Has the White House confirmed that Zelikow is actually a retained consultant? A contract must be public information one would think. Whitehouse might claim privilege? But they should be asked anyway. Or was Zelikow just blowing off Snyder, not thinking he'd get caught in a lie?

That's the trouble with trying to undersand this group. They just are so slimey, takes all your effort to find out what the hell is going on.

Public? Surely you jest. This is an administration that won't tell us how many staffers Dick Cheney has or where he is on a given day. You could file a FOIA request and in 2011 they will send you a form indicating that they can't disclose this because of national security.

I tried all day getting confirmation from the lobbying firm and/or Zelikoff but they were just not talking to anyone.

Admin should be asked anyway. They should be given every opportunity to lie on record. Or to mislead on record. Or to make completely absurd privilege assertions on record. Why? I don't know. Maybe somewhere way back in the darkness I harbor a hope that the record might mean something, some day.

From that ABC "Pushing" piece--

Today, the White House insisted it has nothing to do with Allawi's push for power.

"Far be it for me to judge why people sign contracts for whatever reason," said administration spokesman Gordon Johndroe. "I'm sure they have a desire to help out their client. But they're former administration officials. Administration policy remains unchanged."

I note that nothing Johndroe says in this quote constitutes an "insistence" that the White House is uninvolved. But maybe you had to be there. Walsh's piece has a better denial quote from Johndroe.

Regardless, we have Snyder flatly stating what Zelikow told him (thanks to GG's reporting)--there is a professional consulting relationship between Zelikow and Administration, and a somewhat fuzzier denial of this from the White House.

Somebody ain't telling the truth.

I was at FDL this AM and people were following the CSPAN show, rapidly tuned it in and caught the second half. I think Greenwald did splendidly. His counterpart was weak, frankly. I found myself looking for Bebop in the audience. Which of course was silly because I have no idea what bebop looks like.

Two notable questions from the audience. One from a Cato staffer, to which GG have a very strong (and angry) answer. Second, from a kid in the back who was so nervous that the microphone shook like a leaf in his hands. None the less, his question (which took a good five minutes) came out fine. I was so heartened to see him using his voice so clearly, tremors and all, at such a young age. It really gives me hope. Greenwald's performance was sterling. Bravisimo Glen.

Regarding Zelikow:

If one takes him at his word (only for sake of argument) then we are asked to believe he has a long and strong relationship with a lobbying firm that is displaying incompetence at a galactic scale. Their entire business depends on expertise in communications and public relations. And yet one of their lobbying "stars" is on national media without knowing that his firm has a contract relating to the specific subject? If I was a client looking for a lobbying firm, I think Barbour, Griffiths & Rogers would likely be very low on my list--several notches down from the firm of "Moe, Larry, and Curly". Still, if he'd prefer charges of incompetence over conflict of interest, then so be it. The end product remains--You'd have to be an idiot to hire these guys.

Finally, I note the following items:

1. Zelikow: "I've had no contact with Allawi, directly or indirectly, since leaving government." Meaning that he did have contact while in the government, I suppose? And yet the firm didn't think that he should be working on this issue...why? "Well, we don't want Zelikow on this issue, because he knew Maliki and had dealings with him previously". Yes, please cue the laff-track.

2. "I am not formally consulting with the administration about Iraq policy."

3. "I'm not doing paid work on Iraq for anyone in the government."

WaPo article 1/10/06, link at name below.

Surely democracy in Iraq is at least as shaky as it was in Western Europe after the defeat of Hitler. The real complaint that ought to be made against the Bush administration is that it has allowed such important work to be contracted to a public relations firm (in the case cited above, the Lincoln Group) that has done a poor job of protecting anonymity. Nevertheless, one has to give the Pentagon credit: It seems to be the only government agency that is at least trying to develop Iraqi cadres to wage the "hearts and minds" campaign. The CIA seems to have all but abandoned its historical mission in this area.

I should have noted that the WaPo article linked earlier is written by a former CIA case officer.

Speculation:

1. The buck doesn't stop at Allawi. I believe it would be naive to believe the money for this consulting firm came from Allawi. Allawi is simply the pass-through.

As outlined in that WaPo article, the Bush administration may be outsourcing what used to be core CIA function (removing foreign heads of state). Why would they do this. First, this administration generally believes that the private sector is leaner and meaner. It's part of the Canon of Belief at this point, in spite of being absolutely incorrect both domestically and in Iraq (KBR, Blackwater, etc., etc., etc.).

But a second reason would be clearly displayed distrust of the CIA by this administration. This is not coming from Bush. Bush couldn't distinguish the CIA from a ripe cumquat (or kumquat--Fortunella sp. It's from Cheney. Cheney has never trusted CIA, and his relationship with it have been strained from the very start of his term, to say the least.