WaxWorks
|
Friday, April 02, 2004
Truth Teller
Yesterday I noted the excellent article by Fred Kaplan illustrating how the failure of Powell and Tenet, two individuals repeatedly quoted in Clarke's book, to question the veracity of Clarke's factual assertions strongly suggests that Clarke's statements are true. Implicit in that conclusion is the fact that the White House's attacks on Clarke's credibility should be dismissed as well.
Well, today Bob Somerby provides more support to Clarke, in a book that the Administration was happy to promote... until now. Woodward's Bush At War. The White House, to my knowledge, has never questioned the veracity or challenged the credibility of Mr. Woodward. Read and decide for yourself if Clarke's claims should be considered credible:
...[M]any of Clarke’s “controversial” claims were supported by a book pundits loved—Woodward’s majestic Bush at War. But because they were dumb-or-playing-dumb, your pundits refused to take notice.
Here are four of Clarke’s “controversial” charges, along with the supporting material from Woodward’s much-loved book:
Rummy’s targets: Pundits found it hard to believe that Rummy really said it! On September 12, Clarke alleged, the wise old owl was prowling the White House, looking for someone to bomb:
CLARKE (page 31): Later in the day, Secretary Rumsfeld complained that there were no decent targets for bombing in Afghanistan and that we should consider bombing Iraq, which, he said, had better targets. At first I thought Rumsfeld was joking. But he was serious and the President did not reject out of hand the idea of attacking Iraq.
Pundits wondered if this could be true. They should have studied their Woodward—for example, his account of Camp David on 9/15:
WOODWARD (page 84): When the group reconvened, Rumsfeld asked, Is this the time to attack Iraq? He noted that there would be a big build-up of forces in the region, and he was still deeply worried about the availability of good targets in Afghanistan.
In Bush at War, a string of advisers note that Iraq would provide better targets. (Hence the word “still” in the passage above.) Last weekend, Rumsfeld was asked about Clarke’s troubling claim by Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday. Rummy gave two rambling replies; in the course of his non-answer answers, he never denied making the statement which Clarke records in his book.
Rummy and Wolfie’s designs on Iraq: Say what? One of Clarke’s controversial claims concerned alleged designs on Iraq. Scribes were shocked by Clarke’s account of life on September 12:
CLARKE (page 30): I expected to go back to a round of meetings examining what the next attacks [against America] could be, what our vulnerabilities were, what we could do about them in the short term. Instead, I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq. At first I was incredulous that we were talking about something other than getting al Qaeda. Then I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq.
What a controversial statement! Unless you read Woodward—same day:
WOODWARD (page 49): Rumsfeld raised the question of Iraq. Why shouldn’t we go against Iraq, not just al Qaeda? he asked. Rumsfeld was speaking not only for himself when he raised the question. His deputy, Paul D. Wolfowitz, was committed to a policy that would make Iraq a principal target in the first round of the war on terrorism.
Not that there was anything wrong with it, but that’s what Woodward records! Indeed, Woodward shows Cheney voicing a similar view:
WOODWARD (page 43): “To the extent we define our task broadly,” Cheney said [at a 9/12 NSC meeting], “including those who support terrorism, then we get at states. And it’s easier to find them than it is to find bin Laden.”
Again, rumination on easier targets.
Bush’s testes: Did Bush have a jones for linking Saddam to 9/11? That was Clarke’s controversial impression on September 12. Everyone knew how shocking it was when the profiteer dared to say this:
CLARKE (page 32): “Look into Iraq, Saddam,” the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.
Everyone knew it was controversial when Clarke recorded this troubling notion—the notion that Bush was eager to link Saddam to 9/11. Maybe they should have read their Woodward. He records Bush’s view on September 17:
WOODWARD (page 98): Bush said he wanted a plan to stabilize Pakistan and protect it against the consequences of supporting the U.S.
As for Saddam Hussein, the president ended the debate. “I believe Iraq was involved, but I’m not going to strike them now. I don’t have the evidence at this point.”
In fact, he didn’t have the evidence, but according to Woodward, he asserted belief. For the record, it’s odd that Bush would have reached this judgment. Earlier, Woodward records the views of Wolfowitz, the most anti-Saddam Bush adviser:
WOODWARD (page 83): [Wolfowitz] worried about 100,000 American troops bogged down in mountain fighting in Afghanistan six months from then. In contrast, Iraq was a brittle, oppressive regime that might break easily. It was doable. He estimated that there was a 10 to 50 percent chance Saddam was involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Even Wolfie was only at 10 to 50 percent. By the way, this passage provides another bit of “easier target” thinking.
Not that urgent: According to Clarke, the threat of terror wasn’t “urgent” for the Bush Admin before 9/11. In this case, Clarke himself told scribes where to go. Yep! He sent them straight to this passage in Woodward:
WOODWARD (page 39): [Bush] acknowledged that bin Laden was not his focus or that of his national security team. “There was a significant difference in my attitude after September 11. I was not on point…I didn’t have that sense of urgency, and my blood was not nearly as boiling.”
Oof! The White House would love to get that one back! Of course, the pundits would have missed it too. But Clarke just keeps bringing it up.
Restoring Honesty and Integrity to the Oval Office
Apparently, this Administration will lie about ANYTHING, nothing is too big or too small. Paul Krugman today nicely discusses the latest episode involving a fairly typical bit from Letterman:
A funny thing happened to David Letterman this week. Actually, it only started out funny. And the unfunny ending fits into a disturbing pattern.
On Monday, Mr. Letterman ran a video clip of a boy yawning and fidgeting during a speech by George Bush. It was harmless stuff; a White House that thinks it's cute to have Mr. Bush make jokes about missing W.M.D. should be able to handle a little ribbing about boring speeches.
CNN ran the Letterman clip on Tuesday, just before a commercial. Then the CNN anchor Daryn Kagan came back to inform viewers that the clip was a fake: "We're being told by the White House that the kid, as funny as he was, was edited into that video." Later in the day, another anchor amended that: the boy was at the rally, but not where he was shown in the video.
On his Tuesday night show, Mr. Letterman was not amused: "That is an out and out 100 percent absolute lie. The kid absolutely was there, and he absolutely was doing everything we pictured via the videotape."
But here's the really interesting part: CNN backed down, but it told Mr. Letterman that Ms. Kagan "misspoke," that the White House was not the source of the false claim. (So who was? And if the claim didn't come from the White House, why did CNN run with it without checking?)
In short, CNN passed along a smear that it attributed to the White House. When the smear backfired, it declared its previous statements inoperative and said the White House wasn't responsible. Sound familiar?
Thursday, April 01, 2004
The Dog That Didn't Bark
Next time Republicans argue about Richard Clarke's credibility, point them to this excellent article by Fred Kaplan.
Kaplan points out that, despite the fact that Clarke directly quotes both Colin Powell and George Tenet to support several of his central damaging allegations against the Bush Administration's handling of the war on terror, neither Tenet nor Powell have denied these statements or engaged in the attacks on Clarke. That might tell you something about what the facts are...
"Worse Than Nixon"
We're getting into Watergate territory here: White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales called at least one, and maybe more, 9/11 Commission members the night before Richard Clarke testified. Ex parte contacts anyone? Sure looks like the White House was planting attacks on Clarke in the Commission.
Interestingly, for Watergate parallels, the Commission member who Gonzales definitely spoke with was Fred Fielding, who has been identified by some scholars as the most likely person to have been Woodward's infamous Deep Throat.
Puppet and Puppeteer
I've been pretty worked up about the fact that Bush and Cheney are going to testify together. Maureen Dowd apparently is too in an excellent column. Let's see if this follows the same pattern -- White House takes outrageous position of obstruction only to back down after public outcry.
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Game. Set. Match.
I think this front page story in today's Washington Post pretty much settles things in Richard Clarke's direction: the text of a speech that Condi was to give on 9/11 about terrorism that was scutted for obvious reasons -- discussions of rogue states like Iraq but no mention of bin Laden or Al Qaeda.
Amazing What You Can Find in Starbucks These Days
Remember when Karl Rove (or a member of his staff) lost a disk that contained a powerpoint presentation on Rove's take on the 2002 political environment?
Well, a Department of Defense staffer named "Eric" apparently left some talking points documents at a Starbucks in Dupont Circle, only to be found and given to the Center for American Progress. They're quite interesting.
Condi, Condi, Condi
People have now accepted as true that Condi Rice was familar with Al Qaeda in January 2001 when Clarke briefed because of an October 2000 radio interview she gave (publicized by Sean Hannity) where she discusses bin Laden, but not Al Qaeda. Others have argued quite convincingly that someone could know about bin Laden, but not be familar with Al Qaeda. Hell, I was.
Here's more evidence that Condi either a) wasn't familar with Al Qaeda or b) wasn't focused on terrorism: an article that Condi wrote in the January/February 2000 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine outlining the Bush campaign's approach to foreign policy.
She mentions terrorism only five times, four in terms of "rogue states" like Iraq, one referring Chechnya. Wanna guess how many times she mentioned bin Laden or Al Qaeda?
More Outrage
I've had some more time to ruminate about Bush and Cheney testifying together before the 9/11 Commission, without any transcript, and it really is outrageous. Josh Marshall has quite nicely laid out what I agree are the only three reasons for this, all of which enrage me:
Only three scenarios or explanations make sense to me.
The first -- and most generous -- explanation is that this is simply another way to further dilute the Commission's ability to ask questions.
If, say, the meeting lasts three hours, that's three hours to ask questions of both of them rather than three hours to ask questions of each -- as might be the case in separate meetings.
That wouldn't be any great coup for the White House. But it would be one more impediment to throw in front of the Commission's work, which would probably be a source of some joy for the White House.
From here the possible explanations go down hill -- in every respect -- pretty quickly.
Explanation number two would be that this is a fairly elementary -- and, one imagines, pretty effective -- way to keep the two of them from giving contradictory answers to the Commission's questions. It helps them keep their stories straight.
(It's a basic part of any criminal investigation -- which, of course, this isn't -- to interview everyone separately, precisely so that people can't jigger their stories into consistency on the fly.)
The third explanation is that the White House does not trust the president to be alone with the Commission members for any great length of time without getting himself into trouble, either by contradicting what his staff says, or getting some key point wrong, or letting some key fact slip. And Cheney's there to make sure nothing goes wrong.
These last two possibilities do, I grant you, paint the president and his White House in a rather dark light. But I would be curious if anyone can come up with another explanation for this odd demand.
The idea of Cheney bailing out Bush, with no transcript to show what happened should be unacceptable to everyone.
Corporate Vacation
One issue that hasn't been brought up yet by the 9/11 Commission is the vacation that Bush took for the entire month of August 2001. At the time this was a relatively unprecedented event (I believe only Nixon had taken a comparable vacation during his Presidency). But as the Bush Administration argues that it was in "battle stations" and people cancelled vacations in the summer of 2001, it's hard to argue with Clarke's allegation that he couldn't get a principals meeting that summer because of vacation schedules and there's the president spending a month clearing brush in Crawford.
Personally, I've always thought that the image that Al Qaeda got of Bush taking the month of August off must have only emboldened them before 9/11. If the President is taking a month off, what does that say about the nation's readiness or urgency for a terrorist attack?
Scalia and Airline Pricing
I've finally finished reading Scalia's ridiculously one-sided opinion denying the motion for recusal in the Cheney Energy Task Force case -- the opinion is a classic example of a brief that simply ignores the bad facts. I've got two observations.
One, Scalia gives examples of other Justices socializing with Presidents, without recusal, such as Justice White and President Kennedy and Justice Jackson and President Roosevelt. However, Scalia never mentions that the current rule about recusal post-dates all of his examples, making them irrelevant to his argument.
Second, Scalia notes that, although he flew on Air Force II down to New Orleans, he and his son Eugene had to get their own transportation back to Washington. As a result, they bought round trip plane tickets back to DC, because they were the cheapest available, and thus, Scalia argues, the cost to him was the same as if he hadn't flown on Air Force II. Besides ignoring, or minimizing the obvious benefits of flying on Air Force II with Vice-President, Scalia may have admitted that he commited promissory fraud by misrepresenting his intentions to the airline.
As this article notes:
Justice Scalia and his family probably saved a bundle by misrepresenting their intentions.
In the topsy-turvy world of airline pricing, a round-trip ticket is often cheaper ? even much cheaper ? than a one-way fare. On US Airways, for example, a round-trip ticket between Washington and New Orleans could have been bought yesterday for as little as $198, while the cheapest unrestricted one-way fare was $638.
Justice Scalia did not say how much he paid for his round-trip ticket, but it seems fair to assume that he bought what is known as a "throw-away ticket" ? something the airlines expressly prohibit. US Airways, for example, does not allow the "use of round-trip excursion fares for one-way travel," and reserves the right to refuse to board those who try to use them and to charge them the difference between the round-trip and one-way fare.
Granted, this is a crazy condition. A newspaper doesn't charge buyers more when they throw away everything but the sports section. They might want to ? and their advertisers might agree ? but they don't. Airlines, however, charge more for a one-way ticket because they know that some business travelers need the flexibility to buy such tickets, and are willing to pay more for it.
Of course, maybe Justice Scalia plans to use the return half of his ticket later. If he does not, however, he in essence has admitted to buying a ticket under false pretenses. He made a promise without any intention of fulfilling it. Justice Scalia is no doubt familiar with the legal term for such an act: it's called promissory fraud.
The airlines' policy may be annoying, inconvenient and customer-unfriendly. But they can legally insist that their passengers abide by it. And certainly a strict believer in the rule of law like Justice Scalia would agree. Then again, if a case about the airlines' pricing practices ever reaches the Supreme Court, maybe Justice Scalia should recuse himself.
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Woodward's New Book
Loyal readers will recall that I mentioned that Bob Woodward has a new book coming out next month on the Bush Administration's handling of the war in Iraq and the continued war on terrorism (note that these two things are separate).
Despite the snippets that Dick Clarke has rightly pointed the American press to, Woodward's last book, "Bush At War," was an extremely positive take on the Administration, primarily because his sources were exclusively... the Administration!
But I hear his next book will not be so helpful to Bush, per Lloyd Grove, formerly of the Washington Post:
Fit of conniption: I hear that "Plan of Attack," supersleuth Bob Woodward's still-secret study of President Bush's war on terrorism, will be very bad for the Bush reelection campaign - which is still reeling from gun-toting former terrorism chief Richard A. Clarke's critique of Bush, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and other administration figures in "Against All Enemies."
Woodward's book, to be released next month, will receive not only a multipart series in The Washington Post, but also the Mike Wallace treatment on "60 Minutes" April 18 - when I am absolutely confident that the common corporate ownership of CBS and Woodward's publisher, Simon & Schuster, will be mentioned.
50-50 Nation
I've been surprised by the fact that the Clarke allegations haven't hurt Bush's poll numbers more but I think a stark reality is the reason for that. (Of course, one reason is the constant personal attack on Clarke's credibility by the Republicans -- remember when they said that the Clinton Administration only attacked the credibility of its accusers and never answered the allegations?)
But I think what we're seeing is evidence of the Red-Blue divide. Most Americans have made up their mind about this President and not much is going to change that. 45% are gonna support him no matter what and 45% are gonna oppose him no matter what. It's the other 10% that I'm a little surprised haven't reacted more negatively to the Clarke information.
All the more reason Kerry NEEDS to define himself before the Bush campaign does it for him.
Puppet and Puppeteer
So, why do Bush and Cheney have to appear "jointly"? (Are Clinton and Gore appearing together?) Can't Little G take care of himself? Cheney's gonna bail him out again, I guess.
Also, if you see the Bush statement in the White House press room, watch Bush flee the press room like a scared child after he completes his statement. The last thing he wants to answer questions about how his Administration has consistently hampered and stymied the September 11 Commission.
It's time for them to go.
Monday, March 29, 2004
WMD: Decide First, Get Facts Second
Bush's Iraq policy has been remarkably consistent, as Bob Somerby points out, quoting from Woodward's Bush at War:
In Bush at War, Bob Woodward quotes Bush at a crucial NSC meeting on September 17, 2001:
WOODWARD (page 98-99): As for Saddam Hussein, the president ended the debate [about immediate military action against Iraq]. “I believe Iraq was involved, but I’m not going to strike them now. I don’t have the evidence at this point.”
According to Woodward, Bush “believed Iraq was involved” in 9/11, although he “didn’t have the evidence.” What a fascinating bit of text! Readers, is it reassuring to know that Bush “believes” important things although he “doesn’t have the evidence?”
Hmm... Where else have we seen Bush "believe" something, even though there wasn't "evidence" to back it up?
Worse Than Nixon?
We're really stepping into some pretty audacious territory here, as John Dean has already noted. I'm going to let Josh Marshall speak unedited on this one:
Declassifying the transcripts is not compatible with national security. But taking the transcripts, cutting the individual words into scraps and pasting them back together into incriminating sentences might be okay.
How far different is this ...
U.S. officials told NBC News that the full record of Clarke’s testimony two years ago would not be declassified. They said that at the request of the White House, however, the CIA was going through the transcript to see what could be declassified, with an eye toward pointing out contradictions.
That's the last graf from a late story from NBC.
You know something's wrong -- when an administration is truly out of control -- when they discuss their dirty tricks on background.
Look at what this is: using the CIA and the classification process for an explicitly and exclusively partisan purpose, at the direct behest of the White House. Call me old-fashioned but back in the good-old-days this used to be done with a bit more indirection, subterfuge and cover, no?
It's one thing to declassify the whole thing. Perhaps there's some rationale for that -- though why Clarke's testimony and no one else's should be released seems questionable.
But the whole thing won't be released -- which would be only way to really judge what he said -- only portions which can be selected to highlight apparent contradictions.
We're moving on to dangerous enough ground when the White House starts using the nation's intelligence agencies for explicitly domestic political purposes. But you know we're really in trouble when they don't even try to hide it.
Chutzpah, Hypocrisy, You Name It
This was just too much for me to take:
John Kerry cited a Bible verse Sunday to criticize leaders who have “faith but has no deeds,” prompting President Bush’s spokesman to accuse Kerry of exploiting Scripture for a political attack.
Kerry never mentioned Bush by name during his speech at New North Side Baptist Church, but aimed his criticism at “our present national leadership.” Kerry cited Scripture in his appeal for the worshippers, including James 2:14, “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?”
“The Scriptures say, what does it profit, my brother, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?” Kerry said. “When we look at what is happening in America today, where are the works of compassion?”
Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said Kerry’s comment “was beyond the bounds of acceptable discourse and a sad exploitation of Scripture for a political attack.”
"We Can Run on the War"
More Rove-related stuff. Remember when Rove said in 2002, to a group of RNC bigwigs, that the Republicans could "run on the war"? (And he took a lot of heat, rightly so.)
Well, the 9/11 Commission, thanks to Richard Clarke and others, may make that a little bit more difficult. According to Drudge, Newsweek is reporting that the 9/11 Commission is likely to conclude that the attacks could have been prevented had the FBI, CIA and other groups been meeting daily to discuss findings, and scouring things at night, as Clarke has suggested the Clinton Administration did in December 1999, when it was able to prevent an Al Qaeda attack at Los Angeles International Airport.
He Can Dish It, But He Can't Take it
Remember during the Florida recount when protesters stood outside of Gore's Vice-Presidential mansion shouting, "Get out of Cheney's house." (Which I always thought was a little silly, since, even if the results held up, Cheney wasn't moving in until January 20). Rove and Co. got a nice kick out of that.
But now the shoe's on the other foot and Rove can't take the same treatment. Check out this article about an apparent protest outside Rove's house. And check out this press release by the group organizing the protest which contains the relevant address.
Sunday, March 28, 2004
Bush in 2000: No Mention of Terrorism
Just out of curiousity, I went back and took a quick look at the 2000 Presidential debate transcripts to see if either candidate had spoken about terrorism generally or al Qaeda or Bin Laden (yes, Condi, there is a difference) specifically.
I found only one mention of terrorism during the three Presidential debates, which was by Gore during the last debate, which had taken place right after the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. (Gore, in fact, noted the bombing when answering the first question posed to him: "And of course, this debate also takes place at a time when the tragedy of the USS Cole is on our minds and hearts and insofar as the memorial services tomorrow, I would like to also extend sympathy to the families of those who have died and those who are still missing, and the injured.")
At no point did Bush ever discuss terrorism. But he sure had a lot to say about Saddam Hussein and Iraq...
