seem not to recognize the shrewdness of your post, which bolsters your credibility among those who are not "true believers". It doesn’t mean you’re a fence-sitter, but it does mean your knee doesn’t jerk you around too much. I respect that, even though I happen (surprise!) to agree with the Kossacks etc. on this one.
The allegation in the file—which *was* brought forward long ago...remember, this story started last year—apparently stems from an email Saad sent regarding the Democrats obstruction. He said something about a politician "paying the price" for it.
How do you know that is what is in the file? Why would that be confidential in the first place? Why doesn’t that result in his being impeached from his current position?
This isn’t meant to be a defense of Saad, BTW. I just think that if it’s bad enough to keep him out of one bench, then it should be bad enough to keep him out of another.
