McCAIN FOR VEEP!....John McCain on Sunday:

"No, no and no. I will not leave the Republican Party. I cherish the ideals and principles of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan," he said on NBC's "Meet The Press."

"I will not be vice president of the United States under any circumstances. I feel that I can be far more effective in helping shape policy in the future of this country as a United States senator."

But that's just for 2004, right? Do you think maybe he'll consider becoming Hillary's running mate in 2008?

DEATH AND TAXES....These numbers on IRS audits are really pretty remarkable:

Only 0.73 percent of business tax returns were audited in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, down from 0.88 percent in the previous year, TRAC found. In 1997, 2.62 percent of business tax filers could expect to be audited.

That's a 70% decrease in the audit rate on business tax returns in only seven years. Why, you'd almost think Republicans didn't want businesses to pay their taxes.

Hmmm. I think I better read David Cay Johnston's Perfectly Legal.....

CLASSIFIED....One more note about the August 6 PDB. It's true that presidential briefings are routinely classified, and rightly so. After all, PDBs sometimes contain genuinely sensitive information. What's more, as Ari Fleischer pointed out two years ago, if PDBs are at risk of routine public release the CIA "will be inclined to give [the president] less, rather than more, because they fear it will get made public and that could compromise sources or methods."

These are legitimate reasons not to routinely release presidential briefing documents. But this particular briefing was far from routine. In fact, after 9/11 it was of uncommon interest, and yet the White House has been resisting calls to declassify it for nearly two years. Up until a few months ago it was supposedly so sensitive that they wouldn't even allow the 9/11 commission to see it in private.

Now that we've all seen it, though, the national security excuse has been exposed as a sham. I've included an image of the entire document below, and aside from the redactions there isn't a single sentence that couldn't have been freely released on 9/12/2001 without doing any damage whatsoever to national security.

Too often national security seems to be just a game to this administration. They habitually engage in selective release of classified information when it suits their political purpose, and it's obvious now that national security likewise had nothing to do with holding back release of the August 6 PDB. Their motivation, as usual, was nothing more than a desire to keep something secret that might have proven embarrassing to a president running for reelection.

Nobody wants the president to release every document in his possession, nor does anyone want him to release documents that are genuinely sensitive. But specific documents should be judged on their own merits, and it's now clear that the merit-above-all-else in this White House is boosting their own political fortunes. How many other documents do you think they've held back not because they would cause even the slightest damage to national security, but simply because they might cause some damage to George Bush's reelection campaign?

THE PROSE STYLE OF PRESIDENTIAL BRIEFINGS....Patrick Belton disagrees with me. Having read lots of presidential briefing documents, he thinks the August 6 PDB compares pretty favorably: "it's clear, concisely written, and packs a good deal of information into a short memo."

Point taken. Whether this is good news or bad for the president is another question, of course. If it was that unusually clear and punchy, why didn't he react more strongly to it?

UPDATE: Of course, there's another side to this whole issue of how short the memo was, namely that this was apparently the sum total of what we knew about al-Qaeda's operations in the United States as of August 6, 2001. It really doesn't speak well for our intelligence gathering, does it?

AN EASTER BUSHISM....President Bush this morning: the August 6 PDB said "nothing about an attack on America."

Huh? How about the title, "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US"?

How about "After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington"?

How about "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York"?

How about "The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related"?

Look, I know there's a perfectly good case to be made that the PDB merely states generalities and doesn't warn of a specific, impending attack. That's fine as far as it goes, and it's the spin I'd expect the White House to put on it.

But "nothing about an attack on America"? The whole document was about al-Qaeda's desire to attack America. How does he get away with saying stuff like this?

UPDATE: By the way, my guess is that the entire reason the White House has been so reluctant to release the PDB can be summed up in two words: "New York." The fact that the document specifically talks about al-Qaeda interest in "buildings in New York" probably hit a little too close to home for comfort.

THE UN IN IRAQ....I didn't see Face the Nation this morning, but one of my readers did and emailed this summary, which I thought was interesting enough to post in its entirety:

On Face the Nation today Joe Biden said he spoke with the President of France, who offered to commit troops to Iraq if the US would get the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council to agree to a plan to put the UN in charge of the political handover in Iraq (something the Bush admin is begging the UN to do anyway) and maintain control until it happens. That last bit is something the Bushies don't want. They want Bremer and then our new as-yet-unnamed ambassador to remain in charge.

Biden's plan would get us anywhere from 2,000 to 25,000 more foreign troops in Iraq, and more importantly, directly give the rest of the world a stake in the effort. Pat Roberts, the Republican chair of his Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was stunned by this announcement.

Only last week Powell was in Europe trying to work something out to get 1,500 troops to protect the UN commissioner in Baghdad. He came back with a lot of "we'll get back to you" and from the French "our plate is pretty full in Haiti, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, etc."

This is too big to get lost in the cacophony. Please write this up and give it some legs. The Germans, Russians and French need to be brought into his effort. They have as much responsibility for the Iraq mess over the years as we do. Let's put Bush's feet to the fire to get them on board.

Consider it written up.

It seems to me that there's come kind of Logan Act problem with Biden talking to the president of France about the UN taking over in Iraq, but I guess we can put that off to the side for the moment. If it's real, this proposal is genuinely interesting, not least because it might take Iraq off Bush's plate before the election, something he seems desperate to do.

Would it actually work, though? Beats me. Comments are open.

BUSH'S PEARL HARBOR?....James Pinkerton today:

If you knew that President Franklin D. Roosevelt had received a memo a month before Pearl Harbor entitled, "Japanese Determined to Attack the United States in the Pacific," and that he had done nothing about that information, would that knowledge change your perception of FDR as a wise war leader?

Actually, the analogy is remarkably close. FDR and his staff did know the Japanese were planning an attack. In fact, they spoke about it in a cabinet meeting exactly one month before Pearl Harbor, and in late November sent warnings to military units in the Pacific warning them of the possibility of war. Unfortunately, they thought the most likely targets for the Japanese attack were the Philippines, Thailand, Malaya, or Borneo.

Of course, where the analogy breaks down is that FDR did do something about that information. He knew exactly how serious the threat was, had begun a military buildup years before, had reinstated the draft in 1940, and had methodically worked on public opinion the entire time. By December 7 the United States was uncommonly well prepared in both military and psychological terms for a long, bloody war.

George Bush didn't have several years to prepare for 9/11, of course, but even so the contrast is instructive. He seemingly had no idea how serious the threat was, paid scant attention to warnings during the summer of 2001, and even after 9/11 did very little to prepare public opinion for anything more than business as usual. Likewise, on the military side, nothing changed either. Instead, 9/11 was simply an excuse to invade Iraq, something he had wanted to do all along anyway.

It is hardly a coincidence that World War II had broad bipartisan support and the Iraq war didn't. The reason is that, unlike FDR, George Bush cynically began using 9/11 as a partisan cudgel almost from the very beginning. If, instead, he had genuinely reached out to his opponents and treated 9/11 as an opportunity to unite the entire nation, things today would be very different indeed.

Treating 9/11 as just another way to hammer his political opponents was an act of unsurpassed callowness, the response of a man who is congenitally unable to view anything except in terms of smallminded partisan advantage. Instead of using 9/11 as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to unite the nation, George Bush viewed it as a way to pick up a few seats in the House. It is this, more than any other single thing, that I most hold against him.

CONNECTING THE DOTS....Here's another thought about the August 6 PDB. As I mentioned in the previous post, Condi Rice said the PDB "did not raise the possibility that terrorists might use airplanes as missiles," which is technically true. But take a look at the following two items:

• BBC, July 18, 2001, reporting on preparations for the G8 summit in Genoa: "The huge force of officers and equipment which has been assembled to deal with unrest has been spurred on by a warning that supporters of Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden might attempt an air attack on some of the world leaders present."

• Presidential Daily Brief, August 6, 2001: "FBI information since [1998] indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."
  

Even giving them every benefit of the doubt, don't you think they could have connected these dots beforehand? They were afraid of an al-Qaeda air attack in Genoa and an al-Qaeda airplane hijacking in America. Doesn't it make sense to put the two together and wonder if Osama might also be contemplating air attacks in America?

Just something to think about. It makes me wonder what kind of questions Bush asked when the PDB was presented to him and what kind of actions he authorized. Maybe the commission will ask about that when he and Dick meet with them.

THE AUGUST 6 PDB REVEALED....The White House has finally declassified the August 6 Presidential Daily Brief. Here's an excerpt:

Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US

After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a ...(redacted portion) ... service.

....Al-Qa'ida members -- including some who are US citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two al-Qa'ida members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our Embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

....Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

This is merely "historical"? I guess it depends on what the meaning of "recent" is.

On a similar note, Condi Rice's testimony on Thursday turns out to have been very carefully phrased indeed. She said the PDB "did not raise the possibility that terrorists might use airplanes as missiles," which is technically true, but it did raise the possibility that (a) al-Qaeda was interested in hijacking airplanes and (b) it was interested in buildings in New York. I guess that didn't raise any eyebrows in the West Wing.

Aside from that, what really struck me was that the whole thing was so short — considerably shorter than your average op-ed column, in fact — and written at about a high school level. This is an intelligence briefing prepared at the request of the president of the United States and he was apparently satisfied with it? Eleven paragraphs of pabulum considerably less authoritative than an average article in Foreign Affairs? Sheesh.

UPDATE: Here's a PDF of the actual document.

MORE: CNN's Bill Schneider: "I think [this memo] could be seriously damaging. What this says is, the White House knew what bin Laden was capable of planning, where he intended to do it, which was New York or Washington, D.C., how he was going to do it. There was only one thing missing, which was exactly when he was going to do it, which turns out to be September 11."

BAD NEWS DEPARTMENT....If you feel like reading some really pessimistic views of Iraq, check out Juan Cole ("This looks to me like an incipient collapse of the US government of Iraq") and Josh Marshall, who has an email from a security contractor working in Iraq ("The boldness and sophistication of the attacks is staggering").

On a related note, as near as I can tell the analogy-thon has now barreled completely past Vietnam and is trying to make up its mind between Lebanon and the West Bank. My money is on Iraq turning into the West Bank writ large.

UPDATE: For a cheerier view, of course, check out David Brooks' much blogged column today. Note, however, that even he says, "If people like Sistani are forced to declare war on the U.S., the gates of hell will open up." We'll be watching, David.

END OF THE LINE?....There's been a noticeable uptick in my email recently from people who are Republicans (or belong to Republican families) and report that they (or their families) are increasingly disgusted with George Bush.

I just thought I'd pass that along.

UPDATE: I should probably make clear that by "recently" I mean the past month or two, not the past few days.

BLACKLIST....Via Daily Kos, this is pretty hilarious:

A Republican campaign committee is accusing U.S. Rep. Brad Carson of promoting radical, anti-President Bush Web sites while claiming to be a conservative Oklahoma Democrat.

....[Dan] Allen based his criticism of Carson on entries the lawmaker has made on his campaign's official weblog, encouraging supporters to read other Web sites.

He said one Web site by a California university professor, Brad DeLong, suggests that Bush should be impeached, and another, the Daily Kos, attracts users who post rants against the war in Iraq along with claims that Americans, including Republicans and the media, do not care about the troops dying in battle.

Nice try, Dan. Recommending that people "read other Web sites" is downright dangerous, though I notice that Carson also includes on his daily reading list RealClear Politics and Dan Drezner, not exactly part of the VLWC.

Congratulations to Brad and Kos for making it onto the National Republican Senatorial Committee blacklist.

UPDATE: Brad Carson responds. Aside from liking rabblerousers like Brad and Kos, he apparently has a sense of humor too.

A QUESTION....Here's a question for the evolutionary psychology folks: what's the deal with handedness? It's pretty clear that being right-handed or left-handed is innate, not learned, and therefore ought to be the result of some kind of evolutionary pressure. But what? My cats, for example, seem to be equally dextrous with both paws, but I'm not. So what happened to us?

(My real guess is that it's just a (fairly) benign side effect of some other brain development that's genuinely useful, but that's cheating by ev psych rules. You need to come up with some plausible story. So let's hear it.)

(And yes, I'm making fun of the ev psych folks even though I basically support their enterprise. So sue me.)

WEIRD SCIENCE....This story is so weird it defies belief:

The Department of Agriculture refused yesterday to allow a Kansas beef producer to test all of its cattle for mad cow disease, saying such sweeping tests were not scientifically warranted.

The producer, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, wanted to use recently approved rapid tests so it could resume selling its fat-marbled black Angus beef to Japan, which banned American beef after a cow slaughtered in Washington State last December tested positive for mad cow. The company has complained that the ban is costing it $40,000 a day and forced it to lay off 50 employees.

....Gary Weber of the cattlemen's association called 100 percent testing misleading to consumers because it would create a false impression that untested beef was not safe. He compared it to demanding that all cars be crash tested to prove they are safe.

....Asked if beef producers did not want to be pressured to imitate Creekstone and pay for more tests, Mr. Weber said it was "absolutely not about the money."

Let me get this straight:

• Creekstone wanted to voluntarily test all its own cattle.

• They were doing this to respond to demand for tested beef in Japan, a market they wanted to sell into.

• The federal government, supposed champion of the free market, refused to allow Creekstone to take this voluntary action.
  

And the beef spokesman then has the gall to say that this has nothing to do with money. They are just righteous advocates of sound science.

Since when have federal safety regulations prevented someone from voluntarily adopting more stringent measures of their own? Will we be banning Volvos next?

A HINT OF CANDOR....Here's an interesting contrast. Listen to British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw talking about events in Iraq:

Mr Straw said "the lid of the pressure cooker has come off," but he blamed events on the Saddam regime's legacy.

"Some of the tensions and pressures which were there, and would have come out in any event, have to a degree been directed towards the coalition."

Mr Straw was asked on BBC Radio 4's The World at One programme whether he imagined a year ago that things would get as bad in Iraq as they have been over the last week.

"No I didn't. I thought that they would go from some good days and some bad days. There is no doubt that the current situation is very serious and it is the most serious that we have faced."

Don't get me wrong: it's not like Tony Blair and his crew went out of their way to tell everyone what it would really take to succeed in Iraq. On the other hand, neither did they go out of their way to minimize it, and they seem at least willing to publicly admit that (a) the current uprising in Iraq is really bad and (b) it's worse than they expected. Note that this is not inconsistent with staying the course, which Straw vigorously endorsed in the same interview.

I wish we could get at least this same minimal level of candor from top U.S. officials. Perhaps Blair will recommend it to Bush when they meet next Friday.