Cheney: "It's easy to complain about the press -- I've been doing it for a good part of my career. It's part of what goes with a free society. What I do is try to focus upon those elements of the press that I think do an effective job and try to be accurate in their portrayal of events. For example, I end up spending a lot of time watching Fox News, because they're more accurate in my experience, in those events that I'm personally involved in, than many of the other outlets." (By implication, I'd say the Veep is suggesting that Fox News is less accurate in covering those political stories in which he's not personally involved. Oh wait, there are none of those.)
Slate: John Kerry's Military Records - The PowerPoint version.
Does Kerry have a diversity problem? Maybe. But probably not.
Altruism as Self-Defense: This is an interesting article on how (on a small scale) Americans are trying to change their image abroad, especially in places where the combination of poverty and hate can (as we now know) one day hurt us where we live. This is a too-often uncovered issue. I believe that the two key things America can do to stop terror from emerging from potential hotspots outside of the Middle East is to pour billions into dealing with the AIDS in Africa nightmare and to end the scenario in which our so-called war on drugs is ripping some societies to shreds.
Is the war in Iraq pulling terrorists out of the woodwork for one deperate last stand. Or has it provided precisely the call to arms that Al Qaeda needed in the wake of Afghanistan?
Koppel: Not a Ratings Stunt. I'm sure one could come up with a few reasons to criticize the Nightline show that will feature the reading of the names of the American soldiers killed in Iraq. But a ratings stunt? How could anyone who has even the most remote understanding of the American public's television viewing habits and the history of Nightline possibly come up with that analysis? The answer is simple and is featured in the post below this one. + McCain blasts Sinclair's decision to bar the show from its affiliates: "I supported the President's decision to go to war in Iraq, and remain a strong supporter of that decision. But every American has a responsibility to understand fully the terrible costs of war and the extraordinary sacrifices it requires of those brave men and women who volunteer to defend the rest of us; lest we ever forget or grow insensitive to how grave a decision it is for our government to order Americans into combat. It is a solemn responsibility of elected officials to accept responsibility for our decision and its consequences, and, with those who disseminate the news, to ensure that Americans are fully informed of those consequences."
. . . April 29, 2004
The Hate
I don't want to put myself above anyone else here, so let me begin by saying that yes, I hate you. And wipe that feigned look of shock from your face. You hate me too.
There was a scene in the season finale of Curb Your Enthusiasm in which Larry David was about to get together with an actress who he had been courting for the several months since his wife gave him (as a tenth anniversary gift) the greenlight for one extramarital interlude. But somewhere between canoodling on the couch and the real deal, Larry noticed that the other woman had a framed photo of President Bush on her dressing room table. And that was it. Larry couldn't do it. Defeated and deflated, he left the room.
Let's face it. This is an extremely understated version of the way members of the two parties currently feel about one another. We live in different communities. We react to the same events and announcements in completely different ways. And we shout at each other. The current state of interparty relations could be best described as The Hate.
So how did it happen? How did we go from disagreeing with one another to hating each other with such fervent passion (aside from the obvious answer that it is all fill-in-the-blank's fault)?
Part of the answer has to do with the insane amount of media coverage now given, not to the issues themselves but to the inside-baseball strategies employed by both parties to discredit, soil and ultimately destroy one another.
The sports analogy is probably worth exploring - although most people know a whole lot more details about their favorite sport teams than they do about the political issues of the day. Any sports fan has experienced the rivalry. We go on hating the opposing team and sort of hating the opposing fans long after the games end. Meanwhile, the actual participants in the sport take their showers, put on their street clothes, go home and get on with their lives. Many players are best friends with someone from an opposing team.
The same is, or at least was, true when it comes to political pundits. The coverage of politics as a sport is entertaining and it sells. So the pundits rip into one another for an hour or so and then get up, shake hands, tell a few jokes and head off to lunch. The viewers are left with the hate. That's why most political show audience members could never believe that James Carville and Mary Matalin actually touched each other intimately (even though on the perversion scale she is so clearly an S and he is so obviously an M).
Right Wing radio exists to blast away at those evil liberals. And Left Wing radio just launched what they hope will be their biggest show, the title of which (The O'Franken Factor) is a clear indication of its chief goals. We have gone from doing the debate to doing the dozens. And we get it twenty-four hours a day. The pundits go off the air. The haters just move on to the next show (often times, we don't even need to touch the dial). The coverage never stops. The game is never over. The hate becomes institutionalized.
And now the hate that has been marketed into the very fabric of the American public consciousness is working its way back up (or down) to the pundits and the politicians. If hate sells, how do you (why would you) ever turn it off? There is less hand-shaking at the end of the political shows and less respect among colleagues in the Senate and the House. We don't want compromises or solutions. If someone offered Red Sox fans a salve that would make them feel better about Yankee successes, think anyone would use it?
Would you want something wonderful to happen in America even if it meant that the opposing party got all the credit and was, in fact, right all along? Ever sort of hope that Osama gets caught at a moment that is most beneficial to your man in the presidential race? We are in fact addicted to the hate. What gets your juices flowing more: A great, new policy idea from the guy you're supporting or an offensive gaffe by the guy you hate? We thought 9-11 would bring us together. Instead we use it to attack the other party. And that gets to the heart of the problem. This isn't a game. Somewhere along the way the contempt will become too extreme (if it isn't already). Carville and Matalin may stay married, but the creative intimacy will disappear and the metal trunk filled with whips, chains, handcuffs and an industrial-grade buffer will remain un-opened at the foot of their two twin beds.
Again, I don't want to put myself in some kind of a category of higher thought or meaning. I hate you even more now that I've written several paragraphs worth of content without letting off some steam and attacking you. I sort of hate myself for hating you so much but I mostly hate you for making me feel this way. I am as much a victim of this disease as anyone and I don't see a cure for any of us anytime soon.
If it gets much worse, I may have to hump a Republican.
I have mixed feelings about Nightline's decision to spend Friday night's show reading off the names of the U.S. soldiers killed in action in Iraq. But I don't have mixed feelings about Sinclair Broadcasting's decision to prevent the show from being aired in the markets where they own ABC affiliates.
Well, let's ask them. A recent poll indicates that more and more Iraqis view Americans and occupiers and not as liberators. Only a third of Iraqis believe that the current occupation is doing more good than harm. But a majority says tat they are better off now than the before the war.
David Broder offers an update from the battleground states (but certainly no answers).
 "Yes, of course. It's G - O - R ... Wait. Quit pinching me! ... OK, it's G - E - O - R..."
In a society where Yankee fans can actually boo Derek Jeter, I guess anything is possible. So maybe all the bad news (and revelations) facing the Bush administration will finally start to take a toll at the polls. According to the latest survey from a CBS/NY Times poll, the President is suffering the lowest approval ratings since he took office. One of the most damaging poll numbers indicates that 41% of Americans think that the war in Iraq actually increased the threat of terror against Americans. That is a whopping stat. It definitely looks bad when the a President who is basing his entire campaign on security issues is perceived as making his fellow citizens less safe. I'm not sure that people necessarily have it right on this one. It's pretty tough to measure the level of the terror threat in the few moments one has to ponder questions posed by a pollster who just interrupted his or her dinner. The irony here is that the war in Iraq probably never had much to do with the war on terrorism in the first place. Positioning it as such could backfire. Other numbers: Fewer than half of Americans believe that the U.S. did the right thing in taking military action. That's another question that is difficult to answer because we know so little about why we actually did it in the first place.  Only 32% believe Iraq required immediate attention. This is an interesting one as it has become wildly clear, regardless of one's view of the overall effort, that there was no immediate threat of any kind. Give the administration some PR credit for keeping this number above Pi. 70% of Americans don't believe that the decision to go to war was made when the administration said it was made. Notice that this means that a significant percentage of Americans think their President lied to them about the most important topic any president ever discusses and yet still plan to vote for his re-election. This is both a depressing indication of the partisanship at any cost nature of the times and/or a reflection of just how low our expectations are when it comes to honesty among leaders. Even if Bush's low numbers do not improve at all (46% overall approval rating, 41% approval on Iraq, and 40% approval on foreign policy), he would still be likely to win a November race if Nader stays in. What seems to be the trend here is that a lot of people are getting tired of Bush. But not enough people are getting excited about Kerry. Sure, the Senator has a rep for being the comeback Kerry and we've got a long way to go. But it would be nice to see signs that this is a two man race (and I'm not talking about Nader). The poll number I'd really like to see is how many Americans, upon watching Bush and Cheney walk into their joint testifying session with the 9-11 panel, sort of think that Cheney is really the president. Maybe that's Kerry problem. He needs to hurry up and pick a vice presidential candidate so now-conditioned Americans will finally know who is going to be in charge.
Al Gore's General Election Legal and Accounting Compliance Fund still has a balance $6.5 million left over from the 2000 campaign. Today, Gore indicated that he would donate the money to several Democratic groups in an effort to support John Kerry: "John will be a great president for all Americans, and I want to do everything I can to help him fight against the outrageous and misleading campaign being waged by the Bush-Cheney campaign." Two quick issues: One, I wonder if Kerry (who obviously appreciates the support) ever thought, even for a second, about what happened to Howard Dean after Gore endorsed him. Two, there is more than $6 million left? Could that money have been spent in Florida?
Bush: "OK, so tell me again what I'm supposed to say about the things you told me to do." Cheney: "Big time." The performance will not be recorded. No transcript will be shared with the public. The participants will not be under oath. But let no one assume that any of this implies that Bush and Cheney don't need to rehearse. I must admit, I was sure that somewhere along the way the White House would come up with some bizarre reason why the President had to reverse course and decide to meet with the 9-11 panel on his own (which in D.C. lingo implies that there would of course be lawyers present). It just looks so incredibly embarrassing for Pres and Veep to tagteam on this one. I still wouldn't be surprised if W's Sidekick Dick just stopped on the steps outside the meeting venue and sent the President in alone with a flick of the towel and the supportive refrain: "You're the man."
Let's face it. You're nothing in this game if your blog isn't under surveillance.
Karen Hughes, French (This could blow the race wide open).
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand lies.
Reminder: Every minute we spend talking about Vietnam and Alabama is another minute we don't spend talking about Bush and Iraq. And if you are running the Bush campaign, these are free minutes.
"I can't help with policy, I don't do press. When he wants that peanut butter and jelly sandwich, I'm ready." So says John Kerry's Chief of Stuff, the increasingly famous Marvin Nicholson Jr (who might become dangerous if he turns out to be dramatically more engaging than his employer). I haven't seen this kind of coverage of peanut-butter sandwiches since Elvis was in his prime.
Wes Clark: "In the heat of a political campaign, attacks come from all directions. That's why John Kerry's military records are so compelling; they measure the man before his critics or his supporters saw him through a political lens. These military records show that John Kerry served his country with valor, and that those who served with him and above him held him in high regard. That's honor enough for any veteran ... After risking his life in Vietnam to save others, John Kerry earned the right to speak out against a war he believed was wrong. Make no mistake: it is that bravery these Republicans are now attacking ... Although President Bush has not engaged personally in such accusations, he has done nothing to stop others from making them. I believe those who didn't serve, or didn't show up for service, should have the decency to respect those who did serve -- often under the most dangerous conditions, with bravery and, yes, with undeniable patriotism."
The Supreme Court is hearing two cases that relate to the Bush administration's assertion that it has the legal power to define individuals as enemy combatants and then hold them, indefinitely. In these cases (one person captured in the U.S., one abroad, both U.S. citizens), the ECs are being held without access to lawyers (until after more than two years) or courts and without the right to challenge their legal/war status. On one hand, the hell with them. Terrorists don't deserve the same rights as those who abide by society's laws. But, of course, one could argue the same thing about serial killers and child molesters. I see the need to view those involved in terror-related activities differently under the law. But how can we create another class of defendants without at least giving those defendants the opportunity to prove that they don't belong in that class? As it stands now, the categorization of individuals as enemy combatants ignores the possibility of mistakes and/or corruption among those with the power to make the determination. How can that possibly be right?
There was scene in a recent episode of Arrested Development in which one of the odder characters (and that's saying something when it comes to this show) named Tobias Funke (who lost his medical license for providing CPR to a man who wasn't dying) complains to his brother-in-law Michael about the state of his marriage - which longtime viewers will note has always been terrible: Tobias: As you may or may not know, Lidsay and I have hit a bit of a rough patch. Michael: Really? When did that happen? Tobias: Well, I don't want to blame it all on 9-11, but it certainly didn't help. I just watched the episode referenced above on my TiVo and it suddenly occured to me that the Bush team could very well be joking. Not joking in the sense that they don't want voters to buy the act. But joking in the insiders, Let's see if they'll buy this one sense. How else would you explain the recent attacks on John Kerry's military record being launched by guys like Bush and Cheney? How else would you explain the upcoming joint appearance before the 9-11 panel? And how else could you possibly explain Karen Hughes' remarks about the abortion issue during a Sunday chat with Wolf Blitzer? Take a look: Blitzer: "There is a clear difference when it comes to abortion rights between the president and his Democratic challenger, John Kerry. In your opinion, Karen, how big of an issue will this abortion rights issue be in this campaign?" Hughes: "Well, Wolf, it's always an issue. And I frankly think it's changing somewhat. I think after September 11th the American people are valuing life more and realizing that we need policies to value the dignity and worth of every life. And President Bush has worked to say, let's be reasonable, let's work to value life, let's try to reduce the number of abortions, let's increase adoptions.  And I think those are the kind of policies that the American people can support, particularly at a time when we're facing an enemy, and really the fundamental difference between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life. It's the founding conviction of our country, that we're endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, the right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately our enemies in the terror network, as we're seeing repeatedly in the headlines these days, don't value any life, not even the innocent and not even their own." Maybe the theory is that if you beleive that Iraq has something to do with 9-11, then why not abortion? Maybe members of terror networks also take steroids and under those turbans, they have French-looking hair like a certain someone. But I'm still stuck on this idea that this is part of some weird sitcom plot. I sometimes think I'd enjoy this administration's antics a bit more if they just went ahead and brought back the laugh track.
Howard Fineman offers up nine reasons why the race is looking so good for Bush. The ninth one is Kerry. (note that Bush's approval ratings have actually gone up in recent weeks.
Dick Cheney...
Yesterday: "The senator from Massachusetts has given us ample grounds to doubt the judgment and the attitude he brings to bear on vital issues of national security."
1989: "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."
And during his Sec of Defense Senate confirmation hearings: "[I] would have been obviously happy to serve had I been called."
I personally think the tit for tat on the Vietnam service issue (while being reignited by the Bush team) is probably a bit overdone - although Kerry should be able to kill it fairly easily. And I'd rather focus on the Bush/Cheney behavior, say, when it comes to the war we are in right now. In other words, I'm more interested in misleading comments that send others to war than misleading comments that keep an individual out of war.
But I do think it is important that a guy who has been Secretary of Defense, and without whose influence there is no way that more than 100,000 U.S. troops would be in Iraq right now, has at least a hint of reality in his comments regarding the issue of war.
So here's a quick overview. No one in the history of warfare has been "obviously happy" to get drafted and then to be sent away from their loved ones and into the line of fire. Willing? Sure. Proud? Absolutely. Driven? Why not. Obviously happy? This guy's got no idea of what it's like to be on the other side of these decisions.
The Supreme Court (including the world's most famous duck hunter) finally heard arguments in the case involving Dick Cheney's secret energy panel. Attorneys for the Sierra Club want to know who was at the meetings and if any favors were doled out. The administration's lead attorney Ted Olson argued that: "This is a case about the separation of powers." Of course Olson is right. It's about the separation of powers between those who have a tremendous amount of power and those who don't. Maybe the whole case is moot. I mean we already know that the "former" CEO of Halliburton was in on the meetings. Isn't that enough?
Something tells me the Clinton book ( expected to be released between now and election day) will not include a chapter or two listing the several reasons why you and yours should vote for John Kerry. The general vibe on the political street is that Clinton's book on the shelves means bad news for the Kerry campaign. I've got another take. It doesn't matter. Partially that's because, as I mentioned last week, pretty much nothing matters when it comes to the deadlocked poll numbers. But that's not why the Clinton book doesn't, really can't, matter. The real reason is because John Kerry will never win this race unless he can rise above the din of the Clinton book hubbub. He needs to do even more than that. Kerry needs to rise above the noise being poured on by the Bush campaign team. Kerry faces another key test in that battle to rise above the noise this week. The Bush team has decided to make an issue of the validity of Kerry's medals and his behavior upon returning from Vietnam (whether he threw his medals or not, etc). This is the equivalent of Ozzy Osbourne giving a lecture on child rearing. The Bush team has to be supremely confident to open up a discussion in which their war-avoider who likes to talk tough and play military dress-up is put next to a guy who went to Vietnam and served with valor. I mean they've got to be taunting him, right?  Kerry has fought back on this issue saying: "The Republicans have spent $60 million in the last few weeks trying to attack me. And this comes from a president and a Republican Party that can't even answer whether or not he showed up for duty in the National Guard. I'm not going to stand for it." But these strong comments are often surrounded by long, wordy, and sometimes unclear explanations that make headline writers want to offer such ledes as: Kerry on Defensive over Vietnam medals, and Videotape Contradicts John Kerry's Own Statements Over Vietnam Medals. Listen up, folks. John Kerry must crush Bush on this issue. Not complain about the right wing attack machine. Not defend his positions. Crush. Period. Remember, John Kerry got the nomination largely because of his military experience. If it becomes, a liability (even for a short time), we've got problems. The President's Vietnam era bio is a complete joke when compared to John Kerry's. His team needs to be made sorry that they dipped their toes into this mess. Karen Hughes lecturing people about John Kerry's service? If Kerry can't crush Bush on this, then you've really got to wonder how he's going to lead his party to an upset win over an incumbent come November.
So how is the economy doing? Well, we've got low interest rates, a booming stock market, lower taxes, and rising home prices. In other words, it's doing great. Oh, sorry. You wanted to know how the economy is doing. Well, we've got rising longterm unemployment, a huge deficit, a marked increase in the nation's income gap, stagnant wages, more expensive goods, jobs being shipped overseas and it takes about a paycheck and half to fill 'er up with unleaded. In other words, it's doing miserably. In other words, it's the economy during an election year.
Calls to Jihad are on the rise in Europe. Can Europeans work together well enough to meet the challenge?
There is no question, especially when it comes to the views of those on the Left, the Dick Cheney provides an optimal target in this campaign. There is also no question that Cheney is living up to his Vice Presidential obligations and blasting away at Kerry during every appearance he makes. But do those two factors lead to the logical conclusion that the Kerry campaign should now be attacking Cheney? Because that is apparently part of a new strategy. But no one ever won a presidential election by beating the opponent's VP. (Unfortunately, misspelling potatoes does not spell certain defeat). Want to attack Bush for handing over the reigns to Cheney and use the upcoming Bush-Cheney joint 9-11 panel appearance as a telling piece of symbolism? Fine. Go for it. But to win this thing, Kerry will have to go after the number one guy on the opposing ticket (or as Cheney calls him, The Man). Getting lured into a face-off with Cheney would seem to be playing right into the administrations' hands. Maybe it's time for Kerry to pick a Veep and then let him or her worry about Cheney and some of the other attacks.
Slate: Why Bush is spending so much on nuclear weapons.
Woodward discussing Bush on Meet the Press: Russert: He's not really concerned about not finding weapons of mass destruction. Woodward: That's what he says. I mean, he has to be. It was the key rationale for war, and we have not found it. My sense, the country is in shock about it. We went to war over something that didn't exist. Editor's Note: That seems like a pretty big deal, no?
NY Times Mag: The Multilevel Marketing of the President.
The Vatican is has been putting out the word that politicians who favor a woman's right to choose should possibly be prevented from taking communion. Not that the Vatican wants to get involved with American politics. And not that the timing of this floated idea has anything to do with the upcoming election. It's just a coincidence that these hints are being dropped now as opposed to say, when Arnold was running for governor or when Rudy was running for mayor or during George Pataki's re-election bid. And it's totally unrelated to the fact that Kerry is, well, Jewish (incidentally, Jewish leaders have countered the suggestion by the Vatican by indicating that politicians can take either side on the issue as long as they feel guilty about it). You've got to give these guys credit. The Vatican moralizing about the American political and legal systems at this point is the equivalent of Tony Montana telling his sister how to act in Scarface. In other news, no final decision regarding communion has been made when it comes to starting a war after the Pope begs you not to. Expect those comments to come out sometime next December.
The release of John Kerry's military records has led to a predictable split among pundits and politicians. Democrats are saying we told you so and pointing out that Kerry made the decision to serve, did so with valor, and left the military as a well-decorated leader. Republicans don't quite see it that way. They have questioned Kerry's decision to join the military (was it all politics?) and the validity of his medals. They've even questioned the seriousness of his injuries, demanding to know just how deep the shrapnel went into Kerry's buttocks (and whether it was far enough to warrant a Constitutional Amendment). Kerry has also been attacked for his post-service behavior and has been accused of everything from aiding and abetting the enemy to joining forces with Jane Fonda. I hate to give Republicans more fodder for this campaign to discredit Kerry's military service (clearly he should have been snorting coke and driving drunk stateside where he belonged). But in the spirit of fairness, we should take a closer look at the picture of Kerry on his swift boat to further analyze his so-called tour of duty.  1. While we've been led to believe that this photo was taken somewhere along the Mekong Delta, a closer analysis of the water leads one to the almost certain conclusion that this is actually Pine Acres Lake in Windham County (interestingly, not all that far a drive from Yale). 2. Big mistake here. Check the watch. Look at the glare of the sun. Folks, we're definitely talking eastern standard time. 3. The hair is a dead giveaway. Anyone who can tell the difference between a blow-dryer and a flat-iron can plainly see that this is the early work of soon-to-be stylist to the stars Jose Eber. 4. That doesn't look like tobacco to me. 5. The belt, the camouflage pants. All very convincing. Unfortunately, the wardrobe consultant offers us just another example of laziness. To this very day, anyone can buy a pair of the same pants at Old Navy. 6. The thickness of these glasses suggest that this guy would never have been eligible for service. In fact, many in the Bush administration now believe that the guy wearing the glasses was actually a professional photographer in charge of the shoot who set the camera on timer and then ran over to get in the shot. 7. Behind Kerry's hip, we see the most obvious giveaway. Behind the fake ammo, we can see (using the latest viewing technology) a picnic basket filled with champagne, baguettes, brie and truffles. I hate to be the journalist to break this story. But I think they really may have caught Kerry on this one.
Let's take a look at some recent poll numbers related to the Iraq war. 57% percent of Americans believe Saddam gave substantial support to Al Qaida prior to our invasion of Iraq. 45% believe that during the war, the U.S. has uncovered clear evidence that Iraq worked closely with Osama. 60% of Americans believe that Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction or a major, ongoing program to develop them. Other poll numbers we can safely infer based on the ones listed above. A large majority of Americans believe that: Saddam was driving the white Ford Bronco. Tariq Aziz and the Iraqi Information Minister are at least part of the answer to the question Who shot J.R.? Ahmed Chalabi seems like a guy who is pretty much on the up and up. Bush and Cheney testifying together in front of the 9-11 Commission will save time, and therefore tax dollars. Iraq had ties to Simon Cowell.
The latest poll numbers out of California paint a bleak picture for the President. His approval ratings have plummeted in recent months. But that's not such a big surprise. Bush ain't taking California. In fact, a closer look at the numbers may raise more red flags for Kerry. As I've been arguing for months, it will be extremely difficult for Kerry to be successful in this campaign if all he's got going is that he's not Bush (even though that's plenty and then some for many voters). In the California poll, fewer than a third of Kerry-backers say that they are going to vote for him because they like him and his policies. The rest are behind him because he's not Bush. Gary Coleman could win California against Bush in November.
Michael Gordon: If there is a second term, Rummy will stay. Powell will go.
Pat Tillman made news a couple of years ago when, in the wake of 9-11, he retired from a high profile career in the NFL (and walked away from a multi-million dollar contract) in order to enlist - along with his brother - in the military to fight terrorism. Yesterday, Tillman was killed in a firefight in Afghanistan.
When the Dean campaign saw its rapid rise and fall, many of us compared his organization to a dot com (I called him the Kozmo Candidate). We may have been more right than we thought. Dean's chances for electoral success are long gone, and yet, he is still raising cash hand over fist. It's like 1999 South of Market.
The latest real estate available for political ads: Luggage tags.
. . . April 22, 2004
Draft Dodging
Should we bring back the draft?
That's a question some in politics and the media want to put back on the table. After all, we are (as we're constantly reminded) in a war that could last a generation. And so far, the massive majority of Americans have had absolutely nothing asked of them. No one has asked us to sacrifice. No one has asked us to take risks. About the only thing we've been told to do is to keep our eyes open for anything that looks suspicious. I doubt any of us will be earning a purple heart or a silver star for performing an occasional glance in the line of duty.
But shouldn't we be asked to make some sacrifice in a time of war?
While the discussion is interesting and it's patently unfair that a small number of families must worry, obsess and even mourn while the rest of us go about our normal business, bringing back the draft will never happen.
So lately I've been trying to think of an appropriate level of sacrifice that should be demanded of the American people. My first idea was to hit us in our pocketbooks. Why should we be paying less in taxes when our countrymen are fighting a war? We should be paying more. We should have a war tax. We should have adopt a soldier programs. How can one get less for risking his life on behalf of freedom than someone else gets for shooting a ball through a hoop? Wouldn't public opinion about a war be more valid if we were being asked to foot part of the bill. Yes, you're in favor of the war, but is it worth say, fifty bucks a week?
But then I thought, no, that's too much to ask.
So then where should we sacrifice? At least we should be forced to acknowledge that a war is going on and be required to follow along with its ups and downs. Right? So maybe the American public should be targeted where we'll feel it the most. What I'm about to suggest will sound radical even to the most zealous patriots, but here goes anyway.
As long as we're in a war, we should restrict America's TV privileges.
I have a feeling that my initial strategies around this idea were a bit too extreme. I was thinking that anytime we are in a war, all we should be allowed to watch is coverage and analysis of that war and how it is affecting families and friends here at home. And for the kids in the backseat watching DVD movies, zilch.
I've since scaled back the program quite a bit (it's an election year, after all). Here's the official plan:
Anytime U.S. troops are overseas and in the line of fire (and more of our soldiers than you can count on one hand have been killed during the prior seven days), none of the top twenty television shows will be broadcast. No American Idol. No Everyone Loves Raymond. And certainly no Survivor. Sure you can still have your syndicated reruns and your sports and news. But nothing in the top twenty. And any reality show that is broadcast during these periods must focus exclusively on the lives of those who were killed in action.
Sounds crazy, right? It's such a seemingly small sacrifice for a society at war. But ask yourself how many Americans after a few months and years (even nights if it's during sweeps) of living under this system would still be steadfast in their support of, say, the decision to enter into a war like the one in Iraq. Think it would change the poll numbers?
Come on. You know it would.
Now think about just how scary that is.
Perhaps I'm suggesting something that is still too extreme. Maybe we should just send America to its room with no dessert.
Any psychoanalyst who charges George W Bush more than two bucks an hour for treatment should be booted out of the profession for malpractice. The case is just too easy, too obvious. Forget the couch. W wouldn't even have to sit down. He is one of the rare patients who wears his unconscious on the outside (while the conscious is buried somewhere often unreachable).
This guy's Oedipus Complex is, I think it's fair to suggest, more extreme than Oedipus's Oedipus Complex. We're hearing more examples of the patient's overwhelming symptomology from Bob Woodward. Woodward describes an exchange during which he makes the argument to the President that it just will not be viewed as credible if W says he didn't ask his own father for advice related to his decision to invade Iraq. After all, Bush the First is more than just a father. He is also a former president who happened to order an invasion against the same foe just a few short years ago. It would be ludicrous (and on some level, pretty scary) to suggest that any president would forego the opportunity to seek the advice of a predecessor who had such similar experiences.
The President's response was that if it wouldn't sound credible to suggest he sought no advice from his father, he'd have to make something up. Because he didn't. Folks, we're talking about the most critical decisions in modern history here. I wouldn't buy a friggin golf club without checking with my dad first.
And take a look at this excerpt from a speech that the President delivered earlier this week.
"The Iraqi people are looking at America and saying are we going to cut and run again? That's what they're thinking as well. And we're not going to cut and run if I'm in the Oval Office. We will do our job."
Anyone remember who was in the Oval Office when the Iraqi people accused America of cutting and running?
I think the most under-covered aspect of the President's personality make-up is his likely reaction to the way the media portrayed the impact that "The Wimp Factor" had on his father's elections. W is out to prove he is not a wimp. He is testosterone man. He will not play baseball, he will own baseball. He will not fight a war, he will win a war. And he will not cut and run. Think he's going to ask Daddy for advice? Not with these symptoms.
And the natural symptomatic extension of this all-powerful Oedipus complex is to look for other father figures, more powerful than your own. Hence, Cheney. And hence, W's constant references to looking for strength from a higher father.
This religious zealotry leads to a unnatural certainty about everything from believing a war is right to believing, unconsciously, that your father must be psychically done away with. How could anyone have no doubts about something as significant as war? Tony Blair admits his doubts. Bush says he has none. Bush is like Hamlet without the indecisiveness (and with the strongest military world history). To be or not to be? The hell with that. I'll be. You won't. Enough said.
Come on my fellow shrinks. He didn't talk to his father about Iraq. This Oedipal Complex wouldn't be more obvious if W sent the 1st Armored Division into Kennebunkport.
Our time is up. Next patient.
Mr. Credibility, the decidedly unfresh Prince Bandar has assured John Kerry that there was no oil deal made with Bush. This may be premature (as it is forward-looking and will require a bit of law tweak), but how do you like the sound of Bush/Bandar in 2008? Why should we have to settle for one prince?
Outstanding leadership Exemplary professionalism Great personal courage under fire Complete dedication to duty Intelligent Mature Diplomatic Charismartic Decisive etc., etc. Man, they really nailed Kerry on this one...What are they going to demand that he release next; birthday cards from his parents?
Bush and Kerry have both released their latest political ads. Kerry seeks to define himself by listing who he is and what he stands for. Bush keeps a bit more simple and just calls Kerry more liberal than Hillary. I'm actually a little concerned about the effectiveness of Kerry's latest web ads (I took a screenshot of this one today). I'm a total partisan, but do you really want to present potential customers with a decision that is this difficult? 
First they wanted Kerry to release his records and detail the injuries that led to his purple hearts. Next, the FCC will probably fine him for using the word buttock in public.
This is certainly the political best-seller season. We've seen the sales charts dominated by some recent Washington tell-alls. But while these books are selling and being discussed in the media, do they really have much of an impact on the way people vote? Maybe not given that people of different political persuasions are picking up different messages from the same book. Not since I took Rhetoric in college have I heard so many often opposing arguments being made out of the same published pages. Look at the Woodward book. Some Dems see it as yet more evidence of a White House out of control. Meanwhile, the Bush folks are publicizing it on their website.
A date has been set. The Bush and Cheney traveling show will perform its act in front of the 9-11 commission on April 29th. It's clear that the two stars still have much work to do ahead of their joint appearance. Right now the sticking point seems to be that neither man is moving his lips. While we now know we can't expect anyone to admit a mistake, it's pretty obvious that Cheney has his part down (learning to speak without moving his lips), while W has had some difficulty with his (remembering to move his lips while Cheney answers the questions for him). 
Good news or bad news. It's all in how you choose to read the poll numbers.
Arnold is looking more and more like a Democrat the longer he's in office (frankly, he looked a lot like one when he was in his trailer on movie sets as well). Mr. Hummer (the vehicle, of course) is backing legislation that would allow hybrid car drivers to use the carpool lanes in California (for those who live elsewhere, that's the transportation equivalent of a lifetime of free Krispy Kreme donuts). The Gov is also getting behind the development of cars powered by hydrogen fuel.
The latest WP outtake from Woodward's book looks at Tony Blair's steadfast, risk-it-all support for the Bush war plan. A sampling: If it would help, Bush said, he would let Blair drop out of the coalition and they would find some other way for Britain and its 41,000 military personnel in the region around Iraq to participate. "I said I'm with you. I mean it," Blair replied. Bush said they could think of another role for the British forces -- "a second wave, peacekeepers or something. I would rather go alone than have your government fall." "I understand that," Blair responded, "and that's good of you to say. I said, I'm with you." Bush said he really meant that it would be all right for Blair to opt out. "You can bank on that." "I know you do," Blair said, "and I appreciate that. I absolutely believe in this, too. Thank you. I appreciate that. It's good of you to say that," the prime minister repeated in his very British way. "But I'm there to the very end." Continued here...
After another day of brutal violence, the administrations is working overtime to keep the coalition glued together.
Under pressure from the GOP with an assist from Tim Russert, John Kerry has released more records on his military service. Good news so far. Turns out he wasn't in Alabama.
During a Pentagon press briefing, Donald Rumsfeld was asked whether the administration is considering the possibility of sending additional troops to Iraq. He responded: "Are we considering it? No. Are we prepared? You bet."
Preparing to send troops into harm's way without any consideration? Hmm. I guess I'll buy that.
According to the Woodward book, Colin Powell and Richard Armitage discussed Iraq in terms of a Pottery Barn rule: "You break it, you own it." Well the good folks at Pottery Barn are none to happy about the slander: "A good percentage of Pottery Barn's inventory is beds and other furniture, and we do sell ceramics, glassware, kitchenware and other things that are breakable. But if something breaks, that's the cost of doing business. We always put our customers first - that's part of our corporate values. If someone breaks a wine glass, for instance, our managers just mark it down as 'out of stock.' The customer isn't asked to pay for it." So we now have a new Pottery Barn rule. When anyone asks President Bush for an explanation about the missing WMDs or the poor post-war planning, he can simply say that those answers are out of stock.
Kurtz on how the White House is handling (or not handling) Woodward: "Administration officials can't exactly give him the Paul O'Neill or Richard Clarke treatment -- not when POTUS is his source-in-chief. They can't say he doesn't know what he's talking about when Bush encouraged other officials to cooperate with the Washington Post author. They can't accuse Bestseller Bob of excessive spinning because he writes in a very straightforward, here's-what-happened-next style." Bush and Cheney are even recommending the book on their website.
The prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are neither prisoners of war nor prisoners of a jail in the American justice sense. Arguing on behalf of the detainees right to access lawyers and the broader justice system, John Gibbons argued that the Cuban location of the pirson camp shouldn't change the spirit of American law: "It is totally artificial to say that because of a provision in a lease the executive branch can create a no-law zone where it is not accountable to any judiciary anywhere."
UCLA researchers are trying to figure out what impact political commercials have on the brains of those who watch them. Participants got an MRI test while they watched various commercials from Bush, Kerry and elections past. Researchers then measured the blood flow to the brain. I would imagine that as soon as that blood flow stops completely, you've got yourself a good commercial.
Some in the administration are denying Woodward's contention that they secretly diverted money away from Afghanistan and used it to lay the groundwork for war in Iraq. Let's give Woodward at least this much credit; he knows how to follow the money. The real question here might relate to why the Congress gave the President so much flexibility in how money was spent and decisions made.
It could be that we are simply a divided country and nothing that happens on the ground in this campaign is going to make much of a dent in anyone's numbers. It could be that Kerry has failed to engage the American voting public. It could be the millions spent by the Bush team to define John Kerry as gas taxing, soft-on-terror, flip flopper. It could be that the obsession over the 9-11 commission's findings have shifted focus away from those issues for which Bush is clearly responsible. Whatever it is, if the latest Washington Post/ABC poll numbers are accurate, then it is good news for the Bush camp at an absolutely remarkable moment. Even as the evidence that the Iraq effort was based on a lie and has been wildly mismanaged continues to build, the President's key numbers remain steady. About the same percentage of Americans approve of the way Bush is handling the war in Iraq and the war on terror. Yes, nearly half of the country believes that going to war was a mistake and a solid majority believes that U.S. troops are "bogged down" in Iraq. And yes, a majority of Americans do not believe that this administration has a clear plan to deal with the unrest in Iraq. In short, Americans believe that the wars in Iraq and on terror are the key issues of the day (thankfully, we got that one right) and believe that the Bush administration entered Iraq under questionable circumstances and is doing a pretty lousy managing the current situation. Almost 60% still believe America is on the wrong track. Still, what the heck, he seems to be doing fine. The key flip flop in the last five weeks has been the overall edge that W has built over Kerry. This is the new math. I certainly can't explain these numbers, but they don't look good for John Kerry.
. . . April 19, 2004
Take My Headlines
Reminder: You can add electablog headlines to your My Yahoo page.
We're talking about a guy who went to Yale undergrad and Harvard Business School. He owned businesses and baseball teams. Oh, yeah, and his father was the President of the United States. So it might strike you as odd when a person with President Bush's background (not to mention his current gig which is certainly considered "up there" by almost every measure) would have so much clear disdain for the elite. But he does.
On the most basic level, Bush holds those in contempt who qualify as members of the intellectual elite. So who are these evil-doers who hold qualities such as common sense and intellectual firepower in such high regard? Who are these inquisitive buzzkillers (let's call them un-patriots) who, from their ivory towers of intellect and reason, place deep thought above deep sleep? Geniuses perhaps (yuck, we hate them)? Academics dedicated to analysis, reading and teaching? (Please, you know the old saying. Only those who can't flick towels, chug beers or order the world's most powerful military in action, teach.) Weeklong champions on the gameshow Jeopardy? Librarians? Writers? Those damn kids in junior high who always turn in extra credit assignments.
Actually the category is whole lot broader than you might think (which of course is no no). Let's put it this way. If you are reasonably sure that Chicken of the Sea is not chicken, then I've got bad news for you. You are elite.
Here is how Bob Woodward described an exchange with the President in which reference was made to the elite. "He's not an intellectual. He is not what I guess would be called a deep thinker ... He chastised me at one point; Well you travel in elite circles."
What question did Bob Woodward ask that got him thrown from the straight-line fraternity into the elite circle of jerks? Perhaps it was something esoteric about a tiny detail from the Pentagon's war planning? Maybe it was some left-leaning inquiry about the connection between our historical military efforts (And who cares about history? As a shrugging W explains, "We'll all be dead.") and the one in Iraq?
Nope. Woodward mentioned that people were concerned about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction.
In the Bush world, once you've added two and two to get four, any future reference to the two is considered somehow elitist. We were led to a war (at least as we heard it) specifically because of the threat posed by WMDs. And now any questions regarding those WMDs have got to be the work of some liberal, academic, newspaper-reading, Good Will Hunting, professorial, tree-hugging braniac.
And besides, it all sounds like an essay question, doesn't it? At least make it multiple choice.
If such an inquiry is deep thinking, it's at most a millimeter deep (Wait, I meant to say inch. Millimeters are French aren't they?). The non-elite (which is how Bush clearly views his base of voters) would never come up with such rhetorical, analytical, Socratic nonsense.
Come on, how much longer are we going to accept this simpleminded, condescending hogwash and continue to allow our leader to describe being smart (or even awake, it seems) as something negative?
Acutally, do yourself a favor. Don't answer that.
Everyone in DC is talking about the Woodward book, even those at White House where there has been little pushback about facts, timelines or the way the President is portrayed.
Is there a job more thankless than being George W Bush's top representative to the UN? Yes. John Negroponte has been named as the first U.S. Ambassador to the new Iraq.
It certainly hasn't all been positive coverage (even error time is airtime), but Bush has a 3X lead over Kerry when it comes to the amount of live coverage each candidate is getting on cable. Part of this is of course just another expected advantage of incumbency. And we also happen to have a major story unfolding in which the President has a headlining role. But is it more than that? Let's face it. One of the requirements for any modern-day presidential run is that you make good TV.
Question: What structure built of gray sandstone in 1792 became the source of all oppressive decisions the world over? Answer: The White House. Welcome to game shows (and just about every other form of media and entertainment), Hezbollah style.
Cheney gets freedom of speech, Chinese style...
Plan of Attack. Woodward's book. Powell's 480 page letter of resignation.
Spain's Zapatero takes heat from Bush and Kerry.
We are constantly reminded that while the President might not always be deeply engaged in the details of an issue, he is a man of conviction. He has a duty to free people. He really believes that is his calling - and you're supposed to respect this determination even if that calling is coming from a god or a vice president (I'm choosing to make the distinction) instead of a Constitution or a Congress. But what happens when that conviction runs into a friend of the family and a deal on oil prices? In this new era of go-it-along conviction, with us or against us speeches, and moral certitude, shouldn't we be getting tough with Saudi Arabia? Isn't it W's duty to work to free Saudi Arabians and to punish the royal family for its support of Wahhabism?
What happens, ultimately, when this cowboy conviction runs into this promise by Mr. Access, Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia?
"They're [oil prices] high. And they could go down very quickly. That's the Saudi pledge. Certainly over the summer, or as we get closer to the election, they could increase production several million barrels a day and the price would drop significantly."
Here are a few outtakes from John Kerry's appearance on Meet the Press on Sunday (which was yet another appearance totally overshadowed by Bush stories - this time Woodward's book). Kerry was better on his criticisms than he was on defining himself. In addition, his "plan" for Iraq didn't leave one feeling all that optimistic. Maybe that was the Bush strategy. Create a situaton so chaotic and complex that your opponent can't possibly come up with a soundbite-sized way to fix it. Russert: Do you believe the war in Iraq was a mistake? Kerry: I think the way the president went to war is a mistake. "You cannot have America run the occupation, make all the reconstruction decisions, make the decisions of the kind of government that will emerge, and pretend to bring other nations to the table. Now, here's what I'll do. If I'm president, I will not only personally go to the U.N., I will go to other capitals and I will have my secretary of state legitimately empowered to be able to be a full secretary of state, speaking for the administration, which we now know from Bob Woodward's book is not the case. The war within this administration over who's in charge of what and whose voice is being listened to is unlike anything I've seen in modern days. Russert: So if Iraq is not secure, how can you possibly say the U.N. and NATO are going to come to our rescue when they don't have the troops or the interest of going in there? Kerry: Tim, that is the dilemma. That is exactly the quandary that President Bush and this administration have put the United States of America in. If the Defense Department issues a memorandum and it says "Any country that wasn't with us, don't bother applying for any reconstruction in Iraq," now there's a heck of a way to invite countries to the table, Tim. Our diplomacy has been about as arrogant and ineffective as anything that I have ever seen, and I think if you ask people all around the world, that's exactly what they'll tell you. I think that I can fight a far more effective war on terror. I will build alliances and ooperation. I will make America safer. But I will use our military when necessary, but it is not primarily a military operation. It's an intelligence gathering, law enforcement, public diplomacy effort, and we're putting far more money into the war on the battlefield than we are into the war of ideas. We need to get it straight. Never has the United States of America been held in as low a regard internationally -- and polls have shown this -- as we are today. We're not trusted and this administration is not liked." Transcript Here...
Fineman: [Bush] leads and runs unapologetically on faith, dividing the world and the presidential campaign into two discrete spheres: one for patriots who believe in his policies and vision, and one for everyone else ... Asked whether he seeks his own father's advice on Iraq, the son demurred. "You know, he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to."
Spain Pulls Out: As he promised during his campaign, Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has announced that Spain's troops will be withdrawn from Iraq as soon as possible. That would be fair enough (given the mass support for such a withdrawal in his country) if Osama bin Laden had not just offered a deal to European leaders who would agree to a truce. Of course, Zapatero does not accept the link between Iraq and terrorism and therefore probably doesn't see it that way. Joe Lieberman suggested that Spain should redeploy the 1,000 troops to Afghanistan to make it clear they are protesting the Itaq policy and not softening in the war on terror.
David Brooks forgets one thing: It was all based on a lie.
Kerry on Patriotism: "I'm tired of these Republicans who spend so much time denigrating Democrats and other peoples' commitment to the defense of our nation. I'm tired of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and a bunch of people who went out of their way to avoid their chance to serve when they had the chance. I went [to Vietnam]. I'm not going listen to them talk to me about patriotism."
NYU's ReadMe focuses this month's issue on The Blogging of the President. There are a lot of interesting takes offered by and about some of our blogging friends. This piece in particular focuses on an especially prolific blogging god.
What do Ken Starr and Ted Olsen have to do with the temporary silencing of AirAmerica? Joe Trippi finds a connection.
. . . April 16, 2004
The Weakness Stakes
Fred Thompson: "What is weakness? Weakness is when America's leaders compare Iraq to Vietnam, announcing to the world a faltering resolve to see our mission through." Weakness is also playing the patriotism card everytime someone raises a valid criticism of your man in the White House. Weakness is also the narrowing down of some very important questions to be asked about how we got here and where we're going when it comes to Iraq into a specific phrase voiced by Ted Kennedy. Forget the Vietnam comparison. We love to waste cycles on that kind of crap. How about this. If someone makes it clear that there are no similarities between Vietnam and Iraq, then can they voice an opposing comment about the war? For example, could one still be viewed as patriotic if they made the following points: "I'm surprised that [Rumsfeld] is surprised because there was a lot of us who were telling him that it was going to be thus [the latest surge of violence in Iraq]. Anyone could know the problems they were going to see. How could they not?" "I think that some heads should roll over Iraq. I think the president got some bad advice." "We're betting on the U.N., who we blew off and ridiculed during the run-up to the war. Now we're back with hat in hand. It would be funny if not for the lives lost." Hopefully Thompson doesn't view such statements as an act of aiding the enemy. I've never thought of Gen. Anthony Zinni as that type of guy.
In Bob Woodward's latest book, Plan of Attack he describes the road to the Iraq war as it was traveled by those (the drivers and the reluctant passengers) in the Bush administration. Some highlights: Feith Based - Powell was strongly against major military action in Iraq. He believed that Dick Cheney was obsessed with the notion and had a habit of turning ambiguous information into intelligence fact in order to bolster his opinion. Powell also called Douglas Feith's office a "Gestapo" where the Veep's minions had, in essence, created their own separate government. Pottery Barn - Powell and Richard Armitage warned Bush of what they called the Pottery Barn rule: "You break it, you own it." Joe Public - President Bush's initial reaction when presented with the overview of intelligence that indicated the presence of WMDs in Iraq: "Nice try. I don't think this quite -- it's not something that Joe Public would understand or would gain a lot of confidence from." The Dunk Tank? - Later in the above referenced meeting: Bush: "I've been told all this intelligence about having WMD and this is the best we've got?" Tenet: "Don't worry, it's a slam dunk case." Duty - Bush defending the war after it was clear there were no WMDs: "I believe we have a duty to free people." Like a Prayer: On the role religion played in his decision: "Going into this period, I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will ... I'm surely not going to justify war based upon God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case I pray that I be as good a messenger of His will as possible. And then, of course, I pray for personal strength and for forgiveness." Past Tension - On how history will view this war: "History. We don't know. We'll all be dead." More here...
As the Bush team scales back its campaign ad spending (believing Iraq is such a dominant issue that no messages are breaking through), the Kerry camp is set to fill the vacuum with a series of messages that they hope will help define the candidate that many people still don't know much about.
If you're critical, you get criticized and more. And that goes for the widows too.
Kerry on Bush: "Ask him a question and he's going to go to terror. And everything he did in Iraq, he's going to try to persuade people it has to do with terror, even though everybody here knows that it has nothing whatsoever to do with al Qaeda and everything to do with an agenda that they had preset, determined. That's where they're going to go."
Bush at the joint press conference with Blair: " "The prime minister and I have made our choice. Iraq will be free."
It's good to be the king.
Slate offers up the seven factions that are fighting for control of the Kerry candidacy. They include: The Boston Fixers, The Kerry Clan, The D.C. Fixers, The Clintonites, The Kerry Loyalists, Band of Brothers. Which one can tap into Kerry and the faction that currently makes up his largest base: The Anyone But Bushites?
Jesse Ventura, who is promising that he can single-handedly provide both checks and balances, is tossing around the idea of running for president in 2008. A few highlights from his interview on the topic: On the rigors of a campaign: "If it looks like I might win, there's no telling what they would do. They're very desperate people when it comes to third parties." (Actually, everyone, including prospective voters, is pretty much leaving Nader alone...)  His campaign message: "Elect someone who truly is not controlled by special-interest money. With me, you would get a true check and balance." (Getting there, but a bit wordy, no?) On why he might not run: "The part that would bug me is I wouldn't be able to get up in the night and drive to the 7-11 for a Slurpee, not without them blocking off the roads, welding the manhole covers shut, and everything else that goes along with it." (I think we'd all be willing to agree to terms that would include the providing of absolutely no protection whenever Pres Ventura ventured out. Although I can't promise that the guy working at 7-11 won't lock up for the night.) On being out of politics for a year: The best way I can describe it is rehab. For someone getting out of office like me, even though I've been out for over a year now, it's equivalent I think to an alcoholic or the drug addict going to the Betty Ford clinic." (I'm sure the folks at Harvard have never been so proud.)
The Atlantic: "When you're running for President, humor is no laughing matter."
What if Osama bin Laden released one of his audiotapes and no one really covered it?
We've already seen the amazing fundraising capabilities that are afforded by the net generally and by blogs specifically. But look at how search engines and ecommerce sites are targetting you already and it's not hard to imagine that the impact the net is having on politics has only just begun. In theory, campaigns could raise more money and spend less. (I didn't mean that last part as a joke, but it sort of sounds funny...)
John Kerry should absolve George W Bush of anything and everything done or not done before September 11. Kerry should give a major address in which he says enough is enough. Yes, the 9-11 Commission is vitally important. But there is plenty of blame to go around. Kerry should explain that the only people who need to apologize for 9-11 are the ones who planned and supported the attack. Yes, we desperately need the recommendations of the 9-11 panel and yes, the person in the Oval Office should be judged closely on how efficiently the much-needed reforms are implemented.
But we need to let W off the hook.
John Kerry needs to send this loud and clear message of absolution because every minute spent debating the memos and the clues and the hints and the mistakes and the vacations, along with every moment the press spends asking the President if he thinks he should apologize for 9-11, is ultimately a good moment for the Bush campaign.
George W Bush will not lose this election because Sept 11 happened under his watch. But he may very well lose this election because of what he's done since.
And every moment that the public and the press are not focused on this period (during which we've seen false bravado, a march to an optional war, questionable strategies and leadership related to that war, a wedge driven between us and some of our closest allies, a clinging to secrecy, repeated attacks on those who even hint at criticism or disagreement, the mistake of tax cuts during a time of war, an unwillingness to admit mistakes or take advice, an unwillingness to level with the American people, a totally unclear strategy for the future, etc) is a lost moment for the Kerry campaign.
And there's not a moment to lose.
Broder: "Idealism is a wonderful and attractive trait in a leader. But visions unhinged from strategies and heedless of risks can lead to disasters, especially when impatience produces hasty decision making. We have seen too much of that in the Bush presidency."
Introducing today's target: Attacking Jamie S. Gorelick.
Nowhere can the two Americas be seen so clearly as in their reactions to the East Room press conference on Tuesday night. Were you offended at the 'apology' and 'mistake' questions asked by a liberal and frothy press out to get a resolved and steadfast leader? Or were you just sort of appalled that the world's most powerful nation is being led by a guy who is clearly not very bright? What was the most disturbing factor related to the press conference? A lot of people around the world speak English.
Of course we don't need more troops. But we're bringing in more troops. Ah, the politics of contradiction.
Islamic Extremist Learns to Fly: The August briefing paper with an ominious label.
I didn't hear a lot of people predicting this scenario when we first entered Iraq (especially not anyone in the Pentagon). Iranians are now in Iraq to try to broker a settlement between Sadr and the U.S.
This has got to feel good. The American people love Dick Cheney so much that we decided to pay him twice.
. . . April 14, 2004
Kristol Unclear
Bill Kristol in the LA Times: "I was depressed. I am obviously a supporter of the war, so I don't need to be convinced. But among people who were doubtful or worried, I don't think he made arguments that would convince them. He didn't explain how we are going to win there" And here we see the ultimate neocon rub. They thought they had found a guy with the requisite level of mental absence required so that he could be strong-armed towards certain policies, but who was also charismatic and just smart enough to sell the policies to the American people. Why was Kristol depressed after last night's performance? Because he and his can no longer avoid the reality that their assessment was right on the former issue, but dead wrong on the latter one. And the latter one wins elections.
Saletan: "His routine misuse of the word incredible, while illiterate, is harmless. His misunderstanding of the word credible, however, isn't harmless. It's catastrophic."
After just a couple of weeks on the air, AirAmerica has been dropped in Chicago and Los Angeles apparently due to a failure to pay some bills. I guess we'd have to call this the "Oh Shit Factor!"
The President who so many times in the past has surprised on the upside did just the opposite in Tuesday's primetime press conference. As has been widely reported, the East Room exchange bumped American Idol out of its normal timeslot. Can you imagine how harshly Simon Cowell would have ripped Bush if the two shows had been combined? Even Paula Abdul would've been compelled to go negative. Not that it was all bad. It started out well enough during the President's opening statement when he stood up for the troops and against terrorists. It is during these moments (arguing obvious points against an imaginary debate team) when Bush is at his strongest. His steely resolve serves him well. He clearly means what he says and believes in his own cause and calling. During these opening remarks, Bush worked hard to link together the struggle in Iraq with the broader war on terror: "The violence we are seeing in Iraq is familiar. The terrorists who take hostages or plants a roadside bomb near Baghdad is serving the same ideology of murder that kills innocent people on trains in Madrid, and murders children on buses in Jerusalem, and blows up a nightclub in Bali and cuts the throat of a young reporter for being a Jew."  Whether or not you agree with the logic of the argument (connecting Iraq and 9-11), at least the imagery makes sense. We agree. People who blow-up others indiscriminately, take hostages and murder children are bad. We need to finish the job in Iraq. Soldiers are good. Terrorists are evil. Democracy is better than Saddam (who by the way, you may recall, used WMDs against his own people). But once the questioning started, and the President was forced to think on his feet and go beyond his prepared 'stating the obvious' remarks, things fell apart. It was uncomfortable. Most troubling perhaps were the cutaways to Rice, Card and Rove whose pained expressions told the story as their man struggled to string together enough words to make cogent a phrase or two per minute of speaking. Bush even stumbled over the evening's most predictable questions. Did we go to war under false pretenses? Why are you and the Vice President meeting with the 9-11 commission together instead of separately? After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it? The last question is right out of every job interview in American history and yet the man who ominously referred to himself as "the ultimate decision maker for this country" came up with: "I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it." This is guy who is clearly incapable of introspection and listening to intellectual Republican pundits try to reword what he means, explain his flaws as those of a guy who thinks in black and white, or describe his performance as that of one who was in control and on the offense was almost as unnerving as witnessing the bumbling and stumbling in real time. It got even more surreal than that. "And, Mr. President, who will we be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th?" "We'll find that out soon." What? Is he kidding? "And a free Iraq is going to be a major blow for terrorism." Uh, you mean a blow against terrorism, right? A most telling Bush slip came towards the middle of the press conference when he was asked about the perception of his unwillingness to admit ever making a mistake. While referring to the intelligence before 9-11, apparently confused and irritated, this came out: "We knew he had designs on us. We knew he hated us. But there was nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government that could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale." Notice here that there is a distinction being made between OUR government and the PRIOR government. Shouldn't the President at least pretend that he views the Clinton administration as being a part of our government? Maybe we shouldn't be so hard on the President. We've been trained to hold him to different standards. I suppose it's enough that he didn't say my government as he usually does. Maybe we should just be happy that he didn't refer to the war in Iraq as a crusade or mispronounce the word nuclear seven times in a row. Bush ended the evening's exchange by explaining, "One thing is for certain, though, about me, and the world has learned this: When I say something, I mean it." I'll give him that. I do believe he means what he says. I just don't have the slightest idea what he's talking about most of the time.
The doctrine of pre-emption will hit Americans where it hurts tonight when President Bush serves up a primetime news conference that will pre-empt the latest installment of American Idol. Among those least happy with the scenario could be the President himself. He's not a big fan of primetime Q and As. He was essentially dragged into this (only the third one of his presidency) by sagging poll numbers, increased coverage of the turn for the worse in Iraq and new questions about his handling of the war on terror. With topics like these, acceptable answers will not be easy to come by. John Kerry has the same problem. Unlike Bush, Kerry didn't march us into Iraq. Nor did he drive a wedge between us and some potentially key allies in the war on terror. But this is one of those times in a campaign when the incumbent is getting kicked around and the challenger needs to step up with bold new ideas to convince Americans that there is a better way. The problem that Kerry faces (if you assume he's got the right stuff to come up with and deliver such a message) is that there might not be a right answer to these problems. If there is some expert out there who has a fool-proof solution to the troubles we're likely to face for years in Iraq, let him or her speak now. If there is someone out there who can make us feel better about the intelligence failures that pre-dated 9-11, please share. Americans have diagnosed the problems (and some of their root causes) associated with the current state of affairs. That doesn't mean we can find a quick cure.
Hitchens: Why the Vietanam analogy doesn't hold water. Richard Cohen: In almost every way but one, Iraq is not Vietnam. Here's the one: We don't know what the hell we're doing.
The man behind the marriage amendment. He's wrong, but he might not be what you think he is.
In describing the difficulty in covering the operations in Fallujah, NBC News VP Bill Wheatley explained: "There's no police force to speak of, civilians are engaged in military efforts, it's a very unstable situation. There's not much law and order."
Because of the increased difficulty and danger associated with getting journalists into Fallujah, the top networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox) have agreed to pool resources. They will share the video provided by a single embedded camera crew and they will also divvy up the use of a single satellite dish in the area.
Wouldn't it be great if we could see the same kind of cooperation in D.C.?
The agony of the pieces not put together is on full display today as the 9-11 Commission released a review of the FBI's counterterrorism efforts and interviewed several high ranking members of the FBI and the Justice Dept. Communication breakdowns, outdated technology, a shortage of funds and a lack of a focus on terrorism as a key issue (only six percent of the FBI were working on counterterrorism on the day of the attacks) were all identified as key problems that prevented the FBI from putting together the clues before it was too late. Louis Freeh (who led the FBI until about 3 months before 9-11) explained: "All of these things being said, the point I guess I want to make to you this morning, and which I tried to make in my statement, is that we had a very effective program with respect to counterterrorism before September 11, given the resources, in my view, and given the authorities that we had." How far down the bureaucratic totem pole was counterterrorism? John Ashcroft rejected a request by the FBI for more counterterrorism funds on Sept 10, 2001. From the staff of the 9-11 commission on the FBI: "In short, analysts didn't know what they didn't know." This looking back (while not necessarily breaking a lot of new ground) is important. Let's hope the media puts as much of a spotlight on the process when it comes making the necessary changes in the FBI and elsewhere as we move forward.
John Kerry offers a strategy for Iraq in a Wash Post editorial.
Word of at least three nuclear devices held by North Koreans from a source who should know. Between the Taliban and the spread of nukes, has there been, over the last decade, any country more generally detrimental than Pakistan?
Under growing pressure and leaking poll numbers, President Bush has come around to say now may be a time to revamp and reform our intelligence services." Up until now, he and his team have done everything to resist that change. What's changed? We all know the answer to that. But a more difficult question is what took the media so long, through 9-11 and the disjointed march to a war of choice, to begin to apply some heat to this administration.
There are few characters in the modern history of politics who can fill a room (even when the room is an entire country) like Bill Clinton. But what does it mean if it is generally understood that the release of the Clinton memoirs anytime between now and the election could completely suck the attention away from the Kerry campaign?
Jonathan Alter: "The president and his team continue to confuse morality with moral certainty; they confuse the essential rightness of fighting terrorism around the world with the morally neutral matter of whether they know the best way to do it. Morality could understandably lead to Bush's Wilsonian drive to reshape Iraq; moral certainty is when anything can be said or done to achieve that end and win the election ... Uncertainty is the only certainty now - in politics and terror."
President Bush has indicated that he will hold a primetime press conference Tuesday. Many of questions will likely be on the recently released memo. Others will be on the current state of affairs in Iraq. Here are some of the questions I'm less interested in because I think they distract us from the core issues that this president should answer for: 1. What did you know before Sept 11 and could this administration have prevented the attack? -- I don't see this election shifting towards Kerry because the American public comes to believe that the Bush administration is somehow, even partially, to blame for the attacks. 2. Questions about the current state of affairs in Iraq. -- Important, of course. But we all agree on several issues already. We must stay the course at this point. We all support our troops wholeheartedly. We all want some form of democracy. We don't need another five minutes of testosterone-laced tough talk from W. 3. Questions about Richard Clarke and Condi Rice. -- Been there, done that. 4. Inside baseball hogwash about why W hasn't been in the public eye for the last several days or a week when many columnists said he should have been, and related questions about vacation time. -- We need a president to level with us. I don't care when he punches the clock. So what should we focus on? 1. The lead-up to the war and whether or not the American people were misled. There is now a endless array of clues that this was the case. Forget about whether or not you are ultimately in favor of our actions in Iraq. My position at the time was that I didn't know. We weren't given enough facts. Lying to the American people (or merely exaggerating facts) on the road to war is unforgivable. 2. Our behavior post 9-11, the Iraq decision and how it really relates to the war on terror, our status in the world and whether, if when we need to build a coalition in the future, we should expect allies to trust us. 3. Demanding a clear explanation of why we are safer now that Saddam is out of power. 4. Today Bush explained that he is enthusiastic about hearing the important recommendations offered by the important 9-11 panel. Why did he withhold information at every turn? Why has he placed secrecy above security? Why was he against the formation of this panel? Why was it so important to discredit those who offered opinions he didn't like? Why shouldn't people laugh when they hear that he and the Vice President are testifying together? 5. Should we have had more troops in Iraq all along? Aren't our problems about more than a few thousand miscreants? 6. What's the plan - beyond being tough - in Iraq and the war on terror? 7. Have you been surprised that there has been so little opposition to the cultural war that includes shifting the tax burden, infringing on abortion rights and turning up the FCC's indecency sensors? 8. Is the phrase No child left behind really a coded message to far right religious zealots who needed to be reminded that you will do everything in your power to overturn - step by step - Roe v Wade? (Lat two are off subject I know, but aren't you curious?) 9. What's with the weird smirk?
Does John McCain have any interest in being John Kerry's vice presidential running mate? Well, to get the answer the that question, you may have to read between the lines a bit. Let's deconstruct the comments made by the Arizona Senator during yet another straight talk express visit with Tim Russert on Meet the Press. We begin with McCain's response to Russert's first question on the subject. Read slowly. Try to pick up the subtle nuances:
McCain: When my kids were smaller, my wife used to wear a T-shirt that said, "What part of no don't you understand?" I'd like to start wearing that T-shirt myself. No, no and no.
[Notice the sentence construction here. McCain begins by referring to a shirt worn by his wife decades ago. Then he suggests that he'd like to start wearing that same T-shirt himself. Patently absurd. The three "Nos" therefore make perfect sense. McCain wearing a T-Shirt? No. McCain wearing dated womens' clothing? No. Admitting on national television that your wife used to wear one of those goofy T-shirts. Of course, no. What McCain is doing here is building a clear critique of the President's decision to play dress-up on that aircraft carrier many months ago.]
McCain: I will not leave the Republican Party [who's asking him to leave it? Another diversionary tactic?]. I cherish the ideals and principles of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan [In most remote reaches off your mind, can you even imagine that list including Lincoln, Roosevelt, Reagan and George W. Bush? McCain again leaves the door to his unconscious slightly ajar. What he means here is that he cherishes the ideals of the Republican party up to and through Reagan. The word "cherish" here is a critical clue. No one cherishes Tom DeLay]. I will not be vice president of the United States under any circumstances. [Of course not any circumstances, but what about this specific circumstance?] I feel I can be far more effective in helping shape policy in the future of this country as a United States senator, and I will not, I will not, stand for vice president of the United States. [The repetition of the line "I will not" is both a subtle jab to Bush who, each morning, uses double negatives as warm-up on his way to much more tongue defying grammatical affronts. The double negative also serves as code for the intellectual elite who know what a negative plus a negative equals. And finally, McCain knows full well that no one is suggesting that he stand "for" vice president (we've got Halliburton for that), we are asking him to stand "as" vice president.]
Russert: What if you could stay as a Republican?
McCain: It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. I will not. I will not change.
[Two things are going on here. First, the savvy McCain is looking to pre-empt the flip flop charges that are sure to be lobbed in his direction once he joins the Kerry ticket. Second, the quadruple negative is McCain's obvious attempt to make Russert understand that this is already a done deal. The only thing that could make this exchange more obvious would be if McCain had been sitting on John Kerry's shoulders during the interview.]
John Kerry is releasing a "misery index" to keep tabs on how this economy is really affecting the middle class. But is the term "misery index" really the way to go? Maybe we need to be a little more Edwardsian. How about the escape from misery index? Kerry needs to come up with a more-defined platform and personality, and quick. He can't expect the Bush team to do all the work for him.
Some are complaining about Governor Arnold's recently inked promotional deals with muscle magazines. The argument is that the mags promote steroids and push unhealthy products offered by advertisers looking to prey on the low self-esteem of readers; and that doesn't jibe with Arnold's charge of guarding the health and welfare of the citizens of California. Come on folks, this is guy who drives a Hummer and ran on a pro-environment ticket. The real question is why would a multimillionaire want to waste his time with this garbage?
Should Teresa Heinz Kerry have to give up her role as head of several philanthropic organizations?
Bush administration officials have repeatedly suggested that they were getting tough with corporations who were cheating the IRS out of tax dollars. Might be time to audit that assertion.
Was there a child left behind in terms of reading comprehension? As I've said repeatedly, the pre-9-11 finger-pointing seems like a red herring to me (especially given the current situation on the ground in Iraq). But after delaying the release of yet another document and then only releasing it under the strongest of pressures, you'd think there would be an analysis that would make us feel a little better. In reaction memo that is titled Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US, Bush responded: "I am satisfied that I never saw any intelligence that indicated there was going to be an attack on America -- at a time and a place, an attack." Yeah, we sort of know what he means, but it's getting tiring to have to translate all the time.
Bush: "It was a tough week last week, and my prayers and thoughts are with those who paid the ultimate price for our security. It's hard to tell [when the violence will ebb]. I just know this: that we're plenty tough and we'll remain tough."
 I promised myself I'd take the weekend off from blogging, so I'm just going to defer to Wonkette on this one. I'm sure she'll come up with something to say to make us somehow feel better about Jenna's decidedly un-dynastic ensemble.
All I'm asking is who, say a year or so ago, would have predicted that Phil Mickelson (a Lefty by the way) would win a major before George W Bush would find weapons of mass destruction. (Editor's side note: Chalabi guaranteed a win by Earnie Els.)
. . . April 9, 2004
The Expert Network
Hopefully you've met Davenetics and Popcultablog by now.
Kurtz: "It's much more likely that voters will judge President Bush on how he has handled terrorism since that day in 2001--and that includes the decision to invade Iraq and the violent mess now unfolding there. It's easy to look back and point fingers about an event that no one expected. More telling is the war of choice against Saddam and the general performance on homeland security over the last 2-1/2 years." This is dead-on. And it's exactly why I think everyday we focus on pre-Sept 11 is another day that the Bushies don't get challenged on their more obvious weakpoints.
No Religion Too? A decade later in Rwanda: Ethnicity outlawed.
Kerry: "Why is the United States of America almost alone in carrying this burden and the risks which the world has a stake in? There is no Arab country that is advanced by a failed Iraq. There is no European country that is safer by a failed Iraq. Yet, those countries are distinctly absent from risk-bearing. . . . This is essentially an American occupation... George Bush and the Republicans in Washington today have run the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of this country."
While vacationing in Maui, Super-Governor Arnold reportedly came to the rescue of a swimmer who seemed to be floundering in about twenty-feet of water.
If a politician runs for office and no one is there to hear it, then does it really matter? More to the point, in these anyone but Bush days of the Democratic party, does John Kerry matter enough? I mean aside from the fact that he defuses some of the issues that have been used in the past to discredit Dems (he is a war hero, he is tough, he is presidential), is he at the core of the emotions being felt by Democrats and their newly revitalized and more hopeful run to oust W from the Oval Office?
I'm not one of those who have argued that Kerry should have skipped the ski vacation and kept on keeping on the campaign trail. I also think he has played the 9-11 hearings the right way. Stay quiet. Let things play out. Don't pile on. What I'm talking about here has nothing to do with any mistakes Kerry has made nor any actions he has failed to take. My concern is that when Democrats think about this election, they think of George W Bush. Not just first. But first, second and third.
The pundits will remind us that every presidential election featuring an incumbent will ultimately be an up or down vote on that incumbent. And there is little doubt that this election hinges on issues such as Iraq, the perception of W as a wartime president, and the state of economy. But to accept that these incumbent-headlined races are all about the guy in office seems to ignore recent history. Was the Bush 41 loss to Clinton really all about Bush? Clinton had a massive personality. He was a rockstar. Dems wanted to climb aboard that tour bus and take a ride from a place called Hope to a place call D.C. (OK, so we made an occasional stop along the way at a place called Hooters...).
This time around the only bus the Dems want to board is one that will run over George W Bush.
Slate's Kaplan on Condi: "In short, she has not done what national security advisers are supposed to do." (She has if you consider her boss. She has focused on secrecy and unwavering loyalty to W. Isn't that the job description of everyone in this administration?)
Fineman: "Remember the picture of the president in the classroom, being told of the attack by chief of staff Andy Card? The American people thought they were seeing a man suddenly thrust into a grave challenge no one could have anticipated. That won him enormous sympathy and patience from the voters. But what if he was literally on vacation - at the ranch in Crawford - when he should have been making sure that someone was ringing alarm bells throughout the bureaucracy?" That kind of perception would of course destroy the Bush campaign. But what if during that time he was in fact distracted by another issue. And what if that issue was the first thing that came to his mind that morning in the classroom. And the first thing that came to his mind this morning and every other day in between. Hint: It's the story he thought was "accomplished" the night he played flightsuit dress-up.
Campaign Desk on the Kerry estate tax plan, the Bush estate tax plan and the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man. You know, I have long been in favor of moving more of the nation's tax burden from the poor to the rich. I even think Soc Sec and other benefits should be waved for those who don't need them. It makes sense. But the notion that you can't give money to a brother or a child without hiding it from ... er I mean sharing it with the IRS is totally wacko. This is one lefty who wants his damn allowance.
Condi Rice wasn't the only big name to appear before the commission. Clinton also made an appearance today that lasted three hours. Statement from the Commission: "The 9-11 Commission today met in closed private session with former President Clinton. The meeting was held at the Commission's request and lasted for more than three hours. The Commission found the former President forthcoming and responsive to its questions. We appreciate the excellent cooperation he and his associates have given to us."
Condi Rice's testimony in front of the panel brought to mind another question. Where is George? Why does the guy who is so tough, so sure of himself, and who for three plus years has been describing our government as "my" government, and our administration as "my" administration and our country as "my" country need to bring a colleague with him when he speaks to the 9-11 commission. How did it all go from being "my" country to our problem? Where's the unilaterally lone ranger? When the going gets tough, we get Tonto.
There's No They're There: Just how widespread is the current revolt against U.S. forces in Iraq?
Kurtz: "What if there are no good answers in Iraq?"
News the Troops Didn't Want to Hear? Now on the table: More troops. Longer tours.
Friedman: "From the start, this has always been a Karl Rove war. Lots of photo-ops, lots of talk about "I am a war president," lots of premature banners about "Mission Accomplished," but totally underresourced, because the president never wanted to ask Americans to sacrifice. The Bush motto has been: "We're at war, let's party -- let's cut taxes, forgo any gasoline tax, not mobilize too many reserves and, by the way, let's disband the Iraqi Army and unemploy 500,000 Iraqi males, because that's what Ahmad Chalabi and his pals want us to do ... Without more allies, without more global legitimacy -- and without an Iraqi center ready to stand up against their Khmer Rouge now posing as their Viet Cong -- we cannot win in Iraq. We will be building a house with bricks and no cement. In that case, we will have to move to Plan B. Too bad we never really had Plan A."
Condoleeza Rice made her much awaited appearance before the 9-11 commission on Thursday, as the administration was once again being accused of withholding information from the fact-finding panel (this time, information from the Clinton Administration era that Clinton has approved releasing). Rice's remark that is likely to spark the most debate is: "There was no silver bullet that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks." If I were running a terrorist organization, I'm not sure that would sound like altogether bad news. Some other highlights: "The terrorists were at war with us, but we were not yet at war with them. For more than 20 years, the terrorist threat gathered, and America's response across several administrations of both parties was insufficient. Historically, democratic societies have been slow to react to gathering threats, tending instead to wait to confront threats until they are too dangerous to ignore or until it is too late." "One of the most difficult problems in the Middle East is that the United States has been associated for a long time, decades, with a policy that looks the other way on the freedom deficit in the Middle East, that looks the other way at the absence of individual liberties in the Middle East. And I think that that has tended to alienate us from the populations of the Middle East." "We had a structural problem in the United States, and that structural problem was that we did not share domestic and foreign intelligence in a way to make a product for policymakers, for good reasons -- for legal reasons, for cultural reasons -- a product that people could depend upon." "We decided to put together a strategic approach to this that would get the regional powers -- the problem wasn't that you didn't have a good counterterrorism person. The problem was you didn't have an approach against Al Qaida because you didn't have an approach against Afghanistan. And you didn't have an approach against Afghanistan because you didn't have an approach against Pakistan. And until we could get that right, we didn't have a policy." "I will tell you if we had known that an attack was coming against the United States, that an attack was coming against New York and Washington, we would have moved heaven and earth to stop it. But you heard the character of the threat report we were getting: something very, very big is going to happen. How do you act on something very, very big is going to happen beyond trying to put people on alert? " "And what I wanted Dick Clarke to do was to manage the crisis for us and help us develop a new strategy. And I can guarantee you, when we had that new strategy in place, the president -- who was asking for it and wondering what was happening to it -- was going to be in a position to engage it fully. The fact is that what Dick Clarke recommended to us, as he has said, would not have prevented 9/11. I actually would say that not only would it have not prevented 9/11, but if we had done everything on that list, we would have actually been off in the wrong direction about the importance that we needed to attach to a new policy for Afghanistan and a new policy for Pakistan." "I just have to say we may simply disagree on this with some of the commissioners. I do not believe that there was a lack of high-level attention. The president was paying attention to this. How much higher level can you get?" [editor's note: Uh, the Vice President...] "I still believe to this day that the Al Qaida were prepared for a response to the Cole and that, as some of the intelligence suggested, bin Laden was intending to show that he yet survived another one, and that it might have been counterproductive." Overall, Rice was polished and her testimony probably helped the administration. In fact, the entire Rice fiasco might end up helping politically. Why? Because no one really blames one administration or the other for the actions and/or inactions before 9-11. And no one questions the response we made in Afghanistan. The debate over pre- 9-11 events only keeps the focus away from the two key and related issues that are at the core of this administration's performance. First, are we really winning the war on terror and how is our public tone and our relationship with allies and foes helping or hurting this war? Second, was Iraq based on a series of exaggerations and lies and has our Iraq policy specifically damaged our efforts to stem the tide of terrorism and broadly lowered the esteem we hold among the nations of the world?
Meyerson: "The only unequivocally good policy option before the American people is to dump the president who got us into this mess, who had no trouble sending our young people to Iraq but who cannot steel himself to face the Sept. 11 commission alone."
Absence Makes the Heart Grow... Rwandans marked the 10th anniversary of the genocide tha took place in their country. No Western leaders attended.
Sovereignty Lite: The June 30th deadline for handing over power to an interim Iraqi government remains firm. But what exactly are we handing over? Not control of the pursestrings or the billions in aid. Not military control (even over the seedling-sized Iraqi military). No reduction in coalition forces. No control over the police. A huge U.S. embassy will open as will the largest CIA station in the world. No wonder we're still fine with timing of the handover.
On the day of Sept 11, 2001, Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to give a speech on "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday." The focus of the speech as it turns out was about missile defense, not fighting terrorism. The existence of this speech doesn't bother me much. Priorities shifted that day. What bothers me is that Bush administration has refused to share that never-given speech with the 9-11 commission.
Continuity: Which top government officials go where when we think we could be facing a worst case scenario?
Better Off Ted: Is Ted Kennedy helping?
All of Washington is eagerly awaiting Thursday's testimony from Condoleezza. Some have been focusing on issues such as what her overall tone will be and how she will respond to the Richard Clarke testimony. All important and interesting stuff to be sure. But the panel should take a page out of the Law and Order handbook and rip some of the questions from the headlines. We can debate forever whether or not Bush was really urgent or just sort of urgent about terrorism. But the facts on Iraq are clear. And pressing.
We could be seeing the gradual return of major combat in Iraq as fierce fighting has errupted in several cities on the day after at least twelve Marines were killed. The move against Moqtada Sadr - and the previously growing impatience with Americans - has created at least a temporary partnership among several Iraqi groups who have been at historic odds. Many Mujaheddin, Saddam loyalists, Sunnis, Shiites and others (Al Qaeda?) have siezed this moment to make a stand against the U.S. military.
Wal-Mart Tumbles Down: In Los Angeles, voters rejected a ballot initiative introduced and strongly backed by Wal-Mart. You're allowed to reject Wal-Mart?
In a field office somewhere in Washington, 32 prosecutors along with computer forensic specialists, FBI agents and investigators are diligently working to file charges in the sorts of cases that haven't often been brought in more than a decade. At their disposal are the new powers offered to federal officials by the Patriot Act. Are they fighting terror? No. They're fighting porn in the latest iteration of the war on indecency. Cultural fights most people assumed were over have come back with a vengeance as the Bush administration looks throw bones to the extreme conservatives in their base. But on this issue, it's not so simple. Forget about the fact that consumers have clearly exhibited their enthusiasm for the products in question. And forget about the fact that the emergence of the internet has basically taken all of the steps to getting porn out of the public sphere and therefore further than ever from offending "community" standards. The real problem for Ashcroft and company is that some of America's biggest companies (and some of the Bush team's closes allies) are waist deep in the porn business. Cable companies. Satellite companies. Phone companies. Major Hotel chains. So one can assume that all but your most extreme porn is relatively safe for now. What's really troubling about this is the dedication of resources and the abuses of the Patriot Act. We've got bigger fights to fight.
It's some of what I think about when I'm not watching C-Span. Think of it as Larry David's disposition meets JLo's Ass. Say hello to Popcultablog* Where the Culture Goes Pop...
A new book suggests that Bush 41 was extremely concerned during W's build-up towards the Iraq war (which would make sense given his own track record and focus on internationalism). But top Bush aide Jean Becker says no way: "From the very first day, President Bush 41 unequivocally supported the President on the war in Iraq. He had absolutely no reservations of any kind." What's more scary? That someone would make a comment that ridiculous on every level? Or that she could believe it's true? I mean, no reservations of any kind about starting a friggin' war?
Hans Continues to Hammer: "Bush declared war as a part of the U.S. war on terror, but instead of limiting the effects of terror, the war has laid the foundation for even more terror."
The ACLU has filed a lawsuit over the federal government's no-fly list. The list includes individual's names, birthdates, nationalities, etc., and the goal is to detain suspected terrorists before they can board a plane. According to the plaintiffs in the suit, the problem is that the list includes many people who aren't terrorists and they can't seem to get off of it, no matter how many times they are cleared for take-off.
The networks are pulling out the big guns for the Condoleezza Rice show on Thursday. All three majors plan to air Rice's testimony live. Too bad we won't have the same kind of access and coverage when Cheney and Bush perform some of the old favorite Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy routines during their joint testimony.
The close call of the 2000 election, an evenly divided country, two enthusiastic bases and the emergence of the internet have combined to revive grassroots politics. That knock on your door may very well be the key to this year's race.
John Kerry is set to unveil his economic plan tomorrow in Michigan. That means the attacks start today.
Look, on some level it makes no sense. John McCain has a series of positions that are in direct opposition to the Democratic party platform. And the fallout, among both parties could be massive. Can you really imagine John McCain speaking at the Democratic Convention in Boston? But we live in a moment in history when the divisiveness has become unhealthy. When the notion of a dual party ticket is more unthinkable than ever. And that's why this may be the perfect time to put together a two way ticket. It also seems somewhat obvious that a Kerry-McCain ticket would end up in the White House. Maybe that's why much of the McCain talk is coming, not only from starry-eyed bloggers, but also from people inside the Kerry camp.
Clinton in the WP: "I hope that the international community will continue to learn from our mistakes in Rwanda in 1994. We need to improve our intelligence-gathering capabilities, increase the speed with which international intervention can be undertaken and muster the global political will required to respond to the threat of genocide wherever it may occur. But the lessons from Rwanda in 1994 pertain not only to future crises; they also apply to Rwanda today. In helping Rwanda confront the specter of HIV-AIDS, we all have an opportunity to move decisively and to stop a second national tragedy." It's difficult to base a foreign policy strategy on altruism. What we have learned in the past few years is that our actions or inactions can have a very real impact on the quality of life and the level of security here at home. Self-interest is has always been a popular motivator. We should do what we can to fight the world's biggest problem - the spread of AIDS in Africa - because it's the right thing. But we should also do the right thing because it is in our best interests not to allow entire societies to be pushed to the brink of disaster. Similar strategies should be considered in the so-called war on drugs. We are the consumers. We create the demand. We made it possible for drug lords to emerge as points of extreme power in several countries to our south. And now the war on drugs is being fought in those countries, often amid poverty, hopelessness and collapsing institutions. Think the next generation of kids in these countries will be having a lot of positive feelings about the U.S.? Are you sure you are out of the reach of those feelings? Addressing these issues is not merely a matter of right and wrong. It's ultimately a matter of self-defense.
Organizations including the World Bank, the Global Fund, Unicef and the Clinton Foundation have joined forces to expand a program to provide discounted AIDS drugs to more than one hundred countries. The U.S. government however is taking a pass, preferring to go with its own plan.
Gradual and Orderly: What? You thought China was going to enthusiastically get behind Hong Kong's move towards autonomy and free elections?
The U.S. is now making a major push to arrest (or perhaps kill) Iraqi cleric Muqtader Sadr before he can build an extremist following that becomes totally unmanageable. In addition to launching a successful operation, U.S. adminstrators also must worry (as always) about the possibility that getting aggressive with Sadr will only further complicate matters. Meanwhile, U.S. military leaders in Iraq are calling for contigency plans that would include the deployment of more troops. This is an area where political goals cannot (but probably will) be allowed to outweigh military demands.
. . . April 5, 2004
Idea-ology
Zakaria: "The Saudi and Pakistani cases show that once you nurture radical ideologies, they become uncontrollable, even to the states that created them. That's why the only way to combat this new global terror is to fight the ideology that fires it everywhere. So the war on terror is really a war of ideas. And I'm not sure we are winning it."
Alex Trebek finally encountered a few egos that could compete with his own when he welcomed a group of Washington political pundits to compete in a few rounds of Jeopardy. The predictable complaints about a slow buzzer came early and often (et tu Russert?). In fairness, the contestants were not perfectly suited for the game. After all, any self-respecting pundit rarely offers anything in the form of a question (unless its rhetorical).
So if this is supposed to be the election in which the net and blogs have the greatest impact, then why are we spending most of our time focusing on all those old fashioned books?
OK, so we're divided. We're split down the middle. So you'd figure you'd occasionally come across a neighbor who had different views and the two of you could debate the issues have a spirited debate. Hasn't happened? Well, it turns out that we are not only divided as individuals. We are also divided into politically-lopsided communities. In other words, there's a pretty good chance that your neighbor shares your politics. There are still, thankfully, exceptions. I am a proud member of the San Francisco liberal elite. But on occasion, we do let those with opposing views drive through town (as proven by this digital snapshot my wife took while driving around town the other day). 
Sharon: The pledge to not harm Yasser Arafat is officially over.
From the Observer: "President George Bush first asked Tony Blair to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power at a private White House dinner nine days after the terror attacks of 11 September, 2001." Forget the other details of the Clarke book. Forget the 9-11 commission's finding that 9-11 could've (with hindsight and in a perfect world) been prevented. This is the story.
One can make a pretty decent argument that among those in the presidential race, Bush is by far the leading flip flopper. Condi Rice will not testify. Oh yes, she will. So who is the flipper, Bush or Kerry? But decent arguments probably matter less than the constant pounding of television ads - which are especially effective when aimed at the lesser known challenger. See Missouri for an example. The Show Me State has been shown an unprecedented number of political ads in the past few weeks. And the version of John Kerry created in those ads is is starting to stick.
So far, we know that Kerry's vice presidential headhunter James Johnson has interviewed four applicants to fill the spot: Edwards (the crowd favorite), Dick Gephardt, Bill Richardson, and Gov Tom Vilsack of Iowa. Some still hope McCain will change his mind and be the guy (wishfull thinking and perhaps a sign that many have not yet heard a name that sounds just right). Meanwhile, on the campaign trail, sometimes it seems like Max Cleland already has at least secured the job as Kerry's sidekick.
It is the big week that will feature Condi Rice's much-hyped testimony in front of the 9-11 commission. Dan Froomkin covers the web to piece together a preview of how she is prepping, what questions she will be asked, why she is testifying in the first place and more. You can even find a list of 20 things you may not have known about Rice. And what job might she get if this goes well? If it goes badly? This all really does have some pretty significant American Idol parallels. I'd like to see more coverage of the other side of the deal that was struck to finally get Rice in front of the public panel. The administration demanded that Bush and Cheney could appear together during their testimony. Forget for a second that this is on every level, absurd. Let's just focus on the politics. The joint testimony plays into the core of the concerns some have about W's intelligence and the notion that Cheney is running things in this administration. There must be some powerful arguments that would lead the administration to wholeheartedly support the worst fears people have about the President. Either that or they know that in a country so evenly and staunchly divided, details such as a tag-team testimony aren't going to make any difference anyway.
The U.S. is now facing some its biggest concerns in Iraq. On one hand, they are seeing growing signs of a Shiite uprising. On the other hand, they are facing and increased level of resistance from Sunni Muslims. Meanwhile, the President remains committed to the fast-approaching June 30 deadline. "The intention is to make sure the deadline remains the same."
. . . April 4, 2004
McCain Translated
McCain Paraphrased: I hate George W Bush. He is a fake. His playing dress-up in military garb is shame to his office and to the folks who really serve. He talks tough. That means zilch. I'm tough. Hell, John Kerry is tough. Do you see us flying onto aircraft carriers wearing a Halloween costume and announcing the end of something that's barely begun? And the rest of my party has lost its way. Looking back, I probably joined the wrong team. And if I am ever going to do something shake things up and stand up against that which politically disgusts me, now just might be the moment. That said, of course I'd never consider being Kerry's running mate. I'm a Republican.
 Hey, she's 1-0 when it comes to presidential election results, so it's big news that Karen Hughes is basically back in the campaign biz working for W. Her return comes with the release of her book Ten Minutes from Normal. It could have just as easily been titled Ten Hours from the Truth. In her coming out party on Meet the Press, Hughes defended everything about the President, often masterfully. On the WMD issue? Heck, we can't even yet be sure that nothing will be found. These things take time. Even the flightsuit was positioned as the right move. Asked to name a mistake that W made in his first term, she drew a blank (hey, when you're good, you're good). So was there any sign of weakness in the now well-rested spinmaster's presentation. Oh yes. The shirt, which was at least ten years from being in style (and even then, only at certain B tier rodeo events). The frills were downright scary and may even have been displayed in an attempt to create a Kryptonite-effect on dumbfounded Dems. I can only hope Wonkette can get to the bottom of this attire selection, thus freeing the Kerry team to get back down to business.
Broder: "Instead of acting as the man in charge and saying to the commission, "No, you may not put my national security adviser on the mat, but I will answer to the public for what happened," he did just the opposite. He gave up Rice and then turned on his heel and walked out of the briefing room even as reporters were trying to ask him questions."
Democrats are constantly being challenged to defend the liberal label. Well, on this day, I am going to go one step further. I am a card carrying member of the intellectual elite. I am willing to set aside the internal shame that's been built up over the years of listening to Hannity and O'Reilly. The heck with it. I am a lot smarter than dumb people. I think world events are more complex than they might seem. I think it takes more than a soundbite to explain a twenty-year career. Man, this is liberating (or is that liberalating?). I think I know more than people who know very little. I find myself wanting to listen to and read the words of those who are considered smart. I want my president to be more intelligent and informed than me. Sometimes when I listen to Terry Gross, In get sort of aroused. I took a drama class in college and I know that World Wrestling is fake. I think the Times and the Post are evenhanded, except that they go too easy on Bush and his arch-conservative base. I have a friend who moved to France! And I'm not the only one who's coming out. It's happening in Hollywood. You know those left-wing, intellectual, creative, Hollywood nut jobs? I like them too. The more creative the better. I love satire and smart humor. I prefer HBO to Pax. I can't wait to tell my intellectual, academic-minded, liberal shrink about this outburst. Hell yes I'm in therapy. I am an introspective, self-absorbed, brainiac. I relate to Larry David, but I look down upon Jeff Foxworthy. I watch the Fab Five and the L-Word. Britney's exposed midriff is the thing I enjoy most about her. And those charges I used to fear; the ones that accuse all creative types of intellectualism and liberalism; they don't scare me anymore. I even like it when Hollywood shows alter their scripts just so that they can work in a line or a moment that rips Bush. Oh yeah, and I also think Franken is pretty funny.
The U.S. has called on NATO to take an official role in Iraq. NATO's response. We're too busy with Afghanistan.
The U.S. has decided to to photograph and fingerprint visitors from 27 nations that do not require visas to enter the country.
The Kerry campaign is smashing Democratic fundraising records. In the last three months, they've raised moe than $50 million. A huge chunk of that has come via the internet.
Spanish police found a bomb under the track of a high speed train line between Madrid and Seville.
Maybe it's time for John Kerry to finally embrace his Jewishness. Over at the Vatican they've been discussing the dilemma posed by the Democractic candidate. Sure he's Catholic. But he's not nearly Catholic enough.
We are all well aware of the Bush administration's secrecy fetish when it comes to sharing sensitive information. But what we didn't know is that this dedication to withholding information actually extends to keeping Clinton's papers private. Even though the Clinton people have approved sharing docs with the 9-11 commission, the Bush team has blocked thousands of pages from being turned over the the panel.
Job growth may finally be catching up with some of the other economic indicators. In March, the economy added more than 300,000 new jobs, greatly exceeding expectations.
As much as I've been moved by Janeane Garofalo's shoulder tattoo that proudly proclaims that she is a liberal, I haven't been moved by AirAmerica (not just because of the obvious pun opportunity offered by their choice of a name). It's not the quality of the shows or even my hesitation in believing that Chuck D is going to finally bring the combination of on-air skills and intellectual firepower needed to raise the voice of Dems on talk radio. It's way too early to even talk quality at this point.
Here are my three problems with AirAmerica. First, the name of Al Franken's show is the O'Franken factor. Cute? Sure. Poking fun at a guy who smart people love to hate? Absolutely. But why label yourself a parody? As creative and entertaining as you may have found Weird Al Yankovic in his prime, he never rose to the level of those he parodied (no matter how hard Jacko tried). Second, I don't think that labeling an entire network a certain way will attract the kind of audience as you'd get by simply backing a number of individual radio show hosts who label themselves as being smart, tough and right on the issues and let the best ones rise and fill key slots. Related to this, if Franken's show happens to fail, this whole project goes up in smoke. Period. I've never thought of building a radio personality as being a team sport.
The third and most critical issue: Liberals and their smart friends hate right wing radio for more than the politics. This kind of loudmouth, strictly partisan, ego-driven, simpleminded hogwash has lowered the level of intelligence in our country (and they said it couldn't be done!). I'm worried that with the launch of an identical yet opposite slate of partisan bickerers, we're doing little more than throwing shit back at the monkeys. Entertaining to be sure. But effective?
Kerry again calls on Bush to accept the debate challenge. This time he is calling for six debates in key swing states. (Did someone say debates?) OK, so maybe this challenge was an April Fool's Joke. Hilarious.
The three biggest troop contributions in Iraq come from the U.S., the Brits and private contractors.
Saudi Arabia's American Ambassador is assuring Americans that the supply of Saudi oil will continue to flow at reasonable prices. "We will not allow shortages in the market because that will hurt the world economy, and Saudi Arabia does not live on the moon: When the world economy gets hurt, we get hurt also. The president and the crown prince have been in touch on this subject for a while now. Both leaders feel strongly that higher energy prices have a negative impact on world economy." Couple thoughts. First, it's interresting to note the reference to the moon in the Prince's statement. A subtle voicing of support for the Bush mars program? Another obvious subtext: If you Americans didn't let women drive, you'd have a lot less gas problems right about now.
Help (Really, Really) Wanted: Ambassadorship to Iraq position soon to be opening. Any takers? (Could it be Wolfowitz)?
Democrats have long known they needed more voices on the radio, but who knew that Chuck D would be the one to lead us? I'm all for good, funny, smart, entertaining shows that happen to share my political point of view. But I wonder if labeling an entire network as being something is really the best way to go about this.
Silence Emboldens: On the quiet side when it comes to the full court press on Dick Clarke -- Powell and Tenet.
From the NY Times: "Mr. Kerry's low profile occurs at what would seem to be a particularly opportune time for the senator. Mr. Bush has been struggling with questions about his record on terrorism, and Mr. Kerry had been riding on a wave of excitement after his capture of the Democratic nomination. "Yet Mr. Kerry was off the campaign trail yet again on Wednesday, this time for shoulder surgery in Boston, an operation expected to sideline him through Sunday. The surgery followed his weeklong disappearance to the slopes of Sun Valley." I know sometimes it's hard to come up with a political analysis of shoulder surgery, but this is really over-doing it. First, it's better that Kerry has been out of the spotlight during the time when Bush is facing negative momentum. Second, and more importantly, it's only April. Would it be better if Kerry had his surgery in August or September. Better he takes care of it now so he's fully ready to pitch in the playoffs.
When you think about the core goal of the 9-11 Commission (figuring out why 9-11 happened and how to make improvement that will reduce the potential for a recurrence), it seems ludicrous to even imagine that such a panel would not ever even exist. But the truth of the matter is that all of Congress didn't push that hard for it. And the White House resisted it at every turn. So why do we have this commission asking why? A key factor is a group of Sept 11 widows who are known in Washington as the Jersey Girls. They pushed for the creation of the panel. And they pushed for certain members of the administration to appear before the panel. From Thomas H. Kean, the commission's chairman" "They call me all the time. They monitor us, they follow our progress, they've supplied us with some of the best questions we've asked. I doubt very much if we would be in existence without them." The realization that the creation of this commission was not obvious and immediate represents the worst of politics. The Jersey Girls and what they've accomplished represents the best.
According to a poll taken by L.A. Times, people generally believe what Richard Clarke is saying is the truth. But they think the timing of his comments is politically motivated (which would seem more likely if the book came out in October). Here are the rest of the numbers from the poll.
Condoleeza Rice was scheduled to give a speech on "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday." The speech was scheduled for Sept 11, 2001. It covered items such as missile defense, but there wasn't much of a focus on terrorism and Islamic radicals. Interesting? To be sure. But every cycle spent trying to portray the Bush administration as weak on terror before 9-11, is a cycle that could be spent on the real issue. Their performance after 9-11, specifically when it comes to Iraq.
Hardball spent the full hour on an interview between Chris Matthews and Richard Clarke on Wednesday. Matthews (note: I am addicted viewer), looking to play, well, Hardball, came out swinging. But as the interview progressed he was reduced to the role of small child asking daddy to tell more stories about what things are like at his office. By the end of the interview, the biggest scoop that could be announced by the host was that some proceeds will go to charity if there is ever a movie based on Clarke's experiences. I like some things about Clarke and I am a critic of others. As I've mentioned before, I think he is way late with this book and any notion that it had to be delayed (thus robbing the public of important opinions regarding the decision to go to Iraq until after the fact) because of Clarke's determination to complete his report on cyberterrorism is absurd.  But this is the kind of person we don't see come around much in politics or media. Richard Clarke is a friggin' rock. On Hardball, he managed to almost recline (he was sitting on a stool) as he crossed his legs and calmly defused all attacks. You can almost hear Clint's theme song from The Good, the Bad and the Ugly everytime this guy walks onto a set. Among the most interesting exchanges came during a discussion of the potentially crucial 9-11 related intel that didn't make it up the chain of command. Clarke: "Information came in to CIA that two terrorists who had been involved in the USS Cole attack were entering the United States. Some low-level person in CIA was supposed to ...to take that information and move it into another communication system so it was distributed to the FBI, and the State Department, and potentially my office. That person didn't do that, and most of the year went by. Over a year went by. I still don't understand because no one has ever explained to me, not for blame game, but who was that person? Why was the system reliant on one person?" Here's a transcript of the interview.
| 
