Handling of Terrorism (Percent approving), Dec 7, March 28
Republicans: 93%, 93%
Independents: 64%, 49%
Democrats: 42%, 26%

The Clarke material is harder to interpret. The rally-around-the-President effect offsets some of Clarke's charges, but Americans are following it, and it is having an effect. Seventy percent of Americans say they're following the Clarke accusations at least somewhat closely. On believability, Gallup writes:

So far, the American public has declared the verbal sparring contest a draw -- 44% say they believe Clarke in this matter and 46% side with current Bush administration officials. Responses to this poll question are strongly partisan -- 83% of Republicans believe current Bush officials, while 76% of Democrats believe Clarke. Independents are more likely to believe Clarke (51%) than the Bush administration (36%).

Add to that that 54% of Americans think Bush could have done more to prevent 9/11 (a figure not likely to go down), and 53% think the administration's trying to cover something up, and it looks grim for Dubya in the weeks ahead.

On the other hand, his overall approval is actually up, to 53%, and he's widened his lead over Kerry.

The figures are contradictory in some ways. I think this mainly reflects the public's relative unfamiliarity with John Kerry. They don't like Bush on the one hand, but they don't know Kerry on the other (except, perhaps, what they've learned in the Bush hit pieces). So while they're distrustful of Bush, they still have no basis for trusting Kerry, either. Of course, all of this will change, and it represents a good opportunity for Kerry.

I suspect people outside the base aren't going to reverse their mistrust of the President. His mendacity and shadiness have mostly been obscured to the general public behind his mien of "defender." But now, with attacks coming from all sides, and a press more willing to call him on his obvious misrepresentations, the chickens are coming home to roost. Kerry doesn't have to be that spectacular to capture wavering allegiances. I expect to see a general weakening of the President's approval numbers this summer. (I have, lately, been so far off base on my predictions that this speculation may be the best news Bushies have gotten in a long time.)

[Update: Liberal Oasis has some excellent analysis on this and other poll numbers.]

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who painted an unflattering portrait of President Bush in a book in January, received 140 government documents for the book that should not have been released after he left office, the Treasury Department's inspector general says.

The report Monday from Jeffrey Rush Jr. said that no federal laws had been violated in the release of the documents but that Treasury needed to improve the way it handled sensitive documents....

Treasury began its investigation in January after CBS's "60 Minutes" showed a document marked "secret" during an interview in which O'Neill promoted the new book, "The Price of Loyalty."

I have no doubt that Clarke will be cleared of wrongdoing, too. If the smear campaign works well enough to keep the Bush ship afloat and he somehow manages to win re-election, I expect to see another small report, probably by year's end, clearking Clarke of wrongdoing. But hey, that's then, right?

This was something that the President essentially -- well, one, I think that our White House Counsel's Office is always in close contact with the commission and in close contact with the chairman and vice-chairman to talk about ways we can meet their needs. And they have remained close -- the Counsel's Office has remained in close contact with the chairman and vice-chairman.

I think the President, essentially, over the weekend decided that we should pursue this with the commission, pursue the possibility of Dr. Rice testifying publicly under oath, provided that we can uphold this important principle. It's important to protect the principle of separation of powers between the executive and legislative branch. It's a very important principle. Certainly I think that it's important to protect for future Presidents, to make sure that they can continue to receive the kind of advice and information they need from their staff to protect the American people. So that's important.

It gets worse:

Q Scott, there's a rumor today that the President brought a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch. Can you confirm?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President carefully considered -- well, I think we need to look at the importance of nutrition and health. There are the berries, which I believe come from California, and the peanuts. Well, the peanuts, of course, are domestically-grown. The President has always been enthusiastic about peanuts. One thing we can say, essentially -- I mean, it's important to understand the broader context within which the sandwich, although I didn't personally see the sandwich, the reported sandwich was brought or believed to be brought. Because the President believes in nutrition. It's an important issue that the President feels very strongly about.

Okay, I made that second one up. But it was no less coherent than anything else he's been saying lately. Do you think it's possible for him to make a single, direct declarative statement?

WASHINGTON (AP) -- National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice will be allowed to testify in public under oath before the commission investigating the failure to prevent the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, an administration official said Tuesday.

The official said the decision is conditioned on the Bush administration receiving assurances in writing from the commission that such a step does not set a precedent, said the official speaking on condition of anonymity. It appeared the administration already had such assurances verbally in private and is confident it will get them in writing.

White House legal counsel Alberto Gonzales has sent a letter to the commission stating that Rice is prepared to testify publicly as long as the administration receives assurances from the panel that this is not precedent setting, the official said.

On Sunday she told Ed Bradley: "I would really like to do that. But there is an important principle here ... it is a longstanding principle that sitting national security advisers do not testify before the Congress. " Apparently political calculations have trumped the principle. Politics guiding policy? That's something I never expected to see from this White House...

At the hearing on the park exclusions ordinance, b!X takes a seat in the back row of the City Council chambers, as is his custom (despite the fact that he needs glasses and must squint to make out anything far away). At one point, microphone difficulties make it hard to hear what Commissioner Randy Leonard is saying, and b!X leans forward, straining to hear, until his torso is almost parallel to the ground.

Later, on his Web site, he paraphrased Leonard's remarks and included this disclaimer: "The specific comments were difficult to make out, since Leonard's microphone either was on the fritz, or he wasn't making use of it. But the above is the general thrust of his continuing concerns."

Leonard is an avid reader of the site, visiting at least three times a day -- even after b!X once wrote the headline "Is Leonard Literate?" Leonard frequently posts comments on "Portland Communique," (as he did on the park exclusions entry to clarify what the microphone had failed to amplify), and he has on occasion alerted b!X to stories before the rest of the Portland news media.

Do-it-yourself journalism folks--and journalism that matters. Pretty cool stuff. (Although I'm damn envious, I'm proud he hails from our fair city--they don't call us "Little Beirut" for nothin'.)

Democrat John Kerry's economic plan unveiled Friday includes a tax hike for upper-income Americans, an end to corporate tax deferral for companies that earn profits overseas, and a five percent tax cut on the corporate rate.

"We now have a tax code that does more to reward companies for moving overseas than it does to reward them for creating jobs here in America," Kerry said.

"So, if I am elected president, I will fight for the most sweeping international tax law reform in 40 years, a plan to replace tax incentives to take jobs offshore with new incentives for job creation on our own shores," Kerry said, adding that a company that relocates overseas could avoid paying taxes "perhaps forever."

I'll have to dig around later and see what the big brains of the economic wing of the blogosphere (Nathan, Brad, Max) have to say about it. So far, they're caught up in Clarkemania with the rest of us.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House may have mishandled accusations leveled by their former counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke by attacking his credibility, keeping the controversy firmly in the headlines into a second week, political analysts said.

"The Bush administration and its allies have certainly not helped the story go away," said Howard Opinsky, a Republican operative who ran media relations for Arizona Sen. John McCain during his 2000 presidential bid.

"Instead, they adopted the risky strategy of trying to refute his charges, which makes it appear that they have something to hide," he said.

No--ya think?]

ED BRADLEY::
But my question is, how did [Richard Clarke's] apology [at the 9/11 hearings] make you feel? Did you think he was grandstanding? Did you think it was sincere?

CONDOLEZZA RICE:
I - I'm not going to - to question what - Dick Clarke was or was not feeling. I think from my point of view, the families need to know that - everybody understands the deep loss.

ED BRADLEY::
Will the families of those people who were killed hear an apology from you? Do you think that would be appropriate?

CONDOLEZZA RICE:
The families, I think, have heard from this president that - and from me, and from me personally in some cases in that field in Pennsylvania or at the World Trade Center, how - deeply sorry everyone is for the loss that they endured. You couldn't be human and not feel the horror of that day. We do need to stay focused on what happened to us that day. And the best thing that we can do for the memory of the victims, the best thing that we can do for the future of this country, is to focus on those who did this to us.

Now, it's possible she delivered these words with some kind of Clintonian sympathy (though it would be the first time), so I don't want to jump the gun. There's been a whole lot of talk from the White House about credibility. Having read that, let me ask: who's sounding more credible right about now?

"I would welcome it being declassified, but not just a little line here or there. Let's declassify all six hours of my testimony....

"Yes, and those documents I just referred to and Dr. Rice's testimony before the 9-11 Commission because the victims' families have no idea what Dr. Rice has said. There weren't in those closed hearings where she testified before the 9-11 Commission. They want to know. So let's take her testimony before the 9-11 Commission and make it part of the package of what gets declassified along with the national security decision directive of September 4 and along with my memo of January 25.

"In fact, Tim, let's go further. The White House is selectively now finding my e-mails, which I would have assumed were covered by some privacy regulations, and selectively leaking them to the press. Let's take all of my e-mails and all of the memos that I've sent to the national security adviser and her deputy from January 20 to September 11 and let's declassify all of it."

--Richard Clarke, Meet the Press, this morning

Whoops. The White House has been in spin mode so long they haven't the faintest clue which direction is up. I suppose they expected Clarke to cringe and shrink away from his record just as surely as they cringe and shrink away any time there's talk of investigating their own record. They forgot that sometimes a person goes to work, does the best job he knows how, and stands by his record. Clarke's happy to remind them.

Having seen that the President stoops quickly to personal attacks, Clarke pulled out some of his personal artillery--a letter from the President written after Clarke resigned.

"Dear Dick, you will be missed. You served our nation with distinction and honor. You have left a positive mark on our government." This is not the normal typewritten letter that everybody gets. This is the president's handwriting. He thinks I served with distinction and honor. The rest of his staff is out there trying to destroy my professional life, trying to destroy my reputation, because I had the temerity to suggest that a policy issue should be discussed. What is the role of the war on terror vis-a-vis the war in Iraq? Did the war in Iraq really hurt the war on terror? Because I suggest we should have a debate on that, I am now being the victim of a taxpayer-paid--because all these people work for the government-- character assassination campaign.

There's quite a bit of discussion about Clarke's motivation there too--though personally I find it rather tedious. If you're stupid enough to question Clarke's motivation in writing the book, but not Bush's motivation in trying to smear Clarke, there's not anything anyone can say to penetrate your ignorance.

Russert: Bush Attack Dog
It is fairly evident that Tim Russert is carrying the White House's water again--he came in armed with the most damning information available (to friends of the administration). He also repeated the most vicious of the attacks on Clarke. Through it all, Clarke responded exactly as you would expect an honest man with nothing to hide to respond. Example:

MR. RUSSERT: Forty-two family members wrote an open letter which is in the papers today saying that the book is offensive and profiteering and maximizing book sales because of September 11. What do you say to those families?

That's a low blow if ever there was one. (He doesn't mention the families who were delighted that someone--anyone--from the White House finally apologized.) Clarke would be forgiven, in my view, for punching Russert in the nose. How did he actually respond?

MR. CLARKE: Well, I say I'd like them to read it. You know, as to Senator Frist's comments, that it's filled with highly classified information, it was approved by the White House for release. And anything that the White House found in it that they thought was highly classified was removed. You know, I had a very emotional meeting with the families after the commission hearing. I had asked for their forgiveness in my testimony. And several of them came up to me and said, "I forgive you, I forgive you." It was a moment that I will never forget. And for Senator Frist to say that I didn't have the right to ask for their forgiveness, that I didn't have the right to apologize, I just think is an example of how this whole debate has gotten overheated. And I'd like to return to a level of civility here.

Further evidence of Russert water-carrying: he spent a long time rehashing the Clinton material. Russert might have had Clarke on the show to offer his own views; instead, Clarke was in the interrogation room, grilled by Russert, the White House's proxy. When Russert finally arrives at what I think is the most damning claims by Clarke--that Bush attacked Iraq even though he knew it wasn't connected to al Qaida--it's to defend against Bush counterattacks aimed at Clarke. ("Did you speak out against the war inside the government?")

He rounds off the interrogation with the Kerry charges. Clarke, again, manages them admirably.

MR. RUSSERT: In 2004 you'll vote for John Kerry?

MR. CLARKE: I'm not going to endorse John Kerry. That's what the White House wants me to do. And they want to say I'm part of the Kerry campaign. I've already pledged I'm not part of the Kerry campaign and I will not serve in the Kerry administration.

MR. RUSSERT: Will you vote for him?

MR. CLARKE: That's my business.

The Bushies may finally have run up against their worst nightmare: an honest man.

From her own improvisatory childhood, Lupita knew the tricks of low-budget householding: when even Wal-Mart is out of your price range, secondhand clothes can be purchased by the pound, the pallet, or the bale; the Port of Brownsville contains enough fresh crabs for three days’ dinner, if you have a bit of raw chicken and some string to fish them out. But, as the fall of 2003 progressed, her unemployment and health benefits had expired, her 401(k) from the textile factory had been cashed out, and she was still selling lunches. The state workforce commission had predicted that twenty-five medical-assistant jobs would open in Cameron County in 2003, but it would be difficult to secure one. In one class of laid-off textile workers alone, eighty-five people had been trained for the profession.

Other Cameron Park job-seekers sustained their hopes by lighting “miracle candles” sold in local grocery stores—candles emblazoned with messages like “Select Me for the Company” or “Increase the Wages Offered.”

In George Bush's Texas (and now America), the poor and politically weak offer opportunity. It's from their meager pocketbooks thta fantastic fortunes can built.

The hundred-and-fifty-three-year-old Fruit of the Loom company, owned by Warren Buffett’s Omaha-based Berkshire Hathaway, had just announced that its Cameron County factory would close by the end of the year. Much of its production would be shifted to Honduras....

Fruit of the Loom had chosen a few veteran laborers to go, briefly, to Honduras to train the cheaper workers who would replace them. Some of the others would board the meat- and poultry-industry buses that idled outside the county employment office, luring those sufficiently desperate to take short-term slaughterhouse jobs in the Ozarks. But, as Fruit of the Loom’s cutting machines and bleaching vats were cranked up on pallet jacks, loaded onto flatbeds, and hauled to the Port of Brownsville, many of the company’s workers pocketed a month’s severance and filed into Mario’s van. They applied for unemployment assistance equal to roughly half their former wages, took aptitude tests, and studied the twenty training brochures that were taped to the van’s walls.

And:

When she sold a plot, she negotiated the mortgage-payment terms and schedules, without the involvement of banks, in an arrangement known as “seller-take-back.” In a state where seventy-one per cent of the residents don’t have a checking account, let alone good credit, seller-take-back is a crucial niche in the real-estate market....

To house her family, María, in 1992, had bought a tiny lot from Elida Greenwood. The price was nine thousand dollars, with a twelve-per-cent interest rate.

Remember folks, he's a compassionate conservative.

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (Reuters) - Prospective Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry challenged key White House adviser Condoleezza Rice on Saturday to testify publicly and under oath before a commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Kerry accused President Bush's White House of stonewalling the commission by keeping Rice off its public witness list, and of attempting "character assassination" against its own former counterterrorism chief, Richard Clarke....

Noting that Rice planned an appearance Sunday night on CBS' "60 Minutes" program, the same forum Clarke used to attack Bush last weekend, Kerry added:

"If Condoleezza Rice can find time to do '60 Minutes' on television before the American people, she ought to find 60 minutes to speak to the commission under oath," Kerry said.

He said Franklin Roosevelt had had no problem cooperating with an investigation of America's unpreparedness for Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in World War II, and added:

"This administration has done the opposite -- stonewalled this commission."

When I took office on January 21, I was immediately confronted by a profound bureaucratic anomaly: Richard Clarke. Typically, NSC senior directors take their instructions in day-to-day matters from my deputy, Steven Hadley. When they have policy proposals, they first seek consensus on what the policy options should be from a staff-level interdepartmental working group that they chair, and then take that consensus (and whatever limited points of disagreement on what the live options are remain) to the NSC deputies committee. After the NSC deputies committee has properly framed the issues, the matter is then discussed by the NSC principals committee--made up of cabinet members--that I chair, which decides what decisions the president needs to make and how the options on those decisions are to be presented to him.

More...

January 20 to September 10, 2001

Before the election, Bush argues against "nation building" and is swept into office by -500,000 votes. "I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation building core from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops."

Bush meets Russian President Vladimir Putin for the first time, looks into his eyes and sees his soul.

By all accounts, the President dinks around on foreign policy, content to build up a cold-war defense in the age of terror. He begins by immediately putting Star Wars back on track. Even though NATO opposes it, the Bushies declare it necessary. It appears to contravene the ABM missile treaty, but never mind--Rummy immediately dismisses this criticism, even though a little less than a year later, the US will pull out of that very treaty.

Bush damages the US’s foreign policy position by thumbing his nose at international cooperation--the Kyoto agreement on environmentalism, the war crimes treaty (in 2002), and arms control treaties, including the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and the Chemical Weapons Convention.

On the Korean Peninsula, Bush abandons any policy, saying he’ll neither support the ‘Sunshine Policy’ nor negotiate with the North Koreans.

September 11, 2001

Shortly after planes crash into the world trade center, Bush makes a brief announcement that he "unfortunately, will be going back to Washington after my remarks." Following the announcement, he leaves a Sarasota schoolroom and flies not to Washington, but Nebraska. Meanwhile, Rudolph Giuliani goes quickly to the site of the bombing and calms the nation.

Later that night, Bush gives the most-lauded statement of his presidency. In retrospect, it is akin to his usual speeches ("A great people has been moved to defend a great nation."), but notable for a line that is later used as a major feature of Bush policy: "The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts? We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."

September 12, 2001 and after

Following the 9/11 attacks, the White House enjoys unprecedented support from around the world. It is a mood of surprising evanescence.

In early October, Bush cites 9/11 as the cause for proposed tax cuts. But to make sure that the economy gets the boost it needs, Congress ought to come together quickly and accept the ideas that I've just laid out. We believe that will be the best way to make sure that America recovers from the terrorist attack of September the 11th."

Also in early October, Bush proposes an office of Homeland Security.

The 342-page Patriot Act is rushed through Congress and signed by the President on Oct 26.

October/November - US and allies invade Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and install Hamid Karzai as President. At the eve of 2002, Bush is still confident of capturing Osama bin Laden. "We're going to get him and it's just a matter of when."

December 14th, 2001--Bush pulls out of the ABM treaty with Russia.

Bush introduces a new legal concept: "unlawful combatants." In January of 2002, the first prisoners from Afghanistan are imprisoned in Guantanamo, Cuba. In all, over 600 are detained from 40 countries, none with legal standing or recourse. Rumsfeld: "As I understand it, technically unlawful combatants do not have any rights under the Geneva Conventions." World support for the Bush foreign policy declines.

In the State of the Union, utters the famous "axis of evil" phrase. "Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world. States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world."

The Bush foreign policy takes a unilateralist turn, and world support for the Bush foreign policy declines further.

Terror gradually becomes a fuction of the Homeland Security Department, and Iraq begins to dominate the foreign policy of the President. The last time he mentions the name of Osama bin Laden publically is in October 2002.

The Department of Homeland Security gets off to a poor start. In March 2002, it introduces a color-coded terror alert system, but no actions are associated with the alert levels. Security Secretary Tom Ridge later suggests that people have on hand duct tape and plastic sheeting in case of terrorist attack. (Advice that's still available on the White House website.

More ominously, DARPA suggests an invasive information tracking system to follow the activities of citizens. Another proposal would turn public servants like postal workers into government spies. On the legal front, Attorney General rounds up Muslims, subjects "suspects" to random detainments, tortures detainees, and holds uncharged detainees on the "material witness" clause. Although the President expresses his desire for secret military tribunals, it so far remains legally or politically untenable. Source.

In September 2002, Bush introduces the pre-emption doctrine as part of the US policy for National Security. It claimed for the US the power to defend:

". . .the United States, the American people, and our interests at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders. While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country."

Shortly after its introduction, Bush started pushing for an invasion of Iraq.

UN drafts a resolution to force Iraq to comply with weapons inspections and declare all aspects of its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and ballistic missiles systems. Iraq complies and announces in 12,000-word document that it no longer has WMD. Inspections commence.

In December, North Korea reactivates its nuclear plant and two weeks later expel UN inspectors. The President, occupied by Iraq, ignores this second member of the "axis of evil."

The US continues to threaten an invasion, despite a wholesale lack of support from the rest of the globe and negative results from Hans Blix’s inspection team. On September 5, Colin Powell makes the case that Iraq does indeed have WMD. Eleven days later, Blix announces that Iraq has been cooperative, removing any clear casus belli on the part of the Bush Administration. Only Britain supports the US, who invades on March 19.

No weapons of mass destruction have ever been found. Iraq appears to have been in compliance with UN resolutions when the US and UK invaded; certainly it did not meet the criteria necessary for invasion even in the extremely liberal Bush pre-emption doctrine.

April 30th, Bush proposes a "roadmap to peace" in Isreal. The situation continues to worsen. Over the course of the following year, Bush attends very rarely to the situation in Israel.

Over the course of late 2002 through 2003, the situation in Afghanistan worsens. President Karzai becomes a target for assassination and loses effective control beyond Kabul. Terrorism becomes increasingly common, but the US can’t provide much support.

The situation in North Korea worsens. In February, North Korea fires a test missile; in March, it intercepts a US plane. And in July, Pyongyang announces it has enough plutonium to make 6 nuclear bombs. The President's approach is to engage in multilateral talks, though little progress has been made.

On May 2, 2003, with a "Mission Accomplished" banner in the background, Bush announces the end of "major combat operations" from the deck of the USS Lincoln. A day earlier, Bush dressed in a flight suit and rode in an airplane as a PR stunt. Six months later, Bush claimed the White House wasn't responsible for the sign, though he admitted they had printed it. Of course, the situation in Iraq was far from resolved.

Late July, rebels stage an uprising in Liberia. Bush doesn’t respond.

Following the war, Iraq, now destabilized, becomes a focal point for terrorists, who stream into the country.

In December, US forces capture Saddam Hussein in a "spider hole" in Baghdad.

The plan for transfer of authority to Iraq remains unclear, even as the June date approaches. 3,354 troops have been wounded in Iraq, and 690 coalition troops have been killed.

In the war on terror, Bush claims to have captured 2/3rds of the leaders of al Qaida, though he does not mention what new permutations of leadership may have replaced those captured. Libya recently agreed give up pursuit of terrorism, one of the President's only clear successes in the war on terror.

Q Mr. President, do you -- on that point, on Osama bin Laden, do you have a response to the letter that was put out today, allegedly under his name, praising the killing of the American Marine in Kuwait? And do you share the concerns of Senator Richard Shelby, who believes that this is, in fact, a new al Qaeda offensive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I -- first, I don't know whether bin Laden is alive or dead. I -- you know, I do know al Qaeda is extremely dangerous. I do know that there are still some of his top lieutenants roaming around, and that we're doing everything we can to bring them to justice.

Former counterterrorism official Richard Clarke sent a letter to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice 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....

"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 for failing to act against the al Qaeda organization.

Wait. Scott, remind me again what Clarke's resignation letter said again? I think you really had him on the ropes with that one.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think we went through that yesterday. We went through a lot of the assertions that were being made. And I think maybe one thing to look back to is the Dick Clarke of January 30th, 2003, who submitted a letter of resignation on that day to the President of the United States. And I think this letter runs counter to what he is now asserting. Let me just read parts of this letter, and we'll be glad to make this letter available to you shortly here. This is in his own words.

Mr. Clarke says, "It has been an enormous privilege to serve you these last 24 months. I will always remember the courage, determination, calm and leadership you demonstrated on September 11th." Then he went on to say, "I will also have fond memories of our briefings for you on cyber-security and the intuitive understanding of its importance that you showed. I thank you again for the opportunity to serve you have provided me, and wish you good fortune as you lead our country through the continuing threats."

So at this time period, when he was leaving, there was no mention of the grave concerns he claims to have had about the direction of the war on terrorism, or what we were doing to confront the threat posed by Iraq, by the former regime.

Oh my!

Medicare will have to begin dipping into its trust fund this year to keep up with expenditures and will go broke by 2019 without changes in a program that is swelling because of rising health costs, trustees reported Tuesday.

The deteriorating financial picture for the health care program for older and disabled Americans is a result, in part, of the new Medicare prescription drug law that will swell costs by more than $500 billion over 10 years, according to the annual report by government trustees.

THE PRESIDENT: He's following an interesting strategy. The other day, here in Florida, he claimed some important endorsements from overseas. He won't tell us the name of the foreign admirers. That's okay, either way I'm not too worried because I'm going to keep my campaign right here in America. (Applause.)

AUDIENCE: USA! USA! USA!...

THE PRESIDENT: It is the President's job to confront problems, not to pass them on to future Presidents or future generations. (Applause.) It is the President's job to step up and make the tough decisions and to keep his commitments. And that is how I will continue to lead our great nation. (Applause.)

AUDIENCE: Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!...

THE PRESIDENT: My opponent has a different view of tax relief. When we passed an increase in the child credit to help families, he voted against it.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: When we reduced the marriage penalty, he voted against it.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: When we created a lower 10-percent tax rate for working families, he voted against it.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

[etc.]

Now, it's one thing to put stump speeches online. The President, as a public figure, should have all public statements catalogued. But it's quite another to include responses by an audience hand-selected by the President. Does this add anything to the transcript? Or rather, is it purely base promotion? More: is it even accurate? Was this the whole crowd? Were there competing comments? Will the White House post the audience's response when the President speaks at public gatherings (if he ever does such a thing)?

The an official government website. Is it appropriate to sex it up like this? (That's actually an open question, not a rhetorical one. It seems slimy to me, but maybe I'm missing something.)

I was relatively surprised to hear of the market's slide as I half-listened to Marketplace while preparing lamb curry for dinner. There, analysts asserted "terrorism fears" were the dominant reason for the slide, a conclusion the NYTimes supported as well. My interest, however, increased exponentially when I read the second half of the Times brief para on the subject in today's report:

The turbulence in the Middle East discouraged equity investors already uneasy about a slow economic recovery and tepid job growth. Wall Street was also worried about decreased consumer spending due to rising oil prices. [emphasis mine]

So I've only been blathering on about this very possibility for nigh over a year now, about every time we've seen a serious spike in prices. $40/barrel has generally been what more analysts regard as the potential tipping point back into recession, and prices have bounded above $38/barrel in recent weeks.

(Comment: The Bushies' strategy regarding the economy--as with everything--is to isolate facts. You not only don't connect dots, but you pathologically sequester them. This is an under-reported dot.)

In the round-up of the Sunday talk shows, Liberal Oasis points out something the Clarke obsessed (don't know who that might be) may have missed:

On ABC?s This Week, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), was making a little confession of his own:

I was wrong about Bush...

...In my many hours of discussions with him after 9/11, before we went into Iraq... I didn't think he was so fixated on Iraq.

I didn't think he really was unrelenting, go into Iraq no matter what.

Some people told me he was.

And as he referred to "some people," he patted his friend Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) three times on the knee.

Hagel didn't seem to mind, and he sought no clarification.

(Comment: This is the secret problem the Bushies face this year--party division. As long as the economy continues to sink and foreign policy remains a muddle, GOP congressfolk are going to keep one foot on firm ground in case the Bush ship sinks. The more it lists, the more they'll be shifting their weight.)

Bohemian Mama wants to save Angel, the TV show:

The Save Angel Campaign got national coverage today. Quality television must be defended! Go Angel Savers!

(Comment: Well, it's certainly a lot better than the competition.)

In the midst of the Clarke storm, Norbizness points us to this fact (from Dana Millbank at the Post):

In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows...

... Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, working within the White House limits, cut the FBI's request for items such as computer networking and foreign language intercepts by half, cut a cyber-security request by three quarters and eliminated entirely a request for 'collaborative capabilities.'...

... A draft of Ashcroft's 'Strategic Plan' from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs"

Comment: Millbank's Clintonite scum! No, wait...)

Suburban Guerrilla: all of it.

(Comment: Are those footsteps Atrios is hearing? Susan's been increasingly becoming the go-to blogger for news.)

Since I started with the economy, let me finish there. Nathan Newman talks turkey--or rather, China. And jobs. It's one of the best posts I've read on the jobs issues, and you absolutely must click here.

Some analysts will wave away the problem, noting that China's $168 billion in exports to the United States is only a bit more than 1% of the $11 trillion US Gross Domestic Product (GDP).... But dollars are not the real issue. Jobs are. And the question is how many jobs are represented by that $168 billion in exports by China....

So think about the US economy this way-- to produce all the goods and services Americans consume, it takes 138 million American workers and 90 million Chinese workers (plus some additional number of workers producing other imported goods) to make them.

MR. McCLELLAN: It appears from what I've seen that he's been more focused on the process than the substance. It appears to be more about Dick Clarke than about the substance. For the President, it's more about the actions that we are taking to protect the American people. Mr. Clarke has been out there talking about what title he had; he's been out there talking about whether or not he was participating in certain meetings. So it appears to be more about the process than the actual actions we have taken.

I'm going to quit harping on all this soon, but indulge me. The press briefing continues:

Q That seems a little simple, doesn't it, Scott? I mean, the process matters when you work in the White House and have to get the attention of superiors who ultimately have the President's ear to make a decision. So isn't that a little disingenuous to dismiss it as a process complaint?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, wait a second here. This is a gentleman that left the administration one-and-a-half years ago. Certainly let's go to the facts. These threats did not happen overnight. These threats have been building for quite some time. Go back to the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. Go back to the 1998 attacks on United States embassies. Go back to the 2000 attack on the USS Cole. These threats had been building for quite some time. Dick Clarke was here for some eight years. This administration was here for some 230 days before the attacks of September 11th....

Q Why do you think he's doing this?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, why, all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he's raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book. Certainly let's look at the politics of it. His best buddy is Rand Beers, who is the principal foreign policy advisor to Senator Kerry's campaign. The Kerry campaign went out and immediately put these comments up on their website that Mr. Clarke made....

Q Scott, the whole point of his book is he says that he did raise these concerns and he was not listened to by his superiors.

I guess we see how the White House is going to handle this. By now it's become a pretty familiar pattern. Once again someone close to the President offers a version of how things played out that is damning. It also happens to cleave very closely to the facts as we watched them play out externally. The White House obfuscates and offers alternative explanations about how things happened, and these don't look anything at all like what we saw play out. Will it further erode the President's credibility? Hard to see how it won't.

(Now I promise to drop the Clarke business.)

"He was the head of terrorism there [the Clinton administration] for several years, and I didn't notice they had a particularly strong effect on terrorism."

So that's what they're saying on the fringe: Clarke's a spurned Clintonite who's lashing out because he got demoted by Bush.

(No one, so far, seems to be rebutting Clarke's sharpest accusation: that there was no intel linking al Qaida and Iraq, and that the White House knew this, but decided to invade anyway. I wonder why?)

[Update: Josh points us to the Limbaugh/Cheney transcript. The quote I paraphrased actually read like this: "As I say, he was head of counterterrorism for several years there in the nineties, and I didn't notice that they had any great success dealing with the terrorist threat."

And since we have the transcript, here's Rush's feeble attempt to cast this as Clinton's fault: "[Y]ou have the Clinton administration, if they defended the country as eagerly and with as much fervor as they are attempting to defend themselves in all this, we might have -- I don't expect you to comment -- we might have escaped some of the attacks that we've had."]

"We committed more funding to counterterrorism and intelligence efforts. We increased efforts to go after al Qaeda's finances.... We pushed hard to arm the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle so we could target terrorists with greater precision.... We also considered a modest spring 2001 increase in funding for the Northern Alliance."

She goes on to make statements that do seem to run against Clarke's charges, though, and charges that will certainly be challenged in days to come.

Through the summer increasing intelligence "chatter" focused almost exclusively on potential attacks overseas. Nonetheless, we asked for any indication of domestic threats and directed our counterterrorism team to coordinate with domestic agencies to adopt protective measures....

Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack airplanes to try to free U.S.-held terrorists.

But that's not the impression Clarke, the president's lead man on terrorism, gives. Clarke:

"George Tenet was saying to the White House, saying to the president - because he briefed him every morning - a major al Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead. He said that in June, July, August."

Clarke went on to give some details of existing intel pre-9/11--including the fact that the US knew two of the suspected bombers were in the US already.

"[Bush] never thought it was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his National Security Adviser to hold a Cabinet-level meeting on the subject."

"The cabinet meeting I asked for right after the inauguration took place-- one week prior to 9/11."

Finally, Rice is forced to make one admission--and it's possibly the most damaging of all. In the 60 Minutes interview, Clarke accused the White House of immediately trying to use 9/11 as an excuse for invading Iraq. Rice rebuts this, but admits:

Once advised that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for Sept. 11, the president told his National Security Council on Sept. 17 [2001] that Iraq was not on the agenda and that the initial U.S. response to Sept. 11 would be to target al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

So the White House had recieved intelligence that there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Why then did the administration continue to promote those links? Why then does Dick Cheney continue to promote those links?

Clarke, who is expected to testify Tuesday before a federal panel reviewing the attacks, writes in a new book going on sale Monday that Bush and his Cabinet were preoccupied during the early months of his presidency with some of the same Cold War issues that had faced his father's administration.

"It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier," Clarke told CBS for an interview Sunday on its "60 Minutes" program....

Clarke acknowledges that, "there's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too." He said he wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on Jan. 24, 2001, asking "urgently" for a Cabinet-level meeting "to deal with the impending al-Qaida attack." Months later, in April, Clarke met with deputy cabinet secretaries, and the conversation turned to Iraq.

"I'm sure I'll be criticized for lots of things, and I'm sure they'll launch their dogs on me," Clarke said. "But frankly I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something...."

"Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said, 'Iraq did this,'" said Clarke, who told the president that U.S. intelligence agencies had never found a connection between Iraq and al-Qaida.

"He came back at me and said, 'Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection,' and in a very intimidating way," Clarke said....

"Bin Laden had been saying for years, 'America wants to invade an Arab country and occupy it, an oil-rich Arab country.' This is part of his propaganda," Clarke said. "So what did we do after 9/11? We invade ... and occupy an oil-rich Arab country, which was doing nothing to threaten us."

1. Thousands of protesters turned out nationwide Saturday to mark the first anniversary of the start of the U.S.-led war on Iraq and call for the removal of American troops from the Middle East country.

A Manhattan rally was one of 250 anti-war protests scheduled around the country by United for Peace and Justice. Hundreds of thousands of activists also raised their voices at rallies in London, Cairo, Tokyo and other cities around the globe.

-----------------

2. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld almost immediately urged President Bush to consider bombing Iraq after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York and Washington, says a former senior administration counterterrorism aide.

Richard A. Clarke, the White House counterterrorism coordinator at the time, recounts in a forthcoming book details of a meeting the day after the terrorist attacks during which top officials considered the U.S. response. Even then, he said, they were certain that al-Qaida was to blame and there was no hint of Iraqi involvement.

-----------------

3. President Bush used the first rally of his re-election campaign to cast Democrat John Kerry on Saturday as a serial tax-raiser who has voted for tax increases 350 times. He also mocked Kerry's claims of support from undisclosed foreign leaders.

That all makes sense to you, right?
________________
* Those are all stories from today's AP wire (20 March '04)

President Bush's campaign is following an aggressive and precise 90-day media strategy to define Senator John Kerry as indecisive and lacking conviction, with a coordinated blitz of advertisements, speeches and sound bites, senior campaign advisers said this week.

The goal, several campaign aides said, is to first strip Mr. Kerry of the positive image that he carried away from the Democratic primary contests and then to define him issue by issue in their own terms before the summer vacation season. The central thrusts will be national security and taxes, they said.

The aides said the strategy was planned weeks ago in coordination with Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's chief political aide, while Mr. Kerry was battling for his party's nomination.

The aides are following a tight timetable, they said, and they want to have defined Mr. Kerry on their terms between now and early June, when they expect voters to stop paying close attention to politics, at least for a time.

If there was ever an action that was more wholly symbolic of the approach of this administration, I'd be hard-pressed to come up with it. What arrogance! The administration is in effect saying: "we plan to subvert the media's voice, and we're telling you ahead of time how we plan to do that so that you (the media) may more effectively capitulate to it. We intend to create a wholly artificial impression of a presidential candidate that we created from careful focus-grouping and polling, and we expect you to dutifully present it as fact." It is, by the way, also a fantastically arrogant view of the malleability of the electorate:

"The goal is right now," said a Bush adviser, "while he's weak, while they're financially struggling, to strip him of all the good that somehow in my opinion erroneously got attached to him."

Poor, woeful voters, somehow attaching "all the good" to this candidate. The Bushies will soon disabuse them of their own opinions. When they're done, a quarter of a billion dollars later, they will have instilled the proper beliefs into the heads of the feebleheaded voters.

The real question is whether the press will go along with it. Even a quarter of a billion dollars won't help if the paid advertisements run starkly in contrast to what journalists report. The Bushies aren't worried, though. They obviously think reporters will fall in line and parrot their talking points. Bushies have little reason to think otherwise--so far the press hasn't challenged the President even once when he rolls out one of his embarrassingly dubious claims.

What's amazing is that the administration is not only confident the press will fall in line, but they're confident they can show them exactly which manipulations they'll use and still expect them to fall in line. Will they? Time will tell.

Back now to the battle over allies between President Bush and Democratic candidate John Kerry. Earlier today I spoke with the former diplomatic troubleshooter Richard Holbrooke. The one-time ambassador to the United Nations during the Clinton administration, is now a foreign policy adviser for the Kerry campaign . . .

BLITZER: Ambassador Holbrooke, thanks very much for joining us. A little revised version of what John Kerry said. He said, "I've met more leaders who can't go out and say it all publicly, but boy, they look at you and say, you got to win. This you got to beat this guy, we need a new policy, things like that." So there is enormous energy out there. The president today said, if he makes an accusation, he has a responsibility to back it up. What do you say?

RICHARD HOLBROOKE, FRM. U.S. AMB. TO U.N.: John Kerry committed an unpardonable crime in Washington: he spoketh the truth. What he said is self-evidently true.

There's a new poll out today by the Pew Institute, a worldwide pool, which shows massive and growing anti-Americanism around the world. Now American voters need to make up their own mind who they prefer, George W. Bush or John Kerry. But they also ought to know this administration is isolating us in the world, weakening us. Recent events in Spain, this election are another example.

John Kerry said something everybody knows is true. And, Wolf, you know it's true.

And why don't I say just one other thing. Why don't you, instead of staging a silly he said/he said between the White House, which is throwing all this mud at John Kerry after he said something true. Why don't you poll your foreign correspondents on CNN. And ask them who the population and leaderships in the world would prefer to see elected? Very simple.

BLITZER: That may be for future course of action. But there's no doubt that when the president of the United States says to John Kerry, you make this charge, back it up, what's wrong with that? Why can't he say this leader said this to me, this leader said that to me. Why can't he just explain what he meant?

HOLBROOKE: I have been in the last six months in Africa, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. I have met with leaders and members of the leadership that lead in every one of those countries.

BLITZER: Be specific.

HOLBROOKE: Look, Wolf, if you want me to say that such and such a foreign minister...

BLITZER: I do, if that's what they said to you.

HOLBROOKE: Wolf, you've been a foreign correspondent for many years, you don't reveal your sources when they're said in confidence. And it would be inappropriate and wrong -- these foreign ministers -- and you know this perfectly well as a very distinguished foreign correspondent.

These foreign leaders say something to you in confidence. They have to work with the incumbent administration. The Bush administration knows that you as a journalist have [to] protect sources. It is self-evident.

John Kerry simply said the truth. Everyone knows it. Look at...

BLITZER: Let me interrupt. When I interviewed Donald Rumsfeld, the defense secretary on Sunday, he pointed it out there's an unprecedented coalition of the willing. Ninety countries have backed the president in the war on terror. And there are 30 or 40 countries with the U.S. in Iraq right now.

HOLBROOKE: Mighty allies like Palau and the Marshall Islands. Let's get real. The United States did not forge a wide enough coalition.

Look, I supported the effort to overthrow Saddam. I'm glad he's is gone. So did John Kerry. But the fact is the way the administration did it fractured a lot of our traditional alliances. We have less support in the world today, Spain is exhibit A, than we've ever had before. And we need to rebuild it. That's what John Kerry will do.

BLITZER: Is the major lesson from the Spanish election that the people of Spain oppose the U.S. policy in the war against Iraq, in the war on terrorism? Or is it that the former Spanish government misled everyone by saying it was ETA, the Basque separatists movement, when it turns out, apparently, to have been some sort of Islamist group?

HOLBROOKE: It's clearly a combination of both those factors. And the real lesson here is that 90 percent of the Spanish people oppose the support of the United States. Aznar was brave and I admire him for supporting us, as has Tony Blair been, as Berlusconi in Italy been.

But the Spanish people decided that they wanted to change course and that was the issue that did it. I think it's extremely unfortunate that terrorism may have played a part in this. But the fact is the Spanish people and the new leader don't support the United States.

BLITZER: But isn't this a win for the terrorists that they managed to topple a government in the aftermath of a horrible terrorist strike?

HOLBROOKE: George Will wrote in today's column in "The Washington Post" that it is the biggest victory for terrorism that the most immediate consequences that he believes has happened in history.

I don't buy that. I think the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914 which started World War I was a much bigger event.

I don't want to portray this as a triumph for terrorism. The terrorist who did this should not be encouraged. The American public will not react the same way the Spanish people did. I understand Will's point, but I'm not ready to share it.

BLITZER: I know you're a major supporter of John Kerry, you're a good Democrat. You want to be secretary of state?

HOLBROOKE: I am personally right now focused solely on assisting Senator Kerry, a long-term friend in achieving his goal and leading this country in a new direction which we desperately need. The American public seems to think while they favor Senator Kerry on every domestic issue, that this administration is stronger national defense and the war on terrorism.

My goal is to assist him in demonstrating clearly that this just isn't true. He has more experience in international affairs than the incumbent, he has traveled all over the world for years for years, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, service in Vietnam, father was a career diplomat. And that is my only goal right now.

BLITZER: Being the good diplomat that you are yourself. Thanks very much.

HOLBROOKE: Thank you, good journalist that you are yourself.

On the side of war, Bush and his boys have offered essentially four reasons to invade. They argue that: 1) Saddam Hussein's a bad man, 2) Saddam's repressed his own people, 3) Saddam's got weapons of mass destruction (WMD), 4) Saddam's a terrorist and/or terrorist supporter.

Corollary threats have been mentioned, although they haven't been identified in formal resolutions, either to the UN or congress. They include the sense that Iraq contributes to instability in the Middle East and that any restructuring of that region must begin with Iraq. In his words, "In one place, in one regime, we find all these dangers in their most lethal and aggressive forms exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront."

We know a lot more about those claims now. The first two were never in question--but they certainly didn't justify an invasion. The third and fourth have been proven false. This leaves the Bush administration with the corollary benefits, which include regional stability and individual Iraqi freedoms. In commercials and speeches, these seem adequate to rouse American hearts. But we didn't invade Iraq for corollary benefits. We invaded because Bush introduced a new doctrine--pre-emptive invasion. According to this doctrine, Bush reserved for the US the power to defend:

". . .the United States, the American people, and our interests at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders. While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country." (emphasis added)

The burden for invasion was extremely high. The confusion here arises where it always arises--in the confused rationales of the ideologically diverse Bush administration. On the one hand, neocons like Wolfowitz and Cheney approach foreign policy in a radical messianic mode, in which spreading American-style democracy is a moral imperative. Thus the rhetoric about an "axis of evil." On the other hand, cold warriors like Powell and Rumsfeld regarded invasion as an act of realpolitik, the movement of power by force into an important strategic region. For them, the "evil" business was merely justification.

But that confusion shouldn't hide the facts: the doctrine of pre-emption was the justification of this war. And by its own definition, it failed to meet the criteria. Pre-emption is: 1) a doctrine developed to combat terror; and 2) a doctrine that depends on immanent threat, even if the threat isn't immanent enough to qualify under accepted rules of war. But Iraq was not a terrorist state (or in the language of the Pentagon, not an "exporter of terror"), nor was there any threat to the US. Never mind the historic presence of WMD--we didn't invade punitively. We invaded because the White House told us that Saddam was an immanent terrorist threat and that American lives were at stake.

The war was an illegal one.

In one of Senator Kerry's recent observations about foreign policy, he informed his listeners that his ideas have gained strong support, at least among unnamed foreigners he's been spending time with. (Laughter.) Senator Kerry said that he has met with foreign leaders, and I quote, " who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that." End quote.

A few days ago in Pennsylvania, a voter asked Senator Kerry directly who these foreign leaders are. Senator Kerry said, "That's none of your business." (Laughter.) But it is our business when a candidate for President claims the political endorsement of foreign leaders. At the very least, we have a right to know what he is saying to foreign leaders that makes them so supportive of his candidacy. American voters are the ones charged with determining the outcome of this election - not unnamed foreign leaders. (Applause.)

What's interesting here--well, there's so much, but anyway the most interesting--is how Cheney's echo chamber has deadened his ears to irony. This is the Veep of the President who looked into Vladimir Putin's eyes and saw him as a kindred spirit. A Veep who has spent three years in hiding, trying to avoid releasing information about his own secret dealings. Secret dealings that, of course, directly affected US domestic and foreign policy.

What follows in the Cheney remarks are 1200 words of anti-Kerry rhetoric. As I wrote yesterday, they are textbook examples of fear mongering. The Bush team is prepared to pull out all the stops to call Kerry a traitorous, cowardly fool. It's harsh, harsh stuff.

Even if we set aside these inconsistencies and changing rationales, at least this much is clear: Had the decision belonged to Senator Kerry, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, today, in Iraq. In fact, Saddam Hussein would almost certainly still be in control of Kuwait. (Laughter.) ...

If such dismissive terms are the vernacular of the golden age of diplomacy Senator Kerry promises, we are left to wonder which nations would care to join any future coalition. He speaks as if only those who openly oppose America's objectives have a chance of earning his respect....

On national security, the Senator has shown at least one measure of consistency. Over the years, he has repeatedly voted against weapons systems for the military. He voted against the Apache helicopter, against the Tomahawk cruise missile, against even the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. He has also been a reliable vote against military pay increases - opposing them no fewer than 12 times....

Whatever the explanation, whatever nuances he might fault us for neglecting, it is not an impressive record for someone who aspires to become Commander-in-Chief in this time of testing for our country. In his years in Washington, Senator Kerry has been one vote of a hundred in the United States Senate - and fortunately on matters of national security, he was very often in the minority. But the presidency is an entirely different proposition. The President always casts the deciding vote. And the Senator from Massachusetts has given us ample doubts about his judgment and the attitude he brings to bear on vital issues of national security.

There's the playbook. It's going to get ugly; all of these themes and more are going to be the central theme of the election. They're going to come from all sides--cronies in the GOP, media lackies like Rush, hit piece ads. They want to hang a label on Kerry, and this how they're going to try to do it. Kerry must work just as hard to present himself as a can-do guy with a plan.

I guess the upside is that now we know what's coming.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon plans to withhold about $300 million in payments to Halliburton Co. because of possible overcharging for meals served to troops in Iraq and Kuwait, defense officials said Wednesday.

Starting next month, the Defense Department will begin withholding 15 percent of the money paid to Vice President Dick Cheney's former company on a multibillion-dollar contract to provide services such as food, housing, laundry and mail to American forces in Iraq.

"Dick Cheney's former company?" Can it be that the press is finally taking off its gloves?

This database identifies 237 specific misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq made by these five officials in 125 public appearances in the time leading up to and after the commencement of hostilities in Iraq.

Sound interesting? You betcha. Here's the opening paragraph:

ON March 19, 2003, US forces began military operations in Iraq. Addressing the nation about the purpose of the war on the day bombing began, President Bush state: "The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."

"If anything, we understated the case for war."
--Paul Wolfowitz, this morning on NPR (quoted from memory)

--------------------------------

"Do you think President Bush gave the country the most accurate information he had before going to war with Iraq, or do you think President Bush exaggerated information to make the case for war with Iraq?"

Most accurate: 48%
Exaggerated: 50%

NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, March 6-8, 2004.

--------------------------------

"Who do you trust to do a better job handling the US campaign against terror, Bush or Kerry?"

Bush: 54%
Kerry: 37%

ABC News/Washington Post poll, Feb. 10-11, 2004.

Three bizarre facts contront John Kerry this year. The first is that the Bush administration lied (and continues to lie) to justify an unnecessary war. The second is that most Americans know this. And the third is that they still trust Bush far more than Kerry to protect them from terrorists.

The only thing that can explain these facts is fear, but that doesn't make Kerry's job any easier. To win the presidency, Kerry may not have to get a majority of Americans thinking he's better on terror than Bush, but he's going to have to close the gap. From where I sit, he's got three choices. He can follow the Bush prescription and try to out-scare the public; he can make logical arguments about the actual state of security in America and point out Bush's failures therein; or he can offer specific plans that will convince voters that his alternative terrorism plan is adequate.

The first two choices are losers. He can't play the fear game because he won't convert the truly terrified, and everyone else will see it as desperate. So far, he's pursued the second course--seemingly baffled by the fact that a lying president who hasn't done much on the terrorism front is whooping him. But this one's a loser, too. People are scared, and fear is irrational; he can't provide logic and hope to combat it.

That leaves the third option, which is his only real hope. The good news is that he has a plan. The bad news is that no one knows what it is. The Bushies are already putting Kerry on the defensive and painting him as a confused tyrant-coddler with no plan. It would be tempting to strike back and try to paint Bush as a confused liar with a badly failed plan, but as true as this is, it becomes just so much rhetoric. If he's going to rise above the discussion, Kerry must lead with his plan. It shouldn't be so hard--every time the President attacks, it provides Kerry with free press to outline his strategy.

Kerry's plan fairly good one, too. It highlights American service, which is a great way to offset fear: people feel safer when they're doing something. He has a component that will train and coordinate local entities who are "first responders." This is a big weakness with the President--he hasn't provided much in the way of leadership or money to local governments. If Kerry can engage those local governments, they become part of his rhetorical team. (And look what happened when Bush pissed off NYC's firefighters.) The other big weakness in Bush's effort is his failure to protect key targets like ports, bridges, and energy installations. Again, Kerry has a plan to secure these.

Focusing on what he will do--and what Americans can do--is the only shot he's got. I don't think he'll ever fully overcome the Bush advantage here, but he doesn't need to. The war on terror is Bush's only winning issue; if Kerry can cut into it significantly, issues like jobs and the economy will decide the election.

"US citizen willing to enter civil union with English-speaking illegal alien. Must be willing to pay own rent and pretend to admire my comic book collection. Gamers a plus. Usual nons."

Pretty soon legal immigration is skyrocketing; INS agents are unwilling to monitor for sexual activity. Conservatives, having lost the hope of converting immigrants to the GOP, are incensed. Soon, marriage and civil unions are abandoned.

Hey, it could happen.

"Does anyone doubt that Americans and Europeans have different moral and political cultures?"

Actually, it's more than just the Europeans. We've become a coalition of one.

"Like the former days of the witch hunt, they are convinced that they exist, and if you see a black cat, well, that's evidence of the witch."

"So in a way, you could say that Iraq was perhaps as much punitive as it was pre-emptive. It was a reaction to 9/11 that we have to strike some theoretical, hypothetical links between Saddam Hussein and the terrorists. That was wrong. There wasn't anything."

"I am not suggesting that Blair and Bush spoke in bad faith, but I am suggesting that it would not have taken much critical thinking on their own part or the part of their close advisers to prevent statements that misled the public."

And most damningly, he also commented on the effect of the invasion--a point John Kerry and the Democrats absolutely need to make.

"Sorry to say it doesn't look that way. If the aim was to send a signal to terrorists that we are determined to take you on, that has not succeeded. In Iraq, it has bred a lot of terrorism and a lot of hatred to the Western world."

Kwiatkowski's right-wing critics could not challenge her facts, not a single one, so they immediately reached for the tar brush. The Wall Street Journal smeared her as "something of a right-wing crank." Max Boot, a conservative columnist for the Los Angeles Times, trashed her as "flaky." Then Clifford May, a hit man for the Republican National Committee, was given free reign by John Gibson, host of Fox News' "The Big Show," to drag the 20-year Air Force veteran through the mud after Fox turned off her microphone -- one more bold display of the network's commitment to fairness and balance. Once she was silenced, Gibson and May smeared Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski as an "anarchist" with "radical associations" to political weirdoes like Lyndon LaRouche.

Connections A politically savvy civilian-clothes-wearing lieutenant colonel named Bill Bruner served as the Iraq desk officer, and he had apparently joined NESA about the time Bill Luti did. I discovered that Bruner, like Luti, had served as a military aide to Speaker Gingrich. Gingrich himself was now conveniently an active member of Bush's Defense Policy Board, which had space immediately below ours on the third floor.

Doug Feith
Doug Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy, was a case study in how not to run a large organization.... He blithely informed us that for months he didn't realize Rumsfeld had a daily stand-up meeting with his four undersecretaries. He shared with us the fact that, after he started to attend these meetings, he knew better what Rumsfeld wanted of him. Most military staffers and professional civilians hearing this were incredulous, as was I, to hear of such organizational ignorance lasting so long and shared so openly. Feith's inattention to most policy detail, except that relating to Israel and Iraq, earned him a reputation most foul throughout Policy, with rampant stories of routine signatures that took months to achieve and lost documents. His poor reputation as a manager was not helped by his arrogance.

Descriptions of how politics drove intelligence.

Some bullets were softened, particularly statements of Saddam's readiness and capability in the chemical, biological or nuclear arena. Others were altered over time to match more exactly something Bush and Cheney said in recent speeches. One item I never saw in our talking points was a reference to Saddam's purported attempt to buy yellowcake uranium in Niger. The OSP list of crime and evil had included Saddam's attempts to seek fissionable materials or uranium in Africa. This point was written mostly in the present tense and conveniently left off the dates of the last known attempt, sometime in the late 1980s. I was surprised to hear the president's mention of the yellowcake in Niger in his 2003 State of the Union address because that indeed was new and in theory might have represented new intelligence, something that seemed remarkably absent in any of the products provided us by the OSP (although not for lack of trying). After hearing of it, I checked with my old office of Sub-Saharan African Affairs -- and it was news to them, too. It also turned out to be false.

And analysis about what was really going on.

It is interesting today that the "defense" for those who lied or prevaricated about Iraq is to point the finger at the intelligence. But the National Intelligence Estimate, published in September 2002, as remarked upon recently by former CIA Middle East chief Ray McGovern, was an afterthought. It was provoked only after Sens. Bob Graham and Dick Durban noted in August 2002, as Congress was being asked to support a resolution for preemptive war, that no NIE elaborating real threats to the United States had been provided. In fact, it had not been written, but a suitable NIE was dutifully prepared and submitted the very next month. Naturally, this document largely supported most of the outrageous statements already made publicly by Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld about the threat Iraq posed to the United States. All the caveats, reservations and dissents made by intelligence were relegated to footnotes and kept from the public. Funny how that worked.

And:

President Bush has now appointed a commission to look at American intelligence capabilities and will report after the election. It will "examine intelligence on weapons of mass destruction and related 21st century threats ... [and] compare what the Iraq Survey Group learns with the information we had prior..." The commission, aside from being modeled on failed rubber stamp commissions of the past and consisting entirely of those selected by the executive branch, specifically excludes an examination of the role of the Office of Special Plans and other executive advisory bodies. If the president or vice president were seriously interested in "getting the truth," they might consider asking for evidence on how intelligence was politicized, misused and manipulated, and whether information from the intelligence community was distorted in order to sway Congress and public opinion in a narrowly conceived neoconservative push for war. Bush says he wants the truth, but it is clear he is no more interested in it today than he was two years ago.

Kerry has made clear that if he is elected president, the nation will never face a caveat shortage. He has established the foragainst method, which has enabled him to be foragainst the war in Iraq, foragainst the Patriot Act and foragainst No Child Left Behind.

Clever, no? He's introduced a new term! But forget the cleverness (which isn't) and forget the argument. Kerry is on the winning side of this issue. He supported the initial vote on Iraq, but criticized the White House's handling of it. Exactly as voters did. Oh, and it also raises the specter of another past war, where Kerry served his country and earned the right to criticize his leaders' judgment. Exactly as the voters did. The "foragainst" argument opens up that can of worms as well. If pursued, this line of argument might make Brooks coin a phrase for Bush: "for wars I don't have to fight."

"We can summarize our conclusions as follows: (1) current Oregon laws prohibit county clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples; (2) under current law, the legal status of being "married" carries with it legal rights, benefits and obligations; and (3) the Oregon Supreme Court likely would conclude that withholding from the same-sex couples the legal rights, benefits and obligations that--under current law--are automatically granted to married couples of the opposite sex likely violates Article I, section 20 of the Oregon Constitution; but (4) because of the uncertainties about the Article I, Section 20 analysis that the Oregon Supreme Court would bring to bear on the question, it would be unwise to change current state practices until, and unless, a decision by the Supreme Court makes clear what, if any changes are required."

Article I, Section 20 of the Oregon Constitution reads:

"No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens."

Hardy Myers has a reputation for clear, objective reading of the law, and he appears to have given such an opinion. Reading it, a couple thoughts come to mind.

As a matter of strategy, granting all Multnomah County citizens the right to marriage licenses will force state law to come into compliance with the Oregon Constitution. I wrote last week that the decision was clearly a political one. Viewed in that light, the decision has obviously fast-tracked civil rights. Myers' opinion doesn't equivocate about whether the law currently affords same-sex couples the right to marry. In just two paragraphs, he provides evidence it does not.

"Although this section does not state expressly that a marriage must consist of a man and a woman, other statutes that provide context for it leave not doubt in this case.... The legislature has not defined 'husband' or 'wife' for purposes of chapter 106, but we see no basis for giving them other than their 'plain, natural and ordinary meaning.'"

What Multnomah County did was Constitutional, not legal. A funny distinction, but there you have it. To remedy the situation they made a political, not legal, decision. In terms of advancing civil rights, I'm prepared to say it was a good one. This issue should be clarified soon.

The second thing Myers makes clear is that while people may have attachment to the word "marriage," in a legal context, it is a specific designation. He makes a distinction between social value and legal value.

"Under current Oregon law, marriage carries with it a number of rights and responsibilities. Those benefits and obligations are automatically available to opposite-sex couples who choose to marry, but they are denied to same-sex couples who are otherwise similarly situated."

For those who wish to amend the Constitution, they'll have to install language that specifically removes rights from those Oregonians. Thanks to Myers' transparent, non-political language, we have a better idea of what's in front of us. Are Oregonians prepared to remove rights? It wouldn't be the first time, but I don't know that the state is itching to repeat past transgressions.

President Bush opened the White House and Camp David to dozens of overnight guests last year, including foreign dignitaries, family friends and at least nine of his biggest campaign fund-raisers, documents show....

Some guests spent a night in the Lincoln Bedroom, historic quarters that gained new fame in the Clinton administration amid allegations that Democrats rewarded major donors like Hollywood heavyweights Steven Spielberg and Barbra Streisand with accommodations there.

This President beholden to his political cronies? I'm stunned.

A body that surfaced in the East River on Sunday was identified by the city medical examiner yesterday as that of Spalding Gray, the confessional monologuist and actor who disappeared two months ago.

The NYT article contains this info: In his 1980 show "Point Judith," Mr. Gray spoke a line that may well have summed up his life and career. "It's very hard for me," he said, "not to tell everybody everything."

In fact, I prefer to think of it as a different line. It's in a book I had signed by a girlfriend of mine who was able to see one of his monologues in the early 90s. Ironically, I had just left to go to India. When I got home, she gave me the book and it was inscribed with what I think was a signature phrase of his. I consider it a more literary line and a wiser one. In it is the truth of the writer (and I assume, performer). It said:

"Dear Jeff, please laugh."

Photo: Raku Loren

Another less-publicized aspect of the ad flap: the use of paid actors—including two playing firefighters with fire hats and uniforms in what looks like a fire station. "Where the hell did they get those guys?" cracked Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, which has endorsed John Kerry, when he first saw the ads. (A union spokesman said the shots prompted jokes that the fire hats looked like the plastic hats "from a birthday party.") "There's many reasons not to use real firemen," retorted one Bush media adviser. "Mainly, its cheaper and quicker."

Nice work, George.

"I will continue to speak about the effects of 9/11 on our country and my presidency."

President Bush, speaking about his campaign ads, which include images of 9/11

Generally when I begin a post with a quote by Bush, it's to highlight the latest twisted logic, lie, or bumble. But on this one, I'm going to side with him. I saw the first ad last night (you can watch them here), and was surprised by how evenhanded they were. Two of the three current ads mention 9/11, but both in the context of difficulties the country has faced.

Bush continued: "How this administration handled that day, as well as the war on terror, is worthy of discussion. And I look forward to the debate about who best to lead this country in the war on terror."

He's exactly right. One of the most significant events in American history happened under his watch, and it's fair game. What he did in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy was far worse--there he exploited a vulnerable country with the Patriot Act, tax cuts, and an ill-advised war. He might easily slide into exploitation again--challenging Democrats' patriotism, as the GOP did with Max Cleland, for example. But these ads are far from that.

We do a disservice to the debate of public policy in this country if we can't talk 9/11. This is something the Dems should take to heart--Bush's record on fighting terror and uniting the country is something they should definitely highlight.

What arrogance. What self-indulgence. What breathtaking gall." The commishes employed a "dictatorial approach."
--Oregonian (Portland)

The implications for the impromptu violation of the democratic process in Oregon has very sinister implications for the rule of law in this State.
--Glendale News (Southern Oregon)

Every once in a while, political reformers try to encourage young people to start voting. The question somebody should ask is: Why? What's the point?On some important issues, as we have seen in Oregon, voting hardly matters.
--Democrat-Herald (Albany)

The Multnomah County commissioners have disgraced the Oregon Constitution and broken their pact with the public.
--Statesman Journal (Salem)

Anti-gay foes (an active political bloc) spring into action and use the process issue to drive support for proposed initiatives that would amend the constitution to ban gay marriage. Meanwhile, hundreds of couples receive marriage licenses from the County. Across the street, anti-gay protesters wave signs like one appearing on yesterday's Portland Tribune: "Can [Will?] you escape the wrath of God - Matthew 23:33"

Friday, May 5
The debate rages on talk shows and blogs. Oregon bloggers, a vast and well-informed lot, see their hit totals spike, and on at least one blog, a city councilman joins the discussion. Other Oregon communities begin to discuss with how they'll grapple with the question of issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.

Today
Now that everyone's settled down a little, it appears that the county commissioners may well win the "process" question after all. In today's Oregonian, two articles give an evenhanded consideration of the legal issues (seemingly refuting their earlier, ill-advised tough talk). From the first:

Multnomah County leaders endured months of public hearings and meetings before they adopted a domestic partner registry for couples, including gays, four years ago....

Because, county leaders say, the registry required a new law, which demands public hearings and action. By contrast, approving same-sex marriage was an administrative decision, an interpretation of current law.

The second article is , a law professor from the University of Oregon. commentary from Robert L. Tsai

Every elected official in Oregon takes an oath to uphold the laws and constitutions of the state and the nation. In fulfilling these obligations, public officials must independently interpret and apply the law every day in cities and counties around the state (the attorney general may offer his opinion but has no power to settle the legal issue). Invariably, there are real differences of legal opinion. Until a court of final resort has resolved the issues, there is room for good-faith disagreement about the scope of state law and requirements of the constitution.

Some time next week, Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers will issue his opinion on the commissioners' decision. One lawsuit has already been filed to stop the county from issuing further licenses, and more may follow. Expect the next stage of the battle to be legal. Meanwhile, anti-gay activists are chomping at the bit to start collecting signatures for their ballot measure. I'll keep you updated on the happenings.

"I promise you this, if George Bush loses the election, Osama bin Laden wins the election, it's that simple. It will be interpreted that way by enemies of the United States around the world."

"What do you think Hitler would have thought if Roosevelt would've lost the election in 1944? He would have thought American resolve was [weakening]."

"What would the confederacy have thought if Lincoln would have lost the election of 186[4]?"
--Rep. Tom Cole, R-Oklahoma, Yukon Review, 3/3/04

Rep. Cole, who felt the outrage at his comments was based on a misunderstanding, clarified:

"The Yukon Review mischaracterized my remarks in the opening lead of their story published yesterday. However, they did accurately quote parts of my speech during the Canadian County Republican Convention held last Saturday.

"I do believe that if President Bush is not re-elected, the United States' enemies around the world will take comfort and strength in the fact that such a strong war time leader would be out of office."

I don't know that there's anything I can add.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing that the government's definition of compost include sewage sludge. The rule change is couched in a December 10, 2003 Federal Register notice about proposed revisions to the Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines (CPG). It would consolidate all compost designations under one item called "compost made from recovered organic materials."

I'm sure things get reclassified all the time. We would hope that government agencies make these changes based on meeting their public-service objectives. To be clear, this is not one of those changes--it's political. Again.

The EPA's preferred method of disposal of sewage sludge in the United States is land application. To get the public to accept this has required a concerted effort from government and the sludge-industry to make the public think that sludge is "organic," "nutrient-rich," and otherwise "beneficial." Calling sludge "compost" is the agency's latest trick. The proposal here to "compost" sludge is based on the dependable presence of human feces in sludge. Human feces do indeed consist largely of organic matter. But sludge consists only partly of human feces.

It is the purpose of wastewater treatment to extract from sewage-and to concentrate in sludge-all the pollutants in wastewater. The intended product of wastewater treatment is clean water. Sludge is the inevitable byproduct that, by definition and intention, consists of every waste material a given wastewater treatment plant is capable of removing, or is incidentally removed, from the sewage in the process of treating the wastewater. This means that, besides human urine and feces, tens of thousands of chemicals-organic and inorganic, teratogenic and carcinogenic, toxic and estrogen mimicking-will be present in the sludge.

I guess you could call this another pile of shit from the GOP.

Long before President Bush's call for a "constitutional amendment protecting marriage," Representative Seaborn Roddenberry of Georgia proposed an amendment that he said would uphold the sanctity of marriage.

Mr. Roddenberry's proposed amendment, in December 1912, stated, "Intermarriage between Negroes or persons of color and Caucasians . . . is forever prohibited." He took this action, he said, because some states were permitting marriages that were "abhorrent and repugnant," and he aimed to "exterminate now this debasing, ultrademoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy."

"Let this condition go on if you will," Mr. Roddenberry warned. "At some day, perhaps remote, it will be a question always whether or not the solemnizing of matrimony in the North is between two descendants of our Anglo-Saxon fathers and mothers or whether it be of a mixed blood descended from the orangutan-trodden shores of far-off Africa." (His zoology was off: orangutans come from Asia, not Africa.)

In Mr. Bush's call for action last week, he argued that the drastic step of a constitutional amendment is necessary because "marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society." Mr. Roddenberry also worried about the risks ahead: "This slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation to a conflict as fatal and as bloody as ever reddened the soil of Virginia."

In the last half-century, there has been a stunning change in racial attitudes. All but nine states banned interracial marriages at one time, and in 1958, a poll found that 96 percent of whites disapproved of marriages between blacks and whites. Yet in 1997, 77 percent approved....

Mr. Bush is an indicator of a similar revolution in views -- toward homosexuality -- but one that is still unfolding. In 1994, Mr. Bush supported a Texas antisodomy law that let the police arrest gays in their own homes. Now the Bushes have gay friends, and Mr. Bush appoints gays to office without worrying that he will turn into a pillar of salt.

Apropos of the news of legalized gay marriage coming from Multnomah County this morning, I think it's worth mentioning that Kristof is an Oregonian (hailing from rural Yamhill County, however).

"I've passed being depressed about that."
--Jim Murphy, CBS Television Executive Producer

The folks at Pew Research recently found that a fifth of 18-29 year olds get their news from Jon Stewart. Just two percent more get their news from Tom, Peter, or Dan. Hence Murphy's depression. Indeed, it is surely that the younger generations can't be trusted to know the difference between comedy and news. The sky is falling. We're doomed. Soon these jokers will be running the country!

Murphy's assumption, and one I've seen a voiced often since Pew released that finding, is that the kids are catastrophically stupid and don't know better. How about this one: it's Murphy and the networks who are stupid.

The broadcast news model hasn't changed in 50 years. For 22 minutes a day (all right, that has changed--it used to be a little longer), the anchors offer reports on national and international news, business, health, culture, and entertainment. With variations in each network's special reports (call it four minutes), all three generally run identical stories. Fifty years ago, when this was the only avenue through which Americans saw images from around the world, when the nightly news had the glamor of "immediacy" (beating the papers by 12 hours), it was a dynamite format. But now we have ready access to hundreds of stations from dozens of countries (not to mention the internet). So you tell me--who's being stupid in defending the 50-year-old formula?

Here's what people younger than 30 think: the filter of "news" offered by Dan Rather is about as objective as an internet chat room. Where the networks mistakenly regard their broadcasts as definitive, the far more media-savvy young people see them as sales pitches. They've been weened since Sesame Street on sales pitches, so they know one when they see one. The product here is a mental environment conducive to sell Cialis and SUVs.

Jon Stewart is therefore reliable because, like his audience, he knows he's selling, and he knows what he's selling (topical humor). He's forthright about his bias and his show self-consciously does not offer "objective news." These editorial admissions, however, make his shows more transparent. The Daily Show is trying to kid you, but it's not kidding itself.

Unlike the saddened dinosaurs of the network news, who are blind to how compromised their "news" has become.

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts did appreciably better among poorer, less-educated respondents in Georgia, where he's running a tight race against Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, with respondents sharply divided on many issues.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure CNN's about to call Ohio for Kucinich, too. (All right, that's neither a fair nor balanced statement. It's in fact a blatant lie--no word yet on who the Buckeyes favor.)

The Senate overwhelmingly rejected a proposal today to provide legal immunity to gun manufacturers and dealers after a successful Democratic-led effort to use the measure to renew a ban on assault weapons and require more background checks on buyers at gun shows....

In the first of a series of votes on gun issues, the Senate, by a margin of 52 to 47, approved an extension of the 10-year-old ban on military-style assault weapons, handing a defeat to Republican opponents and gun rights groups that had sought to defeat the measure despite its broad support among law enforcement agencies.

Following the vote on the assault weapons ban, the Senate voted 53 to 46 to close what is known as the "gun-show loophole" and require people who buys firearms from private dealers at such shows to undergo background checks. The vote on that amendment was also a setback for the authors of the underlying measure, who had hoped to keep such amendments off the bill.

Good work, folks.

And that's going to be particularly important in dealing not only with situations such as now occurring in Israel, but with Saddam Hussein. The coalition against Saddam has fallen apart or it's unraveling, let's put it that way. The sanctions are being violated. We don't know whether he's developing weapons of mass destruction. He better not be or there's going to be a consequence should I be the president. But it's important to have credibility and credibility is formed by being strong with your friends and resoluting your determination. One of the reasons why I think it's important for this nation to develop an anti-ballistic missile system that we can share with our allies in the Middle East if need be to keep the peace is to be able to say to the Saddam Husseins of the world or the Iranians, don't dare threaten our friends. It's also important to keep strong ties in the Middle East, credible ties, because of the energy crisis we're now in. After all, a lot of the energy is produced from the Middle East, and so I appreciate what the administration is doing.

There were a number of things that have a strange relevance now--even more so than 6 months ago.

You mentioned Haiti. I wouldn't have sent troops to Haiti. I didn't think it was a mission worthwhile. It was a nation building mission, and it was not very successful. It cost us billions, a couple billions of dollars, and I'm not so sure democracy is any better off in Haiti than it was before.

Gay Marriage
I'm not sure what kind of view [Vice President Gore] is describing to me. I can just tell you, I'm a person who respects other people. I respect their -- I respect -- on the one hand he says he agrees with me and then he says he doesn't. I'm not sure where he's coming from. But I will be a tolerant person. I've been a tolerant person all my life. I just happen to believe strongly that marriage is between a man and a woman.

MODERATOR: Do you believe in general terms that gays and lesbians should have the same rights as other Americans?

BUSH: Yes. I don't think they ought to have special rights, but I think they ought to have the same rights.

[Some back and forth with Jim Lehrer.]

Well, I have no idea. I mean, he can throw out all kinds -- I don't know the particulars of this law. I will tell you I'm the kind of person, I don't hire or fire somebody based upon their sexual orientation. As a matter of fact, I would like to take the issue a little further. I don't really think it's any of my -- you know, any of my concerns what -- how you conduct your sex life. And I think that's a private matter. And I think that's the way it ought to be. But I'm going to be respectful for people, I'll tolerate people, and I support equal rights but not special rights for people.

Then there are the contradictory, which are always the most amusing. Relish these moments...

Nation Building
I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation building core from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops. I strongly believe we need to have a military presence in the peninsula, not only to keep the peace in the peninsula, but to keep regional stability. And I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO, but I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the extra strategy obvious.

Tax Cuts
The top -- let's talk about my tax plan. The top 1% will pay one-third of all the federal income taxes. And in return, get one-fifth of the benefits, because most of the tax reductions go to the people at the bottom end of the economic ladder. That stands in stark contrast, by the way, to a man who is going to leave 50 million -- 50 million Americans out of tax relief. We just have a different point of view. It's a totally different point of view. He believes only the right people ought to get tax relief. I believe everybody who pays taxes ought to get tax relief.

Global Warming
Yeah, I agree. I just -- I think there has been -- some of the scientists, I believe, Mr. Vice President, haven't they been changing their opinion a little bit on global warming? But science, there's a lot -- there's differing opinions. And before we react, I think it's best to have the full accounting, full understanding of what's taking place. And I think to answer your question, I think both of us care a lot about the environment. We may have different approaches.

"Exaggerations"
I think credibility is important. It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations. And yes, I think it's something that people need to consider. This isn't something new. I read a report, or a memo, from somebody in his 1988 campaign -- I forgot the fellow's name -- warning then Senator Gore to be careful about exaggerating claims. I thought during his debate with Senator Bradley saying he authored the EITC when it didn't happen.... I found it to be an issue in trying to defend my tax relief package. I thought there was some exaggerations about the numbers. But the people are going to have to make up their mind on this issue. And I am going to continue to defend my record and defend my propositions against what I think are exaggerations.

(All the quotes are from October 11, 2000, in a debate with Al Gore in Winston-Salem, NC.)

The Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) Office of General Counsel yesterday proposed a tough set of rules to regulate independent groups that plan to spend tens of millions of dollars in soft money in this election year.

Yesterday’s proposal kicks off a two-month rulemaking process that Republicans and members of the campaign finance reform community hope will culminate in rules that significantly restrict the activities of these mainly liberal-leaning groups.

When rich people band together to fund political activity, it's legal. When poor people do it, it's corruption. Anyway, that appears to be the GOP line. (A radical notion is that it's all corruption. But thanks to the Supreme Court, which ruled money is speech, fixing the Nile River of cash flowing into GOP coffers is well nigh impossible. Best to stop the trickle flowing toward Dems, I guess.) Are there downsides to FEC regulation? You betcha.

"Some of the language is broad enough to sweep within it many nonprofits that are not involved in genuine electoral advocacy," said Elliot Mincberg, legal director of People for the American Way, a 501(c)4 that advocates on judicial nominees. "I believe nonprofits have to pay very careful attention to this to make sure the FEC is not able in the name of election reform to severely limit nonprofit advocacy."

The GOP will no doubt shed a few crocodile tears for the nonprofits and then push for the stricter controls. I wonder, will they remain as vigilent toward other potentially corrupting streams of money flowing into politics? Oh come on, what are you--a cynic?

In the weeks before the war, the British Government conveyed to Washington its concerns about the war, explaining that the preponderance of its legal opinion was that war would be unlawful without a second resolution of the Security Council.

As you know, the Brits ultimately backed the war, dispite misgivings. Why? On urging from the White House, they dug around until they found lawyers who said it was legal.

After the warning, Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, approached one of only two British lawyers who took a "hawkish" view of international law. The Government's top law officer then based his own legal opinion authorising the Iraq invasion on the new advice, the Whitehall source has said.

Can't blame that on the intelligence, can you?