Bush Ad Distorts Again!

I really adore Annenberg's unbiased Fact Check. Today's winner(loser?) is a Bush attack ad that uses previously debunked material as well as new distortions. Who says you can't have it all?

Quick analysis:

Bush released yet another attack on Kerry April 1, an ad appropriately named "troubling." The Bush ad recycles a couple of bogus claims we've de-bunked before -- a misleading claim that Kerry voted for "higher taxes" 350 times and a claim that "Kerry's plan will raise taxes by at least $900 billion." We pointed out previously that the 350-vote figure is so off base that it actually counts some Kerry votes for tax cuts as votes for "higher taxes." And as we said earlier , the only tax "plan" Kerry has proposed is to repeal Bush's tax cuts for those making $200,000 a year or more, while giving some additional tax breaks to those further down the income scale.

The Bush ad also regurgitates the old refuted themes of the "50 cent per gallon" gasoline tax, and social security tax increases.

Obfuscations all. But, if you repeat a lie loudly and often enough, it becomes the truth. That was before this internet thing.

If you're interested in what Kerry really has to say about his economic initiatives, he delivered a major address yesterday at Georgetown(no relation to "W") University.

Iraq: Deadlier Than Ever

Ferocious fighting continues in many areas of Iraq with at least another 12 U.S. marines killed along with at least 66 Iraqis as the Shi'ites vow to resist the coalition occupation.

The Times of India is reporting that Najaf has been taken over by Muktada al-Sadr's militia.

For the latest news concerning Iraq see Google's aggregator and better yet The UK's fabulous News Now.

Variously, you'll find pieces questioning whether Iraqi violence could "derail" Bush's election bid to Rumsfeld recanting his statement of less than 24 hours old. He now states that he will offer more U.S. troops if requested.

That's all, gotta run.

Kerry: Fiscal Conservative?

The Independent is reporting that John Kerry is due to deliver a "major speech" tomorrow detailing a plan calling for a return to the fiscal responsibility of the 1990s under the Clinton Administration.

Republican Senator John McCain has accused the Bush Administration of spending "like a drunken sailor."

The Kerry camp is betting that through a combination of selective mix of targeted taxation - as well as tax cuts to spur job growth - and warning of the dire consequences of uncontrolled deficit spending, that their message will resonate well with the electorate.

I think that this is a very reasonable position. How it will play with the average voter remains to be seen.

Read the article. Rupert Cornwell goes into depth like few American 'papers' do.

Jobs Jobs Jobs

James Galbraith at Salon does some of the heavy lifting over March's job report.

I first heard about the Clinton job creation data of creating in excess of 300,000 jobs per month for 24 months while listening to Al Franken on Air America Radio last week. The Bush Administration can claim but 1 month of job growth in excess of 300,000.

Galbraith does add some color that I wasn't entirely aware of.

I still had two burning questions.

What do the 308,000 jobs consist of? Are wages growing enough to offset higher energy prices and taxation at the state and local levels?

This Bureau of Labor Statistics table shows pretty stagnant wage growth.

Bush's tax cut wasn't really a tax cut at all - except for the very well-to-do. It was a shifting of taxation from the federal level to the state and local level.

Essentially, while one month's numbers look good at a cursory glance, a little further scrutiny shows that real wage growth - purchasing power if you like - has contracted. This is a very troubling phenomenon, and one that doesn't lend itself to easy solutions.

Democracy: Nice Concept

Thomas Kean, Chairman of the 9-11 Commission told Tim Russert on Meet The Press yesterday that their report will contain "surprises," and that the White House will be going over their report "line by line" vetting it for national security purposes.

One can't help but be suspicious over the vetting process. After all of the stonewalling and obfuscations by this White House over nearly every substantive issue.

Kean reported that White House Chief of Staff, Andrew Card will be overseeing the vetting.

This is the same Andrew Card that said in 'selling' the Iraq war to the American people: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce a new product in August."

I can only hope that truth, and historical accuracy trumps party this time. I am not however, holding my breath.

Iraq: More Bad News

Wapo is reporting that Shi'ite cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr is facing murder charges stemming not from this weekend's violence, but for the killing of another cleric last April.

On 10 April, 2003 a moderate Shi'ite cleric, Abdul-Majid Khoei was killed one day after the fall of Baghdad. This is the murder for which he is wanted in connection with. It is not known by this commentator if additional charges are forthcoming against al-Sadr over his call to "terrorize your enemy," which apparently incited much of the violence over the weekend.

The situation on the ground is extremely fluid with news accounts contradicting each other and more fighting between coalition forces and Iraqi militiamen being reported.

There have been reports that Fallujah - the scene of the grisly American execution style killings of last week is surrounded by U.S. and Iraqi soldiers. This in an attempt to find the perpetrators of the killings.

Additionally, Islam Online is reporting that the weekend uprising of Iraq's Shi'ites is supported by the Sunnis as well.

For up to the minute coverage of the changing situation in Iraq, point your browser to News Now's Iraq feed

My blogging will be a bit less over the next few days. I am doing marathon sessions at work :-/ :)

Three Quick Links

Leaders of 9/11 Panel Say Attacks Were Probably Preventable

New to the Job, Rice Focused on More Traditional Fears

Kerry Tries to Portray Bush as Borrow-and-Spend Leader

Iraq: GOP Style

From that madcap group of neocons that brought you, "Iraq War: The Redux" comes Jihad Spun - GOP style.

Hard to know what to say. Several expletives immediately come to mind.

More Iraq

Islam Online is reporting on what may have incited the violent clashes earlier.

"There is no use for demonstrations, as your enemy loves to terrify and suppress opinions, and despises peoples. Terrorize your enemy, as we cannot remain silent over its violations." -- Muqtada al-Sadr

Much more

I should add that Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is the anti-American cleric whose newspaper was shut-down by the U.S. backed Iraqi Governing Council. It was reported that Paul Bremer directly ordered its shut-down, as the paper according to Bremer, "not only mislead readers but constitute[d] a real threat of violence against coalition forces and Iraqi citizens who cooperate[d] with the coalition in the reconstruction of Iraq."

In addition to the newspaper shut-down, a chief aide of al-Sadr, Mustafa al-Yacoubi is reported to have been detained inciting further rage against what Iraqis see as anti-democratic practices by the IGC.

An update of the situation just came over the AP wire. 10 U.S. troops are now being reported killed as well

Bush Blew It

In thinking about how awful the whole spectrum of Iraq is, I recalled a specific instance wherein Bush could have proven himself to be a man of honor. But alas, it was not to be.

War President? Hardly.

He couldn't even make it to a common gunfight.

Sad.

Vanity Fair and Iraq

The Independent is reporting that Sir Christopher Meyer gives a detailed account - 25,000 words - to Vanity Fair magazine detailing, amongst other things, Bush's aim to invade Iraq. This dinner took place a mere nine days after 11 Sept. 2001.

This corroborates both O'Neill's and Clarke's assertions that Iraq, and ousting Saddam Hussein was a top priority of the Bush Administration.

Sir Christopher, former British ambassador to Washington, allegedly attended a private dinner where Bush asked for Blair's support in invading Iraq.

How many people have to come forward before Bush's facade of truthfulness comes crashing down?

Note: In a recent CBS Poll Bush lead Kerry by 47% to 29% in key 'battleground states' when asked, "does each candidate say what he believes?" This seems a demonstrably falsely held belief by the electorate. Either that, or Bush is delusional. A conclusion I am no longer willing to reject out of hand.

Clarke On NPR

Richard Clarke on NPR from 24 March, 2004. Relinked by reader request. It is an especially good episode.

Iraq

First of all, I would just like to acknowledge that I am fully aware of the horrific atrocities of last week. I am referring to the execution style killings and subsequent display of four Americans.

I am still attempting to get a sense of just how bad things are in Iraq. The security situation for anyone suspected or known to be assisting the 'coalition' seems especially imperiled. I am not discounting the fact that the average Iraqi also faces death on a daily basis.

This morning, MSNBC via the AP is reporting that at least 18 have been killed in another round of clashes in Najaf. Four Salvadorans and fourteen Iraqis are reported to have been killed. More than 130 are reported wounded.

The clashes followed demonstrations by Iraqis over the reported detention of Mustafa al-Yacoubi, an aide to Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

The situation is by all accounts dismal in Iraq. It's easy to point fingers at the Bush Administration and state that they didn't follow through with the numbers of troops as assessed by other departments of our government. This does nothing to help the situation we now find ourselves in, as well as the Iraqis.

I don't know - nor does anyone with intellectual integrity - what is going to happen during the transferal of 'power' to the Iraqis on 30 June, but our record of Iraq security doesn't bode well for the future.

Dick and George

Eleanor Clift at NEWSWEEK elucidates upon the very strange arrangement involving Bush, Cheney, Rice, and the 9-11 Commission.

Essentially, in exchange for Condoleezza Rice's testimony in public, under oath, Bush and Cheney will appear before the Commission in tandem. Is there any precedent for this? I do not know. It is odd to say the least.

It's embarrassing to be an American. :) This is what passes for leadership? I hope that American's of all political stripes take a good, hard look at Bush.

Clift points out the obvious in her piece, and manages to have more than a bit of fun at our chief executive's(executives'?) expense.

For Bush supporters this must be an awkward moment at best. For Bush detractors, it certainly lends credence to the nagging suspicions that Bush has never really held the reins of power in the White House.

Accuracy in campaigning

In order to bring you the most accurate in campaign analysis, we again look to Annenberg's Fact Check. This time, a Kerry ad falls under the watchful eye of Fact Check.

What you need to know:

A Kerry ad has Bush saying that sending jobs overseas "makes sense." But Bush didn't say that.

The quote is actually from Bush's Council of Economic Advisers. The Kerry campaign claims Bush signed the report containing those words, but that's wrong, too.

Some Bush administration officials do indeed defend the practice of contracting for white-collar services overseas as one aspect of free trade, which they say creates jobs in the US. Textbook economics supports that notion. But the Kerry ad goes too far when it makes the President seem to be rooting for the loss of US jobs using words he never used...[snip]

Kerry's ad would have been closer to the mark had it said "The Bush administration says sending jobs overseas 'makes sense' for America." That would merely be taking words out of context and oversimplifying a complex economic argument. But falsely putting words in Bush's mouth is deception...[snip]

I expect this campaign to be filled with falsehoods and obfuscations. I'll do my best to point inconsistencies out in this blog.

Sibel Edmonds

Soon to be a Household Name

Andrew Buncombe, reporting for The Independent adds a bit more color than Democracy Now! offered when Ms. Edmonds called Condoleezza Rice's statement that 'we' could not have anticipated that Islamic terrorists might use aircraft as weapons "an outrageous lie."

From The Independent:

Sibel Edmonds, 33, said: "I gave [the commission] details of specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. I gave them everything so that they could go back and follow up. This is not hearsay. These are things that are documented. These things can be established very easily."

Yesterday Mrs Edmonds said she hoped the panel would present Ms Rice with the apparent contradiction suggested by the joint congressional inquiry's report. "I think they will ask her. Will they get an answer? I can see her twisting it. I can see her trying to wriggle out of it by saying we thought they were going to hijack aircraft but not use them as missiles," she said.

"If you put this information [I saw] with other stuff they had from the Phoenix memo [about suspects taking flying lessons] and stuff coming in from field offices about flight schools, there is no way they can say they did not know. An idiot could work it out."

Mrs Edmonds, from northern Virginia, was fired from the FBI in March 2002 after she went public with allegations of incompetence within the translation department. At the time senior US senators testified to her credibility. The Republican senator Charles Grassley, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said he spoke to FBI officials who confirmed many of her allegations. "She's credible and the reason I feel she's very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story," he said at the time.

He said this week: "They admitted most of the facts but denied the conclusions. The FBI has failed to overhaul [the translation] unit, despite its obvious and critical importance in the war on terrorism."

You can add Ms. Edmonds name to the list of courageous truth-tellers that the Bush Administration will attempt to discredit through personal attacks - until their story morphs into the conventional wisdom.

Follow the link for more.

A Little Chaos

I was discussing the relatively small differences between Kerry and most of the GOP this morning with my brother.....Bush excepted. My brother is a mathematician.

In a moment he cut to the heart of the issue between the parties in a very precise manner. He simply said, "Small differences in the initial input states can have large implications in final outcomes."

From that, it should be plain that he has studied chaos theory in at least some cursory way. In fact, it is much of what he teaches. I got the looks, he got the brains :)

For anyone that has qualms about the minor differences between parties, this should allay some of their reservations about a Kerry Presidency.

We discussed other political topics that he framed mathematically. I will distill and condense this over the next week, and have something of an exegesis prepared next Saturday. Time permitting of course.

Powell Admits Errors

Powell Admits he was 'Probably Wrong' about Iraqi weapons trailers

Powell still claims that the trailer information was 'multi-sourced.' This doesn't jive with recent revelations that much of the alleged weapons information came from an Iraqi defector named Curveball.

If his 'multi-sourced' information is that "Curveball" told the same story twice, I suppose that this dismisses Powell on some academic level of lying.

I'll refrain from calling Secretary Powell a serial liar. I'll let you, my dear readers decide how to label Colin 'My Lai' Powell.

Medicare Scandal?

What ever do you mean?

Yesterday, the LA Times reported that the House GOP members shut down an inquiry into whether or not the Bush White House enaged in illegal or inappropriate obfuscation of the costs of the Medicare prescription drug bill(now law).

In case you have, like me, been living under a rock for the past few weeks, at issue is the following: Then Medicare Administrator Thomas A. Scully threatened to fire -- or more accurately, face severe recriminations -- his top actuary, Richard Foster, if he gave lawmakers his analyses showing the costs would be much higher than administration officials were saying publicly.

This issue is far from over. There is a move underway by the Health and Human Services Department to investigate the matter, and Democratic lawmakers have requested civil and criminal inquiries into the matter.

It may yet turn out that the White House and GOP members of Congress may re-open the issue, as the pattern of White House bullying, and obfuscation yields to popular pressure.

Meanwhile in Iraq

....CNN is reporting March turned out to be the second deadliest month since the 'end of major combat operations.'

Safer with Saddam gone?

Certainly not for Iraqis.

Certainly not for U.S. troops.

Then for whom?

Another Republican Talks

Flynt Leverett -- Former Senior Director for Middle East Affairs on President Bush's National Security Council. He is a former CIA analyst and Middle East specialist. He is now a visiting fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East studies at the Brookings Institution.

He spoke to DN's Amy Goodman this morning. Here's a bit:

FLYNT LEVERETT: Good morning.

AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. Can you respond to what the administration is saying about Clarke’s critique?

FLYNT LEVERETT: Well, I think that they are beginning, finally, to offer something resembling a substantive response to Mr. Clarke's charges rather than simply impugning his character or his motives. But I think that Clarke has laid out a very serious and substantive critique of the way the administration has conducted the war on terror since the September 11 attacks. It's hard to get around the fact that critical resources were taken away from the Afghan theater, to my mind, prematurely, before we had finished the job against bin Laden. They were taken away because if they were going to be ready to do their part in an Iraq campaign on the timetable that the White House wanted to do it, you had to pull these people out in the early spring of 2002. I think it's because of that that we have not captured bin Laden, we have not captured Zawahiri. Al Qaeda has been able to reconstitute leadership cells in the Afghan-Pakistan border region and, it would seem, in Iran. If we had the right people on the ground in the spring and summer of 2002, I think we might have caught these people. If we catch them now, that's obviously a good thing, but -- if it's two years too late because Al Qaeda has morphed into a different sort of organization.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about who specifically was pulled from Afghanistan in March, 2002, to go to Iraq?

FLYNT LEVERETT: Well, I think I have said -- others and I have talked about these people being very highly trained, highly specialized -- special forces and intelligence officers. There's not an infinite supply of those sorts of people to go around. As I said, my view is that those people were pulled prematurely from Afghanistan because the administration was determined to go to war in Iraq on a specific timetable.

Listen here

Furthermore, Leverett told WaPo in this article that: "Clarke's critique of administration decision-making and how it did not balance the imperative of finishing the job against al Qaeda versus what they wanted to do in Iraq is absolutely on the money."


Oops.

Don't Call the White House...

..if it's a "911"

The Bush administration is blocking the 9/11 commission from examining over about 8,000 classified documents from the Clinton administration turned over for the commission to review.

The files contain classified documents about the Clinton administration's efforts against Al Qaeda.

An attorney for Clinton's presidential foundation accused the Bush White House of blocking the release of material that would be valuable to the 9/11 commission.

The 9/11 commission has announced National Security Advisor Condolleeza[sic] Rice will testify publicly under oath before the panel next Thursday, April 8.

Courtesy of Democracy Now!

See. The White House is giving the 9-11 Commission 'unprecedented access.'

The Fadin Facade

Bush Has A Credibility Issue

The results of the linked to poll are striking.

The trend is likely to stick as Clarke is seen as more credible, and the Administration was busily adjusting policies -- and money -- to missile defense pre-9/11 :)

Air America Now Airing

I forgot. Air America - Progressive Radio has launched!

Listen in. It's fun.

GTWO!

New Get Your War On! Get Some!

More Rice

Condi to testify on April 8th

Meanwhile, it has now been widely reported that Alberto Gonzales, President Bush's top lawyer, called commissioner Fred Fielding and may also have called commissioner James Thompson, before Richard Clarke was due to appear on March 24.

I'm sure it was to 'do lunch.'

Ugly.

Does anybody believe a word these people say?

Clarke 2, Rice 0

From WaPo comes this:

On Sept. 11, 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday" -- but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals.

The speech provides telling insight into the administration's thinking on the very day that the United States suffered the most devastating attack since the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor. The address was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy, and contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups, according to former U.S. officials who have seen the text.

Much more at link

The speech was obviously not given by Rice with this emphasis. The amended speech Rice delivered prominently featured Islamic terrorists, and gave only cursory mention to missile defense.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Clarke is a lot more right than wrong. I have yet to see anything substantive that Clarke has alleged to be effectively refuted.