. . . March 30, 2004
You Know You Want It
After more than a week in the media crosshairs, the White House has now authorized Condi Rice to testify publicly in front of the 9-11 panel. The White House press strategy, once airtight, close to the vest and extremely effective, has morphed into a bad porn movie (unfortunately, one that has been edited for viewing by John Ashcroft).  Even when they know something will feel good -- like the fantastic release of nonsensically classified information, the cocoa-butter shine that envelopes the body when leveling with the American people, the exciting group action harnessed by the creation of the Homeland Security Office, the Oedipal (and Clintonian?), climactic splat on the Oval Office window that could be fired off unexpectedly (like an armed Predator) following a sip of wine and the simple words: "All right, forget the weapons. The dick tried to kill my dad!", the the tingling, goosebumped, throbbing thrill that can only be achieved while doing it (testifying that is) publicly -- they still hold out on us. They say no, no, no. No, it's not in the public's best interest. No it's against the Constitution. No, well, because we don't wanna. But by the end of each scene, the Bush administration always winks, flicks us with the wet end of a towel and shares that seductive smirk; the one that says "Aw heck. You're with us," and makes us recall the famous, romantic, and somewhat Bushian first line of Gabriel Garcia Marquez' Love in the time Cholera: "It was inevitable." (That's "Era Invetable" when you're courting the Latino vote). And once they've given in and the deed is done, the administration sits back, smokes a compensatingly long stogie (Guantanamo's locale has its benefits) and asks, "Well, was that a great idea I had or what?" But it's not working anymore. The mystery is gone. The James Dean enigmatic vibe no longer gets our juices flowing. We're tired of the drawn out scenes and we don't want to play dress-up anymore (besides, why do they always get to wear the flightsuits?). The American public is now channeling Tom Cruise (pre-Nicole breakup and sans the freaky L. Ron obsession) in A Few Good Men as we each (at least those not busy looking for work) shout: "I want the truth." More and more, it turns out that the act itself wasn't worth the holding out and the waiting. Think we'll be tapping ourselves in the forehead and saying, "Ah ha, it was Condi Rice who left our nation unprotected and is therefore responsible for 9-11..."? No. What we'll be left with is the memory that, like the Nicholson character in the aforementioned movie, this administration doesn't think we can handle the truth. This administration keeps showing up wearing nothing but fishnets and a camouflaged strap-on and then they tell us they don't want to do it. And once they do it, it's not that satisfying. No cuddling. No real letting loose. Certainly no French kissing. Come November, we just might decide to bring it on with another administration.
Fill 'Er Up
Kerry is doing the smart thing by largely staying out of the Clarke story for now. While Bush is dealing with commissions, Kerry is saying he'll lower our gas prices. (Big donors might even be able to use the carpool lane).
Why Bush Needs Courtney Love
The Energizer Bureaucrat: The Richard Clarke story just won't die. The administration has mishandled its response (we never look away when they attack), Clarke has been a rock under pressure, and maybe, just maybe, it's an important story that gets to the heart of the decision to invade Iraq which gets to the heart of this election. Man, what the Bush administration wouldn't give for another exposed breast, or a steroid allegation against another major leaguer, or at least, to a Courtney Love outburst to take our minds of this story.
. . . March 29, 2004
Hysterical Precedents
The LA Times does everyone in this evenly split country a favor by skipping the finger-pointing politics and helping readers to evaluate the should Condi testify debate in terms of factual, historical precedents. So what side does history favor? It's split. Damn.
Clarke, Who Goes There?
Discrediting Richard Clarke has become the number one pastime among White House backers. So far, not many of the attacks have worked. But there are plenty more to come. Here's a preview of the things you may be hearing about Clarke in the near future. His hair is a natural gray. But it's not his natural gray. He's gay. He's looking forward to Matt LeBlanc's Friends spinoff. In January of 2001 Clarke mentioned Al Qaeda to Condoleezza Rice and later said that "her facial expression gave me the impression she had never heard the term before." That expression was actually meant to convey that Clarke needed a mint. He still eats carbs. Clarke wants to take your guns away, raise your taxes, leave your family and neighbors open to attack, coddle terrorists, take orders from the French, and he snowboards like a girl ... oh wait a second, that's John Kerry. Reason to be disgruntled? I'll say. He was the only bureaucrat within 13,000 miles of Washington that hadn't yet been given a nickname (or a towel-flicking) by W. Let's put it this way: That was no wardrobe malfunction. Clarke? That's a Muslim name isn't it? ... In truth, we really need look no further than Clarke's own testimony to discredit him. Take a look at his remarks below (edited for distribution by the White House): "And I failed you." "...certainly no higher priority." "I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but ... I failed you." "I thought cybersecurity was and I still think cyber security is an extraordinary important issue for which this country is very underprepared. And I thought perhaps I could make a contribution if I worked full time on that issue ... And I failed you." "I don't know..." "But the investigation, both the CIA investigation and the FBI investigation, made it very clear in '95 and '96 as they got more information, that the Iraqi government was ... way involved in the attack." "Senator Kerry ... one of my best friends and someone who I greatly respect" "I do know he was thereafter continually informed about the threat by George Tenet ... And I failed you." "I thought fine. If you want to have that kind standard and you want to have that kind of process, fine." " It is unusual when you are being told every day that there is an urgent threat." "And the president makes these kinds of decisions." "I don't think it's a question of morality at all. I think it's a question of politics." "... We succeeded in stopping the attacks. That was good news." "... there is a difference between what I said to this commission in 15 hours of testimony and what I am saying in my book." "And, yes, I will admit, I co-teach a class at the Harvard University and Georgetown University with Mr. Beers. That, I ... think, makes me a member of the Kerry campaign." "I failed you ... yes, that's correct ... I failed you."
Going Off Scripture
From Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt: "John Kerry's comment at New Northside Baptist Church was beyond the bounds of acceptable discourse, and a sad exploitation of scripture for a political attack." O.K., now ask yourself this: Is there anything that Kerry could have said to make the above response even marginally reasonable? That said, I'd rather both dudes kept the big G out of the campaign.
Lighters Out
Think Americans are experiencing heated political times with raging debates over such issues as the war on terror, the truth about the motivations behind invading Iraq, taxes, deficits, an upcoming election and the blurred line between church and state? That's nothing compared to Ireland where as of today, there is the seemingly unthinkable separation of a pint and a smoke.
You've Been Clark'd
President Bush has taken a major hit in poll numbers related to his performance dealing with homeland security and the war on terror. About 57% approve of the way W is handling these issues. Not bad, but a far cry from the 70% approval rating of a couple months ago. In the bigger picture, W's overall approval rating hasn't moved much and the race with Kerry is still within the margin of error. So what do these poll numbers tell us? The same thing they always tell us. We are split down the middle and barring something unimaginable, the race will come down to a handful of voters in handful of states. And not many of those voters have not been following the commission hearings on C-Span.
PowerPointing: Slate presents a powerpoint version of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Backing up the Pinto
Ralph Nader is expected to meet with John Kerry next week to discuss ways he can help to drive W from the White House. Should be a short meeting in which Kerry (backed by just about every Democrat from sea to shining sea) says: Ralph, get out! The truth is that we don't even really know what impact Nader would have on the election. Some polls say he'd get six percent of the vote. I say that's a bit high, but the number itself is relatively insignificant. What matters is how many votes Nader gets in the states that matter.
Don't Even Try to See the Forest
The 9-11 Commission (if you look at signs from the media coverage to threats of perjury charges), one might assume, is not about better protecting our country from future terror attacks by learning from past errors. It is about whose ass will be the last one left on the hotseat. After a week of blasting away at Richard Clarke (who seemed to actually look better as the pressure increased), it is now Condoleezza Rice who finds herself in the crosshairs. But is this really about Rice? Think she was the one who has been secretly longing to go after Iraq for the better part of a decade? And does anyone really believe that Rice hadn't really heard of Al Qaeda before a January 2001 meeting with Clarke? Reducing the debate down to a few personalities makes for great television, but it surely misses the point.
The Other Book on Bush
While Richard Clarke's searing bestseller continues to make headlines, the White House is anxiously awaiting the release of another White House 'tell-some' by Karen Hughes. You can expect it to read a little differently.
. . . March 28, 2004
Sunday Showdown: Rice
Things went a little less smoothly for Condoleezza Rice during her rebuttal interview on Sixty minutes. Overall, I thought Ed Bradley focused much too much (as many are) on the urgency about terror prior to 9-11 and too little on the decision to go to Iraq. Rice again made it clear she will not testify publicly and under oath. Here is one exchange: Bradley: "You'd listed the things that you'd done. But here is the perception. The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff at that time says you pushed it to the back burner. The former Secretary of the Treasury says it was not a priority. Mr. Clarke says it was not a priority. And at least, according to Bob Woodward, who talked with the president, he is saying that for the president, it wasn't urgent. He didn't have a sense of urgency about al Qaeda. That's the perception here." Rice: "Ed, I don't know what a sense of urgency - any greater than the one that we had, would have caused us to do differently." I'm not sure a witch hunt over attitudes about terror prior to 9-11 is what we need right now. But this is the answer of administration spinning out of control when it comes to this story. You spend an entire week putting a full-court press on one finger-pointer and the story doesn't budge ... that means something.
Sunday Showdown: Clarke
Richard Clarke once again stood strong against the Bush political machine. The nonsense about inconsistencies between his testimony two years (when he was instructed to spin) ago and now. The pathetic reach to issues like his letter of resignation. The weird charges of partisanship. The absurd notion that a guy who has worked this issue for than a decade would turn into some out of control disguntled employee. The effort to discuss anything other than Clarke's key point which is that the war Iraq was a diversion from the war on terror. We did go to war in Iraq, no? So let's have the debate about that, not Dick Clarke. So far this guy has been a rock under pressure (is he the The Alpha-Bureaucrat?). Again, we're being asked to believe that someone like Ahmed Chalabi is to be trusted but someone Clarke is to be disregarded. From John McCain: "This is the most vigorous offensive I've ever seen from the administration on any issue. These attacks go to the heart of the strength of the president, and they felt it had to be put down and put down quickly. Whether they'll succeed or not is unclear." There are really now two main election-issues to be considered. One, the decision to go to Iraq. Two, the tactics used by this administration to destroy Dick Clarke and others and keep information from an American public they believe is unable to process it reasonably. "When you're in the White House, you spin. And people have been doing a lot of that against me this week. You know, they're engaged in a campaign. People on the taxpayers' rolls, dozens of people, are engaged in the campaign to destroy me, personally and professionally, because I had the temerity to suggest that the American people should consider whether or not the president had done a good job on the war on terrorism. The issue is not me. The issue is the president's job on the role on terrorism. I think, before 9/11, he himself said -- if you look at what he said to Bob Woodward, he himself said before 9/11, "This was not an urgent issue for me. I didn't feel a sense of urgency." He acknowledged bin Laden was not the focus of him or his national security team. So, before 9/11, not as focused. After 9/11 -- I say by going into Iraq, he has really hurt the war on terrorism. Now, because I say that, the administration doesn't want to talk on the merits of that. They don't want to talk about the effect on the war on terrorism of our invasion of Iraq. And so, instead, A, they try to do character assassination of me; but, B, they try to punish me for having said it by going after my professional life, by going after me, besmirching me. This is just not appropriate. And you know, Tim, what I would like to do, beginning today, it's been going on for a week now. What I would like to do beginning today, is let's raise the level of discourse. Let's get some civility back into this issue. And let's talk about the issues. Let's not talk about the personalities. I have great respect for Dr. Rice. People have been saying all week that, you know, I must have a grudge against Condi Rice. I have known Condi for a long time. I think she's a very, very good person. And I don't want this to be about personality. I want it to be about the issues, about the war in Iraq and its affect on the war on terror." Full Transcript (worth a read) Here.
. . . March 26, 2004
It's Come to This
Now the Republicans are accusing Richard Clarke of perjury ( all the details in this must-read Talkingpoints piece). This is really getting ugly. The release of classified docs, the personal attacks, the broad accusations and now this. Bob Graham and others are telling the Bush team to go ahead and declassify Clarke's earlier testimony. Just so long as they declassify all the material they've been hiding from the commission up until now. This is all so obsviously a diversion. If the President can convince us that Clarke is off his rocker and that Iraq was really part of the war on terror, then he should do it. Clarke didn't make the assertions about the grave, growing, imminent and otherwise urgent threat posed by Saddam. Nor did he hide the WMDs in Iraq. Playing the perjury card is a sign of remarkable desperation. Are we really going to write off years of consistent evidence from multiple sources (including our own eyes) as the deranged inner workings of the mind of a disgruntled employee?
The Intellectual Blogging Elite
President Bush has called for more high-speed internet access connected to more homes by 2007. That is so long as the broadband access is not used to raise money via blogs for those nasty Democratic candidates.
Another "With Them" Turncoat?
David Kay: "The cost of our mistakes ... with regard to the explanation of why we went to war in Iraq are far greater than Iraq itself. We are in grave danger of having destroyed our credibility internationally and domestically with regard to warning about future events. The answer is to admit you were wrong, and what I find most disturbing around Washington ... is the belief ... you can never admit you're wrong."
Steamed Rice: After facing increasing pressure, Condoleezza Rice has agreed to appear before the 9-11 panel one more time ... in private and not under oath. Meanwhile, the beat(ing) goes on when it comes to the attacks on Richard Clarke (including the suggestion that he's a racist). Slate has pulled the most meaningful excerpts from Clarke's book and presented them here. Give the guy this; he's standing up to the pressure and hasn't come close to being discredited.
Won't You Stay...?
Kerry introduces a corporate tax plan designed to incent companies to keep more of their operations in the U.S.
Lost But Now They're Lost
President Bush is taking some heat because of WMD-related jokes he made at a Washington Correspondents Dinner earlier this week. During his comedic remarks, W displayed pictures of himself looking around the White House and remarked: "Those weapons of mass destruction have to be here somewhere, " and "Nope, no weapons over there. Maybe under here." Rep Nadler of NY responded: "It's disgusting that during his little performance on stage, the President seemed to forget that people are dying in Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction he lied about." I'd just like to add that I'm pretty sure someone at the White House stole the jokes from my NextDraft newsletter in the first place. For evidence, take a look here and here.
Howard Stern's New Deal
"If there is a bedrock principle of the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." -- Justice William J. Brennan The above quote and many other political-themed stories and links can now be found at the previously rather dormant HowardStern.com. Of course if you are an employee of the federal government or of Clear Channel (was that redundant?), then you may not be able to access the site. There is a full-on cultural war going on in this country, but at times it seems like only one side (other than those who, like Stern, have been directly attacked) is fighting. Gay Marriage Amendment, anti-choice legislation, federal funding for "faith based" programs, new FCC obscenity regulations, limits on speech, limits on medical and scientific research, the abuse of the Patriot Act, and the list goes on. And this stuff goes far beyond party affiliation.
Speech Therapy
The Dems brought out their big guns for a campaign speech-fest on Thursday night. Ann Richards summed up the evening by explaining: "We are so united that when we leave here tonight, they're going to have to use the jaws of life to pry us apart. [Republicans] drove us into each other's arms." Gore played up the anger factor: ""Every time that you have felt that [Bush] shouldn't be there, every time you have felt that you would like to get him out of the White House -- I want you to draw on all that energy, and I want you to channel it in support of John Kerry." Carter told Ralph to stay out of it: "When I was president, he gave me a lot of advice. And tonight, I want to return the favor by giving him some advice. Ralph, go back to umpiring softball games or examining the rear end of automobiles, and don't risk costing the Democrats the White House this year as you did four years ago." But Clinton was the star speaker of the night as he built up John Kerry... "In the Vietnam era, most young men, including the president, the vice president and me, most of us could have gone to Vietnam and didn't go. And John Kerry said ,send me." And ripped the Republicans: "If people think in this election, if they think about the choices that have been made and the vision John Kerry offers, we win. Therefore they have to get people to stop thinking and they're real good at that. We already see what they do. They've got to turn John Kerry from a three-dimensional human being to two-dimensional cartoon. It's what they know to do." The gang is all on board and that will be a key factor as the campaign unfolds. The key question will be whether or not John Kerry can rise to the top of the heap and become the star of his party and of this election cycle. Anyone but Bush is powerful and channeling anger can be effective, but I don't either will be enough to get Dems all the way to the Oval Office.
And Fetus Makes Two
In a statement released by the White House late Thursday, President Bush indicated: "Pregnant women who have been harmed by violence, and their families, know that there are two victims - the mother and the unborn child - and both victims should be protected by federal law." Fair enough. A law that increased penalties against those who have harmed pregnant women would completely cover this implied loophole. But of course that's not what the new Unborn Victims of Violence Act passed by the Senate is all about. The legislation defines a "child in utero" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." In other words, life begins at the stem cell and this is yet another place where anti-choice advocates have manipulated the law in an effort to put additional pressure on Roe v Wade. Fair enough. Anti-choice advocates and politicians have the right to pursue legislation they believe is right. What they have no right to do is to couch these efforts in deceptions and pretend they are seeking something else altogether. Senator DeWine of Ohio said: "It's as simple as that. This bill recognizes that when someone attacks and harms a mother and her unborn child, that attack does, in fact, result in two separate victims." Of course he knows it is anything but that simple. It is much closer to what Diane Feinstein described as "The first strike against all abortion in the United States of America." You believe in something and want the law to reflect those beliefs? Then tell it like it is and let's vote. Otherwise we may need to pass Unborn Victims of Hogwash Act. Fair enough?
. . . March 25, 2004
The Threat Silhouette
Bush: "I saw a threat. The Congress saw a threat, the United Nations Security Council saw a threat in the form of Saddam Hussein. He was not only a threat to people in the Middle East because of terrorist ties, he was a threat to America or anybody else who loved freedom." Slight change in the argument here. The terrorist ties were a threat to people in the Middle East. In other words, his payoffs to families of Palestinian suicide bombers may have been his only connection to terrorism. Now one could certainly argue that such a crime alone is cause enough to have one's country wrested away (I'm certainly open to that line of reasoning). But the issue here is what reasons were given to the American people and the world during the road to engagement in Iraq.
Always Never (But Only Sometimes)
When is a leak appropriate? When it is required as part of an effort to discredit others. And was Dick Clarke always in the loop and an integral part of the Bush counterterrorism team? He most certainly was-wasn't!
"Do you know what Rummy's favorite TV show is? Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. My Cabinet could take some pointers from watching that show. In fact, I'm going to have the Fab Five do a make over on Ashcroft." Bush Remarks at the Radio and
Television Correspondents Association Dinner
Fox News: Fair and Balanced ... and edited to make whatever point the White House wants to make.
White House Briefing: "Okay, students of the White House, what did we learn yesterday?"
Bidding for Biden
OK, I'll make a selection for John Kerry's running mate (assuming he doesn't go with my original pick). I nominate Joe Biden. Yes, he's got the Senator baggage and yes there were those law school missteps (but they say plagiarism is the new journalism). I think he's got the right mixtures of edge and gravitas and plain-talker and politician. Mostly, I'd just like to see if John McCain could still endorse the Bush/Cheney ticket without bursting into laughter (or tears).
Kid Stuff
The use of a child to attempt a suicide bombing has created a split among Palestinians. Meanwhile, some Palestinian intellectuals have argued against a retaliation for the killing of Yassin. It doesn't make for very interesting news footage, but there are still plenty of people on both sides who want the nightmare to stop.
Channeling the 9-11 Families
"The bottom line for me is, it just pains me to have to say that on the 11th of September that 19 men and less than half a million dollars defeated every single defensive mechanism we had in place -- utterly. It wasn't even a close call. They defeated everything we had in place on 11th September, with hardly, it seems to me, any doubt about their chance of success!" -- Bob Kerrey Sounds Off
Tough Duty: The disadvantage of not being a superpower is that you sometimes get stuck running unappealing errands. Tony Blair's latest challenge? Making small talk with Gadhafi.
From Vermont with Love
 Howard Dean has finally made an official endorsement of his former foe John Kerry. The lovefest took place at a rally at George Washington University. In making the endorsement, Dean said: "Who would you rather have in charge of the defense of the United States of America, a group of people who never served a day overseas in their life or a guy who served his country honorably and has three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star from the battlefields of Vietnam? ... We had a tough campaign here. It is tough. We're both tough competitors. But there are things in the campaign we talked about focusing on the things that divide us. Now we are going to talk about the things that we have in common." I'm not sure how tough a campaign is when it is clearly over after the first caucus. But it will interesting to see what impact Dean and his internet machine will have on the campaign.
The Rummy Way: Walking 10,000 paces a day with Donald Rumsfeld.
The Neutral, Non-Religious God
I know I am in a tiny minority on this one (now apparently made up of those foolish enough to have mistaken the reference to god in the pledge as being a reference to "the" god (I had no idea it could just as easily refer to the god of Abraham and Isaac as allah, ganesha or a box of generic detergent). We know which way the pledge case is going to go. All I ask for is at least a hint of honesty when it comes to the debate. Take a look at these quotes from Wednesday's pledge case arguments and the post-court interviews. Forget which way you're leaning. Who makes the most sense? Michael Newdow, Plaintiff:"I want government to stay out of the religion business so that every religious opinion in this nation gets respected equally by this government." Terence Cassidy, School District's Lawyer:God in the non-religious sense."The Supreme Court in several of its opinions have distinguished between our ability to reference god as an acknowledgement of religion and the role of religion in American life and it's not an endorsement of religion and it's not favoring one religion over another or religion over non-religion." Stephen Breyer, Supreme Court Justice:God as Switzerland."God is so generic in this context as to be a neutral." A neutral god? What's the point? I don't think George Bush's god has dropped it out of fifth gear for a least a few years...
The Clarke Commission
It you've watched any significant portion of the 9-11 hearings, you have to had wondered what some of the questioners would've focused on without the Clarke book. But for the most part, Dick Clarke seemed to stand up fairly well under questioning.
. . . March 24, 2004
The Crux Stops Here
The crux of the Clarke argument from today's 9-11 hearings: "And the reason I am strident in my criticism of the president of the United States is because by invading Iraq -- something I was not asked about by the commission, it's something I chose write about a lot in the book -- by invading Iraq the president of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terrorism." Clarke's major argument is made or discredited by the actions of the Bush administration in leading the nation to war in Iraq. If you believe that Bush made the right moves and that the administration leveled with you about the case for war and that there is a real connection between Iraq and the war on terror, then fine. Vote that way. But that is the core issue. Not partisanship. Not fingerpointing. And not whether or not we'd prefer Saddam in hole rather than in a palace.
To Zell and Back
Remember how Zell Miller sort of went nuts awhile ago? Well, he hasn't gotten any better. Introducing Democrats for Bush.
Behind the Scream
"The 2004 Democratic nomination was decided in Iowa. John Kerry's decision to focus his efforts in the Hawkeye State, with the support of a $6.4 million loan secured by his home, paid off handsomely: Kerry rallied in the final two weeks to upset Howard Dean, and surged to an easy win in New Hampshire just eight days later. The rest of the states then fell like dominoes. Dean and his chief strategists; Joe Trippi, the campaign manager; the media consultants Steve McMahon and Mark Squier; and I were not surprised: winning Iowa had been the heart of our own victory plan. As was the case with so many other parts of our campaign, somebody stole our hopes along the way. This is the story of how it happened." -- The Front-Runner's Fall . . .
OK, so maybe you're not yet ready to come around to my position on the Kerry runningmate question - I'm pushing (and pulling) for Beyonce. But does it sound that much more crazy than Jesse Ventura and Charles Barkley in 2008?
There and Here
Kristof: "Is there any hope for Africa?" Forget altruism and humanity for a second. We've learned plenty about how ignoring problems halfway across the world can come back to haunt us. Doesn't self-interest dictate that we need some kind of a plan to deal with Africa's desperation?
The Fog of Not Yet a War
" History is written through a rearview mirror, but it unfolds through a foggy windshield." -- Sandy Berger, March 24, 2004Not surprisingly, Richard Clarke gave the most charged testimony in front of the 9-11 panel on Wednesday. He opened with the statement: "Your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I failed you." Clarke also charged that the Bush administration did not make terrorism enough of a priority before 9-11. The general theme of the hearings was once again that there is plenty of blame to go around and that the decade before the attacks on the WTC was marked by a series of missed opportunities. Other interesting highlights from the day's testimony included Sandy Berger's indication that Clinton gave the CIA "every inch of authorization that it asked for" to carry out plans to target and kill bin Laden, and George Tenet's theory that killing bin Laden may not have made a difference: "Decapitating one person -- even bin Laden in this context -- I do not believe we would have stopped this plot." While most of the testimony has maintained a general theme of unity between the Clinton and Bush administrations, it is fair to wonder how much of an impact (if any) the clear disdain Bush had for everything Clinton had on the transition from one Commander in Chief's war on terror to another's. It is also fair to wonder what impact the increasing level of contempt felt by Democrats and Republicans towards one another is hampering our current efforts to make the right choices and achieve the necessary efficiency in the war on terror. If nothing else, these hearings should be a stark reminder that terrorism should be at the top of any poll measuring Americans' main concerns. Meanwhile, the beat goes on. U.S. officials have closed the consulate and embassy in Dubai due to a specific threat. A small bomb was found on a French rail line. A boy (and would be suicide bomber) was caught trying to enter Israel wearing a vest filled with explosives. And leaders from around the world joined Spain as it mourned its victims. Here is a running transcript of the hearings.
So far, John Kerry has been largely silent when it comes to Richard Clarke's book. Of course Kerry hasn't said much of anything since he went snowboarding. The silence may prove to have been the right move. Maybe the Dems should put their man on a chairlift everytime Bush takes a hit from another source.
The Bullet and the Buckshot
John Kerry's campaign, while picking up the fundraising pace, is a long way back when compared to the Bush bank account. Yet, the Dem message has managed to keep pace on the airwaves in key battleground states. According to the general manager of a local TV station in Lansing: "The share of voice seems relatively equal here." How can the spends be equal when the campaigns funds are not? Two well-funded liberal organizations, MoveOn.org and the Media Fund are picking up the slack. (I'm Dave Pell, and I approved this blog posting.)
Hey, You Got Your God in My Secularism!
Under God in the pledge. In God We Trust on dollar bills. And the line God save the United States and this honorable court to begin each session of the Supreme Court. Add these examples to the fact that public opinion polls and members of Congress overwhelmingly back this juxtaposition of god and country, and you can see that Michael A. Newdow will have an uphill battle in convincing Supreme Court justices to order the removal of the words "under god" from the pledge in case being heard today. Newdow's personal brand positioning doesn't help matters much. Neither Californians nor atheists have all that much popular support when it comes to matters religious, moral and patriotic (all on display in the reactions to the case). So a "California atheist" who is representing himself in court has about will have about as much throw when it comes to shifting public opinion as Howard Stern would have in front of the Co-Op board in Michael Powell's building. Does one's own religion matter when it comes to forming an opinion about this case? People often ask me if I am a practicing Jew. I usually respond that I only show up on gamedays. But I want Judaism out of politics just as much as any other religion. I couldn't care less what Joe Lieberman thinks of Moses and Abraham. I care what he thinks about social security and taxes. (Caveat: I did experiment some with Hadassah's Matzoh Ball Soup recipe during the height of the 2000 campaign.) And let's not pretend that the word "god" that appears in all these places is some reference to the general idea of religion and faith. You know exactly which god were talking about (especially if you believe in something else). I wonder if the reaction to Newdow's argument would be more positive if he were an extremely religious man (I see no conflict in one having a strong religious affiliation and also wanting god out of the pledge). It would be even more interesting if the entire debate could be turned inside out. Instead of an atheist arguing god has no place in the secular and nationalistic pledge, how about a religious person arguing that they don't want secularism and nationalism to taint their religion? Is it so far fetched to imagine a learned rabbi or priest arguing that they don't want the name of the Lord to appear on currency?
. . . March 23, 2004
Veepylicious
 Compared to most of the other players currently presumed to be on John Kerry's vice presidential watchlist ( full poll here), John Edwards is scoring quite well among prospective Democratic voters with 30% of respondents indicating that they'd like to see the Senator from North Carolina on the ticket (unclear if this is a true measure of political support or just a sick desire to start hearing that story about the mill closing again). Dean, Gore, and Clark are all hovering around the 3% mark (just below Hillary at 4%), while Lieberman is looking up at Sharpton, Kucinich and several others at 1% (Joementum still felt it was necessary to say no to the Veep spot). The field is currently being led by "No One" with the backing of 35% of those polled. But with a nation split so evenly, maybe it's time for Kerry to look beyond the usual suspects, beyond the same old politicians, beyond in-the-box thinking, and pick someone who can go beyond expectations. What I'm suggesting here is that Kerry at least consider the notion of taking the path path more bootylicious: He should select Beyonce as his runningmate. Dick Cheney, I don't think you can handle this. Why would Beyonce trump Cheney in the polls (aside from her pro-duck platform)? Well, with the help of an adoring public, she has demolished everyone else she has gone up against. Her midriff sent Britney off the deep-end at a wedding chapel in Vegas. Her fame forced Madonna to further humiliate herself (and we thank both for that) with public displays of affection with singers one could mistake for her granddaughters. And what of Beyonce's voice vs Whitney? Houston is now known for rehab, desperate pleas for help, anemic record sales, and a less than heartfelt description of crack as whack. Beyonce even hooked up with her own bad boy rapper just to prove nothing can bring her down. And the booty? Remember when JLo was know for something else other than a failed relationship with Ben Affleck? Kerry/Beyonce in 2004. The choice is so obvious. And the first order of business after the announcement of the selection: Challenge Dick Cheney to an acapella debate (I've got a theory that the guy's been lip-syncing since he left Halliburton).
Kaplan in Slate: "I have no doubt that Richard Clarke, the former National Security Council official who has launched a broadside against President Bush's counterterrorism policies, is telling the truth about every single charge. There are three reasons for this confidence."
The FBI followed John Kerry in the early 70s. Hmm. So it should be no problem for them to follow him again, starting in November...
Republicans Find a Smoking Gun? Turns out you can make a hell of a lot of money selling ketchup.
September 10, 2001 and the plan to topple the Taliban. Plus, Clinton considered killing bin Laden on three separate occasions but pulled the plug because of concerns about civilian casualties and the quality of the intelligence.
Swimming in the Clarke Tank
Fraud. Lies. Old. Discredited. Partisan. Misinformed. Out of the loop. Disgruntled. Bitter. Grudge to bear. Revenge seeker. Vague. Confused. Disjointed. Bizarre. And no, we're talking about the reaction to Courtney Love's recent appearance on Letterman. Richard Clarke must feel like Louisiana duck when Dick and Antonin pull into town (or like Paul O'Neill did a couple months ago). The administration and the sum total of right wing pundits have ripped into the former counter terrorism official.
Time for a Checkup?
A new report suggests that, if no changes are made, Medicare will go broke by 2019. Upon reading this, I immediately called my doctor. Good news. He has an available appointment in 2018.
Talking Taxes
Michael Kinsley on John Kerry's 350 tax increases (it may as well be described at 3.5 million of them): "President Bush seems to be running his re-election campaign on the basis of the Powell Doctrine: Go in with overwhelming force from the start, and strike a blow from which the enemy can never recover. Like the United States in Iraq, the Bush campaign has superior fire power and far more money. The lesson of Vietnam, articulated by Colin Powell, is: Use your superiority - don't fritter it away in gradual escalation."
The Hearings
Colin Powell and Madeleine Albright both appeared before the 9-11 Commission on Tuesday and defended their adminstration's responses to the threat posed by Al Qaeda. Powell explained that he and Condoleezza Rice had met and discussed the Al Qaeda issue during the first days of the Bush tenure. "We wanted to move beyond the roll-back policy of containment, criminal prosecution and limited retaliation for specific terrorist attacks. We wanted to destroy al Qaeda." Will these hearings prove to be a valuable exercise in developing new and better strategies in the war on terror, or will they simply be the new low point in a political dialogue increasingly infused with contempt, cynicism, paranoia and outright hate? You can follow the hearings in Text or Live Video. Here's an update: No one did a good enough job dealing with Al Qaeda prior to 9-11.
Follow the Apology
Last week, in yet another blatant act of terrorism, members of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (well known for suicide bombings and the like) killed a man they thought was a Jewish settler in a drive-by shooting. It turned out that the person they killed was actually George Khoury, the son of a prominent Israeli Arab. This week, Yasser Arafat called the victim's father to aplogize. Not that Yasser Arafat has anything to do with al-Aqsa or terrorism.
. . . March 22, 2004
Le Tour De Senate: The Bush team on John Kerry; looking for the French Connection.
Two For Tuesday
The big names start testifying before the 9-11 Panel this week. Following the Clarke comments, Condoleezza has been "invited" to answer questions in public. Tuesday's big names include William Cohen and Donald Rumsfeld.
Charges of Politics
It always strikes me as odd when people in the midst of a heated campaign accuse someone else of playing politics. It's sort of like Britney Spears complaining that another entertainer is getting a little too liberal when it comes to midriff exposure. On one level it really doesn't matter whether or not Richard Clarke is politically driven in choosing this moment to go public with his terror and Iraq-related charges. Either they're valid points or they're not. But let's assume for a moment that no one on the Bush team would dare play politics during a campaign year and that the idea of being politically motivated can cost one the high ground (regardless of the facts) when it comes to making a public pronouncement. I still don't think Richard Clarke simply playing politics - and not just because he has already stated he will not accept any position within a Kerry administration (too bad Chalabi wouldn't offer the same when it comes to his own governmental ambitions). Here's why it's not political: It's way too early. If you have a bombshell set to detonate to do the most damage to an opposing campaign, better to start the timer in the last few weeks of the process, not eight months before November. Voters may not even remember Richard Clarke by the time they get to their polling places. Another illogical response to the Clarke charges is that President Bush did the right thing by focusing on Iraq and that any good leader would have demanded that his underlings look into the possibility that Saddam was involved -- It would have been a dereliction if W hadn't asked the question. OK, that argument works. But it only works if Bush had demanded similar investigations into possible links with other (more likely) suspects such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Hamas, other terror groups, etc. It only works if Bush hadn't spent the next year making allusions to a link between Osama and Saddam. And it only works if Bush hadn't launched a war on Iraq long after he received reports indicating that there was no connection between Saddam and Sept 11.
U.S. News: Brown v Board of Education, 50 years later.
Time.com: "The fortification of Wyoming, and other strange tales from the new front line."
Cheney on Rush to go after Clarke. And Josh takes it from there. Plus, some other Republican responses to the Clarke charges.
Weak and Weaker
It turns out that the Bush team cut by two-thirds an FBI request for more counterterrorism funds in the weeks following Sept 11. Is there an acceptable explanation for this move? Is it not easily explainable? Are there perhaps nuances that need to be explored?
Blame Game
The White House has issued a point by point response to the charges made by Richard Clarke. For many, the rebuttals will make sense and as everyone has noticed, there is plenty of 9-11 blame to go around. Yet there is one place where it will be difficult to escape the claims made by Clarke: Iraq. The facts on the ground completely support the claims in his book, and that seems to become more true with each passing day. Here is more on the matter that is making headlines.
Under Law
This week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case to determine whether the use of the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge is an unconstitutional affront to the separation of church and state. You can probably get a decent preview of the outcome of this case by listening to the opening moments in the court session when someone will announce: "God save the United States and this Honorable Court." Personally, I'm a bigger fan of the phrase etched in stone at the court's entrance: "Equal Justice Under Law."
All Hands
On one hand, the killing of Sheik Yassin was to be expected. Israeli forces tried to kill him as recently as last Sept. On the other hand, after years of suicide bombings and targeted killings, this is by far the highest ranking Palestinian leader Israel has killed in a long time. Israel surely has the right to target the orchestrator of suicide bombings. On the other hand, it's unclear that his death will make Israelis (or Jews in other parts of the world) any safer from terrorism, or if this is really part of a broader march towards anything but an endless cycle of violence. The Palestinians have taken to the streets and vowed revenge. On the other hand, you can't really feign shock and expect world opinion to cede you the high ground when your core strategy in recent years has been to target women and children on buses and in cafes. Kofi Annan condemned the move by Israel saying: "Such actions are not only contrary to international law, but they do not do anything to help the search for a peaceful solution." On the other hand, can you imagine any country other than Israel being criticized for killing a man who was essentially their bin Laden? On the other hand, what is the political impact of the killing of a person who preached martyrdom? Killing Yassin could cause an eruption in the Middle East. On the other hand, do you use kid gloves against a murderer just to avoid making anyone angry? On the other hand, does the tit-for-a-tat strategy make sense when you have clearly been unable to stop their tats? Whoever fills the Hamas leadership vacuum will be unlikely to have Yassin's charisma and impact. On the other hand, did Arafat just move up another notch on the terrorism totem pole? Anyway, you get the idea. In the Middle East, there is always another hand. And now fewer of them are being extended towards a handshake and more of them have tightened into a fist. And once again, The Third Side gets the upper hand on the road away from peace.
Laugh Tracking: Which candidate is winning when it comes to the number of late night jokes told at his expense? And which would be a win, fewer jokes or more jokes? And it it's Leno doing the talking, does it necessarily qualify as a joke?
Crossing the Aisle
Once again, a Republican has publicly stated that the Bush team's depiction of John Kerry as being soft on defense is totally absurd. Last time it was McCain, this time it was Nebraska's Charles Hagel who said: "The facts just don't measure [up to]the rhetoric ... You can take a guy like John Kerry, who's been in the Senate for 19 years, and go through that voting record. You can take it with ... any of us, and pick out different votes, and then try to manufacture something around that." (In other words, it's tough to get to the White House from the Senate.)
. . . March 21, 2004
Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin has been killed by an Israeli airstrike. Palestinians vow revenge. Will the death of one of the fathers of suicide bombings mean an end to violence or the obliteration of any hopes for peace?
Iraqnophobia
In perhaps the most damning interview ever given (and book written) by a member of the Bush administration, Richard Clarke has absolutely blasted the Bush performance in the war on terror (before and after 9-11) and essentially accused the President and some top officials of an Iraq obsession Clark: "Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know ... I think he's done a terrible job on the war against terrorism." Clarke also describes a scene in which Rumsfeld argues (in the days after 9-11) that we should bomb Iraq because there aren't enough high-value targets in Afghanistan. I have mixed feelings (especially in an election year) about playing the blame game when it comes to 9-11 and the general fight against terrorism. And I have these mixed feelings despite the fact that Bush has made this very topic the centerpiece of his re-election strategy. But can anyone at this point doubt the obsession with Iraq? We are reminded of the validity of Clarke's view of the Iraq decisions nearly every day (WMDs, reaction from the U.N, the view from those on the ground in Iraq). Clarke has worked for Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II --- forget that. The smear effort begins immediately. But here's the deal on the Iraq debate and who to believe. Listen to interviews, read reports and check records against statements. And if after that, you can seriously argue that Ahmed Chalabii seems more believable than Clarke, then welcome the Bush team's Clarke smear campaign with open arms. If not, vote accordingly. How big will this story be? I'm not sure a lot of it is all that new, but it also hasn't been covered enough in the past. The blog world is talking about it. Hopefully the mainstreamers will at least give this story as much attention as Barry Bond's possible steroid abuse.
Passionate Audience: Arafat digs Gibson's Passion. Hmm. I wonder what he sees in it?
. . . March 20, 2004
On the Offensive
President Bush stayed on the offensive (with his now patented mixture of humor and distortions) during a speech in Florida. On the economy he explained: "Oh, I know there's some economic pessimists who refuse to accept good news about our economy. But I'm optimistic." (So those of you avoiding work just to make a point, drop the act, drop the pessimism). Other excerpts from the White House press release version of the speech (italics mine, testosterone his): (Applause), (Applause), (Applause), (Applause), (Applause), (Laughter), (Applause), (Laughter and Applause), (Laughter), (Applause), "I got here a little late. I didn't get to hear my friend, Billy Ray Cyrus (Applause, but no laughter?), "Either way I'm not too worried because I'm going to keep my campaign right here in America." (Applause), crowd: USA!, USA!, USA!, "When Dick Cheney and I came to Washington, we found a military that was underfunded and underappreciated. So we gave our military the resources and respect they deserve" (Applause, but no laughter?), "[We have] a plan to make American less dependent on foreign sources of energy" ( Moment of dumbfounded confusion then Applause, Nervous Laughter), "The way to create jobs is to reelect a pro-growth, pro-entrepreneur, small business President, and that's George W. Bush" (Applause, seriously...), "My opponent..." (Booo!), (Applause), (Laughter), "Not so long ago ( as recently as this morning in fact), some had their doubts about the American character, our capacity to meet serious challenges, or to serve a cause greater than self-interest" (Applause), (Applause), (Laughter and Applause), "It's the culture of a country that's changing from one that has said, if it feels good, do it, and if you've got a problem, blame somebody else, to a culture in which each of us understands we are responsible for the decisions we make in life. ( Implied Dem Response: "Oh come on! Not fair!"), If you are fortunate enough to be a mother or a father, you're responsible for loving your child with all your heart. ( Implied Dem Response: "Hell no, we won't go. Let the government and Barbara Streisand love our same-sex invitro offspring, we've got an orgy to attend"), If you're a CEO in corporate America, you're responsible for telling the truth to your shareholders and your employees ( A pause as audience members look around to see if Cheney is in attendance, he's not, so then, Applause), And in the responsibility society, each of us is responsible for loving our neighbor ( and referring to each them with catchy nicknames), just like we'd like to be loved ourselves" ( As long as those neighbors don't happen to be evil-doers, French citizens or residents of Massachusetts), "So we had a choice to make: either take the word of a madman, or to take action to defend America" ( Wait, isn't that a line from Kerry's speeches?)...
Where is Ayman Zawahiri?
Pakistani troops have rounded more than one hundred suspected Al Qaeda members in a fierce battle. But now it looks like Number Two may not be among them (although it seemed like a nearly sure thing he was there based on earlier reporting). Man. If you can't trust unnamed Pakistani government officials, who can you trust?
Campaigning 101
They have ninety days to complete their mission. First, remove the positive glow (polished during recent decisive inner-party wins) from the opponent. Second, remake him. (They can rebuild him. They can make him worse than he was.) So how's it going so far? The truth could be that there is simply no changing the minds of anyone other than the sliver of undecideds who might not yet be entirely engaged (lucky bums).
Political Party: Happy twenty-fifth birthday Cspan. You don't look a day over two hundred and twenty-eight.
. . . March 19, 2004
The American Way?
Let's say a politician, in the days before an election, blatantly lies about what he knows concerning a crime against his fellow citizens and indeed humanity. Not just lies about to the people, but lies about to the investigators who are anxiously trying to find the bad guys. That delayed sharing of information in itself could be viewed as siding with terrorists (at least long enough for them to get away). Wouldn't you expect voters to kick him out of office (and in the groin for that matter). Wouldn't that essentially be the American way? Again, as I have said numerous times, I hope Spain leaves their troops in Iraq. But can one really make the argument that Spanish voters are guilty of appeasement?
Seriously?
 Al Franken is inching towards more fully entering the political debate with the launch of a liberal radio network. You have to give him some credit for wading into these dangerous airwaves. Look at what happened to (the clearly brainwashed) Dennis Miller after he dropped entertainment for politics and thus checked into the DC rehab center for the once marginally interesting. When Dennis was funny, his core audience was surely drawn from among the so-called intellectual, liberal elite. If he wants back into comedy now, he'll have to be reborn as Jeff Foxworthy. Miller now has regular bit on his show when he exchanges pleasantries with a diapered chimp (who in fairness does seem to be more lucid and certain of his convictions than most of the show's regulars). The only real winner here is Dandy Don Meredith who now moves up a spot to have only the second-worst post Monday Night Football career. It's almost like the old Dennis Miller has been kidnapped and reprogrammed by a cult. So Al, if you make it, do the society of comics a great service and try to bring Dennis back (you can leave the chimp there).
Channeling Martha
Bush on Iraq One Year Later: "There have been disagreements in this matter, among old and valued friends. Those differences belong to the past. All of us can now agree that the fall of the Iraqi dictator has removed a source of violence, aggression, and instability in the Middle East. It's a good thing that the demands of the United Nations were enforced, not ignored with impunity. It is a good thing that years of illicit weapons development by the dictator have come to the end. It is a good thing that the Iraqi people are now receiving aid, instead of suffering under sanctions. And it is a good thing that the men and women across the Middle East, looking to Iraq, are getting a glimpse of what life in a free country can be like." Even if you agree about what the "good things" are, Bush's speech did little to defuse what some of our allies see as the bad things. And simply announcing that open wounds, unresolved arguments, a deepening dearth of trust, and festering points of contention now "belong to the past" will not do the trick. The "get over it, it's the past" model works no better in international affairs than it does in private ones.
Political Scrabble
Steady vs Stubborn? Flip Flops vs Misleading Lies? Bring it On vs Bring it On. This portion of the campaign brings us two teams looking for just the right words to define themselves and each other. And we should enjoy it while we can. Because once they lock into their selections in the war of words, we're likely to hear a lot of the same thing over and over.
One Nation Under Crawford
Saletan: "If you oppose George Bush's policies, or if you're supported by anybody who opposes George Bush's policies, you're anti-American." See a theme developing here? If you oppose domestic policies, you're anti-American. If you oppose international policies, you're with the terrorists.
Seeing the Forest Through the Bush
Lieberman: "I understand the Europeans' unease over American power and their anger at the one-sided ways the Bush administration has exercised that power ... But such decisions cannot be allowed to blind the Europeans to the interest they share with us in confronting the jihadists. In our domestic politics, it is critical that Republicans and Democrats not let the quest for partisan victory this November prevent us from working together now to achieve a national victory over the terrorist insurgency in Iraq. In the same way, it is important that our European allies not allow their opposition to many of the Bush administration's foreign policies to separate them from America in defeating Islamic terrorists." This is a such a clear-cut case in which the world must lock arms. Is it short-sightedness on the part of allies or wildly poor leadership on the part of our leader?
Secretary's Statement: Mr. Powell goes to Baghdad.
One Year Later: Rummy makes the case for war in Iraq (and Korea and WWII).
On Being Surrounded
The fact that Al Qaeda's number two (bodily function pun intended) is in all likelihood surrounded by Pakistani troops is another clear reminder that we need allies in the war on terror. Pakistan may be an example of an ally by necessity due to the danger of continuing down their previous path, forced political atonement for their sharing of all secrets nuclear, and those (at least) two assassination attempts on Musharraf. It's good to have such necessity based allies, but as this disease spreads, we'll also need the help of those governments that have more choice in the matter. And that's where nuances can help.
One of These Things is Not Like the Others
Saddam is out of power and everyone is better off because of it. Let's all agree to that. But while that is the constant refrain of the Bush team, the debate is really about all of the other Iraq-related issues. From the cost of the war, to the reactions of the Iraqis, to the dashed expectations of the public to the missing WMDs, to the very appropriate questions as to whether the effort decreased terrorism, to the signs that many here and abroad think they were duped about the reasons for the war - there's plenty more to this picture than Saddam's current whereabouts.
. . . March 18, 2004
Expert Analysis? "In a morning meeting on Wednesday, Mr. Bremer warned the Iraqi leaders that they risked isolating themselves and their country if they continued to snub the United Nations."
Grandfather Claws
The fine watchdogs at the FCC put down the crosses and peaked out from beneath their burkas long enough to go after critical social conditions such as Howard Stern's bad jokes and Bono's bad language. And here a neat recommendation they came up with; even though they are changing the rules, they want to fine folks for things said before the change took place. Why is saying the word offensive, while being the word is celebrated? Betcha can't answer without getting fined...
Divide and Conquer (and Multiply)
So we have been hearing reports that Al Qaeda's number two man is surrounded along with many other members of the terror network. We also know that a large number of Al Qaeda operatives have been arrested or killed in the last year or two and that their former "base" has been largely flattened. So why does it seem like the threat is getting worse?
From CNN: " Blogs: Democrats' answer to talk radio." Sounds great to me. But I always sort of thought of blogs as an answer to loneliness, alienation, neurosis and a distorted body image. Guess that's just some blogs. + Since Iowa, the Kerry campaign has pulled in a cool $18 million on the net.
Taking the Bait?
Part of it is due the fact that current events dictate a fairly heavy emphasis on the wars on terror and in Iraq (where one could argue Bush is weak, but where polls often suggest otherwise). But is the Kerry team - in the name of being strong on defense (the country's and their candidate's) - falling into a tough guy contest with Rummy, Dick and Karl. I'm torn because on one hand, I think this battleground is ripe for Kerry who brings real toughness to compete with W's testosteronated rhetoric. But on the other hand, people seem to be totally missing the potentially massive stories such as the Medicare scandals, the CIA leak, the economy, etc.
Talking Points Memo: "Isn't this a logical fallacy? I mean, if you have the intention to build WMDs and the ability to build them, then you have WMDs. It's about as close to 2 + 2 = 4 as you get in human affairs." (Interesting point, but if Josh thinks 2 + 2 = 4 in DC, he better take a closer look at those Medicare numbers...)
At Least He's Being Evenhanded
The titles of Howard Kurtz's two most recent pieces are: The Administration's Fudge Factoryand... Blowing Off Kerry(the fact that I noticed this, and giggled, is further evidence that Wonkette is winning the culture wars...)
Meanwhile Back at the Ranch: Hockey games, cowboy hats, motorcycle rides, friggin' flightsuits. It's a macho thing.
Name that Tune
Just what the doctor ordered in Iraq ... More religion. From one Iraqi convert: "The music is very enthusiastic here. They promise Jesus will solve many problems."
Poland Position
Kwasniewski: "Naturally, one may protest the reasons for the war action in Iraq. I personally think that today, Iraq without Saddam Hussein is a truly better Iraq than with Saddam Hussein.But naturally I also feel uncomfortable due to the fact that we were misled with the information on weapons of mass destruction."
Don't Be Afraid
"The senator from Massachusetts has given us ample doubts about his judgment and the attitude he brings to bear on vital issues of national security." -- Dick Cheney"I don't think that. I think that John Kerry is a good and decent man. I think he has served his country. I think he has different points of view on different issues and he will have to explain his voting record. But this kind of rhetoric, I think, is not helpful in educating and helping the American people make a choice." -- John McCain
Duck, Duck, Goose
Recusal Refusal: Judge Antonin Scalia dropped a 21-page memorandum indicating that he would not recuse himself from a case involving Dick Cheney: "My recusal is required if ... my impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Why would that result follow from my being in a sizable group of persons, in a hunting camp with the vice president, where I never hunted with him in the same blind or had other opportunity for private conversation?" (I heard they even shot at each other a couple of times.) In related news, it looks like ducks' opinions may be getting included in the latest Cheney favorability ratings.
Friedman: "The new Spanish government's decision to respond to the attack by Al Qaeda by going ahead with plans to pull its troops from Iraq constitutes the most dangerous moment we've faced since 9/11. It's what happens when the Axis of Evil intersects with the Axis of Appeasement and the Axis of Incompetence." Kevin Drum disagrees.
In a speech included some blistering attacks on John Kerry, VP Cheney made the following statement: "The terrorist enemy holds no territory, defends no population, is unconstrained by rules of warfare, and respects no law of morality. Such an enemy cannot be deterred, contained, appeased, or negotiated with. It can only be destroyed - and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the business at hand." Look, I dig the tough talk as much as anyone and the destruction of terrorists is a policy we can all get behind. But aside from destroying the enemy (which many have been trying to do for years), shouldn't there be a broader and more (to use a now dirty word) nuanced plan as well. Are there other options aside from deterrence, containment, appeasement, or negotiation? One key factor seems to be our ability to motivate others to join the cause. Again today in Spain, we see signs of a key ally unwilling to work with the U.S.
Rummy on Imminence: Who in the administration ever even used the word imminent? OK, fine. But who besides me and me again?
Watching the Dough Raise
Kottke takes a look at folks from Bill Gates to PDiddy while Wonkette examines the giving nature of some DC buildings, neighborhoods and individual VIPs. I noted that Janeane Garofolo gave a total of $750 to the Dean campaign in two separate payments (proving once and for all that comedy makes better income than punditry). I was most interested in checking out the giving tendencies of my urologist (the last thing I need is for him to dispute one of my political points during a check-up). I saw no sign of a donation from him, but I've always sort of thought he operated his medical practice under an assumed named. Wondering who gave what (by name or neighborhood) to which candidates? For example, I just noticed that two guys named Richard Wood are both backing Bush. Check out Fundrace.org. It's an absolute must read for anyone whose thinking about letting a neighbor watch their pet while they're out of town.
. . . March 17, 2004
Bring it On, The Second Debate
It has in many ways been a unique electoral season. Both parties had their man lined up early, the country is deeply divided and we are in for eight long months of campaigning.  The attacks have grown personal and the President has made the choice to get right in the mix of things - trading the bully pulpit for the risk of being perceived as a bully. Kerry has worked hard to fight back at every turn (maybe too often) and has thus far been successful in his effort to avoid being Dukakisized. It will be many months before the Bush team takes up Kerry's challenge to participate in regular debates. But we already know the issues and differences anyway. So while we're waiting for the real thing, here is the second in the It's Already Been Brought series; a Reader's Digest version of a possible second debate between Bush and Kerry. ( The first debate can be found here.) Kerry: Bring it On Bush: No, you Bring it On Kerry: Alabama No Show Bush: No funding to support our soldiers Kerry: I am our soldiers Bush: Tax and Spend Kerry: Nu-cu-lar? Bush: Wartime President Kerry: Mission Accomplished? Bush: Northeast Liberal Kerry: The Texas Rangers? Bush: The U.S. Senate? Kerry: Lincoln Bedroom Bush: Lincoln, Nebraska Kerry: That's Bob Kerrey Bush: Let's Roll Kerry: I've got three words for you... Bush: $87 Billion Kerry: $7 Trillion Bush: Family values, stem cells, traditional marriage, American wife Kerry: Howard Stern, John McCain Bush: Foreign Leaders? Kerry: Plenty of 'em. Bush: Name names. Kerry: Private conversations Bush: Waffler, credibility, wishy-washy, accusatory, fake. Kerry: Crooked liar Bush: Who was it, Chirac? Sharpton? I want the truth Kerry: You can't handle the truth Bush: But Cheney's a master at handling it Kerry: OK, Chirac Bush: Come on, which foreign leaders? Kerry: Mubarak, Vajpayee, Bondevik, Blair, Kohl, Kwasniewski Bush: I want names Kerry: Mbeki, Zapatero, Erdogan, Martin, Howard, Clark Bush: Shouldn't have said it if you can't back it up... Kerry: Putin, Lula da Silva, Verhofstadt, Spidla, Hu Bush: So then there's no one. Kerry: Rasmussen, Stephanopoulos, Medgyessy, Ahern, Sharon... Bush: Sharon? Kerry: Didn't like the nickname. Bush: What's wrong with "Pringles?" Kerry: DeLay Bush: Kucinich Kerry: Cheney Bush: Sharpton Kerry: You mentioned him already Bush: You bet I did Kerry: Ground Zero images in commercials Bush: With us or with the Kerrorists Kerry: The Skull and Bones circle jerk initiation, 1968 Bush: The Skull and Bones circle jerk initiation, 1966 Kerry: Short Bush: French Hair Kerry: Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Ingraham, Coulter, Novak, Savage, Falwell Bush: Garofalo Kerry: Ken Lay Bush: Martha Kerry: Bring it on! Bush: No, you bring it on!
Spanish Wimps
Dennis Hastert apparently has some critical, inside information about the inner workers of the minds of Spanish voters. It turns out they clearly voted they way they did as part of a scheme to give in to terrorists: "Here's a country who stood against terrorism and had a huge terrorist act within their country and they chose to change their government and to in a sense appease terrorists." No word on whether Hastert was grabbing his crotch when he made these comments. I'm not sure exactly why Spaniards voted the way they did and I hope the new leadership keeps their troops in Iraq (for Iraqis and the other obvious reasons. But we have seen the art of diplomacy disappear in Washington and it will continue to hurt us where it most counts.
Exploratory Surgery
Fiscal Alzheimer's: Tommy Thompson has ordered an inquiry to determine why Congress was debating Medicare legislation that would cost $400 billion over 10 years when the Bush administration knew it would really run closer to $551 billion.
The Red and Blue States Countries?
While the Kerry and Bush campaigns battle over which foreign leaders said what about who they were backing in the November election, there is little doubt that huge portions of the world are questioning U.S. leadership. And when it comes to the question of whether or not the war in Iraq has helped the war on terrorism respondents, even from some staunchly allied countries, sound downright Deanian. Here in the U.S., about half of us think that the war in Iraq has made the U.S. safer from terrorist attacks. But nearly 40% of respondents believe the war has made us less safe.
Slate: The Bush-Kerry air war begins.
It's About Ethics: Should the Congress call an end to its seven-year ethics truce?
The $87 Billion: The Bush team is now trying to hit Kerry hard for his vote against the $87 billion for the Iraq effort. Does Kerry's protest vote make him soft on defense? Does it imply that he is unsupportive of the troops? Was the debate over the $87 billion ever even related to the portion of the money that would be used for troop support? Of course not (thrice). But Kerry will have to figure out a way to make that clear in about a half-a-sentence or less. Meanwhile, the Bush team will have to decide how hard to push the image of the "war president" when many around the country are trending negative on the Iraq issue.
Can We All Get Along?
Biden: "I think that this is time for unity in this country, and maybe it is time to have a guy like John McCain - a Republican - on the ticket with a guy he does like. They do get along. And they don't have fundamental disagreements on major policies." Think there's not something in us that wants to get past the hate? This ticket would win by a sweeping margin.
. . . March 16, 2004
Combatlantic
Divided We Stall: One can place the blame wherever one wants, but the fact that an increasing number of Europeans are growing more skeptical of, and less connected to, the U.S. is bad news. Especially now.
Marriage Defined
My wife (when she wasn't busy filling the Martha void) and I have spent the better part of the last month trying to come up with a definition of marriage that everyone could agree on; something that really got to the essence of this cornerstone of American family values. We talked to family members, we examined historic documents, we re-lived every moment of our own marriage. This was all done in extreme secrecy, but we are now finally ready to go public with our definition. Here it is:  Now that we have a definition, let's not allow couples with unpersonalized eclairs to destroy the meaning of marriage.
Kurtz: "What exactly did Reverend Al accomplish with his presidential campaign?" Well, first the fact that such a query leads a piece in the Wash Post is answer enough. Second, I can think of at least 308 people in Minnesota who resent the question.
Naming Continents
Holbrooke on the Foreign Leader Question: "It's so obviously the truth what Kerry said, and the Republicans are just having fun with it - everybody knows it's true. In the last six or seven months, I've been in Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Europe. I've met with leaders in all of those regions, and they have overwhelmingly - not unanimously but overwhelmingly - said that they hope that there's a change in leadership."
Tony Soprano Politics
First John Kerry in indicated that certain foreign leaders want him to win the race. Now, just about everyone in the Bush administration, including W himself, wants Kerry to name names. On one hand, I suppose the Bushies know Kerry made a political error and will of course not name any leaders; therefore they can paint him either as having made it up or as someone unwilling to stand by his comments. On the other hand, the repetition of several top administration officials demanding to know the names of the people who spoke against the family sounds a little bit too much like a scene out of the Sopranos. You get the feeling we could be one drunken interrogation away from finding Jacques Chirac in the trunk of Peugeot.
So how are people feeling in these transitional times in Iraq? Here's a weird idea. Let's ask the Iraqis?
(Not) Going Our Way
Latest Poll: We're 50/50 on Bush. But we feel worse when it comes to "the way things are going in the United States at this time."
Welcome to the Jungle
Europeans have been undeniably dragged into the war with terrorist groups following the March 11th blasts. While it's probably over-simplifying things to say that Spain's voters opted out of the war on terror with their vote this week, it is critical (regardless of the real connections between Iraq and the war on terror and regardless of their contempt for our man in the White House) that the new government stay the course in Iraq and stand firm in the determination not to give the terrorists what they want. - The core storyline, whether we like to admit it, is that terrorism has been remarkably effective in the past few years. Look as Israel and the Palestinians. You can set your watch by the timing of suicide bombings intended to derail Middle East peace talks. The nearterm goal of the bombers is to move the parties away from peace. Thinks it's working? - In Le Monde, Sociologist Emilio Lamo wrote: "Can we dialogue with those who desire only our death and nothing but our death? Dialogue about what? The manner in which we will be assassinated?" - Was this attack merely a punishment for support of Bush in Iraq and will removal of the those troops make peace? Does anyone in their right mind really believe this? (More from Hitch.) - A bombing just days before an election ... Definitely gives us something to worry about- Zakaria: "Al Qaeda's declaration of jihad had, as its first demand, the withdrawal of American troops from Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden does not seem to have noticed, but the troops are gone - yet the jihad continues. The reasons come and go, the violence endures." - Bush on terror: "These are cold blooded killers. They'll kill innocent people to try to shake our will. That's what they want to do. [They'll] never shake the will of the United States. We understand the stakes." That is of course all true. But the "We" in this case represents democracies around the world. Phase one of this war, in the days and months after 9-11, was to stand resolute and defend ourselves. The next phase, presented with yet another wake-up call by 3-11, is a need to unify the world around this critical cause. This is where the tough talk and the strained relations can hurt us. Infighting can be as dangerous as appeasement.
. . . March 15, 2004
Bad Ideas
Bergen on Terrorists: "This is not like the Gambino crime family, a Mafia family, where if you just arrest the leaders it goes out of business. This is more like a mass movement, and you can arrest as many people as you want. But it's very hard to arrest the movement of ideas."
Ready for Primetime Players
Al Sharpton became the latest of the Democratic candidates to formally endorse John Kerry (for the record, Nixon has offered no such endorsement). Sharpton also thrilled many in the Democratic party by indicating that his future includes an unspecified television gig (hopefully, he's not referring to a primetime convention speech).  It's interesting to see former presidential candidates taking to the airwaves as a next career. Currently, Donald Trump is doing great numbers and one assumes that Rev Al will quickly climb the Nielsens. From this picture, it looks like Jesse "the Beard" Ventura is either working on a remake of Grizzly Adams or is pondering a return to the WWE under the name Amish the Aggressor. Word is that just in case, W has already been signed by Pax TV to co-host (with a to-be-named shepherd) a show that will invite viewers to gain financial independence while working from home to fight evil-doers. This idea just barely beat out an offer from Fox News to host a nightly, hour-long show in which people would call in to have the former President give them their own nickname.
Fighting Fire with Firefighters: A look into the endorsement that may have the greatest impact in the John Kerry campaign - and that he earned at a moment when he was still almost invisible in the primary race.
Maybe Cheney Won't be on the Ticket
Over at Slate, Jacob Weisberg keeps a running list of what he calls Bushisms of the Day. The idea is to list some of W's strange uses of language and generally odd comments. But sometimes, the really scary part of the quote comes before W gets tongue/brain tied: "God loves you, and I love you. And you can count on both of us as a powerful message that people who wonder about their future can hear." You can count on "both of us?"
Shameless: Cheney on Kerry: "[He] embraced the strategy of the 1990's, which holds that when we are attacked, we ought to round up those directly responsible, put them on trial, and then call it a day ... iit leaves the network behind the attacks virtually untouched." Wait, I thought the strategy of the 1990's was to use your prior political experience and current connections to do billions of dollars of business with despotic governments that would later be added to the axis list?
Ad-Nauseated: How are the Bush campaign ads going over?
To Be Eighteen Again...
For electoral vote crunchers, the November election may already be over in 32 states. That means the real fighting will take place in the eighteen that matter. From the WP: "For many Americans, the election will be like a faraway war, witnessed in news reports on television and in newspapers but rarely experienced firsthand." More to the point, if you're planning a summer trip, you may want to avoid: Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
The "Word" Trade Center
Sept 11 in Politics: "There is one clear lesson nationally that everyone should take from New York on 9/11, which is tread very carefully on this issue because you won't know you've crossed the line until you've crossed it. That line separates talking about it as a legitimate issue and exploitation - and that line shifts over time."
The Reign in Spain
Just ousted Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar stood by President Bush on all matters related to Iraq. Aznar made the stand although much of Europe disagreed as did (at times) 90% of Spain's voting population. Even so, before 3-11, it looked like Aznar would retain his position. Instead, he is out and a warning signal has been fired across the Atlantic. Now, Spain's Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero is promising to withdraw his country's troops from Iraq. "The war has been a disaster, the occupation continues to be a disaster ... There must be consequences. There has been one already, the election result. The second will be that Spanish troops will come back." It's easy to understand his anger. But the third consequence could be that terror groups will be reminded loudly and clearly that their tactics can work. Dos injusticias no hacen un derecho.
Not Naming Names
On Sunday, Colin Powell got after John Kerry about his claim that several foreign leaders we're hoping he'd unseat Bush in November: "I don't know what foreign leaders Senator Kerry is talking about. It's an easy charge, an easy assertion to make. But if he feels it is that important an assertion to make, he ought to list some names." Kerry has answered related questions by saying such things as: "I'm not going to betray a private conversation with anybody. I have heard from people, foreign leaders elsewhere in the world who don't appreciate the Bush administration and would love to see a change in the leadership of the United States ... I'm talking about people who were our friends nine months ago. I'm talking about people who ought to be on our side in Iraq and aren't because this administration has pushed them away." Is it time for John Kerry to push away from this line of debate? Certainly it's fair - and important - to allude to the fact that we may need to repair relationships with certain countries. But making these comments about foreign leaders is bad form (and terrible politics anyway). Let's stick to people who have the legal right to vote in this country.
New Poll Numbers: "Memo to George W. Bush: If you want to ease your way to re-election, cut the voting age to 12." (Hey I used to teach high school and if you can win over teenagers, the rest of the American electorate should be a cakewalk...)
Getting Closer
According to France's chief of defense, Osama bin Laden is definitely in Afghanistan, may have been tied to the Madrid blasts and has been nearly caught on several recent occasions. How does he know? Because hundreds of French troops (and yes, they look French, speak French and have French-looking hair) are fighting side by side with Americans in the region. So it turns out that you can be with us sometimes, and against sometimes.
|
