March 31, 2004
Allah is in the House
There is way more where this came from.
Oh my. I can't breathe, I'm laughing so hard.
"Uncomfortable truths, gently expressed"
While we're at it, I want to mention that I've finally blog-rolled the mysterious Wince and Nod.
Wince has been a faithful reader here for some time. He is infuriatingly polite, remarkably even-tempered, unusually non-judgemental, as well as being very well-informed.
But that doesn't keep him from being wrong much of the time.
Hang in there, Wince. There's hope for you yet.
"Changing minds one opinion at a time"
Mark Adams is [in no particular order] a Lawyer, Restauranteur, Husband, Father, Landlord, Singer, Guitarist, Political Scientist, Amateur Historian and Rhetorician with no sense of reverence for anything except the freedom to speak one's mind.
Did I mention that Miss Julie from Baton Rouge is his #1 fan?
Visit his new blog -- Dispassionate Liberalism. He's one of the good guys.
State-by-state polling results
As of Wednesday afternoon, here are the state polling results from Rasmussen Reports:
Washington
Kerry 50% Bush 44%
Iowa
Kerry 51% Bush 41%
Minnesota
Kerry 47% Bush 44%
Missouri
Bush 49% Kerry 42%
Michigan
Kerry 48% Bush 44%
Ohio
Kerry 45% Bush 41%
Pennsylvania
Kerry 45% Bush 44%
Florida:
Kerry 48% Bush 45%
California:
Kerry 53% Bush 44%
North Carolina:
Bush 51% Kerry 43%
Illinois:
Kerry 52% Bush 39%
Bush and Cheney's Excellent Adventure
Why do I think this will happen when POTUS/VPOTUS appear before the 9/11 Commish?
"Thank you for that excellent question, Mr. Ben-Veniste. I think Vice President Cheney should probably handle that one … "
Snerk!
(hat tip to The Note who also threw in this observation: "Never in the history of the Republic has an upcoming event been so obviously crafted to serve as the basis of a Saturday Night Live sketch." Hee.)
When pigs fly, indeed!
Baldilocks is wondering when the Congressional Black Caucus will stand up for Condoleeza Rice. That's a decent question, so I clicked through to the CBC site and found this quote at the top of the page:
"We choose to stand up and speak out whenCondoleeza Rice? Voiceless? When pigs fly.
others choose to sit down and remain
silent. We are the voice for the voiceless . . . "
-- Congressman Elijah E. Cummings, Chair CBC
Fallujah attacks kill 5 US troops
From CNN:
A roadside bomb in Iraq killed five U.S. military personnel today, according to the Coalition Press Information Center. Military sources said the attack happened outside Fallujah, west of Baghdad.As of Wednesday morning, there have been 50 US military fatalities in March making it the worst month for our troops since November 2003. Stats here.
Since the war began, 599 US troops have been killed.
March 30, 2004
Like a walking Statue of Liberty
Novelist Scott Turow writes in Salon about how Barack Obama has come to graceful terms with his mixed-race heritage. Now, as he runs for the U.S. Senate in Illinois, he's connecting with voters across the color spectrum.
...[T]he smart money has to be on Barack Obama to win in November and thereby to become a pivotal American leader. To be young, black and brilliant has always appeared to me to be one of the more extraordinary burdens in American life. Much is offered; even more is expected. You are like a walking Statue of Liberty, holding up the torch 24 hours a day. Yet Barack Obama, who spent his early years coming to terms with his heritage, is in every sense comfortable in his own skin and committed to a political vision far broader than racial categories.Because they work for George W. Bush, and therefore cannot be regarded as influential political figures in the African-American community, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice may be the first blacks in government whose race is an afterthought in the public mind. If he wins, Barack Obama will also answer to a constituency that is principally white. As a result, he may become the first black Democrat able to rise above race in the fashion of Powell and Rice, and in doing so become the embodiment of one of America's most enduring dreams.
Presidential trivia quiz
It is said that a sitting President running in an election is really subjecting himself to a referendum on his Presidency. In other words, the election is largely his to lose. And 20th century history shows that the sitting President rarely loses that election.
But it has happened.
And here's the interesting thing: if it happens that the sitting President loses that election, it is almost always to a man who is himself elected to at least two terms.
This is interesting because it says that we almost always replace a sitting President with someone that we like so much that we elect him again.
Almost always.
So here's the Presidential trivia quiz question of the day:
Only one sitting President in the 20th century was defeated by a candidate who did NOT win re-election himself. Name either the sitting President or the man who defeated him (and who failed to win re-election).
...there's more! >>>One question for Condi
In May of 2002, Condi Rice said this:
I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon. That they would try to use an airplane as a missile? A hijacked airplane as a missile? All of this reporting about hijacking was about traditional hijacking.Since then, it has become clear that at that time, there had already been a long string of intelligence warnings specifically on that topic. [Note: Not to mention all the Clancy-stuff. Heh.]
Last Friday, Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank reported this:
Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed this week that Rice had asked, in her private meetings with the commission, to revise a statement she made publicly that “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that those people could have taken an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center…that they would try to use an airplane as a missile.” Rice told the commission that she misspoke; the commission has received information that prior to Sept. 11, U.S. intelligence agencies and Clarke had talked about terrorists using airplanes as missiles.
So, Condi -- are you a liar or a dope?
I've got you just where you want me!
Some are saying this is the moment of truth in the whole Dick Clarke saga. A moment of high drama in which the White House will finally reveal Dick Clarke to be an al Qaeda mole.
Me? I'm just glad to see her do what everyone else has already done.
Will Condi's testimony be one of those "gotcha!" moments that Bush apologists dream about? Dunno. I suppose there is the chance she'll show up with a whole raft of de-classified documents showing Clarke to be a lying weasel; but she's been doing that, selectively, for weeks already:
U.S. officials told NBC News that the full record of Clarke’s testimony two years ago would not be declassified. They said that at the request of the White House, however, the CIA was going through the transcript to see what could be declassified, with an eye toward pointing out contradictions.
It's good to be the NSA.
But Clarke has already anticipated that, having called for a complete de-classifying of all records on Russert's show last Sunday.
In a related development, POTUS and VPOTUS will also meet, jointly and privately, with the entire panel. Jointly? That's just creepy. Dunno why, but it seems weird. Whatever.
Does this draw the curtain down on Dick Clarke's 15 minutes of fame, finally? Well, no. In a truly bizarre turn of events, he'll appear on The Daily Show on Tuesday evening.
What's next? The View? Oprah? Hollywood Squares?
In any case (barring the selective declassification of Clarke's emails, etc) people who admire Bush will believe Condi; people who don't admire Bush will believe Clarke.
Last question: what exactly did the White House gain by dragging this out for weeks? The promise that the panel would not use this as a precedent? Excuse me, but that's pretty lame. Similarly, what did the White House gain by having the POTUS/VPOTUS meet with the whole committee instead of just the chair and vice-chair?
I'm scratchin my head here, people. Someone is saying, "Aha! I have you just where you want me." I just can't be sure who that is.
Alistair Cooke, 1908-2004
The legendary broadcaster Alistair Cooke has died at the age of 95. Mr. Cooke broadcast his Letter from America for 58 years on the British Broadcasting Corporation.
He was also the host of Masterpiece Theater for twenty years and was the author of the enormously entertaining and enlightening book, America.
He knew everyone and had an interesting and insightful story to tell about them as well. On one of his broadcasts he told the story of how he convinced a young Leonard Bernstein to conduct a performance of Handel's Messiah, which Bernstein (up to that point) was not familiar with. In the very same broadcast, he told of playing golf with Bing Crosby.
Above all, he was a terrific writer. Here is his eyewitness account of Bobby Kennedy's assassination:
“Then. Above the bassy boom of the television there was a banging repetition of sounds. Like somebody dropping a rack of trays, or banging a single tray against a wall. Half a dozen of us were startled enough to head for the swinging doors, and suddenly we were jolted through by a flying wedge of other men. ..."There was a head on the floor streaming blood, and somebody put a Kennedy boater under it, and the blood trickled down the sides like chocolate sauce on an iced cake. There were splashes of flash bulbs, and infernal heat, and the button eyes of Ethel Kennedy turned to cinders. She was wrestling or slapping a young man and he was saying, ‘Listen, lady, I’m hurt, too.’
"And then she was on her knees cradling him briefly, and in another little pool of light on the greasy floor was a huddle of clothes and staring out of it the face of Bobby Kennedy, like the stone face of a child’s effigy on a cathedral tomb. ...
"Everybody wanted to make space and air, but everybody also wanted to see the worst. By now, the baying and the moaning had carried over into the ballroom, and it sounded like a great hospital bombed and in panic.”
Read Richard Corliss' obit in Time Magazine.
March 28, 2004
The Laptop Brigade
I enjoy reading Vanity Fair magazine. The writing is good, the pictures are great and I live for that Oscar edition every year.
The April issue contains an article by James Wolcott on blogs, wherein he makes some insightful observations about how bloggers hold the mainstream-media's feet to the fire:
In a January 2004 edition of Meet the Press, journalist Roger Simon, a panelist on Tim Russert's political roundtable, voiced this attitude when he defined blogs for the Rip van Winkles in the audience."Look, a true blog is 'I woke up this morning, I decided to skip chem class, now I want to write about the last episode of Friends.' That what blogs are. You know, it's people talking to each other."
Yapping, he made it sound like, which of course it often is. Nevertheless, Simon tripped over his mustache with his chem-class crack. His notion of a blog is as outdated as a Jack Carter comdedy routine about kids today and their wiggy gyrations.
Far from being a refuge for nose-picking narcissists, blogs have speedily matured into the most vivifying, talent-swapping, socializing breakthrough in popular journalism since the burst of coffeehouse periodicals and political pamphleteering in the 18th century, when The Spectator, The Tatler, and sundry other sheets liberated writing from literary patronage. If Addison and Steele, the editors of The Spectator and The Tatler, were alive and holding court at Starbucks, they'd be Wi-Fi-ing into a joint blog.
If Tom Paine were alive and paroled, he'd be blog-jamming against the Patriot Act, whose very name he'd find obscene.
You can't read the article online -- you have to find it at your local newstand or at the library. Go and do so. It's worth your time. Especially those of you who feel that bloggers are journalists.
On whether an apology is necessary
Excerpted from Time Magazine's interview with VPOTUS:
On whether an apology for failing to prevent Sept. 11 is necessary:Without question, we would have liked to be able to prevent that attack. Maybe we'll know after [the 9/11 commissioners] get through with all of their work. They'll come up with some ideas and recommendations about how that might have been done. It's hard at this point to see ... There are clearly some things that could have been done to be more effective. Whether or not there was a way to forecast what was going on here and head it off, I just don't know. Obviously, I think everybody feels bad about the loss of life. If you were at the White House that day, as many of us were, you know it's a moment you'll never forget.
I'll take that as a "No."
Free Condoleeza Rice
Pressure mounts for Condoleeza Rice to do what her peers have already done: publicly testify, under oath, before the 9/11 Commission. Even Republicans are saying so now.
"I think the White House is making a political blunder, an important miscalculation of the political impact of this," [Republican Commission member John] Lehman told CNN. "Condoleezza Rice should testify before our commission."And of course John Kerry has weighed in on this now, too, but that shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.
Could it be that Rice would rather testify, but is being forbidden to do so by the White House?
Rice has accumulated lots of political capital over the years; she should spend some of it, now, and move on. Assuming that her actions weren't grossly culpable, she should testify and get it over with.
She could easily turn this whole flap into just so much "inside baseball." Instead, she's going on 60 Minutes, while stiffing the Commission. Bad career move.
You think she knows this and is just following orders? I'd understand it; after all, that's exactly what Richard Clarke did, when he gave that backgrounder in '02 to the White House press corps.
March 27, 2004
Maybe, maybe, maybe...
Blogs4Bush continue to bubble up with excitement about that perjuring, traitorous, bastard Richard Clarke.
Unfortunately for Bush apologists, Bill Frist is already backtracking on his initial accusation of perjury, probably the result of realizing that his mouth was moving before his brain was in gear:
Frist later retreated from directly accusing Clarke of perjury, telling reporters that he personally had no knowledge that there were any discrepancies between Clarke’s two appearances. But he said, “Until you have him under oath both times, you don’t know.”
Perhaps it's like Josh Marshall says, "Maybe Richard Clarke lied in the July 2002 testimony. Maybe he's an al Qaida mole. Maybe instead of being 98% water like the rest of us he's 98% wax. Maybe. Maybe. Maybe ..."
Here's a thought: If they declassify HIS testimony, why don't they follow Sen. Graham's suggestion?
I concur with Senator Frist's call for de-classification of Richard Clarke's testimony to the Joint Inquiry. To the best of my recollection, there is nothing inconsistent or contradictory in that testimony and what Mr. Clarke has said this week.I would add three other recommendations:
First, if Mr. Clarke's testimony is to be released, it should be released in its entirety -- not, as the Bush administration has done in the past, selectively edited so that only portions favorable to the White House are made public.
Second, the Bush administration should de-classify other documents that surround the Clarke testimony, such as his January 25, 2002, plan for action against al Qaeda, in order to clarify the issues that are in dispute.
And finally, the Bush administration should release all other testimony and documents related to 9-11 for which classification can no longer be justified -- including the 27 pages of the Joint Inquiry's final report that address the involvement of a foreign government in supporting some of the 19 hijackers while they lived among us and finalized their evil plot.
The American people deserve to know what their government has done -- and should be doing -- to protect them from terrorists, and who should be held accountable for shortcomings that have left our country vulnerable."
Sen. Kerry has made a similar call, although his statement sounds as if he's taunting the Bush administration.
March 26, 2004
Republicans for Kerry
Earlier this month, Zell Miller launched Democrats for Bush.
Now there's Republicans for Kerry:
We’re a group of Republicans that have been supportive of and active in the Republic Party for most of our adult life. We believe in the Republican Party values of fiscal responsibility, individual freedom, environmental protection, energy conservation and honesty; in the Republican values of strong defense for the purpose of protecting this country and world peace.This is the party of Lincoln and should stand for freedom and civil liberty for all.
Every one of us has struggled through a painful realization that in order to save our country and the Republican Party, we have to oppose this President who has acted so contrary to our values.
We have come to respect John Kerry for his character and for his belief in and pursuit of many of our moderate Republican positions. We believe he is the right man for this moment.
We are at a critical juncture in the history of our country and our party, let's work together to move the party back to the center, by first removing George W. Bush from office. Then, let's work together to give the moderates who represent the traditional Republican values a stronger voice and our support in this and future elections.
Michelle Goldberg and Paul J. Caffera write about this in Salon:
[T]here's little doubt that behind the scenes, some moderate Republicans are rooting for the other side. If Bush wins, one aide to a moderate Republican says privately, "that would be the worst possible situation."That's because some Republicans say that a Bush loss may be their last chance to take their party back. "If Bush were defeated by Kerry, it would certainly call into question the Republican leadership, people like Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert," says Victor Fasciani [a 40-year-old asset manager and lifelong Republican]. "That axis of the party may lose its weight and its power. The Powell and Giuliani wing of the party would certainly gain some prominence and may, during the next four years of a Kerry administration, perhaps even gain control of the party and increase the tent."
Is this for real?
Richard Clarke: Terrorist mastermind!
Blog-land is boiling over with speculation about Richard Clarke's veracity.
Now this, from David Espo at Associated Press:
Top Republicans in Congress sought Friday to declassify two-year-old testimony by former White House aide Richard Clarke, suggesting he may have lied this week when he faulted President Bush's handling of the war on terror.As we know, Clarke's main contention was that Pres. Clinton had "no higher priority" than combatting terrorists, whereas Pres. Bush made it "an important issue but not an urgent issue" in the eight months between the time he took office and the Sept. 11 attacks. Clarke also testified that the invasion of Iraq had undermined the war on terror."Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said in a speech on the Senate floor. [...]
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said he supports the move. "We need to lean forward in making as much information available to the public as possible, without compromising the national security interests of the nation," he said in a statement.
From this we get perjury?
Well, I for one have no idea what Clarke said two years ago, so who knows what happens next. This much I do know from being alive during the Clinton years: one thing that Republicans really, really, really hate is when you lie under oath.
Must be why Condi Rice ducked those public hearings. But I digress.
Listen to the Majority Leader lay it on thick:
In a sharply worded speech, Frist said that Clarke himself was "the only common denominator" across 10 years of terrorist attacks that began with the first attack on the World Trade Center.[Richard Clarke: Terrorist mastermind!]
[...]
He also accused him of making a "theatrical apology" to the families of the terrorist victims at the outset of his appearance on Wednesday, saying it was not "his right, his privilege or his responsibility" to do so.
That's just weirdly arrogant. According to Sen. Frist, no one should apologize? Or perhaps someone else should apologize? Clarke apologized to the wrong people? He apologized for the wrong thing?
What a maroon!
How much humor is too much?
Time and again I've suggested that politicians leave humor to the professionals. For example, were the POTUS' jokes about missing WMD in bad taste at the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association annual dinner the other night? I didn't think so, although I passed on reproducing them here because I didn't find them particularly ... boffo.
That said, I did notice that certain parties who thought this was funny, were not so amused a few years ago when the shoe was on the other foot. Take noted Newt-acolyte Tony Blankley, who said this on May 3, 2000:
"But the audience, made up of the political and media leadership of the country, ought to be ashamed of itself for laughing and popping out of its chairs for repeated standing ovations. Because that hotel ballroom is not a night club, and Bill Clinton isn't a stand-up comic. He is the president of the United States, and there must always be a moral component to the assessment of his comments, whether they are funny or serious. In this instance, humor should not be its own reward."And that was when the POTUS joked about impeachment, not war.
Is Blankley laughing now?
(hat tip to The Note)
Clarke 1, Bush 0
Bush apologists in blog-land have decided Richard Clarke is a liar, a disgruntled bureacrat, untrustworthy, and/or crazy.
One blogger even suggests it was Clarke who let that planeload of Saudis go shortly after 9/11. On Thursday, the Boston Herald breathlessly reported these facts (uncovered in a Vanity Fair article from, er, seven months ago):
"Somebody brought to us for approval the decision to let an airplane filled with Saudis, including members of the bin Laden family, leave the country,'' Clarke told Vanity Fair. "My role was to say that it can't happen unless the FBI approves it. . . And they came back and said yes, it was fine with them. So we said 'Fine, let it happen.' ''Michael Moore, et. al. have previously worked themselves into a lather about this episode but (until now) the administration shrugged it off and the media let it slide.
Vanity Fair uncovered that the FBI never fully investigated the passengers on those privately chartered flights (one of which flew out of Logan International Airport after scooping up a dozen or so bin Laden relatives.) But Clarke protested to Vanity Fair that policing the FBI was not in his job description.
Isn't that convenient?
Reading the Herald's spin on it, it sounds to me like Clarke got rolled. After all, who brought the request to Clarke? And how come the FBI signed off on it?
Meanwhile, the damage might already have been done: Thursday's Rasmussen tracking poll showed that POTUS' approval numbers had crumpled and that he'd fallen behind again in the two horse-race with Sen. Kerry.
Adding insult to injury, Clarke's book is sitting atop the Amazon best-seller list.
No wonder Condi Rice is so pissed off.
March 25, 2004
Newsweek Misses the Story on Young Voters
Younger voters will put Bush over the top in November, right?
Not if they vote like they're polling now.
Ruy Teixeira debunks a recent Newsweek "Genext" poll of young voters.
The story dwells on how Nader draws 12 percent among young voters in their poll--double what Nader is drawing among all registered voters in other Ipsos polls--and what good news this is for Bush.Buried in the story (and in the full survey data) is other information that suggests the real story is how anti-Bush young voters are and what poor shape the president is still in with these voters.
Consider the following. By almost 20 points, young voters think the country is off on the wrong track (58 percent), rather than going in the right direction. And three-quarters believe the unemployment situation will not improve in the next six months, either staying the same (47 percent) or actually increasing (28 percent).
Bush's approval rating among young voters is now only 44 percent, with 54 percent disapproval, having dropped steadily among this group since early January of this year. His approval rating on the economy is now 46 percent, his approval rating on "domestic issues like health care, education, the environment and energy is 43 percent and even his rating on "foreign policy issues and the war on terrorism" is down to 50 percent.
His hard re-elect--"definitely vote to re-elect"--is an anemic 32 percent, 14 points lower than the 46 percent who say they will "definitely vote for someone else" (another 20 percent say they would “consider voting for someone else). And young voters also say they favor Democrats in this year's Congressional election by a strong 12 point margin (51-39).
OK. What about that Kerry-Bush-Nader horse race among young voters that's allegedly such good news for Bush? Yes, it's true that Nader draws 12 percent in this matchup. But it's also true that Kerry leads Bush by 9 points, 47-38 in the same matchup. In other words, even in a period where Bush has been making good headway in horse race matchups, and even with Nader in the mix and drawing a preposterously high 12 percent, Kerry still has a substantial lead over Bush among young voters.
Oh and another thing:
I don't think [Nader's] name should be included in any horse race questions, particularly on national polls. It is highly probable Nader's candidacy will amount to very little and, therefore, including him in Bush-Kerry matchups, where inattentive voters can declare their "support", wildly inflates his importance and overstates Bush's strength vis a vis Kerry.Why do I say it's highly probable Nader's candidacy will be a big nothing? Because it's likely he won't even be on the ballot in a lot of states. Because he has no party line to run on this time and practically no prominent supporters. And because in a close election, voters are going to remember 2000 and how it did make a difference who got elected and choose not to throw away their vote. All this is likely to drive down his vote far below what he received last time....and last time he received only 2.7 percent.
The Clarke Effect: Bush poll numbers down
Some are suggesting that POTUS' numbers are looking up, but other pollsters are finding a different story.
Perhaps the 9/11 Commission hearings (and Richard Clarke's testimony) are having an effect on POTUS' poll numbers?:
The latest Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll shows Senator John F. Kerry at 48%, President George W. Bush at 44%, and "some other candidate" at 4%.
Data from the past two days makes it clear that the recent news cycle is taking a toll on the President's numbers. Today's figures represent a net decline of seven points for the President in the past three days.[Note: All this happens while Sen. Kerry is on vacation. Who would have thought it would happen? Not I.
In addition to the increasing support for Senator Kerry, Rasmussen Reports has also found that the President's job approval ratings have fallen to their lowest level of the year.
And all this after POTUS pumped approximately $6 million into negative TV ads during that same week. Take that, Dick Morris!
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
(Hat tip to Kos)
I just didn't think it would be this future, you know?
Thursday night, there will be a fundraiser for John Kerry. In attendance will be many stars from the past, present and future, including Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Al Gore. That those three would appear together is strange enough. But according to Katherine Seelye of the Times, here's who else will (and will not) be there:
All the Democrats who vied for their party's nomination this year plan to attend except former Senator Carol Moseley Braun, who is traveling, and Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, who was not invited because he remains in the race and has not endorsed Mr. Kerry.Also on hand will be two former Democratic presidential candidates -- Eugene J. McCarthy and George McGovern. Two others -- Walter F. Mondale and Michael S. Dukakis -- will be absent, due to travel.
[Note: I thought Gene McCarthy was dead!]
Another prominent Democrat, Senator Zell Miller of Georgia, was not invited because he is supporting President Bush. Mr. Miller remains a Democrat in name but broke with his party long ago. He formally announced on Wednesday that he was heading a committee of Democrats for Mr. Bush, and he repeated many of the Bush campaign's criticisms of Mr. Kerry.
After the dinner, Mr. Clinton, Mr. Carter and others will head to Dream, a Washington nightclub. There, 5,000 people, paying $50 each, will see them and a bevy of performers, including OutKast, Ginuwine, Kenneth (Babyface) Edmonds and Q-Tip.
Five bucks says Bill brings his axe.
Stand-up guy
I've steered clear of the Richard Clarke phenomenon for a number of reasons. Primarily, it seems like so much "inside baseball." However, I did listen for one part of his testimony, where he addressed his now-famous background briefing in 2002. Conventional wisdom has it that this briefing proves that Clarke cannot be trusted; that he's a lying hypocrite.
Here's what Clarke said in response during yesterday's testimony before the 9/11 Commission (hat tip to Josh Marshall):
THOMPSON: Mr. Clarke, in this background briefing, as Senator [Bob] Kerrey has now described it, for the press in August of 2002, you intended to mislead the press, did you not?CLARKE: No. I think there is a very fine line that anyone who's been in the White House, in any administration, can tell you about. And that is when you are special assistant to the president and you're asked to explain something that is potentially embarrassing to the administration, because the administration didn't do enough or didn't do it in a timely manner and is taking political heat for it, as was the case there, you have a choice. Actually, I think you have three choices. You can resign rather than do it. I chose not to do that. Second choice is...
THOMPSON: Why was that, Mr. Clarke? You finally resigned because you were frustrated.
CLARKE: I was, at that time, at the request of the president, preparing a national strategy to defend America's cyberspace, something which I thought then and think now is vitally important. I thought that completing that strategy was a lot more important than whether or not I had to provide emphasis in one place or other while discussing the facts on this particular news story. The second choice one has, Governor, is whether or not to say things that are untruthful. And no one in the Bush White House asked me to say things that were untruthful, and I would not have said them. In any event, the third choice that one has is to put the best face you can for the administration on the facts as they were, and that is what I did. I think that is what most people in the White House in any administration do when they're asked to explain something that is embarrassing to the administration.
THOMPSON: But you will admit that what you said in August of 2002 is inconsistent with what you say in your book?
CLARKE: No, I don't think it's inconsistent at all. I think, as I said in your last round of questioning, Governor, that it's really a matter here of emphasis and tone. I mean, what you're suggesting, perhaps, is that as special assistant to the president of the United States when asked to give a press backgrounder I should spend my time in that press backgrounder criticizing him. I think that's somewhat of an unrealistic thing to expect.
THOMPSON: Well, what it suggests to me is that there is one standard of candor and morality for White House special assistants and another standard of candor and morality for the rest of America. I don't get that.
CLARKE: I don't think it's a question of morality at all. I think it's a question of politics.
THOMPSON: Well, I... (APPLAUSE)
THOMPSON: I'm not a Washington insider. I've never been a special assistant in the White House. I'm from the Midwest. So I think I'll leave it there.
I was also impressed by Clarke's opening statement in which he apologizes to the families of the 9/11 dead for having failed them. Say what you will, but it was a direct, open, honest and sensitive expression by someone who was there.
Contrast that with the rather disappointing conduct of Condoleeza Rice, who (alone amongst her peers) refused to testify under oath, in public, and instead shot spitballs at Clarke from the safety of the White House, reading from declassified memos (that she personally declassified!) in an effort to win a pissing contest with her former subordinate.
Some say she has a future in politics. Not sure if this performance proves them right or wrong. But it did make me respect her a whole lot less.
March 24, 2004
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy
Kevin Drum passes this tidbit along from Roll Call:
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) has begun quiet discussions with a handful of colleagues about the possibility that he will have to step down from his leadership post temporarily if he is indicted by a Texas grand jury investigating alleged campaign finance abuses.
...Republican Conference rules state that a member of the elected leadership who has been indicted on a felony carrying a penalty of at least two years in prison must temporarily step down from the post.
It is hard to overestimate the amount of power wielded in Congress by Tom DeLay. If indeed he is indicted, then this will be a huge story. And one that will be enormously satisfying to the legions of enemies this guy has made over the years.
Two great quotes for the day
First quote is from comedian Steven Wright:
Right now I'm having amnesia and deja vu at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Second quote is from Clinton-era NSA Sandy Berger:
History is written through a rearview mirror but it unfolds through a foggy windshield.
Zell on Bush
From Zell Miller, Democrat President of Georgia:
President Bush has led America in a time of recession, terrorism, and war. But through it all he has never forgotten his charge to protect our nation's security and promote opportunity for every American. He is guided by the right principles -- aided by his strong faith -- and I know that my family and the people of my state are more secure with George W. Bush in the White House. [emphasis added.]
Where are the actual accomplishments, Zell? We know POTUS' heart's in the right place; but there are plenty of really nice guys, guys who meant well, who just couldn't get the job done. This POTUS is one of them.
Phony statistics
Michael Kinsley writes in the Post about POTUS' recent loopy declaration (see below) that Sen. Kerry voted to raise your taxes 350 times in the past 20 years:
The purpose of a phony statistic such as this one isn't to convince people of its own accuracy. The purpose is to trap your opponent in a discussion he doesn't want to have (in this case about his past votes on taxes), bog down the discussion in silly details that few people will follow, and leave a general impression that where there's smoke there must be fire. And certainly, if what matters to you above all else is paying fewer taxes, you'd be a fool to choose Kerry over Bush.But this isn't about taxes; it's about honesty. Honesty means more than factual accuracy, it means avoiding disingenuousness: not talking rot when you know it's rot. If that matters to you above all, you may be out of luck with either candidate this election. But if you wish to measure comparative rot, this 350-tax-increases business may be hard for Kerry to top.
So...what's loopy about the claim?
The documentation on the GOP Web site about Kerry's supposed 350 votes to increase taxes lists only 67 votes "for higher taxes." Most of these are votes against a tax cut, not in favor of a tax increase. The 67 include nine votes listed twice, three listed three times, and two listed four times. The logic seems to be that if a bill contains more than one item (as almost all bills do), it counts as separate votes for or against each item. The Bush list also includes several series of sequentially numbered votes, which are procedural twists on the same bill. And there are votes on the identical issue in different years. The only tax increase on Bush's list (counted twice, but hey . . . ) is Kerry's support for Clinton's 1993 deficit-reduction plan. That's the one that raised rates in the top bracket and led to a decade of such fabulous prosperity that even its most affluent victims ended up better off.I don't suppose that Bush apologists will change their opinion of POTUS' declarations because of this post. To be blunt, I posted it so that I can refer back to it later.
But if you're reading this and can justify the declaration, have at it. I'm listening.
March 23, 2004
Death by a thousand papercuts
Kos writes this about Richard Clarke, the latest Bush administration official to come out and blow the whistle on this administration's war planning:
By their own right, the Clarke stuff is not that significant. Or at the very least, not too original. He has said little that we didn't already know around these parts.
But what Clarke has done is simply add fuel to charges alredy floating around -- from Paul O'Neil, from David Kay, from others. One person making charges might be spun as the rantings of a disgruntled former employee, or the machinations of a political enemy. But as more of these former officials come out, the damage they wreak on the administration rises exponentially.
We are seeing confirmation upon confirmation upon confirmation. The numbers of whistleblowers are too many to easily dismiss. The news media is no longer doing so, and the administration is reduced to calling in Rush Limbaugh to plead their case (Cheney: Our top counter-terrorism official was "out of the loop" on terrorism matters. And that's their defense!)
Watch the sales of Clarke's book. If it flops, the administration can put this whole thing behind them. If we catch Osama (or Zawahiri), then we'll all forget Clarke.
But if come November Osama is still at large, then POTUS has political trouble. And the public believes that we're all in trouble, too, because (according to the latest Newsweek poll) only 30 percent say the US military action in Iraq has decreased the risk that large numbers of Americans will be killed or injured in a future terrorist attack. That compares to 63 percent who say either the risk has increased (36 percent) or hasn't changed at all (27 percent).
Israel applies Bush Doctrine to Hamas, but weasels furrow their brows in response
Joel C. Rosenberg at NRO is not impressed with the War Cabinet's response to Israel's knocking out Sheikh Yassin, "the Osama bin Laden of Palestinian terrorism."
The Bush administration's initial reaction to Israel's act of self-defense has been mealy-mouthed, pathetic, and morally offensive.White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan says all parties in the region should show "maximum restraint." State Department spokesman Lou Fintor likewise says "the United States urges all sides to remain calm and exercise restraint." National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice concedes "Hamas is a terrorist organization and that Sheik Yassin has himself, personally, we believe, been involved in terrorist planning." But she's quick to add that "it is very important that everyone step back now and try now to be calm in the region."
Dean, in the comments to this piece, says, "Leave it to American Jews to savage the most reliable ally Israel has had in the White House in half a century." Then he catalogs all the ways in which it is difficult for America to be Israel's ally.
Waaaaaah. Call the waaaaaaaambulance, dude.
I have a solution and it involves starting with an old saying: You either lead, follow or get out of the way.
When Condoleeza Rice goes all weasly, I want to say, "Get out of the way." When POTUS asserts the Bush Doctrine, I want to say, "Lead the fight against Hamas and Hezbullah."
Bush apologists will say that the "disarming" of Saddam did just that -- dried up the money that H & H crave. But if removing Saddam is good, then why isn't the removal of Yassin like hitting the Lotto?
There are rumors that we're doing a DNA analysis to see if we nailed Zawaheri; I, for one, can't wait to celebrate the death of that terrorist mastermind of 9/11. Same with Osama bin Laden. Why, then, the lukewarm response from POTUS War Cabinet on the death of their co-equal in terror? Why does this administration go all "European Union" on Israel when all they are doing is fighting to stay alive against wave after wave of suicide bombers?
It seems pretty cold to me.
It's just another example of how this administration has talked a good game, but (other than Afghanistan) hasn't really done much at all in the war on terror so far.
March 22, 2004
Yeah, Rumsfeld lied. What's your point?
Maybe Rumsfeld was just having a "senior moment?" Nah.
When you watch this video you'll know he was just being Rumsfeld.
P.S. Some of you will see the MoveOn logo on this video and will tune out. Too bad; if you watched, you might understand what infuriates so many of us about POTUS' War Cabinet.
Sheikh Yassin's "Happiest Day"
HonestReporting files a report on the death of Sheikh Yassin in Gaza yesterday, debunking the myths already surrounding the life and death of Hamas' "spiritual leader."
Since early media reports misrepresented the IDF strike in a number of fundamental ways, HonestReporting encourages subscribers to be on the lookout for these four myths, and to respond appropriately with the facts:Read the entire article. Better yet, subscribe to their newsletter.
- Myth 1: The Yassin strike will escalate the violence
- Myth 2: Yassin was an impotent old man
- Myth 3: Yassin was a 'spiritual leader' who deserved immunity
- Myth 4: Israel's strike creates a western threat of Islamic terror
Terrorist leader killed in Israeli airstrike
From the Jerusalem Post:
The US government had previously classified Hamas as a terrorist organization.
Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was killed in an Israeli missile attack shortly before dawn as he left a Gaza mosque heafter morning prayers.Hamas officials confirmed that he had been killed. Palestinian hospital sources said 9 people in total were killed in the strike.
The Israel Defense Forces confirmed that Yassin had been killed in the IAF strike, saying he was directly responsible for dozens of "terrorist attacks.""In an operation by security forces [Monday] morning in the northern Gaza Strip, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, leader of the Hamas terrorist group and personally responsible for dozens of terrorist attacks and the deaths of Israelis, foreigners and security personnel, was killed in an air strike on his car," the army said in a statement.
March 21, 2004
The O'Franken Factor
Russell Shorto writes about Al Franken in the Times Sunday magazine:
Franken has no experience as a radio host, and he plans to go right to the top -- to Limbaugh himself -- for assistance. ''Rush has said he doesn't know why guys with new radio shows don't ask his advice,'' he said. ''So I plan to take him up on that before we go on the air: 'How do you prepare? What's your staff like? How do you screen calls?''' Pause. ''It wouldn't be to taunt him.'' Longer pause. ''Well, it couldn't hurt to try.''By the way, that's Franken (center) as Saddam Hussein, during his USO tour in December. Pause. Franken's tour, not Saddam's.
March 20, 2004
Arafat: "Gibson film not anti-Semitic."
This just in from Reuters:
Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat watched Mel Gibsons's controversial "Passion of the Christ" at a private screening on Saturday and said it was not anti-Semitic, officials said.Well, I'm relieved -- it settles the matter once and for all.He watched the film -- which Jewish groups say may foment anti-Semitic attacks -- with Palestinian Muslim and Christian leaders at his headquarters in the West Bank city of Ramallah.
"The president did not feel the film was anti-Semitic," said Hanan Ashrawi, a prominent Palestinian Christian who watched it with him on a DVD copy.
P.S. He watched it on DVD? Wonder who sent him a copy, Mel.
Not a leader
Joshua Micah Marshall writes this about the central problem of the Bush administration:
Bush-Cheney: you can't believe anything they say.
The key is simply that the president has no credibility. He has lost the trust of the country's allies in part because he has repeatedly deceived them -- dealt with them falsely or simply lied to them.But to a critical degree neither do they fear him. This is what we're seeing as our few remaining allies in Iraq ramp back their deployments in the country (Spain, South Korea, possibly Poland) and abandon our foolishly shortsighted effort to advance our interests by dividing Europe.
Right-wingers in this country are casting this pattern as a cosmic moral drama of appeasement, with the faint of heart cowering before the grand struggle. In fact, the president is reduced to a mix of taunt and begging, pleading with other countries not to abandon him.
What is a leader without followers? Not a leader.
This foreign leader endorses Bush
The improbably named Opheera McDoom writes this for Reuters:
[A] videotape of a man describing himself as al Qaeda's European military spokesman ... said [he] supported President Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."Opheera McDoom? Charles Dickens is spinning in his grave."Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization. Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."
Dennis Miller: "Wha Hoppen?"
Good God, what has happened to Dennis Miller? Even if you believe that he really has become a conservative proponent of Bush policies (which I don't believe), you have to admit that it isn't helping his ratings which aren't just in the toilet, they're in the septic tank.
Watch him interview Eric Alterman, and tell me if this isn't the most cringe-inducing piece of TV you've seen in a long time.
Dennis: You can disagree with them all you want, Dennis, but at least Jon Stewart, Al Franken and Bill Maher are funny.
F-u-n-n-y.
After his vacation...
Elections are about leadership. You must be able to say "Follow me!" in a compelling way or you don't get elected.
This is a crucial time in the campaign; given POTUS' growing credibility problems, it is imperative that Sen. Kerry's campaign to move to a new level: ...I, for one, would like him to tell me what his plan is to get the US out of Iraq. Also, I'd like to hear his plan for stopping terrorism.
P.S. Seeing Kerry on a snowboard makes me hope I'm that goddam nimble when I'm sixty.
March 19, 2004
Iraq, one year later
One year ago we invaded Iraq. Dana Milbank and Robin Wright of the Post look back at what the Bush Administration said, and how it compares to where we are now:
Much of the focus on prewar expectations vs. postwar reality has been on the failure to find weapons of mass destruction. But while that was the central justification for the war in Iraq, the administration also made a wide range of claims about the ease of the invasion and the benefits that would result. Though comparisons between expectations and results are complex, it appears that the administration, based on limited human intelligence and conversations with a small corps of Iraqi exiles, was overly optimistic.White House officials, who did not respond to requests for information for this report, acknowledge that the financial costs have been greater than expected but say they are pleased with the progress toward democracy, security and prosperity in Iraq.
Greater than expected? This statement (coming as it does atop the revelation that the Medicare legislation cost estimates were cooked) belies a pattern of obfuscation and denial that is all to familiar in this administration.
Bush-Cheney: you just can't believe anything they say.
HHS Actuary Feels Bush Aide Put Hold on Medicare Data
Final passage of the Medicare bill appears now to have been based purposely false estimates of its cost.
Amy Goldstein writes this in the Post:
Richard S. Foster, the government's chief analyst of Medicare costs who was threatened with firing last year if he disclosed too much information to Congress, said last night that he believes the White House participated in the decision to withhold analyses that Medicare legislation President Bush sought would be far more expensive than lawmakers knew.Foster has said publicly in recent days that he was warned repeatedly by his former boss, Thomas A. Scully, the Medicare administrator for three years, that he would be dismissed if he replied directly to legislative requests for information about prescription drug bills pending in Congress. In an interview last night, Foster went further, saying that he understood Scully to be acting at times on White House instructions, probably coming from Bush's senior health policy adviser.
You can almost predict what happens now: Bush apologists will deconstruct this into nothingness by claiming that this happens all the time; that governmenting is hard, hard work and mistakes get made; that no one knows the true cost of this program anyway so what's the big deal?
Oh, and a couple of career bureaucrats will fall on their swords. And Foster's wife will be outed as a CIA agent.
March 18, 2004
Iraq on the Record
Henry Waxman's office has put together a searchable database of the Bush Administration's public statements on Iraq.
Liars and crooks (part deux)
Handy checklist of investigations:
- the outing of Valerie Plame by senior Republican officials in the White House
- a possible bribery offer by the House Republican leadership to congressman Nick Smith
- the pilfering of memos from the Senate Judiciary Committee by a Republican staffer
- the possible illegal use of funds by the Republican majority leader's PAC, and
- the deliberate withholding of information about the cost of the administration's Medicare bill by a senior Republican HHS appointee.
[voice from the rear of the room]: "What happens once they get elected to serve another four years?"
Anyone want to answer that?
(hat tip to Kevin Drum)
Lousy time for a vacation
Sen. Kerry is on vacation in Idaho; bad timing if you ask me.
Not only that, it was fodder for the funniest man on television:
On Comedy Central's "Daily Show" Tuesday, host Jon Stewart mocked Kerry's pre-vacation television-covered errands saying, "Among his stops: a Borders book store where he showed us he is just like all Americans by pretending to be interested in books, using the bathroom, and then leaving without buying anything."
According to The Note, he did buy some books:
"Benjamin Franklin: An American Life" by Walter Isaacson, "Perfectly Legal" by David Cay Johnston, "The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality" by Brian Greene, "One Hundred Years of Solitude" by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, "Middlesex" by Jeffrey Eugenides, "Undaunted Courage: Meriweather Lewis, Thomas Jefferson and the Opening of the American West" by Stephen Ambrose, "Charlie Wilson's War: The Extraordinary Story of the Largest Covert Operation in History" by George Crile.A jock strap? In front of a camera crew? With his daughter??Mr. Stewart also rightly pointed out that during that same outing, "(Kerry) bought a jockstrap shopping with his daughter in front of a camera crew."