Clarke part XXXV
dmn I CNNot believe tht they r this dishonest.
Blitzer vs Blitzer
Over at Atrios I see that CNN has disgraced itself on two separate issues in one day. First they seem to have bought and broadcast two different lies about a trivial issue, whether a kid fell asleep at a Bush speach. Second, and much more importantly, Wolf Blitzer clearly lied on the air when attempting to defend himself from paul Krugman's criticism. The second case is a bit buried in the howler.
From Atrios and the Howler very very briefly
"BLITZER (3/30/04): ... I was not referring to anything charged by so-called unnamed White House officials as alleged today by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. I was simply seeking to flesh out what Bush National Security Council spokesman Jim Wilkinson had said on this program two days earlier."
"BLITZER (question to King, Wednesday, 3/24/04): What administration officials have been saying since the weekend, basically that Richard Clarke from their vantage point was a disgruntled former government official, angry because he didn't get a certain promotion. He's got a hot new book out now that he wants to promote. He wants to make a few bucks, and that his own personal life, they're also suggesting that there are some weird aspects in his life as well"
The "so called" unnamed White House officials are quoted as unnamed administration officials by the so called journalist Wolf Blitzer. He is nailed on video.
Also note that the shred of consistency in Blitzer's denial, the change from "administration" to "White House" does not imoly even a tiny error by Krugman who simply refered to "unnamed officials" .
Amazingly I think that Atrios went easy on Blitzer (never expected to type that) since he says that it is possible that on 4/23 Blitzer really was referring to Wilkinson. Clearly he wasn't. Wilkinson is duplicitous, but he is also singular.
Also it is an elementary rule of journalistic ethics that one should not quote vague insinuations by unnamed sources. Blitzer would have to be completely indifferent to journalistic ethics to have done so when he could have referred to a statement made on video in an interview with him. Of course this is not, by itself, proof, since Blitzer would have to be completely indifferent to journalistic ethics to lie on the air or. We can, at least be sure that Blitzer is completely indifferent to journalistic ethics.
As icing on the cake, Blitzer rebroadcasted Wilkinson's absurd smear (I agee with Josh Marshall that it takes the hotly contested prize for most absurd thing said by the Bush administration in the past 10 days). Blitzer should have called Wilkinson on it immediately. Given time to check the book and find that Wilkinson is lying about what Clarke wrote, he really must point out the inconsistency whenever he re broadcasts the video.
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Robet Bumiller responds to Brad DeLong
DeLong's "assertion that whether [Richard] Clarke was out-of-the-loop or was the loop itself is a matter of fact, and that a reporter has a duty to ascertain and to report to her readers such matters of fact, did not meet with a response."
Well Brad, it is true that the question of whether Clarke was out of the loop falls on the fact side of the fact value distinction. However, VP Cheney's claim that "Well, he wasn't in the loop frankly on a lot of this stuff," does not exactly maximize the Popperian desiderandum of falsifiability [don't worry Brad DeLong knows what the hell that means whether or not I do]. The problem, professor DeLong, is to identify the meaning, and Platonic Ideal of "a lot of this stuff" and to distinguish it from the mere referent and signification of the aformentioned collocation of vocabules.
There is also the profound problem (explained to me by Dan Smith) of counterfactual conditionals. How. indeed, may a simple working journalist attempt to interpret a sentence in which VP Cheney chooses to include the word "frankly". Who among us is capable of imagining the hypothetical conceivable (but not possible) world in which Mr VP Cheney speaks frankly ?
I do not understand how anyone who is unwilling to confront the implications for quantum mechanics of the EPR experiment could dare to criticise Ms Bumiller for her unwillingness to explore the landscape of purely hypothetical impossible words in print in the NYT.
DeLong's "assertion that whether [Richard] Clarke was out-of-the-loop or was the loop itself is a matter of fact, and that a reporter has a duty to ascertain and to report to her readers such matters of fact, did not meet with a response."
Well Brad, it is true that the question of whether Clarke was out of the loop falls on the fact side of the fact value distinction. However, VP Cheney's claim that "Well, he wasn't in the loop frankly on a lot of this stuff," does not exactly maximize the Popperian desiderandum of falsifiability [don't worry Brad DeLong knows what the hell that means whether or not I do]. The problem, professor DeLong, is to identify the meaning, and Platonic Ideal of "a lot of this stuff" and to distinguish it from the mere referent and signification of the aformentioned collocation of vocabules.
There is also the profound problem (explained to me by Dan Smith) of counterfactual conditionals. How. indeed, may a simple working journalist attempt to interpret a sentence in which VP Cheney chooses to include the word "frankly". Who among us is capable of imagining the hypothetical conceivable (but not possible) world in which Mr VP Cheney speaks frankly ?
I do not understand how anyone who is unwilling to confront the implications for quantum mechanics of the EPR experiment could dare to criticise Ms Bumiller for her unwillingness to explore the landscape of purely hypothetical impossible words in print in the NYT.
closely roughly (dis)honest
I think it is roughly true that Matthew Yglesias is close to being dishonest and stupid, that is to say the facts are close to those which would imply that Matthew Yglesias is, roughly, stupid, that is, more or less, dishonest.
In other other words I think that Matthew Yglesias is a genius who is capapable of almost any intellectual feat other than dishonesty.
I mention this because his typically brilliant attack on Bush administration mendacity which is also a typically frank attack on Bush administration stupidity, he uses weasle words to say things which are technically true but misleading.
for example "conventional wisdom has had it that compensatory mechanisms and the effects of aggregation lead to roughly the same outcomes we would have if we had a better-informed electorate."
OK how conventional is this wisdom ? Is it the mean wisdom or the median wisdom or is it something Matthew Yglesias just made up ? More to the point, how roughly is roughly ?
Viewing the whole sorry spectacle of historical figures Bush and Gore have a lot more in common with each other than either has with Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Mohandas Gandhi, Joseph Stalin, Jesus Christ or Socrates. Does this mean that the 2000 election was roughly irrelevant ?
(by the way if given the choice of any of the above I would still have voted for Gore).
here's another one "misinformation...evidence has been found showing that the Iraqi regime worked closely with al-Qaeda." How closely is closely ? I agree with Yglesias that Americans are fundamentally confused about the facts of the case.
The problem is that Yglesias, while making an honest, valid ,and patently true point, is forced to use exactly the same weasle words and verbal tricks that have been so useful to the Bush administration when propagating their deceptions.
Is there something wrong with the English language ? Hell no try Italian.
There is a deep problem with the world and it's complexity.
I think, to paraphrase Borges, the world is too complicated for the mind of a mere Matthew Yglesias. There is no hope for the rest of us.
I think it is roughly true that Matthew Yglesias is close to being dishonest and stupid, that is to say the facts are close to those which would imply that Matthew Yglesias is, roughly, stupid, that is, more or less, dishonest.
In other other words I think that Matthew Yglesias is a genius who is capapable of almost any intellectual feat other than dishonesty.
I mention this because his typically brilliant attack on Bush administration mendacity which is also a typically frank attack on Bush administration stupidity, he uses weasle words to say things which are technically true but misleading.
for example "conventional wisdom has had it that compensatory mechanisms and the effects of aggregation lead to roughly the same outcomes we would have if we had a better-informed electorate."
OK how conventional is this wisdom ? Is it the mean wisdom or the median wisdom or is it something Matthew Yglesias just made up ? More to the point, how roughly is roughly ?
Viewing the whole sorry spectacle of historical figures Bush and Gore have a lot more in common with each other than either has with Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Mohandas Gandhi, Joseph Stalin, Jesus Christ or Socrates. Does this mean that the 2000 election was roughly irrelevant ?
(by the way if given the choice of any of the above I would still have voted for Gore).
here's another one "misinformation...evidence has been found showing that the Iraqi regime worked closely with al-Qaeda." How closely is closely ? I agree with Yglesias that Americans are fundamentally confused about the facts of the case.
The problem is that Yglesias, while making an honest, valid ,and patently true point, is forced to use exactly the same weasle words and verbal tricks that have been so useful to the Bush administration when propagating their deceptions.
Is there something wrong with the English language ? Hell no try Italian.
There is a deep problem with the world and it's complexity.
I think, to paraphrase Borges, the world is too complicated for the mind of a mere Matthew Yglesias. There is no hope for the rest of us.
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Clarke part XXXIII
Richard Clarke vs his admirers part 1
As if an assault using the classification system, Senatorial immunity, shock, and awe were not enough, Richard Clarke is now faced with rumors of rumors of irrelevant rumors.
I would like to stress that the post below was intended to suggest that Gaius Jiulius Caesar and Richard Clarke are similar in that they have done great services to their republics, they write well, they are geniuses and some people really really hate them. It was not meant to suggest that they are similar in any aspect of their personal life.
Richard Clarke vs his admirers part 1
As if an assault using the classification system, Senatorial immunity, shock, and awe were not enough, Richard Clarke is now faced with rumors of rumors of irrelevant rumors.
I would like to stress that the post below was intended to suggest that Gaius Jiulius Caesar and Richard Clarke are similar in that they have done great services to their republics, they write well, they are geniuses and some people really really hate them. It was not meant to suggest that they are similar in any aspect of their personal life.
Clarke Part XXXII
Act III scene 2
(immediately following the character assasination)
Antony.
Friends, Americans, countrymen, lend me your eyes;
I come to praise Clarke, not to bury him.
The evil things that men do live on after them;
The good things are often buried with their resignation.
Let it be this way with Clarke. The noble Rice
Has told you that Clarke was ambitious.
If that were true, it was a terrible fault,
And Clarke has paid for it mildly.
Here, with the permission of Bush and the rest
(For Bush is an honorable man;
So are they all, all honorable men),
I come to speak in Clarke’s defence.
He has sent the CIA to bring many captives home to Langley,
Who fill the federal prisons.
Did this seem ambitious in Clarke?
When O’Neill was buried, Clarke has wept;
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff.
But Rice says he was ambitious;
And Rice is an honorable woman.
You all saw that on C-Span
Gorton offered him a chance to claim he would have prevented 9/11,
Which he refused by saying “no”. Was this ambition?
But Rice says he was ambitious;
And surely she is an honorable woman.
I am speaking not to disprove what Rice said,
But I am here to say what I do know.
You all loved him once, for good reasons.
What reason keeps you from arguing for him, then?
O judgment, you have run away to dumb animals,
And men have lost their intelligence! Bear with me,
My brain is in the book there by Clarke,
And I must pause until it comes back to me.
…
Only today the word of Clarke might
Stand against the world. He fights lies here,
And not all will stoop so low as to pay him respect.
O gentlemen! If I wanted to stir up
Your hearts and minds to mutiny and rage,
I would be doing Bush wrong, and Cheney wrong,
Who, you all know, are honorable men.
I will not do them wrong. Instead, I choose
To wrong the dead to wrong myself and you,
Rather than wronging such honorable men.
But here's testimony with Clarke's oath.
I found it in the Senate cloak room; it's his testimony.
Just let the public hear this testimony,
Which (pardon me) I do not mean to read,
And they would go and kiss live Clarke's hands
And dip their handkerchiefs in his sacred ink;
Yes, beg a hair from him to remember him by
(in short supply in both cases by the way)
And when they are dying, mention it in their wills,
Bequeathing it as a valuable inheritance
To their children.
…
Have patience, gentle friends, I must not read it.
It is not proper that you know how much Clarke loves you.
You are not wood, you are not stones, but men;
And since you are men, if you hear Clarke's testimony,
It will excite you, it will make you mad.
…
Now let it work. Mischief, you are loose,
Take whatever path you want.
Act III scene 2
(immediately following the character assasination)
Antony.
Friends, Americans, countrymen, lend me your eyes;
I come to praise Clarke, not to bury him.
The evil things that men do live on after them;
The good things are often buried with their resignation.
Let it be this way with Clarke. The noble Rice
Has told you that Clarke was ambitious.
If that were true, it was a terrible fault,
And Clarke has paid for it mildly.
Here, with the permission of Bush and the rest
(For Bush is an honorable man;
So are they all, all honorable men),
I come to speak in Clarke’s defence.
He has sent the CIA to bring many captives home to Langley,
Who fill the federal prisons.
Did this seem ambitious in Clarke?
When O’Neill was buried, Clarke has wept;
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff.
But Rice says he was ambitious;
And Rice is an honorable woman.
You all saw that on C-Span
Gorton offered him a chance to claim he would have prevented 9/11,
Which he refused by saying “no”. Was this ambition?
But Rice says he was ambitious;
And surely she is an honorable woman.
I am speaking not to disprove what Rice said,
But I am here to say what I do know.
You all loved him once, for good reasons.
What reason keeps you from arguing for him, then?
O judgment, you have run away to dumb animals,
And men have lost their intelligence! Bear with me,
My brain is in the book there by Clarke,
And I must pause until it comes back to me.
…
Only today the word of Clarke might
Stand against the world. He fights lies here,
And not all will stoop so low as to pay him respect.
O gentlemen! If I wanted to stir up
Your hearts and minds to mutiny and rage,
I would be doing Bush wrong, and Cheney wrong,
Who, you all know, are honorable men.
I will not do them wrong. Instead, I choose
To wrong the dead to wrong myself and you,
Rather than wronging such honorable men.
But here's testimony with Clarke's oath.
I found it in the Senate cloak room; it's his testimony.
Just let the public hear this testimony,
Which (pardon me) I do not mean to read,
And they would go and kiss live Clarke's hands
And dip their handkerchiefs in his sacred ink;
Yes, beg a hair from him to remember him by
(in short supply in both cases by the way)
And when they are dying, mention it in their wills,
Bequeathing it as a valuable inheritance
To their children.
…
Have patience, gentle friends, I must not read it.
It is not proper that you know how much Clarke loves you.
You are not wood, you are not stones, but men;
And since you are men, if you hear Clarke's testimony,
It will excite you, it will make you mad.
…
Now let it work. Mischief, you are loose,
Take whatever path you want.
Clarke part XXXI
Clarke Vs Easterbrook
Easterbrook writes
"With the Richard Clarke flap and the 9/11 Commission, recriminations have been reduced to the two parties mutually complaining that their opponents failed to know the future."
Well actually Clarke complains that others in the Bush administration didn't know the past and worse that they "knew" things that just weren't true about the past, that is, that Iraq was behind both world trade center attacks. Also see below. Clarke's complaint is that the Bush administration did not do in 2001 what the Clinton administration had done in 1999 which Clarke argued before 9/11 should be done again. Clarke is not demanding perfection. He is demanding a president as competent as Clinton.
Not to be self centered but my Clarke part I (6:10:29 PM EST) quoted exactly the passage in Clarke's 60 minutes interview which the Bush administration, Kristol and Easterbrook *still* refuse to consider. This is the accusation which could end Bush's career. Not that Bush was imperfect but rather that he was no where near as good as Clinton.
Unlike istol (see below) Easterbrook is telling the truth. Indeed it is true that the debate has "been reduced to the two parties mutually complaining that their opponents failed to know the future". However the debate has been so reduced by people, such as Easterbrook and Kristol, who choose to ignore what Clarke actually said.
It is very easy to win a debate if you are allowed to quote the other guy skipping his substantive arguments.
Given how right Clarke is, this is not enough to enable the Bush administration to win the debate with Clarke, even though they can distort the meaning of statements by declassifying and quoting out of context and then prosecute Clarke if he adds the context back.
Clarke Vs Easterbrook
Easterbrook writes
"With the Richard Clarke flap and the 9/11 Commission, recriminations have been reduced to the two parties mutually complaining that their opponents failed to know the future."
Well actually Clarke complains that others in the Bush administration didn't know the past and worse that they "knew" things that just weren't true about the past, that is, that Iraq was behind both world trade center attacks. Also see below. Clarke's complaint is that the Bush administration did not do in 2001 what the Clinton administration had done in 1999 which Clarke argued before 9/11 should be done again. Clarke is not demanding perfection. He is demanding a president as competent as Clinton.
Not to be self centered but my Clarke part I (6:10:29 PM EST) quoted exactly the passage in Clarke's 60 minutes interview which the Bush administration, Kristol and Easterbrook *still* refuse to consider. This is the accusation which could end Bush's career. Not that Bush was imperfect but rather that he was no where near as good as Clinton.
Unlike istol (see below) Easterbrook is telling the truth. Indeed it is true that the debate has "been reduced to the two parties mutually complaining that their opponents failed to know the future". However the debate has been so reduced by people, such as Easterbrook and Kristol, who choose to ignore what Clarke actually said.
It is very easy to win a debate if you are allowed to quote the other guy skipping his substantive arguments.
Given how right Clarke is, this is not enough to enable the Bush administration to win the debate with Clarke, even though they can distort the meaning of statements by declassifying and quoting out of context and then prosecute Clarke if he adds the context back.
Clarke part XXX
Clarke Vs Kristol
Kristol on Clarke in the April 5 Weekly Standard
"Clarke and the New York Times are certainly free to argue that the Bush administration has not done a good job in fighting the war on terror. They are free to argue that the war in Iraq was a mistake. But neither Clarke nor the New York Times has even attempted to make the case that the Bush administration bears any true moral responsibility for failing to avert al Qaeda's attack on 9/11."
Clarke on 60 minutes Sunday 21 March
I am still using the sadly no rush transcript
"CLARKE: If you compare December 1999 to June and July of 2001, in December '99, every day or every other day, the head of the FBI, the head of the CIA, the Attorney General had to go to the White House and sit in a meeting and report on all the things that they personally had done to stop the al Qaeda attack, so they were going back every night to their departments and shaking the trees personally and finding out all the information. If that had happened in July of 2001, we might have found out in the White House, the Attorney General might have found out that there were al Qaeda operatives in the United States. FBI, at lower levels, knew -- never told me, never told the highest levels in the FBI.
STAHL (exp): {The FBI and the CIA knew that these two al Qaeda operatives [pictures displayed onscreen] both among the 9/11 hijackers, had been living in the United States since 2000, yet neither agency passed that information up the chain of command or told Dick Clarke, the White House Terrorism Coordinator.}
CLARKE: And here I am in the White House saying, something's about to happen. Tell me -- if a sparrow falls from the tree, I want to know, if anything unusual's going on, because we're about to be hit.
STAHL: No one told you. No one told you.
CLARKE: Leslie, if we had put their picture on the CBS Evening News, if we had put their picture on Dan Rather, on USA Today, we could have caught those guys and then we might have been able to pull that thread and get more of the conspiracy. I'm not saying we could have stopped 9/11, but we could have at least had a chance."
Kristol's claim is demonstrably false.
Clarke has attempted (with success I think) to argue that the Bush administration bears some true moral responsibility for failing to prevent 9/11. I know 60 minutes is obscure and that there are only 16,000,000 witnesses of this attempt, but I am going to go out on a limb and say that Kristol is lying and should stop pretending that he is a journalist.
Clarke Vs Kristol
Kristol on Clarke in the April 5 Weekly Standard
"Clarke and the New York Times are certainly free to argue that the Bush administration has not done a good job in fighting the war on terror. They are free to argue that the war in Iraq was a mistake. But neither Clarke nor the New York Times has even attempted to make the case that the Bush administration bears any true moral responsibility for failing to avert al Qaeda's attack on 9/11."
Clarke on 60 minutes Sunday 21 March
I am still using the sadly no rush transcript
"CLARKE: If you compare December 1999 to June and July of 2001, in December '99, every day or every other day, the head of the FBI, the head of the CIA, the Attorney General had to go to the White House and sit in a meeting and report on all the things that they personally had done to stop the al Qaeda attack, so they were going back every night to their departments and shaking the trees personally and finding out all the information. If that had happened in July of 2001, we might have found out in the White House, the Attorney General might have found out that there were al Qaeda operatives in the United States. FBI, at lower levels, knew -- never told me, never told the highest levels in the FBI.
STAHL (exp): {The FBI and the CIA knew that these two al Qaeda operatives [pictures displayed onscreen] both among the 9/11 hijackers, had been living in the United States since 2000, yet neither agency passed that information up the chain of command or told Dick Clarke, the White House Terrorism Coordinator.}
CLARKE: And here I am in the White House saying, something's about to happen. Tell me -- if a sparrow falls from the tree, I want to know, if anything unusual's going on, because we're about to be hit.
STAHL: No one told you. No one told you.
CLARKE: Leslie, if we had put their picture on the CBS Evening News, if we had put their picture on Dan Rather, on USA Today, we could have caught those guys and then we might have been able to pull that thread and get more of the conspiracy. I'm not saying we could have stopped 9/11, but we could have at least had a chance."
Kristol's claim is demonstrably false.
Clarke has attempted (with success I think) to argue that the Bush administration bears some true moral responsibility for failing to prevent 9/11. I know 60 minutes is obscure and that there are only 16,000,000 witnesses of this attempt, but I am going to go out on a limb and say that Kristol is lying and should stop pretending that he is a journalist.
Am I misunderestimating David Frum ?
In a Ron Hutcheson Knight Ridder article on Bush administration policy non-discussion
"Former White House speechwriter David Frum defended Bush's decision-making style, saying it encourages timely action and definitive judgments.
"The disadvantages are that the president does not hear such a wide range of views, and the opportunity for truly creative decisions is probably a little bit less,""
Does Mr Frum understand the difference between the words "definite" and "definitive". I think he does and I think he has not been misquoted. I think he is trying to trick us into believing that since Buch makes firm definite clear judgements his judgements are definitive, unarguably correct and the last word on the subject.
The think which worries me is that about half of my country people seem to have fallen for this sort of subliminable seduction.
In a Ron Hutcheson Knight Ridder article on Bush administration policy non-discussion
"Former White House speechwriter David Frum defended Bush's decision-making style, saying it encourages timely action and definitive judgments.
"The disadvantages are that the president does not hear such a wide range of views, and the opportunity for truly creative decisions is probably a little bit less,""
Does Mr Frum understand the difference between the words "definite" and "definitive". I think he does and I think he has not been misquoted. I think he is trying to trick us into believing that since Buch makes firm definite clear judgements his judgements are definitive, unarguably correct and the last word on the subject.
The think which worries me is that about half of my country people seem to have fallen for this sort of subliminable seduction.
Monday, March 29, 2004
Carke vs Bush part XXIX
Clarke nailed part I
From meet the press via Billmon
"Russert: But Saddam is gone and that's a good thing?
Clarke: Saddam is gone is a good thing. If Fidel were gone, it would be a good thing. If Kim Il Sung were gone, it would be a good thing. ..."
Kim Il Sung IS gone all the way to the big worker's paradise in the sky. It would be a good thing if his son Kim Jong Il were gone too.
Clarke nailed part I
From meet the press via Billmon
"Russert: But Saddam is gone and that's a good thing?
Clarke: Saddam is gone is a good thing. If Fidel were gone, it would be a good thing. If Kim Il Sung were gone, it would be a good thing. ..."
Kim Il Sung IS gone all the way to the big worker's paradise in the sky. It would be a good thing if his son Kim Jong Il were gone too.
Washing Dirty Laundry in Public part XXVIII
Clarke Vs Rice
CNN summarises Condoleezza Rice's 60 minutes testimony, oops I mean interview.
""I know that shortly after we came into office I asked the counterterrorism team -- which we kept in place from the Clinton administration in order to provide continuity and experience -- we asked them what policy initiatives should we take."
She said Bush officials were given a list of policy initiatives, which they followed, and that they put in motion a strategy to eliminate al Qaeda.
The strategy was in place before the attacks, she said."
Well that's progress. Previously she said they were given a laundry list.
The claim they followed the list is completely new and clearly false, but notice that it is not a direct quotation.
"in place" means on the presidents desk for approval. It does not mean approved.
"before the attacks" means on 9/10/01 which is, indeed, before 9/11/01.
Below I proposed that to make this a fair fight, Clarke ought to be forbidden to use words containing the letter e. I now think he should be forbidden to use words containing the letter e or the letter a.
Clarke Vs Rice
CNN summarises Condoleezza Rice's 60 minutes testimony, oops I mean interview.
""I know that shortly after we came into office I asked the counterterrorism team -- which we kept in place from the Clinton administration in order to provide continuity and experience -- we asked them what policy initiatives should we take."
She said Bush officials were given a list of policy initiatives, which they followed, and that they put in motion a strategy to eliminate al Qaeda.
The strategy was in place before the attacks, she said."
Well that's progress. Previously she said they were given a laundry list.
The claim they followed the list is completely new and clearly false, but notice that it is not a direct quotation.
"in place" means on the presidents desk for approval. It does not mean approved.
"before the attacks" means on 9/10/01 which is, indeed, before 9/11/01.
Below I proposed that to make this a fair fight, Clarke ought to be forbidden to use words containing the letter e. I now think he should be forbidden to use words containing the letter e or the letter a.
balding eagle part XXVII
Clarke Vs Rumsfeld
From the New York Times
"Regarding one of Mr. Clarke's most publicized statements, that Mr. Rumsfeld pushed for an invasion of Iraq because there were no good targets in Afghanistan, Mr. Rumsfeld told Fox News that the quote was correct but out of context.
"If you think about it, the United States government made a decision to go into Afghanistan, not into Iraq, after 9/11," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "So the implication of what he's saying obviously misunderstands what actually took place.""
Rumsfeld's confirmation shows that he is unfit to be secretary of defence. I mean there are good targets in Paris too. Does he want to bomb Paris ? I sure would rather not find out.
His argument on Fox shows he is as confused about the US constitution as he is about military strategy. Let me see if I can help him out. The secretary of defence does not decide on US foreign policy. Foreign policy is conducted by the President (you know the guy at the end of the big oval table who smirks a lot) with the advice and consent of the Senate. The fact that the US did one thing, does not prove that the secretary of defence did not argue that the US should do something else.
Clarke Vs Rumsfeld
From the New York Times
"Regarding one of Mr. Clarke's most publicized statements, that Mr. Rumsfeld pushed for an invasion of Iraq because there were no good targets in Afghanistan, Mr. Rumsfeld told Fox News that the quote was correct but out of context.
"If you think about it, the United States government made a decision to go into Afghanistan, not into Iraq, after 9/11," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "So the implication of what he's saying obviously misunderstands what actually took place.""
Rumsfeld's confirmation shows that he is unfit to be secretary of defence. I mean there are good targets in Paris too. Does he want to bomb Paris ? I sure would rather not find out.
His argument on Fox shows he is as confused about the US constitution as he is about military strategy. Let me see if I can help him out. The secretary of defence does not decide on US foreign policy. Foreign policy is conducted by the President (you know the guy at the end of the big oval table who smirks a lot) with the advice and consent of the Senate. The fact that the US did one thing, does not prove that the secretary of defence did not argue that the US should do something else.
Brad DeLong links to Gerard Baker (registration required) who denounces Sado-Monetarists who want higher interest rates to restrain bubbles.
(four legs good, two legs bad, blisters good, bubbles bad).
Kevin Drum asks
"However, assuming that the problem is real but that we don't want to raise interest rates just to cool down a bubbly housing market, is there anything else that can be done?"
As a matter of principal there are many policies which would cool down a bubbly housing market without causing the economic damage of an increase in interest rates. The problem is that there is no chance that the relevant laws would be enacted or the policies would be implemented if the laws were enacted.
First one could raise interest rates and simultaneously balance some of the effects other than that on the housing market. In particular one might want to stimulate investment in productive capital. The way to do this would be a tax credit for investment in equipment (*not* plant and equipment). I'm sure Brad would be willing to propose such a policy. since he and his co-author did in 1993 (got Clinton on board too). Here the problem would be when to phase out the reward for equipment investment relative to housing investment. I would say never.
There are many ways to penalise people for spending absurd sums of money on houses in the hope that the return on a house is greater than the low interest rate.
One is when house prices have increased a lot recently (suspect bubble) make only part of mortgage interest deductable. Another is to make an "unrealised" capital gains tax using local house price indices. Say if the aveage house in LA which cost 500,000 last year costs 550,000 this year, then someone who bought a house for 500,000 last year pays capital gains tax on the 50 whether or not she resells. Now it is clear that for the last two policies the devil in the details would make one beg to be tortured by a sado-montarist. Huge transfers of money depend on exactly the details I left vague. We can be confident that any tax based solution to bubbles will be captured by interest groups and turn into a nightmare.
The choice between hoping that the bursting of the bubble won't cause too much damage and (worse) raising interest rates with a very sluggish economy if forced on us by the fact that Alan Greenspan is basically the only public official we trust if not to ignore politics then to not ignore everything else.
Such is life as we wait for the benevolent social planner, the second coming of Christ, the messiah and the ocluded Iman.
Actually I am sure Drum has figured all of this out and was hoping for a polically conceivable policy.
Also I sure hope that the superstar has enough of a sense of humor to be amused that I refered to him as Brad's co-author.
(four legs good, two legs bad, blisters good, bubbles bad).
Kevin Drum asks
"However, assuming that the problem is real but that we don't want to raise interest rates just to cool down a bubbly housing market, is there anything else that can be done?"
As a matter of principal there are many policies which would cool down a bubbly housing market without causing the economic damage of an increase in interest rates. The problem is that there is no chance that the relevant laws would be enacted or the policies would be implemented if the laws were enacted.
First one could raise interest rates and simultaneously balance some of the effects other than that on the housing market. In particular one might want to stimulate investment in productive capital. The way to do this would be a tax credit for investment in equipment (*not* plant and equipment). I'm sure Brad would be willing to propose such a policy. since he and his co-author did in 1993 (got Clinton on board too). Here the problem would be when to phase out the reward for equipment investment relative to housing investment. I would say never.
There are many ways to penalise people for spending absurd sums of money on houses in the hope that the return on a house is greater than the low interest rate.
One is when house prices have increased a lot recently (suspect bubble) make only part of mortgage interest deductable. Another is to make an "unrealised" capital gains tax using local house price indices. Say if the aveage house in LA which cost 500,000 last year costs 550,000 this year, then someone who bought a house for 500,000 last year pays capital gains tax on the 50 whether or not she resells. Now it is clear that for the last two policies the devil in the details would make one beg to be tortured by a sado-montarist. Huge transfers of money depend on exactly the details I left vague. We can be confident that any tax based solution to bubbles will be captured by interest groups and turn into a nightmare.
The choice between hoping that the bursting of the bubble won't cause too much damage and (worse) raising interest rates with a very sluggish economy if forced on us by the fact that Alan Greenspan is basically the only public official we trust if not to ignore politics then to not ignore everything else.
Such is life as we wait for the benevolent social planner, the second coming of Christ, the messiah and the ocluded Iman.
Actually I am sure Drum has figured all of this out and was hoping for a polically conceivable policy.
Also I sure hope that the superstar has enough of a sense of humor to be amused that I refered to him as Brad's co-author.
Saturday, March 27, 2004
the balding eagle vs the circular firing squad part XXVI
Why is the debate on Iraq and terrorism all sound and fury and no well debate ?
As Josh Marshall points out, Clarke has been savagely attacked largely because all informed people agree with his substantive claims (and agreed before he made them).
Now this is largley confirmed by an article by Glenn Kessler in the Washington Post.
Of course another hypothesis is that Kessler is cheating (wonder if Atrios would accuse him of working for Pravda on the Potomac). ISince the question is whether there is really a debate, we should know soon.
The headline is (as is common) misleading. All the experts interviewed by Kessler agree that the invasion of Iraq weakened the war on al Qaeda and on terrorism generally.
The expert most in favor of the invasion of Iraq is quoted as follows
"But Eliot Cohen, director of strategic studies at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies and an advocate of attacking Iraq, argues that Clarke's analysis wrongly assumes the battle against terrorism paralyzes the government when it comes to waging other wars. He said that if one assumes that the fight against terrorism is a multi-year effort that could stretch decades, then "there is nothing the U.S. government can do for 30 years but fight al Qaeda." He noted that the bulk of the fighting in Iraq was carried out by military units, such as the 101st Airborne, that were not involved in Afghanistan.
Cohen agreed, however, that a war the scale of the Iraq invasion could divert the attention of senior officials from other issues, such as fighting terrorism. Pat Lang, who was head Middle East and South Asia intelligence in the Defense Intelligence Agency for seven years, said: "When you commit as much time and attention and resources as we did to Iraq, which I do not believe is connected to the worldwide war against the jihadis, then you subtract what you could commit to the war on terrorism. You see that especially in the Special Forces commitment, as we have only so many of them." "
That is the quoted expert who disagrees most with Clarke and he clearly agrees.
The first paragraph sets up a straw man. The argument that the USA should have focused on al Qaeda until it was rolled back, does not imply that the USA must not invade anyone who is not sheltering al Qaedafor 30 years.
Now that would be fine by me, but there is no evidence that Clarke agrees with me.
Notice, by the way, that if Rice were telling the truth, the Bush administration approach would indeed be the straw man presented by Cohen. Cohen is not worried, because of course he knows she is lying.
I'd say, the claim that there is a consensus that the invasion of Iraq interfered with the war on terror can be considered firmly supported by the evidence so long as the article is not challenged by reasoned letters to the editor from foreign policy experts who do not work for the Bush administration.
By the way the headline "Clarke Reignites Iraq Debate
Analysts are split on whether invasion hurt war on terrorism. "
is, given the content of the article, psychotic.
Why is the debate on Iraq and terrorism all sound and fury and no well debate ?
As Josh Marshall points out, Clarke has been savagely attacked largely because all informed people agree with his substantive claims (and agreed before he made them).
Now this is largley confirmed by an article by Glenn Kessler in the Washington Post.
Of course another hypothesis is that Kessler is cheating (wonder if Atrios would accuse him of working for Pravda on the Potomac). ISince the question is whether there is really a debate, we should know soon.
The headline is (as is common) misleading. All the experts interviewed by Kessler agree that the invasion of Iraq weakened the war on al Qaeda and on terrorism generally.
The expert most in favor of the invasion of Iraq is quoted as follows
"But Eliot Cohen, director of strategic studies at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies and an advocate of attacking Iraq, argues that Clarke's analysis wrongly assumes the battle against terrorism paralyzes the government when it comes to waging other wars. He said that if one assumes that the fight against terrorism is a multi-year effort that could stretch decades, then "there is nothing the U.S. government can do for 30 years but fight al Qaeda." He noted that the bulk of the fighting in Iraq was carried out by military units, such as the 101st Airborne, that were not involved in Afghanistan.
Cohen agreed, however, that a war the scale of the Iraq invasion could divert the attention of senior officials from other issues, such as fighting terrorism. Pat Lang, who was head Middle East and South Asia intelligence in the Defense Intelligence Agency for seven years, said: "When you commit as much time and attention and resources as we did to Iraq, which I do not believe is connected to the worldwide war against the jihadis, then you subtract what you could commit to the war on terrorism. You see that especially in the Special Forces commitment, as we have only so many of them." "
That is the quoted expert who disagrees most with Clarke and he clearly agrees.
The first paragraph sets up a straw man. The argument that the USA should have focused on al Qaeda until it was rolled back, does not imply that the USA must not invade anyone who is not sheltering al Qaedafor 30 years.
Now that would be fine by me, but there is no evidence that Clarke agrees with me.
Notice, by the way, that if Rice were telling the truth, the Bush administration approach would indeed be the straw man presented by Cohen. Cohen is not worried, because of course he knows she is lying.
I'd say, the claim that there is a consensus that the invasion of Iraq interfered with the war on terror can be considered firmly supported by the evidence so long as the article is not challenged by reasoned letters to the editor from foreign policy experts who do not work for the Bush administration.
By the way the headline "Clarke Reignites Iraq Debate
Analysts are split on whether invasion hurt war on terrorism. "
is, given the content of the article, psychotic.
Ben Stein donates to the Nader for president campaign. From the daily kos.
Quoting the Dallas News (registration required).
"Nearly 10 percent of the Nader contributors who have given him at least $250 each have a history of supporting the Republican president, national GOP candidates or the party, according to computer-assisted review of financial records by The Dallas Morning News.
Among the new crop of Nader donors: actor and former Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein, ..."
People should ask Nader what he thinks of this. Of course he won't admit that it shows he is helping Bush, but his reaction is likely to convince people to vote for Kerry rather than him.
Quoting the Dallas News (registration required).
"Nearly 10 percent of the Nader contributors who have given him at least $250 each have a history of supporting the Republican president, national GOP candidates or the party, according to computer-assisted review of financial records by The Dallas Morning News.
Among the new crop of Nader donors: actor and former Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein, ..."
People should ask Nader what he thinks of this. Of course he won't admit that it shows he is helping Bush, but his reaction is likely to convince people to vote for Kerry rather than him.
Shorter David Brooks
Richard Clarke says Clinton's anti terror policy was less bad than Bush's, therefore he is a partisan hack.
Slightly longer David Brooks
I would present an example of a substantive difference between the book and the 9/11 committee staff report except I have used up my 700 words with vague shrill partisan attacks on alleged shrill partisanship. Facts are for social scientist. We must sense the partisanship of Richard Clarke's soul. No NYT reporter can demand any evidence that I have actually read either the book or the report, because that would violate the separation of powers principal that pundits can claim to know everything without being called on it.
Clarke knows Afganistan better than Brooks knows Pennsylvania.
Richard Clarke says Clinton's anti terror policy was less bad than Bush's, therefore he is a partisan hack.
Slightly longer David Brooks
I would present an example of a substantive difference between the book and the 9/11 committee staff report except I have used up my 700 words with vague shrill partisan attacks on alleged shrill partisanship. Facts are for social scientist. We must sense the partisanship of Richard Clarke's soul. No NYT reporter can demand any evidence that I have actually read either the book or the report, because that would violate the separation of powers principal that pundits can claim to know everything without being called on it.
Clarke knows Afganistan better than Brooks knows Pennsylvania.
Man I would like to see capitol police Frisk Frist
Doctor Senator Frist MD chose to release classified information. I'm sure the White House will be as eager for an investigation of him as they were for an investigation of O'Neill for showing the cover of an FOIA released document that the Treasury department council mailed to him.
from Reuters Via atrios and Spadehammer
"Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said there appear to be contradictions between what Clarke told a pair of congressional panels two years ago and what he said this week before a bipartisan commission investigating those attacks.
"Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath," Frist said on the Senate floor.
He quoted Clarke as telling Congress behind closed doors, "the administration actively sought to address the threat posed by al Qaeda during its first 11 months in office." "
I think there is no need to point out that the Clarke "quote" would be a non perjurous way to say "al Qaeda related action activities".
I notice I almost missed something (no kidding I'm tired) the slippery subtle number 11.
In case anyone else is as out of it as I am, I should point out that the first 11 months of Bush in office ended on December 20 2002 and Clarke made the shocking claim that, by attacking Afganistan, the Bush administration attempted to address the threat posed by al Qaeda.
[update]
looks like someone was as out of it as I was. Someone typing at Reuters. Josh Marshall quotes Frist as saying "first 7 months in office." I didn't save a screen shot of the reuters article.]
Doctor Senator Frist MD chose to release classified information. I'm sure the White House will be as eager for an investigation of him as they were for an investigation of O'Neill for showing the cover of an FOIA released document that the Treasury department council mailed to him.
from Reuters Via atrios and Spadehammer
"Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said there appear to be contradictions between what Clarke told a pair of congressional panels two years ago and what he said this week before a bipartisan commission investigating those attacks.
"Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath," Frist said on the Senate floor.
He quoted Clarke as telling Congress behind closed doors, "the administration actively sought to address the threat posed by al Qaeda during its first 11 months in office." "
I think there is no need to point out that the Clarke "quote" would be a non perjurous way to say "al Qaeda related action activities".
I notice I almost missed something (no kidding I'm tired) the slippery subtle number 11.
In case anyone else is as out of it as I am, I should point out that the first 11 months of Bush in office ended on December 20 2002 and Clarke made the shocking claim that, by attacking Afganistan, the Bush administration attempted to address the threat posed by al Qaeda.
[update]
looks like someone was as out of it as I was. Someone typing at Reuters. Josh Marshall quotes Frist as saying "first 7 months in office." I didn't save a screen shot of the reuters article.]
Herseth Pickler link exposed !!!
Robert's Random Thougts Exclusive must cite Robert's Random Thoughts
If anyone picks this up without citing Robert's Random Thoughts I will sue them if I don't drop dead from astonishment first.
(note the above is an I'll be damned if I would say that under oath (TM -> condi Rice) statement).
The notorius Nedra Pickler affiliated AP has prominantly presented links to the Herseth campaign using a patently absurd argument that someone named "Glodt" argued that there is something wrong with advertising on blogs.
Give me a break. Like as if
Glodt Blasts Blogs
is an actual possible real world headline
(well maybe when I die and go to heaven).
If this post leads you to donate to the Herseth campaign please add (1+5^0.5)/2 cents to your donation.
silliness is golden.
[update]
old headline was "Glodt Against Blogs"
how about ?
Troglodite Glodt Blasts Blogs
or
Troglodite Glodt Blasts Clogged Blogs
Robert's Random Thougts Exclusive must cite Robert's Random Thoughts
If anyone picks this up without citing Robert's Random Thoughts I will sue them if I don't drop dead from astonishment first.
(note the above is an I'll be damned if I would say that under oath (TM -> condi Rice) statement).
The notorius Nedra Pickler affiliated AP has prominantly presented links to the Herseth campaign using a patently absurd argument that someone named "Glodt" argued that there is something wrong with advertising on blogs.
Give me a break. Like as if
Glodt Blasts Blogs
is an actual possible real world headline
(well maybe when I die and go to heaven).
If this post leads you to donate to the Herseth campaign please add (1+5^0.5)/2 cents to your donation.
silliness is golden.
[update]
old headline was "Glodt Against Blogs"
how about ?
Troglodite Glodt Blasts Blogs
or
Troglodite Glodt Blasts Clogged Blogs
Don't you get tired of being right all the time mr Clarke part XXIV
I agree with some articles and posts and such, which note that everyone makes mistakes., and so we should not decide Bush is unfit for office because with 20-20 hindsight we can see that there are things that the Bush administration could have done to prevent 9/11. I agree that Bush is unfit for office because he refused to learn from his (inevitable) mistakes. On 9/1/01 Bush was as arguably fit to be president as he was on 1/20/01. On 9/12 he lost that arguable fitness by obsessively insisting that a link between the guy who tried to kill his dad and the guys who killled a lot of peoples dads and moms Must be found, whether it existed or not.
While we should demand that the president learn from his mistakes and should vote Bush outin order to get a president who is modest enough to grasp that he can make mistakes and intelligent enough to learn from them,
it is unreasonable to expect that people never make mistakes when trying to predict the future.
For example Richard Clarke has made many mistakes. For example when he ....
Oh hell he hasn't been subject to muck scrutiny, he must have been wrong about something. No one is right all of the time.
Let's just take it as given that Richard Clarke has made mistakes. I'm sure he pooped his diapers once when he was a new born.
The question is how many people have ever batted 1000 ? OK so Richard Clarke that's one and ...
hey wait what is this on my bookshelf ?
Predicting the Signs of Forecast Errors
Robert Waldmann
EUI WP 95/22
May 3 1995
Abstract: It is possible to predict the signs of forecast errors using the difference between individuals' forecasts and the average of earlier forecasts of the same variable. Two simple methods for deciding which forecasts are far from the lagged average give the same result. Every forecast which is far above the lagged average is too high and every forecast which is far below the lagged average is too low. By combinding these methods, it is possible to improve 115 forecasts without worsening any. ....
Hey I managed 115 out of 115 in 1995 !
But wait, my claim was that whenever some guy says something waaay out of line with the conventional wisdom he is wrong and he should move closer to the conventional wisdom.
What about Clarke. Well on 9/4/01 he said "hundreds" of dead and we see that, like the rest of them, he underestimated the risk since by 9/11 there were thousands of dead.
That means I got 115 out of 116 right.
ohhhhh Nooooooooo. I am not batting 1000. The only person who has hit 1000 is Richard Clarke.
Referees for the International Journal of Forecasting take notice when I finally get around to resubmitting the manuscript.
I agree with some articles and posts and such, which note that everyone makes mistakes., and so we should not decide Bush is unfit for office because with 20-20 hindsight we can see that there are things that the Bush administration could have done to prevent 9/11. I agree that Bush is unfit for office because he refused to learn from his (inevitable) mistakes. On 9/1/01 Bush was as arguably fit to be president as he was on 1/20/01. On 9/12 he lost that arguable fitness by obsessively insisting that a link between the guy who tried to kill his dad and the guys who killled a lot of peoples dads and moms Must be found, whether it existed or not.
While we should demand that the president learn from his mistakes and should vote Bush outin order to get a president who is modest enough to grasp that he can make mistakes and intelligent enough to learn from them,
it is unreasonable to expect that people never make mistakes when trying to predict the future.
For example Richard Clarke has made many mistakes. For example when he ....
Oh hell he hasn't been subject to muck scrutiny, he must have been wrong about something. No one is right all of the time.
Let's just take it as given that Richard Clarke has made mistakes. I'm sure he pooped his diapers once when he was a new born.
The question is how many people have ever batted 1000 ? OK so Richard Clarke that's one and ...
hey wait what is this on my bookshelf ?
Predicting the Signs of Forecast Errors
Robert Waldmann
EUI WP 95/22
May 3 1995
Abstract: It is possible to predict the signs of forecast errors using the difference between individuals' forecasts and the average of earlier forecasts of the same variable. Two simple methods for deciding which forecasts are far from the lagged average give the same result. Every forecast which is far above the lagged average is too high and every forecast which is far below the lagged average is too low. By combinding these methods, it is possible to improve 115 forecasts without worsening any. ....
Hey I managed 115 out of 115 in 1995 !
But wait, my claim was that whenever some guy says something waaay out of line with the conventional wisdom he is wrong and he should move closer to the conventional wisdom.
What about Clarke. Well on 9/4/01 he said "hundreds" of dead and we see that, like the rest of them, he underestimated the risk since by 9/11 there were thousands of dead.
That means I got 115 out of 116 right.
ohhhhh Nooooooooo. I am not batting 1000. The only person who has hit 1000 is Richard Clarke.
Referees for the International Journal of Forecasting take notice when I finally get around to resubmitting the manuscript.
Friday, March 26, 2004
Clarke and Milbank tag team pro wrestling part XXIV
or
Honey I blew up our phone bill.
I live in the continent of cheese eating surrender monkeys not of flying attack monkey circular firinq squads. For each hour of dialup to my work ISP, I have to pay 50 Euro cents. That's US 60 cents no 61, 62 ... damn I should have traded my US dollars for Euros when they were still worth something. Certain people wonder how I have managed to spend so much money at this slow rate (not to mention why I sleep so late).
I wonder when Robert Novak will start to accuse the Ms subscribing Dana Milbank of sexism.
or
Honey I blew up our phone bill.
I live in the continent of cheese eating surrender monkeys not of flying attack monkey circular firinq squads. For each hour of dialup to my work ISP, I have to pay 50 Euro cents. That's US 60 cents no 61, 62 ... damn I should have traded my US dollars for Euros when they were still worth something. Certain people wonder how I have managed to spend so much money at this slow rate (not to mention why I sleep so late).
I wonder when Robert Novak will start to accuse the Ms subscribing Dana Milbank of sexism.
Clarke vs inter alia Rice part XXIII
I could have skipped this entry.
I could certainly skip this post. My worst case of delusional megalomania so far was a link to Atrios. Now I am linking to an absolutely unambigiuous Washington Post article by MilbanK and Pincus cited in Atrios.
The article includes
it depends on your definition of the word "including"
"Rice wrote that "through the spring and summer of 2001, the national security team developed a strategy to eliminate al Qaeda" that included "sufficient military options to remove the Taliban regime" including the use of ground forces. ... McCormack said Rice's statement is accurate because the team discussed including orders for such military plans to be drawn up."
Oh I get it. if a policy development team discusses whether to include a proposal and decides not include it, it is reasonable to say it was included. Hmm by that standard the Supeme court included Gore on the list of US presidents. Hell, by that standard, the people o fthe United States of America included Lyndon Larouche in the list of
US presidents.
In the same article in the Washington Post
Rice Vs Rice
" In the same article [in the Washington Post], Rice belittled Clarke's proposals by writing: "The president wanted more than a laundry list of ideas simply to contain al Qaeda or 'roll back' the threat. Once in office, we quickly began crafting a comprehensive new strategy to 'eliminate' the al Qaeda network." Rice asserted that while Clarke and others provided ideas, "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." That same day, she said most of Clarke's ideas "had been already tried or rejected in the Clinton administration."
But in her interview with NBC two days later, Rice appeared to take a different view of Clarke's proposals. "He sent us a set of ideas that would perhaps help to roll back al Qaeda over a three- to five-year period; we acted on those ideas very quickly. And what's very interesting is that . . . Dick Clarke now says that we ignored his ideas or we didn't follow them up." "
I might add that, although Rice hasn't yet declassified it, I am currently willing to bet my ass that the September 4 2001 proposal did not contain the word "eliminate" as proposed by Clarke, but rather the phrase "significantly erode."This is, indeed, as stressed ad naseum by Rice et al, a change from Clarke's original "roll back," But not in the direction claimed by Rice.
With respect for mr Milbank. I think he is a hero. It is widely claimed that he has struggled to report on the White House even though they responded to his refusal to toe the line by frozing him out -- refusing to return his phone calls or answer his questions. One nice thing about Milbank is that he is very modest. He once wrote that his wife "very charitably" compared his appearance to that of Rick Moranis. I hope he gets to entitle his biography
"Honey I Blew up the Bush presidency" he has already gotten to "Honey I shrunk the credibility of Rice"
I could have skipped this entry.
I could certainly skip this post. My worst case of delusional megalomania so far was a link to Atrios. Now I am linking to an absolutely unambigiuous Washington Post article by MilbanK and Pincus cited in Atrios.
The article includes
it depends on your definition of the word "including"
"Rice wrote that "through the spring and summer of 2001, the national security team developed a strategy to eliminate al Qaeda" that included "sufficient military options to remove the Taliban regime" including the use of ground forces. ... McCormack said Rice's statement is accurate because the team discussed including orders for such military plans to be drawn up."
Oh I get it. if a policy development team discusses whether to include a proposal and decides not include it, it is reasonable to say it was included. Hmm by that standard the Supeme court included Gore on the list of US presidents. Hell, by that standard, the people o fthe United States of America included Lyndon Larouche in the list of
US presidents.
In the same article in the Washington Post
Rice Vs Rice
" In the same article [in the Washington Post], Rice belittled Clarke's proposals by writing: "The president wanted more than a laundry list of ideas simply to contain al Qaeda or 'roll back' the threat. Once in office, we quickly began crafting a comprehensive new strategy to 'eliminate' the al Qaeda network." Rice asserted that while Clarke and others provided ideas, "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." That same day, she said most of Clarke's ideas "had been already tried or rejected in the Clinton administration."
But in her interview with NBC two days later, Rice appeared to take a different view of Clarke's proposals. "He sent us a set of ideas that would perhaps help to roll back al Qaeda over a three- to five-year period; we acted on those ideas very quickly. And what's very interesting is that . . . Dick Clarke now says that we ignored his ideas or we didn't follow them up." "
I might add that, although Rice hasn't yet declassified it, I am currently willing to bet my ass that the September 4 2001 proposal did not contain the word "eliminate" as proposed by Clarke, but rather the phrase "significantly erode."This is, indeed, as stressed ad naseum by Rice et al, a change from Clarke's original "roll back," But not in the direction claimed by Rice.
With respect for mr Milbank. I think he is a hero. It is widely claimed that he has struggled to report on the White House even though they responded to his refusal to toe the line by frozing him out -- refusing to return his phone calls or answer his questions. One nice thing about Milbank is that he is very modest. He once wrote that his wife "very charitably" compared his appearance to that of Rick Moranis. I hope he gets to entitle his biography
"Honey I Blew up the Bush presidency" he has already gotten to "Honey I shrunk the credibility of Rice"
Robert's Random Thoughts official statement of policy.
It's not a quota it's a goal.
Now that everyone has embraced identity politics, I declare that the goal of this blog will be to maintain diversity in topics with at least 20% of posts on topics other than The Flying Monkeys Vs the Bald Eagle.
This is not a rigid quota. It is just a goal.
That is, there is no chance I actually manage it.
It's not a quota it's a goal.
Now that everyone has embraced identity politics, I declare that the goal of this blog will be to maintain diversity in topics with at least 20% of posts on topics other than The Flying Monkeys Vs the Bald Eagle.
This is not a rigid quota. It is just a goal.
That is, there is no chance I actually manage it.
Home Front
Some people around here are beginning to wonder whether, now that pigs have flown, they are going to get to use the fixed phone line and the family desktop computer.
Elisabetta, the feminist with whom I am married, asked if she could have the computer for 5 minutes to check her downloaded mail. She agreed to wait five minutes when she realised she would have to switch "users" to get to it. I thought I would earn browny points by switching users myself
She sat down and said "Robert not Elisabetta proprietario£
R: "You mean you are not Elisabetta ?"
E: I am not Elisabetta I am proprietario
R: Who are you and what have you done with my wife ?
Some people around here are beginning to wonder whether, now that pigs have flown, they are going to get to use the fixed phone line and the family desktop computer.
Elisabetta, the feminist with whom I am married, asked if she could have the computer for 5 minutes to check her downloaded mail. She agreed to wait five minutes when she realised she would have to switch "users" to get to it. I thought I would earn browny points by switching users myself
She sat down and said "Robert not Elisabetta proprietario£
R: "You mean you are not Elisabetta ?"
E: I am not Elisabetta I am proprietario
R: Who are you and what have you done with my wife ?
Clarke part XXI
Fair fight. Fair Fight. I want a Fair Fight
As a citizen, I realise that this is not a game.
This is not a slam down of Clarke Kent vs the Deserter
(technically AWOL I mean technically technically not where he was ordered to be but not technically Technically technically AWL).
Still the Clarke - Bush administration debate is not as fun as it would be if the debaters were more evenly matched.
On one side we have a bald former civil servant who is ambushed by off the record interviews which go on the record and classified e-mails which are declassified who is cross examined under oath.
On the other, we have Condoleezza Rice.
Condoleezza Rice refuses to testify under oath, wants a chance to rebut Clarke before the 9/11 committee while maintining her right to lie and ha the authority to declassify whatever she pleases. Rice is able, not only to controll what she says but also to control what her opponent Clarke "said" by declassifying only those statements which help her case. Clarke is not free to rebut because he can not quote his own classified statements. Rice demands freedom to speak for herself, lying if she chooses, *and* freedom to speak for Clarke.
But Rice is not debating Clarke single handedly. She is being assisted by all of the top Foreign policy officials except for George Tenet who seems to be refusing to discuss Clarke's claims unless he is subpoenad.
This is no fair at all.
Rice has the right to lie (free speach and all that) but her lies are constantly contradicted by the contrasting lies of other Bush administration officials. Clarke, is required to tell the truth (or risk jail) but, since his supporters are either other interested in the truth or were totally totally out of the loop or both (like me) we don't contradict him.
Just for fun, I want a fair debate in which the winner in doubt. I think a rule that would make the debate intereting is the following
Clarke is not allowed to use any words containing the letter e.
He'd still cream Rice but at least it would be interesting.
By the way Mr Clarke, sorry to mention the fact that you are follicularly challenged (TM andrew Sullivan and urgent cc to nemisis). Remember, the symbol of our country and its ideals is the Bald Eagle.
Fair fight. Fair Fight. I want a Fair Fight
As a citizen, I realise that this is not a game.
This is not a slam down of Clarke Kent vs the Deserter
(technically AWOL I mean technically technically not where he was ordered to be but not technically Technically technically AWL).
Still the Clarke - Bush administration debate is not as fun as it would be if the debaters were more evenly matched.
On one side we have a bald former civil servant who is ambushed by off the record interviews which go on the record and classified e-mails which are declassified who is cross examined under oath.
On the other, we have Condoleezza Rice.
Condoleezza Rice refuses to testify under oath, wants a chance to rebut Clarke before the 9/11 committee while maintining her right to lie and ha the authority to declassify whatever she pleases. Rice is able, not only to controll what she says but also to control what her opponent Clarke "said" by declassifying only those statements which help her case. Clarke is not free to rebut because he can not quote his own classified statements. Rice demands freedom to speak for herself, lying if she chooses, *and* freedom to speak for Clarke.
But Rice is not debating Clarke single handedly. She is being assisted by all of the top Foreign policy officials except for George Tenet who seems to be refusing to discuss Clarke's claims unless he is subpoenad.
This is no fair at all.
Rice has the right to lie (free speach and all that) but her lies are constantly contradicted by the contrasting lies of other Bush administration officials. Clarke, is required to tell the truth (or risk jail) but, since his supporters are either other interested in the truth or were totally totally out of the loop or both (like me) we don't contradict him.
Just for fun, I want a fair debate in which the winner in doubt. I think a rule that would make the debate intereting is the following
Clarke is not allowed to use any words containing the letter e.
He'd still cream Rice but at least it would be interesting.
By the way Mr Clarke, sorry to mention the fact that you are follicularly challenged (TM andrew Sullivan and urgent cc to nemisis). Remember, the symbol of our country and its ideals is the Bald Eagle.
The Clarke Culturkampf part XX
Ann Coulter calls Richard Clarke a Chair Warmer. I would like to remind her that the chair he warmed was in the White house situation room on 9/11. At the time when all his superiors had been moved out, because it was feared that the White House was a target. There are some days in which it takes physical courage to stay at your desk in the White house. One was in 1815 and another was September 11 2001.
Disclamer. I am commenting on the headline of the article by Coulter, for which she is not responsible. I am not willing to actually read an article by Coulter.
Ann Coulter calls Richard Clarke a Chair Warmer. I would like to remind her that the chair he warmed was in the White house situation room on 9/11. At the time when all his superiors had been moved out, because it was feared that the White House was a target. There are some days in which it takes physical courage to stay at your desk in the White house. One was in 1815 and another was September 11 2001.
Disclamer. I am commenting on the headline of the article by Coulter, for which she is not responsible. I am not willing to actually read an article by Coulter.
The Bush administrations Kampf with Clarke part XIX
Josh Marshall can't keep up with the Bush administration lies about Clarke.
Marshall is great, but they are a moving target. The lies change so fast that even electronic media can't keep up.
"Now we have Richard Clarke, whom we’re now told was either a liar (Paul Wolfowitz), a fraud out to sell a bunch of books (Scott McClellan), an out-of-the-loop rube (Dick Cheney), or just a moron who couldn’t get the job done (National Security Council [NSC] spokesman Jim Wilkinson and just about everyone else on the White House payroll). "
No no no, Wolfowitz didn't say that Clarke was a liar. His spokesman did. Wolfowitz refused to back up his spokesman and sink to such an ad hominum attack for reasons that have nothing to do with the facts that the truth can eventually be determined and that Wolfowitz was under oath.
Wolfowitz chose to talk about his reading of Mein Kampf, claiming that Clarke had told someone something about it.
OK now I am thinking about foreign translation rights for Clarke's book about his struggle against ideology, idiocy and lies. Would you be amazed if the Bush administration tried to find an unbankrupt Kirch to buy the rights and Title the
German translation of the book "Mein Kampf". I mean they have tried everything else.
[update] Hey wait a minute. I got the above correction to Josh Marshall from Josh Marshall days ago. Not his fault, you can't cover the Bush administrations scrupulously without contradicting yourself. Warning the talkinpointsmemo permalinks are behaving strangely.
You must re-elect Chewbacca, Chewbacca is strong on anti-terrorism. If you vote against Chewbacca you are unpatriotic.
Josh Marshall can't keep up with the Bush administration lies about Clarke.
Marshall is great, but they are a moving target. The lies change so fast that even electronic media can't keep up.
"Now we have Richard Clarke, whom we’re now told was either a liar (Paul Wolfowitz), a fraud out to sell a bunch of books (Scott McClellan), an out-of-the-loop rube (Dick Cheney), or just a moron who couldn’t get the job done (National Security Council [NSC] spokesman Jim Wilkinson and just about everyone else on the White House payroll). "
No no no, Wolfowitz didn't say that Clarke was a liar. His spokesman did. Wolfowitz refused to back up his spokesman and sink to such an ad hominum attack for reasons that have nothing to do with the facts that the truth can eventually be determined and that Wolfowitz was under oath.
Wolfowitz chose to talk about his reading of Mein Kampf, claiming that Clarke had told someone something about it.
OK now I am thinking about foreign translation rights for Clarke's book about his struggle against ideology, idiocy and lies. Would you be amazed if the Bush administration tried to find an unbankrupt Kirch to buy the rights and Title the
German translation of the book "Mein Kampf". I mean they have tried everything else.
[update] Hey wait a minute. I got the above correction to Josh Marshall from Josh Marshall days ago. Not his fault, you can't cover the Bush administrations scrupulously without contradicting yourself. Warning the talkinpointsmemo permalinks are behaving strangely.
You must re-elect Chewbacca, Chewbacca is strong on anti-terrorism. If you vote against Chewbacca you are unpatriotic.
Brad Delong gives a very good explanation of Rice's actions. I think this is a large part of the truth. The other part (as mentioned above) is the Saddam obsession not to mention the missile defence obsession and the general frozen in amberness.
One weak point is “The Taliban were clients of Pakistan's ISI: if we armed the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, would the ISI react by giving nuclear technology to Iran? " This would be an odd response to aid to the Northern alliance, since Iran was an enemy of the Taliban and a de facto ally of the Northern alliance.
I think Brad is slipping in a reference to this.
By the way, to me the weirdest part of the war on terror isn’t anything the Bush administration did. It is Iranian support for Ansar al Islam + Ansar al Islam friendliness with al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is, among other things, ferociously anti Shi’ite. I believe the top Al Qaeda leader in custody got his start as a Sunni who killed Shi’tes. Maybe my inability to understand what the hell the Iranian reactionaries are doing should make me less confident that the ISI wouldn’t respond in a way which I find odd.
The case against aid to the Northern alliance which was actually made in the deputies meetings was that they were ethnically unrepresentative (Tajiks and Uzbecks) so a long term solution to the Afganistan problem implied finding non Islamic loony anti-Taliban Pashtuns nilatps. This is a real issue (see last weeks news from Herat province).
I would say that, to me, the one true impressive accomplishment of Bush administration was to find one nilatp -- Hamid Karzai. I'm sorry to say that I find this accomplishment all the more impressive, because I sometimes have the despicable racist impression that he is the only one.
The problem with Clarke's approach is clear from the problem with the much more radical post 9/11 assault on the Taliban. By 2001 Afganistan was in such horrible shape that it is very hard to put it back together again. The genuine urgency of the al Qaeda menace (correctly perceived by Clarke) justified rushing it. Also the fact that seeking nilatps is not finding them and, of course, that talking about seeking nilatps is not even seeking them.
Another concern with aiding the Northern Alliance is that it might provoke Pakistan to increase support for Kashmiri sepratists increasing the risk of a war between two nuclear armed powers. I think Tthis concern was actually raised I think in the April 30 2001 deputies meeting. Actually that is a charitable interpretation. I have certainly read that it was argued that al Qaeda had to be addressed as part of a comprehensive approach to issues with Pakistan and South Asia generally. This might just mean "let's bury this proposal in paper". The charitable interpretation would show a very unusual focus on diplomacy in the true diplowimp tradition in which the fact that the Pakistani government is doing many evil things means we shouldn't do anything they don't like.
I would say that the ISI can not possibly be our friends. The only sensible approach to dealing with them is to follow Caligula and say "I don't care if they hate us so long as they fear us." The ISI will hate us in any case.
One weak point is “The Taliban were clients of Pakistan's ISI: if we armed the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, would the ISI react by giving nuclear technology to Iran? " This would be an odd response to aid to the Northern alliance, since Iran was an enemy of the Taliban and a de facto ally of the Northern alliance.
I think Brad is slipping in a reference to this.
By the way, to me the weirdest part of the war on terror isn’t anything the Bush administration did. It is Iranian support for Ansar al Islam + Ansar al Islam friendliness with al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is, among other things, ferociously anti Shi’ite. I believe the top Al Qaeda leader in custody got his start as a Sunni who killed Shi’tes. Maybe my inability to understand what the hell the Iranian reactionaries are doing should make me less confident that the ISI wouldn’t respond in a way which I find odd.
The case against aid to the Northern alliance which was actually made in the deputies meetings was that they were ethnically unrepresentative (Tajiks and Uzbecks) so a long term solution to the Afganistan problem implied finding non Islamic loony anti-Taliban Pashtuns nilatps. This is a real issue (see last weeks news from Herat province).
I would say that, to me, the one true impressive accomplishment of Bush administration was to find one nilatp -- Hamid Karzai. I'm sorry to say that I find this accomplishment all the more impressive, because I sometimes have the despicable racist impression that he is the only one.
The problem with Clarke's approach is clear from the problem with the much more radical post 9/11 assault on the Taliban. By 2001 Afganistan was in such horrible shape that it is very hard to put it back together again. The genuine urgency of the al Qaeda menace (correctly perceived by Clarke) justified rushing it. Also the fact that seeking nilatps is not finding them and, of course, that talking about seeking nilatps is not even seeking them.
Another concern with aiding the Northern Alliance is that it might provoke Pakistan to increase support for Kashmiri sepratists increasing the risk of a war between two nuclear armed powers. I think Tthis concern was actually raised I think in the April 30 2001 deputies meeting. Actually that is a charitable interpretation. I have certainly read that it was argued that al Qaeda had to be addressed as part of a comprehensive approach to issues with Pakistan and South Asia generally. This might just mean "let's bury this proposal in paper". The charitable interpretation would show a very unusual focus on diplomacy in the true diplowimp tradition in which the fact that the Pakistani government is doing many evil things means we shouldn't do anything they don't like.
I would say that the ISI can not possibly be our friends. The only sensible approach to dealing with them is to follow Caligula and say "I don't care if they hate us so long as they fear us." The ISI will hate us in any case.
Brad Delong gives very good explanation of Rice's actions. I think this is a large part of the truth. The other part (as mentioned above) is the Saddam obsession not to mention the missile defence obsession and the general frozen in amberness.
One weak point is
"The Taliban were clients of Pakistan's ISI: if we armed the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, would the ISI react by giving nuclear technology to Iran?" This would be an odd response to aid to the Northern alliance, since Iran was an enemy of the Taliban and a de facto ally of the Northern alliance.
The case against aid to the Northern alliance which was actually made in the deputies meetings was that they were ethnically unrepresentative (Tajiks and Uzbecks) so a long term solution to the Afganistan problem implied finding non Islamic loony anti-Taliban Pashtuns nilatps. This is a real issue (see last weeks news from Herat province).
I would say that, to me, the one true impressive accomplishment of Bush administration was to find one nilatp -- Hamid Karzai. I'm sorry to say that I find this accomplishment all the more impressive because I sometimes have the despicable racist impression that he is the only one.
The problem with Clarke's approach is clear from the problem with the much more radical post 9/11 assault on the Taliban. By 2001 Afganistan was in such horrible shape that it is very hard to put it back together again. The genuine urgency of the al Qaeda menace (correctly perceived by Clarke) justified rushing it. Also the fact that seeking nilatps is not finding them and, of course, that talking about seeking nilatps is not even seeking them.
Another concern with aiding the Northern Alliance is that it might provoke Pakistan to increase support for Kashmiri sepratists increasing the risk of a war between two nuclear armed powers. I think Tthis concern was actually raised I think in the April 30 2001 deputies meeting. Actually that is a charitable interpretation. I have certainly read that it was argued that al Qaeda had to be addressed as part of a comprehensive approach to issues with Pakistan and South Asia generally. This might just mean "let's bury this proposal in paper". The charitable interpretation would show a very unusual focus on diplomacy in the true diplowimp tradition in which the fact that the Pakistani government is doing many evil things means we shouldn't do anything they don't like.
I would say that the ISI can not possibly be our friends. The only sensible approach to dealing with them is to follow Caligula and say "I don't care if they hate us so long as they fear us." The ISI will hate us in any case.
One weak point is
"The Taliban were clients of Pakistan's ISI: if we armed the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, would the ISI react by giving nuclear technology to Iran?" This would be an odd response to aid to the Northern alliance, since Iran was an enemy of the Taliban and a de facto ally of the Northern alliance.
The case against aid to the Northern alliance which was actually made in the deputies meetings was that they were ethnically unrepresentative (Tajiks and Uzbecks) so a long term solution to the Afganistan problem implied finding non Islamic loony anti-Taliban Pashtuns nilatps. This is a real issue (see last weeks news from Herat province).
I would say that, to me, the one true impressive accomplishment of Bush administration was to find one nilatp -- Hamid Karzai. I'm sorry to say that I find this accomplishment all the more impressive because I sometimes have the despicable racist impression that he is the only one.
The problem with Clarke's approach is clear from the problem with the much more radical post 9/11 assault on the Taliban. By 2001 Afganistan was in such horrible shape that it is very hard to put it back together again. The genuine urgency of the al Qaeda menace (correctly perceived by Clarke) justified rushing it. Also the fact that seeking nilatps is not finding them and, of course, that talking about seeking nilatps is not even seeking them.
Another concern with aiding the Northern Alliance is that it might provoke Pakistan to increase support for Kashmiri sepratists increasing the risk of a war between two nuclear armed powers. I think Tthis concern was actually raised I think in the April 30 2001 deputies meeting. Actually that is a charitable interpretation. I have certainly read that it was argued that al Qaeda had to be addressed as part of a comprehensive approach to issues with Pakistan and South Asia generally. This might just mean "let's bury this proposal in paper". The charitable interpretation would show a very unusual focus on diplomacy in the true diplowimp tradition in which the fact that the Pakistani government is doing many evil things means we shouldn't do anything they don't like.
I would say that the ISI can not possibly be our friends. The only sensible approach to dealing with them is to follow Caligula and say "I don't care if they hate us so long as they fear us." The ISI will hate us in any case.
Robert's Random Thoughts exclusiive must quote Robert't Random Thoughts
Second Robert's Random Thoughts Retraction
Recall the first retraction Curio Pintus was a victim and had every reason to hint that he might sue me, although I personally do not claim any particular expertise in the sense of knowing exactly who he is.
Retraction Retraction Retraction
This post is wrong !
I should not have claimed that "It depends on what your definition of "action" is". I distorted the meaning of McClellan's statement by removing it from context.
In fact a bit more context shows that McClellan's statement to the March 23 press gaggle makes no sense even if "action" is defined as "meetings"
McCLELLAN: ... He appears to be more wrapped up in the process about what title he had and what meetings he was able to participate in or not participate in. The world according to Dick Clarke is all about Dick Clarke. If he and his ideas are not at the center of all that is going on, then he thinks you cannot be taking terrorism seriously.
Well, let's look at the facts. Let's look at the action we took. This President took action immediately upon coming into office to develop a comprehensive strategy to eliminate al Qaeda. ...
That is, McClellan first accuses Clarke of caring too much about, among other things, meetings which are not to be confused with action, then praises Bush for ordering some meetings, that is, action.
This is McClellan vs McClellan. Notice again that I did not paste two distant contradictory statements together with an ellipses. He really did say one thing, toss in two gratuitous insults, then say something which contradicted the first.
I should not have hinted that McClellan has the same degree of honesty, self discipline, willingness to take responsibility for his mistakes and integrity as Bill Clinton.
I should have said that if McClellan repents and devotes the rest of his life to building his character he might live long enough to have one tenth as much integrity in his whole body as Bill Clinton has in his ... little finger.
Second Robert's Random Thoughts Retraction
Recall the first retraction Curio Pintus was a victim and had every reason to hint that he might sue me, although I personally do not claim any particular expertise in the sense of knowing exactly who he is.
Retraction Retraction Retraction
This post is wrong !
I should not have claimed that "It depends on what your definition of "action" is". I distorted the meaning of McClellan's statement by removing it from context.
In fact a bit more context shows that McClellan's statement to the March 23 press gaggle makes no sense even if "action" is defined as "meetings"
McCLELLAN: ... He appears to be more wrapped up in the process about what title he had and what meetings he was able to participate in or not participate in. The world according to Dick Clarke is all about Dick Clarke. If he and his ideas are not at the center of all that is going on, then he thinks you cannot be taking terrorism seriously.
Well, let's look at the facts. Let's look at the action we took. This President took action immediately upon coming into office to develop a comprehensive strategy to eliminate al Qaeda. ...
That is, McClellan first accuses Clarke of caring too much about, among other things, meetings which are not to be confused with action, then praises Bush for ordering some meetings, that is, action.
This is McClellan vs McClellan. Notice again that I did not paste two distant contradictory statements together with an ellipses. He really did say one thing, toss in two gratuitous insults, then say something which contradicted the first.
I should not have hinted that McClellan has the same degree of honesty, self discipline, willingness to take responsibility for his mistakes and integrity as Bill Clinton.
I should have said that if McClellan repents and devotes the rest of his life to building his character he might live long enough to have one tenth as much integrity in his whole body as Bill Clinton has in his ... little finger.
Thursday, March 25, 2004
This blog attempts to respect almost normal standards of decency and seriousness.
Therefore interested readers are directed to the blog no on reads for a seerous discussion of the state of the First Underwear.
Therefore interested readers are directed to the blog no on reads for a seerous discussion of the state of the First Underwear.
Omigod I've never seen such a thing a Washington Post journalist is reacting to a former bureaucrat the way teenage girls reacted to the beatles.
I didn't see and hear Clarke testify because I live in Rome. I know what I want for my birthday -- the Clarke on TV DVD (don't think it isn't coming out soon).
I thought Clarke's handling of the background briefing issue was a slam dunk, but I had no idea that
it was released just before he testified and stupidly I didn't realise that to release it was to break a longstanding policy. This means, in particular, that they broke a rule sacred to journalists, which is obviously very a high risk operation.
The first exchange was nothing compared to the second
"During a second round of questioning, Thompson returned to the subject, questioning Clarke's "standard of candor and morality."
"I don't think it's a question of morality at all; I think it's a question of politics," Clarke snapped.
Thompson had to wait for Sept. 11 victims' relatives in the gallery to stop applauding before he pleaded ignorance of the ways of Washington. "I'm from the Midwest, so I think I'll leave it there," he said. Moments later, Thompson left the hearing room and did not return. "
his interrogator Gov James Thomson "left the hearing room and did not return."
This was not a slam dunk. This was a purple lightning smash the back board slam dunk.
Some of the shards are going to wound the president.
I didn't see and hear Clarke testify because I live in Rome. I know what I want for my birthday -- the Clarke on TV DVD (don't think it isn't coming out soon).
I thought Clarke's handling of the background briefing issue was a slam dunk, but I had no idea that
it was released just before he testified and stupidly I didn't realise that to release it was to break a longstanding policy. This means, in particular, that they broke a rule sacred to journalists, which is obviously very a high risk operation.
The first exchange was nothing compared to the second
"During a second round of questioning, Thompson returned to the subject, questioning Clarke's "standard of candor and morality."
"I don't think it's a question of morality at all; I think it's a question of politics," Clarke snapped.
Thompson had to wait for Sept. 11 victims' relatives in the gallery to stop applauding before he pleaded ignorance of the ways of Washington. "I'm from the Midwest, so I think I'll leave it there," he said. Moments later, Thompson left the hearing room and did not return. "
his interrogator Gov James Thomson "left the hearing room and did not return."
This was not a slam dunk. This was a purple lightning smash the back board slam dunk.
Some of the shards are going to wound the president.
vlwc echo chamber echo chamber
One man circular firing squad.
Brad Delong kindly links to my post below and fixes up my presentation. I sure wish I wrote like that.
He also got Wolfowitz's testimony. Richard Clarke claims that, on April 30 2001, Wolfowitz asked why he was worrying about one little guy (Bin Laden) when the more serious issue was Iraqi terrorist attacks on the US. Clarke replied that there had been no Iraqi terrorist attacks after Clinton blew up Iraqi intelligence agency headquarters in response to Iraq's effort to kill the president's dad 8 years earlier.
Wolfowitz was asked about this by Roemer and replied at length stressing the point that he had not read the book, and wasn't the discussion something about Mein Kampf, and then uses this brilliant approach to refute the charge that he is insanely obsessed with an unfounded belief that Saddam Hussein was a master terrorist up until the invasion
"... as a reason why we should take threatening rhetoric seriously, particularly in the case of terrorism and Saddam Hussein."
Actually I'm not sure I should use the past tense. Maybe Wolfowitz is convinced that Saddam Hussein is masterminding terrorism from his prison cell.
One man circular firing squad.
Brad Delong kindly links to my post below and fixes up my presentation. I sure wish I wrote like that.
He also got Wolfowitz's testimony. Richard Clarke claims that, on April 30 2001, Wolfowitz asked why he was worrying about one little guy (Bin Laden) when the more serious issue was Iraqi terrorist attacks on the US. Clarke replied that there had been no Iraqi terrorist attacks after Clinton blew up Iraqi intelligence agency headquarters in response to Iraq's effort to kill the president's dad 8 years earlier.
Wolfowitz was asked about this by Roemer and replied at length stressing the point that he had not read the book, and wasn't the discussion something about Mein Kampf, and then uses this brilliant approach to refute the charge that he is insanely obsessed with an unfounded belief that Saddam Hussein was a master terrorist up until the invasion
"... as a reason why we should take threatening rhetoric seriously, particularly in the case of terrorism and Saddam Hussein."
Actually I'm not sure I should use the past tense. Maybe Wolfowitz is convinced that Saddam Hussein is masterminding terrorism from his prison cell.
Flying pigs defeat flying monkeys
" you know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see just one person fess up and admit that, in retrospect, we obviously didn't take them seriously enough.
Coming next: porcine flight!"
—Kevin Drum
Mr. Clarke began his testimony before the bipartisan, 10-member panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, with an apology to relatives of the 3,000 people killed on Sept. 11, 2001.
"Your government failed you," he said, his voice close to breaking. "Those entrusted with protecting you failed you, and I failed you."
I was wrong. Richard Clarke is not Carl Rove's worst nightmare. Carl Rove might have a fertile mind but I'm sure he has never had a nightmare this bad.
" you know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see just one person fess up and admit that, in retrospect, we obviously didn't take them seriously enough.
Coming next: porcine flight!"
—Kevin Drum
Mr. Clarke began his testimony before the bipartisan, 10-member panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, with an apology to relatives of the 3,000 people killed on Sept. 11, 2001.
"Your government failed you," he said, his voice close to breaking. "Those entrusted with protecting you failed you, and I failed you."
I was wrong. Richard Clarke is not Carl Rove's worst nightmare. Carl Rove might have a fertile mind but I'm sure he has never had a nightmare this bad.
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Ouch
Kevin Drum posts a white house release of an August 2002 background briefing by Clarke in which Clarke takes exaclty the Bush administration line in contrast to the current Clarke line. All this really shows is that while he was part of the Bush administration he defended the Bush administration, that is, he wouldn't say who chopped down the cherry tree. Still it is an important event in the Bush vs Clarke struggle.
[update]
""I was a special assistant to the president," Mr. Clarke said. "And I made the case I was asked to make."
Mr. Thompson pressed, "Are you saying to me that you were asked to make an untrue case to the press and the public and that you went ahead and did it?"
After a bit more back-and-forth, Mr. Clarke insisted he had not said anything literally "untrue" at the time.
"I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done, and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done," Mr. Clarke said. "And as a special assistant to the president, one is frequently asked to do that kind of thing. I've done it for several presidents."
There was a rare moment of laughter in the hearing room."
Knock out.
By far the best counter point the Bush administration has found, and in a minute or so Clarke has the audience laughing at the absurdity of claiming that anyone should conclude anything from the fact that an administration official was trying to put a pro administration spin on the facts.
Kevin Drum posts a white house release of an August 2002 background briefing by Clarke in which Clarke takes exaclty the Bush administration line in contrast to the current Clarke line. All this really shows is that while he was part of the Bush administration he defended the Bush administration, that is, he wouldn't say who chopped down the cherry tree. Still it is an important event in the Bush vs Clarke struggle.
[update]
""I was a special assistant to the president," Mr. Clarke said. "And I made the case I was asked to make."
Mr. Thompson pressed, "Are you saying to me that you were asked to make an untrue case to the press and the public and that you went ahead and did it?"
After a bit more back-and-forth, Mr. Clarke insisted he had not said anything literally "untrue" at the time.
"I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done, and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done," Mr. Clarke said. "And as a special assistant to the president, one is frequently asked to do that kind of thing. I've done it for several presidents."
There was a rare moment of laughter in the hearing room."
Knock out.
By far the best counter point the Bush administration has found, and in a minute or so Clarke has the audience laughing at the absurdity of claiming that anyone should conclude anything from the fact that an administration official was trying to put a pro administration spin on the facts.
from the New York Observer via atrios (of course)
"The Bush people keep saying that Clinton was not doing enough [to combat the Al Qaeda threat]," said Ms. Kleinberg. "But ‘nothing’ is less than ‘not enough,’ and nothing is what the Bush administration did."
An unnamed spokesman for the Bush campaign was quoted as saying of Sept. 11, "We own it." That comment particularly disturbed the Four Moms.
"They can have it," said Ms. Van Auken. "Can I have my husband back now? "
"The Bush people keep saying that Clinton was not doing enough [to combat the Al Qaeda threat]," said Ms. Kleinberg. "But ‘nothing’ is less than ‘not enough,’ and nothing is what the Bush administration did."
An unnamed spokesman for the Bush campaign was quoted as saying of Sept. 11, "We own it." That comment particularly disturbed the Four Moms.
"They can have it," said Ms. Van Auken. "Can I have my husband back now? "
I guess it depends on what the definition of action is
McClellan at the March 23 press gaggle
"Well, let's look at the facts. Let's look at the action we took. This President took action immediately upon coming into office to develop a comprehensive strategy to eliminate al Qaeda"
Gee I thought action to eliminate al Qaeda would have to do with hellfire missiles or at least freezing bank accounts. I didn't know that action meant sending a plan back for 8 months of discussion and revision.
I would have called that al Qaeda related program activities.
McClellan at the March 23 press gaggle
"Well, let's look at the facts. Let's look at the action we took. This President took action immediately upon coming into office to develop a comprehensive strategy to eliminate al Qaeda"
Gee I thought action to eliminate al Qaeda would have to do with hellfire missiles or at least freezing bank accounts. I didn't know that action meant sending a plan back for 8 months of discussion and revision.
I would have called that al Qaeda related program activities.
Is Clarke going to keep on going until November ? What would stop him ?
He is clearly very angry and determined to get Bush out of office. It seems to me that he might succeed. Other angry insiders have gone quite. DiIulio appears to have been intimidated, O'neill appears to have gotten bored, Clarke appears to be fearless and relentless. All agree he is a Bulldozer Bulldog and deadly enemy of Bull****.
I think the only thing that could stop him is if the media cut off his access. If reporters decide to move on and don't quote him in papers or let him on the air, he would lose effectiveness. In that case I think he should start a blog.
I think the media might give him a lot of time. He makes good copy. Clarke is eloquent. It's not just that he speaks and writes decent English not bureaucratese, he uses vivid metaphores and excellent turns of phrase. Also he was right at the heart of the action, the most senior official who stayed in the White House when it might be a target. That's dramatic. Also he faced danger when all the people defending Bush got away from potential targets( not that there is anything wrong with that). He was a personal Friend of John O'Neill a fellow Cassandra who died in the WTC .
Clarke is Rove's worst nightmare. I think he personally might make the difference.
I think of the heroic passengers of the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. They basically knew they were doomed, but didn't let that paralyse them and acted to save others even if they couldn't save themselves. That plane might have been aiming for the White House where it might have killed Clarke. Maybe those passengers changed the course of history.
He is clearly very angry and determined to get Bush out of office. It seems to me that he might succeed. Other angry insiders have gone quite. DiIulio appears to have been intimidated, O'neill appears to have gotten bored, Clarke appears to be fearless and relentless. All agree he is a Bulldozer Bulldog and deadly enemy of Bull****.
I think the only thing that could stop him is if the media cut off his access. If reporters decide to move on and don't quote him in papers or let him on the air, he would lose effectiveness. In that case I think he should start a blog.
I think the media might give him a lot of time. He makes good copy. Clarke is eloquent. It's not just that he speaks and writes decent English not bureaucratese, he uses vivid metaphores and excellent turns of phrase. Also he was right at the heart of the action, the most senior official who stayed in the White House when it might be a target. That's dramatic. Also he faced danger when all the people defending Bush got away from potential targets( not that there is anything wrong with that). He was a personal Friend of John O'Neill a fellow Cassandra who died in the WTC .
Clarke is Rove's worst nightmare. I think he personally might make the difference.
I think of the heroic passengers of the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. They basically knew they were doomed, but didn't let that paralyse them and acted to save others even if they couldn't save themselves. That plane might have been aiming for the White House where it might have killed Clarke. Maybe those passengers changed the course of history.
As part of my effort to keep the Clarke coefficient below 80% I note the revised form of the proposed anti gay marriage amendment as reported in the Washington Post
The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing yesterday on the revised version of the proposed amendment, which states: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
The change is that the earlier draft had also said that laws must not be construed as etc. As pointed out by many people, this would be true even if the law very specifically said that some of the legal incidents of marriage should be conferred on, for example. gay couples or for another "next of kin" or "lawyer and client". I think this might be a case in which bloggers affected the debate.
It looks like the change in wording has not changed anyone's view. That is, people, including legislators, opposed to the amendment already assumed that it would be rewritten. I, of course, am still absolutely opposed.
The Republicans are pushing this as a wedge issue. I'm not sure that this is a smart move. I guess they have polls and focus groups and stuff and know what they are doing. However, I would have thought that keeping the focus on a constitutional amendment, which is not supported by many oponents of gay marriage who respect the constitution or who actually believe in states rights, as opposed to gay marriage itself, might hurt them.
Also the headline suggests that the GOP may have exhausted the apparently infinite patience of the staff of the Washington Post including the guy who writes headlines
"GOP Playing Politics on Gay Marriage, Democrats Say
Seeking Votes at Polls If Not on Hill, Party Pushes Amendment
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 24, 2004; Page A02 "
Notice the subheadline doesn't even have a pro forma "according to critics" or another "Democrats say"
We're not yet at the "Ford to New York 'drop dead'" level but we're getting there.
I wonder how Republicans who have cowed the main stream media by claiming it has a bias against them will react if the main stream media turns against them.
The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing yesterday on the revised version of the proposed amendment, which states: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
The change is that the earlier draft had also said that laws must not be construed as etc. As pointed out by many people, this would be true even if the law very specifically said that some of the legal incidents of marriage should be conferred on, for example. gay couples or for another "next of kin" or "lawyer and client". I think this might be a case in which bloggers affected the debate.
It looks like the change in wording has not changed anyone's view. That is, people, including legislators, opposed to the amendment already assumed that it would be rewritten. I, of course, am still absolutely opposed.
The Republicans are pushing this as a wedge issue. I'm not sure that this is a smart move. I guess they have polls and focus groups and stuff and know what they are doing. However, I would have thought that keeping the focus on a constitutional amendment, which is not supported by many oponents of gay marriage who respect the constitution or who actually believe in states rights, as opposed to gay marriage itself, might hurt them.
Also the headline suggests that the GOP may have exhausted the apparently infinite patience of the staff of the Washington Post including the guy who writes headlines
"GOP Playing Politics on Gay Marriage, Democrats Say
Seeking Votes at Polls If Not on Hill, Party Pushes Amendment
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 24, 2004; Page A02 "
Notice the subheadline doesn't even have a pro forma "according to critics" or another "Democrats say"
We're not yet at the "Ford to New York 'drop dead'" level but we're getting there.
I wonder how Republicans who have cowed the main stream media by claiming it has a bias against them will react if the main stream media turns against them.
Richard Clarke has sparked a furious debate. Many have remarked that Kerry is glad to sit it out. Clarke is not sitting it out but he could. The furious debate is between various Bush administration officials presenting wildly contradictory denials Clarke’s claims and wildly contradictory attacks on Clarke. I think the best battles are between one guy and himself.
I nominate this Wilkinson guy for most incompetent spinmeister (although Hadley and >Cheney give him runs for his money). I wonder if he is going to be spending more time with his family ?
From http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_03_21.php#002745
Wilkinson vs Wilkinson (look mom no ellipses)
“And I think your viewers tonight would be a little alarmed if the president didn't ask about any connection from anybody on any part of the globe, frankly.
The president wanted to know who did it and who was responsible.
Dick Clarke, on another interview he gave to PBS "Frontline," said that, right after 9/11, all his options were open. He wasn't sure who did it. So, again, we see Mr. Clarke on three sides of a two-sided issue. What the American people need to know is that their government is working diligently to go after al Qaeda”
Yes that’s a continuous quote from one human being. If Bush considers all possibilities it is good, and if Clarke considers all possibilities it is bad.
Now, for what it’s worth (nothing) I personally think that neither Bush nor Clarke open mindedly considered all possibilities, bush was really only interested in Iraq and Clarke was immediately sure Al Qaeda was guilty.
Notice that if one takes Wilkinson literally one must conclude that he believes that Clarke should have known who did it before looking at the evidence. Hard to reconcile with any meaning of the word intelligence.
I think Wilkinson trying to mislead the audience into thinking that, when Clarke spoke on PBS, he was still not sure who did it. Hard to reconcile with the quote from Clarke on PBS “Frankly, there was absolutely not a shred of evidence that it was anybody else. The evidence that it was Al Qaeda began just to be massive within days after the attack.”
Still Colin Powell manages an almost more impressive oxymoron
Powell vs Powell
From CNN
Look mom no ellipses no period no comma !
"We wanted to move beyond the roll-back policy of containment”
Now back in the good old cold war there was a debate between the super hawks who wanted “roll back” and the doves and just hawks who wanted containment. “the roll-back policy of containment is an oxymoron.
This is a substantive issue because Powell is attempting to conflate pre December 2000 Clinton administration policies “criminal prosecution and limited retaliation for specific terrorist attacks.”(containment) with the roll back plan to destroy Al Qaeda which was developed in the last months of the Clinton administration, presented to the Bush administration in January 2001 and discussed until September 2001 and then implemented after 9/11 see Time.
After that, mere contradictions between actually different people are dull but.
McClellan & Hadley Vs Hadley & Bartlett
On was Bush in the situation room on September 12 2001.
From Sadly no’s rush transcript of 60 minutes.
“HADLEY: We can not find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the President ever occurred.
STAHL: Now can I interrupt you for one second. We have done our own work on that ourselves and we have two sources who tell us independently of Dick Clarke that there was this encounter. One of them was an actual witness.
HADLEY: Look, the -- I -- I stand on what I said. But the point I think we're missing in this is of course the President wanted to know if there was any evidence linking Iraq to 9/11.”
Amazingly McClellan tried the same deception a day after Hadley got nailed on national TV.
MR. McCLELLAN: Let's just step backwards -- regardless, regardless, put that aside. There's no record of the President being in the Situation Room on that day that it was alleged to have happened, on the day of September the 12th. When the President is in the Situation Room, we keep track of that.
Bartlett vehemently disagrees.
White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer -- text and audio. "I'm not here to dispute that there wasn't a conversation and the fact that President Bush didn't ask questions about Iraq, I'm sure he did and I'm glad he did,
Cheney Vs Wilkinson
Was Clarke out of the loop or was Clarke the loop ?
Cheney on Rush L via CNN
"Well, he wasn't in the loop frankly on a lot of this stuff," sniffed Vice President Dick Cheney on Rush Limbaugh's radio show Monday.
(you can tell something is happening politically when CNN.com uses the sneer word “sniffed” when quoting Cheney)
Jim Wilkinson, an NSC spokesman, on Paula Zahn Monday night
l
"I would say, I would remind you that Dick Clarke was in charge of counterterrorism policy when the African embassies were bombed. Dick Clarke was in charge of counterterrorism policy when the USS Cole was bombed. Dick Clarke was in charge of counterterrorism policy in the time preceding 9/11 when the threat was growing."
Wolfowitz vs his spokesman
As soon as the transcripts of today's testimony appear, watch for Tim Roemer's exchange with Paul Wolfowitz over Richard Clarke's claims. Wolfowitz would not clearly address the validity of claims which his spokesman yesterday was bold enough to call a 'fabrication'.
“A spokesman for Wolfowitz describes Clarke's account as a "fabrication." Wolfowitz always regarded Al Qaeda as "a major threat," says this official.”
via
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_03_21.php#002744
Rice Vs Wilkinson vs anon
Aka goldilocks and the three bears.
Wilkinson
“I want to make a very point here, that all of his ideas he presented were not a strategy. This is a president who wanted a comprehensive strategy to go after al Qaeda where it lives, where it hides, where it plots, where it raises money.”
(note Wilkinson gives a good summary of Clarke’s “non” strategy under the heading of what the president allegedly wanted). Clarke’s ideas were not comprehensive enough. The ideas formed just part of a complete strategy.
Too narrow.
Rice
From
National security adviser Condoleezza Rice on ABC -- partial text. "This was in fact Dick Clarke's area of responsibility and when I asked him shortly after coming to the White House to give us a strategy for dealing with al Qaeda, because he made a very persuasive brief being the dangers of al Qaeda, what I got was a laundry list of ideas, many of which had been rejected in the Clinton administration in 1998."
A “laundry list”, that is, unfocused. It was necessary to decide which of the many ideas to focus on to make a strategy.
Too broad
Anon quoted in Time via Josh Marshall
“In the words of a senior Bush Administration official, the proposals amounted to "everything we've done since 9/11."”
Just right.
I nominate this Wilkinson guy for most incompetent spinmeister (although Hadley and >Cheney give him runs for his money). I wonder if he is going to be spending more time with his family ?
From http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_03_21.php#002745
Wilkinson vs Wilkinson (look mom no ellipses)
“And I think your viewers tonight would be a little alarmed if the president didn't ask about any connection from anybody on any part of the globe, frankly.
The president wanted to know who did it and who was responsible.
Dick Clarke, on another interview he gave to PBS "Frontline," said that, right after 9/11, all his options were open. He wasn't sure who did it. So, again, we see Mr. Clarke on three sides of a two-sided issue. What the American people need to know is that their government is working diligently to go after al Qaeda”
Yes that’s a continuous quote from one human being. If Bush considers all possibilities it is good, and if Clarke considers all possibilities it is bad.
Now, for what it’s worth (nothing) I personally think that neither Bush nor Clarke open mindedly considered all possibilities, bush was really only interested in Iraq and Clarke was immediately sure Al Qaeda was guilty.
Notice that if one takes Wilkinson literally one must conclude that he believes that Clarke should have known who did it before looking at the evidence. Hard to reconcile with any meaning of the word intelligence.
I think Wilkinson trying to mislead the audience into thinking that, when Clarke spoke on PBS, he was still not sure who did it. Hard to reconcile with the quote from Clarke on PBS “Frankly, there was absolutely not a shred of evidence that it was anybody else. The evidence that it was Al Qaeda began just to be massive within days after the attack.”
Still Colin Powell manages an almost more impressive oxymoron
Powell vs Powell
From CNN
Look mom no ellipses no period no comma !
"We wanted to move beyond the roll-back policy of containment”
Now back in the good old cold war there was a debate between the super hawks who wanted “roll back” and the doves and just hawks who wanted containment. “the roll-back policy of containment is an oxymoron.
This is a substantive issue because Powell is attempting to conflate pre December 2000 Clinton administration policies “criminal prosecution and limited retaliation for specific terrorist attacks.”(containment) with the roll back plan to destroy Al Qaeda which was developed in the last months of the Clinton administration, presented to the Bush administration in January 2001 and discussed until September 2001 and then implemented after 9/11 see Time.
After that, mere contradictions between actually different people are dull but.
McClellan & Hadley Vs Hadley & Bartlett
On was Bush in the situation room on September 12 2001.
From Sadly no’s rush transcript of 60 minutes.
“HADLEY: We can not find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the President ever occurred.
STAHL: Now can I interrupt you for one second. We have done our own work on that ourselves and we have two sources who tell us independently of Dick Clarke that there was this encounter. One of them was an actual witness.
HADLEY: Look, the -- I -- I stand on what I said. But the point I think we're missing in this is of course the President wanted to know if there was any evidence linking Iraq to 9/11.”
Amazingly McClellan tried the same deception a day after Hadley got nailed on national TV.
MR. McCLELLAN: Let's just step backwards -- regardless, regardless, put that aside. There's no record of the President being in the Situation Room on that day that it was alleged to have happened, on the day of September the 12th. When the President is in the Situation Room, we keep track of that.
Bartlett vehemently disagrees.
White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer -- text and audio. "I'm not here to dispute that there wasn't a conversation and the fact that President Bush didn't ask questions about Iraq, I'm sure he did and I'm glad he did,
Cheney Vs Wilkinson
Was Clarke out of the loop or was Clarke the loop ?
Cheney on Rush L via CNN
"Well, he wasn't in the loop frankly on a lot of this stuff," sniffed Vice President Dick Cheney on Rush Limbaugh's radio show Monday.
(you can tell something is happening politically when CNN.com uses the sneer word “sniffed” when quoting Cheney)
Jim Wilkinson, an NSC spokesman, on Paula Zahn Monday night
l
"I would say, I would remind you that Dick Clarke was in charge of counterterrorism policy when the African embassies were bombed. Dick Clarke was in charge of counterterrorism policy when the USS Cole was bombed. Dick Clarke was in charge of counterterrorism policy in the time preceding 9/11 when the threat was growing."
Wolfowitz vs his spokesman
As soon as the transcripts of today's testimony appear, watch for Tim Roemer's exchange with Paul Wolfowitz over Richard Clarke's claims. Wolfowitz would not clearly address the validity of claims which his spokesman yesterday was bold enough to call a 'fabrication'.
“A spokesman for Wolfowitz describes Clarke's account as a "fabrication." Wolfowitz always regarded Al Qaeda as "a major threat," says this official.”
via
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_03_21.php#002744
Rice Vs Wilkinson vs anon
Aka goldilocks and the three bears.
Wilkinson
“I want to make a very point here, that all of his ideas he presented were not a strategy. This is a president who wanted a comprehensive strategy to go after al Qaeda where it lives, where it hides, where it plots, where it raises money.”
(note Wilkinson gives a good summary of Clarke’s “non” strategy under the heading of what the president allegedly wanted). Clarke’s ideas were not comprehensive enough. The ideas formed just part of a complete strategy.
Too narrow.
Rice
From
National security adviser Condoleezza Rice on ABC -- partial text. "This was in fact Dick Clarke's area of responsibility and when I asked him shortly after coming to the White House to give us a strategy for dealing with al Qaeda, because he made a very persuasive brief being the dangers of al Qaeda, what I got was a laundry list of ideas, many of which had been rejected in the Clinton administration in 1998."
A “laundry list”, that is, unfocused. It was necessary to decide which of the many ideas to focus on to make a strategy.
Too broad
Anon quoted in Time via Josh Marshall
“In the words of a senior Bush Administration official, the proposals amounted to "everything we've done since 9/11."”
Just right.
Cnn's howler
"Former Secretary of State William Cohen testifies Tuesday before the 9/11 commission."
now corrected at CNN
How do I post a screenshot ?
"Former Secretary of State William Cohen testifies Tuesday before the 9/11 commission."
now corrected at CNN
How do I post a screenshot ?
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Now that Dick Clarke has been accused of leading American grandstand, I feel I am in good company when I note that I beat Josh Marshall to the punch I beat Josh Marshall to the punch I did.
Like me two posts below, he notes that Rand Beers is a formerly non partisan civil servant who is advising Kerry because he was appalled by what he saw when working at the Bush Jr NSC.
Note the time on my post is earlier than his. To bad I spelled partisan poartisan and now I can't correct the spelling without changing the time of the post.
Oh and maybe I'm cheating a little bit on time zones but hey Josh Marshall is good.
Like me two posts below, he notes that Rand Beers is a formerly non partisan civil servant who is advising Kerry because he was appalled by what he saw when working at the Bush Jr NSC.
Note the time on my post is earlier than his. To bad I spelled partisan poartisan and now I can't correct the spelling without changing the time of the post.
Oh and maybe I'm cheating a little bit on time zones but hey Josh Marshall is good.
Why was Richard Clarke demoted to terrorism tsar to cyberterrorism tsarevich ?
Clarke had been telling the Bush administration for 8 months that Al Qaeda was an imminent threat and that more should be done to fight it. September 11 2001 he was proven right. Within a month he was demoted. Why ?
Was he demoted for being right ? This seems fairly likely to me. Bush's top advisors might have been unwilling to face him saying "I told you so" perhaps at some critical point in a policy debate. The fact that he had clearly been right and they had been, at least, less right made him a dangerous bureaucratic adversary. They might have decided that they had to demote him to neutralise him.
It is also possible that Clarke was demoted because the position of anti terrorism tsar had become very important. Before 9/11 his efforts to be a major player by e.g. briefing the cabinet were blocked on the grounds that anti terrorism was less important than missile defences, tax cuts, overthrowing Saddam Hussein, Tax cuts, and tax cuts. After 9/11 that approach was no longer feasible.
The hypothesis I find most interesting is quite different. We now now, in spite of the repeated dishonest denials of Hadley and McClellan that Bush asked Clarke if there was evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 and did not accept Clarke's immediate response that there was none. We know that Clarke consulted the FBI and CIA and on 9/18 sent a memo towards Bush with the conclusion that there was no evidence of a link and that a link was very very unlikely. We know that Hadley sent it back asking for "more research", that is to look harder for evidence of such a link that is, as translated into plain English by Clarke "wrong answer." That Clarke looked harder and sent the same memo about two weeks later. That the memo was never given to Bush and that Clarke was demoted about a week after sending the memo for the second time.
It seems quite likely to me that Clarke was demoted from handling terrorism to handling cyber terrorism because he refused to claim that a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 was plausible.
Clarke had been telling the Bush administration for 8 months that Al Qaeda was an imminent threat and that more should be done to fight it. September 11 2001 he was proven right. Within a month he was demoted. Why ?
Was he demoted for being right ? This seems fairly likely to me. Bush's top advisors might have been unwilling to face him saying "I told you so" perhaps at some critical point in a policy debate. The fact that he had clearly been right and they had been, at least, less right made him a dangerous bureaucratic adversary. They might have decided that they had to demote him to neutralise him.
It is also possible that Clarke was demoted because the position of anti terrorism tsar had become very important. Before 9/11 his efforts to be a major player by e.g. briefing the cabinet were blocked on the grounds that anti terrorism was less important than missile defences, tax cuts, overthrowing Saddam Hussein, Tax cuts, and tax cuts. After 9/11 that approach was no longer feasible.
The hypothesis I find most interesting is quite different. We now now, in spite of the repeated dishonest denials of Hadley and McClellan that Bush asked Clarke if there was evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 and did not accept Clarke's immediate response that there was none. We know that Clarke consulted the FBI and CIA and on 9/18 sent a memo towards Bush with the conclusion that there was no evidence of a link and that a link was very very unlikely. We know that Hadley sent it back asking for "more research", that is to look harder for evidence of such a link that is, as translated into plain English by Clarke "wrong answer." That Clarke looked harder and sent the same memo about two weeks later. That the memo was never given to Bush and that Clarke was demoted about a week after sending the memo for the second time.
It seems quite likely to me that Clarke was demoted from handling terrorism to handling cyber terrorism because he refused to claim that a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 was plausible.
My few readers will guess that I was thinking of blackwhite in the context of the Bush administration.
One of their claims in their clearly flailing attack on Richard Clarke is that he was a Clinton administration official and hence a partisan Democrat. The basis for this claim is that Clarke was a civil servant not a political appointee. Thus partisan really means not partisan enough to work only for Republicans. Up is down.
Boring bit below. Now it is clearly absurd to say Richard Clarke is a partisan Democrat. He claims that he was registered as a Republican in 2000. This is a matter of public record. The claim is based partly on the fact that he worked for one Democratic president as well as 3 Republican presidents. It is also based on the fact that he is a friend of Rand Beers who
is John Kerry's coordinator for national security and homeland security issues. So how did Clarke get to know Beers ? Beers too was a civil servant working for the Bush administration who resigned as a top counterterrorism official at the National Security Council after the invasion of Iraq .
In other words, the Bush administration defence against the view of a non partisan expert who is convinced that Bush should not be president is to note that he is a friend of another formerly non poartisan expert who is convinced that Bush should not be president.
The White house view that everyone who is familiar with the Bush white house and is not a Republican operative is against them might be correct, but it seems unwise for them to stress it.
One of their claims in their clearly flailing attack on Richard Clarke is that he was a Clinton administration official and hence a partisan Democrat. The basis for this claim is that Clarke was a civil servant not a political appointee. Thus partisan really means not partisan enough to work only for Republicans. Up is down.
Boring bit below. Now it is clearly absurd to say Richard Clarke is a partisan Democrat. He claims that he was registered as a Republican in 2000. This is a matter of public record. The claim is based partly on the fact that he worked for one Democratic president as well as 3 Republican presidents. It is also based on the fact that he is a friend of Rand Beers who
is John Kerry's coordinator for national security and homeland security issues. So how did Clarke get to know Beers ? Beers too was a civil servant working for the Bush administration who resigned as a top counterterrorism official at the National Security Council after the invasion of Iraq .
In other words, the Bush administration defence against the view of a non partisan expert who is convinced that Bush should not be president is to note that he is a friend of another formerly non poartisan expert who is convinced that Bush should not be president.
The White house view that everyone who is familiar with the Bush white house and is not a Republican operative is against them might be correct, but it seems unwise for them to stress it.
What ever happened to the newspeak word blackwhite ? Commentators are generally very eager to use terms from 1984 yet Blackwhite has been replaced by up is downism. Why ? My guess is that in 21st century America blackwhite means
African American/European American. Up and down remain harmless antonyms. The word black has become charged with connotations of race.
Another example of a change in the connotations of a word can be found in Orwell's brilliant analysis of the poem "Felix Randal" by Gerard Manley Hopkins. Here Orwell explains why the final line was so effective when written. His analysis is so solid that it explains why the line has become bad poetry.
I can't find my copy of "As I Please" so I am going to quote the poem from Bartleby and paraphrase Orwell
the last four words in the poem are "bright and battering sandal !"
Orwell noted that for English readers, the word sandal evoked ancient Greeks and Romans and, in particular, The Iliad. He wrote that the word would have very different connotations in a country, such as India, where sandals were coomon.
In 21st century Rome the word has been even more gravely humiliated. Here and now, sandals are casual wear and evoke lounging on a beach. When I read the poem (in 20th century America) I found the last line jarringly bad. Bad enough to damage the poem, even though the poet shares no part of the blame.
Oddly Orwell's analysis speaks to us because it was addressed to Indians.
This might be an systematic benefit of multiculuralism. The effort to avoid a Eurocentric perspective might enable people to transend, say, a parochial early 21st century perspective. Does that mean that coherant Straussians must be multiculturalists ?
African American/European American. Up and down remain harmless antonyms. The word black has become charged with connotations of race.
Another example of a change in the connotations of a word can be found in Orwell's brilliant analysis of the poem "Felix Randal" by Gerard Manley Hopkins. Here Orwell explains why the final line was so effective when written. His analysis is so solid that it explains why the line has become bad poetry.
I can't find my copy of "As I Please" so I am going to quote the poem from Bartleby and paraphrase Orwell
the last four words in the poem are "bright and battering sandal !"
Orwell noted that for English readers, the word sandal evoked ancient Greeks and Romans and, in particular, The Iliad. He wrote that the word would have very different connotations in a country, such as India, where sandals were coomon.
In 21st century Rome the word has been even more gravely humiliated. Here and now, sandals are casual wear and evoke lounging on a beach. When I read the poem (in 20th century America) I found the last line jarringly bad. Bad enough to damage the poem, even though the poet shares no part of the blame.
Oddly Orwell's analysis speaks to us because it was addressed to Indians.
This might be an systematic benefit of multiculuralism. The effort to avoid a Eurocentric perspective might enable people to transend, say, a parochial early 21st century perspective. Does that mean that coherant Straussians must be multiculturalists ?
Battle stations on the Maginot line
The Bush administration refusal to admit any mistakes has moved beyond policy to spin, an area where they used to be alert.
From the NYT
"Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, responded at a White House briefing on Monday that Mr. Bush did not remember having the conversation, and that there were no records that placed the president in the Situation Room at the time.
...
In addition to Mr. Cressey, at least two other former officials with knowledge of what occurred in the Situation Room that day also backed up the thrust of Mr. Clarke's account, though one of the two challenged Mr. Clarke's assertion that Mr. Bush's demeanor and that of other senior White House officials was intimidating."
McClellan was dumb dumb dumb. Deputy national security advisor Hadley had been nailed on that one on 60 minutes Sunday. McClellan should have known that the claim that the meeting never happened was no longer operative.
His claim is now contradicted by 3 sources other than Clarke one of whom is willing to be quoted by name. Fighting the spin bout with "we haven't found the written agenda for the Bush ad hoc meeting with Clarke on September 12 2001" is leading with their chins.
At this point reporters are compelled to note that the Bush administration is lying in their effort to slime Clarke or lose all credibility.
The Bush administration refusal to admit any mistakes has moved beyond policy to spin, an area where they used to be alert.
From the NYT
"Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, responded at a White House briefing on Monday that Mr. Bush did not remember having the conversation, and that there were no records that placed the president in the Situation Room at the time.
...
In addition to Mr. Cressey, at least two other former officials with knowledge of what occurred in the Situation Room that day also backed up the thrust of Mr. Clarke's account, though one of the two challenged Mr. Clarke's assertion that Mr. Bush's demeanor and that of other senior White House officials was intimidating."
McClellan was dumb dumb dumb. Deputy national security advisor Hadley had been nailed on that one on 60 minutes Sunday. McClellan should have known that the claim that the meeting never happened was no longer operative.
His claim is now contradicted by 3 sources other than Clarke one of whom is willing to be quoted by name. Fighting the spin bout with "we haven't found the written agenda for the Bush ad hoc meeting with Clarke on September 12 2001" is leading with their chins.
At this point reporters are compelled to note that the Bush administration is lying in their effort to slime Clarke or lose all credibility.
Fifth Column in the White House ?
The most obvious highlight of the Clarke vs Hadley on 60 minutes was Hadley getting nailed lying
"HADLEY: We can not find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the President ever occurred.
STAHL: Now can I interrupt you for one second. We have done our own work on that ourselves and we have two sources who tell us independently of Dick Clarke that there was this encounter. One of them was an actual witness.
HADLEY: Look, the -- I -- I stand on what I said. But ..."
Now I would say Stahl let him off very easy. She could have first asked to whom he was referring when he said "we". He would have to mention Rice. She was in the meeting of which he claimed "we" could find no evidence.
Also note that the Washington Post seems to have independently talked to two witnesses
"On the same broadcast, deputy national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley said, "We cannot find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the president ever occurred." In interviews for this story, two people who were present confirmed Clarke's account. They said national security adviser Condoleezza Rice witnessed the exchange."
Now it is bad form for the Post to neglect to mention that 60 minutes nailed Hadley on the air, but this is bad news for Bush. It is possible that a 60 minutes reported could have tricked a participant into confirming the meeting while say contesting Clarke's claim that the president was "testy". However, two leaks by two sources of the same information suggests disloyalty (that is devotion to the truth). Also if the two un-named sources slipped up why didn't they warn Hadley ?
for the president, who is running on anti terrorism, to be trashed by his chief anti terrorism advisor is bad, but to have to fight back with two moles leaking the truth to the press is very bad.
The most obvious highlight of the Clarke vs Hadley on 60 minutes was Hadley getting nailed lying
"HADLEY: We can not find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the President ever occurred.
STAHL: Now can I interrupt you for one second. We have done our own work on that ourselves and we have two sources who tell us independently of Dick Clarke that there was this encounter. One of them was an actual witness.
HADLEY: Look, the -- I -- I stand on what I said. But ..."
Now I would say Stahl let him off very easy. She could have first asked to whom he was referring when he said "we". He would have to mention Rice. She was in the meeting of which he claimed "we" could find no evidence.
Also note that the Washington Post seems to have independently talked to two witnesses
"On the same broadcast, deputy national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley said, "We cannot find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the president ever occurred." In interviews for this story, two people who were present confirmed Clarke's account. They said national security adviser Condoleezza Rice witnessed the exchange."
Now it is bad form for the Post to neglect to mention that 60 minutes nailed Hadley on the air, but this is bad news for Bush. It is possible that a 60 minutes reported could have tricked a participant into confirming the meeting while say contesting Clarke's claim that the president was "testy". However, two leaks by two sources of the same information suggests disloyalty (that is devotion to the truth). Also if the two un-named sources slipped up why didn't they warn Hadley ?
for the president, who is running on anti terrorism, to be trashed by his chief anti terrorism advisor is bad, but to have to fight back with two moles leaking the truth to the press is very bad.
Battle Stations
The day after Richard Clarke's 60 minutes interview Bloggers are on full scandal alert determined to leave no damning accusation unquoted. I'm fairly sure that, in the end, the whole interview will be quoted as especially damning. Still when reading a rush transcript heroically posted by sadly no. I was struck by the fact that Clarke had a fairly credible explanation about how 9/11 might possibly have been prevented if George Bush had acted like Bill Clinton.
"STAHL (exp): {The last time the CIA had picked up a similar level of intelligence chatter was back in December 1999 when Clarke was the Terrorism Czar in the Clinton White House. Clarke says that President Clinton ordered his cabinet to go to battle stations, meaning they were on high alert, holding meetings nearly every day. That, Clarke says, helped thwart a major attack on Los Angeles Int'l airport when this al Qaeda operative was stopped at the border with Canada driving a car full of explosives. Clarke harshly criticizes President Bush for not going to battle stations when the CIA warned him of a comparable threat in the months before 9/11.}
CLARKE: He never thought it was important enough for *him* [Clarke's emphasis] to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his National Security Advisor to hold a cabinet-level meeting on the subject.
STAHL: Why would having a meeting make a difference?
CLARKE: If you compare December 1999 to June and July of 2001, in December '99, every day or every other day, the head of the FBI, the head of the CIA, the Attorney General had to go to the White House and sit in a meeting and report on all the things that they personally had done to stop the al Qaeda attack, so they were going back every night to their departments and shaking the trees personally and finding out all the information. If that had happened in July of 2001, we might have found out in the White House, the Attorney General might have found out that there were al Qaeda operatives in the United States. FBI, at lower levels, knew -- never told me, never told the highest levels in the FBI.
STAHL (exp): {The FBI and the CIA knew that these two al Qaeda operatives [pictures displayed onscreen] both among the 9/11 hijackers, had been living in the United States since 2000, yet neither agency passed that information up the chain of command or told Dick Clarke, the White House Terrorism Coordinator.}
CLARKE: And here I am in the White House saying, something's about to happen. Tell me -- if a sparrow falls from the tree, I want to know, if anything unusual's going on, because we're about to be hit. "
Ouch. Also makes the phrase "battle stations" clear in context. Adressing this point
"HADLEY: All the chatter was of an attack, a potential al Qaeda attack overseas, but ...to the FBI .... So the President put us on battle stations."
Stahl neglected the obvious follow up. "When you say battle stations do you mean what Clarke means, that is ' every day or every other day, the head of the FBI, the head of the CIA, the Attorney General had to go to the White House and sit in a meeting and report on all the things that they personally had done to stop the al Qaeda attack,'?"
OK so she couldn't cut and paste a transcript, but she could and should have asked how often the head of the FBI had to come to the White house to report on what he had personally done to stop al Qaeda.
Yesterday Condolezza Rice uses the phrase "battle stations" (from the center for american progress via Atrios)
?In June and July when the threat spikes were so high?we were at battle stations?The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11.? ? National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
I think that Bush will lose the election if Bush administration principals are regularly asked if by "battle stations" they mean what Clinton did in 99 (with description) and whether they think that might have lead to the arrest of at least two of the hijackers.
The day after Richard Clarke's 60 minutes interview Bloggers are on full scandal alert determined to leave no damning accusation unquoted. I'm fairly sure that, in the end, the whole interview will be quoted as especially damning. Still when reading a rush transcript heroically posted by sadly no. I was struck by the fact that Clarke had a fairly credible explanation about how 9/11 might possibly have been prevented if George Bush had acted like Bill Clinton.
"STAHL (exp): {The last time the CIA had picked up a similar level of intelligence chatter was back in December 1999 when Clarke was the Terrorism Czar in the Clinton White House. Clarke says that President Clinton ordered his cabinet to go to battle stations, meaning they were on high alert, holding meetings nearly every day. That, Clarke says, helped thwart a major attack on Los Angeles Int'l airport when this al Qaeda operative was stopped at the border with Canada driving a car full of explosives. Clarke harshly criticizes President Bush for not going to battle stations when the CIA warned him of a comparable threat in the months before 9/11.}
CLARKE: He never thought it was important enough for *him* [Clarke's emphasis] to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his National Security Advisor to hold a cabinet-level meeting on the subject.
STAHL: Why would having a meeting make a difference?
CLARKE: If you compare December 1999 to June and July of 2001, in December '99, every day or every other day, the head of the FBI, the head of the CIA, the Attorney General had to go to the White House and sit in a meeting and report on all the things that they personally had done to stop the al Qaeda attack, so they were going back every night to their departments and shaking the trees personally and finding out all the information. If that had happened in July of 2001, we might have found out in the White House, the Attorney General might have found out that there were al Qaeda operatives in the United States. FBI, at lower levels, knew -- never told me, never told the highest levels in the FBI.
STAHL (exp): {The FBI and the CIA knew that these two al Qaeda operatives [pictures displayed onscreen] both among the 9/11 hijackers, had been living in the United States since 2000, yet neither agency passed that information up the chain of command or told Dick Clarke, the White House Terrorism Coordinator.}
CLARKE: And here I am in the White House saying, something's about to happen. Tell me -- if a sparrow falls from the tree, I want to know, if anything unusual's going on, because we're about to be hit. "
Ouch. Also makes the phrase "battle stations" clear in context. Adressing this point
"HADLEY: All the chatter was of an attack, a potential al Qaeda attack overseas, but ...to the FBI .... So the President put us on battle stations."
Stahl neglected the obvious follow up. "When you say battle stations do you mean what Clarke means, that is ' every day or every other day, the head of the FBI, the head of the CIA, the Attorney General had to go to the White House and sit in a meeting and report on all the things that they personally had done to stop the al Qaeda attack,'?"
OK so she couldn't cut and paste a transcript, but she could and should have asked how often the head of the FBI had to come to the White house to report on what he had personally done to stop al Qaeda.
Yesterday Condolezza Rice uses the phrase "battle stations" (from the center for american progress via Atrios)
?In June and July when the threat spikes were so high?we were at battle stations?The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11.? ? National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
I think that Bush will lose the election if Bush administration principals are regularly asked if by "battle stations" they mean what Clinton did in 99 (with description) and whether they think that might have lead to the arrest of at least two of the hijackers.
Monday, March 22, 2004
More Rumsfeld howlers
Here from his op ed in Friday's New York Times "Korean freedom was won at a terrible cost — tens of thousands of lives, including more than 33,000 Americans killed in action. "
This is a completely crazy estimate of the cost in lives of the Korean war. I have seen the estimate 3 million which seemed high to me, but "tens of thousands" would have to be less than 200,000 which is an absurdly low estimate.
I think that Rumsfeld is not counting the cost in Chinese lives. Why not ? Aren't Chinese human too ?
Later he's back to more usual nonsense
"... the world gave Saddam Hussein every opportunity to avoid war. He was being held to a simple standard: live up to your agreement at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf war; disarm and prove you have done so."
That is, the "simple standard" required Saddam Hussein to prove a negative.
In spite of the fact that Saddam Hussein had, in fact, disarmed, he hadn't proven the he had disarmed. That's a sharp argument. although it is not consistent with the texts of the cease fire agreement or any UN security council resolution. Still, even if Rumsfeld managed find a Times reader who thought Saddam Hussein was required to prove he had disarmed, he loses his chance to convince even that guy by writing
"Instead of disarming ... Saddam Hussein chose deception and defiance."
So which will come first ? They find WMD in Iraq, hell freezes over or Rumsfeld admits that he (like Robert Waldmann) was wrong about whether there were WMD in Iraq.
Here from his op ed in Friday's New York Times "Korean freedom was won at a terrible cost — tens of thousands of lives, including more than 33,000 Americans killed in action. "
This is a completely crazy estimate of the cost in lives of the Korean war. I have seen the estimate 3 million which seemed high to me, but "tens of thousands" would have to be less than 200,000 which is an absurdly low estimate.
I think that Rumsfeld is not counting the cost in Chinese lives. Why not ? Aren't Chinese human too ?
Later he's back to more usual nonsense
"... the world gave Saddam Hussein every opportunity to avoid war. He was being held to a simple standard: live up to your agreement at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf war; disarm and prove you have done so."
That is, the "simple standard" required Saddam Hussein to prove a negative.
In spite of the fact that Saddam Hussein had, in fact, disarmed, he hadn't proven the he had disarmed. That's a sharp argument. although it is not consistent with the texts of the cease fire agreement or any UN security council resolution. Still, even if Rumsfeld managed find a Times reader who thought Saddam Hussein was required to prove he had disarmed, he loses his chance to convince even that guy by writing
"Instead of disarming ... Saddam Hussein chose deception and defiance."
So which will come first ? They find WMD in Iraq, hell freezes over or Rumsfeld admits that he (like Robert Waldmann) was wrong about whether there were WMD in Iraq.
Saturday, March 20, 2004
The medium Lobster catches a crab. At fafblog, the medium lobster wrote
“The disaster for Kerry becomes even more ugly and treacherous when faced with the impossible task to name these imaginary "foreign leaders" who would oppose the reelection of Bush, because the casual voter's mind immediately fills with the names of foreign leaders who have supported the Texan president: Tony Blair, Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, Tony Blair, Federated States of Micronesia President Joseph J. Urusemal, Tony Blair, former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Aznar, Tony Blair.”
Clearly his love of Bush caused him to overestimate Bush’s support overseas. As Brad DeLong notes Alexander Kwasniewski is off the reservation, saying he was taken for a ride over Iraqi WMDs. That doesn’t sound so good in English. I hope the Polish original makes it clear that Pres Kwasnewski did not literally ride over weapons of mass destruction which would be suicidal not just politically suicidal.
Now Kevin Drum’s sister points out an article which tends to confirm my suspicion that Tony Blair is very eager to see the last of Bush.
“…the signals have been slowly emerging. ABB. Anyone But Bush.
First there was the comment by Giddens. Then came the plans for a Commons Early Day Motion signed by a group of Blairite backbenchers welcoming Kerry's candidature. Then there was the Downing Street official spoken to by The Observer last week who said that multilateralism, made much of by Kerry, is a progressive's idea, not a neo-conservative one.
And what of the fact that Blair has yet to make it to America to accept the Congressional Medal, one of the highest honours the US can confer on a foreign leader? Downing Street knows that pictures of a grinning Bush clasping Blair by the shoulder are not what might be described as 'politically helpful'. “
President Urusemal seems to be on the reservation (uhm sorry pres. I meant to say freely associated state) but I am not 100% sure he is actually a *foreign* leader. Trying to get information about the foreign policy of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), I found
TRAVEL OF FSM OR RMI CITIZENS TO THE U.S.: Citizens of the FSM and RMI (but not alien spouses or children) have unrestricted access to the United States to live, work, study and assume "habitual residence"
And this amazing fact
“There are approximately 1000 FSM citizens in the US armed services (total FSM population is roughly 107,000).”
I think that means that the FSM and not the USA is the country with the highest rate of enlistment in the US armed services.
“The disaster for Kerry becomes even more ugly and treacherous when faced with the impossible task to name these imaginary "foreign leaders" who would oppose the reelection of Bush, because the casual voter's mind immediately fills with the names of foreign leaders who have supported the Texan president: Tony Blair, Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, Tony Blair, Federated States of Micronesia President Joseph J. Urusemal, Tony Blair, former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Aznar, Tony Blair.”
Clearly his love of Bush caused him to overestimate Bush’s support overseas. As Brad DeLong notes Alexander Kwasniewski is off the reservation, saying he was taken for a ride over Iraqi WMDs. That doesn’t sound so good in English. I hope the Polish original makes it clear that Pres Kwasnewski did not literally ride over weapons of mass destruction which would be suicidal not just politically suicidal.
Now Kevin Drum’s sister points out an article which tends to confirm my suspicion that Tony Blair is very eager to see the last of Bush.
“…the signals have been slowly emerging. ABB. Anyone But Bush.
First there was the comment by Giddens. Then came the plans for a Commons Early Day Motion signed by a group of Blairite backbenchers welcoming Kerry's candidature. Then there was the Downing Street official spoken to by The Observer last week who said that multilateralism, made much of by Kerry, is a progressive's idea, not a neo-conservative one.
And what of the fact that Blair has yet to make it to America to accept the Congressional Medal, one of the highest honours the US can confer on a foreign leader? Downing Street knows that pictures of a grinning Bush clasping Blair by the shoulder are not what might be described as 'politically helpful'. “
President Urusemal seems to be on the reservation (uhm sorry pres. I meant to say freely associated state) but I am not 100% sure he is actually a *foreign* leader. Trying to get information about the foreign policy of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), I found
TRAVEL OF FSM OR RMI CITIZENS TO THE U.S.: Citizens of the FSM and RMI (but not alien spouses or children) have unrestricted access to the United States to live, work, study and assume "habitual residence"
And this amazing fact
“There are approximately 1000 FSM citizens in the US armed services (total FSM population is roughly 107,000).”
I think that means that the FSM and not the USA is the country with the highest rate of enlistment in the US armed services.
Friday, March 19, 2004
The best established hypothesis in the social sciences is …
I am technically and economist and thus can’t deny that I am (blush) a social scientist. I have noticed that we are not quite universally admired. As C.P. Snow noted there are two cultures. The scientific culture which stresses that we are not *real* scientists and the humanistic culture which considers us the supreme example of idiocy due to irrational adoration of natural science.
Now it is not true that every social scientist falls into one of these two camps. I personally agree with both of them.
Still one of the observations that stuck in my mind while I was pining for the discovery of the blog was that social scientists lack of , non so, esprit di corps (je ne sais pas, coscenza di gruppo) is the casualness with which social scientists refer to their pet theory as the “best established hypothesis in the *social* sciences” (the behitss). For example, Richard Herrnstein considered the claim that IQ has a hereditary component the behitss and Eugene Fama considered the hypothesis that market returns were unpredictable which is (was) logically equivalent to the efficient market hypothes is the behitss soon before concluding that he efficient markets hypothesis was supported by the thoroughly demonstrated result that market returns could be predicted using variables which should be useful in predicting market returns.
I would say that the best established hypothesis in the social sciences is that, when considering the natural sciences, most social scientists suffer from inferiority complexes.
I know that this hypothesis, as so many in the social sciences, can only be tested with subjective data. However it is consistent with all data available to me.
I am technically and economist and thus can’t deny that I am (blush) a social scientist. I have noticed that we are not quite universally admired. As C.P. Snow noted there are two cultures. The scientific culture which stresses that we are not *real* scientists and the humanistic culture which considers us the supreme example of idiocy due to irrational adoration of natural science.
Now it is not true that every social scientist falls into one of these two camps. I personally agree with both of them.
Still one of the observations that stuck in my mind while I was pining for the discovery of the blog was that social scientists lack of , non so, esprit di corps (je ne sais pas, coscenza di gruppo) is the casualness with which social scientists refer to their pet theory as the “best established hypothesis in the *social* sciences” (the behitss). For example, Richard Herrnstein considered the claim that IQ has a hereditary component the behitss and Eugene Fama considered the hypothesis that market returns were unpredictable which is (was) logically equivalent to the efficient market hypothes is the behitss soon before concluding that he efficient markets hypothesis was supported by the thoroughly demonstrated result that market returns could be predicted using variables which should be useful in predicting market returns.
I would say that the best established hypothesis in the social sciences is that, when considering the natural sciences, most social scientists suffer from inferiority complexes.
I know that this hypothesis, as so many in the social sciences, can only be tested with subjective data. However it is consistent with all data available to me.
Lucky Duckies
didn't have to face the combined strategic genius or military experience of "other priorities" Dick Cheney or the moral acuity of Justice``I never hunted in the same blind with the vice president,'' Antoni Scalia, nor did they pay taxes.
Justice Scalia refused to taint the dignitiy of the Supreme court by recusing himself from the case in which his hunting buddy Cheney is a litigant, since ``If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court justice can be bought so cheap, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined...''. With his hawk like moral vision, he also recognised that the honor of the court would have been damaged if he had promised to fork over those of the "so cheap" costs of the hunting trip, which he has not paid already. Sure, the amount of money is trivial compared to the honor and dignity of a Supreme Court Justice, but it's not the money, it's the principle.
Seriously folks, why is he making such a big deal about this ? What happens if the court breaks not 5-4 for Cheney but 4-4 ? I would have thought that the plaintiff gets nothing if the court is evenly split.
didn't have to face the combined strategic genius or military experience of "other priorities" Dick Cheney or the moral acuity of Justice``I never hunted in the same blind with the vice president,'' Antoni Scalia, nor did they pay taxes.
Justice Scalia refused to taint the dignitiy of the Supreme court by recusing himself from the case in which his hunting buddy Cheney is a litigant, since ``If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court justice can be bought so cheap, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined...''. With his hawk like moral vision, he also recognised that the honor of the court would have been damaged if he had promised to fork over those of the "so cheap" costs of the hunting trip, which he has not paid already. Sure, the amount of money is trivial compared to the honor and dignity of a Supreme Court Justice, but it's not the money, it's the principle.
Seriously folks, why is he making such a big deal about this ? What happens if the court breaks not 5-4 for Cheney but 4-4 ? I would have thought that the plaintiff gets nothing if the court is evenly split.
Thursday, March 18, 2004
Is this a joke link ? It looks like a yahoo news page but I can't get to it from www.yahoo.com.
Do I really believe in an article about terrorism, fear, and possible doom written by Opheera McDoom ?
Also it quotes self described Al Qaeda terrorists saying exactly what we lefties believe the really think:
"The statement said it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader 'more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom.'"
hmm terrorists who consider force and wisdom to be inconsistent categories. Right.
Yes right.
It is not a joke link. It is also here and I got there from www.reuters.com
Dear Ms McDoom, I am sorry I doubted your existence. I see you have quite a CV including many articles about Islamic fundamentalism.
Thanks to Atrios and Michael Froomkin for the link.
Do I really believe in an article about terrorism, fear, and possible doom written by Opheera McDoom ?
Also it quotes self described Al Qaeda terrorists saying exactly what we lefties believe the really think:
"The statement said it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader 'more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom.'"
hmm terrorists who consider force and wisdom to be inconsistent categories. Right.
Yes right.
It is not a joke link. It is also here and I got there from www.reuters.com
Dear Ms McDoom, I am sorry I doubted your existence. I see you have quite a CV including many articles about Islamic fundamentalism.
Thanks to Atrios and Michael Froomkin for the link.
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Brain Dead Metaphor
In a generally excellent review of An End to Evil: What's Next in the War on Terrorism, by David Frum and Richard Perle , Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke write “Ideology informs the book like an iron spine.”. Typically “informs” is used for higher mental processes performed by the Brain which is in the scull not the spine. The term for the unfortunates whose functioning central nervous system is in their spine is “Brain Dead”. Actually, given the general tenor of the review, this may be what Halper and Clarke meant. However, given their idea of how one might approach military morale problems “an effort--a sort of sting in the dying scorpion's tail--to rally the troops” I hope Halpern and Clarke will not be hired by the defence department. Aside from the comfort of our troops I wouldn’t want the DOD to buy $600 dying scorpions to stiffen the spines of our soldiers.
Nonetheless I am delighted that Halper and Clarke conclude that the octopus of neoconservativism is singing its swan song, and I am perfectly willing to tow their line and throw the jackboot of neoconservativism in the dustbin of history.
In a generally excellent review of An End to Evil: What's Next in the War on Terrorism, by David Frum and Richard Perle , Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke write “Ideology informs the book like an iron spine.”. Typically “informs” is used for higher mental processes performed by the Brain which is in the scull not the spine. The term for the unfortunates whose functioning central nervous system is in their spine is “Brain Dead”. Actually, given the general tenor of the review, this may be what Halper and Clarke meant. However, given their idea of how one might approach military morale problems “an effort--a sort of sting in the dying scorpion's tail--to rally the troops” I hope Halpern and Clarke will not be hired by the defence department. Aside from the comfort of our troops I wouldn’t want the DOD to buy $600 dying scorpions to stiffen the spines of our soldiers.
Nonetheless I am delighted that Halper and Clarke conclude that the octopus of neoconservativism is singing its swan song, and I am perfectly willing to tow their line and throw the jackboot of neoconservativism in the dustbin of history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)