JustOneMinute

Incoming Flip-Flop!

Mickey Kaus tips us to a Bold Moment in the Kerry campaign - Tall John left a courtship meeting with some Hispanic activists and promptly got on Telemundo to announce that he opposed driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.

Michelle Malkin sees a Sister Souljah moment; I say, start the flip-flop countdown.

MORE: Hmm, did I cheat, and isn't the flip-flop contained in the story? Here we go:

Kerry spokesman David Wade said Wednesday that Kerry thinks it is a state responsibility to decide who gets a driver's license. Wade said Kerry would not support any federal efforts to stop states from giving them to illegal immigrants.

So, Kerry has an opinion but no intention of turning that opinion into law. Leadership that's shirking!

Run That By Me Again...

The WaPo informs us that chemicals were not found, except where they were found:

Chemicals Not Found in Iraq Warheads

Sixteen rocket warheads found last week in south-central Iraq by Polish troops did not contain deadly chemicals, a coalition spokesman said yesterday...

Skip to third paragraph:

...Yesterday's coalition release also said that two other 122-milimeter rounds, found by the Poles on June 16 with help from an Iraqi informer, tested positive for small quantities of sarin but were "so deteriorated" that they would have had "limited to no impact if used by insurgents against coalition forces."

What part of "not found" don't I understand?

UPDATE: The credulous BBC version.

Feed The Fantasy

A slow news day on a moribund news weekend allows the "All The Liberal Talking Points That Are Fit To Print" crowd to capture the NY Times and deliver this: Military Draft? Official Denials Leave Skeptics.

A few sentences of official denials are balanced by many, many paragraphs explaining the conspiracy and wondering why this notion of an impending draft won't die. However, Carl Hulse, Investigative Ace in Pursuit of the Truth, never notices that John Kerry himself has helped keep the issue alive by referring to various Bush Administration policies as a "back door draft".

Mr. Hulse also finds discussions of a draft, pro and con, at the Op-Ed sites of other newspapers, without noticing that his very own NY Times ran a guest piece calling for a return of the draft last May.

And to conclude our piling on, we feel obliged to mock this particular identification of a source:

Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, says unease about the prospect of a draft surfaces frequently in his travels around the country. He says unwillingness to accept official reassurances is attributable to public cynicism about the Bush administration's case for war in Iraq.

"I think it is skepticism that we have been misled so many times about this war: weapons of mass destruction, ties to Al Qaeda, a cakewalk," said Mr. Korb, now at the liberal Center for American Progress. "People are clearly worried and figure, `They are just waiting until the election is over to spring the bad news on us.' "

Hmm, he is now at the liberal Center for American Progress. Why not identify him as that before presenting his left-leaning talking points, and later mention that he served in the Reagan Administration? Why not mention both facts in the identification - is "Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration who is now with the liberal Center for American Progress" really that awkward stylisitically?

Well, it's a slow news weekend - by Monday, we look forward to "Elvis Lives? Despite Official Denials, Skeptics Persist".

Slate Gets Results

Slate, June 29:

Pilgrim's Progress?
John Kerry's dubious approach to religion.

NY Times, July 3:

Kerry Invoking 'Values' Theme to Frame Issues

MORE: Reactions to the Slate piece at Memeorandum; check out Nick Confessore at TAPPED, who is a genius when I agree with him.

DeLong Develops The "Auto-Fisker"

It's Christmas (colors) on the Fourth of July when Brad DeLong unveils his "Auto-Fisker" - NO!, you gearheads, this is not about automobiles. Under the watchful eye of Brad DeLong, WaPo columnist Jim Hoaglund provides a self-fisking on the role of the Bushies and the CIA in preparing intelligence on Iraq.

We will steal the Prof's summary, since it is summery outside:

...even I had failed to grasp exactly how two-faced [Jim Hoagland] is. In October 2002 it was finally the case that some in the CIA were willing to buck careerism, recognize the obvious danger of Saddam Hussein, and no longer bury evidence. In February of 2004 it is incompetent alarmists at the CIA who exaggerate the Iraqi threat--and poor naive George W. Bush who believes them...

Many others have commented on schisms in the see-no-evil CIA. On the subject of politicizing intelligence, I suppose the standard Dem meme is that Clinton only wanted the truth, while Bush wanted a war. I don't buy that, natch - Clinton had plenty of reasons for wanting to back-burner Saddam after Desert Fox, starting with Kosovo and continuing with worldwide indifference to Saddam. After 9/11, Bush, as well as anyone with a sense of responsibility at the CIA, had an obligation to take a fresh look at old ideas.

Which is not to defend Hoagland. Developing...

Yankees Sweep The Sox!

This is not a rivalry, it's an oppression.

Brad DeLong Calls For Truth In Political Advertising

We can't fault the Prof for a lack of optimism:

First, can we please please please please please please PLEASE!! stop talking about Bush's "tax cuts." There are no tax cuts. There's a tax shift--current taxpayers pay less, and future taxpayers pay more. Only by pretending that nobody has to service and amortize the growing federal debt can you talk about Bush's "tax cuts." They aren't there, any more than a $5,000 increase in your VISA limit is an increase in your income.

Evidently, from his perch in San Francisco Prof. DeLong has become a Yankees fan, and believes that The Future Is Now (or at least within sight). Were he a member of Red Sox nation, he would believe that debt amortization, like World Series victories, can wait until next year. Indefinitely.

In the case of the United States, is there some reason to believe that we cannot maintain Federal debt at some plausible percentage of GDP "forever"? One might argue as to what that level might be (50% of GDP grabs me, but who am I?), and whether the Bush tax plans would hew to that course, but that is far different from imputing a practical significance to the notion that all tax cuts must be repaid so imminently that we need to reflect seriously on just who might be doing the repaying. A proper tax policy ought to focus on growing the pie today (or do we bake those things?), and giving future generations an opportunity to re-slice something larger. Whether the Bush approach accomplishes that is a separate question from whether taxes have been "cut" or "shifted".

However, if Truth in Rhetoric is the new goal, can we please, please, please stop hearing about various Democratic plans for "investing" in America? Let's call at least some of these plans "spending", or "transfers", or "future tax hikes".

While we are at it, let's have no more talk about raising the minimum wage! "Democrats propose an increase in the Barrier to Oppoprtunity" would be a delightful headline, and more accurate (please don't vex me with that one New Jersey study - if that is convincing, then Bush's case against Saddam is a slam-dunk).

And should we even ask about "labor market protections", which have so protected the workers of some European countries that no one is willing to hire them, and job creation has ground to a near-halt?

Tax cuts they are, as far as the eye can see.

MORE: CBO projections - not what I wanted, but a starting point.

This CBO history is not it either - there was some study that projected the deficits over the next twenty years (or some such) with all Bush tax cuts made permanent (as if!), and including the impact of Social Security and a reform in the AMT. Krugman cited it, I have linked to it, and now I have to go...

Richardson Out As VP Candidate

Re my earlier Bold Prediction, aparece que tenía mi cabeza encima de mi asno. Hasta la vista Bill!

MORE: My current Bold Prediction is still Gephardt, but Google doesn't have a tool to translate that into Missourah.

Bush Campaign Message Takes Hold

The Bush campaign's relentless effort to depict John Kerry as an unreliable flip-flopper seems to have gained an unexpected convert - John Kerry! Here is Tall John speaking to a PUSH audience:

I'm wary about standing up in front of you," he said, "because I know there's a cynicism. I know you're tired of the words. So am I."

He's tired of the words? Join the club, John!

A Drollery From William Safire

William Safire leaves us wondering just how subtle he is, in the conclusion to his column warning against certitude:

Don't jump to hasty derision. As Mark Twain advised, the problem is not just what we don't know, but what we do know that ain't so.

Mark Twain may well have advised that, but the correct attribution seems to be to "Artemus Ward". Safire will surely be alerted.

Josh Marshall is skeptical of Safire's main point; Safire might want to re-read Tenet's July 2003 account. In anycase, the Butler report on British intelligence, which will address the British side of the Niger-uranium link, is now scheduled for July 14. Time will tell!

MORE: This article does not pin it on him, and Google can't verify it, but I KNOW that Safire once delivered the popular misquote, "Alas, poor Yorick, I knew him well". I even want to date it to a summer between 1987 and 1989.

Waiting For Dick Gephardt

Dan Drezner rounds up some enthusiasm on the left for the Man from Missouri as Kerry's VP pick. (His projected convention acceptance speech - "I still belive in Big Mo"). Our fave:

Gephardt? Gephardt??!! Please, God, don’t let the Democratic party snatch certain defeat from the jaws of potential victory by choosing Dick Gephardt as the VP candidate. Pleasepleaseplease. Anybody but Gephardt.

Actually, we really like this, too:

Gephardt would have an amazing pull with loser voters, voters who like losing the House to opposing parties, voters who have a long history of being supported by decrepit and dying labor institutions in failing political campaigns, just people who generally like to lose.

Since they are in Boston, why not pick the perfect candidate for Red Sox Nation?

But I digress - I stand by my call that Dick is the One! John Edwards upstages Kerry, and, win or lose, muddies up the succession plan for Hillary!, so he is out. Gephardt is probably the only Dem available who makes Kerry look life-like, so get ready.

I love this game.

Mutual Respect Becomes A One-Way Street

Kevin Drum calls for semi-mutual respect for the opposing party's pronunciations, delivering a laugher on the subject of Hillary's call for higher taxes:

THE ESSENCE OF TODAY'S CONSERVATISM?....

...[Andrew Sullivan] was annoyed because HC invoked the "common good." This is apparently all it takes to drive some conservatives nuts these days.

What a sad commentary. Of course the purpose of taxation is to provide for the common good and of course Hillary believes her agenda coincides with that common good. What else would she believe?

Apparently, though, a mere acknowledgment that she believes in advocating for the common good is anathema to Sullivan. But if that was really his gut reaction, what does he think we're all here for?

Now wait - apparently we are supposed to accept at face value Hillary's assertion that her only motive is the common good. However, Bush and other Republicans also favor a specific type of tax policy, and how many times do we read about "tax cuts for the rich"? No matter how many times the Evil Reps insist that they really do believe that lower taxes are good for everyone in the economy, Kevin Drum knows better. A quick sample, on the off chance there is a skeptic out there:

As AB says, decreasing the dividend tax on low income families is sort of like giving them a tax break for buying a yacht. But it provides a nice little way to confuse everyone into thinking you're watching out for the little guy, doesn't it?

The cynicism of these folks never ceases to amaze me. They're a real piece of work.

So when Hillary says her tax plan is for the common good, we should all nod agreeably; when Reps say it, we should insist it is pure cynicism. Thanks for the tip.

Ironically, Kevin is half-way to a sensible suggestion - it is helpful, on occasion, to imagine for a moment that the leaders of the other side are not corrupt, crazed criminals. OK, more than helpful, it can be (for some of us) a tremendous test of your imagination and self-control. However, the notion that Reps should bow to Hillary's announcement of her good intentions while our own are endlessly derided may not be realistic.

MORE: Let a thousand reactions bloom at Memeorandum.

And let's shove Steve Antler, Prof. Bainbridge, and Moe Lane into the light.

Confused About Your Military Discharge?

Glenn Reynolds links to some posts highlighting media confusion about the distinctions in the military between "retired", "discharged", and "in the reserve".

The NY Times gives us this explanation in the lead:

Amid Congressional concerns that the military is stretched too thin, the Army is preparing to take advantage of a rarely used wartime program that allows it to recall soldiers who have left the service and did not join the reserves.

Much further down, Thom Shanker tries again:

The Individual Ready Reserve is made up of soldiers who were honorably discharged but served less than eight years on active duty and still have obligations under the contract signed when first joining the service.

People who were honorably discharged, but still have contractual obligations? Is it really this confusing? Here is the military version:

Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) is a personnel pool principally consisting of individuals who have had training and have previously served in the active forces or in the Selected Reserve. The IRR consists of obligors who must fulfill their Military Service Obligation, and those who have fulfilled their MSO and who voluntarily remain in the IRR. IRR members are subject to involuntary active duty (AD) or training and fulfillment of mobilization requirements.

I am not sure how you can be Honoraby Discharged if you still have a contractual commitment and a remaining Military Service Obligation (Wikipedia seems clear enough). However, a person can be released from active duty into the reserves, so there is a possibility of some confusion.

In fact, John Kerry and the NY Times have been confused on this point before.

MORE: Here is a bit more background on these call-ups - apparently, the military has switched from asking to telling.

UPDATE: Is there a military lawyer in the house? There is no shortage of military regulations.

This definition seems clear enough (E 2.1.3, p. 8 of 71):

E2.1.3. Discharge. Complete severance from all military status gained by the
enlistment or induction concerned.

and on the next page we find:

E2.1.11. Release from Active Duty. Termination of active duty status and transfer
or revision to a Reserve component not on active duty, including transfer to the
Individual Ready Reserve (IRR).

My guess - somewhere the concept of discharge from active duty has crept into the language, and people are conflating that with an Honorable Discharge. We welcome suggestions.

Kerry (Still) Doesn't Excite Minorities

"Kerry Urged to Do More to Get Black Votes", says the WaPo, noting that Kerry has failed to excite black voters but failing to identify a single Democratic constituency that Kerry has excited.

Look, this special interest group should not expect special treatment - they can either hate Bush and vote for Kerry like every other Democrat, or stay home. This is Equal Opportunity Indifference at Camp Kerry.

MORE: Capt. Ed manages to keep a straight face.

We Cheap-Shot Prof. Krugman

The Earnest Prof, appraising the Iraqi occupation, concludes that US success is less than 100%, and who can argue?

However, since one regular source of amusement around here is to see just how wildly out of context Prof. Krugman is willing to place a quote, we excerpted this from "Who Lost Iraq?":

The insurgency took root during the occupation's first few months, when the Coalition Provisional Authority seemed oddly disengaged from the problems of postwar anarchy. But what was Paul Bremer III, the head of the C.P.A., focused on? According to a Washington Post reporter who shared a flight with him last June, "Bremer discussed the need to privatize government-run factories with such fervor that his voice cut through the din of the cargo hold."

And we have no doubt of it. Here is the Washington Post story which includes that tidbit. We notice, with not too much effort, that the story's headline is "Attacks Force Retreat From Wide-Ranging Plans for Iraq", with a date of December 28, 2003. The gist - plans changed from June to December, as well they might have.

And how "oddly disengaged" was Paul Bremer in June? According to the WaPo, Bremer made the comment "as he returned to Baghdad aboard a U.S. military transport plane after speaking at an international economic conference". This is almost surely the speech in question, delivered at the World Economic Forum on June 23, 2003. One hopes that he may be forgiven for discussing his economic vision for Iraq at an economic forum; with that caveat, we note that the first point the "oddly detached" Bremer makes in his speech is this:

...Let me say a word about the President’s vision for Iraq and about our Coalition’s plan to realize it. President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have clearly stated their vision. It is of a free Iraq, at peace with its neighbors and governed by a representative government chosen by democratic elections.

How then do we intend to achieve this goal? We are working on three important areas.

The first job of any government is to provide security and to maintain law and order....

Which we seem not to have done, and Bremer's description of the training of Iraqi security and police officials has a certain poignancy a year later. However, not succeeding and not trying are two different things.

In his speech, Bremer also mentions George Bush's June 21, 2003 radio address; the first priority there is also security.

Prof. Krugman is also quite critical of the staffing at the Coalition Provisional Authority, although I did not read about him taking a leave of absence and flying to Baghdad to pitch in. If I am following the Prof, Michael Ledeen has said some stupid things, so his daughter is unqualified. Later, he can explain Ron Reagan Jr. to us, but meanwhile here is the WaPo story that inspired his ire, and nothing else.

UPDATE: Ain't no way to treat a lady - Roger Simon waxes eloquent.

Do I Want The Truth?

I can't handle the truth.

MORE: Where is Maureen's Dowdifier when you need it? Almost exactly from the Boston Globe:

On Jan. 12, 1984, a year into his four-year term, Kerry was in Germany's Black Forest on an acid... trip when he received stunning news...

I can stop whenever I want. Meanwhile:

In 1983, Kerry's first year as lieutenant governor, his schedules show at least 23 trips... on... acid.

"John had a natural inclination to pursue... acid..., recalled James S. Hoyte, who was Dukakis's environmental secretary from 1983 to 1988.

OK, fun is fun, but the Globe didn't really offer much divorce-related dirt. Fine. My guess is that the journalistic hook for the Kerry divorce papers will somehow mirror the Ryan scenario - Kerry made some comment that might be proved or disproved by the divorce papers, and now the public has a Right To Know. Can I waive my right?

My guess that a smoking statement would pop up in the Globe didn't pan out, but I am sure someone somewhere will find a suitable statement from Kerry tying him to his divorce, and away we will go. The Reps will look evil if they ride this horse, but if the media is intent on making itself look small, let them go for it.

Now It's The Blair Push-Back

IN the last two weeks we saw the Cheney push-back on the Al Qaeda-Saddam connection. Now Tony Blair's people seem to be pushing back on the Niger-Iraq-uranium connection.

Gregory Djerjian does a nice job of highlighting the Financial Times story in which various intelligence services promote:

"Evidence of Niger uranium trade 'years before war'

...European intelligence officers have now revealed that three years before the fake documents became public, human and electronic intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated discussion of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger. One of the customers discussed by the traders was Iraq.

These intelligence officials now say the forged documents appear to have been part of a "scam", and the actual intelligence showing discussion of uranium supply has been ignored.

And why is this news arriving now? Josh Marshall has a glamorous explanation (OK, Glenn R calls it "cloak and daggerish", which is probably more accurate). His gist, presented as a hypothetical - the evildoers are hearing the footsteps of some intrepid reporters, and are desperately attempting to pre-emptively muddy the waters.

Well, every party needs a crashing bore, and here I am. The Guardian, also from Sunday, reports that:

Butler inquiry targets Niger uranium claim

The man charged with investigating British intelligence failures in the build-up to the Iraq war is focusing on Tony Blair's assertion that Saddam Hussein tried to secure uranium from Niger.

The revelation that Lord Butler, the former cabinet secretary in charge of the inquiry, is homing in on this issue could cause problems for Blair.

Well. An alternative (but not mutually exclusive) hypothesis to the Marshall theory is the more prosaic guess that the Blair side has put their story into the press in anticipation of the Lord Butler effort. (Geez, am I arguing that the Butler did it?). Now, that doesn't mean that Marshall is wrong, and heaven knows there is plenty of room in this script for evildoers of many nationalities. However, the reporting on the Butler investigation (with a report due by the end of July) suggests that the timing of these stories is not being driven exclusively by a band of intrepid investigative journalists. OTOH, if the intrepid journalists have gotten the inside track on Lord Butler's investigation, and have persuaded him to adjust his agenda, that would be a story...

And while on the subject of seemingly buried ledes, Josh Marshall recommends, on the subject of the forged Niger documents, this New Yorker account be Sy Hersh, which I excerpt here. The buried bombshell is the theory that disgruntled ex-CIA officers prepared the forgeries. If Josh Marshall is endorsing that, and is about to confirm that, I can not imagine how it will be presented as a Bush-basher (but it will be!).

Meanwhile, the timing question is secondary to the main point, which is, was Niger selling uranium under the table or off the books? Today the FT says yes; a year ago, the Telegraph said no, and made it sound like one for the Impossible Missions team.

MORE: I admire Matt Yglesias' pith.