Note from Underground

Posted by joe
March 2, 2007

Mr. Carney, you're a gentleman. And like a lot of gentlemen, you sometimes assume that the people you encounter are gentlemen, too. It's a matter of instincts.

US Attorneys Offices aren't unimportant backwaters like FEMA and HHS that do things like save people. Bush doesn't use the security apparatus for nepotism. He uses it for his ideological schemes, his partisan advantage, and his grab for expanded executive power.

Posted by Steve
March 2, 2007

Well, it's a good thing JMM was skeptical about all this, otherwise it's possible no one ever would have heard about it.

Posted by msmnotgood
March 2, 2007

Amen Steve. I think what JMM did was called ... what is it ....
tip of my tongue ...
oh yeah ...
'investigative reporting'.

As opposed to, ya know, 'stenography'.

Posted by Jim
March 2, 2007

Two questions, Jay:
Will your profile of Michelle Malkin include the word "irresistible"?

Did you find Ann Coulter's description of John Edwards as a "faggot" irresistible?

(Since I know I'm being way mad subtle here, what I'm hinting at is that it's not really a far-out-in-Left-field notion that you would write an "admiring profile of Michelle Malkin")

Posted by Jim
March 2, 2007

"If Iglesias names names, "

Um.... he did name names, two of them: Heather Wilson and Pete Domenici.

Posted by Kimmitt
March 2, 2007

Well, good thing someone out there didn't care about your mockery and actually spent some time and effort finding a smoking gun to support what was obvious to anyone paying attention.

Posted by cfaller96
March 2, 2007

Jay, did you eat a lot of paint chips when you were a kid? Because you are one dumb SOB.

When these firings came down, it was automatically suspicious, because Carol Lam (the US Attorney that took down Republican Duke Cunningham) was in the group, and a Karl Rove hack was one of the replacements. Anybody could have seen that this stunk, and yet you chose to mock those people as "wild conspiracy theorists."

Bloggers weren't the only ones raising questions- I believe Senators Feinstein and Schumer have been all over this, forcing AG Gonzales to possibly perjure himself when discussing their firings. Yet still you saw nothing wrong.

But an even larger point looms, which brings me to my "dumb SOB" comment. This is the Bush Administration- a mass firing by of US Attorneys is not accidental, nor apolitical, nor competent, nor free of corruption. As a journalist, you should START with a skeptical attitude of ANY Administration, but with this one you should be ASSUMING devious, political behavior.

Perhaps you feel that would be 'unworthy' of you or 'unfair,' but do you know why you should do this? BECAUSE YOU'LL BE RIGHT 99% OF THE TIME, and you'll be able to gloat to your fellow journalists that you spotted this before they did (much like TPM is lording it over you right now). You won't have to put up new posts explaining why you didn't see this coming, and how you're really not a stupid jackass, etc.

After 6 years of corruption, incompetence, and shameless partisan behavior by this Administration, only a moron would assume good faith in a "performance-based" mass firing of US Attorneys, one of which convicted a Congressman for bribery & corruption.

But tomorrow you'll wake up and assume the Administration isn't up to no good, and we should all just settle down, and there's "nothing to see here" yada yada yada (about Iraq, Iran, etc.). That's what makes you a moronic jackass.

Jay, they were right, and you were wrong. Again.

Posted by Dan
March 2, 2007

Jay, you are a reporter. Investigate suspicious activities! YOU MIGHT GET A PULITZER. It's your freaking job! Christ, give me 50K a year to do your job.

Posted by Alan
March 2, 2007

Mr Carney:

i asked about this in an earlier post. Josh Marshall raised this some time ago. You took a more antispetic approach. What I see in JM's approach is a healthy scepticism, and a willingness to probe. You, on the other hand, gave the benefit of the doubt to the powers that be. Therein lies the problem. As a card carrying member of the MSM you begin with the assumption that this Admin has to be taken at its word. A journalist, in my view, should not do so. He/she should should be informed by a healthy scepticism. The MSM has, for some time since 2000, begun with the premise that the word of the Bush Admin is sacrosanct. Having taken that position the MSM has been loath to admit that it has been taken for the proverbial ride.

Now that the facts speak for themselves any self-respecting scribbler should remember what the professional of journalism is all about: it has nothing to do with stenography.

Posted by Dan
March 2, 2007

Someone should compare the column inches Jay devoted to the US attorney stuff and oh, i dunno, something important like: Al Gore's earth tone jackets. It ain't a pretty comparison.

Posted by zota
March 2, 2007

This is the difference between being a journalist and being a photocopier.

Take your hat off now, fool.

Posted by Tom Betz
March 2, 2007

I'm sorry, let me get this straight.

This credulous wanker, who still takes the Bush Administration at its word after the consistent evidence of its constant dishonesty, is Time's Washington Bureau Chief?

Jay, either you are one lucky SOB to have been able to pull this charade off for so long, or you have some serious art on file in a safe-deposit box somewhere.

Posted by Anonymous
March 2, 2007

This is the best car crash blog, ever!

Posted by trifecta
March 2, 2007

Simple question Jay. Does the Bush administration have a track record that suggests they are usually on the level, or one that does not? Why would anybody presume them innocent when something looks fishy, if you don't at first investigate it?

Posted by linda
March 2, 2007

OK, folks we got Jay on the trail now. And Joe has everyone riled. Let me check, is it a full moon?

Let's see what Jay can do? Take NW AR. Will Jay get some back story from Gov. Beebe and James Witt or Huckabee and Asa. How do WalMart/Tyson's figure in? Does Gene Lyon know where some bones are buried? Don't really think that this is a little story any more than a moldy out patient facility at Walter Reed is the big enchilada.

Posted by TBH
March 2, 2007

Why does this post remind me of that extended sequence in the Dostoevsky novel Mr. Carney references here--the sequence in which the underground man becomes obsessed with a soldier who randomly bumps his the shoulder one day out on the street?

And so he stews and stews for weeks, planning the day when he's gonna bump the soldier back...

I won't spoil the outcome.

Posted by James, Los Angeles
March 2, 2007

Jay, first of all, it's been my observation that the most successful bloggers are the ones who respect their readers and their commenters, value their participation, and therefore enjoy engaging with them, even when they don't agree on issues. On the other hand, the four of you on Swampland appear to believe that we participants are big ignorant dumbass liberals who aren't worthy of your time, which you grudgingly give, presumably because you have been ordered to do so to keep your job. This attitude makes you not only arrogant but very wrong. Many in your blog audience are smart, even brilliant, accomplished people, avid readers who want to and do participate in life in many ways.

Secondly, it is your job as a journalist to discover, by questioning and searching and going beyond the faxes and emails and lunches and cocktail parties, in order to inform your readers, who are NOT journalists. You, with so many resources at your disposal, have once again failed to do your job. And why is that? I can't help but believe you failed to see the seriousness of this purge simply because your readers saw it first. In your arrogance you dismissed our opinion out of hand, calling us conspiracy theorists and so on. I can't help but think you are too lazy or too fearful to look into things that you should be looking into. That makes you every bit as incompetent at your job and Bush is at his job.

I can't quite figure out if you were joking about the Michelle Malkin piece; after all, your equally incompetent colleague Howard Kurtz just wrote a glowing piece on her, and you have praised Coulter and ran a huge cover puff piece on her. See, you Washington journalists are beyond parody. That's why you should maybe transfer from your job and do something else. It would be good for your integrity, and it would be better for my country if you did so.

Posted by Anonymous
March 2, 2007

Notes from Underground:
"It presents itself as an excerpt from the rambling memoirs of a bitter, isolated, unnamed narrator (generally referred to by critics as the Underground Man) who is a retired civil servant"

Finally, some truth around here.

Posted by Jim
March 2, 2007

"On the other hand, the four of you on Swampland appear to believe that we participants are big ignorant dumbass liberals "

Have to disagree, Karen Tumulty seems much more reasonable wrt commenters than the two petulant menfolk. I can't imagine her having the kind of meltdown Joe Klein is having in the post below (and I suspect even if she did it wouldn't have the same histrionic entertainment value).

Posted by zota
March 2, 2007

I agree with Jim.

For the sake of everyone's sanity, can you please make this an all-women blog?

Posted by trifecta
March 2, 2007

Ann Coulter isn't uncivil like the bloggers James. Why? I am not sure. It's just a rule.

Posted by Stella Artwat
March 2, 2007

Mountain, molehill.

Molehill, mountain.

The DOJ USA's always have, always will serve at the POTUS's AG's discretion - and the slackers IS going to get fired.

Note: Clinton canned EVERY sitting USA before taking the FBI files, er, Travel Office, uh Rose Law Firm Records, then...

Next non-news story please!

Posted by TBH
March 2, 2007

Stella, your last name is MOST uncivil!

Posted by Exalted
March 2, 2007

jay, i hope your admiring profile of malkin includes some loving for her defense of internment masterpiece

when do the new internment camps open????

Posted by Graham Shevlin
March 2, 2007

Jay, let me play back part of one of the paragraphs in your posting:
The replacement of Bud Cummins in the Eastern District of Arkansas by Tim Griffin, a Karl Rove protege, smelled to me like pure political patronage -- an effort to put Griffin in position to build a resume for a future run for office in his home state. Others in the blogosphere were suggesting that Griffin had been installed so he could launch new federal probes into the Clintons' lives in Arkansas. I wasn't willing to go that far because it was purely speculative. Suspicions aren't facts.

Now, please inform me: what is "smelled to me like pure political patronage" if it is not speculation? Yet you go on to say that you weren't prepared to sign on to the idea of a Clinton investigation because it was "purely speculative".
Do you not see the total contradiction in this paragraph?
I don't know if your reasoning is defective, or whether you are simply writing poorly, hoping that some of us will not notice. Either way, it isn't working. If I tried an argument like that in my high school debating society I would have been slaughtered. You need to do a better job of reasoning, consistency and writing. This is why many of us out here in the blogging world find it really difficult to take mainstream media outlets seriously.

Posted by Xeno
March 2, 2007

You know, Carney, the title "Washington Bureau Chief" has a tendency to lead the average reader to expect that you would take the lead in investigating matters like this. After all, the fact that a group of US Attorneys were fired to make way for political cronies of the administration should raise suspicion in and of itself. One might reasonably expect that you would assign one of you staffers to look into the firings, or at least ask some probing questions of your goper friends over cocktails. Instead, you ridiculed those who (rightly) suspected there was a raging fire beneath all the smoke.

This was a sadly typical failure of journalistic vision where you are concerned. Indeed, your attitude typifies that of your kind, pseudo-journalists who act more like political courtiers than real reporters. Had an incident like this occurred during the Clinton Administration, you and your cohorts would have pounced on it immediately and blared scandal on the covers of every magazine and newspaper. Under the Bush regime, however, all you can muster is a sycophantic sigh. Republican corruption simply doesn't interest you at all. (Though you'll undoubtedly get your groove back if a Democrat wins the White House in '08.) Your attitude exemplifies the partisan rot at the heart of the press corpse.

Posted by Franco
March 2, 2007

Jay, you seem to have a lot in common with this guy:

http://www.time.com/time/quotes/0,26174,1595696,00.html

Posted by rmrd0000
March 2, 2007

Posted by Stella Artwat
March 2, 2007

Note: Clinton canned EVERY sitting USA

Are you talking about the fact that US Attorneys resign when a new POTUS is elected?

Posted by James, Los Angeles
March 2, 2007

"I wasn't willing to go that far because it was purely speculative. Suspicions aren't facts."

Isn't it, like, your *job* to find out the *facts* if you have *suspicions*?

That, after all, is exactly what the Josh Marshall team did. There were *suspicions* and therefore they went on a quest for *facts*. You, on the other hand, seem to have a job that entails something like getting out in front of anything that threatens the status quo and reassure your readers, through reproducing RNC-generated blast faxes, that there is nothing there. And then ridicule them for thinking otherwise.

You are an apologist. You are an apologist for the Washington media and for the Republican Party.

Posted by Anonymous
March 2, 2007

Jay was obviously way off-base with his original post on this story (as well as that posting with all the well-chronicled mistakes).

I am curious, though, if there is anything Carney can ever do to redeem himself with his relentless critics on this blog? Or is he just doomed to be attacked from here on out, regardless of what he writes? I thought one of the boons of the Internet was how it gives interactive voice to so many people, but I guess if your voice doesn't jibe with certain Net denizens, they'll just shout you down until you keep your thoughts to yourself and then call that a victory. Welcome to the democratic (and that's with a small "d," Joe) blogosphere!

"There's no weakness in forgiveness." I heard that on "Friday Night Lights," but I'm sure some wise philosopher, or at least a person at peace with himself and not prone to misplaced aggression, said it first.

Posted by anonymous
March 2, 2007

Imagine if every mistake you ever made on the job, especially while learning a new aspect of your job, was subject to the abuse that has been heaped on the Swampland crew? I don't deny mistakes have been made, but here's a news flash: These guys and gals are human!

Posted by addie loggins
March 2, 2007

Jay,

While I understand the temptation (to which so many readers have succumbed) to pile on, I've never been one for kicking a man when he's down, so I'll resist long enough to thank you for this post.

That's assuming, of course, that the thing about Michelle Malkin was a joke (if so, and dear God I hope so, it was really pretty funny. Kudos!)

You also get points for owning up. You explained how you came to the conclusion you did, and you acknowledged that, as facts unfold, it becomes more and more likely that Josh et al. were right and you were wrong.

Good on ya'. Would that your colleague Joe Klein be as straightforward.

I hope, though, that as you read all the other readers' comments, you can read through the anger and the mocking and the hostility that so many of them express, and really see the point they are making. Because it's a good point.

It's about skepticism. Journalists should be skeptical of policitians by definition. And at this point, journalist should be skeptical of this adminstration as a matter of Pavlovian response. They say something that doesn't sound quite true: they are probably lying. They do something that doesn't look quite right: it is probably very wrong.

Conservatives have been "playing the refs" when it comes to the media for so long, ya'll have been skitish for years now. And on top of that, something happened to you folks on 9/11. You bought into this notion that being skeptical of this administration is somehow unpatriotic, or unseemly, or uncouth.

But honestly, it's time to get up off the floor. Realizing that you've been had -- again -- is a very good first step.

Posted by kj
March 2, 2007

ya know speaking of malkin and marshall and such, MAYBE, just maybe, jay and his ilk would look to how the "left" blogs go after stories vs. the "right" blogs go after them. case in point, this u.s. attorney firing story vs. the jamil hussien "story."

now, seeinh how those "stories" have turned out so far, who would you say, jay, got it right?

remember, jay, the rightwingers want to destroy, or at the very least, silence, the MSM. the left just wants you to DO A BETTER JOB! notice the distinction?

Posted by fedup
March 2, 2007

Thank God for Talking Points Memo. We wouldn't of even know this if we left it up to the Time Magazine weenies.

Hello, Time? Maybe you should send your hair-tossing, snarky bloggers to a refresher journalism course. It would help. They might actually do a service for the American people. Perhaps we could put up a picture of Dana Priest and say, "Okay ... here is you. Here is an actual reporter."

Posted by Sean Carman
March 2, 2007

It was the mocking, dismissive tone of the original post that has Josh Marshall, and the commentors on this blog, so riled up, made worse by the fact that it obviously wasn't based on anything. Here it is again. About the idea that there was something behind the firings:

"Of course! It all makes perfect conspiratorial sense!

Except for one thing: in this case some liberals are seeing broad partisan conspiracies where none likely exist."

Lame. It might be better just to admit you were wrong.

Posted by zota
March 2, 2007

"is anything Carney can ever do to redeem himself with his relentless critics on this blog? "

Honestly admitting you were wrong is usually all it takes.

Unfortunately for Carney, (entertainingly for us) he digs himself in ever deeper by getting pissy about getting called out on being wrong... Carney could theoretically redeem himself... but realistically, I doubt he would ever bother to try.

But at least it's been educational. Today I found out that the job of Time's Washington Bureau Chief is to wait around for someone to investigate interesting stories and then type them up when they're all done!

Posted by Kid Charlemagne
March 2, 2007

May I quote Paul Weller and The Jam:

"The media as watchdog is absolute sh*t!

Posted by Jake Gittes
March 2, 2007

The reason why Josh Marshall et al are good reporters is that they looked at the firings with the appropriate skepticism and went digging for more information. The reason why you are not a good reporter, Carney (among others) is that instead of investigating, you dismissed 8-10 US ATTORNEY BEING FIRED AT ONCE at nothing to get worked up about, and a "liberal consiracy". Your post back then basically ridiculed the "liberals" for making a big deal out of nothing.

While this latest post has you taking your medicine, it doesn't change the fact that you are a biased, Republican hack. Next time, be a little more careful before you play the "liberal conspiracy" card.

Posted by zota
March 2, 2007

Oh yeah. One thing that helps with forgiveness -- humility.

Unfortunately if Jay Carney were to admit to the world he was wrong with full honesty and humility, no one would be able to hear him over flock of flying pigs as they migrated from the frozen tundra of Hades.

Posted by Jake Gittes
March 2, 2007

"That's assuming, of course, that the thing about Michelle Malkin was a joke (if so, and dear God I hope so, it was really pretty funny. Kudos!)"

Carney didn't make up that joke. I wrote it in a previous thread on here.

Posted by James, Los Angeles
March 2, 2007

I've probably piled on more than I should. If so, I apologize. I am sick to death of being dismissed as a liberal "conspiracy theorist" by smug, condescending, arrogant jerks who fancy themselves smarter, better, prettier.

Posted by mvrox
March 3, 2007

With this drivel, no wonder Time's circulation is down. Such is Life...

Posted by Crusty Dem
March 3, 2007

Sorry for the long quotes, but, Jay Carney then:

"It looks even worse when it turns out one of the "interim" US attorneys appointed by Alberto Gonzales is Tim Griffin, a veteran GOP operative who worked in Karl Rove's shop at the White House and as director of research (i.e., chief dirt digger) at the Republican National Committee. Not only that, but Griffin was appointed to be the USA in his home state of Arkansas, which can only mean he's being sent by Rove, armed with subpoena power, to dig up fresh dirt on the Clintons in time for the 2008 presidential campaign cycle.

Of course! It all makes perfect conspiratorial sense!

Except for one thing: in this case some liberals are seeing broad partisan conspiracies where none likely exist."

Jay notes that it looks suspicious that Rove's guy is being placed in Arkansas, but only to brand anyone who really suspects any nefarious motives behind it is a fool.

Compare to Jay now:

"As I wrote in my post back then -- but Marshall conveniently did not include in the excerpt he used this week -- the replacement of Bud Cummins in the Eastern District of Arkansas by Tim Griffin, a Karl Rove protege, smelled to me like pure political patronage -- an effort to put Griffin in position to build a resume for a future run for office in his home state."

Umm. No. That is not at all what you said. You suggested it was a an act of political patronage, but as a reward for past endeavors, not to build a resume, not for a future run for office.

I, for one, will remember that you used Griffin's appointment to mock those who even conceived of anything untoward as conspiracy theorists. Marshall nails your error, as demonstrated from the most noteworthy quote, which I'll repeat "Except for one thing: in this case some liberals are seeing broad partisan conspiracies where none likely exist."

I thought journalists weren't supposed to be so naive.

Posted by jbk
March 3, 2007

Carney: "I wasn't willing to go that far because it was purely speculative. Suspicions aren't facts."

Er, fine in theory - except when the administration in question is Bush's and just about everything it has been involved in has been a debacle founded on lies.

They don't get the benefit of the doubt any more.

And neither do you, Mr. Carney.

If Time mag wants to know why its circulation is dropping faster than Ann Coulter's Adam's Apple it's because individuals like you have positions of influence - although it's rapidly declining, thank God.

Why don't you do your magazine and the American reading public a favor - resign and join The Washington Times where never a discouraging word is heard against your heroes in the Bush admin.

Posted by Dan
March 3, 2007

hHumans! are you fucking kidding me? Klein et al know exactly what they are doing. Somersby hit the nail on the head with these assclowns.

Career Liberals.

Posted by Steve in Sacto
March 3, 2007

Jay,

Just for the record, in your January post you stated that with respect to "broad partisan conspiracies" that "none likely exist." That was a declarative presumption of the facts *before* you had done any real investigation.

"None likely exist."

Says everything you need to know about the journalistic credo, circa 2007...

Posted by Coulter has a large Adam's Apple
March 3, 2007

Nice backpedal Jay. You're certainly walking a slippery Halpernesque slope. Maybe your wife will set you straight before you become another John Solomon or Britt Hume.

Posted by Florida
March 3, 2007

Jay, you'd probably get more sympathy from me if your original post had been something more than what you were told by administration sources (who had a vested interest in misleading you) and had you not used such dismissive language in claiming that anyone who didn't believe what the administration was saying was peddling conspiracy theories. As it stands, Josh Marshall owns you.

Posted by TomT
March 3, 2007

Go back to your spider hole.

Posted by A Hermit
March 3, 2007

Just think Jay; if you hadn't dismissed the idea and had instead decided to investigate you might have a had a big scoop, instead of those dirty f***ing hippie conspiracy theorists.

If you're not embarrassed you should be.

Posted by TomT
March 3, 2007

"Have to disagree, Karen Tumulty seems much more reasonable wrt commenters than the two petulant menfolk. I can't imagine her having the kind of meltdown Joe Klein is having in the post below (and I suspect even if she did it wouldn't have the same histrionic entertainment value)."

Agreed. Ana has been good too. Both respectful and sometimes insightful.

Posted by Curtis24
March 3, 2007

Wow, this place is like the liberal version of Freerepublic o_O

Posted by A Hermit
March 3, 2007

Nope. nothing to see here, don't worry your pretty little heads Mr. Carney said it's a loony conspiracy theory...

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/02/griffin-voter-suppression/

Posted by rmrd0000
March 3, 2007

Josn Marshall, a real reporter, takes a look at a faux reporter's work at his TPMCafe blog. WaPo's John Solomon mimics Jay Carney's style in his column.
According to Solomon, the USA purge, while unusual, was just a misunderstanding caused by the administration's failure to clearly communicate the reasons for termination. Marshall provides information suggesting something more nefarious occured.
GW has been blessed with the least inquisitive press corps in recent memory.
Solomon and Carney = more evidence of MSM stenography.

Posted by Carnacki
March 3, 2007

Shorter Jay Carney: Now that the dirty hippies have been proven right, I want to jump on the bandwagon.

Posted by davidm
March 3, 2007

Sorry, not good enough. You're a reporter. If we're to trust your version of what you see going on in Washington, you're view of what's going on with your own reporting should be, uh, more accurate. Whether it's a lack of intelligence, courage, humility, or reporting acumen, what you should have said is something like, Josh Marshall cleaned my clock, and continues to do so. He is my better. I'll try to learn from him." That would have been, you know, the truth, and would enhance your credibility, instead of detracting from it, as this post does. Because the truth is, Josh Marshall is your better, but sadly, you don't even see it, and it's quite clear to the rest of us.

Posted by Carneyvore
March 3, 2007

Officer Carney: A one act play.

[Grey smoke rises from a house].
Carney: Move along, nothing to see here.
[Flames shoot out from the house]
Careny: Okay, maybe there is something to here. If the house explodes, my hats off to those who thought we should investigate the smoke.

Posted by Anonymous
March 3, 2007

Good for you Jay. Good post.

Posted by Nick S
March 3, 2007

Dear Jay:

It's good to know that you'll consider the US Attorney story worthy of your interest once the real journalists have done all the hard work.

You've revealed yourself as something other than a journalist, and essentially said that journalism is beneath the status of the DC bureau chief of TIME magazine.

And you'll be bemused at the people who speak well of Josh Marshall's team and the McClatchy team -- because it's like praising the domestic staff, isn't it?

Posted by todd b.
March 3, 2007

You emerged from the hole just on the games George is playing over at Justice with people's careers, and this is all you have got to say. Well, at least you admitted your suspicions about Griffin were insufficient to inspire you beyond the typical brand of journalistic stenography. Thanks for nothing.

Hold on to your congratulations Jay, climb back under the rock from which you emerged and fall back to sleep. Ana Marie will throw a little cold water in your direction to wake you when the story's over.

Posted by Thom
March 3, 2007

Josh Marshall doesn't owe you anything, Mr. Carney, as far as mentioning every little part of your piece, and doesn't deserve your smarm. Your post was a broad, smarmy, and dismissive brush off. You may have forgotten that.

You'd look a lot more like an adult if you simply said "I was wrong. hats off to TPM."

Posted by jaywl
March 3, 2007

Time devoted one story of 95 words when Janet Reno and Pres. Clinton fired all 93 US attorneys. The reason, as reported by Time: "She requested the prompt resignation of all 93 U.S. Attorneys around the country "to build a team" that represents "my views" and those of the President". Time also reported there was alarm about the effect this would have on the prosecution of Dan Rostenkowski. It turns out the alarm was not warranted, Big Dan later received a pardon anyway, and the entire episode was about something Presidents get to do. They do it for the exact reason Reno put forth. A specific charge seems to be that Iglesias was pressured to speed up an investigation. Gee, not stop it, slow it down, but speed it up. Would it have been the first time a partisan US Attorney or special prosecutor delayed or advanced an action for partisan purposes or that someone pushed from the other side? The only interesting thing to me is comparing the space Time and other outlets will devote to the conspiracy being conjured of the nefarious dark force in the current White House versus the devotion of 95 words to the beleaguered innocents of the New Camelot.

Posted by DBJ
March 3, 2007

Yes, kudos to Marshall and TPM for delving into this issue. They weren't content to just stop at the public statements of the attorneys, they went digging for the facts - and have brought much to light as a result.

Too bad Time magazine doesn't have investigative journalists too. You should get some.

Perhaps it is because you yourself seem to be practicing punditry rather than journalism? Because that's all I can call it when you give your opinion on the issue based on what you read publicly - which is how I read your original post.

You ought to be embarrassed that you've posted noting since in your magazine. Why?

Posted by zota
March 3, 2007

@jaywl

Reno aksed for those resignations three months into Clinton's term. This is fairly standard when the entire administration changes hands

Gonzalez fired Bush's own appointed attorneys for "performance" reasons, which is a documented lie. This is significant because:
1) it is a docmented lie
2) more than one attorney was investigating corruption in the Bush admin.

Also, you didn't mention Carol Lam. Why is that?

PS: Jay, you really need better names for your sock puppets

Posted by zota
March 3, 2007

Washington Post:
The White House approved the firings of seven U.S. attorneys late last year after senior Justice Department officials identified the prosecutors they believed were not doing enough to carry out President Bush's policies on immigration, firearms and other issues, White House and Justice Department officials said yesterday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/02/AR2007030201949.html

Do! Some! REPORTING!

Posted by zota
March 3, 2007

New York Times:
To ensure their independence, United States attorneys are almost never removed during the term of the president who appointed them.
The Bush administration ignored this tradition, and trampled on prosecutorial independence, by firing eight United States attorneys in rapid succession, including one, Carol Lam of San Diego, who had put a powerful Republican congressman in jail.

http://tinyurl.com/3arhql

Posted by peter crowley
March 3, 2007

I'd like to second the suggestion that TIME hire some investigative journalists. It would be great if a major newsmagazine were courageously digging into the mountains of corruption in Washington. Imagine if they found a pattern of abuse of power!

Please do find some aggressive and fearless reporters! It could be very exciting.

Posted by jaywl
March 3, 2007

Jaywl is not a sock puppet for anybody. I am another Jay, a 60's Marine basically with the same attitudes and mores now as then. By the way, compared to the sometimes cavalier and fatalistic soldiers and Marines of the Viet era, the guys in Iraq and Afghanistan are so much better trained and equipped I find little comparison. Their discipline is amazing. I hope they retain the support of the American people. I remember the difference between 1965-66 and 1968-69 in the attitudes of Soldiers and Marines. Please remember that what happens here affects what happens to them.

Posted by zota
March 3, 2007

Jay, I appreciate your service in the Marines at a particularly difficult time and I apologize for accusing you of being Jay Carney.

However you were still wrong about the change of US Attorneys at the start of an administartion compared to their political firings mid-term. We need to preserve our system of justice so that our soldiers continue to have something worth fighting for.

We also need to have a press that is willing to proactively investigate rather than passively wait around for people in power to tell them what to write.

Posted by jmano
March 3, 2007

What should we make of the fact that the earmark to a homeland security bill, an earmark that was slipped in without the knowledge of Arlen Spector by one of his assistants, is now the law that enables Gonzalez/Bush to fill these federal prosecutors slots without oversight? Are we to suspect that there is no connection between that law recently passed and the "resignations" of Lam, Iglesias, et.al? Apparently Mr. Carney saw no connection; on the other hand, it was a red flag to Josh Marshall. And he started digging. And digging. And Mr. Carney is still waiting for a hot tip that something might be amiss in the AG's office? And, according to Media Matters, NONE of the networks have covered the story on their news broadcasts? Do we really have a community of journalists in this country, or just a collection of clowns? I think I know the answer.

Posted by Mark B. in Austin TX
March 4, 2007

Well, last month, you fell out of the turnip truck, Jay. It's good to see you learned a bit from the bruising you got then.

Posted by Sperm Donor
March 4, 2007

You see, folks, in Jay's comfy world as Time's Bureau Chief, living inside one of the most powerful cities of the world (today's Rome?) that is full of powerful, fabulous people, with an accomplished equally successful wife, and their nice 2.5 kids in what is probably an upscale enclave of that city, it simply doesn't make sense or PAY to be too skeptical of the people around him that control the reigns of power.

First off, this system has been very, very good to Jay. And he's worked very hard to get where he has gotten. So, I can understand how a person like Jay would be BEREFT of shrewd and realistic suspicions of the powers-that-be. After all, his life has worked pretty well in this milieau. The system has worked for him.

Second, why should jay bite the hand that has fed him so well, by rocking the boat or making waives? Why should he put his neck out on the line, and bring the risk of pressure from the Administration and its allies within the higher corproate structure of AOL-Time-Warner down upon him? Why should he run the risk of offending the Administration, and having all his peers in D.C., most of whom also play by the same rules, look at him askance. (Anyone remember how Stephen Colbert was tarred and feathered by Richard Cohen at the Washington Post by having the "bad taste" to tell that empero, to his face, that he has no clothes, in front of all his sycophants and enablers within the D.C. media and power structures?)

In short, why should Jay take seriously the role of a journalist to be a voice that is skeptical about power, and that challenges people in high places, when playing such a role carries with it a potentially high price within the rarified world he inhabits?

Listen to a voice from the past, that was aware of the abuses of power and of social injustice and what these things meant:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."
--Upton Sinclair

Posted by rmrd0000
March 4, 2007

Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) admits that he contacted USA David Iglesias and subsequently recommended to the Department of Justice that New Mexico needed a new United States Attorney.
Time magazine stenographers can go to TPMCafe to see how real reporters operate.

Posted by zota
March 4, 2007

Jay,

Dominici has admitted he pressured David Iglesias.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002671.php

Hat's off!

The White House also approved the list of firings and notified Republican lawmakers in advance. David Kurtz at TPM has questions that some reporter ( HINT HINT ) could still investigate:

"Which lawmakers were notified? Those in the home states of the purged USAs? Those on the judiciary committees? What were they told by the White House and DOJ? How does that square with what the White House and DOJ are saying now?"

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012776.php

Please please PLEASE -- will you *please* do some reporting?

Posted by bartkid
March 5, 2007

Mr. Carney,
>While I didn't see a conspiracy back in mid-January

If you had, you could have had an exclusive and maybe pulled a Pulitzer for Time.

It is not too late, tho'. Time to hit the pavement, make some calls, interview people, y'know. Don't leave all the journalism to TPM.

Posted by zota
March 5, 2007

"Michael Battle the executive director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys has resigned."
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012808.php

The reporting from Time is going to start aaaannnnyyy minute now....

Posted by gar2458
March 5, 2007

Jay,
The story is getting bigger....maybe you should jump on the story next week after JMM and Kevin Drum get more information for you....Why don't you guys just start checking stories out, you know like reporters..oops I forgot you are also a "pundit"....yikes no wonder you were wrong...LOL!!!!

Posted by zota
March 5, 2007

I just did a search on the front page of Time...

I find this hard to believe, but aside from the comments on Swapland and Jay's two snide posts ("liberal conspiracy" and "begrudging wait and see") it looks like no one at Time has written about this.

A sitting Senator has now admitted to pressuring and firing a US Attorney for not helping throw an election. People in high positions are stepping down before the testimony even begins.

And NO ONE at Time has written anything? At all??

Posted by rmrd0000
March 5, 2007

Michael Battle, the Executive officer for the US attorneys office and the one who called the USA to inform them that they had been fired apparently resigned about a month ago.
During the calls he suggested that the decision for the firings had come from "on high", and that the attorney's firing did not mean that they had done anything wrong.
Given the NM Senator's phone call and this new info, do you think there is a story now?
Jay, wake up ....Jay, you there?

Posted by cfaller96
March 5, 2007

Has Jay claimed (exclusive) rights to this story? Why are we insisting on moron Jay to report on this? He made up his mind on this story weeks ago, and this post was simply an effort to explain why he's not a moron- you'll notice he makes no promise to cover this story better in the future, just a simple (and obvious) statement that "the story could get bigger."

I think maybe we should ask Ana or Karen to get on this story. I humbly suggest we throw comments at them. (as an aside, why are the women of Time better at this than the men?)

Posted by MG
March 5, 2007

"Of course! It all makes perfect conspiratorial sense!

Except for one thing: in this case some liberals are seeing broad partisan conspiracies where none likely exist."

Mr. Carney - the issue isn't really that you were wrong, it was that you were making stuff up while other people were doing your job. facts vs. daydreaming

Posted by zota
March 6, 2007

Heather Wilson admits she pressured Igleisas.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501241.html

Well, there's both names, Jay. Are you waiting for something else?

Posted by zota
March 6, 2007

Actually, you know what Jay? Don't cover this story. Leave it alone.

What I'll do instead is keep posting updates in this thread:

"Wow, that was some testemony, huh Jay?"
"Hey Jay, who knew Carol Lam could carry so many documents?"
"Whew! Those resignations keep coming, don't they Jay?"
"Gosh Jay, those indictments sure came down fast!"
"Another Pulitzer for TPM! Hope it doesn't go to their head, right Jay?"

Meanwhile you can scribble little notes to yourself on papyrus. Or whatever it is you do with your time.

Posted by rmrd0000
March 6, 2007

Time mag
U.S. Attorneys in the Line of Fire
By ADAM ZAGORIN/WASHINGTON 03/05/2007

A Time mag stenographer finally TYPED a summary the story covered in detail by the reporters at TPMCafe.

Posted by ozzie nelson knowsbesst
March 7, 2007

By resigning Battle might have shown some class and integrity. (" I did what youu wanted, lord. Permit me to commit sppuko.")

One "advantage" that bloggers have is that they can speculate more freely than msm journos. But.. at the cost of their credibilty- and hits and adverts- they have to do one of two things : explain their thinking when they speculate or call the situation correctly - preferably both. And they need to explain why when they're off base.

I think that msm is structurally beholden to "access"They're painted into a corneer and ulttimately rely on the honesty of their sources. It affects their habits. Smart cynics recognize this and play it for all it's worth. It amazes me how insular the msm has gotten,. It's a "closed system" that's going to gradually suffocate. They produce er emm 'product' rather than illuminating something like "truth" or even "facts or "the heart of the matter" Chips falling where they may get awfully messy and inconvenient. And why isn't staaci saying hi ti me in the cafeteria?

I hope that there can be some dialogue- dare i say a dialectic/- and that the 4 above blogonauts launched onto the net stay here and ssee if it's possible for these cultures to learn something from one another.
Inflicting pain gratuitously usually alienates one's counterpart in what might be a valuable experience.
Now go to bed you rascals.

Posted by Jack Burns
March 13, 2007

Regarding a comment by Zota about a Washington Post article. "Heather Wilson admits she pressured Igleisas"

If Zota actually read the article, it says no such thing.

Posted by zota
March 13, 2007

Jack Burns:

Calling him at home and asking him about those investigations into Democrats right before the election (in tandem with the Senator calling him at home and asking him about those investigations into Democrats) does not equal "pressuring."

Got it.

Let's see how that testimony plays out under oath.

Posted by n
March 16, 2007

http://www.cjrdaily.org/behind_the_news/how_talkingpointsmemo_beat_the.php
CJR called you out, Jay. Schooled!

Posted by Brian Fejer
March 16, 2007

Did you amnesiacs forget about this obstruction of justice?

Bush removal ended Abramoff investigation
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/08/08/bush_removal_ended_guam_investigation/?p1=email_to_a_friend
US attorney's demotion halted probe of lobbyist

Have you ever googled Jack Abramoff and Mohammed Atta? Weird huh?

Posted by Jonglly
May 5, 2007

Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.

Posted by Mariah Carey download
September 13, 2007

sale@mp3.com

Posted by Eagles mp3
September 13, 2007

sale@mp3.com

Posted by Meat Loaf mp3
September 14, 2007

sale@mp3.com

Posted by Iron Maiden
September 14, 2007

sale@mp3.com

Posted by Billy Joel
September 14, 2007

sale@mp3.com

Posted by Mariah Carey
September 14, 2007

sale@mp3.com

Posted by Nickelback
September 15, 2007

sale@mp3.com

Posted by Police
September 15, 2007

sale@mp3.com

Posted by Eagles
September 21, 2007

sale@mp3.com

Posted by madrus mpeg cum animl
October 10, 2007

Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.

Posted by madrus mpeg cum animl
October 10, 2007

Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.

Posted by madrus mpeg cum animl
October 10, 2007

Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.