Fear of Clowns

THE CAPITOL BUILDING, Washington, DC, approx. 2/2/2003: "Everybody now, all together! Ooooooh, Saddam, he's got them W.M.D / And he's a threat to you and me ..."

The reason every elected leader who stated as fact that Iraq had WMD should apologize is simple. We need to rebuild confidence in present and future statements. America needs assurance that what we hear "the next time" has has more thought put into it - accountability should not go out of style when politicly expedient. If we're we hold our leaders responsible for silly mistakes like being unaware of microphones - certainly we should expect accountability for statements which informed the country during our decision between war and peace. Even if - especially if - they thought what they were saying was well-founded at the time.

I don't care if Kerry or anyone else painstakingly qualified the implications of their statements in some way: the fact is most Americans trusted the statements and simply plopped them on to their "war or not" scales. The NY Times has issued their apology. Bill O'Reilly has said he was wrong. Some members of Congress have articulated their mea culpas. Tonight is an opportune moment for Kerry to unambiguously enter the words into the record: "I was wrong."

A few of us made efforts on our own to verify the veracity of what we were hearing. But we shouldn't have to do that - it's not our job to evaluate intelligence. The White House and The Hill are wired for the Internet - that's all that was needed to determine the statements should have been more like "We think that Iraq may have threatening WMD" instead of "We know that Iraq's weapons threaten us." Just two examples:

Many politicians referred to "poison factories." With an Internet connection, everybody had the ability to read the reports and statements of inspectors that stood inside the facilities. The inspectors - which included American personall - found the buildings to be "inoperative" (1/17/2003), "dusty and destroyed", or "employed in legitimate uses" (10/29/2002). After this information became available, we should have heard from our leaders, "Uh, you know those poison factories I spoke of? Well, as at turns out, at least some of them ..."

We were told of aluminum tubes seized in transit to Iraq which were definitely intended to be used to refine uranium. The inspectors - which included American personnel - failed to find "any evidence that Iraq intended to use these 81mm tubes for any project other than the reverse engineering of rockets." (3/7/2003) After that information became available, we should of heard "About those aluminum tubes. Now, at least some people now think ..."

Kerry's statements generalized: that Iraq's WMD were a threat, that we couldn't allow him to have these weapons, etc, but the concept is the same.

It was correct to be unsatisfied with anything less than 100% certainty about what was going on in Iraq, but the confidence level at which the claims were made was farcical. Authoritative information was available to us that at best cast some amount of doubt on the urgency of the threat.

We need to be confident in the leadership we send to the White House and Capitol. Democrat, Republican, it doesn't matter. Almost all of them said these things and few of them have returned to issue corrections on the confidence levels at which they were stated.

Even if Kerry feels he was mislead, which he certainly does, he should then apologize for allowing himself to be mislead.

I believe an "I was wrong" from Kerry would score points with most Americans. It will show he holds himself accountable. It will also force Bush to make a choice: do the same thing, which would be damaging for those still trying to believe this is an honest administration - or choose not to, which would make a nice contrast between him and an incumbant who shuns accountability.

// posted by Erik @ 7/29/2004 12:33:00 PM
permalink | 1 comments | post comment | email post:

Repubs: None shall pass.
Dems: What?
Repubs : None shall pass.
Dems: We have no quarrel with you, good Republicans, but we must cross this bridge.
Repubs : Then you shall die.
Dems: We command you as the Party of Optimism to stand aside!
Repubs : We move for no man.
Dems: So be it!

[Democratic Convention]

Republicans: Come on then.
Dems: What?
Repubs: Have at you!
Dems: You are indeed brave, fine Republicans, but the fight is our's.
Repubs: Oh, had enough, eh?
Dems: Look, you stupid bastards, you've got no arms left!
Repubs: Yes we have.
Dems: Look!
Repubs: Just a flesh wound.
Dems: Look, stop that.
Repubs: Chicken! Chicken!
Dems: Look, We'll have your leg. Right!

[Democrats cut off the Republicans' leg.]

Repubs: Right, we'll do you for that!
Dems: You'll what?
Repubs: Come 'ere!
Dems: What are you going to do, bleed on us?
Repubs: We're invincible!
Dems: You're loonies.
Repubs: The Republicans always triumph! Have at you! Come on then!

// posted by Erik @ 7/29/2004 11:43:00 AM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

I signed up for emails from the Bush/Cheney campaign several months ago. I just received one of the more bizarre missives, ostensibly authored by Jeb Bush. He begins, "The extreme makeover of John Kerry continued last night in Boston. Centrist Democrats paraded across your television screen to praise the most liberal Senator in Washington ..." Stop. Wait. Hold it. Unless people were watching the convention using TiVo last night, they were watching Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, and another Democrat who the Republicans like to brand as a radical liberal, Barack Obama. Who is giving who an extreme makeover to who?

Jeb also reveals a new Kerry flip-flop: "[John Kerry] told Wisconsin voters he likes to go hunting with his 'trusty 12-gauge double-barrel,' but he received an "F" from the National Rifle Association." One minute, Kerry is joyfully popping buckshot and the next minute the NRA gives him an "F"? Thje flip-flopper!

// posted by Erik @ 7/28/2004 03:37:00 AM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

Illinois senatorial candidate Barack Obama sure can deliver a speech! In the afterglow, it seems the most inspiring heartfelt patriotic tribute to a progressive America I've had the opportunity to hear.

// posted by Erik @ 7/28/2004 01:49:00 AM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

Yesterday, I tuned into Rush Limbaugh to get his take on Bill Clinton's keynote speech at the Democratic Convention. Apparently, it's all about "one tiny part". I agree with Rush that the section of the speech he spoke of was among the highlights. I've included here two paragraphs preceding the one Limbaugh read.

• We think the role of government is to give people the tools and conditions to make the most of their lives. Republicans believe in an America run by the right people, their people, in a world in which we act unilaterally when we can, and cooperate when we have to.

  They think the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their political, economic, and social views, leaving ordinary citizens to fend for themselves on matters like health care and retirement security. Since most Americans are not that far to the right, they have to portray us Democrats as unacceptable, lacking in strength and values. In other words, they need a divided America. But Americans long to be united.

  After 9/11, we all wanted to be one nation, strong in the fight against terror. The president had a great opportunity to bring us together under his slogan of compassionate conservatism and to unite the world in common cause against terror. Instead, he and his congressional allies made a very different choice: to use the moment of unity to push America too far to the right and to walk away from our allies, not only in attacking Iraq before the weapons inspectors finished their jobs, but in withdrawing American support for the Climate Change Treaty, the International Court for war criminals, the ABM treaty, and even the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty."

Rush's response to Clinton'sa observations in the last paragraph? Lies. All lies. Rush's numbered Clinton's points, addressing each.

# 1:

Clinton: [Republicans used] "the moment of unity to push America too far to the right."

Rush's response: If Bush would have moved far to the right, he'd be "ahead by 60% in the polls."

My comment: Earlier in the show a caller asked "What? Are you believing the Democrat's polls?" to which Rush replied, quote "I don't believe any polls."

# 2:

Clinton: We "walk[ed] away from our allies."

Rush's response: We didn't walk away from our allies because Bush went to the UN and got a resolution.

My comment: and then we walked away from it, launching an invasion before the inspections mandated by the resolution we authored were complete.

# X:

Clinton: We "attack[ed] Iraq before the weapons inspectors finished their jobs."

Rush's response: Offered no response.

My comment: Of course Limbaugh offered no response because any response would have negated his response to Clinton's 2nd point.

# 3:

Clinton: We "withdrew American support for the Climate Change Treaty."

Rush's response: "Kyoto was killed four months before Bush took office."

My comment: Clinton didn't say we killed it, he said the US walked away from it. We're supposed to be the leaders of the World, so what's wrong with exhibiting leadership by accepting challenges, showing a willingness to take responsibility, building consensus ...

# 4:

Clinton: We withdrew American support for the International Court for war criminals.

Rush's response: We can't be having our soldiers being tried in a International Court for war criminals.

My comment: Of course not. Then all the effort put into fancy legal footwork rationalizing ignoring the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war would be wasted.

# 4:

Clinton: We walked away from the ABM treaty, and even the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Rush's response: The ABM treaty was with the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union doesn't exist, so there already was no treaty. "This is the shortest version I can give."

My comment: So we all can assume he could give a longer version that may have kinda sorta made a bit of sense. Such as one mentioning the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. And explain why Bush sent a letter to Russia, as required by the ABM treaty, informing them we were pulling out of the ABM Treaty.

But here's the funniest part. While Rush was presenting his take on #1, he veered off into an extended personal attack on Clinton. When he realized he was trying to "divide the electorate" as Clinton explained Republicans need to do, he abruptly stopped himself saying, quote, "I didn't mean to say any of that, it just came out."

Clinton's speech was a masterstroke. He explained why the Republicans have to divide the electorate clearer than I've ever heard it explained before. Yes, there are Republicans who would vote for Pol Pot if he was a Republican, but to everybody else that was paying attention, Each time Repubs try to frame an issue in terms of the personalities involved, it will come back to "The republicans need a divided electorate, we don't. We all want the same things, we just see different ways to get there." The same thought disarms "Kerry is an out of the mainstream liberal." I wonder how many millions of dollars the Republicans have wasted so far informing the electorate the only way they can win is by dividing us.

// posted by Erik @ 7/28/2004 12:30:00 AM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

Interesting timing ...

• The FBI agent in charge of investigating whether top Bush administration officials leaked the identity of an undercover CIA agent as political payback against her husband has been named to head the Philadelphia FBI office.

  FBI Director Robert Mueller has designated John C. Eckenrode, a 29-year veteran, to be special agent in charge of the Philadelphia division, the agency announced today.

  Eckenrode heads the current probe of the disclosure of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity to conservative syndicated columnist Robert Novak.

  ... Jerri Williams, a spokeswoman for the local FBI office, said it is not unheard of for an agent heading a high-level probe to be transferred before the probe is finished.

It will be interesting to see who takes over the investigation - someone already involved, or someone unfamiliar with the investigation, which would delay it at best.

// posted by Erik @ 7/26/2004 07:45:00 PM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

President Bush has challenged John Kerry to provide names of foreign leaders who want Bush out of office, complaining, "I think if you're gonna make an accusation in the course of a presidential campaign, you ought to back it up with facts." Following are some facts.

Former Pakistan Prime Minister, Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali of Pakistan is attending thje Democratic National Convention.

In the UK, MP Pat McFadden is attending the Democratic Convention in Boston, Martin Salter wants to rebuild "the traditional link with the Democrats," Doug Henderson thinks "A Democratic president can bring a new mind and fresh ideas for bringing peace and stability, and that is what we need in Iraq."

// posted by Erik @ 7/24/2004 10:30:00 PM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

Condi was on PBS's News hour last night. I wish I could have asked her a few things and made some interruptions.

• MARGARET WARNER: The 9/11 commission report today said, as I know you know, that the most important failure was one of imagination, and they said that though most of them officially said, oh, we understood the danger, here's what they said, they said, we do not believe leaders understood the gravity of the threat.

  Do you think that's a fair assessment?

  CONDOLEEZZA RICE: I think it's a completely fair assessment. As a matter of fact, I've used those very words myself, that, I think before Sept. 11, given that there had not been a major attack on the American mainland for 200 years really, we just didn't see that it could happen in quite that way.

No major attack here for 200 years! I think maybe you still need to work on imagination and maybe even more rudimentary skills, such as memory, or perhaps how to count backwards from 2001 to 1995 and come up with a number other than 200. Do you think that's a fair assessment? I'm here to help!

• CONDOLEEZZA RICE: The country really wasn't on war footing. We talked from time to time about war and terrorism and the war against them, but the truth is they were at war against us. We were not yet at war against them.

Well, you didn't really need to be on a "war footing" to pay adequate attention to a security issue such as a domestic hijacking, do you? Is it not expected that a National Security Advisor be on a security footing, anyway? Aw, heck, you don't need to answer that, it would be too painful. Do you have another question, Margaret?

• MARGARET WARNER: So when the commission says, for instance, that fighting terrorism is not the overriding national security concern for either the Clinton or Bush administrations, do you consider that entirely accurate?

  CONDOLEEZZA RICE: I would put it a little differently. I think that both in the Clinton administration and in our administration in that first eight months this was a very, very high priority. Everybody knew that the terrorist threat was a very real one and one that could come at any time.

You just said you knew the threat was very real and could come at any time and this was a very, very high priority. Yet you testified to the Commission that prior to 9/11 the White House held only a single meeting - and not until September 4 - which addressed al Qaeda (9/11 Commission Report p. 201). You held 32 Principals Committee meetings on topics other than al Qaeda, claiming that discussing al Qaeda was unnecessary because you knew al Qaeda was a "major" threat (9/11 Commission Report p. 509, footnote #174). I'm sorry, I'm having trouble swallowing this, could you explain a bit more?

• CONDOLEEZZA RICE: But when you looked at the intelligence, it almost always pointed to something that was going to happen abroad, and so you didn't think about the terrorist threat in the context of the homeland in quite the same way.

Oh, well it "almost always" pointed to something abroad, so you weren't thinking that it would haven in the US. But you remarked to the Committee, "And let's remember that those charged with protecting us from attack have to be right 100 percent of the time. To inflict devastation on a massive scale, the terrorists only have to succeed once." Reviewing,

1. You say the intelligence "almost always" pointed abroad - meaning it pointed abroad less than 100 percent of the time
2. You say you knew you had to get it right 100 percent of the time
3. You say you knew terrorists only have to get it right once to succeed
4. So you figured the only threats you had to worry about were overseas.

So, I get it, you were thinking it wouldn't happen here, because you lacked imagination about that 1 out of one hundered times. Wait, I don't, because on August 6, 2001 the President received a "historical" (your word) document titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US" in response to an inquiry about domestic threats that stated the "view that the threat of a Bin Ladin attack in the United States remained both current and serious." That's not a lack of imagination, it's not paying attention.

• CONDOLEEZZA RICE: I think it's also the case that the war against the terrorist was not an organizing principle of our foreign policy.

You're awful fond of trying to steer the conversation to stuff overseas. The 9/11 hijackers hijacked domestic flights, and even learned to fly in US flight schools. That's the incident we're trying you ask you about. Just wanted to point that out, go on, please - I'll be back in a minute or two - I'm going to go be sick.

... (cough) I'm Back.

• MARGARET WARNER: So, for instance, do you have a view yet on their proposal for a national intelligence director, who will collect essentially - that would have budgetary and all authority over all these 15 different agencies that now have a hand in intelligence?

  CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Well, it's certainly an interesting idea, and I think one that has been around we need to look at and we need to look of course at the implications of any such fundamental change, but I - I think that is what needs to be done now. And it needs to be done in a way that is attentive to the need to get it done, but also attentive to how fundamental some of these changes could be.

I couldn't begin to count the number of times I've been told by you and your colleagues that we now live in a fundamentally different post 9/11 world. It would seem to take only minimal imagination to explore the possibility of fundamental changes. Why am I getting the idea you have the habit of waiting for someone else to advise you? It seems to me an Advisor should be advising others - or at least have an opinion on an idea that's "been around" before you've officially received it publicly in writing. One of your favorite excuses is that nobody told you to do something, so you don't do anything.

Like when you testified to the Commission that Richard Clarke, who worked under you, sent you a memo which said there were al Qaeda cells un the US. Richard Ben-Veniste asked you if you informed the President of the presence of those cells. You answered that "there was no recommendation that we do something about this" and that you, quote, "really don't remember, Commissioner, whether I discussed this with the president." Do you have any initiative of your own or are you more like a marionette with a wooden head?

This forgetting is another favorite excuse of yours. When you were speaking with Tim Russert about the reference to the African uranium intelligence the 2003 State of the Union address, he reminded you that on June 8, 2003 you claimed it got into the speech because "no one knew at the time in our circles - maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew - that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery." Afterwards your deputy Steven Hadley told reporters that the CIA had sent two memos to you casting doubt on the quality of that piece of intelligence. And indeed the claim was removed from Bush's October speech in Cincinnati.

So Russert then asked you how it later got into the State of the Union address. Your reply? It's not a matter of getting back in. It's a matter, Tim, that three-plus months later, people didn't remember that George Tenet had asked that it be taken out of the Cincinnati speech and then it was cleared by the agency. I didn't remember."

I'm outta here. Have to go get sick again.

// posted by Erik @ 7/23/2004 05:38:00 PM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

Watch the shiny happy spin:

• National security adviser Condoleezza Rice said Friday she agreed with the Sept. 11 commission's findings that the nation is safer nearly three years after the terrorist attacks, but it is not yet safe.

The the word "safer" only appears four times appears in the report. I haven't read it in it's entirety so it may somewhere say America is safer without using that specific word, but that's certainly not the impression I've gotten so far. And the thought doesn't jive with Commission Chairman Thomas Kean's statement when releasing the report, "Every expert with whom we spoke told us an attack of even greater magnitude is now possible and even probable. We do not have the luxury of time.''. Indeed, the Report recommends dozens of protections and strategies the government has failed to yet implement.

Here are the four times the word "safer" appears in the report:

• We hope that the terrible losses chronicled in this report can create something positive - an America that is safer, stronger, and wiser. (Preface, xvi)

• The Secret Service told us they were anxious to move the President to a safer location, but did not think it imperative for him to run out the door. (p 39)

• Neither Israel nor the new Iraq will be safer if worldwide Islamist terrorism grows stronger. (p 377)

This is the part the spinmeisters seem to be latching on to and misrepresenting (p. 383):

• In the nearly three years since 9/11, Americans have become better protected against terrorist attack. Some of the changes are due to government action, such as new precautions to protect aircraft. A portion can be attributed to the sheer scale of spending and effort. Publicity and the vigilance of ordinary Americans also make a difference.

  But the President and other officials acknowledge that although Americans may be safer, they are not safe. Our report shows that the terrorists analyze defenses. They plan accordingly.

Firstly and least significantly, it doesn't read "America is safer", it reads Americans "may be safer".

Secondly, this appears as an introduction to a section recommending its meaning is"Bush acknowledges we may be safer, but terrorists plan around our protections and here's tons of stuff nobody, including the President, hasn't done."

In fact, the Report is subtly but clearly critical of major aspects of Bush's "War on Terrorism" - that the strategy is the proverbial hammer that makes everything look like a nail, (p. 363) (some emphasis added):

• The first phase of our post-9/11 efforts rightly included military action to topple the Taliban and pursue al Qaeda. This work continues. But long-term success demands the use of all elements of national power: diplomacy, intelligence, covert action, law enforcement, economic policy, foreign aid, public diplomacy, and homeland defense. If we favor one tool while neglecting others, we leave ourselves vulnerable and weaken our national effort.

  Certainly the strategy should include offensive operations to counter terrorism. Terrorists should no longer find safe haven where their organizations can grow and flourish. America’s strategy should be a coalition strategy, that includes Muslim nations as partners in its development and implementation.

  Our effort should be accompanied by a preventive strategy that is as much, or more, political as it is military. The strategy must focus clearly on the Arab and Muslim world, in all its variety. Our strategy should also include defenses.

The report is also is (much less subtly) critical of the way the "enemy" in the "War on Terror" has been framed (p. 363),

• What should Americans expect from their government in the struggle against Islamist terrorism? The goals seem unlimited: Defeat terrorism anywhere in the world. But Americans have also been told to expect the worst: An attack is probably coming; it may be terrible.

  With such benchmarks, the justifications for action and spending seem limitless. Goals are good.Yet effective public policies also need concrete objectives. Agencies need to be able to measure success.

  These measurements do not need to be quantitative: government cannot measure success in the ways that private firms can. But the targets should be specific enough so that reasonable observers—in the White House, the Congress, the media, or the general public - can judge whether or not the objectives have been attained.

  Vague goals match an amorphous picture of the enemy. Al Qaeda and its affiliates are popularly described as being all over the world, adaptable, resilient, needing little higher-level organization, and capable of anything. The American people are thus given the picture of an omnipotent, unslayable hydra of destruction. This image lowers expectations for government effectiveness.

  It should not lower them too far. Our report shows a determined and capable group of plotters. Yet the group was fragile, dependent on a few key personalities, and occasionally left vulnerable by the marginal, unstable people often attracted to such causes. The enemy made mistakes...

So we know Condi agrees with her own twisted interpretation of one sentence in the Report, but I'm wondering what she (and the rest of our government) thinks of the whole of the report. It will be interesting to see.

What's disappointing to see is the lunatic contingent at democraticunderground swallowing the spin hook line and sinker, seemingly because it doesn't say "Bush did it! He made it happen!" it's a whitewash for some. There are a few things I've been surprised seem absent from it, such as the wire transfers to the hijackers from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, but on the other hand, it doesn't mention Iraq in the context of the "war on terror". More later ...

// posted by Erik @ 7/23/2004 07:35:00 AM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

Lots of challenges and complaints from the rights regarding the notion that foreign leaders want to see someone other than Bush in the White House. The sentiment is self-evident. Heck, over half of Americans want to see someone other than Bush in the White House. Although it's not quite the same thought, I can provide evidence that foreign voters want to be led by people who aren't too chummy with Bush.

Since it's formation, fourteen nations in the Coalition of the Willing have held elections for their head of state. Here's how the incumbents have fared:

• 7% have been re-elected
• 7% have died in office
• 7% have resigned
• 79% have been defeated at the ballot box or forced out of office

Here are details:

Winners:

• Angola - Due to the civil war Jose Eduardo dos Santos has re-elected himself President every day since 1992
• Eritrea - Doesn't have a government. Chaos re-elected by default every day
• Kuwait - Allah re-elects the Amir every day, much to the joy of the Monarch's loyal and loving subjects
• Marshall Island's Kessai H. Note - RE-ELECTED!

Losers:

• Azerbaijan - Heidar Aliev - defeated
• Czek Republic - Vaclav Havel - resigned
• Estonia - Siim Kallas - gone
• Georgia's Eduard Shevardnadze - forced out of office
• South Korea - No Mu-hyun - impeached
• Latvia - Einars Repse - vanquished
• Macedonia - Boris Trajkovski - died in plane crash
• Micronesia - Leo A. Falcam - whipped
• Lithuania - Rolandas Paksas - impeached
• El Salvador's Francisco Perez - whipped
• Slovakia's Schuster Rudolf - wiped out
• Soloman Island's Sir John Lapli - trounced
• Jose Maria Aznar of Spain's Popular Party - eliminated

Bush wanted regime change and his prayers were answered many times over.

The resources I used:
http://www.geocities.com/pwhce/willing.html
http://www.electionworld.org/
http://www.electionworld.org/
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/2003%20incumbents

// posted by Erik @ 7/23/2004 01:11:00 AM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

The next several posts are excerpts from the 9/11 Commission Report (big PDF) (p 335):

• At the September 17 NSC meeting, there was some further discussion of "phase two" of the war on terrorism. President Bush ordered the Defense Department to be ready to deal with Iraq if Baghdad acted against U.S. interests, with plans to include possibly occupying Iraqi oil fields.

Recall the March 2001 Energy Task Force documents containing maps of Iraqi oil fields.

// posted by Erik @ 7/23/2004 01:05:00 AM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

(p 189)

• At some point during this period, President Clinton expressed his frustration with the lack of military options to take out Bin Ladin and the al Qaeda leadership, remarking to General Hugh Shelton, "You know, it would scare the shit out of al-Qaeda if suddenly a bunch of black ninjas rappelled out of helicopters into the middle of their camp."

// posted by Erik @ 7/23/2004 01:02:00 AM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

(p 376)

• In short, the United States has to help defeat an ideology, not just a group of people, and we must do so under difficult circumstances. How can the United States and its friends help moderate Muslims combat the extremist ideas?

  Recommendation: The U.S. government must define what the message is, what it stands for. We should offer an example of moral leadership in the world, committed to treat people humanely, abide by the rule of law, and be generous and caring to our neighbors. America and Muslim friends can agree on respect for human dignity and opportunity. To Muslim parents, terrorists like Bin Ladin have nothing to offer their children but visions of violence and death. America and its friends have a crucial advantage- we can offer these parents a vision that might give their children a better future. If we heed the views of thoughtful leaders in the Arab and Muslim world, a moderate consensus can be found.

  That vision of the future should stress life over death: individual educational and economic opportunity. This vision includes widespread political participation and contempt for indiscriminate violence. It includes respect for the rule of law, openness in discussing differences,and tolerance for opposing points of view.

// posted by Erik @ 7/23/2004 12:09:00 AM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

(p 201) (emphasis added)

• Within the first few days after Bush's inauguration, Clarke approached Rice in an effort to get her - and the new President - to give terrorism very high priority and to act on the agenda that he had pushed during the last few months of the previous administration. After Rice requested that all senior staff identify desirable major policy reviews or initiatives, Clarke submitted an elaborate memorandum on January 25, 2001. He attached to it his 1998 Delenda Plan and the December 2000 strategy paper." We urgently need ... a Principals level review on the al Qida network," Clarke wrote.

  He wanted the Principals Committee to decide whether al Qaeda was "a first order threat" or a more modest worry being overblown by "chicken little" alarmists. Alluding to the transition briefing that he had prepared for Rice, Clarke wrote that al Qaeda "is not some narrow, little terrorist issue that needs to be included in broader regional policy." Two key decisions that had been deferred, he noted, concerned covert aid to keep the Northern Alliance alive when fighting began again in Afghanistan in the spring, and covert aid to the Uzbeks. Clarke also suggested that decisions should be made soon on messages to the Taliban and Pakistan over the al Qaeda sanctuary in Afghanistan, on possible new money for CIA operations, and on "when and how ... to respond to the attack on the USS Cole."

  The national security advisor did not respond directly to Clarke's memorandum. No Principals Committee meeting on al Qaeda was held until September 4, 2001 (although the Principals Committee met frequently on other subjects, such as the Middle East peace process, Russia, and the Persian Gulf ). But Rice and Hadley began to address the issues Clarke had listed. What to do or say about the Cole had been an obvious question since inauguration day. When the attack occurred, 25 days before the election, candidate Bush had said to CNN,"I hope that we can gather enough intelligence to figure out who did the act and take the necessary action. There must be a consequence." Since the Clinton administration had not responded militarily, what was the Bush administration to do?

Aw, bummer. The Clinton administration tied Bush's hands by failing to pass a war on to him. A war a couple days old, (p 193):

• "In other words, the Yemenis provided strong evidence connecting the Cole attack to al Qaeda during the second half of November, identifying individual operatives whom the United States knew were part of al Qaeda. During December the United States was able to corroborate this evidence.

The quality of that intelligence runs circles around the intelligence Bush used to convince the nation to launch into Iraq. But what was the Bush administration to do?

// posted by Erik @ 7/22/2004 04:52:00 PM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

Well, sure, I suppose. You can go ahead and suppress the Detroit vote, just so you don't go and get all racist about it ...

• State Rep. John Pappageorge, R-Troy, acknowledged using "a bad choice of words" but said his remark shouldn't be construed as racist.

  Pappageorge, 73, was quoted in July 16 editions of the Detroit Free Press as saying, "If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're going to have a tough time in this election."

// posted by Erik @ 7/21/2004 03:36:00 PM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

So by now, everybody knows Sandy Berger stuffed his socks with classified documents, right?

The report on Berger's socks seems to have originated from a "colorful" comment by Rush Limbaugh on his radio show Tuesday morning, "Tom Daschle agrees with people stuffing classified information into their pants and socks and walking off with it."

Shortly afterward, CNN's Bob Franken picked up on it, reporting "Two law enforcement officials have told CNN chief Justice Department correspondent Kelli Arena that Berger was spotted stuffing some of the documents into his socks."

Later NewsMax embellishes the story by adding a third witness to the CNN report: "Reports CNN's Bob Franken: "Three law enforcement sources talking to CNN's Justice Department correspondent Kelli Arena they saw him, or that he had been seen, putting documents in his socks."

At some point FOX picked up on the socks thing, adding the twist that it was Berger himself who announced he stuffed his socks: "Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket, pants and socks, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio."

By now, Limbaugh's colorful primal goo has evolved into Berger stating he stuffed documents into his underwear: "Mr. Berger (by his own admission) took several highly classified documents and shoved them in his jacket, his socks, and--yes--his underpants."

// posted by Erik @ 7/21/2004 09:07:00 AM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

Today UPI reports three nuclear warheads have been found in Iraq. The UPI story is based on a report in an Arabic language paper, al-Sabah. Al-Sabah is the Kuwaiti Royal Family's name - The Kuwaiti Royals were responsible for this false report I'm sure everybody fondly remembers, but I have no idea if this paper is related to Kuwaiti Royalty. The UPI article states al-Sabah is an "official daily" paper, this list of Iraqi papers lists it as an independant bi-weekly.

Here's a quick comparison of the al-Sabah story with the Rev. Sun Myung Moon owned UPI article:

• al-Sabah: "The official sources at the ministry of interior and the national security advisor department have refrained commenting on the news."

  UPI: "Iraqi security reportedly discovered three missiles carrying nuclear heads concealed in a concrete trench northwest of Baghdad, official sources said Wednesday."

• al-Sabah: "seizing three missiles of nuclear heads in the course of arresting Khudir al- Dori the former leader at the dissolved Baath party."

  UPI: "The three missiles were discovered by chance when the Iraqi security forces captured former Baath party official Khoder al-Douri who revealed during interrogation the location of the missiles saying they carried nuclear heads."

  (UPI contradicts itself in the same sentence it misrepresents the original source)

• al-Sabah: "The sources were quoted as saying that these nuclear missiles were found in tunnel underground at six meters length."

  UPI: "lying under six meters of concrete"

I suppose part of the contradictions result from difficulty in translation, but come on!

PS: Story dismissed.

// posted by Erik @ 7/21/2004 08:42:00 AM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

Comedy in the White House press room. Brought to us by Helen Thomas and Scott McClellan, of course.

• Q Prime Minister Blair took full personal responsibility for taking his nation into war under falsehoods -- under reasons that have been determined now to be false. Is President Bush also willing to take full, personal responsibility --

  MR. McCLELLAN: I think Prime Minister Blair said that it was the right thing to do; that Saddam Hussein's regime was a threat.

  Q Those were not the reasons he took his country into war. It turned out to be untrue, and the same is true for us. Does the President take full, personal responsibility for this war?

  MR. McCLELLAN: The issue here is what do you to with a threat in a post-September 11th world? Either you live with a threat, or you confront the threat.

  Q There was no threat.

  MR. McCLELLAN: The President made the decision to confront the threat.

  Q Saddam Hussein did not threaten this country.

  MR. McCLELLAN: The world -- the world, the Congress and the administration all disagree. They all recognized that there was a threat posed by Saddam Hussein. When it came to September 11th, that changed the equation. It taught us, as I said --

  Q The Intelligence Committee said there was no threat.

  MR. McCLELLAN: As I said, it taught us that we must confront threats before it's too late.

  Q So the President doesn't take full responsibility?

  MR. McCLELLAN: The President already talked about the responsibility for the decisions he's made. He talked about that with Prime Minister Blair.

  Q Personal responsibility?

  MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, go ahead.

// posted by Erik @ 7/21/2004 01:13:00 AM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

A great essay (registration required) explaining the entire Iraq/Niger yellow-cake mess - clearly and succinctly.

• From loud -- and erroneous -- claims that a link finally had been established between Niger and Iraq, you'd think the entire case for invading Iraq had finally been validated. That's hogwash.

  ... The whole Niger discussion is being used to obscure a larger truth: that the entire central case for going to war -- the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction -- has proven baseless. Saddam had no program for building nuclear weapons, though he perhaps wanted his internal and external enemies to believe he did.

  In fact, the British Butler report, issued last week, pretty much says that. Its general conclusion was that the case for war was "seriously flawed," but that Prime Minister Tony Blair had not "intentionally" misled his country into the conflict. Blair at least accepted that judgment, acknowledged that the case for Iraq's WMD programs was grossly overstated and said, "I accept full personal responsibility for the way the issue was presented and therefore for any errors made." The prime minister has run into a buzz saw of criticism and would be out of a job except for the ineptitude of the Tory opposition.

  Meanwhile, rather than focusing on the larger intelligence failure, Americans have been led by Republican spin artists to ponder the mind-numbing bureaucratic intricacies of the supposed Iraq-Niger link. Finding that such a link existed requires circular logic, and that is abundantly in evidence, particularly in the Butler report. Bush's defenders have seized on a passage in it which said, "We conclude that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' were well-founded."

  Leaving aside the oddity of a politicized British report seeking to exonerate not only Blair but also a U.S. president, Bush's statement was anything but well-founded. The British had three sources for the Niger intelligence. One was equivocal, one appeared strong, and one, the last to come into British and American hands, was made up, everyone has now agreed, of obviously falsified documents. The Butler report hinges on the one apparently "strong" report. But a close reading of previous British reports on this indicate that the "strong" report was actually an Italian summary drawn from the forged documents, which had yet to reach British or U.S. hands.

// posted by Erik @ 7/21/2004 01:05:00 AM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

Now that partisan war/Bush supporters don't have a plank left to stand on, they're sucking on table scraps,

• An upcoming report will contain "a good deal of new information" backing up the Bush administration's contention that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass destruction, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., said Tuesday.

  The administration cited Saddam's hunger for such weapons as a main reason to invade Iraq last year.

  "I'm not suggesting dramatic discoveries," Warner told reporters, but "bits and pieces that Saddam Hussein was clearly defying" international restrictions.

No, Mr Warner and the Associated Press. The administration did not cite "Saddam's hunger for such weapons" nor "bits and pieces" as the reason we had to go to war, rather, among the the stated reasons were,

• "25,000 liters of anthrax ... 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin ... materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent ... upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents ... several mobile biological weapons labs ... thousands of Iraqi security personnel ... at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors."

  - George Bush
  2003 State of the Union Address

// posted by Erik @ 7/21/2004 12:49:00 AM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

Recently, there have been a spate of articles claiming the Senate Intelligence report says the CIA did not alert the White House of the questionable nature of the "Niger uranium claim". They go something like,

• "[C]contrary to Wilson's assertions . . . the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the African intelligence that made its way into the 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address."

One wonders if the authors bothered to read the report themselves, as throughout it describes many uncertainties pertaining to nearly every claim that was presented as the gospel truth, including the claim about Niger uranium. From the SSCI report, page 56:

• [George Tenet] called the Deputy National Security Advisor directly to outline the CIA's concerns. On July 16, 2003, the DCI testified before the SSCI that he told the Deputy National Security Advisor that the "President should not be a fact witness on this issue," because his analysts had told him the "reporting was weak." The NSC then removed the uranium reference from the draft of the speech.

Look, it's simple. Information coming out of our own intelligence services about the claim did not fit the White House's policy goals as well as did British intelligence. So in this case the White House chose to abandon our own intelligence in favor of another country's.

You can read (huge PDF) the report yourself. It's scathing. Here is a version (less huge PDF) which downloads quicker, scrolls quicker and is searchable.

// posted by Erik @ 7/20/2004 02:14:00 AM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

• "And we gave [Saddam Hussein] a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power ..."
  - President Bush lying on July 14, 2003

No way around it, Bush lied. It is a bald-faced, blatant lie - nobody can seriously argue Bush is so dimwitted he forgot about the UN inspections. And that's the only way one can argue it wasn't a lie.

// posted by Erik @ 7/20/2004 02:09:00 AM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

In case you missed it over the weekend, a report surfaced that Iraq's US appointed Prime Minister Iyad Allawi recently and personally executed six prisoners in extra-judicial killings,

• "The prisoners were against the wall and we were standing in the courtyard when the Interior Minister said that he would like to kill them all on the spot. Allawi said that they deserved worse than death - but then he pulled the pistol from his belt and started shooting them."

// posted by Erik @ 7/18/2004 10:42:00 PM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

George Bush has frequently cited David Kay's findings as justifying the cause of invading Iraq,

• "And David Kay continues to ferret out the truth ... one of the things that he first found was that there is clear violation of the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441. Material breach, they call it in the diplomatic circles. Casus belli, it means a -- that would have been a cause for a war."

David Kay disagrees with the implications of his work,

• [Kay] told Britain's ITV network that Bush and Blair ''should have been able to tell before the war that the evidence did not exist for drawing the conclusion that Iraq presented a clear, present and imminent threat on the basis of existing weapons of mass destruction.''

  ''That was not something that required a war,'' he said.

// posted by Erik @ 7/18/2004 10:37:00 PM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

Is John Kerry the most consistent liberal in the Senate, or is he a serial flip-flopper?

// posted by Erik @ 7/18/2004 10:34:00 PM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

Bush has frequently stated he was using the same intelligence Clinton used when he decided to invade Iraq, "It's the same intelligence that was used by my predecessor to bomb Iraq." (February 23, 2004)

But to Bush, that intelligence was not conclusive -as of early 2002 - with all the intelligence reports his predecessor had - he wasn't sure Iraq was developing WMD, "I expect Saddam Hussein to let inspectors back into the country. We want to know whether he's developing weapons of mass destruction." (January 16, 2002)

// posted by Erik @ 7/18/2004 10:29:00 PM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

• At the end of the session, Bush reportedly told the group, “I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job."

Man!

// posted by Erik @ 7/16/2004 07:37:00 PM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

• “We already know of the potentially serious problems posed by the widespread use of electronic voting machines. There are, however, other problems that have received little notice but have great potential to disrupt the election process and cause voters to be disenfranchised on November 2nd.”

A "potential problem" could be a DHS alert resulting in the closure of all Manhattan bridges during the work day, disenfranchising millions of voters. Note use of heaven and earth."

// posted by Erik @ 7/16/2004 12:43:00 AM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

1. I didn't find anything about the PDB:

   • The Committee's request to review Presidential Daily Briefs (PDBs) relevant only to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities and links to terrorists was denied by the White House. (p 3)

   The Committee set out to examine

   • whether were properly disseminated to policymakers in the executive branch and Congress. (p 1)

   Pretty glaring gap without the PDB, yes?

2. I didn't find more than one mention of Hussein Kamel. The only time he's mentioned (which was not redacted) is on page 218,

   • Other information provided to the Committee suggested that Iraq destroyed its Scud missiles in the years after the Gulf War. Intelligence reports describing debriefs of Hussein Kamel (Saddam Hussein's son in law who defected from Iraq in 1995) show that Kamel told interviewers that Iraq had destroyed all of its Scud missiles. This information was not mentioned in the NIE.

In his UNSCOM interview, Kamel claimed "I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed." It's puzzling (maybe not?) why this was redacted (or not mentioned) as much information about his claims is already public:

CNN interview:
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9509/iraq_defector/
St Louis Tribune article:
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04272003/nation_w/51824.asp
Transcript of UNSCOM interview (PDF):
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/unscom950822.pdf (big PDF)
Page o' info:
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html


3. I didn't find any surprise in the fact that State Department speech writers were making up their own intelligence (p 252 - emphasis in original):

   • Secretary Powell said that the al-Musayyib site, a suspect chemical munitions storage site, had been used for "at least three years to transship chemical weapons from production facilities out to the field." The CIA told Committee staff that State Department speech writers crafted this statement from CIA input that "evidence of movement activity at this site went back as early as 1999." Intelligence provided to the Committee showed only that possible chemical transshipment activity had occurred at the facility and only in the spring of 2002.

   One possible shipment through the site turned into at least three years of certain shipments. Like magic!

   Let us remember that Powell introduced his spiel at the UN with "... every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." Who needs solid sources when you already have great speech writers?

Here is a PDF version of the entire original report which can be searched and selected from. Scrolls a lot quicker too. And has lots more than three tidbits.

// posted by Erik @ 7/13/2004 03:40:00 AM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

Bush is going big on values and targeting the religious vote, which for Republicans, includes a lot of fundamentalists.

Mainstream America values the New Testament and science. Fundies value the Bible as the literal word of God. Who's values does he share? I mean, think about it. Is Bush claiming he believes the Earth is 6,008 years and 156 days old and ...

"I didn't come from no monkey!"

Or is he claiming that although he's religious, he's mainstream and believes some of the Bible is metaphorical ...

"Don't misunderestimate me. I remember my Jr High geology, the world is fabulously old."

// posted by Erik @ 7/10/2004 05:52:00 AM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

Google search synopses help you read between the lines: http://www.google.com/search?q=site:whitehouse.gov+export+american+values

// posted by Erik @ 7/10/2004 04:31:00 AM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

Kerry's choice of John Edwards as his VP may have given the GOP ammunition to pound on a scandal of epic proportion which will eclipse all the scandals swirling around the Bush White House: General Leegate. It's sizzling with many unanswered questions still - who are the Scab Duke Boys? Is Boss Hog Dick Cheney or Karl Rove? Or are they Sheriff Cletus? ... is Hillary Clinton actually Daisey Duke?

• Edwards had hired the [Lonesome River] band to perform at a Washington fund-raiser for Ben Jones, who is running for Congress in Virginia. . . . The event was sponsored by Edwards' political action committee, New American Optimists ... Ben Jones, a former civil-rights marcher who went on to play Cooter in the 'Dukes of Hazzard,' ... "is under fire for appearing at campaign stops with the stars-and-bars-emblazoned ‘General Lee’ Dodge.”

The GOP is launching their onslaught on Edwards at at KerryPicksGephardt.com. Er no at KerryPicksVilsack.com ... wait, no .   KerryPicksBiden.com or KerryPicksClark.com or KerryPicksBayh.com ... oh, no no no. It's at KerryPicksEdwards.com.

// posted by Erik @ 7/06/2004 01:36:00 PM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

Ha ha ha.

// posted by Erik @ 7/06/2004 06:04:00 AM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

• BAQUBAH, Iraq - The squad of U.S. soldiers waited impatiently to embark on a joint foot patrol with Iraqi police last week through the streets of this hostile city.

  Military commanders hoped the sight of Americans and Iraqis walking side by side would symbolize the start of the transfer of control over security back to Iraqis.

  The Iraqis didn't see it that way. Loath to be seen marching through their hometown with heavily armed Americans, none of them showed up.

  "Is this a joint patrol, or what?" Capt. Chris Solinsky, the patrol leader, said into his shortwave radio. "Where are the Iraqis?"

More ...

// posted by Erik @ 7/05/2004 04:25:00 AM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

Ten or 20 years ago, it occurred to me that I probably didn't smell awfully bad. That I wasn't odorous. So I stopped "wearing" de-odorant. That was around the time I read Even Cowgirls Get the Blues, I'm unsure if that played into my revelation.

I have trouble understanding how humans could have evolved so as to make deodorant beneficial. Sure people have a smell, but I think it's a scent, not an odor. Nobody ever objects to my fermented sweat, although my mom occasionally notes I smell like garlic. I feel so free.

PS. I'm naked.

// posted by Erik @ 7/04/2004 01:21:00 PM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

November 11, 2000

• To: Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan
  From: Michael Moore, citizen

  Dear Mr. Secretary General:

  Help us! Massive election fraud is taking place in an area that looks like a banana republic -- but is actually part of the United States of America! We are sitting here helpless as our leaders appear unable to do anything about this stolen election.

  On behalf of freedom-loving people everywhere, I appeal to the world community and the United Nations for immediate intervention.

  There is ample evidence to indicate that the votes of thousands of our citizens were not counted or, worse, were given to a man who has a sister named "Bay." Further evidence also shows that hundreds of African American voters were simply not allowed to vote.

  I ask that you appoint humanitarian ambassador/carpenter Jimmy Carter to head up an official United Nations team of election observers from Rwanda, Brunei, Bosnia and South Africa and send them to this state we call "Florida." They are desperately needed to oversee the re-count, the hand-count and any other forms of counting being conducted by people who apparently can count.

July 02, 2004

• SEVERAL members of the US House of Representatives have requested the United Nations to send observers to monitor the November 2 US presidential election to avoid a contentious vote as in 2000, when the outcome was decided by Florida.

  Recalling the long, drawn-out process in the southern state, nine lawmakers, including four blacks and one Hispanic, sent a letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan asking that the international body "ensure free and fair elections in America", according to a statement issued by Florida representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, who spearheaded the effort.

// posted by Erik @ 7/02/2004 03:13:00 AM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

Props to Paragon at DU for noticing the likeness.

// posted by Erik @ 7/02/2004 02:22:00 AM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post: