JustOneMinute

John Edwards Is Ready To Tell Us His Secret

He hears dead people. Live ones, too, according to the NY Times:

In 1985, a 31-year-old North Carolina lawyer named John Edwards stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl.

Referring to an hour-by-hour record of a fetal heartbeat monitor, Mr. Edwards told the jury: "She said at 3, `I'm fine.' She said at 4, `I'm having a little trouble, but I'm doing O.K.' Five, she said, `I'm having problems.' At 5:30, she said, `I need out.' "

But the obstetrician, he argued in an artful blend of science and passion, failed to heed the call. By waiting 90 more minutes to perform a breech delivery, rather than immediately performing a Caesarean section, Mr. Edwards said, the doctor permanently damaged the girl's brain.

"She speaks to you through me," the lawyer went on in his closing argument. "And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."

The jury came back with a $6.5 million verdict in the cerebral palsy case, and Mr. Edwards established his reputation as the state's most feared plaintiff's lawyer.

OK, John. That puts a whole new wrinkle on your attempts to appeal to crossover voters.

Now, the Edwards camp will consider this from the Times piece to be a cheap shot:

An examination of Mr. Edwards's legal career also opens a window onto the world of personal injury litigation. In building his career, Mr. Edwards underbid other lawyers to win promising clients, sifted through several dozen expert witnesses to find one who would attest to his claims, and opposed state legislation that would have helped all families with brain-damaged children and not just those few who win big malpractice awards.

His skill in finding friendly witnesses should help him in evaluating intel from the CIA (oops, that's why we have Dick Cheney!). But, although his opposition to state legislation to help all kids with cerebral palsy sounds very self-serving, without more details about the proposed program it is hard to know.

UPDATE: Andy Borowitz has a "strong on defense" nominee. Hat tip to Roger Simon and Glenn Reynolds.

An Emerging Success Story For Bush

Nick Kristof on sex slave trafficking:

...I traveled to Cambodia because I had been shocked by what I had seen there in the 1990's. I've covered wars, but nothing shook me more than interviews with 13-year-old girls who had been sold by their parents or kidnapped by neighbors.

These days the girls are 17 rather than 13, fewer are beaten or physically imprisoned, and Cambodia's success in fighting AIDS with condoms means that sexual slavery is not necessarily a death sentence.

The progress in Cambodia is mirrored by strides elsewhere, from South Korea to Romania and the Dominican Republic. And most of the credit goes to the Bush administration, particularly its State Department's trafficking office, which is shaming and threatening countries into confronting traffickers.

President Bush's policies toward women have often been callous — cutting off, for example, funds for safe childbirth programs in Africa because of ideological disputes with sponsoring groups. But on trafficking, this administration has led the way.

Sex trafficking has become a hot issue among conservative evangelical Christians, and they have successfully pushed Mr. Bush to embrace the issue. He gave a landmark speech to the U.N. in September, and Colin Powell is moving the issue forward in a commendably bipartisan way. The new director of the trafficking office, John Miller, has bludgeoned foreign governments, telling them to curb trafficking or face sanctions.

And on the domestic front, we see this in The Corner:

In light of your postings today regarding Bush's work on sex-slavery, here is a link to an AP article published at sfgate.com (the on-line site of the San Francisco Chronicle) about a succesful prosecution of a slavery ring in the US.

In particular, I was impressed by the end of the article: "Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday said busting this ring and a forced-labor ring in American Samoa showed prosecutors were making inroads against human trafficking...

The Corner gets results.

MORE: Rich Lowry from Oct. 2003. The key legislation, "Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000" was passed in, well, 2000. Rich Lowry credits Sen. Sam Brownback (R., Kan.) and Rep. Congressman Chris Smith of NJ. Pres. Clinton got on board, although Lowry says he was not driving the bus.

Here is the required annual report from the State Dept.; the recent NY Times magazine cover story by Peter Landesman; and links to Jack Shafer's skepticism about Landesman.

The House Of Smoke And Mirrors

To Cut Deficit, Bush Delays Tax Change, Iraq Funds

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush will leave out of his budget widely anticipated Iraq-related costs and an expensive tax system overhaul to meet his election-year goal of cutting the federal deficit, congressional aides and budget analysts said on Friday.

Bush must think we are as stupid as some of us think he is.

Jonathan Adler of NRO presents a brief list of disappointments. Add the SOTU, the major money for marriage counseling, and the teeth-pulling on the WMD intelligence problem, and you start to get a list. Andrew Sullivan had suggested that the Republicans campaign against Kerry as someone who is all over the map. Don't psychologists call this projection?

Here is the WSJ on the budget:

House Republicans are meeting today in Philadelphia for their annual retreat, and the news is that the leadership is facing a revolt from conservatives over runaway spending. Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader Tom DeLay would do well to listen lest they start losing votes, not to mention credibility with voters.

Elected as the party of limited government 10 years ago, the Republican imperium is starting to show signs of ideological dry rot. Creative gerrymandering, especially in Texas, has made it likely the GOP will keep control of the House for the rest of this decade. But the paradox of this political ascendancy is that it has encouraged too many Members to trade in the principles that propelled them to power for pork-barrel spending and poll-driven incumbent protection.

...What would certainly help is a President who chose to lead. The Bush Administration seems to think that voters care more about tax cuts than they do spending. This is true enough when times are good. But spending represents a claim on taxes, and Republicans will end up having to raise them down the road if they don't slow the growth of spending now.

Extensive fair-use excerpts follow. We will resume our regularly scheduled Kerry-bashing on Monday.

UPDATE: What a difference a day makes. Two headlines:

Bush OK's Independent Probe of Prewar Intelligence, Dana Milbank and Dana Priest of the WaPo;

Bush Seeks to Soothe Republican Worries on Budget, Reuters.

My worry lines are fading as if botoxed.

Sen. Kerry Faces His Detractors

The once-craggy Senator met his accusers head-on:

Democratic front-runner John Kerry denied yesterday he's had Botox injections or cosmetic work done on his increasingly taut face.

..."Do you categorically deny the reports that you have used Botox or other kind of cosmetic surgery or cosmetic enhancements to your appearance?" Kerry was asked on WRKO radio yesterday.

"Absolutely. I've never even heard of it," Kerry said. "I've never even heard of it."

Oh, please. Cherchez la femme:

Kerry's wife Teresa told Elle magazine last year that she gets regular Botox shots.

"In fact," she said, "I need another one. Soon."

Now, is this really news? YES! And not just because we delight in bashing Carefree Kerry.

The Senator orchestrated a photo-op hockey game last week. The intended message - he is youthful, vigorous, and (dare we say it?) Kennedyesque. As a hockey player in New England, he is also a man of the people.

Well, then. If Botox is part of the spin, reporters need (desperately!) to get behind the spin. Republicans are going to attack Kerry as a phony two-faced elitist poser. If the senator is hooked on botox, that would fit the story line quite nicely. The Senator is championing health care reform - will botox treatment be covered under his proposal? His elderly constituents may wonder.

Possible pitfalls for Reps on the attack: every newsie in television "journalism" has either had botox, or considered it. Beware a backlash. More frightening is the possibility that Sen. Kerry or one of his many supporters will launch into a lecture on "lookism" and "ageism" in America. The President will be challenged to define his position on hiring ugly people, the photos of every member of the cabinet will be placed on "HotOrNot", and our normally degraded political process will become completely degenerate.

And Kerry may counterattack vigorously! Well, as vigourously as an old geezer at death's door can manage, anyway. Possible riposte - "these botox rumors are coming from the same folks who told you about Saddam's WMDs!"

Let the battle be joined. The Reps win if they can coin a sufficiently clever nickname to hang on Botox John. "Carefree Kerry" may be too subtle. "Formerly Craggy Kerry" does not roll off the tongue. Help me!

MORE: Yes, I know that discussing botox is waaay outside of the Krugman Journalistic Restrictions. Better and better.

Mickey On The Ledge (Again)

Fresh from his triumph with the Kerry Withdrawal Contest, Mickey may be back on the window ledge with his "Krugman Gotcha Contest" from last November:

It finally looks as if the economy is recovering as opposed to spiraling into a Japan-style pit of deflation and permanent Bush-induced joblessness. That means the long-awaited Krugman Gotcha Contest can begin. A prize, to be announced, for the kf reader who comes up with the gloom-and-doom opinion from the fabled Princeton economist's recent writings that now looks the most embarrassingly wrong.

We are keeping hope alive, but the first projection for fourth quarter GDP came in at the low end of forecasts. Kerry resurgent, Krugman ascendant? The weekend cannot get here quickly enough.

MORE: Snow in Europe. No, not more global warming, our Treasury Secretary, forecasting 4% growth for 2004.

Josh Marshall, Psychic Pundit King

From the eerily prescient Talking Points Memo, Nov 8, 2001, describing the consulting firm made famous by Joe Trippi, formerly of the Dean campaign:

...it's not so much that Trippi, McMahon & Squier always rep Democrats. It's more like they just always rep losers.

I encourage all other pundits and pretenders to lay down their swords. Or pens. Keyboards. We have experienced shock and awe.

MORE: "We suck, but right now we're the greatest team in baseball."

The Spring Offensive

We will put Dr. Drezner up top for this, since he has all the links. From the Atlanta Journal Constitution, we find:

Determined to capture or kill Osama bin Laden after two years of fruitless searching, U.S. troops are mustering for a spring offensive along Afghanistan's border with Pakistan, Defense Department and other officials said Wednesday. The new operation comes as the administration debates whether to press Pakistan harder to allow the United States to take the fight into its territory.

Defense officials said the offensive, first reported by the Chicago Tribune, will resemble military operations launched in spring 2003 and 2002 to capture or kill Taliban and al-Qaida fighters leaving winter bivouacs. The terrorist leader and some of his top aides are believed to be operating out of Pakistan's Waziristan area or nearby in the mountainous border region between the two nations with the assistance or protection of tribal leaders in areas that are essentially off-limits to Pakistani law enforcement officials.

Musharraf of Pakistan may not be fully on board as yet:

U.S. officials stressed Wednesday that no military operations would be carried out inside Pakistan without Musharraf's approval. At a news conference at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last week, the Pakistani president ruled out such operations.

"No sir, that is not a possibility at all. It's a very sensitive issue," Musharraf said, when asked if he would consider allowing U.S. troops to search for bin Laden in Pakistan. "There is no room for any foreign elements coming and assisting us, we don't need any assistance."

Uhh, what else can he say at this point?

We will all be delighted if this operation succeeds. Yes, the Presidential election may, at that point, be merely a formality, but it will be fun to get Howard Dean's reaction to the question of whther we are safer with Osama bin Laden in custody.

And, in the spirit of "something for everyone", we note this tidbit:

Officials said Thursday that the capture in December of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has freed resources to press the hunt for bin Laden and his fighters.

"There's an obvious ability now to refocus human assets on a far grander scale," the U.S. official said. "It's logical that the hunter-killer types would now be turned loose to deal with this more aggressively."

Yes, Iraq was a distraction from Al Qaeda. No, the "we are a superpower, we can pursue both goals at once" meme was never wholly accurate. That is separate, of course, from the question of whether Saddam was a worthy target in his own right, to which the editorial staff of JustOneMinute says, unanimously, yes.

File Under "No Kidding"

From USA Today:

...Republicans plan to charge that Kerry is too far to the left. Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie has attacked him as "out of sync" with most voters, and a strategy emerged to go after Kerry on what Democrats see as his strength: national security.

In a speech to the Republican winter meeting today, Gillespie plans to attack Kerry's past votes to cut intelligence budgets. The votes "do not support his assertion that his approach to national security will make us safer as a nation," Gillespie said in an interview.

Kerry's idea of cutting the CIA budget in 1997 is going to be painted as bone-headedly foolish. Which it was.

MORE: Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard, reprinted by CBS News:

On "Fox News Sunday," Kerry also was forced to explain his conflicting positions on gay marriage and the CIA.

...On the CIA, Kerry sponsored a bill to cut $1.5 billion from the budget for intelligence gathering. Then after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001, he asked why America's intelligence wasn't better. His explanation: He wanted the CIA to devote more money to human intelligence and less to technical means. He sought, he explained, "to change the culture of our intelligence gathering." He didn't explain, however, how slashing the CIA budget would achieve that.

MORE: Sen. Kerry, May 1, 1997, introducing into the Congressional Record an article by Sen. Moynihan.

I hope Sen. Kerry is comfortable with having said "Our covert agencies have converted themselves to channels for drugs." This was back when the CIA was allegedly smuggling dope for the Contras.

Saddam Hussein And The "Oil For Friends" Bribery Case

The InstaPundit has noted this, and we will clip from the Boston Globe:

BAGHDAD -- Iraq's Governing Council ordered an investigation yesterday into charges former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein bought the support of foreign politicians and organizations with millions of barrels of oil.

...The independent Baghdad newspaper al-Mada earlier published a list it said was based on Oil Ministry documents showing 46 individuals, companies, and organizations inside and outside Iraq who were given millions of barrels of oil.

Chaderji said he believed the newspaper's list was genuine. An official assessment will be left to the minister of justice.

...The newspaper's list included members of Arab ruling families, religious organizations, politicians and parties from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Sudan, China, Austria, France, Italy, and other countries.

My advice is, let's be careful here. Arms inspector David Kay recently explained that a lot of Saddam's weapons programs were fantasies put together by corrupt scientists and generals to fleece Saddam. If that was the prevailing ethos, shouldn't we suspect the existence of a fantasy bribe scheme as well? Tell Saddam the oil has been diverted to Jacques Chirac, when in fact it was sent to your cousin. And how is Saddam going to verify the pay-off - call Jacques, who will of course deny it?

I presume some of the diversions, such as to the PLO, really happened. As to the rest, we will see.

UPDATE: I just heard Peter Jennings of ABC News do the 5 PM radio promo for the evening news. He led with this story, and the only indication of skepticism was a perfunctory denial from George Galloway of England. ABC News has apparently seen the documents, and I hope they are not embarassing themselves. Presumably the evening broadcast will have more; currently, I am only finding the Reuters story at their website.

MORE: Here is the story by Brian Ross which aired on Thursday night. Chirac fans will focus on this:

According to the document, France was the second-largest beneficiary, with tens of millions of barrels awarded to Patrick Maugein, a close political associate and financial backer of French President Jacques Chirac.

Maugein, individually and through companies connected to him, received contracts for some 36 million barrels. Chirac's office said it was unaware of Maugein's deals, which Maugein told ABCNEWS are perfectly legal.

Each contract was worth roughly $0.50 per barrel, so this is $18 Million. So, he told ABC News it was legal - that is a long way from denying that it happened. Wow.

The NY Post has this:

Patrick Maugein, head of the oil firm Soco International - and reputedly a confidant of French President Jacques Chirac - denied receiving 25 million barrels of Iraqi oil as a bribe.

"It is delirious and absolutely impossible," he said.

Emphasis added, since we love to parse these denials. Did he take the oil as a non-bribe?

CLIPS on Patrick Maugein:

INTELLIGENCE ONLINE: "FRANCE / Patrick Maugein / A lot of people in high places in France are curious about the influence that a 55-year-old businessman, Patrick Maugein, appears to wield with president Jacques Chirac. (...).

Africa Intelligence: "In presenting Soco International's financial results for 2001 on March 20, company chairman Patrick Maugein, who is close to French president Jacques Chirac, laid out the firm's Africa strategy. (...). [Total : 251 Words].

OK, "close to Chirac" seems to be generally accepted.

Developing...

Dean Was Robbed!

ABC News had a jaw-dropping story which I saw, as did a BuzzFlash contributor. The gist - in his famous "I Have A Scream" speech after the Iowa upset, Howard Dean was using a wireless microphone designed to filter out background crowd noises. The televised effect was the very un-Presidential image of a man screaming in an empty room.

However, ABC dug up tapes from amateurs on the scene. In this context, Howard Dean is virtually inaudible, and the scream sounds like someone yelling in Yankee Stadium after a Derek Jeter home run against the Red Sox. Sorry, for non-sports fans, it sounds like a man yelling on a runway while a jetliner takes off behind him - the whole audience was rocking (we saw that in New Hampshire, too) and Dr. Dean is inaudible.

Does it matter? His campaign seems to have collapsed. However, the ABC story may contribute to a sense of victomhood and oppression amongst the Deaniacs, motivating them to fight on.

MORE: CBS News had this in print, at least.

Why Dems Should Prefer The Long March To A Brokered Convention

Dems should enjoy this primary process for as long as it can possibly last, for a couple of reasons. First, the party is already united on a message, and should be able to quickly unite behind a messenger.

Secondly, the media is giving lots of coverage to the different candidates as they argue over whether Bush should be denounced for boiling babies, slapping grandmothers, or nuking the whales. The subtext of this debate - Bush is awful - is percolating into the national psyche, and Republican rebuttals don't get much play because they don't have a candidate or a contest.

Finally, once the Dems pick a candidate, the press will turn on him, and the Reps will open fire. Postpone that day.

Rumsfeld Completes The Slow Flip-Flop

After months of "we don't need a bigger army", we are told that we do need a bigger army. Temporarily. People who worry about the planning process in Washington (or the connection with reality) will worry about this.

UPDATE: TAPPED will say "We told you so", but I stand by my diatribe. And yes, if I had any character, I would find the piece where Paul Krugman took the TAPPED position.

Is This A Sign Of Complete Confusion, Or Total Disarray?

Bush Is Said to Seek More Money for Arts

WASHINGTON, Jan. 28 — President Bush will seek a big increase in the budget of the National Endowment for the Arts, the largest single source of support for the arts in the United States, administration officials said on Wednesday.

The proposal is part of a turnaround for the agency, which was once fighting for its life, attacked by some Republicans as a threat to the nation's moral standards.

Why not announce this proposed budget increase at the State of the Union and enjoy the applause from the usual suspects? Or, don't do this at all, and avoid criticism from the conservatives who are already not exactly over the moon with the Bush budget-busting.

That said, we detect a subtle conservative case for expanding the funding of the NEA. No, seriously:

Some new money sought by Mr. Bush would expand initiatives with broad bipartisan support, like performances of Shakespeare's plays and "Jazz Masters" concert tours.

Now, admit it - shouldn't conservatives be able to get behind Shakespeare? Somehow this ties in to the strategy I can't now attribute which pegged Bush as a big-government conservative who plans to co-opt objectionable programs rather than kill them. [Jonah Goldberg!]

No Government Program left behind!

UPDATE: Hey, I am your source for today's CW today! And earlier! THE NRO presents the "Shakespeare is good" spin.

Fine. If the real choice is between a good NEA, and a crazed NEA, I'll take... the good NEA! But lots of conservatives think the choice ought to be different, and that the Feds should not be in the business of promoting artistic viewpoints, even "conservative" ones.

MORE: Andrew Stuttaford of NRO says no.

Al Sharpton - Timing Is Everything

Some had expected Al Sharpton to spend his time in the Democratic primaries throwing racially charged hand grenades. We saw a bit of that when he asked Howard Dean why the former Governor had never had a person of color in his Cabinet back in lily-white Vermont.

But now, doom is at hand. The candidates are headed to South Carolina, where Al Sharpton has been polling well; a televised debate is set for this Thursday night in Greenville (MSNBC - check your local listings, then duck and cover!); and, by what Dems will view as either a hideous coincidence or an evil conspiracy, a Federal judge has just made news by dismissing a slavery reparations suit.

But it gets worse. First, the case was dismissed "without prejudice", so an amended case can be re-filed. Keep litigation alive! And here is the kicker:

[The judge] said longstanding doctrine in matters involving political questions “bars the court from deciding the issue of slavery reparations, an issue that has been historically and constitutionally committed to the legislative and executive branches of our government.”

My goodness. The Reverend will be on stage with his rivals, all contending for an opportunity to run the executive branch of the Federal government. This judge's ruling suggests that their views on the subject of slavery reparations may be topical and important. Who is going to inquire as to their views, and how might they answer in a way that panders successfully to Al's constituency without prompting hilarity from the rest of us?

My guess - respectfully suggest the appointment of a Presidential Commission chaired by Shane Lechler.

MORE: Lots of links from Mindles Dreck of AI; some background.

Nice Job By Mark Kleiman

Prof. Kleiman gets himself quoted in the NY Times, and posts an "alternative view" e-mail from a highly-placed named source. All in his area of expertise, which is drug policy, not Wesley Clark.

Reading hi spost, the fusion conclusion seems to be that this useful program was killed by an unholy alliance of culture warriors on the right and stealth drug legalizers on the... well, wherever they come from - Libertarian, whatever. I am thinking of George Soros and I want to say "Left", but I am open to guidance on this.

Let NATO Do It!

Our ever-helpful allies:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 27 — NATO's top commander in Europe voiced frustration on Tuesday that members were not providing enough troops for the reconstruction effort in Afghanistan, which he said was a "defining moment" for the alliance as it adopted a broader agenda in the world.

"The political will has been stated," he said. "The alliance has agreed, the donor countries have been identified, and yet we find ourselves mired in the administrative details of who's going to pay for it, who's going to transport it, how's it going to be maintained."

Yeah, yeah. We have previously wondered whether the Dem's insistence on involving our allies was credible. If we are looking to NATO, we are looking for help from a bunch of European free-riders that have taken early retirement.

The Democrats Concede

We had a chance to see the major concession speeches last night following the New Hampshire results, as well as Sen. Kerry's victory lap. Quick hits:

Kerry: If the Dems thought that nominating the annoyingly phony Al Gore was a good idea, they must be loving the Kerry concept. In the course of his faux-populist exposition, Craggy John bashed the drug companies. I know that Dems feel a need to do this, but who are you expecting to develop a cure for Alzheimer's? Oh, fuggedaboutit - I know I will when I am a bit older. [Note - the WaPo speech excerpt has already forgotten, stopping before the list of evil-doers reaches drug companies]

Clark: Delivered his lines with energy and conviction, giving his supporters hope for another week. Chris Matthews of MSNBC could not fail to note that the General was reading from a script, which is probably the best, or only, way to prevent a General Gaffe on national television. Well, tomorrow is another day!

Edwards: MSNBC stayed with the "Two Americas" speech, and it is good. If I were getting worried on the President's behalf (Andrew is, I am not), this is the guy that would worry me, only partly because he seems to be the only human being left amongst the major non-Dean Dem candidates.

Dean: His crowd was ready to rock, so almost anything Dr. Dean said would have seemed low-key and measured by comparison. He gave a good speech, but he lost me utterly at one point. He said that our greatest loss under George Bush was our sense of national unity and community, and that he wanted to take America back to a time when we were united and had a sense of community. That time, if I was following, was the civil-rights marchin', anti-war protestin' Sixties. On to Woodstock!

As Governor of Vermont, he may spend a bit too much time with nostalgic hippies. If we were so damn united as a country in the 60's, what were all those race riots and war protests about? Who killed the four kids at Kent State, the Russkies? Did he consider the Democratic Party united at its Chicago Convention? We we really united as a country when the Republican Congress impeached Bill Clinton? And how do our losses on 9/11 factor into this calculation, and manage to come in second? Troubling.

We Begin The Cheney Health Watch

From MSNBC: "Will Giuliani replace Cheney in ’04?

By Jeannette Walls with Ashley Pearson / MSNBC
Updated: 2:56 a.m. ET Jan. 27, 2004

Will there be a Bush/Giuliani ticket in '04?

A well-placed source says that the president will “most likely” drop Dick Cheney from his re-election ticket and his first choice for a replacement is former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.

“The issue of Cheney’s health will probably be given as the reason,” says the insider. “There’s a short list of possible replacements, and Rudy is at the top of the list.”

The source adds that the selection of the former New York mayor may be overridden by Bush advisors from the far right. “Giuliani has been pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and is pretty liberal on some other social issues, but the thinking is that he might broaden Bush’s appeal."

End of excerpt, and the beginning of a delightful fantasy. Picture the Republican convention/rock concert at Madison Square Garden with Rudy and George at the podium. Picture Dem strategists scrambling to keep New York state in their column.

Giuliani is tough on corporate cronyism, a hero of 9/11, and a Man of the Year. Offsetting that, some conservatives may feel a special bond with Dick Cheney, and Dems will feel obliged to reprise the "NYC is a Gestapo State" meme that was lost after 9/11.

I love the idea, and Karl Rove likes to think big.

Fact-Checkers Wanted

Paul Krugman takes us from the greedy rich to the greedy, tax-cheating rich, writing on (if you can believe it!) the Bush budget deficits:

Why, then, do we face the prospect of huge deficits as far as the eye can see? Part of the answer is the surge in defense and homeland security spending. The main reason for deficits, however, is that revenues have plunged. Federal tax receipts as a share of national income are now at their lowest level since 1950.

Of course, most people don't feel that their taxes have fallen sharply. And they're right: taxes that fall mainly on middle-income Americans, like the payroll tax, are still near historic highs. The decline in revenue has come almost entirely from taxes that are mostly paid by the richest 5 percent of families: the personal income tax and the corporate profits tax. These taxes combined now take a smaller share of national income than in any year since World War II.

This decline in tax collections from the wealthy is partly the result of the Bush tax cuts, which account for more than half of this year's projected deficit. But it also probably reflects an epidemic of tax avoidance and evasion. Everyone who wants to understand what's happening to the tax system should read "Perfectly Legal," the new book by David Cay Johnston, The Times's tax reporter, who shows how ideologues have made America safe for wealthy people who don't feel like paying taxes.

Gee, I thought it reflected an epidemic of reduced capital gains receipts, attributable to the stock market swoon. [Mini-Update: Editors Wanted, Too! Is it obvious that I am contrasting my suggestion of a decline in capital gains receipts against Krugman's suggestion of increased non-compliance? Maybe not! But I figure we all agree that the recession and the tax cuts contributed to a reduction in revenue, although that may not be clear to non-psychic readers. Who slipped me the de-caf?]

I suspect the truth will out, but unfortunately, it will not be right here and right now.

MORE: Here is the CBPP press release that P. Krugman is recycling; and some US budget data, courtesy of Ricky West. The non-psychic Max Sawicky straddles the issue John Kerry style - I thought he was cuckoo for Kuchinich.

Here is a CBO study from 2002 contemplating capital gains related tax receipts; the CBO wonders, "Where Did the Revenues Go?, back in Aug 2002:

Principled Leadership And Subtle Diplomacy From France

France Makes Headway in Push to Permit Arms Sales to China:

France pushed the European Union on Monday to lift a 14-year ban on weapons sales to China and succeeded in putting the issue on the organization's agenda for the spring.

...The embargo was imposed in response to the Chinese military's killing of pro-democracy demonstrators near Tiananmen Square in 1989. The United States imposed a similar embargo. But France and Germany have both argued that China has made sufficient strides since then in reforming its government and economy to warrant the resumption of weapons sales.

...But France's effort, coming as the country received the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, with a lavish ceremony, was derided by some officials, who argue that China's human rights abuses remain too glaring to overlook. "A desire to curry favor with the Chinese president during his state visit to France is no excuse for rethinking a long-standing European policy rooted in principle," Graham Watson, head of the Liberal Democrats in the European Parliament, said in a statement.

In fact, France stands to benefit handsomely if it succeeds in ending the arms embargo. China, the world's fastest-growing major economy, has one of the largest defense budgets in the world and is spending heavily to modernize its armed forces.

...The European Union foreign ministers agreed Monday to reconsider the ban and referred the issue to a panel of experts. But there was no indication that there would be substantive progress before the next summit meeting at the end of March as France would like.

The Netherlands, for one, has a standing parliamentary resolution that keeps the ban in place until there is clear evidence that human rights in China have improved.

Even Germany, which in December joined France in calling in principle for an end to the embargo, indicated Monday that the time was not yet ripe. "The German government does not feel ready now to lift the ban," the Reuters news agency quoted Germany's foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, as saying.

There is some concern that lifting the embargo now would add a destabilizing note to Beijing's relations with Taiwan, already strained by a plan put forth by Taiwan's president, Chen Shui-bian, to hold a national referendum in March on whether to demand that China remove missiles facing the island and renounce the use of force.

General Clark Remains On Auto-Gaffe

Any hope of the General getting favorable press coverage of his message faded (again) as he managed to mis-speak (again):

Wesley K. Clark: 'Unlike all the rest of the people in this race, I did grow up poor.'

... General Clark, who attended the United States Military Academy at West Point, soon had to admit that some of the other Democratic contenders also came from working-class families. Reminded that Representative Dennis J. Kucinich lived in a car for a time when he was a boy and that Senator Edwards was the son of a millworker, General Clark said, "I was thinking of the major candidates who are up there, the top two candidates."

More from Todd Purdum of the NY Times, who leads his Clark coverage with the same verbal slip.

Those Who Do Not Understand Their Gaffes...

Are condemned to repeat them. Sen. Kerry shows his commitment to recycling by telling the South, again, to drop dead.

Via the InstaPundit, we get this from ABC News:

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., is discounting notions that any Democratic candidate would have to appeal to Southern voters in order to win the presidency, calling such thinking a "mistake" during a speech at Dartmouth College. . . .

"Everybody always makes the mistake of looking South," Kerry said, in response to a question about winning the region. "Al Gore proved he could have been president of the United States without winning one Southern state, including his own."

Let's flashback to March 2003, when NewsMax broke this from a Kerry fundraiser:

Democratic Party presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry is apparently ready to write off a huge chunk of flyover country in his quest for the White House, boasting to a California fund raiser this week that he can lose the entire South and still beat President Bush in 2004.

And I stood three feet from the Senator when he made similar remarks at a fundraiser in NYC. Yes, I was much younger.

With five Southern Democratic Senators retiring, writing off the South is absurd.

Kerry's March gaffe was noticed in South Carolina; the Prospect explains the strategy. Wyeth Ruthven comments.

MORE: Gratuitous Kerry bashing from the archives.

STILL MORE: Now we have a song dedication. Hmm, that didn't work the last time we tried it.

Meanwhile, Back In Our Spider Hole Of Denial

New CBO budget forecasts upset everyone.

James Risen With David Kay On Saddam's WMDs

James Risen of the NY Times interviews with the C.I.A.`s former chief weapons inspector David Kay. Snippets:

American intelligence agencies failed to detect that Iraq's unconventional weapons programs were in a state of disarray in recent years under the increasingly erratic leadership of Saddam Hussein, the C.I.A.`s former chief weapons inspector said in an interview late Saturday.

The inspector, David A. Kay, who led the government's efforts to find evidence of Iraq's illicit weapons programs until he resigned on Friday, said the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies did not realize that Iraqi scientists had presented ambitious but fanciful weapons programs to Mr. Hussein and had then used the money for other purposes.

...From interviews with Iraqi scientists and other sources, he said, his team learned that sometime around 1997 and 1998, Iraq plunged into what he called a "vortex of corruption," when government activities began to spin out of control because an increasingly isolated and fantasy-riven Saddam Hussein had insisted on personally authorizing major projects without input from others.

After the onset of this "dark ages," Dr. Kay said, Iraqi scientists realized they could go directly to Mr. Hussein and present fanciful plans for weapons programs, and receive approval and large amounts of money. Whatever was left of an effective weapons capability, he said, was largely subsumed into corrupt money-raising schemes by scientists skilled in the arts of lying and surviving in a fevered police state.

"The whole thing shifted from directed programs to a corrupted process," Dr. Kay said. "The regime was no longer in control; it was like a death spiral. Saddam was self-directing projects that were not vetted by anyone else. The scientists were able to fake programs."

Another tribute to the virtues of a free market. We had seen theories that Saddam's scientists were lying about their prgress because they were afraid to tell him the truth about their lack of progress. Now we are told that some of them lied deliberately, so that he would show them the money. Bold.

Let's Not Forget The General

With the General's mouth set to "Auto-Gaffe", it is hard to keep up, but we love this clarification of his weird statement on abortion:

The Clark spokesman, Jamal Simmons, said the general supported the restrictions in Roe v. Wade and that he also supported giving the states the ability to impose some restrictions on abortion. He described the exchange with The Union-Leader's publisher as "a rhetorical fight with a conservative, right-wing, anti-choice editorial board."

"He was making an effort not to cede any ground on the issue," Mr. Simmons said. "It was an effort to keep from engaging them on the issue of timing. Engaging in this in any other way would be ceding ground to Republicans that perhaps there needs to be other restrictions."

Hmm, this notion that what the General says doesn't count if he is talking to right-wingers when he says it may make his relationship with the Republican Congressional leadership a bit awkward.

Just Spell The Name Right

John Tierney of the NY Times takes his quirky outlook to New Hampshire, and delivers a wack to kindred spirit Mickey Kaus, sponsor of the infamous Kerry Withdrawal Contest.

Mr. Tierney plugs the Feiler Faster Thesis: "voters as well as journalists process information so quickly that candidates can switch tactics instantly and turn around campaigns overnight."

Hmm, if Mr. Kerry proves to have peaked too soon in New Hampshire, and Dr. Dean can pull off a huge comeback, can we start talking about the "Faster Failure Thesis"?

More from Mickey on Kerry here; NY Times hit piece here.

Craggy John Kerry On The March!

He unveils his new campaign ad.

A. Sullivan - Right In One Sentence

Sully on Kerry:

He droned monotonously on, that stooped back and drooping face looming toward whichever poor schmuck he was condescending to at the moment.

Why Won't Sen. Kerry Fight For Core Democratic Beliefs?

We continue to take inspiration from the imbroglio initated by Peter Jennings, who asked Wesley Clark whether he would disavow Michael Moore's charge that President Bush was a "deserter". Evidently, in this battle for truth and core Democratic beliefs, Sen. Kerry has gone, uhh, AWOL!

Mr. Kerry gave a very different answer than Mr. Clark when asked whether he would have called President Bush a "deserter," as has the filmmaker Michael Moore.

"That language was over the top, and I would not use that language," Mr. Kerry said.

Oh, boo. We salute the General, and his vigorous defense of a "freedom to fantasize":

In the Democratic debate on Thursday night, General Clark declined to scold Mr. Moore, who had made the remark while sharing the stage with him in New Hampshire recently. General Clark said that Mr. Moore had the right to his opinion and that the opinion was "not relevant to me and why I'm in this campaign."

The Times has more, probing the soft undebelly (and softer head?) of the Clark effort; Jonathon Chait of TNR rides to the General's side, sort of - since he mentions the initial Boston Globe story but not the debunking NY Times piece, we remain unpersuaded. We also note the timing of the stories, in the week before the 2000 election - late hit, ref!

Donald Sensing delivers mock and awe; Bill Hobbs delivers FactCheck.org, and his own work to clear Bush.

I should add that I know the feeling - in my world, Bill and Hillary took a $100,000 payoff from the Tyson Foods people in Arkansas, washed through a commodities future account in 1979, and please don't bore me with evidence to the contrary. And of course, the major difference is my evil deed occurred.

The Gravitas Gap

My theory about the problem besetting the Clark candidacy? He suffers from a gravitas gap, falling woefully short of the standard set by everyone's favorite former General, Colin Powell.

Byron York is brutal on the General's debate performance.

I had noted Clark's vulnerability on the lobbyist/civil liberties issue a while back, so let's see how it went for the General in the debate last night.

DISTASO: General Clark, you've already discussed your concerns about the Patriot Act and support for civil liberties and privacy rights. But as a lobbyist for Acxiom Corp, you helped secure a federal contract for the system known as CAPPS II, a passenger- screening program which has been criticized by the ACLU for violating people's rights to privacy.

How does CAPPS II, which I know many air-traveler advocacy groups are concerned about, not do that, not step over the line? Or does it, now that it's about to be in place?

CLARK: Well, I don't know about CAPPS II because I have not seen the program, and I don't think many of the people who are worried about it have.

Here's what I believe. I believe that we need to use all of the tools and tradecraft at our disposal to help keep this country safe. And we need to do so in a way that doesn't violate people's privacy.

And when I was consulting with Acxiom -- and I was on the board of the company, and I did take them around and introduce them to various members of the United States government, the Defense Department and so forth, because their technology will improve our security.

But I was insistence that we do so with a firm grip on the privacy issues. Had I still been on that board when all this was going through, I would have insisted that ACLU and others be brought in to pre-approve CAPPS II. Whether that was done or not, I have no idea.

But there's nothing intrinsic in the system that we're using that can't be made fully compatible with all of the privacy concerns.

Now, he is reported to have received half a million dollars promoting a system about which he evidently knows little, and cares less. Yet this is the fellow who also talks of "accountability" when discussing George Bush.

Possible problem?

MORE: Some debate links: Glenn, Glenn, Dr. D. Now for a computer crash, and another weekend away!

VPW - A Grand Jury Probe

OK, this is a big deal.

Still, as long as Rove is not tagged, the WH spin will be, we let the professional investigators handle it, and the process worked. Which, by pleasant coincidence, seems to be the truth.

Fingers still crossed, natch.

Michael Pine Is Back

Good news for the rest of you, and GREAT news for me - I can pretty much stop thinking about Israel, and nod like a bobble-head doll to anything he posts.

For example, here is a critique of Tom Friedman's suggestion that, with respect to the war on terror, "To be successful, Democrats will need a candidate who understands three things (which Messrs. Kerry, Lieberman, Clark and Edwards do)". Hmm, it is titled "WHAT THE DEMS MUST UNDERSTAND TO CHALLENGE BUSH ON FOREIGN POLICY", but the posts around it are good, too, and the perma-links seem glitchy right now.

Anyway, go check it out, if you like Lieberman Democrats (or just want to be assured that they exist).

Dennis Kucinich Finally 'Fesses Up

I had been staring at my television for a while during the Democratic debate, puzzled by the fact that Dennis Kucinich was slightly blue (I was already over my issues with his height, and ears). Finally, he offered some help, telling us that, "I intend to have a very infinitely interesting journey to planet Earth".

Water on Mars, and evidently, silicon based life elsewhere - a big day for science.

Still Having Fun

According to press reports, both Sen. Kerry and Gen. Clark take a moment during their speeches to invite veterans to stand and be recognized for their service. However, we are still smiling over the General's attempt to pull rank on the Senator, so we can only wonder how it goes at his meetings - "Are there any veterans here? Why don't you just stand up for a moment. Now salute, dammit, there is a General in the room!"

Let's be fair and balanced, and link to this New Republic guess at how the Republican attacks on Sen. Kerry will unfold. Ouch. And here is Mickey, fascinating on the problem with Kerry's faux-populism.

VPW - A Letter To House Speaker Hastert

Following the Valerie Plame Wilson affir,we see this in the NY Times:

A group of former intelligence officers is pressing Congressional leaders to open an immediate inquiry into the disclosure last summer of the name of an undercover C.I.A. officer, Valerie Plame.

Their request, outlined in a letter on Tuesday to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and others, reflects discontent and unrest within the intelligence services about the affair, along with concern that a four-month-old Justice Department investigation into the matter may never identify who was behind the disclosure. The syndicated columnist Robert Novak, who first identified Ms. Plame as a C.I.A. officer in a column last July, has identified his sources only as Bush administration officials, and the Justice Department inquiry has not yet produced any public findings.

Yeah, yeah. We infer that the letter is to the House, rather than the Senate, because (we predicted) the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is no longer interested in participating in a partisan circus.

Next, who are these former CIA folks, and in particular, are they the VIPers who so muddied the waters last spring? One of the signatories is Ray McGovern, leader of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, so we have the connection.

Now,the Justice Dept is investigsting, and Ashcroft has recused himself, so what is the problem? Let's extend some props to Timesman Douglas Jehl, who knows a silly story when he writes it:

Asked to describe the current sentiment within the community about the affair, an intelligence official said that "people within the agency obviously don't like it when classified information appears in the press, and they especially don't like it when the names of intelligence officers get into the press."

The intelligence official added, however: "There's an investigation under way at the Justice Department, and that's appropriate. If Congress gets involved, there's always the risk of turning this into a political football, and that would make it even worse."

But maybe Congressional pressure for results is mounting?

Ms. Harman, the top Democrat on the intelligence panel, said in a separate interview that Justice Department investigators "should be given time to complete their work" and that Congress should "not meddle in the investigation." But she said she would consider joining the call for a Congressional inquiry if the leaker was not identified by next month.

She "would consider" joining the call. And I will consider taking this seriously.

However, we have a related tidbit! A leak investigation from September 2001 is proceeding apace:

The Justice Department's 18-month investigation into the leak of classified intercepted messages is focusing on Senator Richard Shelby, Republican of Alabama, who was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at the time of the disclosure, according to a law enforcement official and congressional sources.

My guess is that Sen. Shelby is a bone - this is a Bush-friendly leak, the point of which is, these things take time, but we will look at Republicans if that is where the road leads. That said, the Senator is up for re-election this fall in what is considered to be a safe seat, so this may double as a ploy to release bad news early, while we are distracted by New Hampshire and whatever.

We're Having Fun Now!

General Clark on his gender gap problem: "I think there's an impression that the armed forces is a male-dominated, hierarchical, authoritarian institution."

More General Clark: "...when I say, “It’s OK,” then it’s OK, period."

OK, fun's fun. However, the General is actually making even less sense than usual. A more complete excerpt of the General's interview on gay rights, which covered both gay marriage and gays in the military:

Q: But about 40% of U.S. marriages every year happen without any religious participation.
Clark: I support whatever the state says. If the state of Massachusetts says we’re going to form a civil union but we’re going to call it marriage, then as far as I’m concerned, that’s marriage.

Q: So you support Massachusetts’s calling it marriage?
Clark: Yeah, absolutely.

Q: How do you think Congress would react to that?
Clark: Well, they’ll love it. This is exactly what they’re looking for. Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay and all those guys are looking for a real hand grenade to throw into the Democratic Party. It’s an absurd issue, and it’s one of the reasons I’m running. No one can accuse me of being soft on defense, and no one can accuse me of not knowing about what the armed forces are about. And when I say, “It’s OK,” then it’s OK, period. But elections aren’t always about common sense. And I think [Republicans] would love to frighten people.

General, you frighten me. And I'm open to suggestions here. Did the interviewer mis-cut and paste the transcript, or does thirty-four years in the military make the General an expert on marriage?

Fans Of Sen. Edwards Already Know This

America loves trial lawyers, and class-action lawyers. Julia Roberts worked for one; John Travolta was one. Robin Hood would be one.

Mickey sends us here for an antidote.

Control Guns, Control Crime?

Brazil aims to find out.

Yes, We Have No Bandanas

The French Fashion Police continue their struggle to separate Church and State.

The President's Speech

My wife was convinced that we were seeing the old, arrogant, smirking George Bush, and how could I argue against her? He will not repeat his father's mistake of staying agenda-free, at least. I still like the notion of reforming and improving education, and the prisoner re-entry program should provide a talking point in attempting to generate minority appeal (if I am remembering my incarceration statistics). Or at least, "do something nice" appeal. Steroids in sports sends kids the wrong message, but no thoughts on whether Pete Rose belongs in the Hall? Where is the leadership?

Andrew Sullivan will let us know whether Bush walked the line on gay marriage - is it a waffle if he says "if" judges are activist, citizens must resort to the Constitutional process? Does this mean he is in a "wait and see" modality on the need for a Constitutional amendment? My wife (who, BTW, is going to vote for sunny, optimistic John Edwards if the media ever bring him to her attention) did not see the wiggle room. I did, but I also saw a good opportunity to shut up.

I TiVoed past Nancy Pelosi and Tom Daschle, and how great was that? John Kerry chatted nicely with Tom Brokaw, live from New Hampshire. Kerry looked exhausted, and his makeup and lighting guys should be shot, because Kerry looked like a special effect from Lord of the Rings - the Witch-King of Angmar, perhaps, after his ring has stretched him several hundred years. Still, it was useful PR. Edwards, Lieberman, and the rest were covered in canned bits, and Dean's wild speech got lots of attention. Kids, stay away from the crystal meth. Clark got a live chat as well, which went poorly, as discussed in this update.

Folks watching for a media tilt will say that NBC wacked Dean, ignored Edwards, and gave Kerry and Clark a platform. Kerry used his opportunity wisely, Clark got off to a cheerful start, and dissolved.

Newt Gingrich also appeared, and blessed the Bush budgets - we are at war, so spending ought to go up, the President is making tough choices, we are on track, etc. If the right wing is going to revolt, they will do it without St. Newt.

MORE: Good stuff at the InstaPundit. Andrew Sullivan has some quick hits: "It was the worst Bush SOTU yet."

On gay marriage: Who knows what to make of this passage?

...Why in three years has this president not even been able to say the word 'gay' or 'homosexual'? The reason: because Bush will not confront bigotry outright. He wants to benefit from it while finding a formula to distance himself from it. That's not a moral stand. It's moral avoidance. Still, the good and important news is that the president hasn't endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment. The Family Research Council is mad as hell.

The Old Gray Lady Raises An Eyebrow (Again)

General Wesley Clark has a media problem. The NY Times does not like him, and is continuing their evil practice of deriision by quotation. In a grand wrap-up of the various candidates' foreign policy views, David Sanger puts the General on the front page with this:

Navigating the frozen back roads of New Hampshire the other morning, Gen. Wesley K. Clark said that had he been in the Oval Office over the past year, he would have dealt with the North Korean nuclear threat before focusing on Iraq, and toppled Saddam Hussein another way: by indicting him.

"Present the evidence," General Clark said, "call for his arrest, and arrest him." He did not say how the United States could have executed the arrest before Mr. Hussein's regime was toppled.

D'oh! If only Neville Chamberlain had possessed such insight, and had flown back from Munich with Hitler in handcuffs. We can see him waving to a cheering crowd: "I believe it is peace in our time - book 'im!"

Oh, well. Look, the General is very well informed on these subjects, and is, we presume from his resume and many testimonials, a very intelligent man. He surely had a serious idea hidden in this soundbite, and it was probaly something similar to his concept for getting Osama as described in a 2002 Washington Monthly article. Now, this approach was criticized by A Sullivan and others as hopelessly multilateral, but it is not nearly as silly sounding as "Arrest Saddam!".

So, part one of his media problem - he needs to figure out, quickly, that the media wants soundbites, not insights. If he delivers a silly quote, there's the headline, and any supporting Deep Thought will be overlooked in the ensuing hilarity. Ross Perot was vocal on this subject, we recall. In fact, the General seems intent on wearing the Perotian mantle - ambitious, highly intelligent, self-made, a great American patriot, and possesed of a regrettable tendency to spend a bit too much time on the wrong side of the line dividing "Colorful" from "Kooky". When the Village Voice is calling your comments "bizzare", that's bad. Their readership may not be naturally sympathetic to a General, but they are Democrats, so presumably they are live targets. Uhh, in a non-military sense.

MORE: Links stolen from Mickey Kaus, Glenn Reynolds, and Billy Beck.

UPDATE: More free advice - if you have a chance to appear on NBC News and chat with Tom Brokaw after the President's State of the Union Address, DO avoid obviously false statements, and DO NOT argue with Trusted Tom when he corrects you. Following this advice will help prevent ghastly exchanges on live national television such as the following, transcribed via TiVo:

Gen. Clark: We were told, or it was implied, that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United Sates, and there was a connection to the war on terror. Neither of those implications has been proven out in fact. Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat to the United States. There were other ways to have dealt with Saddam Hussein rather than invading him with our armed forces and Saddam Hussein was not directly connected to the attackers that brought the attack to the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Tom Brokaw: But General, you were supportive of those efforts in your appearances on behalf of the Commander in Chief...

Clark: No, sir.

Brokaw: Well, on behalf of the Commander in Chief, and by the way, the phrase that he used was not an "imminent threat" but a "gathering threat". But you praised him at fundraisers in Arkansas...

Clark: Tom, be careful, be careful...

Brokaw: And as you began your campaign, you couldn't decide if you were for the authorization of the war or not. Go back over that again.

Not good. The General explains his appearance at a Republican fundraiser in 2001 by saying that, of course he wants every new administration to succeed, but this one has failed. He then says:

Clark: I just want to be very clear, I was never for this war. The first time I was told, two weeks after 9/11, inside the Pentagon, that the President had made up his mind... the Pentagon had made up their mind they were going to attack Saddam Hussein whether or not he was connected to 9/11, it didn't make any sense to me then, it never made sense to me, and I have never been in favor of it.

Oh, boy. Now it's conspiracy theories. The Pentagon drove this decision? Presumably, he means Wolfowitz and Co.

Let's dredge up his letter from April 2003 for an alternative view, and we express our thanks to Cecil Turner.

And we have more from the Hammer! Clark vowed that, if he were president, Osama bin Laden would already be captured or dead.

Maybe he can tell us his timetable for capturing Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, the Bosnian Serb political and military leaders during his famous victory. Additional commentary on the NATO-led effort in Serbia might also be helpful.

Edwards And Pickering

Odd that they both make headlines this Martin Luther King weekend. Byron York of NRO linked them in May of 2002, when the Senator grappled with the Judge at his Senate confirmation hearing.

When does the oppo research on Sen. Edwards start, anyway?

European Brain Drain

Glenn has a post on that subject, so I am reaching waaay down on my "To Do" list, and digging up this story from the NY Times titled "Iraq Aside, French View the U.S. With a Mixture of Attraction and Repulsion".

My fave bit:

Criticism of the Bush administration, given full voice in the media, is offset by a French business ethic that often lauds the United States and a strong feeling, particularly among the young, that America remains a land of opportunity.

"When someone says, `I'm going to work for a big corporation in New York for two years,' well, we all want to live that life," said Martin Coriat, 24, a student at a business school.

...French "republicanism" requires adherence to the notion of the ideal citizen and does not celebrate diversity or ambition. That, says Michele Lamont of Harvard University, "limits possibilities."

So, some young people turn to America as an alternative. At L'École des Hautes Études Commerciales in Jouy-en-Josas, a leafy town 15 miles from Paris, students tend to see the United States as a model.

The goal at this school of business and commerce is to teach students how to compete in a globalized world where American business models set the standard. France's historic unease about discussing money does not exist.

"Profit is the driver," said Bernard Ramanantsoa, the school's dean and a professor of strategy and business policy. "Money is the key."

Here the dream among many students is not to put down roots at home but to sail away — to America — a mythical place, perhaps, but one of boundless energy and possibility.

For Florian Bressand, 23, America offers "the right to fail that does not exist in France. Here we have to stick to a conventional path. In America, if you burn your fingers, you learn from it and start again."

The exodus of young French to the Silicon Valley is so pronounced that it has led to the creation of organizations there like Interfrench, a nonprofit organization of 5,000 French-speaking members. It is devoted to networking, sharing intelligence about work and business and even offering advice about French restaurants in the valley.

So far, so good. But not everyone is a fan:

...disapproval, even contempt, for the United States is evident in the worker bars just outside a Michelin tire plant in Clermont-Ferrand.

The smell of cigarette smoke masks that of rubber and glue pervading the air of the medieval-turned-industrial city in the heart of France. The conversations about America among assembly line workers just off the night shift tend to focus on the dangers of a world driven by the American quest for profit.

"The United States — many people say it's so good," José Fernandes, 45, a 26-year-veteran at Michelin, said as he sipped a drink of mint syrup with water on ice and smoked Camels at Le Marina bar. "But the bottom line, the only thing that counts, is money. Retired people are forced to go back to work. The lowest workers don't get paid vacations. If your boss doesn't like you, you're fired."

Mr. Fernandes added that Michelin management "would copy the United States if it could."

"But it can't," he said. "Here, we have laws." He was referring to French regulations that often make firing impossible, guarantee six-week vacations and provide comprehensive pensions and health care.

Let's see - the US gets the ambitious young students, and France keeps the middle-aged union guys. Vive la France!

Iowa Is In; My Punditry Is In Tatters

Kerry and Edwards are the big winners; Gephardt seems to have cancelled a trip to New Hampshire. If Gephardt does the obvious thing and drops out, my "nobody leaves 'til the party is deadlocked" theory wobbles. The "Dean is sandbagging" idea panned out nicely, too. Not.

We are undaunted! Bloody but unbowed! It's on to New Hampshire, where Edwards, not Kerry, benefits from a surge of media attention and a second look from the voters; how in the world can New Hampshire take a second look at a Senator from neighboring Massachusetts, who has been appearing on the evening news out of Boston for eighteen years?

We'll probably found out next week. But that is the bold prediction du jour!

STILL STANDING: OK, the Kerry surge gives us a new opportunity for some Chris Lehane bashing. Lehane quit the Kerry campaign, which almost immediately soared on wings of eagles. Sure, he quit last September, and the James Jordan staff shake-up was still to come, but don't spoil my fun. Anyway, Lehane quit because he wanted an angry Kerry snarling at Dean (I extrapolate vigorously there) and now Lehane has positioned Gen. Clark on the wrong side of the Krugman line. Wrong twice! Get off the front page, Chris!

More good news out of Iowa - the seemingly malicious and irrelevant autumnal Kerry-bashing now looks eerily prescient (if I may steal a phrase from Mickey).

We will find more reasons to cheer when we take our head out of the oven (or wherever it is).

Media Overseers - Heal Thyselves

We have more fallout from Drudge's denunciation of General Clark. Yesterday, the RNC tried to make two points: Gen. Clark has flip-flopped on the war, and his call for a Congressional probe (now criminal?!?) into the road to war is silly. The transcript of his Congressional testimony was offered in support of the second point - here is the general saying Saddam is a threat, that he has WMDs, and so on. However, Drudge conflated this into "The General was pro-war", and we were off to the races.

From the Carpetbagger report, in their attempt to monitor media fairness and accuracy:

Just to add to the last post, I found it interesting to see how the press played this story differently. It's a classic case study.

...Take yesterday's Drudge example. Drudge ran a report that took Clark quotes out of context and changed the meaning of Clark's original comments. The GOP and Lieberman's campaign tried to make a big thing about it, while Clark's campaign explained that this was ridiculous.

The report generated plenty of attention in the press -- some got it right, some didn't.

The LA Times, for example, got it wrong.

"Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie on Thursday attacked Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley K. Clark in Clark's hometown of Little Rock, Ark., saying testimony Clark gave to a Congressional committee in 2002 contradicts his current position opposing the war in Iraq. Clark, clearly fired up about what he viewed as a twisting of his comments, said his testimony was consistent with his current stand against the war."

Well, which is it? Do the comments contradict Clark's current position or don't they? Were his words twisted or not? The Times doesn't say, so its readers are left to try and guess who was telling the truth. That's not helpful, especially when there's a impartial correct answer that the Times ignores.

The Washington Post and New York Times were better. The Post, for example, noted a plain fact: "The full transcript...showed that the RNC was selective in its choice of excerpts." The Times said something similar, noting that the "full transcript reveals positions far more nuanced than the excerpts released by the Republicans." That's an exceedingly polite way of saying the GOP lied, but it gets the point across.

There is more, but that should be plenty.

Now, my objection - I don't know what the RNC may have said in a blast-fax or a phone call, but it is easy enough to find the text of the speech actually delivered by RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie. If I were interested in assessing media accuracy, I would want to link to that speech - if the Carpetbagger does, I can't find it. We do see this press release - taken with the speech, the story is consistent.

Next, I would probably look for the relevant excerpt, to see whether the media was summarizing Easy Ed accurately. They aren't. Here we go, in the continuation.

Iowa For The Truly Paranoid

Mickey and the Man point out problems with the poll numbers coming out of Iowa - can we really believe the Kerry surge, and the Dean collapse? Actually identifying likely caucus-goers seems to be a huge problem with all these polls. On the other side, certain campaigns seem to have made a science of staying in touch with their supporters.

So, enough with common sense - let's get crazy. Suppose you were a brilliant strategist for an underdog insurgent outsider. And suppose your guy has caught fire (we did say you were brilliant), and now leads the pack. Do you (a) encourage your supporters to talk him up to every pollster that calls, thereby inflating expectations, or (b) remind supporters that time spent talking to pollsters is time wasted and that all we need to do is bring it on Monday night?

If your campaign is sufficiently well organized and financed, and in contact with its supporters (maybe the Internet would be handy), dampening expectations is a great and achievable tactic. Two weeks ago, Dean getting 28% in Iowa would have been ho-hum - now it will be a triumph.

This tidbit is topical:

In 2000, for example, then Vice President Al Gore led former Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey by only four percentage points in the final polling before the caucuses that year. In the end, though, Gore crushed Bradley, 63.4 percent to 39.2 percent, snuffing out the momentum Bradley was hoping to gain in Iowa by exceeding expectations.

Matt Drudge Employs His Selective Excerpter

Matt Drudge sets a trap for the Clark-critics by selectively excerpting his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on Sept. 26, 2002. Maybe this is oppo research run amok, but Matt is offering as a "World Exclusive" a transcript available right here, and characterizing the general as pro-war, rather than pro-diplomacy. In a coals to Newcastle gesture, I will defend the general on this one - his full remarks are sensible and consistent with what I understand him to have been saying on Iraq. In fact, this is the General that ought to be a candidate - set him free, Chris Lehane!

Highlights:

CLARK: Thank you, sir. There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat...

I'm sure he has a rationale for what he's doing, but we don't always know it. He does retain his chemical and biological capabilities to some extend and he is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet.

OK, that is a bit of an "Aha!" moment. However, his main message is a call for a broad diplomatic effort, with emphasis on Al Qaeda, which we excerpt below.

MID COURSE UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg is nobody's fool, or at least, not Matt Drudge's: a link to Drudge at 11:42 is followed by a link to Clark's opening statement at 12:06.

MORE: The plot thickens - did we allude to the possibility of oppo research run amok? Now Drudge is presenting a statement from the Lieberman folks:

Joe Lieberman issued the following statement in response to the Drudge Report's discovery of congressional testimony from September 2002 in which Wes Clark made the case for war in Iraq. The report provides evidence directly contradicting Clark's repeated claims that he has been "very consistent" on the war "from the very beginning."

Statement by Joe Lieberman

"Yesterday, Wesley Clark attacked me for pointing out his multiple positions on the war in Iraq. It is no longer credible for Wesley Clark to assert that he has always had only one position on the war - being against it. His own testimony before Congress shows otherwise....

So, is this a hit by Kindly and Concerned Uncle Joe? For shame.

AND MORE: Re: Lieberman - Not so fast! Ed Gillespie of the RNC was wacking Clark in Little Rock. Ow, well, Lieberman, the RNC, how can one tell them apart?

Here are Gillespie's comments - there is more dirt than just some selective excerpting in there. Anyway, he mentions this transcript in the context of "Clark said Saddam had WMDs, so quit with the Bush lied nonsense", rather than "Clark was pro-war". No fingerprints!

WaPo coverage.

Timing Is Everything

Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean just prior to the capture of Saddam Hussein. If this poll shocker comes true (Kerry leads in Iowa!), that endorsement may be seen as Howard's high-water mark.

Now, on a bitterly cold and snowy day, Al Gore is in NYC to warn the Apple (and the world!) about global warming.

Stay on message, Big Al! Ignore the critics!

MORE: Of course Big Al has a point: "The extreme conditions are actually the end result of the planet warming," Gore has told advisers...". OK, that may explain Howard Dean (I thought it was Iraq), but what about the weather?

From Last August, The 9/11 Commission Re-Appears...

The NY Times tells us that "2 on 9/11 Panel Are Questioned on Earlier Security Roles":

ASHINGTON, Jan. 14 — The executive director of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks has become a witness in the inquiry and has been interviewed by his own staff about his involvement in shaping the Bush administration's early counterterrorism strategy, officials said on Wednesday.

In addition, one of the 10 commissioners on the panel, a deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration, was also interviewed this week. The unusual dual roles of the director, Philip D. Zelikow, and the commissioner, Jamie S. Gorelick, have raised fresh questions about potential conflicts of interest in the commission, which has been dogged by concerns about its independence since it was created in 2002.

...In addition, Ms. Gorelick, one of the 10 commissioners to whom Mr. Zelikow reports, said she had been interviewed this week about her involvement in terrorism policy. She was the top deputy in the mid-90's to Attorney General Janet Reno. Like Mr. Zelikow, she has also recused herself from dealings involving decisions in which she was involved.

Officials said Ms. Gorelick and two other commission members had also withdrawn from involvement in aviation issues because their law firms had airlines as clients.

Dwight Meredith kicked off a discussion on the aviation-related conflict of interest point last August. My post, with other links, is here.

And since there may be a prize for "Ask a Stupid Question", I'll plunge forward - how does a 9/11 commissioner recuse herself from aviation issues? Weren't aviation issues somewhat central to the day's events?

Oh, never mind - obviously, there were a lot of law enforcement and intelligence activities and opportunities prior to 9/11 which should be reviewed.

TNR Endorses Lieberman

No surprise. But we like the Baseball Crank's observation - at this point, TNR is a partisan magazine in search of a party.

OK, his sidekick has links.