Public Nuisance Now with added Fair and Balanced! |
|
Random commentary and senseless acts of blogging.
All that is necessary for the forces of evil to triumph is that Katherine Harris count the votes. Blog critics Gryffindor House Slytherin House Ravenclaw House House Elves Beth Jacob Prisoners of Azkaban Muggles More Clark: Party Animals:
Jewish Bloggers Join >> ![]() ![]() |
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Kevin Drum says that Gephardt has the inside track to be Kerry's VP. Like Kevin, I deeply hope this is wrong. Kevin focuses on Gephardt's lack of national security expertise. That's a valid concern, but my primary worry is that, as a long-term Washington insider who is an uninspiring campaigner, last thing Kerry needs on the ticket is somebody with the same negatives. On the plus side, I'd love to have a VP debate on the topic "My daughter's queerer than your daughter". Monday, March 29, 2004
Contradictions The last week has been dominated by claims that Richard Clarke's current description of the Bush administration is contradicted by his earlier accounts, even to suggesting a charge of perjury. Most of the accounts have focussed on the briefing Clarke gave in August 2002, praising Bush as an off the record White House aide. I was unable to find a transcript of Clarke's commission testimony, but a good summary of Clarke's positions can be found in his 60 Minutes interview, this talk with Salon, and his interview on MTP. The spin on the briefing is certainly different from what Clarke is saying today, but a careful comparison shows that the factual picture given is not inconsistent. From 2002: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. This is the only point where I find any problem in reconciling Clarke's accounts factually. Clarke was questioned on this later and repeated that no plan was given to Rice when she took office. QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested? I want Dr. Rice's testimony before the 9-11 Commission declassified, and I want the thing that the 9-11 Commission talked about in its staff report this week declassified, because there's been an issue about whether or not a strategy or a plan or something useful was given to Dr. Rice in early January. And she says it wasn't. So we now have the staff report of the 9-11 Commission, and it says, "On January 25th, Clarke forwarded his December strategy paper to the new national security adviser, and it proposed covert action to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, significantly increasing CIA funding, retaliating for the USS Cole, arming the Predator aircraft, going after terrorist fund raising." Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office ? issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years. All of this is emphasizing the continuity of policy on counter-terror activities between the Clinton and Bush administrations. But Clarke's criticism of Bush isn't that he adopted a new policy on terror, but that he and his aides failed to take it seriously, which the Clinton team did. Thus, although the official policy remained the same, less was actually done. So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda. This is the main basis for the suggestion that Bush was preparing a more aggressive response to al Qaeda before 9/11. However, it's unclear whether the plan to increase the CIA covert action resources was specifically aimed at al Qaeda. In either case, no attempt was made to increase current funding, putting off action against Bin Laden to October, when the funds would actually be available, at the earliest. The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies - and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals. This restates the point, agreed on in Clarke's recent testimony, that on Sept 4 the Bush national security principals finally did meet and approve the January plan in principle. Clarke puts the empahasis on the actions that were ultimately taken rather than on the delay, and gives an excuse for the delay, that key personnel weren't in place in some cases until early summer. This isn't an entirely unreasonable excuse, but the truth is that Bush was able to get things done in numerous areas between Jan 20 and Sep 11. The reality of missing personnel in some departments made counter-terror initiatives harder, but they still could have been undertaken had they been a priority. Some other moments in the questioning are quite interesting. QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the ? general animus against the foreign policy? Note the clever non-denial denial. Clarke cites his own retention (but not his de facto demotion) and says it "doesn't sound like animus". He never actually denies that animus against Clinton did warp the Bush policy, although on a careless reading he appears to. Clarke: One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions. There was a decision in June 2001 to seek improved ties with Pakistan, while continuing to ask for Pakistani assistancce in getting the Taliban to expel or turn over Bin Laden. This may well have been a good choice, and perhaps contributed to Musharraf's decision after 9/11 to assist in the overthrow of the Taliban. But it also means that Pakistan was given somewhat improved relations withou actually delivering any results as far as acting against al Qaeda, which it was implicitly supporting as the main sponsor of the Taliban, while key Pakistani officials gave al Qaeda active support including warning Bin Laden in 1998 of the planned cruise missile attack against him. Clarke: And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination. This is the other incident cited to back up the story that Bush was engaged on a tougher line against al Qaeda before 9/11, and often cited in the past week by White House spinners. But it is really a classic example of Bush fecklessness rather than foresight. Bush didn't have a detailed discussion of the problems involved in going after al Qaeda, he didn't approve or request any specific action, and he never followed up the many times that al Qaeda was discussed in his daily briefings. It's actually classic Dubya. Rather than take the serious steps needed to address a real problem, just assume that once you set your Texan genitalia swinging in the breeze, the display of bumptious machismo will overcome all obstacles. The main elements of Clarke's case against Bush are the obsession with Iraq before and after 9/11, the lack of a serious response to the threats of terror activity that were visible in the late spring and summer of 2001, the low emphasis placed on the problem of terrorism prior to 9/11, and the poor choice to invade Iraq after. None of this is contradicted by what Clarke said in August, 2002. In the one area where there is a potential contradiction, the document prepared for Condi Rice on Jan 24, the commission's own reports confirm that his more recent statements are the more reliable. Furthermore, only in a few details is it necessary to rely on Clarke as a witness. The Iraq fixation, for instance, was confirmed by Paul O'Neill as well as by the anonymous sources that General Clark often cited during his campaign - for which he was viciously attacked by GOP spinners. Bush himself admitted to Bob Woodward that terrorism had been a low priority before 9/11. Even the attacks on Clarke have often served to underline his essential points - they have suggested that he is bitter because his mandate was reduced and he was demoted, but the very fact that these things happened is an indication of how unserious the Dubya team was about terrorism prior to 9/11. Thursday, March 18, 2004
Suggestions that the recent elections in Spain are a victory for "appeasement" insult both the character and the intelligence of the Spanish voters. Quite apart from the moral implications of trying to buy radical Islamists off, there is no evidence that any way exists to do so. One of the striking points of the war with al Qaeda is that it appears to be absolute. Al Qaeda has never proposed peace terms. It has made only one major demand, the removal of American forces from Saudi Arabia. The Bush administration is in the process of complying with this demand, although none of those who denounce Zapatero for appeasement seem troubled by this. And it probably isn't why Bush has now been endorsed bu the al Qaeda faction that, perhaps falsely, claims responsibility for the Madrid atrocities. Spain is particularly likely to remain a target for al Qaeda, since much of the nation was once Arab and it is is clear that the most extreme Muslims still regard it as occupied territory. It may well be significant that most of the current suspects are from Morocco - many of those who were driven from Spain after the fall of Granada settled in Morocco, where their descendants strill live. Even if Spain - or the US - were to declare Islam the state religion, abolish its legal structure in favor of sharia, and ban women from appearing in public unveiled, it might not be enough to satisfy al Qaeda. Saudi Arabia does all of these and more, and that doesn't prevent it from being a target. There have been past terror attacks timed to coincide with national elections, possibly including the USS Cole attack of October, 2000. But there's no real evidence that any of these, including the Madrid attack, was specifically intended to affect the elections. Certainly it's doubtful that the goal was to remove hardline governments; Ariel Sharon was voted in partially as a reaction to some of the first major suicide bombings in Israel while Barak was in office. (Those bombings were organized by Palestinian factions, not al Qaeda.) Wednesday, March 10, 2004
This interview from Intervention has a lot of good material on the occupation of Iraq, as well as confirming the story that I blogged about earlier, that soldiers considered insufficiently loyal to George Bush were denied a Thanksgiving dinner so Bush would be guaranteed a big cheer from the troops. Sleep Well, America From an excellent recent article on counter-terrorism in TNR: Assessing the nation's thousands of vulnerable industrial sites, railways, electric grids, and so on is supposed to be central to the DHS mission. But 30 months after September 11, almost nothing has been done. Last year, an impatient Congress asked DHS to produce a plan for its nationwide risk assessment--not the actual assessment, just a plan for devising it--by December 15, 2003. The deadline came and went. Two days later, the White House quietly issued a directive giving DHS an entire year to develop a "plan" explaining its "strategy" for how to examine infrastructure. An actual infrastructure analysis, one DHS official told Congress last fall, could take five years. This is from an administration whose major claim is their effectiveness in fighting terrorists. It's the only area in which poll show Bush with a large advantage over Kerry. If people find out just how weak the Bush anti-terror effort is, he's going to be in deep trouble. Monday, March 01, 2004
With one day to go before the California primary, there's little effort by either presidential campaign here and very little noticable interest among voters. Edwards and kerry have small offices in Northern and Southern California, but don't seem to be running paid media. The only candidate running normal ads is Kucinich. I also caught one ad from LaRouche, a rather bizarre 30 minute speech broadcast in it's entirety. In the speech, LaRouche strongly condemned Albert Gallatin, Jeremy Bentham, and Martin van Buren, while never mentioning, that I noticed, George Bush or any contemporary issue. His knowledge of history was impressive, although the interpretations, invariably delivered ex cathedra, were probably 95% crackpot. The audience, apparently as stunned by this strange display as I was, never once interrupted, although he was given a standing ovation at the end. There is a race to challenge Barbara Boxer for the Senate, but if the candidates are advertising at all, they aren't doing so here in the Republican-poor districts of the Bay Area. The voter interest, as far as I can tell, is no higher than the advertising budgets. Sunday, February 29, 2004
More Gay Marriage There has been endless discussion recently of whether the 'full faith and credit' clause requires states to accept gay marriages performed elsewhere. What is odd about this is that nobody ever discusses precedents, but it is very hard to believe they don't exist. For 80 years, interracial marriage was illegal in much of the country, but legal, if rare, in most states. Surely some sort of of test cases are out there. Lord of the Oscars Congratulations to the cast and crew of Return of the Kings, which swept tonght's Academy Awards, along with the good people of New Zealand who seemed, from the acceptance speeches, to have been collective co-producers on the trilogy. The awards were well deserved - the final episode was superb and the total series is a genuine epic, without a doubt one of the greatest movies ever made. According to the announcer on tonight's show, the 11 awards for RotK ties it with Ben Hur and Titanic; of those three it is by far the best. I was disappointed to see Rene Zellwegger win for her overly showy performance in Cold Mountain. I would have much preferred Marcia Gay Harden or Christina Ricci, who wasn't even nominated. I also felt a touch of disappointment at Sean Penn's victory. His win was deserved and overdue, but it means that Bill Murray, who, unlike Penn, rarely gets a shot at genuinely interesting roles, has lost out on the best chance he is ever likely to have. I also have to congratulate Sofia Coppola. Coppola was still a teenager when she became famous for playing Al Pacino's daughter in the failed 3rd film of the Godfather trilogy. Her reviews were deservedly brutal. The temptation to become a recluse or a career heavy drinker after such an early and unpleasant introduction to celebrity must have been overwheming. Instead, Ms Coppola continued to work in the family business, directed a quite decent movie (The Virgin Suicides, 1999) and has now written and directed a minor masterpiece. In the other traditional event, the evening gown competition, it's hard to choose a single winner. Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Garner, Catherine Zeta Jones, and Julia Roberts were among many who I thought looked spectacular. The most noteworthy fashion victim of the evening was Uma Thurman. Owen Wilson and Ben Stiller won for lamest tacky promotion of an upcoming movie that is likely to be lamer still. Wednesday, February 18, 2004
I admit to being rather startled at the long lines of gays racing to the San Francisco City Hall to obtain marriage licenses that, almost certainly, are issued in violation of California law and not worth the paper they're printed on. After all, civil unions have been legal in Vermont for years, and marriages will probably be legal later this year in Massachusetts. But for quite a few mere civil unions don't seem to be a meaningful substitute for actual marriage. The domestic urge does seem to make a bit of a mockery of the arguments of rightists (and many gays) that gay liberation is a radical force out to undermine bourgeois culture. I noted below that Drudge's quote of Clark, like almost all the rest of his Kerry sex smear, seems to be inacurrate. The Howler has the details of the statement that I noted having seen, which was on Fox News Sunday: CONNOLLY: You know, what, though? That?s not accurate. That?s not accurate. That?s the way that Drudge reported that supposed off-the-record conversation. But I?ve spoken to reporters who were there, and that?s not even what General Clark accused. It was something far more peripheral, and it was pinned to a tabloid. This statement, however, comes from Ceci Connolly, a 'journalist' who has accomplished the rare distinction of having not much more credibility than Drudge. A further and much more reliable confirmation comes from Ryan Lizza at TNR. Tuesday, February 17, 2004
God is Dead, or Maybe She's Just an A**hole Having this happen at all is bad enough, but for it to happen the same week that the Clark campaign died is further proof that life definitely sucks. Sleazeville Now that the Kerry rumor is dying out, it's instructive to look back and notice how little the media needs to go running off after a 'scandal'. Looking at the Drudge piece that started it all, one striking point shows up: even Drudge doesn't come right out and say an affair took place. Instead, he says that several named high-profile news outlets are investigating the story. But Hesiod, who has had some solid coverage, notes that Drudge's actual story, that major media were investigating the rumor, is denied on the record by several of those Drudge names. The other claim by Drudge, that Clark said Kerry was about to implode in an intern scandal, was clearly an attempt to imply that Democrats were behind the story. The very fact that it showed up on Drudge meant this spin is probably fake, furthermore, Drudge's citation of Clark also was described as inaccurate in a talking heads gabfest I saw last weekend - sorry, I didn't take down details. Drudge's statement that Polier had 'fled the country' also is dramatized at best, and the claim that it was at the behest of the Kerry camp looks like yet another fiction. Certainly there is no support for the allegation whatsoever. (You need a visa to visit Kenya. Certainly to be safe, you need inoculations that require some advance scheduling - the CDC recommends at least four weeks in advance. So it's a very unlikely destination for travel undertaken at the last minute just to get away from the media.) John Ellis strongly implies that the whole thing comes from a woman with a huge grudge against Kerry who has been shopping this and other anti-Kerry stories around for a while. This looks like another attempt to wipe the whole thing clean of any Karl Rove/RNC fingerprints. In conclusion, there seems to be nothing there at all. The probable source of the allegation is a single anonymous individual with no particular credibility. The people involved have denied the story. The woman's parents are publicly supportive of Kerry; the widely published claim that the father called Kerry a 'sleazeball' - printed in a disreputable rght wing Murdoch tab, but widely and uncritically repeated - also look to be phony. And yet this nothing was still substantive enough to dominate a large portion of the media for several news cycles - on Valentine's day, just for the irony. Friday, February 13, 2004
Be Careful What You Ask For... The primary schedule was set up to provide a clear nominee as quickly as possible, and it has succeeded in that goal. By Feb 11, only two serious candidates for the nomination remained standing, and one of those is on very wobbly legs indeed. Is this actually desirable? Almost certainly not. The now apparent nominee emerged as the frontrunner less than a month ago and has not been seriously tested. It is unclear how much primary voters know about him or his positions. He has been subjected to nothing remotely like the attacks that will come once he is the official nominee. Voters say that they think him the most electable candidate, but there seems to be little grounds for that judgement. There is precedent, however - Jonathan Chait reminds us that Republican primary voters in 2000 believed, absurdly, that George Bush was more electable than John McCain. Equally absurd is the contention that, since Kerry has won some southern primaries, he can win southern states in November. Al Gore won huge primary landslides in almost all the former confederate states, sometimes with as much as 80% of the vote, but it didn't help him in November. So how does 50% in VA make Kerry a southern man? Of course I am subject to sour grapes here, since my candidate was defeated. But it seems plain that Kerry simply hasn't endured the scrutiny a nominee should. Furthermore, the last month, the only real period when the public's attention has been focussed on the Democratic race, has been terrific for us and catastrophic for Bush. Another month of focus on that race, instead of the Bush/Kerry race, could only help. Kumentum Final results from Tennessee show that dropping out of the race didn't prevent both Lieberman and Mosley-Braun from beating Dennis Kucinich in the state. Kucinich did, however, manage to defeat Dick Gephardt. In an impressive display of strength, he actually defeated all the candidates who dropped out in Virginia. In spite of this, Kucinich will be invited to participate in this weekend's debate in Wisconsin, along with the equally irrelevant Al Sharpton and the just barely relevant Howard Dean. The DNC has wimped out of the threat to invite only serious candidates to debate after the Feb 3 primaries. Kevin Drum has been doing terrific work with some of the best blogging I've ever seen on the Bush National Guard story, analyzing documents and new developments, calling up figures involved, speaking to them, and giving their accounts in far more detail than the major media. This interview with Bill Burkett, who alleges that Bush's service records were cleansed in the 1990s while he was Governor of Texas, is especially noteworthy. Kevin is outperforming the professionals on this one, and that includes the big boys. Give the NY Times credit for running an extensive article on the topic, but the article contains some basic errors. Mr. Bartlett denied on Wednesday that any records were altered. General James, since named head of the Air National Guard by President Bush, also denied Mr. Burkett's account. But Mr. Bartlett and another former official in Mr. Bush's administration in Texas, Joe Allbaugh, acknowledged speaking to National Guard officials about the files as Mr. Bush was preparing to seek re-election as governor. Dan Bartlett is one of those named by Burkett as involved in the whitewash. The Times accepts his statement as a denial, but, looking closely at Burkett's account as detailed by Kevin, it looks like a carefully phrased non-denial. Burkett charged that documents were discarded, while Bartlett denied the distinct (and unmade) allegation that documents were 'altered'. Something similar is true of the denial attributed to Joe Albaugh, who labels Burkett's story as 'hogwash', but confirms a few details with appropriate spin while not denying any. Friday, February 06, 2004
Back From the Trail I suspended blogging to spend a few days in Arizona working for Wesley Clark. It was a great trip - I had the opportunity to see Clark speak in Flagstaff on Sunday, after which I and other volunteers, along with Arizona voters, were able to talk to Clark during the Super Bowl. Chatting with Clark and being able to observe him chatting with others was a great experience, and confirmed me in the belief that I made the right choice. Clark is friendly and completely at ease talking to ordinary folks. He was polite to everyone, including the woman who tried to bend his ear with a lecture on agricultural policy and the faults of the official groups that represent farmers which would probably still be going on if he hadn't gently persuaded her to finish off and give others a chance who were waiting to talk to him. Unfortunately, the outcome of the election means there is little chance the Democratic Party will join me in picking the best man. Kerry support was extremely weak in Northern Arizona. During the time I spent there, I never saw a Kerry button, yard sign, or bumper sticker, and never spoke to a single voter that really was committed to Kerry as a candidate. There was a strong local Clark campaign, and a significant presence of Dean volunteers, although Dean had no office in Northern Arizona. In walking precincts we often found that the Deanies had gone by leaving literature before us, but there was more support for Clark. In spite of the lack of enthusiasm, Kerry won Coconino, Flagstaff's county, although by a small margin compared to the substantial margin he carried the state by. I think the amount of free media Kerry received, constantly being identified as the frontrunner and leader, caused people to simply climb on to the bandwagon without looking hard at who he is or his considerable vulnerabilities in a general election. The good news is that Bush has equal vulnerabilities. Although I think Clark would be both a better candidate and a better president, I believe Kerry has a solid chance of winning if he is the nominee, an outcome which now looks extremely probable. This blog will of course support Kerry should he be nominated; with all his flaws he is vastly better than George Bush. Thursday, January 29, 2004
The New Hampshire results weren't terrible for Clark, but certainly weren't good. I thought from the beginning that it would be a success if he managed to finish 3rd, beating all the candidates who weren't essentially favorite sons. And he managed, just barely, to do that. But not so long ago, we were poised to do much better. Tracking polls make it possible to see where things went wrong, and it's clear: Clark's slippage started on the 15th, the very day of the Drudge/Gillespie smear. The inability to answer that smear effectively, although it was easily shown to be false, is one more sign that the campaign simply isn't running well enough. It isn't the first. The first key strategic decision the campaign made, skipping Iowa, was clearly the single worst mistake. The exit polls from NH show that the biography is the only part of Clark's message that's gotten through; voters who were looking for solutions to domestic problems went for Kerry by huge margins. Clark has an excellent set of domestic proposals, but it's clear that we Clark activists are the only ones who have noticed. The failure to adequately prepare Clark for questions on an issue as obvious as abortion, which the bloggers linked below both mention, is another sign that simple due diligence isn't being exercised. Nick Confessore thinks that heads need to roll: I find it interesting that while Dean has the gumption to do something decisive (if stupid) like firing Trippi, Wesley Clark seems to lack the wherewithal to something decisive (and probably smart) like firing some of the guys on his own campaign. Certain other Gore retreads working on Clark '04 are widely thought to have torpedoed John Weaver's bid to become Clark's campaign manager, which preserved their own power on the campaign but deprived it of the effective leadership it so desparately and obviously needs. (Any campaign team that sent Clark onto the Democratic primary trail without at least a well-considered view on abortion deserves summary dismissal.) It's probably too late for Clark to get weaver on board. But if he's smart, he'll hire Joe Trippi. Confessore drops hints; Amy Sullivan names names and says that Lehane and Fabiani should be fired. I'm a little hesitant to join in. Lehane and Fabiani tend to be an obsession in certain corners of the web; they've been blamed for almost everything except 9/11. I have no inside information to say what role they've actually played in the campaign, whether one or both scuttled the plan (which would have been great) to bring Weaver aboard, or whether they are the ones at fault for the campaign's missteps. But whoever is responsible for the weak message and the weak campaign has really got to go. Tuesday, January 27, 2004
Oops, I Did it Again Gregg Easterbrook is factually challenged once again: Gene engineering may be a spooky idea for people, but for crop plants, all current projects aim toward higher yield, lower pesticide and fertilizer use, the ability to grow in less-than-prime soils--all things that improve the odds that the developing world will be able to feed itself until human population growth peaks sometime in this century. In fact, the most common line of genetically engineered products currently on the market is sold by Monsanto, and is a group of "Roundup ready" crops designed to be resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, allowing more rather than less pesticide use. At least with soy (most US soy acreage is now GE) Roundup ready fields get sprayed with 11% more pesticide and produce, for unknown reasons, 5 - 10% lower yield. Roundup ready soy also has reduced ability to fix nitrogen, resulting in more need for fertilizer. In addition, there is evidence that the widespread use of Roundup is now causing mutations that will ultimately lead to 'Roundup ready' weeds. Since those drawbacks might not be enough to reduce Mr Easterbrook's enthusiasm, I'll note one more - at the same time that GM soy became widely used by consumers, allergic reactions to soy and soy products soared. Monsanto also produces Roundup ready wheat, cotton, canola, and corn. Saturday, January 24, 2004
Fun With Context Tacitus has some artfully arranged quotes from Clark which he is using to imply that Clark disdains all junior officers. Clark on Kerry, part one: "Senator [Dole], with all due respect, [John Kerry is] a lieutenant and I'm a general....It's one thing to be a hero as a junior officer. He's done that and I respect him for that. He's been a good senator. But I've had the military leadership at the top as well as at the bottom." Clark on Kerry, part two: "I stayed with the military all the way through," Clark told reporters after rallying volunteers at his headquarters...."I'm only saying I stayed with the United States armed forces. I'm proud I did. Lots of us did," said Clark, answering a question about his and Kerry?s military service. Let's look at the first quote with the passage Tacitus has quietly omitted put back in its place (omitted words in bold): "Well I don't agree," General Clark said. "Senator, with all due respect, he's a lieutenant and I'm a general. You've got to get your facts right." Asked later about the exchange, General Clark acknowledged Senator Kerry's military background. But, he added: "Nobody in the race has got the kind of background I've got. I've negotiated peace agreements. I've led a major alliance in war. It's one thing to be a hero as a junior officer. He's done that and I respect him for that. He's been a good senator. But I've had the military leadership at the top as well as at the bottom." This shows what Clark really meant, and what Tacitus doesn't want readers to see. Clark is talking about what qualifications each man brings to be a President. He quite properly points out that Kerry's service as a junior officer, while heroic, involved limited responsibilities. He was responsible only for the execution of orders, without being involved in broader problems of strategy and objectives. The same thing, minus the personal heroism, could be said of Kerry's work in the Senate. The Senate, as a body, is responsible for a great deal. But the power and responsibility is divided a hundred ways. An individual Senator is personally responsible only for managing his or her own office, a few dozen employees. So it's easy for both Kerry and Edwards to run around now attacking the Patriot Act without mentioning that both of them voted for it. After all, it wasn't passed by them, it was passed by The Senate. You know, bunch of guys, Washington insiders. Nothing like me, I swear. Kerry deserves respect for his service both in Vietnam and the Senate. But what preparation either has been for the Presidency is a very valid question. Clark, by contrast, has experience at the top levels. That means he was involved in such activities as playing a major role in negotiating the Dayton Accords, representing the US in negotiations both with allies and adversaries. He played the key role in holding together the NATO alliance during the Kosovo war. He also had to manage and command the entire US military presence in Europe, responsible for the lives and duties of over 100,000 men and women along with about the same number of civilian dependents. That gives him levels of experience that Kerry simply can't match. There is nothing wrong with Clark pointing this fact out to voters. In the second example, context has been not omitted, but provided. Or, to be less charitable, invented. The headline on the story Tacitus cited reads: "Clark Contrasts His, Kerry's Military Careers" . But here is the meat of the story: Retired General Wesley Clark yesterday noted he "stayed with the U.S. Army" through the Vietnam War, setting up a contrast with White House foe John Kerry, who left the military and became a war critic. "I stayed with the military all the way through," Clark told reporters after rallying volunteers at his headquarters. "I stayed with the United States Army through Vietnam. I was company commander there. I fought and I was hit by four rounds." Kerry, who served in the U.S. Navy from 1966-69 and won Monday's Iowa caucuses, has climbed slightly ahead of Clark in some New Hampshire polls leading up to Tuesday?s Democratic Presidential primary. "I'm only saying I stayed with the United States armed forces. I'm proud I did. Lots of us did," said Clark, answering a question about his and Kerry's military service. Clark's 30-plus years of military culminated with his post as Supreme Allied Commander during the Clinton administration. The original reporter and Tacitus both assure us that Clark is attacking Kerry here. If we just read what Clark says and ignore the spin, we notice that Clark doesn't mention Kerry. There's nothing in the quote that even implicitly talks about Kerry. Clark is only talking about his own background; the criticism of others is only in the presentation of the quotes, not in the quotes themselves. Friday, January 23, 2004
Confirmation! Hey, if you throw enough darts, eventually one has to hit the bull's eye. I just posted below my reflections on how Feb 3 and the overall race looked, speculating that Clark should be doing well in Feb 3 states because Dean's support is likely plummeting, while Clark's should still be strong. I regard Oklahoma as the most solid Feb 3 state for Clark, partly because of polls and partly because I did some calling there for Clark prior to Iowa. In the small and unscientific sample of voters I spoke to, in a very red section of a very red state, I had about half for Clark and half undecided, but mostly with kind things to say about Clark. I had 0 who supported the other Democratic candidates, although I did speak to a Bush supporter. Now, only moments after I posted, we have the first post-Iowa survey of a Feb 3 state, SUSA's new poll of Oklahoma. The latest pre-Iowa SUSA numbers (from mid-December) are in parens. Howard Who? The race continues to change at amazing speed, and what is changing most is the crashing status of Howard Dean. Even Matthew now admits that Dean is looking distinctly evitable. The Tuesday spin was that Iowa was a disaster for Clark, because the name of the game was to emerge quickly as the anti-Dean. I bought into that some myself, and on Tuesday still regarded Dean as the front runner. That's already looking inoperative. We're now facing a real possibility, that would have seemed preposterous only days ago, that Howard Dean won't be a major factor in the race. Dean appears to be heading for another bad evening in New Hampshire, where I expect he'll do no better than 3rd. Even if he does pass Clark up for 2nd, except in the unlikely event he actually wins, it doesn't mean a great deal. The key question, on which we have no polling so far, is how Dean's standing in the crucial Feb 3 states has been holding up. In the four states that have useful polling data, Dean and Clark were the top two, usually with significant separation from the field. Kerry was generally invisible, and so, except in South Carolina, was Edwards. In Missouri, Dean was a distant 2nd to Gephardt, a few points ahead of Clark. My strong suspicion is that much of Dean's support in those states was soft and has now melted. If I'm right, Dean coming into Feb 3 with only negative momentum will crash for the 3rd week in a row, and that will all but kill him as a serious candidate. Can Clark take advantage? With no polls, Clark's support might be melting in the Feb 3 states as much as Dean's. But I suspect it isn't. Clark's dropping in national polls, but he isn't advertising nationally. He is advertising in NH and most or all of the Feb 3 states. In NH, Clark is down from his peak level, but at or above where he was when most of those polls showing him a 1st or strong 2nd were taken. And in the last few days, Clark is moving back up in some (but not all) NH polls. Also, Clark retains enviable favorable/unfavorable ratios in the latest polls, while Dean's are plummeting along with his preference numbers. Kerry and Edwards don't have the campaign infrastructure, in paid and volunteer staff, that Clark does in the Feb 3 states. Due to tight money, they aren't advertising as heavily. And the states themselves, 6 out of 7 either swing states or solid red states, are ones where Clark should do well. Feb 3 will be a Waterloo for both Dean and Clark. But it's looking as if Clark is set for the role of Wellington, while Dean is leaning to the Bonapartist side. Depending on how far Kerry has moved up in the Feb 3 states, I see a real shot of Clark picking up 4 or 5 wins that day. And his major competition may be coming from Kerry and Edwards more than Dean. Last night's debate was a fairly staid affair. nobody had any triumphs, and nobody made any huge mistakes. Edwards did goof some on the meaning of the Defense of Marriage Act, and Dean contradicted some of his past positions on guns. His current moderate position including support for a renewal of the assault weapons ban is probably fine with many gun owners, but isn't the sort of stance that gets you 100% NRA ratings. Dean is on record in the past as having opposed restrictions on assault weapons ownership. Noted statesman Al Sharpton was asked for his positions on foreign policy, monetary policy, and civil rights. By contrast, Wes Clark was asked only gotcha questions which generally avoided issues at all. Clark made the mistake of answering these questions, which meant he had little opportunity to discuss his platform. The most striking of these was when Jennings asked Clark to attack his supporter Michael Moore for having called Bush a deserter. Jennings, who surely knows the facts, simply lied by claiming that Moore's charge was without any reasonable factual basis. Jeffrey Birnbaum, doing the play by play over Fox radio, repeated Jennings' lie. Birnbaum also expressed amazement that Clark hadn't examined Moore's allegations, apparently unaware that, since neither Clark nor his campaign has made any such charge against Bush, there is no reason why he should have done so. Lying and spinning aren't the only traditional prerogatives of politicians that Jennings took over in this debate. Jennings in particular treated the evening as a forum for himself, rather than the candidates. CJR performed the tedious job of counting every speaker's words and found that Jennings, at 1870, spoke more than the average output of 6 of the 7 candidates. Only John Edwards, through the expedient of simply ignoring his time limits, was able to talk substantially more than Jennings. In general this debate, like the 2 dozen or so before it, was forgettable and had little importance other than perhaps preparing the eventual winner for his face-off with Bush. The whole format is broken, but I confess to having no really bright ideas about how to fix it. |