JustOneMinute

Those Oldies But Goodies

Apropos of nothing, we recycle a WaPo story about Kerry from Feb 8, 2004:

Before and after last year's war on Iraq, Kerry criticized the president for failing to assemble the kind of coalition Bush's father put together in 1991. But in his 1991 floor statement, Kerry was dismissive of the elder Bush's coalition. That effort, he said, lacked "a true United Nations collective security effort," and he was critical of the then-president for trading favors for China's support and cozying up to Syria, despite its human rights record.

"I regret that I do not see a new world order in the United States going to war with shadow battlefield allies who barely carry a burden," he said then. "It is too much like the many flags policy of the old order in Vietnam, where other countries were used to try to mask the unilateral reality. I see international cooperation; yes, I see acquiescence to our position; I see bizarre new bedfellows and alliances, but I question if it adds up to a new world order."

The language raises the question of what kind of international coalition meets Kerry's standards...

Dick Cheney excerpted this nugget in his speech that sent Kerry on vacation, so between the VP and the WaPo, I expect it is well circulated. Still, when I want to find it someday, I want it here.

"Out Of The Loop"

Is there any way to get the NY Times back in the loop on this? From their front-pager today:

Panel members said they also wanted to question Ms. Rice about a variety of public assertions she has made since the Sept. 11 attacks that have since been disputed, including remarks she made in recent interviews that contradict those of Mr. Cheney and others at the White House.

Among other things, Ms. Rice told reporters last week that she did not agree with Mr. Cheney's assertion that Mr. Clarke, who was on her staff at the National Security Council, had been "out of the loop" on counterterrorism issues during 2001.

That may be a shorter discussion than they expect, since Dick Cheney DID NOT say Clarke was "out of the loop". What Cheney said to Rush Limbaugh was:

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, he wasn't -- he wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff. And I saw part of his interview last night, and he wasn't --

Q He was demoted.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It was as though he clearly missed a lot of what was going on. For example, just three weeks after the -- after we got here, there was communication, for example, with the President of Pakistan, laying out our concerns about Afghanistan and al Qaeda, and the importance of going after the Taliban and getting them to end their support for the al Qaeda. This was, say, within three weeks of our arrival here.

First of all, as a boring matter of journalistic accuracy, could the Times trouble itself to quote accurately the Vice President of the United States? Don Luskin noted a rowback in this editorial, but they seem to be rowing forward again.

Secondly, considering the example provided, it may well be the case that Clarke was not aware of that particular diplomatic initiative.

Condoleeza Rice had a long explanation of Clarke's "loopiness" in response to a question which mischaracterized Dick Cheney's comment, which we repeat below.

And since we especially like the pithy Colin Powell, we will give him the Big Finish:

We were not ignorant of the threat. Mr. Clarke's claim seems to be that, well, we didn't have enough meetings of the kind that he liked.

MORE: The Times welcomes comments and suggestions, as well as information about errors that call for correction. Messages may be e-mailed to nytnews@nytimes.com

UPDATE: We laugh, we cry.

First, an e-mailer suggests that I research John Kerry's principled positions.

Secondly, Richard Clarke discussed the spring initiative with Pakistan in the Aug 2002 briefing (and props to C. Turner in the comments for noticing), so he evidently was in that loop. Possible (unconvincing) defense of Cheney, who has become the eight hundred pound anchor of this 'effing Administration, is that he spoke with Rush on Monday, and the Clarke transcript emerged later that week.

A Bit More On Clarke

Rich Lowry blasts Clarke, but does not see a perjury charge in his future. No kidding - hiding potential crimes in the secrecy of the Justice Dept. has been a Washington ploy since the debacle of Iran-Contra. The Dems would love to see this go to Justice, scream for a Special Prosecutor, and let the legal Cone of Silence cover this past the election (like Valerie Plame, but with better timing.)

Bonus protection - the evidentiary standard for a perjury charge would be much higher in a court than in the court of public opinion. The public wants to judge this guy's honesty, not debate the meaning of "is".

And props to Clarke and the Dems for a bonus obfuscaton - the call to declassify both his testimony and related materials is unrealistic (Clarke wants to hand our plan to Al Qaeda just to clear his name?), but gives them grounds to complain later. Raise The Bar!

Greg Djerejian finishes Clarke's book; so does Dan Drezner.

Josh Marshall spins so hard that one of us gets dizzy - suggesting a Justice Dept. investigation, and that more documents be declassified, are bold steps by the Dems.

Let's see - in the initial Times account, Frist and Hastert want to make the Clarke testimony public; Frist alludes to perjury without saying it. Graham plays Raise the Bar by calling for the release of more documents; Rockefeller wants to involve the Justice Department and Lower the Cone of Silence.

This Times story probably has it right: Mr. Clarke's Congressional testimony, given while he was still at the White House, put a more "positive spin" on the administration's counterterrorism efforts, just as he did in a 2002 press briefing that was released last week, said a senior Democratic Congressional aide who spoke on condition of anonymity. But factually, it did not appear to contradict what Mr. Clarke told the Sept. 11 commission last week, the aide said.

We will leave the final word on Mr. Clarke to the respected bipartisan 9/11 Commission, Staff Report 8:

Clarke was a controversial figure. A career civil servant, he drew wide praise as someone who called early and consistent attention to the seriousness of the terrorism danger. A skilled operator of the levers of government, he energetically worked the system to address vulnerabilities and combat terrorists. Some colleagues have described his working style as abrasive. Some officials told us that Clarke had sometimes misled them about presidential decisions or interfered in their chain of command. National Security Adviser Berger told us that several of his colleagues had wanted Clarke fired. But Berger’s net assessment was that Clarke fulfilled an important role in pushing the interagency process to fight Bin Ladin. As Berger put it, “I wanted a pile driver.”

"Sometimes misled them". Maybe he was just putting a positive spin on it.

MORE: Yes, I had problems with attempting to de-classify Clarke's testimony early on.

From Iraqgate to Kofigate

William Safire lives to untangle Iraqi accounting, from Iraqgate to Kofigate. Add this to the list of stories the Dems hope won't break before November.

MORE: Waddya mean, "what list?" I thought you were keeping it!

Gee Whiz - Problems With Kyoto

Imagine our [insensitive, unilateral] surprise:

...despite the change in weather patterns and Europe's green rhetoric, the EU faces a reality check on March 31, the day each member nation must submit a plan for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

The projected costs, as well as the likely loss of economic competitiveness with the United States, has the EU wondering if it can virtually go it alone in implementing the Kyoto Protocols on climate change.

...No EU government had submitted a plan by last week, although seven of the 15 have drafts. Many governments are as troubled as Germany's, with the result that the European Commission sent out a warning that failure to submit a plan on time could result in legal action and fines.

These fines will presumably be comparable to the fines imposed on Germany and France for breaking the budget deficit rules.

MORE: The Man Without Carbon Emissions goes nuclear on this. Soundbite:

The German Kyoto problem is even worse than the above passages suggest, because the German (and, increasingly, European) instinct for economic suicide in the service of hi-sounding principles that any sensible person would know could not be reconciled doesn't end with Kyoto - but extends to elimination of nuclear power, too...

I wish it were hard to understand why so many Europeans think that signing up for principles that they do not reasonably intend to respect amounts to a political virtue....

Biden Our Time With Europe

We passed on some tidbits about Joe Biden kicking Euro-ass and taking names before; here is an encore:

Politicus: Europe in for a letdown if it's counting on Kerry
John Vinocur IHT / Mar 30, 2004

...Many influential Europeans seem to believe that Senator John Kerry in a Democratic White House would restore both respectful equanimity to the American side of the trans-Atlantic relationship and, perhaps more naïvely, aim to redefine U.S. interests in a way that did not seem so self-interestedly American.

Pushed to the extreme, this might be called the European School for Reforming America. In this notion, a needy United States seeks out European counsel, converts to multilateralism and submits get-tough inclinations to the United Nations for the veto-ready muster of China, Russia and France. In the Rayburn Building's Gold Room, such tones were unmistakably absent from the remarks of Senator Joseph Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and of Representative Tom Lantos, the ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee. At a seminar sponsored by the University of Michigan, Biden and Lantos were joined by Henry Hyde, the Republican chairman of the House committee, and Madeleine Albright, secretary of state under Bill Clinton, to talk about the European Union and the United States before a group that included the German and French ambassadors in Washington.

In looking eternally inward, Biden said, the European Union's leading members had for the most part had taken their eye off the ball about the rest of the world. Europeans misguidedly tended to regard the United States as an imperial power, he added. And their leaders offered no really constructive alternatives to the Iraq war.

Recalling that he had talked to six European government chiefs about the war, Biden caricatured how they would have done things better. "Blah blah blah, international cooperation," the senator mimicked. He added, in his own voice, "Give me a break, huh."

When Biden offered the possibility, beyond more civility, of a future in contrast to the Bush administration, it was in a plague-on-your-houses context. He said of the two, Europe and Bush, "You have fallen in love with international institutions to the extent that this administration has fallen in love with unilateral action."

For good measure, Biden threw in the view that the European Union will not have a unified foreign policy, and with it, the phrase, "I hope you do, I wish you well, but I see no evidence you're going to spend the money needed" to create a serious European military force either.

Biden left the prospect of a trans-Atlantic emotional healing to Lantos, who was born in Europe. He saw none at hand. There was no hatred in America for Europe, he said, just "disenchantment and disillusion." The new American college generation "couldn't care less" about Europe.

...Biden suggested at least one [European leader] did [understand US politics]. He told his audience of visiting an unnamed European leader whose government opposed the war in Iraq. Do you think it's more important to have the situation in Iraq righted than to see Bush defeated, the senator asked the European.

The leader cleared his throat, hemmed and hawed, began three different sentences, and, according to Biden, finally gave an answer. "Yes," he said.

More complete excerpt below.

MORE: We toss in the wit and wisdom of Joe Biden.

Now It Is Lowellgate?

Pat Curley, whose blog title warns you to any possible bias (unlike "JustOneMinute" with the endless posts), has a good reprise of the Kerry - VVAW assasination plot, with a new twist - Gerald Nicosia, the author with the FBI files was burglarized, and some of the files were stolen. Let's try an LA Times link.

Now, who would steal something like that? Well, from the weird to the utterly bizarre - Lowellgate:

Get ready for Lowellgate.

On Sept. 18, 1972, the evening before the primary election during his second attempt for Congress, Kerry's brother Cameron and one Thomas Vallely, both part of his current campaign team, were arrested by Lowell police at 1:40 a.m. and charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit larceny....

End The Character Assasination!

John Kerry calls on the lying, crooked Republican Attack Machine to end the character assasination of Richard Clarke.

Maybe we can help - if we were questioning Clarke's miltary service from over thirty years ago, or revealing that he had been arrested for drunk driving many years ago, that might be character assasination.

If we were shouting that he had betrayed his country, or re-cycling speculation that he had turned a blind eye to 9/11 because he was in cahoots with a foreign power, that might be character assasination.

But let's take a look at what Dr. Frist is actually saying on the Senate floor (where he is immune from slander suits, right?):

There are five points that I find absolutely inexplicable about Mr. Clarke's performance this past week.

First, in an e-mail to the national security adviser four days after the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Clarke expressed alarm that when the era of national unity begins to crack, an effort to assign responsibility for the 9/11 attacks will begin. In that e-mail, Mr. Clarke proceeds to lay out in detail a defense of his own actions before the attack and those of the entire administration.

Mr. Clarke was clearly consumed by the desire to dodge any blame for the 9/11 attacks, while at that same moment rescuers were still searching the rubble of the World Trade Center for survivors.

Mr. Clarke implies to Tim Russert that he was asked to provide the CYA memo by Condi Rice. I welcome rebuttal evidence on this point, but there is certainly a chance that Dr. Frist has gone overboard on this point.

Second, in the August of 2002 interview I just referred to [a background briefing Mr. Clarke gave to reporters], Mr. Clarke gave a thorough account of the Bush administration's active policy against Al Qaeda. Mr. Clarke now explains away that media performance by suggesting that he was simply telling lies in an interview as a loyal administration official.

A loyal administration official? Does Mr. Clarke understand the gravity of the issues being reviewed by the 9/11 commission and the gravity of the charges he has made?

The WaPo seems satisfied Mr. Clarke is exaggerating his case. We are scoring this as a very reasonable question, rather than assasination.

Third, Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath. In July 2002, in front of the Congressional joint inquiry on the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Clarke testified under oath that the administration actively sought to address the threat posed by Al Qaeda during its first seven months in office.

It is one thing for Mr. Clarke to dissemble in front of the media. But if he lied under oath to the United States Congress, it is a far more serious matter.

This is a very serious charge. Based on the Frontline interview and the August 2002 briefing, I would not be surprised if it were true - his tone surely has changed, and perhaps, as a loyal staffer, he felt obliged to give a positive spin to Congress. If a guy is lying, is it "character assasination" to say so?

Fourth, notwithstanding Mr. Clarke's efforts to use his book first and foremost to shift blame and attention from himself, it is also clear that Mr. Clarke and his publishers adjusted the release date of his book in order to make maximum gain from the publicity around the 9/11 hearings. Assuming the controversy around this series of events does in fact drive the sales of his book, Mr. Clarke will make quite a bit of money for his efforts.

I find this to be an appalling act of profiteering, trading on his insider access to highly classified information and capitalizing upon the tragedy that befell this nation on Sept. 11, 2001. Mr. Clarke must renounce any plan to personally profit from this book.

There seems to be no question that the publisher timed the book to hit the stores the week of Clarke's testimony. And of course, the media giant in question used its "60 Minutes" television arm to promote the book as well.

Current calculations suggest that Clarke will gross well over a million dollars for this (The NY Times reports 450,000 book x $4/book as a working estimate). Pay your agent and your taxes, and it still beats a civil servants paycheck. TIME notes a shrill, partisan tone, and inflammatory inconsistencies between the book and the 60 Minutes television promotion. Connect the dots.

On his recent "Meet The Press" appearance, Dick Clarke suggested several times that both sides raise the tone:

And you know, Tim, what I would like to do, beginning today, it's been going on for a week now. What I would like to do beginning today, is let's raise the level of discourse. Let's get some civility back into this issue. And let's talk about the issues. Let's not talk about the personalities. I have great respect for Dr. Rice. People have been saying all week that, you know, I must have a grudge against Condi Rice. I have known Condi for a long time. I think she's a very, very good person. And I don't want this to be about personality. I want it to be about the issues, about the war in Iraq and its affect on the war on terror.

Fine. In pursuit of that laudable objective, and while on the subject of Condoleeza Rice, maybe Mr. Clarke would like to try for another apology. Something along the lines of "I am sorry I wrote in my best-selling book that she appeared never to have heard of Al Qaeda" would be fine. And no, "she's a very, very good person" comes nowhere near the point - he attacked her competence, not her niceness.

And while we are rasing the tone, perhaps we can get clarification from Mr. Clarke about how Osama's mind-rays work on George Bush:

"It was as if Osama bin Laden, hidden in some high mountain redoubt, were engaging in long-range mind control of George Bush, chanting 'invade Iraq, you must invade Iraq,' " Clarke writes.

Now, I think it is as if George Soros, in some chic hide-away, is engaging in long range mind control of Dick Clarke, chanting "Dump on Bush, Dump on Bush". But I suspect I would be criticized for engaging in character assasination if I said so.

MORE: The "InContext" crowd makes a different point; we note that Dick Clarke explains that his Aug 2002 briefing was inspired by this TIME magazine cover story; he fails to note (as does the usually alert Tim Russert) that Sandy Berger backpedaled vigorously under oath.

MORE: Later that day, on CNN Late Night, Clarke says "Let's get more civil. If I have been guilty of overheating the argument, as well, then I apologize. Let's see if we can retain some level of civility here in Washington and talk about the issues."

If? He seemed happy enough dishing it out. And happy to cash the check.

Clarke Versus Clarke

Richard Clarke, March 2002 Frontline Interview. He is talking about John O'Neill, the former FBI counterterrorism head who died at the World Trade Center on 9/11:

Q: Was he, were you, listened to [about the Al Qaeda threat]?

CLARKE: Yes, slowly. Certainly after the embassy bombing in Africa in 1998, it was very obvious that what John was saying, what I was saying, was right: that this was more than a nuisance; that this was a real threat. But I don't think everyone came to the understanding that it was an existential threat. The question was, "This group is more than a nuisance, but are they worth going to war with? After all, they've only attacked two embassies. Maybe that's a cost of doing business. This kind of thing happens. Yes, we should spend some time some energy trying to get them, but it's not the number one priority we have."

Clarke, March 2004, before the 9/11 Commission:

CLARKE: My impression was that fighting terrorism, in general, and fighting Al Qaida, in particular, were an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration -- certainly no higher priority. There were priorities probably of equal importance such as the Middle East peace process, but I certainly don't know of one that was any higher in the priority of that administration.

After Saturday's WaPo, with props to the OxBlogsters, are we still arguing about this?

And, on the sense of urgency in the summer of 2001, we extract this:

Q: A lot of people looked at Sept. 11, and said "Massive intelligence failure. Haven't seen an intelligence failure like this since Pearl Harbor." What's your opinion on that allegation?

Clarke: I think it's a cheap shot. I think when people say, no matter what event it is, they say, "Oh, it was an intelligence failure," they frequently don't know what the intelligence community said prior to the event. In June 2001, the intelligence community issued a warning that a major Al Qaeda terrorist attack would take place in the next many weeks. They said they were unable to find out exactly where it might take place. They said they thought it might take place in Saudi Arabia.

We asked, "Could it take place in the United States?" They said, "We can't rule that out." So in my office in the White House complex, the CIA sat and briefed the domestic U.S. federal law enforcement agencies, Immigration, Federal Aviation, Coast Guard, and Customs. The FBI was there as well, agreeing with the CIA, and told them that we were entering a period when there was a very high probability of a major terrorist attack. Now I don't think that's an intelligence failure. It may be a failure of other parts of the government, but I don't think that was an intelligence failure.

Charles Krauthammer is all over this.

On obsessing, and the link to Iraq:

Q: Because one of the things that surprises a lot of the public, I think, is that immediately after Sept. 11, the administration knew exactly who had done it. Was that why?

CLARKE: No. On the day of Sept. 11, then the day or two following, we had a very open mind. CIA and FBI were asked, "See if it's Hezbollah. See if it's Hamas. Don't assume it's Al Qaeda. Don't just assume it's Al Qaeda." Frankly, there was absolutely not a shred of evidence that it was anybody else. The evidence that it was Al Qaeda began just to be massive within days after the attack.

Q: Somebody's quoted as saying that they walked into your office and almost immediately afterwards, the first words out of your mouth was "Al Qaeda."

Clarke: Well, I assumed it was Al Qaeda. No one else had the intention of doing that. No one else that I knew of had the capability of doing that. So yes, as soon as it happened, I assumed it was Al Qaeda.

Uhh, is it still OK for the President to ask his NSC expert to go beyond his assumptions and look around? Dick Clarke thought so in his book, at least.

Richard Clarke - Lots To Read

For the reading list:

Richard Clarke - His Own Words

Richard Clarke on 60 Minutes, Mar 21

RichardClarke on 60 Minutes - transcript

Richard Clarke on PBS, Mar 22

Richard Clarke on Meet The Press, Mar 28

Richard Clarke on CNN Late Night, Mar 28

Slate excerpts the Richard Clarke book

Transcript of testimony to 9/11 panel

The de-anonymized Clarke backgrounder from August 2002; some background on the Sandy Berger/TIME story that prompted the press briefing.

Frontline interview, March 2002; Charles Krauthammer goes animal on this. I unbury the lede below, in "Sense of Urgency".

Must-Read Reports

Report of 9-11 Commission

Staff Statement 8 - National Policy Coordination

Background

Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9-11; and supplemental documents are available at:

Documents From Congress' Joint Inquiry into 9/11

JOINT INQUIRY STAFF REPORT / ADDITIONAL VIEWS / SENATOR JON KYL, SENATOR PAT ROBERTS

CNN Account: Bush's national security speech at the Citadel, Sept 23, 1999. Their excerpts mention terror twice, and Iraq not at all.

Clarke is a Hero!

Will Saletan:

Did the Bush administration's preoccupation with developing a "comprehensive strategy" against al-Qaida in 2001 get in the way of addressing the immediate prospect of an attack on the United States?

Mr. Saletan introduces the theme in an earlier piece.

The gist - Plodding bureacracy versus Rapid, Flexible Response! Or, Planning versus Fire Drills. Team Bush focussed on churning out a long term plan without responding to the increased threat environment in the summer of 2001. In Clarke's phrase, they failed to shake the trees.

My comment - I think this overestimates the likely impact of tree-shaking in 2001 - in 1999, terrorists with explosives in Jordan and at the Canadian border had been captured, trigggering a full court press in anticipation of Dec 31, 1999; in the summer of 2001, the intel was softer, and the deadline non-existent. I would also note that, following Mr. Saletan's evidently non-self-deflating correction, it was the CIA which sat on key information, even though DCI Tenet was reporting daily to Pres. Bush, and the CIA was sufficiently alarmed that, apparently on their own initiative, they prepared a domestic threat assessment in early August 2001. My advice - shake your own tree. Yeah.

I also think this view misunderestimates the inabilty of the Clinton team to develop a coherent plan. However, it is similar to the case I would make when I am feeling sympathetic to Clarke.

Fred Kaplan - "Dick Clarke Is Telling the Truth" - precedes, rather than explains, the release of the Aug 2002 briefing.

[We could use some nominees here]

Clarke is a Bum! (Sorry, we are not doing nuance, although Drezner and Adesnik are, below)

TIME Magazine - "Richard Clarke, at War With Himself"

Dan Drezner; I would add a pop-psychology touch - it may not be just Clarke's personal prestige, but the guilt.anger/frustration of 3,000 deaths which Clarke seems to believe maybe, maybe, maybe could have been prevented (see Saletan, above)

Rep. Chris Shays (R, CT)

Rich Lowry from the NY Post - attempts to reconcile the book, the testimony, and the Aug 2002 briefing.

David Adesnik of OxBlog

Steven Hayes, Weekly Standard

Condoleeza Rice: 9/11 - For The Record

White House rebuttal

The Sept 12 Meeting where Bush instructed Clarke to look at Iraq.

NY Times on the Sept 12 meeting. We assist:

Mr. Cressey... is a partner with Mr. Clarke in a consulting company that advises on cybersecurity issues...

Mr. Cressey cast Mr. Bush's instructions to Mr. Clarke less as an order to come up with a link between Mr. Hussein and Sept. 11, and more as a request to "take a look at all options, including Iraq." He backed off Mr. Clarke's suggestion that the president's tone was intimidating. "I'm not going to get into that," Mr. Cressey said. "That is Dick's characterization."

Dan Drezner - Clarke book excerpt - examines and supports the TIME comment on this point.

On the linkage of Iraq and 9/11 generally, John Kerry's Oct 2002 Senate speech always makes us smile, since he takes the position that Bush should have addressed the Saddam problem either in his inaugaural address, or right after 9/11, but surely not in October 2002. For the Kerr-bears, this timing problem can be expressed as "Saddam - hier ot demain mais pas aujourd'hui".

But the administration missed an opportunity 2 years ago [Huh? The USS Cole bombing was Oct 200, two year before this speech. A link?] and particularly a year ago after September 11. They regrettably, and even clumsily, complicated their own case. The events of September 11 created new understanding of the terrorist threat and the degree to which every nation is vulnerable. That understanding enabled the administration to form a broad and impressive coalition against terrorism. Had the administration tried then to capitalize on this unity of spirit to build a coalition to disarm Iraq, we would not be here in the pressing days before an election, late in this year, debating this now. The administration's decision to engage on this issue now, rather than a year ago or earlier, and the manner in which it has engaged, has politicized and complicated the national debate and raised questions about the credibility of their case.

"A Sense Of Urgency"

Clarke raised Republican hackles with his assertion, as described in the WaPo, that:

Ex-Aide Recounts Terror Warnings
Clarke Says Bush Didn't Consider Al Qaeda Threat a Priority Before 9/11

...Clarke told the commission in testimony yesterday afternoon that whereas the Clinton administration treated terrorism as its highest priority, the Bush administration did not consider it to be an urgent issue before the attacks. "

Clarke's full quote is available in the testimony transcript, and modifies the Clinton's "highest priority" reported by the WaPo:

CLARKE: My impression was that fighting terrorism, in general, and fighting Al Qaida, in particular, were an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration -- certainly no higher priority. There were priorities probably of equal importance such as the Middle East peace process, but I certainly don't know of one that was any higher in the priority of that administration.

CLARKE, Frontline Interview, March 2002:

Certainly after the embassy bombing in Africa in 1998, it was very obvious that what John [John O'Neill, FBI counter-terrorist] was saying, what I was saying, was right: that this was more than a nuisance; that this was a real threat. But I don't think everyone came to the understanding that it was an existential threat. The question was, "This group is more than a nuisance, but are they worth going to war with? After all, they've only attacked two embassies. Maybe that's a cost of doing business. This kind of thing happens. Yes, we should spend some time some energy trying to get them, but it's not the number one priority we have."

We comment on Clinton's many, many priorities in "Those Subtle Priorities", Parts I and II.

Here is Pres. Clinton urging us on against terror, in the Jan 2000 State of the Union:

I predict to you, when most of us are long gone but some time in the next 10 to 20 years, the major security threat this country will face will come from the enemies of the nation state: the narcotraffickers and the terrorists and the organized criminals, who will be organized together, working together, with increasing access to ever-more sophisticated chemical and biological weapons.

Folks expert in finding "imminent threat" warnings will no doubt find one here. Those with less imagination will probably founder on the "10 to 20 years" timeframe.

Matt Hoy noticed that the NY Times, in its main story on the Clarke testimony, did not even mention his "top priority" assessment. "All The News That's Fit To Print, Unless It Makes Our Guy Look Implausible". By comparison, the WaPo ran the Clinton comparison in the third paragraph.

And OxBlog notices the WaPo is rowing back on this, in their widely-unread Saturday edition:

The findings also put into perspective the criticism of President Bush's approach to terrorism by Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism chief: For all his harsh complaints about Bush administration's lack of urgency in regard to terrorism, he had no serious quarrel with the actual policy Bush was pursuing before the 2001 attacks.

Hmm. So when the lying, crooked RAM said that Clarke was lying about that we were... (a) flat out wrong; (b) maybe possessing a valid point?

And since Sen. Bill Frist, in his speech attacking Richard Clarke, alludes to the possibility that Mr. Clarke may have lied to Congress and might be investigated for perjury, we think ironists will delight in this next quote. It comes from Mr. Clarke himself, in his now-controversial Congressional testimony of 2002, and he is urging people in the Executive Branch to shed their risk aversion, take a few more chances, and endure the possible consequences of a Congressional probe:

"Believe it or not, a lot of people in the executive branch are scared stiff about being up in front of a congressional committee"

We believe it.

The Spring Offensive In Pakistan

The NY Times provides a grim assessment of the Pakistani army's performance and prospects in the Waziristan region:

Had Dr. Zawahiri and other militants humbled the mighty Pakistani army, killing at least 30 Pakistani soldiers and capturing another 20 before escaping? Or had the entire battle been blown out of proportion by Pakistani officials, including General Musharraf, in a week when they were eager to impress a visiting American dignitary, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell?

Both versions of the events carry a grain of truth, according to Pakistani analysts of military affairs. And whatever occurred, they said, the episode had troubling implications for the future of Pakistani military operations in the country's tribal areas.

And for the "Why didn't Bush get Musharraf to do this sooner?" crowd we have an extended excerpt after the break.

MORE: Pakistan, Al Qaeda, and India. Yes, the Indians wanted Pakistan designated a state sponsor of terror, and had a good case. Pakistan's ISI is wound up with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the other Kashmiri terror groups, which we all know but sometimes overlook when screaming at Pakistan to do more.

The Hatch Amendment On Gay Marriage Makes The Times

Tom Campbell was a Republican congressman from California from 1989 to 1993 and 1995 to 2001, the NY Times tell us, which may explain why I have never heard of him. But here he is on the op-ed page of the Sunday Times, urging Bush to back the as-yet-unoffered Hatch Amendment on gay marriage:

With two simple acts, President Bush can inoculate himself against one of the most powerful attacks likely to be made against him in the coming campaign: that he does not support Americans' right to privacy.

One act would be to make the following declaration regarding judges: "I will not appoint any person to the Supreme Court or other federal courts who intends to restrict an individual's right to privacy; and I will not demand of any nominee in advance a promise to rule in any specific way on any specific case."

The other would be to endorse the following amendment regarding gay marriage: "Nothing in this Constitution shall compel the federal government or any state to accord the status of marriage, or its benefits or obligations, to any parties other than one man and one woman."

Forward progress!

MORE: Our last look at this had some useful links.

Bob Dole Has Campaign Advice For George Bush

We must correct this bit:

As noble as Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam was, his record on Iraq is a little spotty. In 1991 he voted against the Persian Gulf war. Then in 2002 he voted for the current war against Saddam Hussein. But then in 2003 he voted against the $87 billion legislation to finance operations and rebuilding in Iraq. Only 12 senators opposed that bill, while 87 supported it.

Actually, Sen. Kerry did vote for that bill, before he voted against it.

The Yankees Go To Tokyo

Yankee fans will like these stories; other fans may find some useful pointers:

Matsui and the rest of the Yankees arrived in Tokyo early Saturday morning, the end of an 18-hour journey that began on Thursday afternoon in Florida after a spring training game against Philadelphia. Right behind them were the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, with whom the Yankees will open the regular season here Tuesday at 5:05 a.m. Eastern.

Although the Yankees wore sweatsuits and slippers during the long flight, they arrived at Tokyo International Airport wearing jackets and ties, in contrast to the Devil Rays, who arrived in casual clothes.

And a classic tale of fan awareness in Tokyo:

[Yogi] Berra, 78, accompanied the Yankees on this trip. He has done his part to help the game grow here, but Torre found out Saturday that Berra's celebrity has its limits.

"I'm sitting having breakfast with Yogi and Brian Cashman, and somebody came in and asked me for my autograph," Torre said. "I signed for him, and about 30 minutes later he comes back with a camera. He said, `Would you mind taking a picture with me?' I said, `Not at all.'

"He hands Yogi the camera and says, `Will you please take it?' I thought that was priceless. It was absolutely priceless. I wasn't going to say who he is. Yogi held it steady and took the picture."

We love this game.

Who Roots For Goliath?

Piling on:

AP - In a highly unusual move, key Republicans in Congress are seeking to declassify testimony that former White House terrorism adviser Richard Clarke gave in 2002 about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Friday.

...No immediate information was available on how the declassification process works, but one GOP aide said the CIA (news - web sites) and perhaps the White House would play a role in determining whether to make the testimony public.

That's credible. At a minimum, some bi-partisan group would need to de-classify it. Good luck. Not that we are opposed to setting the truth free, of course...

Bright Idea: give the testimony to the 9/11 Commission for their inclusion in the final report. Although one might think they already have it.

MORE: We continue "Who Roots For Goliath" with the NY Times coverage and excerpts from Bill Frist's speech. Candidates for most implausible pronouncement include:

Dennis Hastert:

"We need to lean forward in making as much information available to the public as possible, without compromising the national security interests of the nation," Mr. Hastert said in a statement.

Can he square that with the separation of powers argument keeping Condi Rice off the stage?

Bill Frist:

...Mr. Clarke makes the outrageous charge that the Bush administration, in its first seven months in office, failed to adequately address the threat posed by Osama bin Laden. . . .

Uhh, 3,000 deaths suggest that "adequately" is the wrong word there. Try "energetically" or "forcefully". We may still be skeptical, but at least we won't laugh out loud.

And, for anonymous Dem staffers:

A senior Democratic Congressional aide said Democratic staff members from both the Senate and House intelligence committees reread Mr. Clarke's 2002 testimony on Friday and that they believed he had been "fully consistent" in his views.

Gee, I thought we all nodded dutifully just yesterday when Richard Clarke explained his August 2002 interview by saying that staffers routinely deliver the spin their bosses want. Or is that only Rep staffers, or Clarke himself?

We await further nominees and a judges decision.

MORE: Rich Lowry blasts Clarke, but doesn't see a perjury charge in his future. No kidding - the Dems would love to hand the file to the Justice Dept, call for a Special Prosecutor, and let the whole thing remain under the legal Cone of Silence until December. Anyone heard from Valerie Plame Wilson lately?

Those Subtle Priorities, II

From the WaPo:

Clarke told the commission in testimony yesterday afternoon that whereas the Clinton administration treated terrorism as its highest priority, the Bush administration did not consider it to be an urgent issue before the attacks.

We have puzzled over this. Now Mark Kleiman hands some of the most desirable space in blogdom to "one of my pro-Bush-pro-war-national-security-expert friends" to elaborate on the Clintonian process of prioritization. A soundbite:

(2) The Commission asked the wrong question. Was terrorism a priority? Of course it was. The real question is how many other priorities both administrations were confronting. I'll tell you: too many. Clinton wrote a Presidential Decision Directive in 1995 that sought to establish clear priorities for the intelligence community. There were so many in the top tier, they actually divided them into Tier 1A and Tier 1B. But it gets better (or worse). There was also a Tier 0, apparently for the very very very top priorities. Note to self: when you can't list priorities with regular numbers, you haven't really made priorities.

And Mark K presents a rebuttal.

My normal role would be to rebut the rebutal. Fine:

(1) ...Clinton made mistakes, but learned after the bombing of the Cole; Bush didn't learn until after 9/11. There's no comparison here: Clinton was way better on this.

Way better? Why weren't the embassy bombings, or Khobar Towers, sufficiently instructive? And is there any reason to think that "this time, it's different. No, really"? Clinton had bursts of attention and moved on - would Clarke really have been able to grind the whole bureaucracy this time, unlike all the other times? Condi Rice actually had done some useful grinding by early September 2001.

(2) ... All administrations make mistakes. But Bush has shamelessly and deceitfully used 9/11 to his political advantage; he has accused Democrats of lack of patriotism; he has puffed himself up as the war president; he refused to forge a bipartisan consensus on security policy. .

When I look at the vote totals for the Iraq War Resolution or the Patriot Act, I see broad bi-partisan support. I also see that the Democrats realized they had no hope of electoral success as the "me-too" party. Hence, their determination to draw distinctions.

We will skip his third point as a strawman, and agree with Mark K's big finish.

MORE: We love this site for Campaign 2000 info. Find the views on Iraq and terror; marvel at the differences.

MORE: We should hear about the urgency of the threat from Bill Clinton himself, speaking in the Jan 2000 State of the Union address:

I predict to you, when most of us are long gone but some time in the next 10 to 20 years, the major security threat this country will face will come from the enemies of the nation state: the narcotraffickers and the terrorists and the organized criminals, who will be organized together, working together, with increasing access to ever-more sophisticated chemical and biological weapons.

Partisan Dems who are well practiced in finding "imminent threat" warnings may be able to find one there. For the rest of us, the news that Condi Rice and George Bush approved in seven months a plan to roll back al Qaeda over three years seems to fit well within the time frame mentioned above.

See below for the context of Clinton's remarks. Please note his emphasis on missile defense and mention of Iraq. Thank you.

Kerry's Corporate Tax "Cut"

The NY Times gets better quotes on the economics; the WaPo is better on the politics - geography rules, even in this interconnected age.

Excerpts:

Many independent economists questioned Mr. Kerry's underlying assumption that the tax code plays a significant role in corporate decisions to set up factories overseas.

"My sense is that it is not usually the decisive factor," said Edward McKelvey, a senior economist at Goldman Sachs. "Normally, companies go offshore either because of cost reasons — labor costs, materials costs — or for market access reasons. Countries tell you that if you want to sell here, you need to be here."

Campaign officials acknowledged that the new plan would not stop the broader trend of outsourcing jobs to low-wage countries. But they said it would at least remove what they called a bias in the tax system that encourages such practices.

and:

"The most salient feature, or at least symbolic feature, is the corporate tax rate [cut]," said Roger Altman, a top economic adviser to Kerry. "When is the last time you saw a Democrat propose a corporate tax cut?"

We Can Still Smell Red Meat

The always fascinating Dan Drezner has a bunch of good posts up.. sorry, we are going to skip to the red meat:

On Page 127 [of his new "Against All Enemies"], Clarke notes that it's possible that al-Qaida operatives in the Philippines "taught Terry Nichols how to blow up the Oklahoma Federal Building." Intelligence places Nichols there on the same days as Ramzi Yousef, and "we do know that Nichols's bombs did not work before his Philippines stay and were deadly when he returned."

This ties in to the theory that Clinton quashed investigations into a foreign connection to Terry Nichols. The objective - blame Oklahoma City on right-wing wackos for political purposes. The subtle message - the people who voted for Newt and listen to Rush blew up this building. Hey, we report, you deride.

[Mini-update - Of course they were wackos, but were they typical right-wingers? Virginia Postrel has lots more.]

More links on this theory can be found at the InstaPundit. Try (a), (b), (c), (d). Political connection here.

Developing...

Meanwhile, Dan Drezner has some great posts up, filled with insight and links.

Clarke on the Couch (my suggested title)

More Clarke Links (his title... yawn) [Whoa, that's what I'm talking about!]

And, because Dan is our man, he sends us to Brad DeLong, who shows empathy and insight in channelling Condoleeza Rice. When (if?) I post my response to "Clarke on the Couch", I expect to come out swinging on Clarke's behalf, so it must be "All Change" day.

And bonus red meat excerpt from the Clarke book - the Bush we love(d):

Resolved to attack al-Qaida on the evening of Sept. 11. That night, Bush spoke to his staff: "I want you to understand that we are at war and we will stay at war until this is done. Nothing else matters." When Donald Rumsfeld pointed out the legal problems posed by some proposed attacks, Bush said, "I don't care what the international lawyers say, we are going to kick some ass."

Head 'em up and herd 'em out, cowboy! For Kerry supporters, that would be, "nous allons donner un coup de pied un certain âne".

Some Clarke-Bashing I Missed

The Boston Herald does not seem to like Kerry:

Skeleton in Clarke's closet
By Boston Herald editorial staff
Thursday, March 25, 2004

Former counterterrorism official and now tell-all author Richard Clarke was at it again yesterday, scorching Bush administration officials in testimony before the national Sept. 11 commission.

We'd like to know how Clarke squares his contention that he was the only one in the Bush administration truly committed to thwarting terrorism before the Sept. 11 attacks with this: It was Clarke who personally authorized the evacuation by private plane of dozens of Saudi citizens, including many members of Osama bin Laden's own family, in the days immediately following Sept. 11.

Clarke's role was revealed in an October 2003 Vanity Fair article. ``Somebody brought to us for approval the decision to let an airplane filled with Saudis, including members of the bin Laden family, leave the country,'' Clarke told Vanity Fair. ``My role was to say that it can't happen unless the FBI approves it. . . And they came back and said yes, it was fine with them. So we said `Fine, let it happen.' '' ...

MORE: Some real red meat from Clarke's book in the post above - it relates to an Al Qaeda/Oklahoma City connection...

UPDATE: Corrects from "Boston Globe" to "Boston Herald". Friends don't let friends blog before their morning coffee.

MORE: Do the math:

Simon & Schuster, which also published Mrs. Clinton's book and the recent best-seller about Paul H. O'Neill, the former Treasury secretary, initially printed about 300,000 copies of Mr. Clarke's book, a very large number for a work of serious nonfiction, and it has since ordered 150,000 more copies.

...Ms. Levin declined to comment on Mr. Clarke's advance or royalties. At a typical rate, Mr. Clarke would stand to earn about $4 a copy in royalties.

Piling on:

AP - In a highly unusual move, key Republicans in Congress are seeking to declassify testimony that former White House terrorism adviser Richard Clarke gave in 2002 about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Friday.

...No immediate information was available on how the declassification process works, but one GOP aide said the CIA (news - web sites) and perhaps the White House would play a role in determining whether to make the testimony public.

That's credible. At a minimum, some bi-partisan group would need to de-classify it. Good luck. Not that we are opposed to setting the truth free, of course...

Or, give the testimony to the 9/11 Commission for their inclusion in the final report. Although one might think they already have it.

A Bold Kerry Initiative!

Faced with a crisis - a President who can laugh at himself - John Kerry responded quickly:

If George Bush thinks his deceptive rationale for going to war is a laughing matter, then he's even more out of touch than we thought," the Kerry campaign said in a written statement. "Unfortunately for the president, this is not a joke." The statement said more than 550 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq and more than 3,000 others wounded.

A stony-faced Kerry also flew back to Washington to introduce legislation creating a new, Cabinet-level Secretary of Humor.

"I can make the following commitment to the American people - there will be nothing to laugh about during a Kerry Administration. The Secretary of Humor will, of course, record all those good jokes I like to tell so much, but never do. But more importantly, the SecHum will make sure that our national humor is appropriate to the troubled times in which we live. We will reach out to people, including the current President, to make sure that no one tells offensive or inappropriate jokes."

The Senator was not certain that a film like M*A*S*H would pass muster with the SecHum:

"It was an important film, and made a number of valid, powerful points, which, as one who served in Vietnam can tell you, we found to be very powerful and valid, although MASH was set in Korea, as everyone knows, but we understood it to be a metaphor, or allegory - anyway, we connected it our deeply personal and troubling Vietnam experiences. But I would have to give careful consideration to this important and potentially divisive issue, because it is my understanding - based on hearsay, of course, rather than personal experience - that some people actually did laugh during this film."

The Senator was confident that "Apocalypse Now" would be acceptable:

"Oh, absolutely, very grim. I know some people smiled at "I love the smell of napalm in the morning", but that was an important scene, and we need to be sensitive to the fullness and depth of the totality of the cinematic experience."

We would not kid you.

MORE: Mickey was at the dinner, and is loaded with insight. And the NY Times chimes in briefly.

Why Oh Why Can't We Have A Better Press Corps?

It's not just a rhetorical question for Brad DeLong.

I gave up on Cheney's "Clarke is out of the loop" comment days ago. However, we welcome follow-up stories about Clarke's "loopiness".

C'est Très Drôle

I'm only linking because... well, you'll guess easily enough.

Psychic Blogging By The Amish

There must be stronger brain waves in Amish country, without all those televisions and radios and what-not. And if he's right, we will all be begging for rides in the old horse-and-buggy.

Now, this ought to connect logically to the post below. Hmm. I'm thinking...

All "CW" Comes From "KF"

Mickey is nervous now, I betcha - first, Dick Morris picks up one of his theories; now, Tom Friedman seizes another.

From the Invisible Keyboard (or Mouse, whatever) that guides all pundits:

Is Bin Laden for Bush?

...Doesn't it seem likely that Novak's take is 180 degrees wrong, an attempt to avoid the uncomfortable possibility that Al Qaeda and its allies may actually prefer Bush's reelection?

...the underlying theory--that Bush's reelection will 'heighten the contradictions' and create more terrorists, ultimately producing an apocalyptic East-West clash--is an entirely plausible rendition of Al-Qaeda-ish ideology, no? Bin Laden, in this reading, would intend to use terror to split dovish Europe from hawkish America rather than to replace America's hawks.

And from Tom Friedman, days later:

It [Israel/Palestine] was also there where Palestinian terrorists regularly attempted to hijack democratic elections on the eve of the vote. Liberal Labor Party candidates in Israel, throughout the 1980's and 1990's, always had to hold their breath that there would not be a big terrorist attack on the eve of an election. Because if there was, swing voters would usually move to the right and the Likud candidate would benefit. The Palestinian terrorists always "voted" Likud, not Labor. They wanted hard-liners at the helm in Israel because they would build more settlements and further radicalize and destabilize the situation.

Mr. Friedman does not follow this thought to the end zone. Yet.

The Next Big Thing, II

Kerry and his association with the V.V.A.W. have caught the eye of the Boston Globe:

Kerry spoke of meeting negotiators on Vietnam

In a question-and-answer session before a Senate committee in 1971, John F. Kerry, who was a leading antiwar activist at the time, asserted that 200,000 Vietnamese per year were being "murdered by the United States of America" and said he had gone to Paris and "talked with both delegations at the peace talks" and met with communist representatives.

Kerry, now the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, yesterday confirmed through a spokesman that he did go to Paris and talked privately with a leading communist representative. But the spokesman played down the extent of Kerry's role and said Kerry did not engage in negotiations.

Asked about the appropriateness of Kerry's saying that the United States had "murdered" 200,000 Vietnamese annually when the United States was at war, Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan said "Senator Kerry used a word he deems inappropriate."

C-Span has his testimony; Bryan Preston has more.

In related news, the VVAW assasination story made it to Scarborough Country Tuesday night. Transcript here.

MORE: Let's put this story in the mix. His good question - from a reconstruction of Kerry's role, he seems to have nothing to hide. What's up?

His dubious point - the murder plot justified the FBI surveillance of the group. My understanding is that no evidence has emerged suggesting the FBI knew of the plot - certainly, they "cleared" Kerry of involvement in violent activities when they ended surveillance of him.

That said, the murder plot does suggest that the FBI had reasons for keeping an eye on this group and its members.

The Subtle "Top Priority"

From the WaPo:

Clarke told the commission in testimony yesterday afternoon that whereas the Clinton administration treated terrorism as its highest priority, the Bush administration did not consider it to be an urgent issue before the attacks.

Supporting evidence:

EXCERPT: CLINTON REPORT TO CONGRESS ON NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY
(Outlines U.S. policy for the Middle East, No. Africa, South Asia)

January 11, 2000

The top priority gets mentioned, with respect to Afghanistan, after North Korea, the Middle East peace process, Libya, Iraq, Iran, India v. Pakistan, and the Caspian. Afghanistan is only mentioned in connection with drugs; neither "Taliban" nor "Qaeda" appear in the document. But it is only an excerpt, soperhaps the top priority is highlighted elsewhere.

But not here! Sandy Berger explains his priorities.

Now, in his full quote, Clarke explains that there were many top priorities. How many is left unclear, but it looks like a lot.

UPDATE: Here is the Clinton Strategy from Dec 2000. Terror is mentioned, but does not seem to be emphasized.

And Matt Hoy has an interesting take on the NY Times coverage of the Clarke testimony:

Is There Room On The Bandwagon?

Condi for VP - I'm all for it, if "VP" means "Very Perplexing". What is this all about:

The CIA now says that a controversial August 2001 briefing summarizing potential attacks on the United States by al Qaeda was not requested by President Bush, as Rice and others had long claimed. The Aug. 6, 2001, document, known as the President's Daily Brief, has been the focus of intense scrutiny because it reported that Osama bin Laden advocated airplane hijackings, that al Qaeda supporters were in the United States and that the group was planning attacks here.

After the highly classified document's existence was first revealed in news reports in May 2002 , Rice held a news conference in which she suggested that Bush had requested the briefing because of his keen concern about elevated terrorist threat levels that summer. But Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic commission member, disclosed at the hearing yesterday that the CIA informed the panel last week that the author of the briefing does not recall such a request from Bush and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the CIA.

But a White House official who demanded anonymity replied: "We did request such a document. It's not out of the question that the CIA and others had the same idea."

No, it's not. But when Jack Ryan worked for the White House, "The President wants this" were the magic words. If the President asked for it, who did he ask, and does anyone on the CIA side recall the request?

Or are we being offered the "coy psychic" theory: the President mentioned it to Condi; later that day George Tenet said, "Guess what we have as a bonus for you - a domestic threat assessment"; stunned by the coincidence, Condi (or Andrew Card, or whoever), doesn't even think to blurt out, "Thanks, the President had just asked for that". Pretty strong stuff.

UPDATE: Let's hear from Condi herself. And if anyone wants to find the May 2002 press conference, please consider this a "Help Wanted" sign.

MORE: The truth outs, at Condi Rice's April 8 hearing:

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE I want to ask you some questions about the Aug. 6, 2001, P.D.B. [President's Daily Briefing]. We had been advised in writing by the C.I.A. on March 19, 2004, that the Aug. 6 P.D.B. was prepared and self-generated by a C.I.A. employee. Following Director Tenet's testimony on March 26 before us, the C.I.A. clarified its version of events saying that questions by the president prompted them to prepare the Aug. 6 P.D.B. You have said to us in our meeting together earlier, in February, that the president directed the C.I.A. to prepare the Aug. 6 P.D.B.

...[CONDI RICE]: First of all, yes, the Aug. 6 P.D.B. was in response to questions of the president. In that sense, he asked that this be done.

Abbott, Meet Costello

Richard Clarke says that ""I will not accept any position in the Kerry administration should there be one".

Too bad - with his flip-flopping, he would be a perfect fit.

On a slightly more serious note, we Boldly Predict that this week, with the Clarke book promotion and the hearings, will be the low water mark for the Bush Administration on this question of "were they thinking about al Qaeda before 9/11?". Given the varying views expressed by Clarke himself, we expect the final Commission report to be more favorable than what we heard this week. The bad news is out, and it's all upside from here.

MORE: The WaPo loves Clarke. Bah! As the mighty Shaq points out, no one ever roots for Goliath.

And this Post story by Dana Milbank is long on theatrics and almost bereft of facts. Crowds applaud, people glower and cross their arms, but the only reported difference between "Clarke Then" and "Clarke Now" is in this exchange:

With each effort by Thompson to highlight Clarke's inconsistency -- "the policy on Uzbekistan, was it changed?" -- Clarke tutored the commissioner about the obligations of a White House aide. Thompson, who had far exceeded his allotted time, frowned contemptuously. "I think a lot of things beyond the tenor and the tone bother me about this," he said. During a second round of questioning, Thompson returned to the subject, questioning Clarke's "standard of candor and morality."

"I don't think it's a question of morality at all; I think it's a question of politics," Clarke snapped.

Is Dana Milbank reporting, or drafting a screenplay?

Fine, maybe the Milbank piece is a "give me some color" effort. But here is their front page story, which very briefly notes the Aug 2002 briefing; here is a longer story which appeared on their website Wednesday night, which does not mention the Aug 2002 briefing at all. The only reference to the Clarke credibility question is this:

Asked about his book's strong criticism of the Bush administration compared to a greater focus on shortcomings of the Clinton administration during his 15 hours of previous testimony to the Sept. 11 commission in closed session, Clarke noted that no one on the panel had asked him his opinion of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

"By invading Iraq . . . the president of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terrorism," Clarke told the commission today.

And by invading Iraq in 2003, it became clear that the Bush team had been lax in the spring and summer of 2001? The Commission didn't get going until 2003, so Clarke should have had time for his second thoughts prior to his closed testimony.

Here is a partial transcript. Thompson questions Clarke near the end.

MORE: From the AP, at the end of the story, we get a bit of balance:

Former Republican Sen. Slade Gorton asked Clarke if there was "the remotest chance" that the attacks could have been prevented if the Bush administration had adopted his aggressive counterterrorism recommendations upon taking office in January 2001.

"No," Clarke said.

UPDATE: I haven't had the courage to open the NY Times, but Mr. Belgravitas has.

We note this, from the Times, that Clinton was distracted by impeachment (read: Evil, irresponsible Republicans). The Times does not note that President Clinton was acquitted in Feb. 1999. Did impeachment continue to distract him for the remaining two years of his term? There was time for a war in Kosovo, and intensive Palestinian peace talks. Could they have been distracting, too? Maybe terror as the top priority had other competition for the President's time.

Rich Lowry, writing in the NY Post, attempts to reconcile the Clarke of the book, the hearing, and the Aug 2002 briefing.

STILL MORE: The NY Times has two stories. Somewhat unexpectedly, I did not burst a gasket reading either of them - but I know the bias is there, darn it! Must be fatigue.

OK, from the Stevenson story:

Mr. Clarke insisted that he was telling the truth in his book and that he had told the truth to the commission. But he said that in 15 hours of private testimony to the panel, he was not asked about the American invasion of Iraq, an issue that he said framed his harsh criticism of the Bush administration.

"No one asked me what I thought about the president's invasion of Iraq," he said. "The reason that I am strident in my criticism of the president of the United States is that by invading Iraq — something I was not asked by the commission — but by invading Iraq, the president of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terrorism."

Maybe I am being too generous, but his argument seems so absurd - they messed up in 2003, so I am ripping them for what they did in 2001 - that I read it as the Times providing a bit of balance.

From the Purdum story, this drew a smile, describing what happened when the Bush team took over:

Instead of action and new initiatives, the Bush administration engaged in a lengthy policy debate. Mr. Bush's aides rejected most of the Clinton administration's ideas and plans as ineffectual or too narrow.

Action first, plans later! Is that how the Times does it? Fine, maybe the Bush people talked too long, but after two years of drift, I am not sure that seven months to prepare a better plan is unreasonable.

MORE: TIME magazine notes huge gaps between Clarke the author and Clarke the television entertainer. Wait until they get ahold of Clarke from August 2002.

We Applaud This Compromise

Spain May Add Peacekeepers to Afghanistan.

Wes Clark For President

Dems dodged a loose cannon by passing on this guy. Fortunately, this is a legitimate multilateral effort, so all sides have a stake in victory.

We've Seen This Movie

Nick Kristof warns us about ethnic cleansing in Africa as our eyes glaze over:

ALONG THE SUDAN-CHAD BORDER — The most vicious ethnic cleansing you've never heard of is unfolding here in the southeastern fringes of the Sahara Desert. It's a campaign of murder, rape and pillage by Sudan's Arab rulers that has forced 700,000 black African Sudanese to flee their villages.

Very bad. But wait!

The culprit is the Sudanese government, one of the world's nastiest. Its Arab leaders have been fighting a civil war for more than 20 years against its rebellious black African south. Lately it has armed lighter-skinned Arab raiders, the Janjaweed, who are killing or driving out blacks in the Darfur region near Chad.

Janjaweed? Didn't he team up with the Ewoks to settle this a long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away?

Mr. Kristof has to abandon this now - it may be a wonderful opportunity for the US to show it is a multilateral do-gooder, but... there won't be a US intervention, because our enemies have outsmarted us. There is simply no way, in an election year or any other year, that George Bush is going to appear on national television to announce that we are going to war against the "Janjaweed". Don Rumsfeld will not be testifying to Congress about his plans to confront the "Janjaweed". Not happening.

I'll go one step further - if Osama was truly devious and creative, he could end US involvement in the war on terror tomorrow simply by re-branding. Instead of battling "Al Qaeda", do you really think Bush or Blair would lead a fight against a group re-named "Giggly Sticks"?

I can't guess what impact such a name change would have on Osama's recruiting. Might help.

UPDATE: Oh, dear, a furrowed brow. Follow the links to see why. I'm not sure what is being insinuated with the "Hint", but that is why I have a comments section. I would be especially delighted if the explanation noted my post that, by non-coincidence, followed this one.

MORE: Several days later, Nick Kristof resumes the educational effort:

ALONG THE CHAD-SUDAN BORDER — For decades, whenever the topic of genocide has come up, the refrain has been, "Never again."

Yet right now, the government of Sudan is engaging in genocide against three large African tribes in its Darfur region here. Some 1,000 people are being killed a week, tribeswomen are being systematically raped, 700,000 people have been driven from their homes, and Sudan's Army is even bombing the survivors.

And the world yawns.

Or glazes. My point - don't write (yet another) column telling us this is horrible; write a column telling us this is solvable. He has a few suggestions at the end.

And from the Christian Science Monitor, we learn details and complications.

Ari Fleischer vs. Paul Krugman

Ari Fleischer corrects Paul Krugman, so we don't have to. Here is the transcript of the original press briefing, and P Krugman's first use of this ominous quote, which we all recognize as a lefty favorite.

Clarke / 911 Links

Richard Clarke on 60 Minutes, March 2004; rebuttal to part of his interview by John Cole.

Condoleeza Rice, Washington Post, "9/11: For The Record"

And a good job by the Hammer, who reassures us that, contra Clarke, Ms. Rice really had heard about al Qaeda prior to taking office.

Dick Cheney interview with Rush Limbaugh ("Out of the loop" seems absurd, BTW)

White House rebuttal to Clarke interview

The 60 Minutes interview with Steve Hadley.

NY Times: Elisabeth Bumiller and Judith Miller. Our fave exculpatory detail:

Mr. Clarke said Mr. Bush pressed him three times to find evidence that Iraq was behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The accusation is explosive because no such link has ever been proved.

...Mr. Cressey cast Mr. Bush's instructions to Mr. Clarke less as an order to come up with a link between Mr. Hussein and Sept. 11, and more as a request to "take a look at all options, including Iraq." He backed off Mr. Clarke's suggestion that the president's tone was intimidating. "I'm not going to get into that," Mr. Cressey said. "That is Dick's characterization."

NY Times, Todd Purdum: Our fave troubling detail:

He acknowledges his close friendship with Rand Beers, a foreign service officer who succeeded him at the White House and who now advises Mr. Kerry's campaign on national security.

But his critique can hardly be chalked up to partisan politics as usual. He was a registered Republican in 2000, a career White House civil servant under three presidents, one of the few national security experts held over from the first Bush administration into the Clinton years, and then held over again under the current President Bush.

Rich Lowry to the defense:

Clarke's book reads like a typical just-out-of-government memoir, a genre usually premised on the idea that if only the author's advice had been heeded, the world would be better off.

Left and right agree (in the comments section) - Lowry is not strong. Try Jim Geraghty of the NRO, which mentions Rep. Chris Shays.

And the always link-rich Memeorandum.

FROM THE TIME VAULT:

A very interesting WaPo story from Jan 19, 2002 detailing the history of the Bush plan to confront al Qaeda.

The prescient Richard Clarke, warning us about cyberterrorism in January 1999; here is a transcript of the press briefing, and we note that the first question was planted by Paul Wolfowitz or George Bush.

Richard Clarke on state sponsored terror, with a priceless defense of Clinton's cruise missle strike on the Sudan aspirin factory.

Good job by Belgravitas, who digs up a New Yorker from Issue of 2003-08-04: THE SEARCH FOR OSAMA
by JANE MAYER

Dan Drezner has lots of links and his own sensible view:

There is a deeper policy split at work. Rational Bush opponents are happy to see Saddam gone but do not see any connection between the war in Iraq and the larger war on terror. Rational Bush supporters will acknowledge that at best there was a loose connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but that remaking Iraq is a vital part of the war on terror because it will help to remake the Middle East, terrorism's primary source.

Yes, the conversation does seem to occur across that divide. I will add that Bush may have taken from 9/11 the idea that letting the Al Qaueda problem fester had been a mistake he was not going to repeat with Iraq. Better too forceful than too patient; better safe than sorry; the squeaky wheel gets greased; [insert your pithy folk saying here]...

Fred Kaplan says Clarke is telling the truth. He is referring to the book, we presume, and not the 60 Minutes interview.

No post would be complete without mentioning the presumptive Democratic nominee. Since one of the charges against Bush is that he was too focussed on Iraq, let us replay John Kerry from October 2002, who back then would have supported such a linkage:

Later in the year [1998], Congress enacted legislation declaring Iraq in material, unacceptable breach of its disarmament obligations and urging the President to take appropriate action to bring Iraq into compliance. In fact, had we done so, President Bush could well have taken his office, backed by our sense of urgency about holding Saddam Hussein accountable and, with an international United Nations, backed a multilateral stamp of approval record on a clear demand for the disarmament of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. We could have had that and we would not be here debating this today. But the administration missed an opportunity 2 years ago and particularly a year ago after September 11. They regrettably, and even clumsily, complicated their own case. The events of September 11 created new understanding of the terrorist threat and the degree to which every nation is vulnerable. That understanding enabled the administration to form a broad and impressive coalition against terrorism. Had the administration tried then to capitalize on this unity of spirit to build a coalition to disarm Iraq, we would not be here in the pressing days before an election, late in this year, debating this now. The administration's decision to engage on this issue now, rather than a year ago or earlier, and the manner in which it has engaged, has politicized and complicated the national debate and raised questions about the credibility of their case.

Although we are cautious about attempting to read meaning into Kerry's words, this says he would have preferred that Bush target Saddam right after 9/11, or even before then.

A fascinating Gallup poll about international support for military action immediately after 9/11. Globally, folks strongly favored extradition and trial over military action. However, the US attempted an extradition of Osama, and the Taliban would not cooperate. The real question should have been (as with Iraq), what might be considered a failure of diplomacy, and would you support military action if diplomacy "failed".

"One mullah, one ranger". LOL.

Back to business. In response to the widely discredited TIME article from August 2002 titled "Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented", the Administration rolled out Richard Clarke to push back:

CLARKE: ...the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

...Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office...

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

...The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

Later:

CLARKE: ...One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.

ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ...

CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.

Pretty effective push-back then. Where is he now?

UPDATE: Whoa, that Clarke briefing resulted in dark mass impacting whirling fan. Belgravitas blogs, Hesiod frets, and Clarke explains everything to the Commission.

A Revised FMA

The NY Times reports on a minor change in the proposed FMA:

The Congressional authors of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage introduced a slightly reworded version on Monday, saying the changes were intended to make it clear that they do not seek to bar same-sex civil unions allowed by state law.

As they prepared for a Senate hearing on Tuesday to examine the wording of potential amendments, advocates said the mainly technical revisions were meant to broaden support for the initiative and blunt the appeal of alternatives that could leave the definition of marriage up to individual states.

The story explains that no one who cares is happy - the far right doesn't like the change because it clearly allows civil unions; opponents do not want a ban on gay marriage written into the Constitution.

And in Georgia, from the AP, "Black Ministers Protest Gay Marriage".

More On Kerry and Kansas City

Excerpts from the KC Star and the Cybercast News Service appear below as a supplement to the preceding post, "The Next Big Thing?". Emphasis on the question mark, please.

And we find Captain Ed is on this like salt on a sailor, with a round-up of big-media coverage.

The Next Big Thing?

This story may rival "Bush AWOL"; it may simmer on the fringes of the VRWC; or it may disappear. The gist, as reported in the Kansas City Star:

Confronted with 32-year-old FBI records, Sen. John Kerry's campaign all but conceded he attended a 1971 Kansas City meeting where a fellow anti-war veteran called for political assassinations.

Those active in Vietnam Veterans Against the War at the time stress that the suggestion for such a violent approach was angrily rejected. They say their memories do not include Kerry taking part in the radical discussion.

That is from Scott Canon, who is a reporter for the Kansas City Star (earlier story here). Is he a big-time journalist, or what? If this story breaks nationally, he will be! Reading down a bit, we notice that someone has been doing some legwork:

Interviews with 18 men who in the early 1970s were members of the group, most of them in leadership positions, offer varying accounts of whether the vague plot was discussed as a matter of organization business or merely the stuff of late-night chatter.

Thomas Lipscomb, writing in the Jewish World Review, paints a darker picture on March 15, with a follow-up on March 16. Both stories precede (and seem to have prompted) the release of redacted copies of the FBI files on John Kerry, which had been sitting, unread, in the possession of Gerald Nicosia. Mr. Nicosia obtained them in response to a Freedom of Information Act request to the FBI for information on the Vietnam Veterans Against The War as material for a book he published in 2001.

The InstaPundit links to Bryan Preston and Captain Ed, who note the LA Times coverage as an example of media slant in favor of Kerry.

Cybercast News Service saw the FBI files last week, courtesy of a troubled Mr. Nicosia.

Now, where might this story be headed? As to the most serious allegation, that Kerry had an obligation to report a criminal conspiracy, I am skeptical. Whether the proposal took place as part of a V.V.A.W. business meeting or in a late night bull session is in dispute; in any event, the proposal was shouted down (or voted down?), and no further action was taken, so one might well ask, what conspiracy?

However, there a couple of ways I can imagine this story finding traction. First, Release the Files! Former FBI agent Gary Aldrich, writing at the ever-reliable GOPUSA, was exhorting the media to clamor for Kerry's FBI file just a few weeks ago. Now it turns out that a hugely relevant overlapping section is in private hands, and the holder is sharing it with selected reporters. Set the truth free! Or, if the media does not so clamor, how can they keep a straight face when they tell us they are serious reporters?

Secondly, Kerry's association with the V.V.A.W may be problematic - Mr. Nicosia, who wrote the book on them, thinks so anyway. Who are these guys? Kerry seems to have quit in part because the group became too radical - what other radical ideas did they have? The lying, crooked RAM should be able to have fun watching Kerry explain that he knew nothing about an assasination plot being discussed by his band of brothers. What else did Kerry know nothing about? What did Kerry conveniently forget, and when did he conveniently forget it? The Cracker Barrel Philosopher is already walking down this road.

Excerpts from the Kansas City Star and the Cybercast New Service.

MORE: Author Andrew Hunt gets mentioned in the March 15 Lipscomb piece; here is his book.

And we are intrigued by this from the March 16 Lipscomb piece:

At a Capitol Hill press conference Thursday, Mr. Kerry was asked by a reporter if he thought his credibility had been affected by his close association with Al Hubbard, a key VVAW colleague of Mr. Kerry's who had appointed him to the leadership of Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

Mr. Hubbard claimed to be a wounded Air Force officer who had served at Danang during the Vietnam War. He appeared with Mr. Kerry many times, including the "Meet the Press" interview after Mr. Kerry's Senate testimony about American "war crimes" in Vietnam. But Mr. Hubbard was never in Vietnam, was never wounded, and was not an officer, as subsequent research and Mr.Kerry himself have pointed out.

Mr. Kerry answered he had not spoken to Mr. Hubbard since the week of April 19, 1971...

Echo chamber - the reporter, and his view of the significance, is in the Cybercast News Service story. I'm not clear why we ought to care, except that it ties into the notion that Kerry's memory about his friends is very selective.

UPDATE: The NY Times recycles the Kerry talking points, but compounds the puzzle with this:

Mr. Kerry resigned from Vietnam Veterans Against the War in November 1971, the reports indicate, several months later than he has previously recollected. He quit to run for Congress from Massachusetts after feuding with more radical leaders within the group, among them Al Hubbard, a national co-director who had met in Paris with representatives of North Vietnam.

A Nov. 19, 1971, F.B.I. teletype marked "urgent" quoted an informant describing a group meeting six days earlier in Kansas City, Mo., at which many delegates wanted the group to take the initiative in peace efforts with North Vietnam. "John Kerry, V.V.A.W. national chairman, considered conservative by most V.V.A.W. members resigned for `personal reasons,' " the report said.

Hmm, negotiating with the North Vietnamese. Was that in coordination with the evil Nixon regime, or an extracurricular activity?

MORE: The WaPo could scarcely care less about the reported assasination plot:

The documents shed new light on some of Kerry's activities and contradict some statements his campaign previously made, including the timing of his resignation from the group and whether he participated in a controversial VVAW meeting in Kansas City, Mo., in November 1971. Campaign spokesman David Wade said Kerry had confused the Kansas City meeting with an earlier meeting in St. Louis.

"Controversial". Do all Post readers already know why it is controversial? Am I the only one just hearing about this?

UPDATE: The story makes it to cable.

Ted Kennedy On Meet The Press

Tim Russert grills Kerry surrogate Ted Kennedy. After struggling to avoid answer a seemingly simple question - was the war to remove Saddam worth it? - the senior Senator from Massachusetts summarizes his objection to Bush's rush to war:

They misrepresent the immediacy. They made the point--when they talk about mushroom cloud, they talk about grave, they talk about the immediate threat, they were talking about an immediate threat.

And in the wake--and listen to this. It wasn't only the thrust of the administration. I remember this very clearly. It was about the development of nuclear weapons and the tie to al-Qaeda--the tie to al-Qaeda. And we have Richard Clarke, who was the counterterrorist leader both under President Clinton and under President Bush, said they--at the time right after 9/11, here Don Rumsfeld saying, "Let's go in Iraq." And they were all--the FBI and the CIA said, "We don't find any contact between 9/11 and Iraq. None! None." But that isn't what the administration said: "Nuclear weapons tie in to al-Qaeda." That's the distortion,
that's the misrepresentation, that's the lie.

Maybe the Senator was referring to this:

According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons.

...As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter. In the wake of September 11, who among us can say, with any certainty, to anybody, that those weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater--a nuclear weapon--then reinvade Kuwait, push the Kurds out, attack Israel, any number of scenarios to try to further his ambitions to be the pan-Arab leader or simply to confront in the region, and once again miscalculate the response, to believe he is stronger because he has those weapons?

And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance?

That is John Kerry, of course. Why did he lie?

Here is Spinsanity on the imminent threat. And Tim Russert corrects this week the "imminent threat" mistake he made last week.

I Feel A Song Coming On

John Kerry is feisty, he's resilient, he's The Democrat Who Fights Back. He is also youthful, hip, and energetic, so the perfect campaign song for him is Chumbawumba's "I Get Knocked Down".

Mickey has more, with links to the Times and the ABC Note; here is Matt Drudge; Noam Scheiber has a gloom-inducing Kerry Motto Lotto update; and the very interesting Memeorandum has round-ups of reaction.

Now, when John Kerry said "I don't fall down; the son of a bitch knocked me down", was he commenting on the latest polls and the Bush media strategy? Or simply previewing his Election Night concession speech?

We are blogging from a secure remote location with sporadic internet access this weekend, but regular tirades should resume next week.

Kerry's "More" Leaders - A Time And Place

From the time-vault, we pick up a tid-bit from Kerry's "regime change" flap of a year ago that connects to the quest for "more" leaders that Kerry met with who hope Bush loses:

Kerry said that he had spoken with foreign diplomats and several world leaders as recently as Monday while fund-raising in New York and that they told him they felt betrayed when Bush resorted to war in Iraq before they believed diplomacy had run its course.

He said the leaders, whom he did not identify, believed that Bush wanted to ''end-run around the UN.''

''I don't think they're going to trust this president, no matter what,'' Kerry said. ''I believe it deeply, that it will take a new president of the United States, declaring a new day for our relationship with the world, to clear the air and turn a new page on American history.''

New York, Monday, March 31, 2003. A clue!

Equal Protection And Gay Marriage

Andrew Sullivan links to this Times piece by Adam Liptak, titled "Bans on Interracial Unions Offer Perspective on Gay Ones.

The gist - differences in state laws regarding interracial marriage were normally respected; by implication, the "full faith and credit" argument that a gay marriage in one state would have to be recognized elsewhere is probably false.

Well. My eye was drawn to these sentences, explaining the applicability of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:

In 1967, when the United States Supreme Court struck down all bans on interracial marriage, it acted on the most fundamental constitutional grounds, saying that the laws violated both due process and equal protection.

No one believes that the court is likely to say anything like that about gay unions anytime soon.

Anytime soon? Might a few justices step down over the next few years, to be replaced by appointees of President Kerry or President Clinton? Or might the current California imbroglio end up before the whimsical Ninth Circuit, which might find a compelling equal protection argument to overturn the state law banning gay marriage?

For an alternative view, we will turn to Mike Rappaport of the Right Coast, who also provides a helpful link to uncertainties as seen by Eugene Volokh.

As a note, I am inclined towards the Ponnuru Amendment, aka the Hatch Amendment.

Great Moments in "Sourcing"

Elisabeth Bumiller, writing in the NY Times:

"People are viewing [President Bush] already as a candidate, so why should we muzzle one of our most effective voices in framing the debate?" said a senior White House official who asked not to be named because he did not want to be pestered by reporters.

Telling it like it is. Or did she take it personally?

What Would Johnny Do?

The Brother Judd puzzles over the Kerry position on Iraq, circa September 2002. But surely the Senator's views have evolved? Maybe not - as Kerry told TIME, "“I refuse ever to accept the notion that anything I've suggested with respect to Iraq was nuanced. It was clear. It was precise. It was, in fact, prescient."

Let's add to the mix Kerry's Senate speech in October of 2002. The linked post provides links to a John Kerry editorial, September 6, 2002, and George Bush's UN speech, September 2002.

Quick comments - At the UN, Bush presented a broad case for action against Iraq, including Saddam's deplorable record on human rights; in his Senate speech, Kerry says the only thing that matters is WMDs.

By the time of the State of the Union in January 2003, the President has adopted the WMD theme, with only a few references to human rights. But they struck a chord with me, or so I said at the time.

Alan Greenspan's Next Big Thing

"How I learned to stop worrying and love indebtedness" presents a summary of the Chairman's cautiously optimistic view on the seemingly high levels of household debt and foreign borrowing by the US. And we give props to fellow blogger Brad DeLong, who patient readers will find at the end of the story:

But J. Bradford DeLong, a longtime Fed watcher at the University of California at Berkeley, cautioned that Mr. Greenspan had been right at times when many others were wrong.

"I think he's wrong, but he's got a better track record than I have," Mr. DeLong said.

My question - the Prof delivered a nice "sum it up" soundbite, but what else did he say to the reporter? In terms of press process, does Prof DeLong see his points appearing elsewhere in the story, or did the reporter just take a colorful quote and run?

Story Lines That Beget Laugh Lines

We love the story line: Kerry on botox - did he or didn't he?

And why do we care? Well, the Senator is intent on projecting a youthful, vigorous, Kennedyesque image with his hockey games and what-not; what if, like Kennedy, he is concealing medical problems? Or, as a character issue, will his candidiacy force us to revisit the question opened up by Carly Simon's classic - just who did she think was so vain, anyway? Did she know Tall John back then, and might Warren Beatty have a jealous fit now?

The suspense mounts, because botox injections wear off after several months, and refresher shots will be needed soon to preserve his youthful countenance. So, possible story lines:

Plan A: Kerry doesn't get refreshed - "Strain of campaign visibly ages a weary Kerry". Nightmare! The guy is buckling before our eyes, and it is only springtime? How the heck will he manage four years of fighting terror and creating jobs? Not to overlook providing health care, leaving no kids behind, and placating all the eager Dem interest groups?

Plan B: Kerry takes a break and comes back tanned, relaxed, botoxed, and ready to go: "Reinvigorated Kerry returns from vacation ready to battle Bush and other evil-doers". Hey, that's more like it!

We boldly predict a Kerry hiatus, followed by a spate of "rejuvenated, renergized" stories. Study the photos, and the folks who visit him - we are looking for doctors, obviously. And if Theresa Heinz covers by saying the doctor was for her, well...

UPDATE: Seems like cheating - the hiatus has already arrived. Now we have to wait for the "re-energized" meme.

Kerry Motto Lotto (cont.)

Sen. Kerry went to West Virginia, where he was greeted by the Evil Republican Attack Machine (ERAM). The new attack: by voting against the $87 billion bill to finance reconstruction in Iraq, Kerry had failed to support the troops.

However, the Kerry Fast Accurate Response Team was ready with an answer that, in addition to reassuring everyone, provides a new entry to the Kerry Motto Lotto:

Kerry on Kerry: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

And there was more good news for the Kerr-Bears - in the hearts and minds of Frenchmen everywhere (well, in France, anyway) John Kerry is more popular than George Bush and may even have eclipsed Jerry Lewis. C'est tres, tres bien, n'est ce pas?

UPDATE: Pretty funny.

MORE: Media watch: Shrewd guess at USA Today:

In a sentence that could become part of attacks on him as a "flip-flopper," Kerry also said that "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

The LA Times overlooks this gaffe; at the WaPo, Howard Kurtz misses it in a relevant story but John Harris finds the deadly line.

And we note that the Senator's preferred construction is "Republican attack machine", so let it go forth from this time and place that we will respect his preference - RAM-tough it is!

MORE: I am so far ahead of the curve that I may double back upon myself! Andrew Sullivan endorses this quote for the Kerry Motto Lotto, noting that "In some ways, that small sentence completely sums him up."

But there's more! Jonah Goldberg recognizes the burgeoning need for a feature to parallel "Bushisms". Been there, done that, still waiting for the NRO t-shirt.

Just One Minute - tomorrow's sophomoric cheap-shot today!

Weak On Facts

Paul Krugman recycles some old material, so I will too:

...Polls suggest that a reputation for being tough on terror is just about the only remaining political strength George Bush has. Yet this reputation is based on image, not reality. The truth is that Mr. Bush, while eager to invoke 9/11 on behalf of an unrelated war, has shown consistent reluctance to focus on the terrorists who actually attacked America, or their backers in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

From the time-vault of Sept. 5, 2003, we find this:

All the world knows about the Iraq about-face: having squandered our military strength in a war he felt like fighting even though it had nothing to do with terrorism...

Shall I update my response, or let the timeless wisdom of John Kerry ring forth:

...The events of September 11 created new understanding of the terrorist threat and the degree to which every nation is vulnerable. That understanding enabled the administration to form a broad and impressive coalition against terrorism. Had the administration tried then to capitalize on this unity of spirit to build a coalition to disarm Iraq, we would not be here in the pressing days before an election, late in this year, debating this now.

Back to the present with the Earnest Prof:

There has been much speculation about whether officials ignored specific intelligence warnings, but what we know for sure is that the administration disregarded urgent pleas by departing Clinton officials to focus on the threat from Al Qaeda.

This much we know for sure - in his old age, P Krugman is too clever to bother with sources or citations, which can lead to nasty calls for corrections. Although by his design we are not able to rebut this fogbank, the Sandy Berger story attracted a lot of attention. For the non-obsessive amongst you, the gist was:

According to Time, Clinton officials developed, in the waning days of their administration, a plan for combating al-Qaeda more vigorously, but -- wanting to avoid sticking the incoming administration with a policy it had not designed -- they delayed implementing the plan and instead passed the matter on to the incoming national-security team.

Links and rebuttal here, or go straight to the Daily Howler and scroll down for the Sandy Berger bits.

UPDATE: NBC News is breaking a story about the near capture of Osama in October 2000. Kerry-critics will point to this as an example of the failed law-enforcement approach used by Clinton and seemingly endorsed by Kerry; his defenders will point out (plausibly, and without irony) that 9/11 changed everything. We simply pitch it into the mix as an example of the "man with a plan" story that Sandy Berger decanted, then recanted.

Let Them Contribute Openly

Andrew Sullivan links to post noting campaign contributions made by Times staffers, apparently in violation of company policy.

OK, good job by the blogger, but what about this policy? For heaven's sake - none of these reporters are paid much anyway - let them get it out of their system and contribute by writing checks, rather than articles.

With full FEC disclosure, we can track them down! And reporters with a nickel's worth of sense won't write checks for that very reason. Hah!

Iraq Is Back!

A classic bit of Americana - the Times liked it enough to move it from the Sports section to the front page (below the fold).

In Other News...

From the WaPo: If you are not in one of these eighteen states, you will have to watch the candidate's attack ads over the internet.

NY Times latest poll - Nader, nation on wrong track.

More from the Times - it's not the recession, stupid! (Uhh, not that anyone is stupid. It's just one of those ghastly expressions meant to invoke... oh, never mind.)

And a rare Drudge-watch feature - why is he not pumping this story? Unverifiable?

I Can't Take Any "More"

John Kerry was misquoted! He doesn't have "foreign" friends, he has "more" friends, according to Patrick Healey of the Boston Globe; the WaPo brushes this aside (see update). Globe first:

"I mistranscribed a key word," explains Patrick Healy, a political reporter for the BOSTON GLOBE who covered the event in a pool capacity.

"Listening to the audio recorder now, in the quiet of my house, I hear 'more leaders' and I am certain that 'more leaders' is what Senator Kerry said."

Let's get the context, please:

When Kerry concluded his stump to the Florida fundraisers and donors, Milton Ferrell, Kerry's Florida finance chair, piped up:

MILTON FERRELL: "This is more than just the 50 states. You travel around outside the states, the people are still [inaudible] Europeans and elsewhere, they're counting on the American people. They hate Bush, but they know we're going to get rid of him. They're counting on us. [inaudible] It's a lot more than just [inaudible]-"

KERRY: "I've been hearing it, I'll tell ya. The news, the coverage in other countries, the news in other places. I've met more leaders who can't go out and say it all publicly, but boy they look at you and say, you gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy, things like that. So there is enormous energy out there. Tell them, whereever they can find an American abroad, they can contribute," a reference to donations, prompting laughter from the crowd.

The discussion is about the attitudes of foreign leaders towards Bush; what US leaders might Kerry have in mind that are unable to speak out?

But we think we understand the timing. Kerry recently introduced the "I was misquoted" defense, as reported in the Times:

"I think the quote, the quote in the comment I made publicly, I believe, was that I `heard from,' that's the direct quote," Mr. Kerry said. "I've likewise had meetings. I've also had conversations. I said I've heard from, that was what I believe I said."

Thus challenged, the reporter goes back to his tape, and here we are. But where are we? Can it be that Kerry remembered the distinction between "met with" and "heard from", but failed to notice the misquote which substituted "more" for "foreign"?

And why did he say this when pressed:

"I'm not going to betray a private conversation with anybody," he said Sunday. "I have heard from people, foreign leaders elsewhere in the world who don't appreciate the Bush administration and would love to see a change in the leadership of the United States."

Bizarre. The InstaPundit has more.

UPDATE: Why do I bother, when the Post is going to explain it all anyway?

Originally Kerry was quoted as saying, "I've met foreign leaders," but a review of the tape by the lone newspaper reporter at the event showed that Kerry used the word "more" rather than "foreign." That small wording change did not alter the context of Kerry's remarks at the fundraiser, nor had Kerry ever suggested otherwise.

On Sunday, he disputed the quote, but not for implying that he was talking about foreign leaders. "I think the quote, the quote in the comment I made publicly, I believe, was that I heard from, that's the direct quote. I've likewise had meetings. I've also had conversations. I said I've heard from, that was what I believe I said," he said.