WaxWorks
|
Saturday, April 10, 2004
Dog Eat Dog...
By the way, at what point should all of the Republicans who accused Clinton of a "Wag the Dog" response in August 1998 when he tried to kill bin Laden be forced to apologize?
Asleep at the Switch?
I've commented before that I thought that Bush's month-long vacation in August 2001 sent precisely the wrong message to al Qaeda and may have made them even more confident that they could pull off something big against a "resting" U.S.
Well, Atrios has an interesting take on Bush's vacation too:
For those who are a little fuzzy on their recent history, the timeline goes something like this:
August 6, 2001: Bush gets briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside US."
August 7, 2001: Bush begins month long vacation in Crawford, TX.
Remember what Clarke said Clinton did in 1999 after he got intelligence about the planned Millenium attacks? 'Nuff said.
Friday, April 09, 2004
Rice Lets the Cat Out of the Bag
I thought this piece was a really good analysis of the Rice testimony. The main point is that Rice wasn't really a NSA in the traditional sense because she had no power to do anything that wasn't already tasked to her by Cheney, Rummy or Wolfie. As Fred Kaplan noted, Rice repeatedly excused her response in pre-9/11/01 to the terrorist threat on the ground that she wasn't asked to do anything about it -- apparently if she was ordered to do something, she took no initiative to imbark on that on her own. Staggering incompetence.
But I thought this also made the interesting point, particularly in light of Bush and Cheney appearing together before the Commission, that these hearings have made clear that it was Cheney, not Bush who was running foreign policy. Indeed, it argues, if Cheney, not Bush, had received the August 6 PDB, then maybe something would have happened:
Perhaps the most revealing answer Rice gave yesterday was in answer to a question inquiring about the steps, if any, Bush took in response to the information in the Aug. 6 security briefing that said [according to Bob Kerrey and Ben-Veniste] "that the FBI indicates patterns of suspicious activity in the United States consistent with preparations for hijacking." Rice said Bush met every day with the CIA director.
Not with the CIA director and the FBI director. Just with the CIA director. The structural problem that kept the FBI director and the CIA director from communicating the most critical information to each other during the months preceding 9/11 was, in other words, a structural problem of the Bush administration's own making.
That structural problem was, in turn, created by a truly profound one, a thoroughly stunning one—even to me. It's a structural problem revealed most starkly by Bush's failure, upon being told on Aug 6, 2001 that "that the FBI indicates patterns of suspicious activity in the United States consistent with preparations for hijacking" especially in light of George Tenet's warnings to him throughout that summer that al Qaeda intercepts were speaking of a very, very, very big event.
The structural problem is simply this: Bush was the president in name only, a genuine figurehead, with no intellectual decisionmaking capability whatsoever, and that Cheney was the actual president at least with respect to national security matters. The information in the Aug. 6 "PDB"—the presidential daily briefing—wasn't given to the actual president. Nor were Tenet's daily oral and written reports. They were given only to the figurehead president, and not transmitted to the real one, who already had determined the administration's national security agenda and therefore wasn't interested in them.
Thus Rice's constant references to policy rather than to responding to—acting in light of—information being received. Rice wasn't tasked to attempt to learn of the nature and locale of the impending very, very, very big event al Qaeda was planning because the policy regarding invading Afghanistan, and what they thought was the requisite of getting Pakistan on board, wasn't yet in place.
Among the more annoying euphemisms in currently in vogue among the punditry is the one they use to acknowledge that Bush is very seriously lacking in intellectual capacity: they say he is "incurious". But stupid as I recognize him to be, even I wouldn't have suspected that, handed information that the FBI indicates patterns of suspicious activity in the United States consistent with preparations for hijacking, and handed information that al Qaeda was planning an attack it thought would cause a huge uproar, George W. Bush would be so incurious as to not phone the FBI director and ask what exactly were those patterns of suspicious activity in the United States consistent with preparations for hijacking.
But now, thanks to Rice's testimony yesterday, I and all the world know that that wasn't tasked to Bush. It was tasked to Cheney—or rather it would have been, had Cheney rather than Bush been the one to receive the Aug. 6 PDB, and had he been the one to meet daily with Tenet.
I had thought throughout the Clarke controversy, until yesterday, that the real political damage to Bush from would come from the recognition by a majority of the public, finally, that it makes us less rather than more safe—both physically and economically—to have a strong-'n-decisive leader whose strength-'n-decisive leadership amounts to determining policy based purely on ideology and patronage rather than on the actual needs of the county and on facts, and who forces through these polices irrespective of circumstances and evidence about their actual effects on the country.
But I think now that that, even more than that, the political damage Bush will suffer will come from the ultimate epiphany that the most damning caricature of this president is true: He's jaw-droppingly stupid, and so Dick Cheney is the actual president. Cheney isn't obsessively secretive for nothing.
Troubling, yes. Very.
Condi Rice was asked to fall on her sword in order to try to keep this secret from escaping. She obliged and destroyed herself, but didn't succeed in her mission.
Down the Rabbit Hole
Sorry for the radio silence recently, I've been traveling. But I wanted to comment briefly on Condi's testimony.
Republicans, and the Bush Campaign, attacked Clinton repeatedly for his hyper-technical use of language, such as the infamous "it depends what the meaning of "is" is." But listen to what Condi said this week.
Rice has repeatedly tried to argue that the August 6, 2001 PDB that Bush received was not a "threat report" but instead was a historical document. She was confronted on Thursday with the fact that the August 6 PDB was entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."
Her response? "The PDB does not say the United States is going to be attacked. It says Bin Laden would like to attack the United States."
As Fred Kaplan has already noted, "To call this distinction 'academic' would be an insult to academia."
I also find the evolving statement by the Bush Administration justifying their response interesting. First, it was "If we had known that Bin Laden was going to hijack airplanes and use them as missiles, we would have done everything to stop him." (That was Condi in May 2002). Then it comes out that the Administration WAS warned about hijacked airplanes used as missiles. So now Bush says, " if we'd had known that the enemy was going to fly airplanes into our buildings, we'd have done everything in our power to stop it." Note that Bush has eliminated the missile or hijacking references.
Pretty soon, the noose will tighten so that the only true statement he'll be able to say is: "If we'd had known that United Flight __ and American Flight __ were going to be hijacked at _ o'clock by ___, ____, and ____, we would have done everything we could to stop it."
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
More Stuff They Ignored
Guess what? The Bush Administration also ignored the report issued by Gary Hart and Warren Rudman in January 2001. Hart and Rudman chaired the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, "which was created by President Bill Clinton in October 1998, with the approval of the congressional leadership. It was a bipartisan commission with a three-year life and a mandate to review threats to national security and opportunities to avoid those threats and to report to the next president of the United States in early 2001. It completed the most comprehensive review of U.S. national security since 1947."
Not only did Bush ignore it, but the 9/11 Commission hasn't called Hart or Rudman (or any of the other commissioners) to testify as of yet. Here's what Hart has to say about it:
Suppose that in March or April 1941, 14 Americans with lengthy backgrounds in national security affairs had reported to President Franklin Roosevelt that the United States was going to be attacked somewhere, sometime, somehow by the Japanese, that this attack would result in large numbers of American casualties, and these officially appointed Americans had strongly recommended to the Roosevelt administration that it take urgent steps to help prevent such an attack. Further suppose that Roosevelt had done little if anything in response to this warning, and that almost eight months later, as it happened, the Japanese attacked American facilities at Pearl Harbor, and almost 2,000 Americans died. Suppose after this attack official inquiries were launched, as it also happened, as to why there was a failure of intelligence, what actions were or were not taken based on what intelligence there was, and what could be done to prevent such catastrophic surprises in the future. And finally suppose that the official commission created to investigate the tragedy of Pearl Harbor failed to call upon the original 14 Americans who forecast the attack and forewarned against it.
Now move this supposed scenario forward to 2004 and you have virtually a perfect fit and an actual set of circumstances. The U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, co-chaired by former Sen. Warren Rudman and myself, reported to President George W. Bush and his new administration in January 2001 that terrorists were surely going to attack the United States and that our country was woefully unprepared. We documented the lack of intelligence coordination against this threat and the lack of preparation of up to two dozen federal agencies, as well as state and local governments, to prevent such attacks or respond to them when they did occur. Though we had no ability to forecast specific times, places and methods for such attacks, we were united in our certainty that they were bound to occur. In our first report we said: "America will become increasingly vulnerable to hostile attack on our homeland [and] Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers." In our final report we urged the new Bush administration to create a national homeland security agency to prevent terrorist attacks.
Now that the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States -- the so-called 9/11 commission -- is moving toward completion of its deliberations and preparation of its final report, I am increasingly asked what information our earlier commission, the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, has provided the 9/11 commission and why that information has not been made public. When told that the 9/11 commission has not asked for any public testimony from us, most people are incredulous. If the 9/11 commission is really trying to find out what was known and when it was known, they ask, why would your national security commission's warnings and recommendations not be of direct relevance and urgent interest? Didn't you publicly and privately warn the new Bush administration of your concerns about terrorism? Didn't you specifically recommend a new national homeland security agency? Why wouldn't all this be of central importance to the work of the 9/11 commission? The simple answer to all these questions is: I don't know why we have not been asked to testify.
Since the U.S. Commission on National Security officially ceased to exist as of the summer of 2001, I cannot speak for the other 13 commissioners. But I have been waiting for many months to hear from the 9/11 commission, fully expecting a request for public testimony from members of our earlier commission, and have heard nothing.
To my knowledge, few if any members of the media have asked the 9/11 commission these questions either. Why would a commission investigating the events leading up to 9/11 not want to know what an earlier commission learned about potential terrorist attacks and what recommendations it gave to the new administration? This would seem to any reasonable person to be of intense interest to the press and the public the media serves. Apparently not. Apparently the politics of whether National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice will testify under oath and the drama of personal assaults on chief terrorism advisor Richard Clarke exhaust media attention. It is difficult to know, or to understand, why this is so.
In this connection it is important to note that the U.S. Commission on National Security based its conclusions about the inevitability of terrorist attacks in part on testimony from Clarke, and fully briefed Rice and other senior Bush administration officials regarding the urgency of its conclusions.
They Can't Keep Their Story Straight
Remember how people like Sean Hannity defended Condi Rice from Clarke's claim that Condi acted like she had never heard of "al Qaeda" when he first briefed her on terrorism in January 2001? Hannity played a radio interview from October 2000 where Condi referred to "Bin Laden" several times, but never mentioned "al Qaeda." Hannity, and others, argued that Bin Laden = al Qaeda and thus this interview proved Clarke was wrong.
Well, imagine my surprise when I saw this headline on the front page, above the fold, no less, of the Washington Times today:
Al Qaeda absent from final Clinton report
By James G. Lakely
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress — 45,000 words long — makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times.
Come on, guys. The right hand just doesn't know what the far right hand is doing. Get it straight. Does "Bin Laden" = "Al Qaeda" or does it not?
Also, is the defense to Clarke's serious and unrebutted claims going to be to destroy Clarke's credibility or is it going to be to blame it on Clinton? Golly, you think that they would be able to get these things straight...
More Than Just A Pipe Dream?
I've been pretty outspoken in my desire to have Kerry pick Edwards as his running mate. But that's only if he picks a Democrat. I've said for at least two years that if Kerry were to pick McCain, it could be a galvanizing moment for the Democrats. First, I believe that it would win the election. Second, I think such a dramatic show of bi-partisanship and attempt at national unity would elevate the Democratic party and allow us to become uniters in this post-9/11 era. That's powerful stuff.
I know, McCain is pro-life and has some positions that will not sit well with some Democrats. But this is about more than that. It's about bringing the country together and I think Kerry-McCain would do that. And it's not as if McCain doesn't have some votes that side with Kerry and the Democrats -- remember, McCain was one of only two Republicans to vote against Bush's tax cuts in 2001, and was also opposed to drilling in ANWR. Personally, I think the one area that would cause the most problems for McCain are the 527 groups like the Media Fund that are using soft money to support the Democrats this year. I'm not sure how he would reconcile his recent criticism of those groups. (Although much of their work may be done by the time that McCain would be selected.)
But this has never been more than a pipe dream, until now. It appears, despite McCain's weak statement of disinterest, that Kerry is seriously considering McCain as his running mate. And please don't forget the residual hatred McCain has for Bush because of what Bush did to him in South Carolina in 2000. Revenge can be a powerful thing.
That would be a home-run. Just imagine McCain against Cheney in the debate...
Monday, April 05, 2004
This Is Why the President Hasn't Had A Press Conference Since December
Show me where Bush answers the question about why he is testifying with Cheney before the 9/11 commission in this informal Q and A today:
Q Mr. President, can you just tell me -- the 9/11 Commission, the Chairman yesterday, Governor Kean, said a date had been set, I think, for your testimony and the Vice President's. Is that --
THE PRESIDENT: I would call it a meeting.
Q A meeting, I'm sorry.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Q Has that date been set, and could you share it with us? And number two, can you tell us the rationale as to why you have chosen to testify or rather meet with them with the Vice President?
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, it will be a great opportunity from them to ask both of us our opinions on the subject. And we're meeting with the entire commission. I'm not exactly sure what the status is of putting out the date. I told them I'd meet with them at a time that's convenient for all of us, and hopefully we'll come to that date soon.
I look forward to sharing information with them. Let me just be very clear about this: Had we had the information that was necessary to stop an attack, I'd have stopped the attack. And I'm convinced any other government would have, too. I mean, make no mistake about it; if we'd had known that the enemy was going to fly airplanes into our buildings, we'd have done everything in our power to stop it. And what is important for them to hear, not only is that, but that when I realized that the stakes had changed, that this country immediately went on war footing, and we went to war against al Qaeda. It took me very little time to make up my mind, once I determined al Qaeda to do it, to say, we're going to go get them. And we have, and we're going to keep after them until they're brought to justice and America is secure.
But I'm looking forward to the conversation. I'm looking forward to Condi testifying. I made a decision to allow her to do so because I was assured that it would not jeopardize executive privilege. And she'll be great. She's a very smart, capable person who knows exactly what took place, and will lay out the facts. And that's what the commission's job is meant to do, and that's what the American people want to see. I'm looking forward to people hearing her.
All right, got to go to work. Thanks. Good to see you all.
Also, I find it interesting that he refers to his appearance before the Commission as a "meeting" while he refers to Condi "testfying."
Cited by the Right Wing Conspiracy
Readers of left-leaning blogs likely know about Markos Zuniga, founder of the hugely successful blog, Daily Kos. Markos has been hugely influential in increasing activism on the left and on Internet fundraising for Democratic candidates.
Markos made a highly incendiary comment on his blog last week, commenting on the deaths of the four private civilians in Fallujah. "Kos," as he is known, got pretty worked up and said that the deaths of these "mercenaries" made him "feel nothing." He also wrote, "Screw 'em." Well, Kos' comments sparked a lot of commentary, even within the site. I myself didn't agree with the sentiments.
Kos ultimately wrote further on the issue, noting his upbringing in war-torn El Salvador, and contritely noted that he actually did feel something -- anger that these deaths received so much notice, when these were men who were choosing to go into these dangerous areas for as much as $1000/day, but the deaths of five U.S. soliders, who get paid very little and are stuck in an impossible situation, in Iraq the same day went unnoticed.
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page has a blog that discusses the day's news in as impartial a fashion as we've come to expect from the WSJ Ed. page. On Friday they hammered Kos, and took great glee in publicizing and demonizing him. This negative publicity ultimately forced multiple advertisers, including John Kerry, to pull their ads on his blog. I thought their piece was terribly one-sided, so I e-mailed them to say so, thinking nothing further would come of it.
(Interestingly, that same day, on the Diane Rehm show on NPR, Clarence Page expressed a similar argument to Kos about these private firms in Iraq (albeit with less incendiary language), and he too was slammed by Tony Blankeley. I haven't seen a protest or outrage about Page yet.)
Imagine my surprise to see this lead story in the WSJ e-mail today:
BEST OF THE WEB TODAY
BY JAMES TARANTO
Monday, April 5, 2004 1:53 p.m. EDT
Soldiers as Victims
Our item Friday on blogger Markos Zuniga's post about the four Blackwater Security Consulting contractors murdered in Fallujah, Iraq, last week--"They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them," Zuniga said--brought this response from reader Josh Waxman:
It would be "fair and balanced" if you also mentioned that Markos explained that the reason he was angry was because the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq got second billing to the deaths of these individuals.
But that might not please your master, would it? It's really nice when facts are things you can use as you wish, and discard when they're inconvenient.
We don't want to get into any trouble, so if you see our master, please don't tell him we published Waxman's letter. Anyway, we're not sure how Zuniga's professed sympathy for soldiers is a mitigating factor. "Screw them," he said of four men who had been lynched. Is such an attitude less despicable because there are other people whose lynching Zuniga would object to?
What a badge of honor. Again, I don't agree with what Kos said, but the right is trying to turn him into a "cartoon character," as Bill Clinton described it at the DNC Unity Dinner last week.
Iraq, Iraq, Iraq
This Administration's Iraq obsession from the earliest days is now becoming even more evident. This from the Center for American Progress, which is a much-needed new liberal think-tank:
MORE EVIDENCE BUSH WAS FOCUSED ON IRAQ: Britain's former ambassador to the United States is now confirming that nine days after 9/11, President Bush asked for Prime Minister Tony Blair's support in confronting – and potentially attacking – Iraq. The White House has denied that President Bush was focused on Iraq after 9/11, despite the Washington Post confirming the President signed a directive in the days after the attacks ordering the Pentagon to begin drawing up Iraq invasion plans. The British ambassador's charges have already been corroborated by former Bush counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke and former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. And Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) confirms that the result of the President's focus on Iraq after 9/11 was a loss of focus on the hunt for al Qaeda: Graham said that on a visit to MacDill Air Force Base in February 2002, a senior commander of Central Command told him, "Senator, we have stopped fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan. We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq."
Sunday, April 04, 2004
Still the Best Show on Television
There have been a lot of really good episodes of the Sopranos, but I'm hard pressed to think of a better episode than the one on Sunday, Irregular Around the Margins. Wow. The Christopher-Tony scene in the Jersey marsh. The final scene at Artie's restaurant. Just a tremendous, tremendous piece of art.
More Defense for the White House?
Have you noticed how the White House has constantly repeated the theme that terrorism should be viewed as a "law enforcement" issue since 9/11? Well, that may be because, before 9/11, the Bush Administration Justice Department didn't make fighting terrorism a priority.
According to Newsweek online:
Next week, the panel is slated to hear from Attorneys General John Ashcroft and Janet Reno, and two former FBI directors, Louis Freeh and his interim successor, Thomas Pickard. People close to the commission are expecting a bitter confrontation between Pickard and Ashcroft. Pickard is expected to scorch Ashcroft for showing little interest in terrorism before 9/11, NEWSWEEK has learned. The A.G. denied proposed funding increases for FBI counterterrorism programs. Ashcroft is expected to say that Pickard could have shifted resources if he thought it was so important.
