WaxWorks
|
Friday, April 16, 2004
California Dreaming
In October 2000, Karl Rove announced his prediction that Bush would garner 400 Electoral Votes and win the popular vote by 6 percentage points. To show his confidence, he sent Bush out to campaign in California, a state that was sown up by Gore the day he announced his candidacy. This act of arrogance or stupidity nearly cost (actually cost) Bush the election.
Now, Rove has spoken up about Ohio:
Rove also predicted that ``we're going to win Ohio comfortably'' in the race against Democratic rival John Kerry.
The Bush campaign is ``building the greatest grass-roots apparatus that Ohio has ever seen,'' Rove said. The state's 20 electoral votes could determine the election.
``I don't mean that it's going to be close,'' Rove said. ``What I mean is, it's going to be where everybody is going to be paying a lot of time and attention. I think we're going to win Ohio comfortably, but I do think that Democrats are going to contest it strongly.''
Oh, back on planet earth, in a moment of honesty, Rove conceded the obvious:
President Bush's top political adviser said this week he regretted the use of a ``Mission Accomplished'' banner as a backdrop for the president's landing on an aircraft carrier last May to mark the end of major combat operations in Iraq.
``I wish the banner was not up there,'' said White House political strategist Karl Rove. ``I'll acknowledge the fact that it has become one of those convenient symbols.''
Rove, speaking at an editorial board meeting with The Columbus Dispatch in Ohio on Thursday, echoed Bush's contention that the phrase referred to the carrier's crew completing their 10-month mission, not the military completing its mission in Iraq.
Riiight.
A Separate Government
Well, bits and pieces are starting to come in about the Woodward book. Here's the most interesting stuff I've seen so far, in a Washington Post article:
Woodward describes a relationship between Cheney and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell -- never close despite years of working together -- that became so strained that Cheney and Powell are barely on speaking terms. Cheney engaged in a bitter and eventually winning struggle over Iraq with Powell, an opponent of war who believed Cheney was obsessed with trying to establish a connection between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network and treated ambiguous intelligence as fact.
Powell felt Cheney and his allies -- his chief aide, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz and undersecretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith and what Powell called Feith's "Gestapo" office -- had established what amounted to a separate government. The vice president, for his part, believed Powell was mainly concerned with his own popularity and told friends at a private dinner he hosted a year ago to celebrate the outcome of the war that Powell was a problem and "always had major reservations about what we were trying to do."
Before the war with Iraq, Powell bluntly told Bush that if he sent U.S. troops there "you're going to be owning this place." Powell and his deputy and closest friend, Richard L. Armitage, used to refer to what they called "the Pottery Barn rule" on Iraq -- "you break it, you own it," according to Woodward.
But, when asked personally by the president, Powell agreed to present the U.S. case against Hussein at the United Nations in February, 2003 -- a presentation described by White House communications director Dan Bartlett as "the Powell buy-in." Bush wanted someone with Powell's credibility to present the evidence that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction -- a case the president had initially found less than convincing when presented to him by CIA deputy director John McLaughlin at a White House meeting on December 21, 2002.
McLaughlin's version used communications intercepts, satellite photos, diagrams and other intelligence. "Nice try," Bush said when he was finished, according to the book. "I don't think this quite -- it's not something that Joe Public would understand or would gain a lot of confidence from."
He then turned to Tenet, McLaughlin's boss and said, "I've been told all this intelligence about having WMD and this is the best we've got?"
"It's a slam dunk case," Tenet replied, throwing his arms in the air. Bush pressed him again. "George, how confident are you."
"Don't worry, it's a slam dunk," Tenet repeated.
Tenet later told associates he realized he should have said the evidence on weapons was not ironclad, according to Woodward. After the CIA director made a rare public speech in February defending the CIA's handling of intelligence about Iraq, Bush called him to say he had done "a great job."
We always knew (or suspected) that Cheney was running a separate government (or the only government) but the fact that Bush initially had doubts about the same inteliigence he later sold to the American people is pretty big news.
You're Fired
The next Apprentice is out and here's the preview. Guess who gets fired for mis-managing the country?
The Lies Pile Up
This White House is great about lying to your face about things in order to create their own reality in the mind of the public. (Claiming to "change the tone in Washington" is one.)
William Saletan in Slate has another good one:
"And as to whether or not I make decisions based upon polls, I don't. I just don't make decisions that way."
—President Bush, White House press conference, April 13
"It was no accident that President Bush passed up five chances on Tuesday night to offer regrets, contrition or an acknowledgement that he might have made mistakes in handling the Sept. 11 attacks or the war in Iraq. … One adviser said the White House had examined polling and focus group studies in determining that it would be a mistake for Mr. Bush to appear to yield."
—New York Times, April 15
Thursday, April 15, 2004
Imagine What the Music Sounds Like...
I present... the 10 Worst Album Covers of All Time. My favorite? The unfortunately titled "Let Me Touch Him" by the Minister's Quartet. No, I am not making this up. See for yourself.
Remembrance of Days Past
President wants Senate to hurry with new anti-terrorism laws. Guess which President?
Perjury Exception?
I noted ages ago on this blog that there appears to be a perjury exception for Republicans testifying before the Judiciary Committee -- Clarence Thomas, John Ashcroft and Theodore Olson all clearly have committed perjury in their sworn testimony during their confirmation hearings.
Now that exception appears to extend to the 9/11 Commission as well. (Ashcroft apparently also used this little known exception before the commission this week, giving him a twofer but I'm not going to focus on him today.) I've been increasingly harsh on Condi Rice in recent weeks, but her performance before the 9/11 Commission concerning the August 6 PDB was at least as misleading, and perhaps more so, than President Clinton during his Paula Jones deposition.
Bob Somerby has broken this down quite nicely on his website:
After swearing to tell “the whole truth,” Rice delivered her opening statement. She described that key PDB:
RICE, OPENING STATEMENT: I want to address in some detail one of the briefing items we received, since its content has frequently been mischaracterized.
On August 6, 2001, the president’s intelligence briefing included a response to questions that he had earlier raised about any al Qaeda intentions to strike our homeland.
The [PDB] reviewed past intelligence reporting, mostly dating from the 1990s, regarding possible al Qaeda plans to attack inside the United States. It referred to uncorroborated reporting that—from 1998—that a terrorist might attempt to hijack a U.S. aircraft in an attempt to blackmail the government into releasing U.S.-held terrorists who had participated in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. This briefing item was not prompted by any specific threat information and it did not raise the possibility that terrorists might use airplanes as missiles.
Somewhat comically, that was Rice’s full description of the PDB.
The key fact to remember when analyzing Rice's testimony is that, when she testified, the contents of the PDB were classified, so no one could publicly challenge her characterization of it by producing the document. So Rice simply ignores the facts that hurt her argument:
Yes, the PDB did describe, in paragraph 9, an “uncorroborated report” from 1998 about a possible hijack attempt. But in paragraph 10, it described other ongoing hijack threats, a fact Rice simply ignored:
PRESIDENTIAL BRIEF, 8/6/01: (pgh 9) We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [REDACTED] service in 1998 saying that bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.
(10) Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
Commission Member Richard Ben-Veniste noticed this clear contradiction and questioned Rice about it. (Members of the press, reciting Republican "spin," have been critical of Ben-Veniste's questioning, claiming that his setting the record straight from Rice's dissembling had injected "partisanship" into the hearings.)
BEN-VENISTE: Isn’t it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB.
The title, of course, was "Bid Laden Determined To Strike in US."
Then, Rice answered Ben-Veniste’s first question. Remarkably, this was her answer:
RICE: You said, did it not warn of attacks? It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information, and it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.
Now, compare this statement to paragraph 10 of the actual PDB. Sure looks like she's lying, huh? And remember the PDB is classified, so she can lie freely without being challenged.
So Ben-Veniste tries to get around this by using the actual language from the PDB to question her and look at Rice's responses:
Possibly puzzled by her remarks, Ben-Veniste narrowed his question. Indeed, in his next question, he took his language straight from the brief itself:
BEN-VENISTE: As of the August 6th briefing, you learned that al Qaeda members have resided or traveled to the United States for years and maintained a support system in the United States. And you learned that FBI information since the 1998 blind sheik warning of hijackings to free the blind sheik indicated a pattern of suspicious activity in the country, up until August 6th, consistent with preparation for hijackings. Isn’t that so?
The answer to that question is obvious—Yes. As you can see from the text of the PDB, the language of Ben-Veniste’s question came straight from the brief itself. And Rice had sworn to tell “the whole truth.” So what did she do? She evaded:
RICE: You have other questions that you want me to answer in—as part of the sequence?
Yes, that actually was her reply. So Ben-Veniste—his time being wasted—posed his question again:
BEN-VENISTE: You have indicated here that this was some historical document. And I am asking you whether it is not the case that you learned in the PDB memo of August 6th that the FBI was saying that it had information suggesting that preparations—not historically, but ongoing, along with these numerous full-field investigations against al Qaeda cells—that preparations were being made consistent with hijackings within the United States.
Again, Ben-Veniste used the language of the briefing itself. Again, the answer was obvious: Yes. But Rice evaded her oath. She offered a rambling, irrelevant speech, which ended with another misstatement:
RICE: May I address the question, sir? The fact is that this August 6th PDB was in response to the president’s questions about whether or not something might happen or something might be planned by al Qaeda inside the United States. He asked because all of the threat reporting, or the threat reporting that was actionable, was about the threats abroad, not about the United States.
This particular PDB had a long section on what bin Laden had wanted to do—speculative, much of it—in ’97, ’98, that he had in fact liked the results of the 1993 bombing. It had a number of discussions of—it had a discussion of whether or not they might use hijacking to try and free a prisoner who was being held in the United States, Ressam. It reported that the FBI had full field investigations underway. And we checked on the issue of whether or not there was something going on with surveillance of buildings, and we were told, I believe, that the issue was the courthouse in which this might take place.
Commissioner, this was not a warning. This was a historic memo—historical memo prepared by the agency because the president was asking questions about what we knew about the inside.
Rice discussed every part of the PDB—except the part about which she’d been asked! “This was not a warning,” she finally said. Each person will have to decide whether to call that a lie.
Readers, keep that one key point in mind. When Ben-Veniste questioned Rice, the American people had no way to check the accuracy of her statements. The PDB was a classified document; as far as Rice knew, it always would be. So what happened? Two separate times, Bern-Veniste questioned Rice using the language of the PDB itself. The answer to his question was simple. But under oath, Rice wouldn’t say it.
Ben-Veniste couldn’t have made it simpler. The answer was obvious—but Rice wouldn’t say it. You’d think the press corps would be upset. And by the weekend, the corps was upset—but not in the way you’d imagine.
Somerby's point, of course, is that the press, repeating Republican spin (created because it is clear that the 9/11 Commission's Report is going to be critical of Bush), criticized Ben-Veniste for going after Rice, not Rice for lying to the commission.
Paging Ken Starr?
Killing Him Softly
I listened to John McCain on Imus this morning and, recognizing that McCain had said he would not become a Democrat and run as Kerry's VP, Imus asked McCain if he would be willing, as Senator Bob Kerrey apparently has suggested, to remain a Republican and, in order to create a bipartisan government to stop the current rancor, form a unity government as Kerry's VP. McCain said that he would not do that either, noting that not only would he remain a Republican but that he planned to vote for Bush.
Then things got interesting.
Imus asked McCain if, in light of all of the intelligence failures and 9/11 issues, McCain himself could name any mistakes he had made. McCain tellingly chuckled before rattling off four or five mistakes he claimed to have made. The final one was most significant, and came a bit out of left field, since they were discussing national security issues: that he regretted not having the courage to stand up against the confederate flag when he campaigned in South Carolina in 2000, and that he was proud to have gone back to South Carolina and admitted that mistake after the fact.
The stark contrast between McCain's candor and Bush's response at the press conference Tuesday night was evident to everyone. Imus finally punctured the silence by noting the obvious -- that an answer like that was what everyone was waiting for from the President.
Even though I suspected it before, I've realized it now -- plainly, McCain is relishing a covert operation. He won't openly destroy Bush as the Democratic VP candidate, but he will do things like this from now until November. God bless him.
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Killing the Clock
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, depositions in federal cases have a set limit of 7 hours of questioning. In one case I worked on, a wily plaintiff decided that she would kill the clock by taking excessive time to review documents, even one sentence documents, and by taking long pauses before answering questions. It worked; she effectively killed the clock and ate up our seven hours of questioning without us getting very much that was useful.
So we had to go to the Judge and ask for more time -- the Judge saw through what the plaintiff was doing and granted us an additional seven hours. This time we were prepared: we had her deposition videotaped, so that if she filibustered again, we would have a record to bring to the Judge if we needed more time. But we didn't need to -- the presence of the video camera did the trick, and she testified without her shenanigans, and we got some great admissions, ultimately winning the case by getting the Judge to grant summary judgment.
Unfortunately for the American people, the fact that President Bush was being videotaped last night did not prevent him from engaging in blatant filibustering and clock killing. Somewhere, Dean Smith (an Edwards supporter, incidentally) with his four corners offense is smiling. Look at Bush's response to this question by Ann Compton from ABC News:
COMPTON: Looking forward about keeping the United States safe, a group representing about several thousand F.B.I. agents today wrote to your administration begging you not to split up the law enforcement and the counterterrorism.
BUSH: Yeah.
COMPTON: Because they say it ties their hands. Yet you mentioned yesterday that you think, perhaps, the time has come for some real intelligence reforms. That can't happen without real leadership from the White House. Will you and how will you?
BUSH: Well, you're talking about one aspect of possible. I think you're referring to what they call the MI-5. And I heard a summary of that from Director Mueller, who feels strongly that we — and he'll testify to that effect, I guess, tomorrow. I shouldn't be prejudging his testimony. But my point was that I'm open for suggestions. I look forward to seeing what the 9/11 commission comes up with. I look forward to seeing what the Silverman-Robb commission comes up with. I'm confident Congress will have some suggestions.
What I'm saying is let the discussions begin. And I won't prejudge the conclusion. As the president, I will encourage and foster these kinds of discussions, because one of the jobs of the president is to leave behind a legacy that will enable other presidents to better deal with the threat that we face. We are in a long war. The war on terror is not going to end immediately.
This is a war against people who have no guilt in killing innocent people. That's what they're willing to do. They kill on a moment's notice because they're trying to shake our will. They're trying to create fear. They're trying to affect people's behaviors. And we're simply not going to let them do that.
And my fear of course is that this will go on for a while. And therefore, it's incumbent upon us to learn from lessons or mistakes and leave behind a better foundation for presidents to deal with the threats we face. This is the war that other presidents will be facing as we head into the 21st Century.
One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking questions, is can you ever win the war on terror? Of course, you can. That's why it's important for us to spread freedom throughout the Middle East. Free societies are hopeful societies. A hopeful society is one more likely to be able to deal with the frustrations of those who are willing to commit suicide in order to represent a false ideology. A free society is a society in which somebody is more likely to be able to make a living. A free society is a society in which someone is more likely to be able to raise their child in a comfortable environment and see to it that that child gets an education.
That's why I'm pressing the Greater Middle East reform initiative, to work to spread freedom. And we will continue on that. So long as I'm the president, I will press for freedom. I believe so strongly in the power of freedom. You know why I do? Because I've seen freedom work right here in our own country. I also have this belief, strong belief that freedom is not this country's gift to the world. Freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world.
And as the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to help feed the hungry. I think the American people find it interesting that we're providing food for the North Korea people who starve. We have an obligation to lead the fight on AIDS, on Africa. And we have an obligation to work toward a more free world. That's our obligation. That is what we have been called to do, as far as I'm concerned.
And my job as the president is to lead this nation into making the world a better place. And that's exactly what we're doing. Weeks such as we've had in Iraq make some doubt whether or not we're making progress. I understand that. It was a tough, tough period. But we are making progress. And my message today to those in Iraq is we'll stay the course. We'll complete the job. My message to our troops is we'll stay the course and complete the job, and you'll have what you need. And my message to the loved ones who are worried about their, their sons, daughters, husbands, wives is your loved one is performing a noble service for the cause of freedom and peace.
Let's see, last question. Hold on for a second. Those who yell will not be asked...
And Bush was successful -- he took only one more question after this rambling, incoherent mess. (Indeed, his performance led to this "headline" that was first thing to come up for a while today on Google under bush news conference: Bush News Conference: Was He Drunk?)
As I see it, there are two ways to look at an answer like this. The first, more charitable one is that Bush was just trying to kill the clock, filibustering. The second is that he is unable to string together sentences other than the set spin points fed to him by Rove, Hughes and Cheney. By the time he got to feeding the North Korean people I had to go back to realize that the question was about intelligence reform.
I hope Ralph Nader was watching last night....
What I Meant to Say Was...
Previously I've commented that the Bush Administration keeps changing exactly "what" it claims if it had known about, it would have done something about pre-9/11. (I know that sentence isn't a beacon of clarity, but neither are the Bush Administration's explanations) First, it was Condi in May 2002 saying "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." Then recently Bush said, " 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," with no missile or hijacking references.
Now notice what Bush said last night at his news conference:
But there was nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government that could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.
I'm waiting for the next iteration, coming soon.
This is Called Not Answering the Question
As expected, Bush was asked at his news conference about why he and Cheney are appearing together before the 9/11 Commission:
BUSH: Let's see here, hold on. Michael?
QUESTION: Mr. President, why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 9-11 commission? And, Mr. President, who will we be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th?
BUSH: We'll find that out soon. That's what Mr. Brahimi is doing. He's figuring out the nature of the entity we'll be handing sovereignty over.
And, secondly, because the 9-11 commission wants to ask us questions, that's why we're meeting. And I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request.
BUSH: Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9-11 commission is looking forward to asking us. And I'm looking forward to answering them.
Josh Marshall also notes that after Bush's dodge on the 9/11 commission question about him and Cheney meeting together, hands were going up left and right with follow up questions. Bush deflected those by claiming to have some "must-calls" and goes... to a Washington Times and Fox News questioner who nicely changes the subject and gives the President a softball.
BUSH: Let's see. Hold on for a minute. Let's see. Oh, Jim.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
BUSH: I've got some must-calls. I'm sorry.
QUESTION: You have been accused of letting the 9-11 threat mature too far, but not letting the Iraq threat mature far enough. First, could you respond to that general criticism?
And, secondly, in the wake of these two conflicts, what is the appropriate threat level to justify action in perhaps other situations going forward?
I also liked the fact that we apparently have a powershare at the State Department:
BUSH: Secretary of State Powell and Secretary of State Rumsfeld and a number of NATO defense and foreign ministers are exploring a more formal role for NATO, such as turning the Polish-led division into a NATO operation and giving NATO specific responsibilities for border control.
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
That Was Then, This is Now
I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place.
What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?
I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.
Who said this? Ted Kennedy? John Kerry? George Bush Sr?
Nope. Dick Cheney in April 1991. How things change. And the more they stay the same -- apparently he didn't give any thought to the question about what to do in the event we took over over the next 13 years.
(Kudos to the Center for American Progress for finding this)
Monday, April 12, 2004
Anybody Else Find This Odd?
First, there's the "exaggerations" at best, outright deception at worst, concerning the WMDs, leading the country to war and a disasterous and deadly occupation.
Then illegally blowing the cover of a covert CIA operative for political purposes.
Then the Medicare bill -- the bribe and the withholding of accurate cost info.
Now there's lie after lie about pre-9/11 activity.
But Clinton was impeached for lying about a blow-job...
Well, Now We Know Why She Didn't Want to Testify Under Oath
Compare
[The August 6, 2001 PDB] was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.
--Rice, April 8, 2004
with
FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
--August 6, 2001 PDB
