JustOneMinute

I May Have To Vote For Kerry

Bush can deliver occasionally, but for day-in, day-out steadiness and reliabilty, Kerry's The One. He really did deliver both of these insights at the same event while responding to questions:

Senator, what would you have done in that schoolroom on the morning of 9/11?:

"First of all, had I been reading to children, and had my top aide whispered in my ear, 'America is under attack,' I would have told those kids very politely and nicely that the president of the United States had business that he needed to attend to, and I would have attended to it."

Bravo, Johnny Danger! And sir, knowing what we know now, would you have taken out Saddam Hussein?

"You bet we might have, after we exhausted [U.N.-led inspections] and found that [Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein] wasn't complying and so on and so forth".

Hmm, he's not so bold when faced with adults. Courage, Tall One!

Does anyone know if Kerry has had his hearing checked recently? The President asked for a yes or no answer, not yes and no.

So, the big question - can I count on Kerry to provide this sort of silliness for four more years? Will I vote for him? You Bet I Might!

UPDATE: Getting warmer!

Knowing then what he knows today about the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Kerry still would have voted to authorize the war and "in all probability" would have launched a military attack to oust Hussein by now if he were president, Kerry national security adviser Jamie Rubin said in an interview Saturday.

The suspense builds inexorably. Will it be war or peace?

Kerry's Advisers Mock His Energy Plan (So I Don't Have To)

On Thursday, Sen. Kerry unveiled his plan for energy independence (apparently a crowd-pleasing concept which we are sure polls well).

On Saturday, the NY Times presented the Kerry rebuttal:

Kerry's Goal of Independence From Middle East Oil Divides Advisers

The idea of a United States independent of Middle East oil is a touchstone of Senator John Kerry's campaign and a huge crowd pleaser, but has divided and exasperated many of his most experienced energy advisers.

Some advisers say they worry that Mr. Kerry's focus on freeing the United States from reliance on oil from the Persian Gulf, the linchpin of the energy plan he released on Thursday, is unrealistic and misleading and that hammering away at it would erode Mr. Kerry's credibility with business, the news media and other countries.

Hmm, that contrasts splendidly with the Washington Post description: His promises to stop the outsourcing of jobs and end dependence on Middle East oil are not grounded in reality.

Well. My (uncharacteristically non-rhetorical) questions:

An Alert Reader Finds Kerry In Cambodia

UPDATE: Another Alert Reader strikes gold - Kerry is back in Cambodia in a 1992 AP Interview. And "Everybody was over there"!

An alert reader has found the Senate floor speech in which Kerry makes the claim that he was in Cambodia in December 1968. That is not good for Kerry (Insert frownie face, and botox it). The Nixon connection is weak, however. This is a disappointment from a comedy and mockery perspective, but hardly central to the main point.

The speech is in an update to "Swimming to Cambodia", below.

Kranish Is Cooked

Michael Kranish rocked us on Friday with a story, headlined "Veteran retracts criticism of Kerry", which told us that:

"a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book.

Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

Get Maureen Dowd on the line - that may have been the most misleading ellipsis ever published, but since the affidavit was not public, who knew?

Subsequently, Capt. Elliot retracted his retraction, prompting some head-scratching.

Now, both the original affidavit and the re-affirmation (the retraction of the retraction) are available here. I will read it again, and you should, too, but my first reaction [Update: and second, and third] is that Kranish wrote a wildly deceptive and misleading story.

Let's restore the missing ellipsis, emboldening the excerpted bit:

3. When Kerry came back to the United States he lied about what ocurred in Vietnam, comparing his commanders to Lt. Calley of My Lai, comparing the American armed forces to the army of Ghengis Khan, and making similar misstatements. Kerry was also not forthright in Vietnam. For example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back.

Hello, Mr. Reporter! When Capt. Elliot "backed off one of the key contentions", was it the My Lai complaint, or the Ghengis Khan comparison? Or was it one example preceded by "for example"?

Unbelievable. In his re-affirming affidavit, Capt. Elliot cites the same material I did to reach this conclusion - he was not informed of the facts, and "had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single, wounded, fleeing VietCong".

This, from the Globe, now looks wildly ironic:

In the ad, Elliott says, ''John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."

Asked to supply evidence to support that statement, the anti-Kerry group provided a copy of Elliott's affidavit. Elliott said the same affidavit had been used in the production of the book.

It is unclear whether the work contains further justification for the assertion, beyond Elliott's statement.

Oh, it is going to be pretty clear, I bet. They still need to back it up, but there will be more. And based on the Filing Frenchman's description of book co-author John O'Neill, the research will be something other than a house of cards.

Earlier, I had guessed that the Swiftees would disappear under the headline of "Cranks can't get story straight". But if Kranish has been this irresponsible, the Swiftees will sail on as the heroes of a "Liberal media attempts to squash Veteran truth-tellers" drama.

Don't even ask me about Joe Wilson.

MORE: Let's give Kranish a little credit here - Elliot does seem to be on both sides of the "did he shoot him in the back" question. But this early quote in the story - "Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star" - seems to be an out of context interpretation of the full quote, which runs later - ''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

One might plausibly argue, as Elliott now does, that the "terrible mistake" was to cite that somewhat immaterial detail, rather than to focus on the (subjective but irrefutable) war crimes accusations.

UPDATE: The Globe stands by its story, offering a legalistc "the quote is accurate" defense. I assume the quote is accurate; all that is missing is an appropriate context. Print the affidavit - the relevant section (3) is only about three sentences, as demonstrated above.

The NY Times is scarcely better - they can't find space for three sentences either.

And hey, is that Atrios, posting as Duncan B. Black at Mind Over Media Matters? Apparently, co-author Jon Corsi is associated with the Free Republic and delivers the snark when dissing Dems. I bet he wears inappropriate t-shirts, too. Burn his book now!

And a hint to Not Sirius - December comes at the end of the year. Worth noting.

Finally, some commenters seem to think that the Boston Globe article didn't really create the impression that Elliott had retracted his entire affidavit. FactCheck staggered to that erroneous impression, as did most of the commenters found here. (And isn't my faith in tedious things like evidence kind of poignant?)

This Is Going Well

The DNC Religious Coordinator experiences a personal separation of church from state; the Democratic Truth Squad is mocked as liars - bring it on!

A Trove Of Comedy Classics

I was looking for something else, and found this compendium of Kerrymania - think of them as potato chips for the Kerryphobic.

Swimming To Cambodia

[UPDATE: A new cite for Kerry in Cambodia - a 1992 AP interview. "Everybody was over there."]

Christmas in Cambodia with John Kerry? Roger Simon and Hugh Hewitt are very intrigued (look for Aug 6, 12:30 for Hugh).

More detail is available in Chapter 3 of the Swiftees book (Christmas in Cambodia starts on p. 17 of the .pdf). Now, set aside (if you can) any sense of these guys as hatchet men, and focus on the specific sources they cite. For example, they claim that on March 27, 1986, John Kerry gave a speech on the Senate floor recounting his time in Cambodia (and deploring the evil President Nixon who sent him there.)

As Hugh Hewitt points out, this is objectively verifiable - someone needs to get the Congressional Record, and see whether these guys are quoting Kerry correctly, taking his words out of context, or what.

Similarly, the Swiftees guide us to the Kerry book by the Boston Globe team, available in bookstores now, as another source for this story. OK, are they lying? Or were the Globe reporters "misinformed" - it wouldn't be the first time, since Michael Kranish also fluffed Kerry's honorable discharge.

Based on Beldar's professional experience with John O'Neill, co-author of the Swiftees' "Unfit for Command", my guess is that the aspects of this book that can be researched will pass at least casual inspection.

For an excellent discussion that preceded the Swiftee book, check this out - these gents did a fine job of showing that Kerry was not where he said he was when Nixon wasn't saying that Kerry wasn't there.

Now, I can't help you find a bookstore. And I don't think you can find Kerry's 1986 speech online, since the Congressional Record is available online only back to 1994. However, this page helps you find libraries that carry it - I already have mine targetted.

MORE: Let's pre-empt one possible Kerry defense, which would be, hypothetically, "His phrasing may have been awkward, but he knew in 1970 that Nixon was lying because he had been there in 1968". Fine, but he wasn't there! Don't let his defenders rebut the minor point and slide past the big one.

UPDATE: All eyes turn to AntiMedia, who has dug up some Kerry speeches from 1986, but can't find the mystery speech - yet. This is far from over - the Unfit for Command book footnotes the Kerry floor speech cite, but, naturally, the portion of the book with the footnotes is not excerpted. However, as noted by Beldar, John O'Neill has done some research in his time.

UPDATE: We have a Bingo! On the major point, he really did tell the US Senate that he was in Cambodia. Good for the Swiftees, bad for Kerry. On the other hand, the Nixon connection is tenuous; let's score that minor point against the Swiftees.

How Kerry might reconcile his claim with his military records, I don't know. And the Kerry website won't help - it does not show after-action reports for December 1968. Why not?

And the Command History picks up on January 1, 1969. What unexpected bad luck.

Speech excerpted below:

More On Pakistan Versus Al Qaeda

Kamran Khan and Dana Priest score a front-pager on the efforts in Pakistan against Al Qaeda. The timeline of the roll-up of High Value Targets makes a nice counterpoint to the "Waiting for the Balloon Drop" theory that generated so much discussion.

More from the FT: Pakistan has uncovered fresh evidence as to where al-Qaeda leaders may be hiding along its border with Afghanistan, senior Pakistani officials said on Friday.

You Take The High Road...

And I'll be John Kerry, who said:

"I want to address these next words directly to President George W. Bush.

In the weeks ahead, let's be optimists, not just opponents. Let's build unity in the American family, not angry division. Let's honor this nation's diversity. Let's respect one another. And let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States.

My friends, the high road may be harder, but it leads to a better place."

before he said:

"First of all, had I been reading to children, and had my top aide whispered in my ear, 'America is under attack,' I would have told those kids very politely and nicely that the president of the United States had business that he needed to attend to, and I would have attended to it."

Tim Blair is suitably savage.

UPDATE: Having been reminded that Sen. Kerry was simply answering a question, I must express my delight that he has ended his boycott of hypothetical questions, at least about the past; now, if only we can get him to focus on the future...

We are also disappointed to learn that Mr. Kleiman considers "Give 'em Hell" to be somehow consistent with taking the high road. Give 'em four more years, I say! And I will echo the Senator in saying, "Let's respect one another".

Finally, George Stephanopolous was fascinating on this subject.

UPDATE: The WaPo lets Teresa slap Kerry silly.

MORE: My Bad! Kerry has answered the question (linked above) of whether he would have taken out Saddam if he knew then what we know now: "You bet we might have".

Oh, you think I'm cheating - a more complete quote is ""You bet we might have, after we exhausted [U.N.-led inspections] and found that [Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein] wasn't complying and so on and so forth". And yada, yada, and a little bit of this, and a little bit of that, and maybe I can talk him to death and then bore his heirs...

He MUST Be A Kerry Guy!

Did Lieutenant Commander George Elliott actually say, "I was for the affidavit before I was against it"?

NO, but we wish he had. Except for a minor hiccup in the commentary, my story below is fine, and covers a lot of the same ground as the Boston Globe story. And, while on the subject, here is a retraction from the Kerry side about his dates of service that no one has noticed.

[UPDATE: And now Elliott retracts the retraction - from Drudge:

The following statement from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth concerns an article appearing in morning edition of the BOSTON GLOBE, written by GLOBE reporter and author of the official Kerry-Edwards campaign book, Mike Kranish.

"Captain George Elliott describes an article appearing in today’s edition of the BOSTON GLOBE by Mike Kranish as extremely inaccurate and highly misstating his actual views. He reaffirms his statement in the current advertisement paid for by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Captain Elliott reaffirms his affidavit in support of that advertisement, and he reaffirms his request that he ad be played.

“Additional documentation will follow...

They then refer to the Boston Globe reports we discuss in this post.

OK! We are going full speed ahead here; later, we will figure out whether we are headed up- or down-river. And since it looks like George "Elastic" Elliott will agree with the last guy to talk to him, we await developments (and we kinda hope someone asks him if he buried Jimmy Hoffa).

That said, since this seems to have degenerated into a weird credibility contest we have our own little quarrel with Mr. Kranish. Both in his Boston Globe profile of John Kerry and in his book, he presented the now-discredited information that John Kerry was honorably discharged in January, 1970. The Kerry people have (ever so quietly) corrected the record - will Mr. Kranish? Email Kranish@globe.com]

Now, in this [initial] retraction [retraction.o1], Elliott seems to be focussed on the question of whether Kerry shot a fleeing Viet Cong in the back. As my earlier post demonstrates, that is hardly the only discrepancy between the Silver Star citation and the other accounts.

[SORRY, another update - here is a link to the retraction affidavit, and the original affidavit. Elliot says the same thing I do - shooting the guy in the back is not central to his argument. At first glance, Kranish is cooked.]

We also note that the Boston Globe reporter uses a selective excerpt - when asked about the possibility that he shot the person in the back, Kerry said more than just ''No, absolutely not". (I don't say a lot more than "who cares", BTW, but evidently people do.)

My longish post also uncovers a possible loose end - are there still some missing records at the Kerry website? There are suggestions that Kerry was on patrols on March 18 and 19, but there are no after-action reports beyond March 13.

One wonders where this story is headed - Michael Moore made a million errors, yet remains a hero to Democrats. However, my guess is that the press will point to this retraction of one part of one allegation, and ignore the Swift Veterans forever.

Final result - Kerry is a noble veteran who served his country and would never make up stories, distort his service record, or exploit his military background for partisan purposes.

However, if other veterans criticize him, they are just lying, uninformed, partisan hacks.

Rassmann, the Green Beret Kerry pulled from the water, does get to the heart of this at the end of the Boston Globe piece:

Those questioning Kerry's medals, Rassmann said, are ''angry about John speaking out against the [Vietnam] war."

Yes, these are simply not pro-life Republicans who decided one day to make up lies about John Kerry.

MORE: Good links from Glenn.

The Swift Vets Versus Kerry

Matt Drudge excerpts some incendiary charges against John Kerry from the new Swift Veterans attack book, "Unfit for Command". Interestingly, the major details seems to be confirmed by Kerry's own story as told to the Boston Globe. More interestingly, Kerry's Silver Star citation (see page 7 of this .pdf file) provides an account of the action which is much closer to the Swift Vets story than to Kerry's story. Since the Globe reporter also quotes the Silver Star citation, we can not explain why he overlooked these details.

Let's start with the Drudge headline - VETS CHARGE: KERRY KILLED FLEEING TEEN; LIED FOR MEDAL /Slaughters Animals, Burns Down Tiny Village.

According to the Silver Star citation, Kerry leaped ashore, pursued the "man" behind a hooch, and killed him. That is not quite the version told either in Drudge, or by Kerry to the Boston Globe - there, another man wounded the "teenager", who fled and was shot by Kerry. Hmm, what is the age of majority in Vietnam?

Drudge, and the Silver Star citation, make clear that Kerry was leading a three boat patrol with thirty Vietnamese soldiers per "unit" (if I am following this, a "unit" seems to be one Swift boat, although I am advised that ten soldiers per boat is more likely), so Kerry was backed by plenty of force. One would not get that from the Globe.

We have more extensive excerpts below, but let me offer a few comments - first, combat is confusing and after-action accounts differ; it is clear from the Globe that even Kerry and his crew remember many things differently. Let's go easy on the word "liar".

Secondly, the Swift Vets may be right on many (or all) of these facts, and wrong in their conclusions - for example, the Naval officers who recommended Kerry for a Silver Star were probably well aware of the circumstances in which he won it; they were also aware of the PR and morale value of recognizing a Yalie like Kerry. [UPDATE: I, on the other hand, was not aware of this affidavit and retraction story. Fortunately, my research is stronger than my commentary, so the rest of this post is not affected.]

Excerpts below.

Spinsanity Searches For The Truth

Sen. Kerry has been caught over-promoting his miltary service by Brendan Nyhan, and we can report new developments in a Kerry credibility crunch that we have been following. Kerry, his military history, and the truth - let's try to introduce them to each other.

Brendan Nyhan of Spinsanity probes the overstatements made by Kerry's supporters, and at Kerry's website, about the circumstances under which Kerry volunteered for service in the Swift boats.

Meanwhile, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have an ad attacking Kerry, which John McCain has condemned.

Kerry has made his Vietnam service a centerpiece of his campaign, so this is not wholly unexpected. And as Collin Levey points out in the Seattle Times, Kerry has a bit of a credibility problem:

"It's an unhappy impression of unrivaled opportunism that continues to define Kerry now as it did then, and which strikes many voters as the most legitimate and adhesive charge against his qualification to be commander in chief."

On the subject of Kerry's credibility with respect to his service record, there has been a very quiet new development. And we imagine the Kerry people would prefer that it remain quiet, since once again we find the Senator at a convenient distance from the truth.

The puzzle - there was a time, prior to the release of his military records in April, when Kerry's press releases described an odd gap in his service:

As a Decorated Combat Veteran of the Vietnam War, John Kerry Knows the Importance of a Strong Defense - Kerry volunteered for the United States Navy after college and served from 1966 through 1970 rising to the rank of Lieutenant, Junior Grade. Afterwards, Kerry continued his military service in the United States Naval Reserves from 1972 through 1978.

What about that two year service gap? Did Kerry leave the military, spend two years as a leader of the anti-war movement, and then re-join the Reserves? Or was he in the Reserves the whole time?

These were the two years during which he met privately with a North Vietnamese delegation and accused his fellow soldiers of war crimes in Vietnam - is it possible that Kerry prefered to soft-pedal the fact that he was an officer in the Naval Reserve while he did that?

The release of his miltary records answered the "service gap" question - Kerry was transfered to the Naval Reserves in 1970, and Honorably Discharged in 1978. There was no two year service gap, despite the impression given by his press releases.

So how is this revision to his biography presented at the Kerry website? Characteristically, it is straddled. His bio page is hazy on dates, but a summary in the upper right hand corner informs us that he was in the US Navy from 1966 to 1970.

On the other hand, these July press releases are quite clear:

Kerry volunteered for the United States Navy after college and served from 1966 through 1970 rising to the rank of Lieutenant, Junior Grade. Afterwards, Kerry continued his military service in the United States Naval Reserves through 1978.

How about that? The early press releases were, hmm, misleading. His military records were released in April - the first accurate press release is from May 3. (Oddly, the last misleading release is from May 28, tied to an Hispanic ad campaign. Que pasa?).

So - the Kerry campaign launched in early 2003 and for more than a year ran the wrong information about their war hero's miltary service. Is it fair to wonder what other barnacles of mistruth have accumulated on the Good Ship Kerry over the years? And are the Kerry people in any hurry to publicize their correction of this record?

They might start with the NY Times, which wrote this last April in a piece titled "Kerry's Antiwar Past Is a Delicate Issue in His Campaign"

Two weeks later, he married Julia Thorne, and on a trip to Europe with his new bride, Mr. Kerry, the 26-year-old ex-lieutenant took a taxicab from Paris to a suburban villa. The son of a diplomat, Mr. Kerry had managed to arrange a private meeting with North Vietnamese and Vietcong emissaries to the peace talks.

A delicate issue, indeed. Do you suppose the Kerry people prefer the Times version, or would they prefer to see "and on a trip to Europe with his new bride, Mr. Kerry, the 26-year lieutenant in the Naval Reserve... managed to arrange a private meeting with North Vietnamese and Vietcong emissaries to the peace talks." You make the call!

And feel free to call the LA Times as well, which published this, also in April:

"Mr. Kerry, please move your microphone," Sen. Stuart Symington (D-Mo.) prodded the 27-year-old former Navy lieutenant during a climactic appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "You have a Silver Star, have you not?"

Former? The Kerry campaign has dropped that pretense. A bit later in the story, the LA Times recycles the mistake about the Paris meeting:

The war kept drawing him back. Newly married and on honeymoon in France, Kerry detoured from his vacation to meet with South and North Vietnamese delegates to the Paris peace talks. How a 26-year-old private citizen without a political track record connected with the negotiators is unclear.

How a major newspaper could fail to correct this is also unclear.

We posted on this last April when these NY Times and LA Times stories came out, and our themes remain the same - Kerry has been slippery with the truth, and the press has been complicit. Is it unrealistic to expect a reporter to read or understand a military record?

We also should point out that the "service gap" is a misapprehension that has been brewing for years, and seems to date back to a 1970 interview Kerry had with the Harvard Crimson, which reported that "Now 26, [Kerry] was honorably discharged from the Navy last month". Was the source for that Kerry himself? How many confused staffers did he have in 1970? We only wish that the reporter had asked whether Kerry was Irish - self-serving misunderstandings seem to follow Kerry around.

This error has been repeated in the Boston Globe profiles, the Boston Globe book, and the famous Douglas Brinkley hagiography (p. 338).

Obviously, some of these stories pre-dated the release of Kerry's records, although what Douglas Brinkley was looking at is a question worth asking, and which he won't answer coming from me. (And yes, my e-mails are quite polite).

Now that the Kerry campaign has embraced the truth, however discreetly, perhaps the major media could do the same.

MORE: Judy Woodruff of CNN lets a Swift Vet for Truth slug it out with a Vet for Kerry regarding one of Kerry's valorous acts. One wonders if these two guys are even describing the same day.

Pejman's Money Can't Buy It

You can read it.

NOW He Tells Us! Looks Like Kerry Was Right

George Bush, briefly possessed by the spirit of Michael Moore, told a room full of Generals that:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

It looks like Kerry was right when he warned us about "bigotry or hatred in the leadership of our nation?"

It's yet another reason to support Kerry - if he decides to attack America, he will at least be "more sensitive".

Hmm, was Bush talking about taxes, trade, something else, or all of the above? This may affect Dan Drezner's position.

Three Card Kerry

Max Boot thinks John Kerry is playing Three Card Monte with us on foreign policy:

There are three main schools of American foreign policy: isolationism, idealism and realism. At various points in his career — sometimes at various points in the same speech — Kerry has championed all of them.

Full Disclosure - I have never won playing Three Card Monte.

"This Land" At JibJab

I am late to this, but the animation is a riot.

The highlight of this political season so far - and probably through the election - has to be an Internet cartoon featuring singing presidential candidates.

If you haven't seen "Bush" and "Kerry" at www.jibjab.com, well, where have you been?

To the tune of Woody Guthrie's "This Land Is Your Land," Bush and Kerry caricatures attack one another in song, almost as vaudeville performers...

Don't read it, watch it. This may top "Go, balloons."

I'm Glad He Wasn't Worried

TIME magazine interviews the lead Federal Air Marshall on the Syrian band terror flight. For a guy whose bottom line is that there was "never an imminent threat" to the passengers or plane, he sure took a lot of interest in the band members.

It will be interesting to see whether this is claimed as a rebuttal by the "nothing to see, move on" crowd.

MORE: Yes, it will also be interesting to see if I provide any links at all. Time would tell, if I had any...

UPDATE: Ahh, links and thoughts!

Comedy Is Not Pretty

Comedy writing is not polite. So sue. The WSJ has more. The word "runamock" is called for.

"I Honestly Do Not Recall"

Joe Wilson creeps back onto our radar - Democracy Now has a transcript of his remarks at the panned-in-Boston Wilson-sighting during convention week.

Let's see, it is an orchestrated smear campaign designed to derail the criminal investigation, yeah, yeah. Right wing blogs get mentioned, so let's welcome Kevin Drum and Bob Somerby to our side of the aisle (somebody hand them a BC04 button and buy them a t-shirt).

Right, then, let's wave in yet another rebuttal witness. Sen. Bond - Kit Bond - of the SSCI shared his thoughts about Wilson on PBS (we were there) and on the Senate floor (we are (un)fashionably late). Among other things, the Senator discussed the question of whether Valerie Plame was involved in the selection of Wilson for the trip. The Senate staff had asked her that very question in January; the Senator asked them to check the transcript, and he was astonished by her answer - "I honestly do not recall if I suggested it to my boss".

I do not fully share his surprise at her conveniently lapsed memory. Ms. Plame is a highly trained covert operator, schooled in techniques that will enable her to resist the most vigourous of interrogations by Russkies and other baddies (not that the Russkies are baddies now, but... oh, forget it). We did not know that the training technique included listening to old Steve Martin routines, but it is still impressive to see a top pro in action.

Born To Run And Hide

Bruce Springsteen is no longer simply waiting for Hillary!, Queen of Arkansas - he and a group of performers are hitting the concert trail for Kerry-Edwards this October, he tells us in a NY Times op-ed. We are especially intrigued by his priorities for a new administration:

[Kerry and Edwards] understand that we need an administration that places a priority on fairness, curiosity, openness, humility, concern for all America's citizens, courage and faith.

Right now, I'll settle for not getting blown up.

Allah can't keep a straight face.

Auto-Rebut At The Times

Tom Ridge's announced last Sunday an increased threat to targets in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Newark, NJ. That, coupled with the follow-up news on the nature of the intelligence (something old, something new, something borrowed...) has left the NY Times editors so shocked and non-plussed that they are now opining with the Auto-Rebut feature activated. What should poor Tom Ridge do - to warn, or not to warn?

The alert system has always rested on a precarious balance. Local officials must have up-to-date information about possible danger. Private citizens need to know, too, so they can make informed choices and be on the lookout for trouble.

Makes sense. A pack, not a herd. But read on:

Ordinary people have no way of calibrating their lives to the color ladder. It does them no good to be told to be scared, more scared or really scared, especially when they are also being told to act as if nothing's wrong. Unless the government is prepared to tell people to stay home from work, there's no reason to keep lighting the terror lamps. What we need is information that we can use, not another shot of adrenaline.

So we need to be urged to be especially vigilant, without anyone actually saying anything. I urge the President to get right on this!

Shorter Times: What are people who think every word from BushCo is a lie supposed to do? And how can we be expected to live in a world where 2+2=4 even if Tom Ridge says it does?

Gregory Djerejian held the Times by the throat yesterday. So did Lynxx Pherrett.

UPDATE: Please tell me I have overlooked an earlier story at the Times. Their coverage of this announcement has already been bi-polar - alarmed on Monday, skeptical on Tuesday, red-faced on Wednesday. But here is Thursday's lede from the front page:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 4 - They scouted the streets. They took photographs. They wrote detailed surveillance reports. And then, after five years of patiently waiting, Al Qaeda operatives carried out the devastating suicide truck bombing at the American Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, in August 1998, killing more than 200 people and injuring thousands.

Well, no kidding. How has this little tidbit eluded them since Monday, and when are they going to remember that it was cited in the only President's Daily Brief the great unwashed have ever read?

Maybe someone should get them a subscription to the NY Times - All The News That's Fit to Forget.

MORE: I see that Lynxx Pherrett is just murdering da bums, with a musical follow-up here.

Sen. Shelby, Life's Ironist

According to Drudge, Thursday's WaPo will finger [has fingered] Sen. Shelby (R, Alabama), former Chairman of the Senate Select Committe on Intelligence, as the culprit following a two-year probe into a leak of classified information involving the 9/11 attacks. This is not a bolt from the blue - last January, he was tapped as a "the focus of the leak".

Well. We hereby exhort all Chairman to take national security seriously, especially if they chair intelligence committees. But Sen. Shelby's situation is especially amusing (in a ghastly way, of course).

Back in 2000, the Once-Secretive Senator championed the Shelby Amendment, which would "for the first time explicitly would make disclosing classified information to the media a felony punishable by up to three years in prison. This idea was eventually shelved, he will be relieved to recall.

The Senator's website tells us that he "has been critical of the CIA and other branches of the intelligence community, citing the need for stronger accountability standards."

Accountability, indeed.

It will be interesting to see how the Senate Ethics Committee handles this; back when the leak investigation was launched there was grumbling that the Executive Branch was trying to intimidate the Congressional overseers. It does appear that Separation of Powers plus Public's Right to Know trumped Letter of the Law.

MORE: Ahh, here we go - Perhaps a Grand Menage a Quatre involving Berger, Shelby, and the Plame leakers will be announced just after the balloon drop in New York City. Three Reps for one Dem...

A bit of a Drudge-watch - he headlines the leak to Fox News, but Fox did not run it; Shelby then talked to CNN, which did.

And the WaPo mentions the Plame investigation, so I am not alone in my obsessing.

UPDATE: Nick Confessore of TAPPED can't figure out why the media is not crucifying Shelby for leaking to the media; after all, they crucifed Berger for behavior which was quite different and self-serving.

I assume that Nick C. can see quite clearly that the media knows which of these two behaviors butters their bread, so rather than conclude that Nick is one of the dimmer bulbs on the tree, I'll pencil him in as a disingenuous rabble-rouser. It may be amusing to see how many other lefties adopt this phony spin. (OK, it may also be fun to watch the grass grow and the sun set - all these activities have a certain calming predictability to them).

UPDATE 2: Excellent job by Tacitus, who digs up an Oct 2001 NY Times editorial decrying Bush's bid for secrecy and Congressional restraint.

Thoughts On Civility

Paul Craddick is aspirational and informational. ("Informational" - what are you, an 'effing moron?.... Shove it.)

Beyond The "Poll Internals"

The Man Without Poll Internals tries a different research approach.

UPDATE: The Brother Judd has been following the Ray Fair model for a while.

The model is curently predicting that Bush gets 57% opf the popular vote. The model's largest error was in the Bush/Clinton/Perot election of 1992, when it had a prediction error of 5%.

So, either the new Bush becomes even more of a statistical outlier than his Dad, or he wins.

Bob Somerby Deserves It

Paul Krugman did well in picking out Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler as a helpful guide to our media follies. Today, Battlin' Bob takes on the "Kerry as most liberal Senator" talking point. Bob may be left, but he's right - Kerry is not that liberal, and the Dems and media he cites are doing a miserable job of pushing back on this.

Oh, yes - I got there via Glenn, not Paul.

UPDATE: OK, Bob may be wrong (and I, too, but let's focus on Bob). Here is the Man Sans Q. Professor Bainbridge also questions the suitability of the Poole method, and draws a response. And Glenn has lots of links.

Duncan "He Is Not Sirius" Black Delivers The Funnies

The blogger formerly known as Atrios, now revealed to be Duncan "Not Sirius" Black, is a media critic by day and a blog-comic by night.

We found this entry to be especially amusing - Not Sirius provides without comment a story telling us that "Iraqis visiting on a civil rights tour [in Memphis, TN] were barred from city hall after the city council chairman said it was too dangerous to let them in.

No, that is not funny, it is disgraceful. What is funny is that neither the media nor Not Sirius himself mentioned the party affiliation of the city council chairman, Joe Brown.

Is he a Democrat? Who knows? And guess what - responding to a commenter, Not Sirius tells us that he doesn't care whether this guy is a Republican or a Democrat. Uh huh. I can't shake the feeling that if Joe Brown were a Republican, we would be hearing about it, and hearing about the media whitewash, from the "No Republican bashing left behind" crowd. So as to "don't care", color me skeptical.

But while coloring me, please be very careful in your choice of colors - this "Celebrate Diversity" post delivers a blistering critique of wardrobe choices, but then... well, any explanation would step on the punchline, which is delivered in the concluding paragraph.

He can't be serious.

More: Michelle Malkin will Celebrate Diversity, too, and we thank Memeorandum.

UPDATE: Let's bring the other Media Matters maven, Oliver Willis, back into the mix. A media critic who doesn't read the media - where do I sign up?

UPDATE 2: Glenn has lots more; Kalblog makes the unexpected Frank J connection; Camedwards has diversity and guns, and attitude; Steve Gilliard spanks Frank J's "monkey" - and this time he's serious. Steve's position on the ABC Note "Googling Monkeys" is under investigation, although how it can be anything other than a clear allusion to plantations and chain gangs eludes me. Look for "Free the Googling Monkeys" t-shirts soon.

(Waddya mean, they didn't have Google on plantations? How could anyone get anything done without Google? Is that why they lost?)

Maybe They'll Listen To Doc Drezner

[UPDATE: This NY Times piece is wildly relevant, but came hours too late to be woven in gracefully (or otherwise.]

A few weeks ago it was The New Republic that ran off the rhetorical rails; now, Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly crashes into the same intellectual ditch, wondering about Administration pressure on Pakistan and asking, "I wonder why they couldn't do this in the summer of 2002. And the summer of 2003. Why did we wait until the summer of 2004 to put the screws on them?"

In a word - Kashmir. But rarely am I am man of few words, so let's flip the baton to Dan Drezner, who addressed this repeatedly:

May 12, 2003: SOUTH ASIAN TERRORIST WEB SITES
While the media is focused on the Mideast road map for peace -- not that there's anything wrong with that!! -- attention has drifted from other flash points -- like South Asia. Alyssa Ayres writes in the Wall Street Journal that although recent trends are positive, Pakistani support for -- or benign neglect of -- terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba will remain a sticking point:

December 22, 2003: The bargaining strength of weak leaders
Over the weekend, there was good news out of South Asia: In pursuit of peace with India, Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, is prepared to abandon his country's 50-year quest for a U.N.-mandated referendum on the future of the disputed Himalayan territory of Kashmir, according to an interview published Thursday.

December 25, 2003: An interesting month for Pervez Musharraf
Buried in a Newsweek story about the prospects of capturing bin Laden was the following nugget of information about Al Qaeda's strategy vis-à-vis Pakistan:

Qaeda terrorists may have tried to kill Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf with a bomb last week, missing his car by seconds. [bin Laden deputy Ayman] Al-Zawahiri, in the latest video aired by Al-Jazeera on Friday, warned of new attacks. Yet such operations—which require wide networks of operatives, one of whom might be interested in a $25 million reward—could provide intelligence-gathering opportunities to Western agents.

The real test of bin Laden's vulnerability may now come in Pakistan. If the attack on Musharraf proves to be Qaeda-linked—rather than an "inside" assassination attempt, perhaps by members of the Pakistani military—it could backfire against bin Laden by provoking the Pakistani president into decisive action.

January 28, 2004: Dramatic developments in Pakistan?
The Chicago Tribune breaks a big story about U.S. plans for a military offensive inside Pakistan:

[Big skip, and]

...I'd offer some cogent analysis at this point, but I'm torn between two diametrically opposed viewpoints:

1) It's about friggin' time. If the biggest cluster of high-level Al Qaeda operatives are in the mountains of Pakistan, that's where U.S. forces should be.

2) Musharraf clearly feels more secure in his domestic situation than the Western media feels about Musharraf's domestic situation.

Dan Drezner - easy to find, easy to read, not always hard to take.

Now, if either the gents at TNR, or Kevin Drum, dispute the notion that Musharraf's domestic political situation has changed, or that the Pakistani ISI was a one-time sponsor of Al Qaeda and was reluctant to re-direct its loyalties, fine - they ought to say so, and offer a bit of evidence.

But this "gee, why didn't we pressure Pakistan sooner" meme is not serious. Politically effective, I suspect, (and we are waiting for the day when a deep thinker like Maureen Dowd or Paul Krugman echoes it), but not serious.

Other links below. And let's thank John Cole for the high blood pressure.

Oh, Hell, Indeed

Big day for the "H" word - first Theresa, then Don Luskin tells us that the St. Louis Fed made news with a bum study. Good luck tracking that meme down and quashing it.

When You Ain't Got Nothin'

When you ain't got nothin', you run Alan Keyes against Barack Obama.

Anyone who watched the Bush-McCain-Keyes debates in 2000 knows that no audience will be disappointed in 2004.

Sweet Jiminy, This Is Getting Ugly

Ron Fournier, political reporter for the AP, is always spoken of quite highly by the ABC Note. And of course, the AP stories go everywhere. So when Mr. Fournier delivers the journalistic equivalent of the Rodney King beating, I, bouyant, light-hearted, and resolutely not-grim partisan that I am, have to avert my eyes.

But you can peek:

WASHINGTON - John Kerry (news - web sites) says he can "put a deal together" as president to drastically reduce U.S. troop strength in Iraq (news - web sites), a pledge reminiscent of Richard Nixon's secret plan to end the Vietnam War and Dwight D. Eisenhower's promise to stop fighting in Korea.

Nixon comparisons in the lead paragraph? Well, Ike is in there, too...

Like those Republican presidential candidates, the Democrat's blueprint for peace lacks detail and has critics squawking.

Oh, boy.

...when asked for hard evidence that his victory would produce a troops-reducing deal for America, neither Kerry nor his fellow senators cite anything other than their vague perceptions and utmost hopes.

In Jersey, we have a stronger, smellier term for "vague perceptions and utmost hopes".

...Levin wavered on the question of whether any foreign leader promised to get more involved in Iraq if Kerry wins. "It seems to be that's the basic implication," he said at first.

But has any leader made a commitment?

No, he replied.

End the suffering.

Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), D-Del., a top Kerry adviser, thinks Kerry could sway allies better than the president, said spokesman Norm Kurz. But that's only hypothetical — "I don't think there's a guarantee," he said.

Is it over yet?

Kerry voted against the first Persian Gulf War (news - web sites), which threw Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) out of Kuwait in 1991. Eleven years later, he voted to give Bush authority to use force against Saddam, then voted against a bill to help pay for the conflict as anti-war sentiment threatened to undermine his bid for the Democratic nomination.

OK, it's safe to look. Oh, golly. Kerry has surely charmed this reporter, hasn't he?

Well, there's always Theresa!

MORE: We have excerpts from the ABC News interview that led to the Nixon comparison here.

And if anyone can paste a clip to a similar beat-down of a major candidate, I would love to be reminded of it. I'm still in a bit of shock here.

UPDATE: Ron Brownstein of the LA Times is also highly regarded. From Kerry's perspective, this interview went a lot better, though it was guided by the same fantastical visions.

Paul Krugman - Back To The Future

Do not let it be said that he lacks imagination - Paul Krugman opens a new front in the "biased media" war by criticizing CNN for coverage they haven't aired yet.

No, I'm serious - here we go:

CNN used to be different, but Campaign Desk, which is run by The Columbia Journalism Review, concluded after reviewing convention coverage that CNN "has stooped to slavish imitation of Fox's most dubious ploys and policies." Seconds after John Kerry's speech, CNN gave Ed Gillespie, the Republican Party's chairman, the opportunity to bash the candidate. Will Terry McAuliffe be given the same opportunity right after President Bush speaks?

Time will tell! CNN made only a brief mention of a DNC press release back in 2000, but who knows what they have in store for the Republicans this time?

The Earnest Prof was also deeply troubled that the media tried to peek behind the facade erected by the Democrats:

Grab Your Rhyming Dictionaries!

Mickey has a helpful hint for Kerry Democrats (and are there any other kinds?) who are worried about the Kerry baby-bounce in the polls:

In short, a small gain, and one that appears to be dissipating rapidly. ... If even Kerry's best didn't help him much, what's a Democrat to do? ... Hint: Rhymes with "Titanic."

Hmm, rhymes with "Titanic" - wait for Kerry to do something Gigantic? Hope he delivers a speech that's Messianic? Count on the support of leaders across the Atlantic?

All I know is, neither "Hillary!" nor "Barack Obama" rhymes with "Titanic".

And I guess that if Kerry is ever so bold as to set foot in a Wendy's again, he should stay away from the iceberg lettuce.

Theresa - Four More Years of "Hello"

I'm sure this story has a typo - she wouldn't say that, would she?

UPDATE: OK, "Teresa" is her preferred spelling. But if she can give us "H", I suppose I can give it back.

The Surveillance Data Is Old

Drudge is blaring the NY Times and Washington Post stories which reveal that the surveillance data recently captured from an Al Qaeda operative in Pakistan is years old.

Let's reprise a bit of the famous President's Daily Brief for Aug. 6, 2001:

Although bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveilled our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

Of course, when the Bush team overlooked clear warnings like that, they were killed (as we say on sports talk radio).

MORE: I'll pay extra if Jesse switches to "See, it's just like Howard Dan was saying all along". And Jesse has won the "Words Mean What I Want Them To Mean" prize for his paired entry, which I have re-titled as "Howard Didn't Say What He Said (about manipulating the threat level)" and "Bush Did So Say What He Didn't Say (about the imminent threat)" (with Spinsanity commentary on the Imminent Threat debate here.) The Golden Caterpillar is in the mail!

The Belgravia-Hippo Steel Cage Death Match

Earlier I linked to a Belgravia Dispatch post ripping into Howard Dean for accusing the President of playing politics with the terror threat warnings.

Now a Hippo is baying from over on the left (ed. - baying? - beats me, I'm a Jersey Guy), providing some additional context in the form of a CNN transcript, and arguing that Howard Dean made some valid points.

Good job by the Hippo, providing fun and fodder for fans and foes of Howard. IMHO, Howard does not come off so well in the transcript, but see for yourself.

That said, Howard is not the issue - if Karl Rove can't counter this proposed Kerry strategem, his game is lost.

Kerry Advisor Quashes Right Wing Myth (NOT!)

Susan Rice, who we see is Kerry's "Senior Advisor for National Security Affairs", was on the National Security Council under Bill Clinton focussing on African affairs. And Ms. Rice has been kind enough to take us back to the Sudan - we wandered there last week, and we wondered as we wandered - did the Sudan really offer Bin Ladin to the Clinton Administration in 1996?

Bill Clinton himself had expressed his regrets at his failure to accept the offer, but later refreshed his memory and persuaded the 9/11 Commission that Sudan had never made a credible offer.

But without further ado, a woman who needs no introduction, Susan Rice on the Sudanese non-offer:

Other ex-officials doubt the sincerity of Sudan's offer because of its track record of supporting terrorism. "It's like an alcoholic saying he won't have another drink," says Susan Rice, a former assistant secretary of state for African affairs who was then senior director for Africa on the NSC. "At the time we had no basis to prosecute Bin Laden in a U.S. court. It would have been a huge mistake to try him and let him go free, and the Saudis didn't want him. Our desire was not to let him remain in Sudan, which was an active state sponsor of terrorism. There was no government operating in Somalia. We wanted him to go somewhere where he wouldn't disappear into the ether. We had no discussion of him going to Afghanistan."

Rice also says Sudan made the offer knowing the U.S. couldn't accept it. "They calculated that we didn't have the means to successfully prosecute Bin Laden. That's why I question the sincerity of the offer."

Ahh, so now she questions the sincerity of the offer, in part because the Sudan side was aware of the wildly legalistic mind-set of the Clinton team. Well, then, that is almost the same as saying no offer was made, isn't it?

Regrettably, the Sudanese demonstrated sufficient sincerity to go ahead and kick Osama out of their country - imagine Susan's surprise at that!

MORE: More on Ms. Rice here. Hah!

Read Kerry's Lips: No Middle Class Taxes...

John Kerry was emphatic in his acceptance speech on the subject of his middle class tax cut:

...let me tell you what we won't do: we won't raise taxes on the middle class. You've heard a lot of false charges about this in recent months. So let me say straight out what I will do as President: I will cut middle class taxes.

The NY Times opined that his "promise to cut middle-class taxes, however, is pure pandering". George Stephanopoulos, who remembers well the fate of Bill Clinton's promised middle class tax cut, pressed the Senator on this point in an interview with ABC This Week, which led to the laugh-out loud line picked up by Glenn Reynolds in an update.

Additional context is not the Senator's friend:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Taxes, first words out of President Bush's mouth yesterday in his speech were, they're going to raise taxes, we are not. You said in your speech on Thursday night, we won't raise taxes on the middle class. Is that a rock hard pledge?

SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY: Rock hard.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: No matter what, no new taxes?

SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY: Absolutely solid. No new taxes on the middle class. We are going to, in fact, provide, 98 percent of Americans will get a tax cut under our plan, and the other folks know it. We've said this for the last year. It's in our plans. Both John and I ran in the caucuses and primaries very clearly saying we believe we need to protect the middle class.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So if you're ...

SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY: Ninety-nine percent of American businesses will get a tax cut under our economic approach because we're going to stop rewarding the companies that go overseas and start rewarding the companies that are fighting to create jobs here.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So let's try to define middle class. If you're earning under $200,000 you're guaranteed no tax increase in a Kerry administration?

SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY: Correct, that's, that's our plan. Not only that, we're going to give them, here let me give you the break that we're giving them. Well, let me tell you ...

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: I know that's your plan.

SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY: Well, you got to get Congress to, Congress has to pass it, but that's what I will submit to Congress, and I will further submit an increase in the child care credit so that families can take care of their kids. We have a plan to provide a $4,000 tuition tax credit for families trying to send and pay the higher tuitions at college, and in addition we're going to lower the cost of health care in America, and the way we pay for those things, George, and we've shown this, is by rolling back the president’s unaffordable, unwise tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, and we invest that money in a combination of deficit reduction and these tax cuts.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: But I'm trying to get here at what happens if circumstances change, if the economy slows down, if your plans end up being more expensive than you think. Are you saying no matter what, the middle class isn't going to get a tax increase?

SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY: That's what I'm saying.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: No matter what. Okay, well, then I want to bring back a conversation I had with the mayor of Scranton yesterday. He thought your crowd was terrific. He thought it was just great. He said this is what he's afraid of.

SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY: Let me make one caveat.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay.

SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY: War, obvious national emergency.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, we're at war now.

SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY: Well, it is possible obviously if the war, we've said that our plan is going to reduce the burden in this war, I have no doubt on that, none whatsoever. We're going to reduce the burden in this war, and if we do what we need to do for our economy, we're going to grow the tax base of our country.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: That's a pretty big caveat.

SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY: No, it's not a big caveat. I'm talking about a national emergency beyond what we have today in Iraq, if you had something extraordinary that happened, and obviously I want to be realistic about that.

Kerry's war, in this exchange, is clearly the war in Iraq. He has said before, and demonstrates here, that he does not view the "War on Terror" as a primarily military effort. Evidently he does not consider it to be a war at all.

So, he wants to be realistic about something "extraordinary" happening in the non-war against something other than terrror. I applaud his desire for realism.

MORE; fair and balanced - Kerry's big terror speech in May; some press commentary thereon.

John Kerry - "I Will Be Tenacious"

The blogosphere lit up with the news that John Kerry had a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam, err, Iraq. The Senator also filled in a notable omission from his recent acceptance speech by delivering his vision of "the job" in Iraq (but Kerry's comment is not a lede, it's a punchline).

The WaPo had excerpts from the John-John appearance on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, and reported this:

Reminded that he sounded like Richard M. Nixon, who campaigned in 1968 by saying he had a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam, Kerry responded: "I don't care what it sounds like. The fact is that I'm not going to negotiate in public today without the presidency, without the power."

He doesn't care what it sounds like! Well, we do care - and since Sen. Kerry often delivers an instant comedy classic with each new paragraph, we have an excerpt of the ABC transcript. Let's give the Senator a bit of context:

Sen. Kerry: ...I've been involved in this for a long time, longer than George Bush. I've spent 20 years negotiating, working, fighting for different kinds of treaties and different relationships around the world. I know that as president there's huge leverage that will be available to me, enormous cards to play, and I'm not going to play them in public, George. I'm not going to play them before I'm president.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So we're not going to see ...

SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY: But I have the ability, I have the ability to sit down with leaders that I know. I know President Mubarak. I know Crown Prince Abdullah. I know King Abdullah. I've been there to those regions, and I believe there are many cards we have available to us that haven't even been put on the table by this administration.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: But, Senator, forgive me. That sounds like the famous old Nixon secret plan.

SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY: I don't care what it sounds like. It's truth. I don't care what it sounds like. The fact is that I'm not going to negotiate in public today without the presidency, without the power. I'm going to do that as president. And people will have to judge my 35 years of involvement in foreign affairs, my 20 years as a Senator fighting to make things happen. That's the judgment people make in this race. It's a judgment of character, and I believe my character is one that has shown that when I say something, I follow through on it, and when I stand up and fight for something, I'm tenacious about it. I will be tenacious in the interests of the American people to get our troops home but not to do so in a way that fails our objective of a stable Iraq moving towards democracy capable of standing on its own two feet, and I know from my own experience, I know from colleagues of mine, Senator Biden, Senator Levin, you go talk to them, they've been abroad recently. They've talked with many of these leaders. They know there's a different equation available to us. This administration has failed in its diplomacy. I will not.

That was certainly a clear explication of our mission in Iraq - "...to get our troops home but not to do so in a way that fails our objective of a stable Iraq moving towards democracy capable of standing on its own two feet..."

I'm still not satisfied.

MORE: A possible transcription error? After all the talk of the cards not yet played by the Administration, maybe Senator Kerry actually said "I will be ten aces."

We are going to do taxes in a separate post, to round out the InstaQuip in the update.

UPDATE: Matt Yglesias is aces, too.

Bush Stalks the Star Trek Vote

Bush-Cheney 2004 boldly goes where no campaign has gone before, with an insidious subliminal campaign pitched to Star Trek fans. Today's WaPo reveals the tip of the iceberg:

Bush reminded his aides, 'I'm not a professor,'...

Indeed he is not, but who among us does not hark back to the classic "I'm a doctor, Jim, not a [insert occupational disclaimer]"?

A quick check of the White House website reveals that this plan has been percolating for years. A reprise of Bush's occupational disclaimers:

"I'm not a stock broker or a stock picker";

"I'm not a forecaster";

"I'm not a lawyer";

"I'm not a member of the legislative branch";

"I'm not a statistician";

"I'm not a numbers cruncher";

"I'm not a very formal guy";

And we note that other Administration officials offered their personal testimony on the issues of the day:

Ari Fleischer: I'm not a Hobbit";

MR. Connaughton: "I'm not a complete idiot".

The record speaks for itself.

My Brief Stint As A Kerry Apologist

Robert Kagan peers at "The Kerry Doctrine", and I say it's about time - this has been a crowd-pleasing, nonsensical applause line of Kerry's for over a year.

But wait, this is my stint as a Kerry apologist. Here we go -

In his much criticized acceptance speech, Kerry provided an itsy-bitsy hint of additional context for his "go to war when we have to" scheme:

As president, I will wage this war with the lessons I learned in war. Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say, "I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm's way, but we had no choice...

(APPLAUSE)

... we had to protect the American people, fundamental American values against a threat that was real and imminent."

Ahh, we have to protect fundamental American values! So (I imagine) the Kosovo intervention was OK because it is a fundamental American value to prevent genocide (except in Africa or Cambodia); or it is a FAV to preserve a stable Europe when Europe is unwilling to do the job itself; or something.

My guess is that Kerry's list of FAV's might differ from someone else's. No matter - this subtle FAV qualification changes the notion of "when we have to" from a Doctrine to a serving of pablum. Kagan should chill.

Kagan's column does have some irrestible points, however:

Maybe Kerry's real act of cynicism was his vote for the Iraq war in the fall of 2002.

Gee, ya think? He was preserving his electability instead of leading, and now he wants to be President.

The ironies abound. Three decades ago, Kerry came out in opposition to the war he had fought in Vietnam. Today, Kerry extols that service so that he may safely, patriotically distance himself from the war in Iraq that he had supported.

The greater irony is that Kerry, if elected, will be expected to play Nixon to Bush's Johnson and salvage a war that both Kerry and his party believe is a mistake into which we were mislead by a shameless, arrogant Administration.

Pretty good defense of Kerry, huh? What? Waddya mean, fired?

UPDATE: Kerry is already playing Nixon. And I don't want any comments about Bush's Johnson. But what are we to think of Kerry's?

Follow The Bouncing Ball

The Man Without Pollsters tracks the bounce.

My Limited Contribution here is to repeat my thought about the various election markets, which are moving Bush's way after the Democratic Convention - the markets are (as we all remember) playing an expectations game. A Bush market rally means the Dem Convention was a disappointment, to market participants if not excitable liberals. However, that does not mean Kerry will get *no* bounce in the polls; it may simply be that he gets a smaller than previously expected bounce. That may be too obvious to repeat, but I am.

I Think Bush Wins This Round

The AP tells us that "Bush Reportedly Backs New Post for Intelligence". However, contrary to the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission that was seemingly embraced by John Kerry, Bush will propose to locate the new post outside of the White House.

This does not seem to be complicated - if politicized intelligence was the problem (I say *if*), a new intelligence czar in the White House can not be the answer.

Fine, maybe my answer was not good either, but I'm not a candidate, and the links are still useful.

Somewhat relatedly, this article on the growing pains and organizational challenges facing the Special Forces is interesting - Kerry wants to double the size of our Special Forces, and Phil Carter was a bit of a skeptic.

LATE UPDATE: Dan Drezner has insight and links.

Which Does Not Belong On This List?

Which one does not belong with the others:

(a) New York City; (b) Washington, D.C.; (c) Newark, NJ

Let's play again:

(a) Citibank; (b) The New York Stock Exchange; (c) The World Bank; (d) The IMF; (e) Prudential Financial

If you picked (c) and (e), join the club. So why is Al Qaeda putting this on their target list?

My guess - the 1993 WTC bombers made their bomb in New Jersey and drove to the World Trade Center. Today, slipping a truck bomb through what we hope is increased security at the Manhattan bridges and tunnels is more difficult. There are no obvious choke-points preventing a similar attack on a target in New Jersey, however.

No, I don't know why they couldn't have targetted Giants Stadium, but between this and Christie Vilsack, it's been quite a summer for the state that gave you Sinatra and Springsteen.

OK, It Was A Confusing News Day

Apparently the announcement of an increased terror alert targetting New York City has shaken the NY Times editors so badly that they no longer read their own newspaper.

From the Monday front-pager, "U.S. Warns of High Risk of Qaeda Attack", by Eric Lichtblau:

After past terror warnings, critics have at times accused the Bush administration of exaggerating the threat for political purposes. But on Sunday, few prominent Democrats were making that charge, and many Democrats appeared to take the threat seriously.

From the Monday front-pager, "Race Dogged by Terror Fight", by Messrs. Nagourney and Halbfinger:

News of the terror threat on Sunday also stirred renewed suggestions from some Democrats that the White House was manipulating terror alerts for Mr. Bush's political gain. They said the alert had been issued just as Mr. Kerry emerged from a convention that was described by Republicans and Democrats as a success.

"I am concerned that every time something happens that's not good for President Bush, he plays this trump card, which is terrorism," Howard Dean, a former rival of Mr. Kerry for the Democratic nomination, told Wolf Blitzer on CNN on Sunday.

"His whole campaign is based on the notion that 'I can keep you safe, therefore at times of difficulty for America stick with me,' and then out comes Tom Ridge," Mr. Dean, the former Vermont governor, added, referring to the homeland security secretary. "It's just impossible to know how much of this is real and how much of this is politics, and I suspect there's some of both in it."

White House officials denied that suggestion, and other Democrats and Mr. Kerry's advisers would not embrace it. "I certainly hope not," Steve Elmendorf, Mr. Kerry's deputy campaign manager, said. "You have to take them at their word."

Gregory Djerejian has more.

Never Rebrand! Never Surrender!

Life's ironies can cut too close to home.

Joe Wilson, Still In The News

The latest Newsweek provides an interesting angle on the Valerie Plame Wilson leak investigation. We are scoring this as a "good news/better news" story for Karl Rove's side:

Aug. 9 issue - Secretary of State Colin Powell recently testified before a federal grand jury investigating the leak of the identity of CIA covert officer Valerie Plame, NEWSWEEK has learned. Powell's appearance on July 16 is the latest sign the probe being conducted by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is highly active and broader than has been publicly known.

NO, Powell is not a suspect. However, while traveling with the President in Africa, Powell requested and reviewed an INR report on Niger, uranium, and Joe Wilson (and this seems to be similar to the information attributed to the INR analyst on p. 40 of the Senate Intelligence report):

The report stated that Wilson's wife had attended a meeting at the CIA where the decision was made to send Wilson to Niger, but it did not mention her last name or undercover status.

Depending on who discussed this report with whom, and *assuming* that this report provided the background for the leak, it is plausible that the leaker was not aware of Ms. Plame's covert status. As to whether the leaker provided Ms. Plame's last name, only Novak can tell - his original column was vague on that point. But it hardly matters, since there was a time when Joe Wilson's on-line bio mentioned his wife as "Valerie Plame", so either Novak or an earnest White House staffer might have unearthed that tidbit. There is also the Clifford May / Marty Peretz "open secrets" argument - Joe and Valerie were well known in Washington social circles.

So, we score this news as a bit of a boost for the "inadvertent outing" theory. Whether lack of intent is an issue in the outing, or "reckless disregard" can be invoked is something for the lawyers to judge. But in terms of the politics, "reckless disregard" amounts to sloppiness - the White House leakers should have checked Ms. Plame's status, and didn't - which is not an ideal White House defense. However, it is preferable to the Bush Brute Squad evil intent theory - they KNEW this would endanger her safety and national security! - so enrapturing many of the Bush critics.

This story also includes unmistakeable bad news for the "Impeach Now" crowd:

Though most lawyers thought the investigation was nearly complete, sources say Fitzgerald has recently recalled witnesses before the grand jury—apparently to ask about issues raised by a new Senate intelligence committee report that seemed to contradict some of Wilson's public statements about Plame's role in his trip to Niger.

What might he be looking at? One glaring issue was raised by Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly - where was Wilson getting his information, and what prompted him to time his leaks as he did? If, (we say IF), as Kevin Drum speculates, Wilson got classified, uncirculated CIA tidbits from his wife to buttress his leaks, the prosecutor has a bit of a challenge figuring out just who the bad guys are in this investigation.

Or maybe the prosecutor has some testimony from Wilson himself that he doesn't like right now. Hah! (OK, I'm dreaming).

More on Wilson's implausible story below:

UPDATE: We are scoring the the newly sighted Seattle Bird as an unhappy lefty reluctantly reaching the same conclusions I reached cheerfully. I may be wrong, but never lonely!

The NY Times Gets Results

The ACLU has thrown in their cards one day after being called out by the NY Times. The absurd ACLU spin is recycled by the AP.

I would like to attribute the ACLU's change to the mighty power of Masugi and me, but it is hard to argue with this, from the second paragraph:

The move was prompted, the civil liberties group said, by an article in The New York Times yesterday.

Lest one forget the power of the press.

Nonsense Like This Irritates Me

Josh Marshall describes the some of the latest going-on with the forged Niger documents - apparently, his team has been partially scooped by the subscription-only Sunday Times.

Now, I am sure this is a big story, and we would like to believe Josh's reporting, despite his grim partisanship.

However, this statement leaps out as a jaw-dropper:

You’ll remember that most of the papers in the bundle of Niger-uranium documents that arrived at the US Embassy in Rome were actually authentic. It was only a subset of the documents --- those specifically related to the alleged Niger-Iraq transactions and a couple others --- that were bogus.

And how would I remember that? My impression of the conventional wisdom is that the forgeries were easily recognizable as such by anyone who took the trouble to look at them. When he last broached this subject in June, Dr. Marshall twice referred us to the "Stovepipe" New Yorker piece by Seymour Hersh as a good source for background on the forgeries. There, we find this description of the forgeries:

The documents he gave her were photocopies. There were twenty-two pages, mostly in French, some with the letterhead of the Niger government or Embassy, and two on the stationery of the Iraqi Embassy to the Holy See. There were also telexes...

...Two former C.I.A. officials provided slightly different accounts of what happened next. “The Embassy was alerted that the papers were coming,” the first former official told me, “and it passed them directly to Washington without even vetting them inside the Embassy.” Once the documents were in Washington, they were forwarded by the C.I.A. to the Pentagon, he said. “Everybody knew at every step of the way that they were false—until they got to the Pentagon, where they were believed.”

Gee, that is what I suspect most people remember. Or perhaps they remember the famous Google-search analogy mentioned by the IAEA, as recounted by Seymour Hersh in his March article:

One senior I.A.E.A. official went further. He told me, “These documents are so bad that I cannot imagine that they came from a serious intelligence agency. It depresses me, given the low quality of the documents, that it was not stopped. At the level it reached, I would have expected more checking.”

...It took Baute’s team only a few hours to determine that the documents were fake. The agency had been given about a half-dozen letters and other communications between officials in Niger and Iraq, many of them written on letterheads of the Niger government. The problems were glaring. One letter, dated October 10, 2000, was signed with the name of Allele Habibou, a Niger Minister of Foreign Affairs and Coöperation, who had been out of office since 1989. Another letter, allegedly from Tandja Mamadou, the President of Niger, had a signature that had obviously been faked and a text with inaccuracies so egregious, the senior I.A.E.A. official said, that “they could be spotted by someone using Google on the Internet.”

Now, it turns out that some of us have been wondering about the quality of the forgeries - down at the bottom of this post, I excerpt the relevant section of the Senate Intelligence report, and wonder why the "forgery" they looked at was so good. But let me just ask this - could the good Doctor provide any hint (and a link would be great) that the conventional wisdom was that "most of the papers in the bundle of Niger-uranium documents that arrived at the US Embassy in Rome were actually authentic"?

My sense is that most people "remember" that a half-wit could have looked at these documents and spotted tham as forgeries. If Dr. Marshall means "you remember" because you read Talking Points Memorandum, then he should toss in a link. My view is that a *huge* rowback is being concealed in a "let's move on" sentence. Which irritates me.