(May 18, 2002 -- 10:04 PM EDT // link // print)

This is a very, very, very bad situation.

With last week's revelations about possible early hints of a terrorist attack, and the ferocious response from the White House to calls for an investigation, there's one thing that would be extremely convenient right now for the White House: some pointed reminder of how close we might be to another terrorist attack, and that it's no time to be second-guessing the President, or resorting to the conventional political expedient of a congressional investigation.

And, voila ... Here it is.

As every paper is reporting tomorrow, US intelligence agencies have intercepted "vague yet troubling series of communications among Al Qaeda operatives" that might be portend another 9/11-scale attack.

Of course, maybe it's true. It could well be true. I'm certain it's at least partly true. But the problem is that it's so deeply convenient and the administration's response to calls for inquiries has been so strident and aggressive that it's difficult to see this as mere coincidence.

Another clue adds to my suspicion. One of the two outlets to break this story, The New York Times, says that the increased activity has been for "the last few months." NBC says it's for the "past several weeks." So why do we hear about it right now? And what about Tom Ridge's color-coded terror system? Come to think of it, where's Tom Ridge?

The "senior administration official" who was apparently the source of both stories told NBC ...

There is a real potential for a terrorist attack again. The president has been saying since Sept. 11 that there is a possibility of another attack. America needs to be vigilant.
Again, that's really right from the script.

I don't think the intel agencies themselves would go in for this sort of game-playing. Not so nakedly at least or in so partisan a fashion. But the White House -- especially post-9/11 -- will always be getting all sorts of creepy stuff coming in over the transom. If you read between the lines in these stories what seems to have happened is that the "senior administration official" put this stuff out there.

The problem is that this is really serious stuff and it's pretty hard right now for people to know whether they're being legitimately warned or if their emotions are being *$%#$* with for political purposes. Everybody suffers from that ambiguity and confusion.

Are the Democrats 'playing politics'? Maybe. But political oppositions do that. Get used to it. The Republicans definitely did it in spades under Clinton.

The more relevant point is that the Democrats would be negligent if they didn't call for some sort of investigation -- ideally, an independent commission. There's a higher standard for the administration in a situation like this because the administration is, as the name implies, the government. They're the ones with responsibility to act, with control over various pieces of secret information, with control over the national security apparatus. And, again, they're the government, the responsible entity.

(The White House has been stunningly indifferent to this reality, a fact laughably evidenced by the their effort to shift the question to 'what did Congress know' etc. There is a reason after all that they call it the E-X-E-C-U-T-I-V-E branch.)

In any case, the administration's stance in the last few days has been far more vitriolic and political than anything from the opposition party. And that is damaging the country.

-- Josh Marshall

(May 18, 2002 -- 03:34 PM EDT // link // print)

Winner of the pie-charts TPM would most like to see contest ...

Percentage of time former FBI Director Louis Freeh spent on counter-terrorism, percentage time former FBI Director Louis Freeh spent on investigations of Bill Clinton, percentage of time former FBI Director Louis Freeh spent on investigations of Al Gore, percentage of time former FBI Director Louis Freeh spent hobnobbing with congressional Republicans, percentage of time former FBI Director Louis Freeh spent talking trash about Janet Reno ... etc.

-- Josh Marshall

(May 18, 2002 -- 03:00 PM EDT // link // print)

I'm quite surprised that no one has yet mentioned what I am about to discuss. Or if someone has (which is entirely possible) I haven't seen it.

The sort of intelligence failure which now seems to have occurred prior to September 11th is seldom the fault of a single individual or even a group of individuals. The problem is most often structural and organizational, a failure to devise a framework that gets the right information into the right hands in a timely fashion.

Having said that, consider this.

The key window of time for all the warnings and hints was last summer, roughly June, July and August of 2001, the period right before the attacks. No one has considered that this was also the period of time when the post of FBI Director was vacant.

Certainly something worth considering, no?

Let's review the history. On May 1st of last year then-Director Louis Freeh announced his resignation and that he would leave sometime in early June (Freeh's questionable tenure at the Bureau is another major point of concern, but that's for another post.) I'm not sure when Freeh's official last day was, but on June 22nd Attorney General John Ashcroft made Deputy Director Tom Pickard Acting Director, effective the following day.

Through May and June the White House searched for a replacement for Freeh, first focusing on Robert S. Mueller, then deciding the President wanted other choices, then finally settling on Mueller.

President Bush announced Mueller's appointment on July 5th. But he wasn't confirmed until August 2nd. And then he didn't take the oath of office until September 5th.

None of this was dilatory or out of the ordinary. But during this key period the FBI's leadership was at best in deep flux and at worst the Bureau was leaderless.

-- Josh Marshall

(May 17, 2002 -- 06:07 PM EDT // link // print)

Following up on this earlier post, the last thing the White House should be doing right now is sending that despicable rat Ari Fleischer out to swipe at Senator Hillary Clinton for posing a question many of her constituents are no doubt asking. Fleischer's *#$%-eating grin and nervously gnashing remarks aren't called for. Messrs. Daschle's and Gephardt's comments were far more biting than Hillary's. Hers were comparatively generous. Trying to get the Hillary-haters to bail them out of this one will not work.

-- Josh Marshall

(May 17, 2002 -- 04:49 PM EDT // link // print)

Remember Douglas H. Paal? TPM chronicled his long, restless struggle to secure an ambassador-type appointment in Asia -- any ambassador-type appointment in Asia, really -- from the Bush administration in a March article in The New Republic.

When last we left Mr. Paal ... well, when last we left Mr. Paal, Mr. Paal was leaving us. His long awaited appointment to serve as AIT Director in Taipei -- America's de facto ambassador to Taiwan -- was finally announced on April 5th and off he was supposed to go. This was in spite of the fact that there were still various questions floating out there. But the battle royale between the China hawks and the China engagers was over and Paal was packing his bags.

Over the last couple days though I've been getting signals that something might be amiss. That maybe there was some further hold up. And now that seems confirmed.

Today's Nelson Report -- Washington's bible for the hottest scoops and gossip on Asian diplomacy and trade negotiation politics (yes, believe it or not) -- reveals that "Doug Paal [has] still not [been] fully cleared by State for Taipei."

What's this newest hitch? What is it now?

-- Josh Marshall

(May 17, 2002 -- 03:20 PM EDT // link // print)

Let me offer some friendly advice to the Bush White House. And, no, I'm not being facetious. I'm really not. The best thing -- really the only thing -- for the White House or the President to do now is to come out and say ...

Look, in hindsight, there are connections maybe we should have made. Communications should have been better between various intelligence and law enforcement agencies. But hindsight is 20/20 and these things were not as clear then as they are now. Our people did the best they knew how. But I'm the Commander-in-Chief. And I'm responsible. The buck stops here. Let's move ahead now and make whatever improvements we can.

In other words, make your stand on the basis of the obvious, and these drip-drip-drip revelations won't be nearly so painful or costly.

Will this open the president up to political damage and fallout? Messy, uncomfortable investigations?


But as us Clinton folk learned, this is the uncomfortable thing about having the presidency. When the American military -- the strongest in the world, but an institution you had nothing to do with creating -- goes out and wins a war, you rock.

When something terrible happens and in retrospect you maybe should have or could have done more to prevent it -- even if the other guys probably wouldn't have done any better -- you take a hit. Maybe a big one.

Those are the rules. Deal with it.

Otherwise you will end up with situations like this. Yesterday Ari Fleischer and Condi Rice said that no one before September 11th imagined that plane hijackings would equate to using the planes as guided missiles. That certainly sounds right. That is, until you read this new AP story which says inter alia ...

"Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House," the September 1999 report said ... The report noted that an al-Qaida-linked terrorist first arrested in the Philippines in 1995 and later convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing had suggested such a suicide jetliner mission.

So you really can't say that it never occurred to anyone. It definitely did.

Also, arrogant trash talk from Dick Cheney accusing the Dems of taking political advantage will likely prove counterproductive.

It's called the responsibility era. Get used to it. And you'll be better off in the long run.

-- Josh Marshall

(May 16, 2002 -- 07:17 PM EDT // link // print)

You learn something new every day. For a few weeks now -- seems like a few years, but that's another matter -- I've been working on an article about Iraq and the 'regime change' debate. Basically that means whether we should invade Iraq and otherthrow Saddam Hussein. I ended up coming to some conclusions that surprised me. But the article isn't out yet so I can't go into that.

Anyway, I found something else that surprised me no end.

If you've watched the debate about taking the war on terrorism to Baghdad you've almost certainly seen R. James Woolsey, former Director of the CIA during Bill Clinton's first two years in office. Today Woolsey is a member of the law firm of Shea & Gardner, an outspoken advocate of overthrowing Saddam with military force, and also a strong supporter of something called the Iraqi National Congress (INC).

The INC was formed after the Gulf War under the loose and but fairly open sponsorship of the CIA. In the late 1990s the INC became a big player in DC, making good contacts on the Hill, pushing 'regime change' very successfully and generally playing the Clinton administration like a fiddle.

Anyway, when I was looking into all this I thought I'd check to see who was registered as working as a foreign agent for the INC in Washington. Imagine my surprise when I checked and found that it was the law firm of Shea & Gardner, Jim Woolsey's law firm.

Woolsey's name isn't mentioned on the official filing. But I don't think it needs to be. The connection speaks for itself. Having said that, I don't think Woolsey is 'bought.' He's clearly a true believer. Still you'd think this was a connection the nets would mention when he goes on TV to chat about Iraq and the INC.

The official Justice Department filing is now part of the Talking Points Memo Document Collection.

P.S. It starts to get interesting around page 11.

-- Josh Marshall

(May 16, 2002 -- 04:41 PM EDT // link // print)

Current Senate candidate, future Presidential candidate, and all around tall guy, John Kerry speaks out on the new 9/11 disclosures ...

This disclosure underscores the very real need for the President to work openly and in good faith with Congress to fully investigate any breakdowns in intelligence gathering that may have occurred prior to September 11th. Many of us have been very vocal in calling for a widespread examination of our intelligence gathering processes. We have a right and a responsibility to ask questions. Preventing another September 11th undoubtedly requires understanding our past vulnerabilities. Were we focused on the right kinds of intelligence gathering? Did the United States have the necessary capacity to respond? If not, why? Where were the deficiencies? If we weren't appropriately focused on this threat, where was the focus misdirected? There's no need for further government secrecy -- the Administration should be comfortable sharing their evaluation of these intelligence deficits and helping us determine together how best to protect Americans in the future.

-- Josh Marshall

(May 16, 2002 -- 03:42 PM EDT // link // print)

Ahha! The source of the Slam TPM on McKinney campaign is revealed. Who says there's no such thing as grassroots organizing anymore?

-- Josh Marshall

(May 16, 2002 -- 03:35 PM EDT // link // print)

I'm trying to think if I can imagine anything more pitiful than Matt Drudge's attempt to pin this all on Clinton by ... well, dredging up some 1998 warning about al Qaida planning attacks on NY and DC. Mmmmmmmmm ... Nope. Couldn't do it.

-- Josh Marshall

(May 16, 2002 -- 01:17 PM EDT // link // print)

Potpourri of feedback on TPM's refusing to back down on Cynthia McKinney ...
Fess up, fool, you were wrong, not her.

[ed.note: I coughed up most of my morning ice-coffee laughing when I read that one. Classic.]

Not true. She did not accuse, she questioned. A BIG difference.

Look, Bush & co. dropped the ball. It's painfully obvious this administration is only interested in generating revenue for themselves and their benefactors. When faced with a crisis they do nothing, Enron, the Middle East, now the 9/11 revelations. Cynthia Mckinney is right. Don't turn into a Bush apologist now, unless of course you need the money.

The thing you should aplogize for to Rep. McKinney is that you were so naive as to accept a vague and distorted paraphrase of her remarks as the truth without attempting to check. Consider the source, the lack of actual quotations in the Post article, and the now-standard smarmy editorializing in what claims to be a news story. At one time, journalists were skeptical of the official story. Now, they seem ready to fall for any pap, no matter how cookie cutter. Give me a break: "Post runs story that is dismissive of black liberal democrat and gets sloppy with quotes" is not a shocker.

Well, slings and arrows.

Anyway, a couple points. A number of people have written in insisting I'm wrong but also being gracious enough to say how much they like the site and so forth. I'm literally being flooded with emails this morning so I'm not going to be able to respond to each one. But I really appreciate the kind words and respect your disagreement.

Here's where I am on this though. I've gotten enough emails on this that I went back and looked at what is apparently a transcript of the radio interview in question. Reading the interview I think it's actually true: she doesn't make a direct accusation. She implies intentional inaction and a possible financial motive. And I think it's probably fair to say the original Washington Post piece did over-dramatize what she said.

But frankly, not by that much. And as you can see she gave the Post a statement in which she said: "I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case." So I'm really not sure you can say she was running away from the financial motive theory.

As I read McKinney's statements she was implying that the White House may have intentionally let this happen. And possibly with a financial motive. The difference between a collosal screw-up and intentionally letting something like this happen is not a difference of degree. It's a difference in kind.

Do I think these new revelations are a big deal? Absolutely. I think the White House has some real trouble on its hands. Maybe a lot of trouble. Bring on the investigation. Let's find out. I just don't think any of this is the same as what McKinney was talking about.

-- Josh Marshall

(May 16, 2002 -- 09:22 AM EDT // link // print)

I guess you could say that these pre-9/11 warning stories are amounting to something of a bad press day for the Bush White House. I have to confess, though, that I have an unhelpful tendency to want to defend the administration rather than go on the attack.

(Don't get me wrong. I'm going to try to overcome it. And I'm sure I'll be able to. I'm just letting you know where I am right now.)

The one thing I'm quite happy about is that this will take a good bit of the bloom off that pro-Bush, anti-Clinton war-on-terrorism swagger. Hell, it might even shame some pundits (ones who have weblogs and are picking fights with Howell Raines) into backing off a bit on the pro-Bush cockiness.

I will say this: these new revelations make the administration's efforts to quash an investigation (Cheney's call to Daschle, etc.) look EXTREMELY cynical ("if we have any investigation, the terrorists will have won!").

One other thing: how long until someone looks super-close at that controversial September 11th picture of Bush now being hawked by the RNC for fund-raising purposes, and sees a little note in his vest pocket that says "Note to self: Ask Dick about the hijacking warnings about the Arab guy. Sam Laden? Ledeen? Does this have something to do with the tax cut too?"

Anyway, having said all that, in these situations I always come back to the Clinton rule: what would I think if Clinton were getting attacked in this situation. Of course, this doesn't occur to most of the Bush boosters. But then they're intellectually dishonest hacks and I'd rather not join them in their hackery. In this case, presidents get lots of information over the transom, lots of it that looks pretty scary. Most of it doesn't happen. If any of it does and it comes out that you got a scrap of paper warning that something like this could happen, you know you will end up looking really, really bad. It's a very tough situation.

Anyway, I've got to get to work. So more on this later. But all I'm saying is this. These jokers deserve lots of criticism for sitting on this info for like eight months or so. But let's look closely at just what they knew, how many other things they were hearing at the same time, how much reason there was for these threats to stand out from the myriad of other ones that routinely get included in the president's intel briefing. I'm totally ready to attack these guys for screwing up if they did. And they may well have. But let's just wait and see.

Back to work. Saddam calls.

-- Josh Marshall

(May 16, 2002 -- 02:00 AM EDT // link // print)

With the new revelations that President Bush had some intelligence warnings of potential Al Qaida plane hijackings I'm getting tons of emails saying I owe an apology to Rep. Cynthia McKinney for my earlier criticism of her.

No apology is in order.

I've long said there should be an investigation into how much our intelligence services had picked up about the plot, what they should have done differently, how they might have better protected the country, etc.

It doesn't surprise me at all that some embarrassing revelations are now emerging, though we should keep in mind the distinction between signals and noise in intelligence collection, and how hard they can be to distinguish from each other.

McKinney said something very different however. She accused the White House of having specific foreknowledge of the attack and intentionally failing to act so as to justify a future military build-up, from which many members of the administration would personally profit. If that were true it would be criminal, to put it mildly. But there is absolutely no evidence I have seen even remotely pointing toward its being true.

So I am quite comfortable with my earlier comments.

-- Josh Marshall

(May 15, 2002 -- 10:20 AM EDT // link // print)

Last night I noted that Mickey Kaus said that some Pew polling data about 'secular Democrats' and support for Israel wasn't backed up by his informal tally of the views of him and his friends -- who are mainly secular Democrats. I noted -- gently, very gently -- that there might be a bit of tribal sample bias at work in Mickey's survey.

This morning Glenn Reynolds (aka Instapundit) says: "I THINK THAT JOSH MARSHALL is wrong about this. After all, I'm not Jewish."

But does Instapundit strike you as a 'secular Democrat'?

Me neither.

-- Josh Marshall

(May 14, 2002 -- 08:51 PM EDT // link // print)

My friend and perpetual inspiration Mickey Kaus questions or at least wonders out loud about a Pew poll which says that among 'secular Democrats' 28 percent sympathized with the Palestinians and 26 percent sympathized with the Israelis in the current round of ritual bloodletting. Let me quote the master at length:

I note the I'm a secular Democrat. Many of my friends are secular Democrats. And I don't think any of them would have told a pollster, since the suicide bombings began, that they "sympathized with the Palestinians" over the Israelis, even if they supported Palestinian's long-term aspirations to statehood. ... Keep in mind, the result for all those polled (in the Post-ABC survey Kohut seems to be talking about) was 49-14 in favor of Israel. ... There must be something funny in how "secular Democrat" is defined. Do you have to actively check off a box labeled "secular"? Are you denied "secular" status if you ever set foot in a church or synagogue? ... Either the Post-ABC poll is screwed up, or advocates for the Palestinians have been more successful than anyone thought. One Zogby or another has reason to be happy. But which one? ...

Isn't there a frighteningly straightforward answer to this mystery? Mickey is JEWISH. His friends are disproportionately JEWISH compared to the rest of the population. As Seinfeld would say, not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm Jewish too. But I think this is the answer to the mystery.

-- Josh Marshall

(May 14, 2002 -- 10:49 AM EDT // link // print)

Back in the Clinton days I used to get really pissed at Jimmy Carter for stickng his nose into foreign policy stuff. Really pissed. But in Cuba this week Carter is making the Bush administration look like idiots and they really have only themselves to blame.

John Bolton's charge that Cuba has an offensive bioweapons program was clearly intended both to embarrass Carter and to minimize any good press Castro might get from Carter's feel-good visit.

But Carter has pretty effectively turned the tables on them. Obviously his personal inspection of a biotechnology facility means nothing. But you can't say the same for what he says he was told in his pre-visit State Department and CIA briefing. Carter claims he asked and was told the US had no evidence such a program existed. And now the former president has said so publicly.

Castro may not deserve good press. But he sure is getting it. And John Bolton looks like a mendacious, reckless ideologue who's happy to squander American anti-WMD credibility on the dopey sideshow of anti-Castro foolery.

-- Josh Marshall

(May 14, 2002 -- 01:37 AM EDT // link // print)

A Bush administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Cuba has 'a number of projects that are what could be dual-use things, but they're probably not. . . . It's a question more of them exciting suspicions by not being open. I don't know of any tangible stuff that shows yes, they are making anthrax [or anything else]. There is stuff we don't know about.'

This is the key graf from today's Washington Post piece about the Bush administration allegations that Cuba has an offensive biological weapons program. An administration official is in so many words saying that Under Secretary of State John Bolton's allegations are crap. As I noted in the earlier post, Cuba has a fairly advanced biotech industry. If you do biotech, almost by definition much of your equipment and facilities are going to be dual-use. So they seem to have nothing. And the actual briefings Carter got from the State and intel people seem to back that up.

This is the problem with the hawks. They often do see certain big picture things with real clarity. But they're irresponsible, reckless, and they often just don't tell the truth.

As I said earlier, Bolton's throw-away remarks about Cuba -- perhaps a sop to Otto Reich -- weaken our hand against Saddam Hussein. If you're a hawk, if you really care about weapons of mass destruction, you should be angry with Bolton. If you think this is just a parlor game then maybe you won't mind.

-- Josh Marshall

(May 14, 2002 -- 01:01 AM EDT // link // print)

I really, really, really want to recommend a book to you. It's called Strange Victory: Hitler's Conquest of France and it's by Ernest R. May, a highly respected diplomatic historian. There are two reasons why this book is so good. The first is that it is just a marvelously engrossing narrative of one of the most pivotal moments of the 20th Century: the lead-up to the Second World War and particularly Hitler's lightning victory over France in May and June of 1940. It's just a very polished, compelling World War Two book and a very good read.

But it's much more than that.

May begins with a question that most of us would probably not imagine really was a question. That is, why did France lose?

From the newsreels, many histories, and the mythology of appeasement you'd get the impression that this was just a given, that Germany was strong and armed-to-the-teeth and France was unprepared and weak. But this just wasn't the case. May makes very clear that France (and especially France and Britain together) were both quantitatively and qualitatively stronger and better prepared for war. Simply put, on balance, they had more stuff and better stuff.

So then the question: why did they lose and lose so quickly?

May provides a complex series of answers to this question. But the key ones are easily stated.

One, the French intelligence services were inefficiently organized and intelligence gathering was not well wedded to policy-making. In other words, though France had better intelligence assets in Germany the French weren't particularly good at analyzing and making use of that information. Nor were they particularly good at crafting policy based on intelligence.

Two, the French military, though professional and well-equipped, was organized around a series of what one might call risk-averse doctrines which made it cumbersome, immobile and less agile and quick to react than it should have been.

May uses diplomatic, military and intelligence sources from the French and the German sides to assemble a very clear view of how the two diplomatic and war-fighting machines operated. May's readily apparent depth of familiarity with these sources is little short of breath-taking.

All of this combined to allow the weaker power, Germany, to defeat the stronger one, France.

What makes this book valuable to read today is that May makes a convincing case that our Western military and intelligence services are much more like that of the French circa 1940 than the Germans. And that's sobering.

This is the rare work of history that has very real application to constructing defense, intelligence and foreign policy today. More on Strange Victory soon.

-- Josh Marshall

(May 13, 2002 -- 10:21 PM EDT // link // print)

Who says there are no lefty blogs? Max Sawicky, an economist at the the Economic Policy Institute, a respected labor-liberal DC think-tank, has just opened the doors of his own blog (god, I hate that word!). I remember back in his Crossfire days, or I guess when he was leaving Crossfire, Mike Kinsley said that he'd always felt a little bad being the 'from the left' voice, since he really wasn't from the left at all. Since I'm sometimes labeled as the 'liberal' or 'left' blog in contrast to Kausfiles or Andrew Sullivan's site, I sometimes have a similar feeling. Anyway, if you want your economics left, and I do mean left, then definitely check out MaxSpeaks.org.

PS. Lotsa Israel stuff too. And no, he's not down with AIPAC.

-- Josh Marshall

(May 13, 2002 -- 06:06 PM EDT // link // print)

Under-Secretary of State John R. Bolton recently accused Cuba of developing and proliferating Weapons of Mass Destruction, specifically offensive biological weapons. Today Secretary of State Colin Powell most tepidly endorsed Bolton's claim by telling Russian TV that "we know that Cuba has been doing some research with respect to biological offensive weapons possibly, and so we think that it is appropriate for us to point out this kind of activity."

'possibly' ... 'with respect to'... you get the picture.

There is a slender hint of credibility to this charge since Cuba is known to have a pretty advanced biotech industry and that includes the equipment and know-how you'd want for creating bioweapons. But I'm going on the assumption that the claim is essentially bogus, and Powell's statement today, to my ears, tends to confirm this. This statement doesn't sound like it's about WMD. It sounds like it's about pandering to anti-Castro nut-cases. (Sorry for the blunt language, but ...)

Anyway, there's a price to pay for this kind of foolishness. The United States is trying to make the case that the Iraqi government really is developing WMD and really is a seriously threat to global security and really should be overthrown. I am rather in spite of myself coming to the conclusion that they're right. But if Saddam really is dangerous then there's a very high priority in marshaling and protecting our credibility and believability in making our case against him. Playing games and saying the Fidel Castro is another Saddam isn't tough, it's stupid. And it endangers the United States. Because it weakens us in our ability to make the case against actual bad actors.

-- Josh Marshall

Send Tips or Comments to TPM.

- February 1-February 7, 2004 Talking Points -
- January 25-January 31, 2004 Talking Points -
- January 18-January 24, 2004 Talking Points -
- January 11-January 17, 2004 Talking Points -
- January 4-January 10, 2004 Talking Points -
- December 28-January 3, 2004 Talking Points -
- December 21-December 27, 2003 Talking Points -
- December 14-December 20, 2003 Talking Points -
- December 7-December 13, 2003 Talking Points -
- November 30-December 6, 2003 Talking Points -
- November 23-November 29, 2003 Talking Points -
- November 16-November 22, 2003 Talking Points -
- November 9-November 15, 2003 Talking Points -
- November 2-November 8, 2003 Talking Points -
- October 26-November 1, 2003 Talking Points -
- October 19-October 25, 2003 Talking Points -
- October 12-October 18, 2003 Talking Points -
- October 5-October 11, 2003 Talking Points -
- September 28-October 4, 2003 Talking Points -
- September 21-September 27, 2003 Talking Points -
- September 14-September 20, 2003 Talking Points -
- September 7-September 13, 2003 Talking Points -
- August 31-September 6, 2003 Talking Points -
- August 24-August 30, 2003 Talking Points -
- August 17-August 23, 2003 Talking Points -
- August 10-August 16, 2003 Talking Points -
- August 3-August 9, 2003 Talking Points -
- July 27-August 2, 2003 Talking Points -
- July 20-July 26, 2003 Talking Points -
- July 13-July 19, 2003 Talking Points -
- July 6-July 12, 2003 Talking Points -
- June 29-July 5, 2003 Talking Points -
- June 22-June 28, 2003 Talking Points -
- June 15-June 21, 2003 Talking Points -
- June 8-June 14, 2003 Talking Points -
- June 1-June 7, 2003 Talking Points -
- May 25-May 31, 2003 Talking Points -
- May 18-May 24, 2003 Talking Points -
- May 11-May 17, 2003 Talking Points -
- May 4-May 10, 2003 Talking Points -
- April 27-May 3, 2003 Talking Points -
- April 20-April 26, 2003 Talking Points -
- April 13-April 19, 2003 Talking Points -
- April 6-April 12, 2003 Talking Points -
- March 30-April 5, 2003 Talking Points -
- March 23-March 29, 2003 Talking Points -
- March 16-March 22, 2003 Talking Points -
- March 9-March 15, 2003 Talking Points -
- March 2-March 8, 2003 Talking Points -
- February 23-March 1, 2003 Talking Points -
- February 16-February 22, 2003 Talking Points -
- February 9-February 15, 2003 Talking Points -
- February 2-February 8, 2003 Talking Points -
- January 26-February 1, 2003 Talking Points -
- January 19-January 25, 2003 Talking Points -
- January 12-January 18, 2003 Talking Points -
- January 5-January 11, 2003 Talking Points -
- December 29-January 4, 2003 Talking Points -
- December 22-December 28, 2002 Talking Points -
- December 15-December 21, 2002 Talking Points -
- December 8-December 14, 2002 Talking Points -
- December 1-December 7, 2002 Talking Points -
- November 24-November 30, 2002 Talking Points -
- November 17-November 23, 2002 Talking Points -
- November 10-November 16, 2002 Talking Points -
- November 3-November 9, 2002 Talking Points -
- October 27-November 2, 2002 Talking Points -
- October 20-October 26, 2002 Talking Points -
- October 13-October 19, 2002 Talking Points -
- October 6-October 12, 2002 Talking Points -
- September 29-October 5, 2002 Talking Points -
- September 22-September 28, 2002 Talking Points -
- September 15-September 21, 2002 Talking Points -
- September 8-September 14, 2002 Talking Points -
- September 1-September 7, 2002 Talking Points -
- August 18-August 24, 2002 Talking Points -
- August 11-August 17, 2002 Talking Points -
- August 4-August 10, 2002 Talking Points -
- July 28-August 3, 2002 Talking Points -
- July 21-July 27, 2002 Talking Points -
- July 14-July 20, 2002 Talking Points -
- July 7-July 13, 2002 Talking Points -
- June 30-July 6, 2002 Talking Points -
- June 23-June 29, 2002 Talking Points -
- June 16-June 22, 2002 Talking Points -
- June 9-June 15, 2002 Talking Points -
- June 2-June 8, 2002 Talking Points -
- May 26-June 1, 2002 Talking Points -
- May 19-May 25, 2002 Talking Points -
- May 12-May 18, 2002 Talking Points -
- May 5-May 11, 2002 Talking Points -
- April 28-May 4, 2002 Talking Points -
- April 21-April 27, 2002 Talking Points -
- April 14-April 20, 2002 Talking Points -
- April 7-April 13, 2002 Talking Points -
- March 31-April 6, 2002 Talking Points -
- March 24-March 30, 2002 Talking Points -
- March 17-March 23, 2002 Talking Points -
- March 10-March 16, 2002 Talking Points -
- March 3-March 9, 2002 Talking Points -
- February 24-March 2, 2002 Talking Points -
- February 17-February 23, 2002 Talking Points -
- February 10-February 16, 2002 Talking Points -
- February 3-February 9, 2002 Talking Points -
- January 27-February 2, 2002 Talking Points -
- January 20-January 26, 2002 Talking Points -
- January 13-January 19, 2002 Talking Points -
- January 6-January 12, 2002 Talking Points -
- December 30-January 5, 2002 Talking Points -
- December 23-December 29, 2001 Talking Points -
- December 16-December 22, 2001 Talking Points -
- December 9-December 15, 2001 Talking Points -
- December 2-December 8, 2001 Talking Points -
- November 25-December 1, 2001 Talking Points -
- November 18-November 24, 2001 Talking Points -
- November 11-November 17, 2001 Talking Points -
- November 4-November 10, 2001 Talking Points -
- October 28-November 3, 2001 Talking Points -
- October 21-October 27, 2001 Talking Points -
- October 14-October 20, 2001 Talking Points -
- October 7-October 13, 2001 Talking Points -
- September 30-October 6, 2001 Talking Points -
- September 23-September 29, 2001 Talking Points -
- September 16-September 22, 2001 Talking Points -
- September 9-September 15, 2001 Talking Points -
- September 2-September 8, 2001 Talking Points -
- August 26-September 1, 2001 Talking Points -
- August 19-August 25, 2001 Talking Points -
- August 12-August 18, 2001 Talking Points -
- August 5-August 11, 2001 Talking Points -
- July 29-August 4, 2001 Talking Points -
- July 22-July 28, 2001 Talking Points -
- July 15-July 21, 2001 Talking Points -
- July 8-July 14, 2001 Talking Points -
- July 1-July 7, 2001 Talking Points -
- June 24-June 30, 2001 Talking Points -
- June 17-June 23, 2001 Talking Points -
- June 10-June 16, 2001 Talking Points -
- June 3-June 9, 2001 Talking Points -
- May 27-June 2, 2001 Talking Points -
- May 20-May 26, 2001 Talking Points -
- May 13-May 19, 2001 Talking Points -
- May 6-May 12, 2001 Talking Points -
- April 29-May 5, 2001 Talking Points -
- April 22-April 28, 2001 Talking Points -
- April 15-April 21, 2001 Talking Points -
- April 8-April 14, 2001 Talking Points -
- March 25-March 31, 2001 Talking Points -
- March 18-March 24, 2001 Talking Points -
- March 11-March 17, 2001 Talking Points -
- March 4-March 10, 2001 Talking Points -
- February 25-March 3, 2001 Talking Points -
- February 18-February 24, 2001 Talking Points -
- February 11-February 17, 2001 Talking Points -
- February 4-February 10, 2001 Talking Points -
- January 28-February 3, 2001 Talking Points -
- January 21-January 27, 2001 Talking Points -
- January 14-January 20, 2001 Talking Points -
- January 7-January 13, 2001 Talking Points -
- December 31-January 6, 2001 Talking Points -
- December 24-December 30, 2000 Talking Points -
- December 17-December 23, 2000 Talking Points -
- December 10-December 16, 2000 Talking Points -
- December 3-December 9, 2000 Talking Points -
- November 26-December 2, 2000 Talking Points -
- November 19-November 25, 2000 Talking Points -
- November 12-November 18, 2000 Talking Points -

Joshua Micah Marshall is a writer living in Washington, DC. He is a Contributing Writer for the Washington Monthly and a columnist for The Hill. His articles on politics and culture have appeared in The American Prospect, Blueprint, The Boston Globe, The Columbia Journalism Review, Feed, The Financial Times, The Forward, The New Republic, The New Yorker, The New York Post, The New York Times, Newsday, Salon, The San Francisco Chronicle, Slate, Talk, Tompaine.com and The Washington Monthly. He has appeared on Crossfire (CNN), Fox and Friends (FOX), Hannity and Colmes (FOX), Hardball (MSNBC), Late Edition (CNN), O'Reilly Factor (FOX), The Point (CNN), Reliable Sources (CNN), Rivera Live (CNBC), Washington Journal (C-SPAN) and talk radio shows across the United States. He has a bachelors degree from Princeton University and a doctorate in American history from Brown University.