Semi-Random Thought

If Bush is running as a "war president," what has he done to assuage Americans' concerns about the recent and ongoing sharp escalation of violence in Iraq?

He speaks volumes by remaining mute.

Scalia: Supreme Hypocrite

Tony hails U.S. Constitution as "extraordinary and amazing," in a speech in Mississippi, while trampling freedom of the press.

Neanderthal.

Condi Files

Now that Dr. Rice has testified, I'm going to offer two Commissioner's questions and her answers per day. In the interest of brevity, I'll stick to what I see as the most controversial of matters.

Without further ado, Day 1.

KEAN: Some Americans have wondered whether you or the president worried too much about Iraq in the days after the 9/11 attack and perhaps not enough about the fight ahead against al Qaeda.

We know that at the Camp David meeting on the weekend of September 15th and 16th, the president rejected the idea of immediate action against Iraq. Others have told that the president decided Afghanistan had to come first.

We also know that, even after those Camp David meetings, the administration was still readying plans for possible action against Iraq.

So can you help us understand where, in those early days after 9/11, the administration placed Iraq in the strategy for responding to the attack?

RICE: Certainly. Let me start with the period in which you're trying to figure out who did this to you.

And I think, given our exceedingly hostile relationship with Iraq at the time -- this is, after all, a place that tried to assassinate an American president, was still shooting at our planes in the no-fly zone -- it was a reasonable question to ask whether, indeed, Iraq might have been behind this.

I remember, later on, in a conversation with Prime Minister Blair, President Bush also said that he wondered could it have been Iran, because the attack was so sophisticated, was this really just a network that had done this.

When we got to Camp David -- and let me just be very clear: In the days between September 11th and getting to Camp David, I was with the president a lot. I know what was on his mind. What was on his mind was follow-on attacks, trying to reassure the American people.

He virtually badgered poor Larry Lindsey about when could we get Wall Street back up and running, because he didn't want them to have succeeded against our financial system. We were concerned about air security, and he worked very hard on trying to get particularly Reagan reopened. So there was a lot on our minds.

But by the time that we got to Camp David and began to plan for what we would do in response, what was rolled out on the table was Afghanistan -- a map of Afghanistan.

And I will tell you, that was a daunting enough task to figure out how to avoid some of the pitfalls that great powers had in Afghanistan, mostly recently the Soviet Union and, of course, the British before that.

There was a discussion of Iraq. I think it was raised by Don Rumsfeld. It was pressed a bit by Paul Wolfowitz. Given that this was a global war on terror, should we look not just at Afghanistan but should we look at doing something against Iraq? There was a discussion of that.

The president listened to all of his advisers. I can tell you that when he went around the table and asked his advisers what he should do, not a single one of his principal advisers advised doing anything against Iraq. It was all to Afghanistan.

When I got back to the White House with the president, he laid out for me what he wanted to do. And one of the points, after a long list of things about Afghanistan, a long list of things about protecting the homeland, the president said that he wanted contingency plans against Iraq should Iraq act against our interests.

There was a kind of concern that they might try and take advantage of us in that period. They were still -- we were still flying no-fly zones. And there was also, he said, in case we find that they were behind 9/11, we should have contingency plans.

But this was not along the lines of what later was discussed about Iraq, which was how to deal with Iraq on a grand scale. This was really about -- we went to planning Afghanistan, you can look at what we did. From that time on, this was about Afghanistan.

KEAN: So when Mr. Clarke writes that the president pushed him to find a link between Iraq and the attack, is that right? Was the president trying to twist the facts for an Iraqi war, or was he just puzzled about what was behind this attack?

RICE: I don't remember the discussion that Dick Clarke relates. Initially, he said that the president was wandering the situation room -- this is in the book, I gather -- looking for something to do, and they had a conversation. Later on, he said that he was pulled aside. So I don't know the context of the discussion. I don't personally remember it.

But it's not surprising that the president would say, "What about Iraq," given our hostile relationship with Iraq. And I'm quite certain that the president never pushed anybody to twist the facts.

Two questions, two answers. Answers that have qualifiers such as "I don't recall" and "I'm quite certain," should instill doubt in persons in pursuit of what really occurred. If you look at Richard Clarke's public testimony, you see very little of this behavior.

On the question of Iraq, I think that there is too much corroboration of Clarke's account -- including Paul O'Neill's and Sir Christopher Meyer's recollections -- to let Rice's "I don't remember the discussion" statement pass without comment. This is most likely an attempt to shelter the president.

That Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz wanted to invade Iraq as an exemplary action to test PNAC's worldview is certainly no surprise.

Rice's entire answer to Kean's follow-up question is very odd. "This is in the book, I gather," can only be viewed as that she certainly has knowledge of Clarke's book, and I find it very odd indeed that by 15 Sept. 2001, it was from all accounts obvious that 9-11 was al-Qaeda's "spectacular" attack, that Iraq would even be discussed.

Clarke wrote and testified that Bush did want to connect Iraq to 9-11 and by other accounts this is reasonably confirmed.

Leave comments if you wish. I'm off for the night. Tomorrow I'll be back to 4+ items per day.

Condoleezza Live!

Listen or Watch Live!

Will the 9-11 Commission fry Rice?

Stay tuned!

Live updates:

9:18 A.M. Dr. Rice looks and sounds frightened

9:28 A.M. Pressured speech apparent

9:58 A.M. The August 6th PBD - Richard Ben-Veniste finally throws a good pitch.

10:01 A.M. Ben-Veniste asks directly that the Aug. 6th PDB be declassified (applause)

10:04 A.M. Ben-Veniste finally starts the tough questioning

10:09 A.M. Rice: "No direct threat information about a U.S. attack" in Aug. 6th PDB

10:09 A.M. Rice: Clarke was "shaking the trees" about al-Qaeda attack

It's clear that the August 6th PDB needs to be declassified in it's entirety...the PDB is titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United States"

10:20 A.M. Commissioner Fred Fielding offers that several attacks thwarted

10:22 A.M. Fielding questions Rice about 'principals' not being involved in Bush Administration during high threat period

10:25 A.M. Rice questions whether "shaking the trees" thwarted millennium attacks. Rice credits "alert customs agent."

10:28 A.M. Gorelick is picking up where Ben-Veniste left off. She's very good.

10:39 A.M. Gorelick asks Rice about differences Bush Administration and "Operation Infinite Resolve" - The Clinton Administration's plan.

10:59 A.M. Kerrey slams Rice over the "swatting of flies" statement. Claims - "Bush never swatted any flies..so what the Hell was he talking about?"

11:04 A.M. Kerrey accuses Rice of filibustering..rightfully so. It's his time!

11:07 A.M. Kerrey claims that if intel was put on on "Intel Link" they would have "rolled this up."

11:09 A.M. Kerrey drops a bomb. Reads portion of memo: Planes to be hijacked - July 5th 2001

I'm listening This is intriguing.

A couple of notes:

Rice makes no apology.

It appears that Rice was "out of the loop," rather than Clarke.

I'll cherry-pick the transcript later :)

It's obvious that we need to get a bunch of documents declassified. Demand it!

Bah. Rice basically gets a free pass.

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.