Number Nine. Number Nine. Number Nine.

I knew that the Democrats new, tougher attitude towards the Republicans (thank you Howard Dean) was starting to produce results. But I had no idea that there were NINE active investigations into Republican perfidity.

Way to go dudes!

Kerry 3, Bush 1

Smackdown week 4

• Former counter-terrorism chief Richard A. Clarke charges that the Bush administration ignored the al-Qaida threat before 9/11 and pushed for a "bomb Iraq" strategy in the immediate aftermath of those attacks (CBS, Washington Post, WSJ)
• White House rebuts ex-adviser claim (AP)
• Condoleezza Rice response to allegations (Washington Post)
• Republican Senator Chuck Hagel says that Clarke's charges are "obviously serious" and they come from a "serious professional". (London Telegraph)
• Condoleeza Rice will not testify before 9/11 panel (azcentral.com)
• Kerry's negatives climb from 27% to 36% in just one month (the left coaster)
• 9/11 panel cites both Clinton and Bush administration inaction on terrorism (AP)
• Former weapons inspector David Kay implores US to admit mistakes in Iraq (Reuters)
• Rasmussen tracking poll shows eight point swing in Kerry's favor in the last week (Rasmussen)
• Richard Clarke warned of "hundreds dead" in memo to Rice before 9/11 (Reuters)
• Bush's national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times prior to 9/11 yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions (AP)
• Howard Dean endorses Kerry (BfA)

This has been a week pretty much dominated by the Clarke story, which means John Kerry, for the most part, dropped off the media radar. The fact that he went on vacation probably accounts for a good part of that. It's arguable whether it helped or not. This week may have been a perfect example of just stepping out of the way and letting your opponent dig the hole he is in.

I've been trying to think of a consistent methodology for deciding who should be declared the "winner" each week. Last week wasn't really all that good for either Kerry or Bush, but I gave it to Bush because his week was less bad than Kerry's. This week, however, Kerry hasn't really done all that much so there isn't that much to judge on.

That is why I've come up with the following standard: I will give the week to the candidates whose shoes I would most want to be in at that moment. So, Bush won last week because, while his week wasn't great, it wasn't as bad as Kerry's. And this week I give the nod to Kerry because, while he didn't make much news, I would rather be in his shoes than Bush's.

Team Kerry

Nyuck Nyuck Yuck

Bush the comedian:

Bush put on a slide show, calling it the "White House Election-Year Album" at the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association 60th annual dinner, showing himself and his staff in some decidedly unflattering poses.

There was Bush looking under furniture in a fruitless, frustrating search. "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere," he said.

Several others have already commented on the inappropriateness of Bush making jokes about missing WMD. But just in case some of you out there don't understand why this was wrong: imagine if Clinton had made a joke about banging interns sometime in 1999? Do you think many would find the humor appropriate?

And that would have just been about sex!

The Bush desperation

There is something to be said for not engaging in hyperbole. For instance, it is a mistake to say that the Bushies ignored terrorism because they can refute that charge very easily by showing that they did give it some attention. However, if you stick to just saying that it was not an "urgent" priority (the word Clarke used in his testimony yesterday) then you will be much closer to the truth.

The thing about this is that the Bushies want people to believe that they gave more attention to terrorism, pre-9/11, then the Clintonites did because they are insecure when it comes to being compared to Clinton. They have pretty much failed in all other comparisons with their predecessors. Their handling of terrorism is the last refuge they have in asserting that they are better than Clinton (as far as policy is concerned, personal comparisons are irrelevent to this discussion). Thus they must refute any suggestion that they did no better than Clinton with respect to terrorism.

It's the cornerstone of their entire legitimacy. Take that away from them and they have nothing.

Smoking Gun, The?

Could this be the equivalent of Alexander Butterfield's revelation that Nixon's conversations were taped?

Clarke Warned of Hundreds Dead Just Before 9/11

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former counterterrorism official Richard Clarke sent a letter to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) one week before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks urging Bush administration aides to imagine how they would feel if hundreds of Americans were killed in a terrorist strike.

The existence of the letter came to light in testimony on Wednesday to the national commission investigating the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (news - web sites).

Commissioner Tim Roemer, a former Democratic congressman, referred to the letter when questioning Clarke.

"You urge policymakers to imagine a day after hundreds of Americans lay dead at home and abroad after a terrorist attack and ask themselves what else they could have done. You write this on Sept. 4, seven days before Sept. 11."

In the letter, Clarke blasted the Pentagon and the CIA (news - web sites) for failing to act against the al Qaeda organization.

In his testimony, Clarke said the United States was too timid in its policy toward al Qaeda and accused the Bush administration of failing to treat terrorism as an urgent matter before the Sept. 11 attacks.

He said the Bush administration did not view terrorism as an urgent priority. "The Bush administration saw terrorism policy as important but not urgent, prior to 9/11," he said.

The former official, who worked for four administrations, said it had been difficult under Bush to convene a Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism. He said top Bush administration officials "sent unfortunate signals to the bureaucracy about the administration's attitude toward the al Qaeda threat."

A national treasure

God bless Gene Lyons (dated link):

Ever since 9/11, Bush has cast himself as a "wartime president," a stalwart protector of the nation who never hesitates and appears incapable of admitting error. It’s almost as if the White House feared that for Bush to concede a mistake would cause the carefully constructed façade of his presidency to collapse. Indeed, that’s the whole problem with infallibility as a political strategy. Somewhat like virginity, once gone, it’s gone forever.

That's a twist

Oregon county bans all marriage

PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) -- In a new twist in the battle over same-sex marriage roiling the United States, a county in Oregon has banned all marriages -- gay and heterosexual -- until the state decides who can and who cannot wed.

The last marriage licenses were handed out in Benton County at 4 p.m. local time (7:00 p.m. EST) Tuesday. As of Wednesday, officials in the county of 79,000 people will begin telling couples applying for licenses to go elsewhere until the gay marriage debate is settled.

My two pfennigs

There is far to much to write about with respect to Richard Clarke and his accusations against the Bush administration. But there is something I would like to say: I haven't clue one whether the Bush administration, prior to 9/11, was any more attentive to the problem of terrorism than the Clinton administration was. I'm just not fluent enough in the field to pass any meaningful judgement on that matter. It may very well be that Clark is a bit of a crank who made himself a pain-in-the-ass to both administrations but turned out, in hindsight, to be justified in his concerns.

Any time something goes horribly wrong you can probably find at least one or two people who warned that it could happen and they come off looking brilliantly prophetic in the matter. The truth is that if 9/11 had never happened then Clarke would have been an asterisk in the history books.

Now, if the Bushies were to insist that there just wasn't much they could have done to prevent 9/11 by the time they came into power I might be willing to cut them some slack (that is, if I was able to forget that the fact that they are Bushies and are therefore prone to lying.) However, the Bushies are trying to do more than just insist that they couldn't have done any better. No, they are insisting that they were doing better than the Clinton administration. It's just that they didn't have enough time to put their brilliant ideas into action.

Yet, this brilliant idea they had developed would have required at least three years to develop (their estimate). As Slade Gorton commented in the hearings today, why did they even think they had the luxury of 7 months, let alone three years?

It's their insistence that they are not only competent but that their competence far outstrips everyone else's, despite all evidence to the contrary, that really gets on my nerves. If they would at least admit that they are human like the rest of us then maybe I could stand to listen to their point of view. But that isn't good enough for these guys. They have to be right in everything they do. Otherwise, if they are wrong about one thing, they might as well admit they might be wrong about other things, and the minute they admit that then they lose all credibility in their own eyes.

It's that moral absolutism again. If something is right then it is always right. If something is good than it is always good. It's a moral belief system that must continually reassert itself if it is not to collapse into utter chaos. Better the rest of the world go to hell than that happen.

Update: billmon has some good comments on how Clarke is the kind of hawk that the Bushies should be embracing were it not for the fact that he is calling them out for their weak response to the terrorist threat.

The truth is that if the Clintonites did relatively little to attack and destroy bin Laden (I'm not saying I buy the accusation, but just for the sake of the argument), the Bushies appear to have done virtually nothing in their first nine months in office to stop -- in Wolfowitz's words -- that "one little man." In other words, if Clarke was a hawkish voice crying in the wilderness under Clinton, he was even more of a lost soul in the pre-9/11 Bush administration -- in no small part because of the team's preoccupation with Iraq.

billmon is commenting on what he considers the best response from the right so far to Clarke's accusations:

Geraghty also indulges in the revisionist trick of retroactively projecting the Bush II administration's hyperconcern with terrorism backwards into the period before 9/11 -- in order to draw a fictional distinction between Clinton's "words" and Bush's "actions." By implication, this holds Clinton liable for not doing the things it became possible for Bush to do in the very different atmosphere of national emergency that followed 9/11.

The truth of the matter is that there were a lot of institutional roadblocks to anyone, Republican or Democrat, making a meaningful strike against the threat that al Qaeda posed. The attacks on 9/11 broke through those roadblocks and allowed the Bush administration to do things that couldn't have been done before and a lot of people give them credit for doing just that. I do as well (though I think that any reasonable leader would have done essentially the same thing in the same situation).

But the Bushies want us to believe that Bush was already breaking through those roadblocks before 9/11. There simply isn't all that much evidence to back up that assertion.

Update 2: It occurs to me that if billmon is right and Clarke is an uber-hawke (bomb everyone, let God sort out the mess) then maybe the reason he is more upset with the Bush administration than the Clinton administration is that he was expecting them to be more inclined to listen to his recommendations.

pants on fire

Got this from poster Phelix over on bartcop nation

MR. McCLELLAN LIES about the Richard Clarke assertions that Bush signed a presidential directive to prepare plans for the invasion of Iraq.


Q And then I just have one other question. This morning, he raised an allegation I had not heard before, which is that he says that in the presidential directive which President Bush signed after September 11th, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld requested and received within the four corners of that document, a presidential order to prepare plans for the invasion of Iraq. Is that true?

MR. McCLELLAN: This is another example of his revisionist history. As we have said, the President made it very clear that his decision at Camp David was to -- this was in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks -- was to go after the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. And we also should keep in context that during this time period, Iraq continued to shoot daily at our pilots and remained a threat to the United States. Mr. Clarke even pointed out, himself, that Iraq was a serious threat. And he talked about Iraq's history in just -- in the recent past. I quoted you some of his remarks yesterday.

Q But the presidential directive following the attacks of September 11th focused on counterterrorism and how the United States was going to, as you put it, eliminate al Qaeda --

MR. McCLELLAN: Remember, at the National Security Council meeting --

Q -- did that include -- did that include a directive to the Defense Department to prepare plans for the invasion of Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: The invasion of Iraq -- the decision to go to war in Iraq, as you know, came at a much later time. But obviously, Iraq --

Q But he's making the charge that the President was already directing the Pentagon to prepare plans to invade Iraq.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, but, obviously -- and Mr. Clarke acknowledges, himself, in his recent past that Iraq was a threat. He met -- he sat down and met with Dr. Rice shortly after he left the White House, and nowhere did he raise a concern about the action that we were taking in Iraq. And that was right at the time period when we were confronting the threat posed by -- posed by the former regime.

Q He's right that in October -- in October of 2001, when the President signed this directive, the President was directing the Pentagon to prepare plans for the invasion of Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I said, that's part -- that's part of his revisionist history.

Q That's not true?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's part of his revisionist history, that's what I'm saying --

Q Are you saying it's not true?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, that's right. I am.

Q You are saying that it's not true?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's part of -- that's just his revisionist history to make suggestions like that. He knows that at that point that our focus was on going -- was on Afghanistan and removing the Taliban and taking away the safe haven for al Qaeda.

Q You are saying from that lectern that he did -- that the President did not sign an order to prepare to invade Iraq at that time?

MR. McCLELLAN: No.

Q Scott, I have two quick questions. One, if you can clarify for me --

MR. McCLELLAN: And, Bill, I would just point out to you -- hang on one second, Goyal -- we made everything publicly known in terms of the steps we were taking to confront the threat posed by Iraq. But Iraq was a threat, and because of the action that we took, we are helping to advance freedom and democracy in a very volatile region; we are making America more secure; and making the world a safer and better place. So it was -- you all covered all the steps taken up to the decision by Saddam Hussein to continue to defy the international community.

Q -- an order was prepared to prepare plans to invade Iraq at that time. And you're saying that it was not.

MR. McCLELLAN: As you're aware, when the President sat down in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks, he directed his team to lead an effort to remove the Taliban from power and to deny al Qaeda a safe haven. That was the action we took at that time period. But during that time period, it's important to keep in mind that Iraq was a threat and Iraq was shooting at our planes. So, obviously, you are looking at those issues during that time period. Iraq has been a threat for quite some time.

Q Did he then sign such an order?

MR. McCLELLAN: I just addressed that question.

Q You said no.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040323-4.html

OKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK now. Let's compare that performance to this:


washingtonpost.com

U.S. Decision On Iraq Has Puzzling Past
Opponents of War Wonder When, How Policy Was Set

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 12, 2003; Page A01

On Sept. 17, 2001, six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2½-page document marked "TOP SECRET" that outlined the plan for going to war in Afghanistan as part of a global campaign against terrorism.

Almost as a footnote, the document also directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq, senior administration officials said.

The previously undisclosed Iraq directive is characteristic of an internal decision-making process that has been obscured from public view. Over the next nine months, the administration would make Iraq the central focus of its war on terrorism without producing a rich paper trail or record of key meetings and events leading to a formal decision to act against President Saddam Hussein, according to a review of administration decision-making based on interviews with more than 20 participants.

Instead, participants said, the decision to confront Hussein at this time emerged in an ad hoc fashion. Often, the process circumvented traditional policymaking channels as longtime advocates of ousting Hussein pushed Iraq to the top of the agenda by connecting their cause to the war on terrorism.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43909-2003Jan11?language=printer


Somebody is LYING.

Chilly moments on FOX?

I caught an interesting exchange on FOX this evening. It was the normal evening round table discussion with Brit Hume, Fred Barnes, Juan Williams and Mara Liason. The were discussing, of course, the Richard Clarke story. At one point Hume tried to make hay out of the fact that the 9/11 commission was planning to interview Clarke for 2 1/2 hours while they only scheduled George Tenet for 1 1/2 hours. Mara Liason off-handedly pointed out that Tenet could testify longer if he wanted to. Unfortunately, I didn't see the exact exchange as I was looking away at the time but from what I saw immediately afterward Brit seemed to be acting like Mara had just let rip with a big wet smelly one. There was a moment of uncomfortable silence followed by Mara essentially repeating her comment with an almost frightened look at Brit. Brit just went on with his point, essentially ignoring her existence.

It all went by so fast I'm not sure I really saw what I saw. But it looked like Hume was seriously upset by Mara interrupting his talking point. I wish I had it on videotape.

Just curious

Have the Bushies even made one attempt to substantively refute Clarke's allegations?

Why Bush is blocking investigation of 9/11

True confession time here folks: I have never bought in to most of the conspiracy theories that surround 9/11. It's not that I don't think this crew is morally incapable of something so dastardly as to plan or even allow something like what happened on that awful day to happen. It's just that I don't think they are competent enough to have pulled it off. I firmly believe in the old maxim that it is better to blame stupidity rather than malice because there is just so much stupidity out there.

But, then, why has the Bush administration done just about everything it could to block a meaningful investigation of what happened before, during and after 9/11? I think it is because they are trying to hide their incompetence. As this Wall Street Journal article suggests:

The Sept. 11 attacks were unprecedented in American history, and few of the country's institutions were prepared for the shock or its aftermath. The day was so chaotic that accounts can be expected to differ in hindsight, making the task of painting an accurate picture all the more difficult. In an interview last November, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said, "Based on what we knew, or more importantly, what we didn't know, the proper course was taken." Regarding Mr. Bush's statements that he had ordered troops to a higher alert status himself, Mr. Bartlett said the president provided a "description that the public could understand" and spoke in "broad strokes." Gen. Myers and the Pentagon declined to comment.

Democratic members of the commission have said they are looking at whether some inaccurate accounts, rather than due to confusion, may have reflected administration efforts to make its response seem faster and better coordinated than it was. Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic commissioner, said the panel is also examining whether official accounts of that day could have diverted attention "from an overall level of unpreparedness."

The Bushies are very good at manufacturing convenient myths and the myths that they have manufactured about the performance of Bush and his crew before, during and after 9/11 are manifest. The last thing they need is for the truth to come out and reveal that their response was clumsy in some cases, incompetent in others.

It's not that they fear the revelation of some grand plan behind 9/11.

It's that they fear the revelation that they truly were caught off-guard and didn't know what the fuck they were doing.

A positive sign for unity?

Chomsky Backs 'Bush-Lite' Kerry

Chutzpah

There's a new definition.

kill the messenger

When you can't attack the message attack the messenger:

WASHINGTON - The White House, fuming over a former aide's charge that President Bush gave short-shrift attention to al-Qaida while obsessing over Saddam Hussein, branded the fighting-terrorism flap as "Dick Clarke's American Grandstand."

"When you compare Dick Clarke's current rhetoric with his past comments and actions, the bedrock of his assertions comes crumbling down," said chief presidential spokesman Scott McClellan. He called Clarke's new book, criticizing the administration's handling of the post-Sept. 11 terrorism environment, "more about politics and book promotions than it is about policies."

Expect all Republicans to refer to "Dick" Clarke for the foreseeable future. It's a clever way to demean him without explicitly doing so.

Of course, if Clarke had been critical of the Bushies before now McClellan would be saying that his current comments were "more of the same".

These guys always have an answer. It's just not an answer that answers any question.

Downer

publius of Legal Fiction brings us an excellent discussion of "Plausible Demagoguery".

The obvious conclusion that follows from Clarke's revelations is that the war on Iraq was not part of the war on terror. In fact, invading Iraq undermined the war on terror and, as Howard Dean said, has not made America safer. But, and this is what I was trying to get at, Kerry can't say what's obvious - "Iraq was a mistake." On the one hand, his vote makes it hard to say that. But if he actually said that Iraq was a mistake, he could be demagogued as a Saddam-lover and as a troop-opposer. But again, we all know that Kerry thought it was a mistake, even if he can't say anything. So we'll spend this election speaking in code.

I've been thinking of getting a t-shirt made that says, "Howard Dean was right and that is why he lost."