Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to al Qaeda were a key part of your justification for war. Yet, your own intelligence report, the NIE, defined it as -- quote -- "low confidence that Saddam would give weapons to al Qaeda." Were those links exaggerated to justify war?
Or can you finally offer us some definitive evidence that Saddam was working with al Qaeda terrorists?
THE PRESIDENT:
Yes. I think, first of all, remember I just said we've been there for 90 days since the cessation of major military operations. Now, I know in our world where news comes and goes and there's this kind of instant -- instant news and you must have done this, you must do this yesterday, that there's a level of frustration by some in the media. I'm not suggesting you're frustrated. You don't look frustrated to me at all. Butit's going to take time for us to gather the evidence and analyze the mounds of evidence, literally, the miles of documents that we have uncovered.
David Kaye came to see me yesterday. He's going to testify in closed hearing tomorrow -- which in Washington may not be so closed, as you know. And he was telling me the process that they were going through to analyze all the documentation. And that's not only to analyze the documentation on the weapons programs that Saddam Hussein had, but also the documentation as to terrorist links.
And it's just going to take awhile, and I'm confident the truth will come out. And there is no doubt in my mind, Campbell, that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States security, and a threat to peace in the region. And there's no doubt in my mind that a free Iraq is important. It's got strategic consequences for not only achieving peace in the Middle East, but a free Iraq will help change the habits of other nations in the region who will make it -- which will make America much more secure.
In other words, Bush does not have right now, nor did he have prior to war, evidence that Hussein had ties to al Qaeda, even though he asserted it eleven times on the campaign trail in 2002 (and numerous times after that).
Three weeks after taking office, George W. Bush signed a National Security Presidential Directive that restructured the National Security Council. It included this command:
"The existing system of Interagency Working Groups is abolished."
The Counter-Terrorism Security Group, Critical Infrastructure Coordination Group, Weapons of Mass Destruction Preparedness, Consequences Management and Protection Group, and the interagency working group on Enduring Constitutional Government were all abolished, to be reconstituted at some time in a new incarnation.
"Except for those established by statute, other existing NSC interagency groups, ad hoc bodies, and executive committees are also abolished as of March 1, 2001"
No wonder they couldn’t connect the dots. They were too busy redrawing the org chart and demoting Clinton-era appointees to actually work together to protect the country from terrorism.
The Los Angeles Times has an article that goes into detail about various claims by Republican congressman Darrell Issa, and how they stack up against what they found out. Issa, for those who don't know, was a significant financial backer of the Gray Davis recall in California, and is running for governor (if the recall is approved). We thought a table would be a useful way to present the information:
What Darrell Issa claimed (or his campaign)
What the Los Angeles Times reported
In 1994, Inc. Magazine recognized Darrell Issa as Entrepreneur of the Year.
contradition
Issa has never won the prestigious national award. In an interview, Issa said that he actually had won a localEntrepreneur of the Year contest in San Diego ... and that he hadn't been trying to suggest that he had received national honors.
Issa, ... has said that he was an Army computer research and development specialist.
Issa said he had "served at the computer facility" at Ft. Ord's Combat Development Experimentation Command in the late 1970s and that the Army had sent him to the Boston area for computer training at a commercial school. He said he couldn't recall the name of the school.
contradition
... records and Issa's 1980 Army separation form make no mention of computer training or computer specialty.
In a 1995 interview, he said that as an officer
inflated claim
The extent of Issa's military education as an officer, according to the records, was an eight-week "motor officer" course in 1976 and a four-day "Equal Opportunity United Discussions Leaders Course" in 1978.
he had spent four years in the New Mexico desert perfecting electronic warfare techniques that were later used in the 1991 Gulf War.
contradition
His military records ... list Issa's postings during that period as Ft. Riley, Kan., and Ft. Ord, Calif.
... Issa said he had received the "highest possible" ratings in the U.S. Army.
contradition
Military records show that he received a "fair" conduct rating while undergoing basic combat training at Ft. Knox, Ky., in November 1970. In June 1971, while serving with the 145th Ordnance Detachment in Manor, Pa., he received "unsatisfactory" conduct and efficiency ratings. Later ratings were more positive.
... highest evaluation from Gen. Wesley Clark.
agreement
Issa received a laudatory performance review from Clark ...
The review praised Issa for the quality of his work and for "an unusually high standard of professional ethics."
Issa's campaign literature said he had been a member of Nixon's security detail.
contradition
The Secret Service, of which Issa was not a part, provides the president's security.
Issa had previously claimed attendance at the 1971 World Series as part of Nixon's security.
contradition
Records show that Nixon did not attend the 1971 World Series ...
Issa's explanation for his claim is that he was part of a military bomb disposal squad that provided support to the White House. He was assigned to Nixon's security on temporary duty, he says.
unclear
The assignment isn't listed in Issa's military records, but temporary duty postings aren't always reflected in personnel files, experts said.
During his 1998 campaign, Issa backed away from a claim of having started his car-alarm company "from scratch" ...
contradition
... The Times reported that he had taken control of the business in a legal dispute with the original owners.
He has been charged twice with car theft, although both cases were later dismissed. He was charged twice with carrying a concealed weapon.
On Jan. 16, 1973, Issa pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of possession of an unregistered gun.
Asked earlier this month about that arrest, Issa told a Times reporter that the gun was an "unloaded, never-fired, in-the-box, little teeny pistol" and ...
contradition
Public records obtained by The Times show that when arrested, Issa was carrying a .25-caliber semiautomatic pistol with seven bullets in its ammunition clip, as well as 44 bullets and a tear-gas gun.
... said it wasn't his, although he declined to say whose it was.
contradition
... Donald Payne, the now-retired police officer from Adrian who was one of two arresting officers on the case, said Issa hadn't contested his ownership of the gun at the time.
... Payne['s] account is backed up by the records from the arrest ...
[Issa's profile in the San Diego Tribune included an] account of having turned down an Army offer to send him to prep school and the United States Military Academy at West Point.
possible contradition
Issa's military records do not reflect an offer by the military to send him to prep school and West Point, although the records would not necessarily do so.
Asked Saturday ... Issa responded ..."I was an ROTC-commissioned officer," he said. "That's the end of the story. West Point is an irrelevant part. The prep school at West Point is an irrelevant part."
Our old friend, convicted bank swindler and current head of the INC, Ahmed Chalabi, has apparently moved on from telling tall tales to Judith Miller of the New York Times, and is now regaling Michael "I'll believe anything" Barone of USNews & World Report. Thus, we have this essay, The good news coming from Iraq, in the most recent edition of the magazine. Instapundit linked to it (approvingly), so it must be hot stuff. But what do we read in the essay? Ignoring a summary of a recent Rumsfeld press conference, which consisted of nothing but what came from Chalabi's shop. Here are some excerpts: (emphasis added)
Talking to Chalabi ... I got a far more optimistic picture of Iraq than has been painted in most of the press.
Much of the negative press, Chalabi argues, is due to translators who have their own anti-American agendas and give American and other reporters their version of what is going on rather than what the Iraqis being interviewed are saying.
Looking ahead, Chalabi described his proposal for the convening of a convention to write a new Iraqi constitution. Chalabi says that Bremer supports his proposal but that British representatives do not. Chalabi's American aide, Francis Brooke, predicts that the Governing Council will adopt a proposal much like Chalabi's.
AND ENDS WITH:
You may have to search hard for it in most American news media, but there is good news coming from Iraq.
NOTE: We have a diagram showing the various business deals Chalabi and his brothers were involved with, most of which went south or resulted in conviction for fraud.
Tuesday, October 7, 2003 (79 days before Christmas)
MEASURE ONE
Shall the governor of California be recalled?
Yes
è
¡
No
è
¡
MEASURE TWO
If Measure One carries (recall of the governor) the people of California shall select a replacement from a list of candidates [below]. The candidate receiving a plurality of the votes, even if that's as small as, say, 15%, shall become governor.
NOTE: Your vote will not count unless you have voted for or against the recall of the governor.
Vote for only one candidate:
Darrell Issa Rich guy who can buy elections
è
¡
Bill Simon Rich guy who can lose elections
è
¡
Arnold Schwarzenegger Can you believe it?
è
¡
Mayor of Fresno Why not take a flyer on this guy?
è
¡
Michael Huffington Bi-partisan
è
¡
Ariana Huffington Ex-wife of Michael (hey, this is California)
è
¡
Audie Bock A Green who is running as a Democrat
è
¡
Peter Camejo Another Green making life miserable for Democrats (as a Green)
è
¡
Gary Condit You thought it couldn't get any worse. Think again.
è
¡
MEASURE THREE
If Measure One carries and the replacement governor cannot balance the budget in under sixty (60) days without raising taxes or cutting services, shall the governor of California be recalled again?
SEC'Y OF STATE COMMENT: As long as we're having an election, why not make the most of it?
Yes
è
¡
No
è
¡
MEASURE FOUR
If Measure One carries and Measure Three carries and all hell breaks loose, the people of California shall select another replacement from a list of candidates [below]. The candidate with the votes whose last five digits is closest to the winning lottery numbers picked on the first Wednesday in December, shall become governor.
Vote for only one candidate (without giggling):
Ozzy Osbourne Much more amusing than Arnold
è
¡
Bill Simon Keeps coming back like a bad penny
è
¡
Jack Kemp Former quarterback for the San Diego Chargers
è
¡
Ralph Nader He just couldn't leave well enough alone.
HUME: In your briefing the other day, you mentioned something -- your concern with foreign government-supported media operating within Iraq. Presumably you're talking about Al-Jazeera, al Arabiya, the two satellite news agencies.
WOLFOWITZ: That's right.
HUME: You say foreign government-supported. What should be done about that, in your view, if anything, and what could the administration do to curb the (inaudible)? What are you complaining of here?
WOLFOWITZ: Well, what I'm complaining of are false reporting and very biased reporting that has the effect of inciting violence against our troops. And these governments should stop and realize that this is not a game, that they're endangering the lives of American troops.
And, you know, they have a way when they want to cover somebody favorably, including Saddam Hussein in the old days, of slanting the news incredibly. ...
DR. WOLFOWITZ: Let me say a couple of things, Tim. People act as though the cost of containing Iraq is trivial. The cost of containing Iraq was enormous. Fifty-five American lives lost, at least, in incidents like the Cole and Khobar Towers, which were part of the containment effort. Billions of dollars of American money spent so...
MR. RUSSERT: Was Iraq linked to those?
DR. WOLFOWITZ: Absolutely. Oh, no, not to the—I don’t know who did the attacks. I now that we would not have had Air Force people in Khobar Towers if we weren’t conducting a containment policy. I know we wouldn’t have had to have the Cole out there doing maritime intercept operations. ...
NOTE: The distance (as the crow flies) between Aden, Yemen (where the USS Cole was attacked) and Baghdad, Iraq is 1407 miles.
We're no experts on these matters, but according to the Navy webpage on the mission of the Cole (and ships of a similar type), it's:
These fast warships help safeguard larger ships in a fleet or battle group.
Guided missile destroyers operate in support of carrier battle groups, surface action groups, amphibious groups, and replenishment groups. Destroyers primarily perform anti-submarine warfare duty while guided missile destroyers are multi-mission (anti-submarine, anti-air, and anti-surface warfare) surface combatants.
Which makes it unlikely that the Cole was out there, according to Wolfowitz, doing intercept operations.
The CIA produces a World Factbook each year, and we've often used the on-line version in our research. Recently, they've updated their website (or we just noticed it), with a link to different covers of the book over the last fifteen years or so. Some of it is kinda neat. We especially like the cover that has the earth twice as large (at least), but with the continents unchanged in size. Who says the CIA doesn't have a sense of style?
In a strong editorial, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution says William Pryor is unfit to be placed on the 11th Circuit appelate bench, and calls for a filibuster: (emphasis added)
Southerners who care about the separation of church and state should hope Alabama Attorney General William Pryor never sits on the 11th Circuit appellate bench, which rules on appeals in cases from Alabama, Georgia and Florida. The ultraconservative Pryor, who preaches that Christianity should be more a part of American public life, was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday in a 10-9 vote along partisan lines.
If ever there were a nomination that merits a filibuster, it is this one. Not just because Pryor holds views far out of the mainstream, but also because of the unprecedented twisting of the Constitution's advice and consent process by President Bush's corporate pals. Misleading ads, funded by the deceitfully named "Committee for Justice," have already run in Maine and Rhode Island to pressure moderate Republican senators into voting for Pryor's confirmation on the Senate floor. The despicable ads show a courthouse door with a sign across it saying "No Catholics allowed."
...
Pryor's record is sufficient to disqualify him from any judgeship. In addition to his extreme views on abortion (he opposes it for rape victims), he favors prayer in public school classrooms and the Ten Commandments in the Alabama courthouse. He was also the only attorney general in the nation to argue that the Violence Against Women Act is unconstitutional.
For more on the Committee for Justice, CNN has a story about its membership, which consists mostly of corporate lobbyists.
From the comments section at Eschaton/Atrios, we found a link to a curious page on Tom DeLay's website. It was a transcript of a speech he gave recently to College Republicans. Some excerpts:
Good afternoon, or, as John Kerry might say: “Bonjour!”
... in the interests of clarity, I have a simple message to pass along: the national Democrat party seems to have lost its marbles.
While everyone else got the memo that big-government, blame-America-first liberalism died with disco, the Howard Dean Democrats still want to party like it's 1979!
But frankly, America doesn't need a president in a hot-pink leisure suit.
The September 11th attacks were ... a premeditated assault on the freedom of every human being on this planet ...
To try to gauge just how out of touch the Democrat leadership is on the war on terror, just close your eyes and try to imagine Ted Kennedy landing that Navy jet on the deck of that aircraft carrier.
The Democrats' accusations AREN'T meant to be taken seriously. Because they're unserious people.
They've gone off the deep end.
It makes you wonder if at their next presidential debate, the Democrats are all going to show up wearing aluminum-foil helmets to protect their brain waves from the mother ship!
To the College Republicans the speech was given to:
Most everyone who speaks to College Republicans at some point utters the phrase, “You are the future.”
College Republicans aren't our future – you're part of our present.
You've already shown your commitment to Republican principles by joining the C-R's, and when you return to school, I want you to contact your local Republican congressional candidate's office and ask to join the STOMP program.
STOMP – Strategic Task force for the Organization and Mobilization of People – is a powerful manpower organization I started a few years back.
STOMP! That's the ticket! (It's easier to pronounce and shorter than sturmabteilung.)
MEMO TO TOM: It's "tin-foil hats", not "aluminum-foil helmets". Everyone knows aluminum won't deflect mind-reading tachyon beams. That was proved at the Lyndon LaRouche Institute of High-Energy Physics back in 1996.
Josh Marshall noted that an earlier Washington Post report which featured James Baker III prominently in a story about reconstructing Iraq was changed seven hour later to a milder report on a general overhaul of the postwar Iraq administration. (both have the same URL). We happened to have the original still around (cached), but are currently unable to reproduce the page properly (formatting, images, even the text itself). Until that's solved (which may not be possible for technical reasons), we can only display the the text:
UPDATE: We figured it out. (Or at least part of it.) Here is the shapshot of the original story
UPDATE #2: Calpundit has some thoughts about why Baker was chosen (at least when the original story first came out)
The original story
The replacement
White House Wants Baker to Head Iraq Reconstruction Unresolved Whether Baker or Bremer Would Have Final Word
By Mike Allen and Glenn Kessler Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, July 25, 2003; 12:20 PM
The White House hopes to persuade former secretary of state James A. Baker III to take charge of the physical and economic reconstruction of Iraq as part of a broad restructuring of post-war efforts, administration sources said today.
Under the plan, L. Paul Bremer, the chief U.S. administrator in Iraq, would focus on rebuilding the country's political system. The new structure is still in the discussion stages, and a source close to Baker said he has not accepted the job.
The sources said one hurdle is determining whether Baker or Bremer would have the final word, and they said that question is unresolved. The James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University referred questions to Baker's law firm, Baker Botts LLP in Houston. Baker did not immediately return a telephone message seeking comment.
The negotiations reflect a growing realization within the administration that the post-war plan was inadequate and that simple patience, the White House's initial prescription, will not do. Bremer said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday that progress has been made in restoring services and creating a government, but he said the effort could last for years.
The assignment also would be the latest of a series of high-profile missions that Baker, 73, has undertaken for President Bush and his father. Baker headed Bush's Florida recount effort after the disputed election of 2000. Against his wishes, he agreed to manage President George H.W. Bush's reelection campaign in 1992. Baker was secretary of state in the first Bush administration, and treasury secretary and White House chief of staff under President Ronald Reagan.
Baker is well-known in the Middle East from his travels as secretary of state. Administration officials said he would add stability to a process that has been much more chaotic than the administration had hoped, with U.S. troops continuing to suffer casualties from guerrilla attacks. Baker's stature with foreign governments also could help the administration enlist more help in paying for the reconstruction.
Bremer was part of an earlier overhaul that dismayed some native Iraqi leaders. Bremer, who appeared with Bush on Wednesday as part of a Washington visit, arrived in Baghdad on May 12 to take over for retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner.
In another augmentation of the post-war structure, the administration plans to name Reuben Jeffrey III as Washington-based coordinator for the Iraq reconstruction effort.
Jeffrey, a former Goldman Sachs investment banker who now is coordinating the federal aid aimed to help reconstruct lower Manhattan, would become the administration's public face for Bremer's operation in Baghdad, including dealing with lawmakers and managing the interagency process. Officials said the White House concluded that, given the distance between Baghdad and Washington, Bremer needed someone senior in Washington who could navigate the bureaucracy and deal with Capitol Hill.
Bush named Jeffrey special adviser for lower Manhattan development in March 2002. Jeffery had worked at Goldman for 18 years, living and working in Paris, London and New York and specializing in the financial services sector. He previously practiced corporate law at Davis Polk & Wardwell in New York.
Staff writer Vernon Loeb contributed to this report.
Bush Considers New Overhaul of Postwar Iraq Administration White House Aims to Address Concerns as Cost, Casualties Mount
By Mike Allen and Glenn Kessler Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, July 25, 2003; 7:05 PM
President Bush is contemplating the second overhaul in three months of his post-war administration of Iraq, as the White House faces up to the enormity of the task and the need to demonstrate progress to maintain political support for the effort, administration officials said today.
A series of polls has show U.S. voters becoming increasingly impatient at the prospects of large number of troops remaining in Iraq indefinitely, as the cost rises and guerrilla attacks continue inflicting military casualties long past the fall of Saddam Hussein's government.
"We're confident of long-term success," a Bush aide said. "We need to show short-term success."
L. Paul Bremer, the chief U.S. administrator in Iraq, lobbied the Pentagon and Congress for more funds and personnel during a visit to Washington this week, officials said.
As part of an effort to beef up the reconstruction, the White House is considering asking several major figures, including former secretary of state James A. Baker III, to help with specific tasks like seeking funds from other countries or helping restructure Iraq's debt.
"A lot of different things are being discussed," a senior administration official said. "Nothing has happened yet."
A senior official said Bush was very pleased with Bremer and that changes in the post-war administration, known as the coalition provisional authority, would be made only with his support. "This is a Bremer-driven process," the official said.
An aide said Baker is on vacation, and he did not immediately return messages left at his law firm, Baker Botts LLP in Houston. Several administration officials predicted that Baker would not become involved, but said the White House might still seek "a Baker-like figure" to share duties with Bremer.
The discussions reflect a growing realization within the administration that the post-war plan was inadequate and that simple patience, the White House's initial prescription, is not the answer. Bremer, who was saluted by Bush in the Rose Garden on Wednesday, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday that progress has been made in restoring services and creating a government. But he said the effort could last for years.
Bremer said privately during his meetings in Washington that the administration might need to appoint a high-level official to focus solely on restructuring Iraq's debt, a senior official said.
In another augmentation of the post-war structure, the administration plans to name Reuben Jeffrey III, a former Goldman Sachs investment banker who is now coordinating the federal aid aimed to help reconstruct lower Manhattan, as Washington-based coordinator for the Iraq reconstruction effort.
One administration official said a division of duties for the administration of Iraq had been contemplated as far back as the contingency planning phases of the war. "We knew it would be difficult, but ground truth has given us a lot more to think about," the official said.
If Bush called on Baker, 73, the assignment also would be the latest of a series of high-profile missions he has undertaken for the Bush family. Baker headed the Republican team during the Florida recount litigation after the disputed election of 2000. Against Baker's wishes, he agreed to manage President George H.W. Bush's reelection campaign in 1992. Baker was secretary of state in the first Bush administration, and treasury secretary and White House chief of staff under President Ronald Reagan.
Baker is well-known in the Middle East from his travels as secretary of state. Administration officials said he would add stability to a process that has been much more chaotic than the administration had hoped. Baker's stature with foreign governments also could help the administration enlist more help in paying for the reconstruction.
Bremer, although he was a career diplomat before becoming a private business consultant, lacks experience in the Arab world. Some administration officials said another figure might be better suited to selling neighboring countries on the U.S. approach to rebuilding Iraq.
Bremer took charge as part of an abrupt overhaul in May that dismayed some native Iraqi leaders. Just a month after U.S. troops ended three decades of Baath Party rule, Bremer was sent to Baghdad to take over for Jay M. Garner, a retired Army lieutenant general who has been in charge of the reconstruction effort.
Jeffrey, who is to become the Washington-based coordinator of the reconstruction effort, will become the administration's public face for the operation in Baghdad, including dealing with lawmakers and managing dealings with other party of the government. Officials said the White House concluded that, given the distance between Baghdad and Washington, Bremer needed someone senior in Washington who could navigate the bureaucracy and deal with Capitol Hill.
Bush named Jeffrey special adviser for lower Manhattan development in March 2002. Jeffery had worked at Goldman for 18 years, living and working in Paris, London and New York and specializing in the financial services sector. He previously practiced corporate law at Davis Polk & Wardwell in New York.
Staff writers Vernon Loeb and Rajiv Chandrasekaran contributed to this report.
NOTE: We do not like to make full copies of stories, but feel that it's meritied in this situation. When, as we expect, Josh gets his own copy for the TPM document collection, we will take down this post.
OBSERVATIONS: They are a diverse lot, but why so many from Colorado? What's with that? We expected all of them to be Republicans, but to our surprise there were some Democrats in there as well. It isn't clear why these representatives voted the way they did (except for libertarian Ron Paul), but it is ominous that two chairmen of important committees (Oxley, Tauzin) are in the list.
Despite the deletions demanded by the administration, the report contains evidence indicating the Saudis may have been linked to supporters of the September 11 hijackers. It focuses on Omar al-Bayoumi, who some in the FBI believed to be a Saudi intelligence agent. The Saudi government has denied the allegation.
Mr Bayoumi played a vital role in establishing Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, two of the hijackers, when they arrived in the US. US intelligence agencies knew as early as 1999 that the two were linked with al-Qaeda and had attended a CIA-monitored meeting of the terror network in Malaysia in 2000. Mr Bayoumi met the pair in Los Angeles after leaving a meeting at the Saudi consulate.
This is not exactly new. We posted comments about that back on November 24, 2002. We even diagrammed the money trail. Here it is (again):
And we wrote at the time, "... this flap should spur a proper investigation about Saudi connections to al Qaeda."
Why the renewed interest? Perhaps the attention to those 16 words, along with the finger-pointing by the CIA and White House, have caused the entire situaiton (terrorism, 9-11, Iraq war) to be viewed with fresh eyes.
Eric Alterman discovers an eerie parallel with two statements, one by William Kristol, and another from years ago by Irving Kristol. Here is the breakdown:
William Kristol today
Irving Kristol during the McCarthy era
But
For there is one thing that
the American people,
the American people
whatever their doubts about aspects of Bush’s foreign policy,
know
know
that
about
Bush
Senator McCarthy
;he, like them,
is
is
serious about fighting terrorists and terrorist states that mean America harm.
unequivocally anti-Communist.
About
About
Bush’s Democratic critics,
the spokesmen for American liberalism,
they feel
they know no such thing.
they know no such thing.
Alterman writes,
"This is truly amazing. It explicitly links the Neocons’ exploitation of the threat of terrorism to that no-good drunken bum, Joe McCarthy, and his use of the charge of “Commie” to ruin lives on a whim through a deliberately stoked mass hysteria. I think there is a great deal of this going on right now, but even I would have been reluctant to go so far. But there it is."
We went to the California Secretary of State's website to see how many people voted [PDF] in 2002 for governor, in order to compare that figure with the number who signed the petition to recall Gray Davis. (Note to egomaniacs: you can get listed with only 6 write-in votes, so in the next election, convince your friends to do you a favor and you'll be in the history books.) Here are the results:
Gray Davis, DEM
3,533,490
47.30%
Bill Simon, REP
3,169,801
42.40%
Reinhold Gulke, AI
128,035
1.70%
Peter Miguel Camejo, GRN
393,036
5.30%
Gary David Copeland, LIB
161,203
2.20%
Iris Adam, NL
88,415
1.10%
Anselmo A. Chavez (w/i)
37
0.00%
Will B. King (w/i)
13
0.00%
James F. Stewart (w/i)
327
0.00%
Nick Jesson (w/i)
46
0.00%
Rob Marinko (w/i)
1,789
0.00%
Debbie Jo Terzoli (w/i)
30
0.00%
F. Nan Bailey (w/i)
28
0.00%
Jim Mallon (w/i)
55
0.00%
Nick Hoogoian (w/i)
6
0.00%
Votes Not Cast
262,470
3.39%
TOTAL
7,738,781
Davis recall signatures
1,300,000
% of 2002 gubernatorial vote
17.00%
17%, or about one in six. Is that a large enough fraction? Not if the signatures came from the losing party (which got 43% in 2002). Yes, if they came from the winning party.
It would seem to us that in cases of recall for political reasons only (i.e. no malfeasance), it might be reasonable to require that the recall be initiated, and signatures gathered, by the party of the sitting governor.
TECHNICAL NOTE: Only 897,158 signatures are required by law, or 11% of the number who voted in 2002.
Dennis Miller was the first guest on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno this Wednesday and his appearance was less than thrilling. Not only did he have to prep his audience with the fact that Robert Byrd had been in the KKK so that he could then recite his lame "burning the cross at both ends" joke, but he went on to opine about the political scene:
IRAQ: "Am I the only one who could care less about weapons of mass destruction?".
ON THE DEFICIT: "If we owe somebody, just don't pay it."
JERRY SPRINGER RUNNING FOR OFFICE: "The gene pool is so shallow, we don't need a lifeguard on duty."
SPORTS: "Tour de Fra..., Tour de Spineless Greasy-haired Wusses."
In any event, we were struck by Miller's body language, which for most of the interview consisted of him being in the "defensive pose" of arms folded, as shown in the screenshots below:
We suspect that Miller knows he's losing half his audience, and that he's strayed from being a mainstream comedian.
Also, as we've noted before, what's Leno doing bringing a parade of conservative boors on his show (e.g. Miller, O'Reilly, Shepard Smith) ?
Calpundit posted a picture of Paul Krugman while he was on vacation in France (from Krugman's website), and remarks, "Doesn't he look relaxed?"
But Kevin should take a closer look. Who is sitting at the table behind Krugman? Yes, it's Karl Rove - keeping an eye on one of the biggest threats to the Bush presidency.
There have been a number of high-profile characters peddling this nonsense*, including Caspar Weinberger, William Safire, and Clifford May. Busy, busy, busy has the quotes.
* - that failure to find WMD doesn't mean they never existed, because something that once existed (Saddam, Osama, Judge Crater) cannot be found at the moment.
Busy, busy, busy distills Safire's essay down to a single ("shorter®") sentence.
Our take is that Safire is completely unreliable. But more than that, he continues to push notions that nobody else in the intelligence community believes. E.g. from his latest: (emphasis added)
A series of murders of "collaborators" would continue to intimidate Iraqi scientists and officers who know about W.M.D. and links to Al Qaeda ...
Pardon our French, but we think this guy has gotten away with fiscal-policy murder. Fortunately, for those who want to know the truth, the Washington Post has an article that reviews Greenspan's actions over the last several years as they relate to the passage of the Bush tax cuts. Don't be fooled, this fellow has probably done more damage than any single Republican senator or congressperson. Here are some excerpts (with our comments) from the Post's article, As Budget Deficit Grows, Greenspan Speaks Softly
In January 2001, as President Bush began his term after the disputed election and even allies were saying his proposed $1.6 trillion tax cut was too large, Greenspan unambiguously flashed a green light to Congress to push it through.
Now some members of Congress complain that the Fed chairman flashed no clear red lights as the country's fiscal fortunes changed. Instead, they say, he has equivocated on further tax cuts. Greenspan's stand is all the more striking, they say, because he has always loudly implored policymakers to fight deficits and prepare for the retirement of the Baby Boom generation.
Yup, he's vocal for tax cuts, but says nada when they should be postponed or repealed.
[In January 2001,] the government was projected to be running a $5.6 trillion surplus over the next decade. Greenspan worried that the government would quickly pay its debt and begin accumulating a cash surplus, which it would then have to invest in private-sector stocks and bonds. To Greenspan, the government ran the risk of dangerously distorting the market.
"In today's context, where tax reduction appears required in any event over the next several years, . . . starting that process sooner rather than later likely would help smooth the transition to longer-term fiscal balance," Greenspan said.
That is total nonsense. It was obvious that the surpluses were the result of a stock-market bubble, and any projections going forward that expected the same large tax revenues was bogus. Yet Greenspan allowed the "no bubble here" estimates to be used to determine policy.
[In] November [2002], Greenspan told a Joint Economic Committee hearing that he thought it would be "unwise" to eliminate or postpone portions of the 2001 tax cut that had not yet taken effect, because businesses had already built the changes into their long-term plans.
What an incredibly weak argument. Not only that, but it has the character of a "one way ratchet" which means one can never raise taxes.
... opponents noted that Greenspan repeatedly expressed concern about a growing deficit and said any new tax cut should be offset by spending cuts or equivalent tax increases. ... Greenspan knew that his statements would be politically ineffectual, Corzine charged, since neither party had any intention of raising taxes or cutting spending to offset a $350 billion hit to the Treasury.
"With this idea of saying it all needed to be revenue neutral, he was indicating a level of political naiveté that he does not possess," Corzine said.
He's a four-flusher, all right.
... Greenspan is a conservative Republican, a believer in small government and low taxes. His passion for those views led him to believe in the projected surpluses and see a chance to put his political beliefs into practice. "He wanted the tax cut for ideological reasons," [Barney] Frank said. "He didn't want all that money lying around for government to spend."
We totally agree.
On Wednesday [last week before Congress], after the tax cuts had been enacted, Greenspan dwelled on the danger of large and rising deficits, which he said eventually would cause long-term interest rates to rise and damage economic growth.
"There is no question that if you run substantial and excessive deficits over time, you are draining savings from the private sector, and other things equal, you do clearly undercut the growth rate of the economy," he told the Senate Banking Committee.
Leach said such comments are too late. "Congress has acted," he said. "Whether or not he thinks Congress took the right step, it is not helpful for him to now say this was the wrong way to go. How does that help the economy?"
Atrios (yes, the real McCoy) found these sentences at the end of a Los Angeles Times article: (emphasis added)
Still, [Douglas J. Feith, the No. 3 official and head of the Office of Special Plans] and other Pentagon officials said, they are studying the lessons of Iraq closely — to ensure that the next U.S. takeover of a foreign country goes more smoothly.
"We're going to get better over time," promised Lawrence Di Rita, a special assistant to Rumsfeld. "We've always thought of post-hostilities as a phase" distinct from combat, he said. "The future of war is that these things are going to be much more of a continuum.
"This is the future for the world we're in at the moment," he said. "We'll get better as we do it more often."
James M. Capozzola of the Rittenhouse Review has a great post about Norah Vincent and her failure to write anything interesting. He also links to her latest essay in the Los Angeles Times where she writes:
[An amendment forbidding gay marriage] probably won't go further than that for the simple reason that, even if such a measure passed Congress with the requisite two-thirds majority, it would be unlikely to win the support of two-thirds of the states.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
At the brief "press conference" on Thursday: Q: Mr. President, others in your administration have said your words on Iraq and Africa did not belong in your State of the Union address. Will you take personal responsibility for those words? And to both of you, how is it that two major world leaders such as yourselves have had such a hard time persuading other major powers to help stabilize Iraq?
THE PRESIDENT: First, I take responsibility for putting our troops into action. And I made that decision because Saddam Hussein was a threat to our security and a threat to the security of other nations. I take responsibility for making the decision, the tough decision, to put together a coalition to remove Saddam Hussein. Because the intelligence -- not only our intelligence, but the intelligence of this great country -- made a clear and compelling case that Saddam Hussein was a threat to security and peace. I say that because he possessed chemical weapons and biological weapons. I strongly believe he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program. And I will remind the skeptics that in 1991, it became clear that Saddam Hussein was much closer to developing a nuclear weapon than anybody ever imagined. He was a threat. I take responsibility for dealing with that threat. We are in a war against terror. And we will continue to fight that war against terror. We're after al Qaeda, as the Prime Minister accurately noted, and we're dismantling al Qaeda. The removal of Saddam Hussein is an integral part of winning the war against terror. A free Iraq will make it much less likely that we'll find violence in that immediate neighborhood. A free Iraq will make it more likely we'll get a Middle Eastern peace. A free Iraq will have incredible influence on the states that could potentially unleash terrorist activities on us. And, yeah, I take responsibility for making the decisions I made. posted by Quiddity at 7/18/2003 12:36:00 AM
If you haven't heard about the "senior administration officials" who told Robert Novak that the wife of former ambassador Joseph Wilson IV was a CIA operative, then you really should check out Mark A. R. Kleiman's post. There, you can find links to the original Novak story, David Corn's piece in The Nation about it, and Calpundit's remarks as well.
Former ambassador Joseph Wilson IV speaking about policy and politics surrounding the 2003 Iraqi war
BACKGROUND: In early 2002, the Office of the Vice President requested a check of reports that Iraq was purchasing uranium from Niger. The British claimed to possess a document showing that Iraq had recently made an agreement to obtain yellowcake from Niger. American intelligence was not shown the document, nor was it told the details about how it was obtained. As it turned out, the document was a crude forgery with glaring errors (dates, people involved). When the contents of the document were shared in 2003 with the IAEA, that organization was able to determine in two days that the document was bogus.
In early 2002, a former ambassador to several African states, Joseph Wilson IV, was dispatched to check out the Niger-uranium story. He went to Niger, and determined to his satisfaction that there was no truth to the British claim. He reported back, and presumed that the OVP and intelligence agencies were told of his findings.
However, the Iraq-Niger claim did manage to get into the State of the Union address - but in less specific terms. "Africa" was mentioned instead of "Niger", and it was attributed to British intelligence because the U.S. could not verify the claim.
By June of 2003, and in light of the failure to find any WMD in Iraq, closer scrutiny was given to the SOTU and in particular to the line about Africa. That was when the public learned that a "former ambassador" had gone to check out the story. The issue became so hot that the former ambassador wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times in early July, identifying himself as Joseph Wilson IV. In the Op-Ed, Wilson was critical of the Bush administration's handling of intelligence and of the case it made for war.
On 14 June 2003, Joseph Wilson IV gave a speech at the Education for Peace in Iraq center.
The Education for Peace in Iraq center has a website with a small item about Wilson, but it's only about his more recent New York Times Op-Ed. The archives section only goes forward to May 2003. Their website is slow, and they have a note about technical problems.
UPDATE: A webpage has (re)emerged which lists all of the speakers at the June 14 forum held at the Education for Peace in Iraq center. Wilson is listed near the bottom of the page, where you can listen to an MP3 (either as an audio stream or after downloading)..
On 10 July 2003, Democracy Now reported on the speech.
Democracy Now has a website with a page about Wilson's speech. It can be heard with RealAudio (the link is here) To hear Wilson, go to the 30-minute mark.
No transcripts of Wilson's speech could be found on either the Education for Peace in Iraq or Democracy Now websites.
A transcript (below) was made from the audio feed.
In the speech, Wilson speaks about an "unnamed former ambassador." He is referring to himself.
The speech: (emphasis and formatting added)
To those of you who are going out and lobbying tomorrow, I want to assure you that that American ambassador who has been cited in reports in the New York Times and in the Washington Post and now in the Guardian over in London, who actually went over to Niger on behalf of the government - not of the CIA, but of the government - and came back in February of 2002 and told the government there was nothing to this story. Later called the government after the British white paper was published and said, "You all need to do some fact-checking and make sure the Brits aren't using bad information in the publication of a white paper. And who called both the CIA and the State Department after the president's State of the Union, and said to them, "You need to worry about the political manipulation of intelligence if in fact the president is talking about Niger when he mentions Africa."
That person was told by the State Department that "Well, you know, there's four countries that export uranium." That person had served in three of those countries so he knew a little about what he was talking about when he said, "You really need to worry about this." But I can assure you that that "retired ambassador to Africa," Nicholas Kristof called him in his article, is also pissed off and has every intention of insuring that this story has legs. I think it does have legs. It may not have legs over the next two or three months, but when you see American casualties moving from one to five or to ten per day, and you see Tony Blair's government fall because in the UK it is a big story, there will be some ramifications I think here in the United States. So I hope you will do everything you can to keep the pressure on because it is absolutely bogus for us to have gone to war the way we did.
As I used to say when I was doing my interviews before the war, the issue of weapons of mass destruction is primordial. It is important. It was absolutely vital that we correct the policing operation associated with Resolution 687, which was the resolution that said Saddam shall not have weapons of mass destruction. That was the piece that was broken. Correcting that, which we did essentially by 1441, was the right thing to do. Going from 1441 to an invasion, conquest, and occupation war was not the right thing to do.
I am struck also by some of the numbers that keep turning around in my head as I look at this. The president said, "I've got four reasons for going to war in Iraq."
One, weapons of mass destruction,
which was handled by 1441 unanimously, but that wasn't going to get him to war so long as you had an inspection process in place.
Two, terrorism.
We wanted to stamp out terrorism. This was part of our war on terrorism. Now here in the United States on September 11th 2001 we suffered the loss of two buildings in New York and severe damage to one building in Washington, and we suffered the loss of roughly 3,000 lives. In Iraq during the "Shock and Awe" bombing campaign, we now know that over 3,000 Iraqis were killed. We ought to assume that the better part of Baghdad currently suffers from Post Traumatic Shock Syndrome in addition to everything else they suffer from. And lord knows how many buildings in downtown Baghdad and elsewhere in the country were destroyed.
And it was one thing to watch the war on Fox News, CNN, and ABC, where everybody tried to put a bigger American flag on their TV station than the next person. It was quite another thing to watch the war through the lens of al-Jazeera or any of the other Arabic newspapers. Where every child that was killed or maimed, or every building that was hit, or Baghdad in flames by night, resonated in a far different way than it resonated in the United States.
Now in our war on terrorism, how can we possibly assume that the anger that we felt when 3,000 of our fellow citizens were killed, is not going to be felt in spades, not just in Iraq where 3,000 deaths represents by, relative to the total population, ten times the number of deaths that we suffered in our terrorist attack. Or throughout the rest of the world.
So if in fact, you buy into the idea that this is part of our war on terrorism, guess what? We have created - and the polls show this - an entire generation of Arabs who essentially is going to hate the United States and Americans. And if they remain disaffected they are a wonderful recruiting tool for al Qaeda and al Qaeda-like organizations, going forward.
Of course, we didn't find any terrorists when we got to Iraq. Just as we haven't yet found any weapons of mass destruction, though on that score I remain of the view that we will find biological and chemical weapons. And we may well find something that indicates that Saddam's regime maintained an interest in nuclear weapons. It's not surprising if you live in the part of the world where you do have a nuclear armed country - enemy of yours - that is just a country away from you.
The third reason of course, the president mentioned, was the transfer of weapons of mass destruction from a rogue nation and a rogue government to international terrorists.
George Tenet testified up on the Hill, and his testimony was - I wrote something similar in an article I wrote for the San Jose Mercury News - he testified that, "Yeah, it was entirely possible that Saddam would transfer weapons of mass destruction to international terrorists, but only in extremis." That essentially if you are an autocratic thug which Saddam is, and was - certainly was, he's still a thug even if he no longer has the totalitarian powers he once had - you're not going to give up control of something to a group that you don't have any control over. It just doesn't make any sense, particularly given the fact that Saddam's not a dumb man. He's a sociopath. He's a killer. He's not dumb. He knew and has known for years that anytime anything happens to American interests, the first place we look is at Iraq.
On September 10th, Saddam was riding high. There was absolutely no reason for him to be involved on September 11th. He had essentially worked his way pretty much back into the Arab League. The sanctions regime had been eased so he could get more of the stuff that he needed both to enrich himself and keep his country's population at bay. There's absolutely no reason for him to have been involved in September 11th. And indeed, it's clear that he wasn't. Even though, by the time we went to war the majority of the population thought it was Iraqis who had been involved in September 11th.
The fourth reason ...
And oh, by the way, if you buy into the transfer theory, guess what? That transfer has probably already occurred. You've heard recently reports to the effect that we did not secure the nuclear site, for example, until it had been thoroughly looted. Lord know how many other high priority weapons of mass destruction sites were not secured. If ever there was an indication this was not a weapons of mass destruction war, it ought to be in the sloppiness of the battle plan that did not have the securing of these sites on the first day.
The fourth reason that the president gave was the liberation of the Iraqi people,
which is indeed a noble cause. And everybody who has ever been to Iraq or who knows anything about the Baath regime of Saddam Hussein, knows that it is, or was one of the two most repressive and most dangerous and most belligerent regimes towards its own people, in the world.
The question really comes down to whether it is the job of American soldiers to go over and liberate Iraqi people. And the argument that I would make is that every time we've had this debate - and it happens every four years when we do the Quadrennial Review - we conclude that it is the role of the American military to defend the national security of the United States. We have other organizations. We have other tools. We won the Cold War. We liberated Eastern and Central Europe without killing Rumanians, Bulgarians, Poles, Czechs, Slavs. It takes a little more patience. It takes a little more creativity. People in the intelligence community, people in the diplomatic community, people in the economic sanctions community, people in the political community, have to work a lot harder. It doesn't show up on your television screens as "Shock and Awe," the burning of Baghdad at night. Or the firebombing of Dresden. But it yields results. But this administration could not be patient.
The other figure of course, that strikes me, is we've got about 180 Americans dead. Another 40 or 50 Allied troops dead. That is roughly four times the amount of Iraqis from the Diaspora who actually showed up when the Pentagon said it was going to raise an Iraqi liberation force. Now I don't know how hard the Pentagon went out and recruited Iraqis from the Diaspora of roughly four million. And I don't really know how many Iraqis are of that fighting age. But I do know, and as you see on the streets of Tehran today, that in order to have a liberation strategy you have to have people who are willing to fight for their own liberation. Otherwise you will never get that "liberation bounce" that Ken Adleman promised us, that Richard Perle promised us, when they said Iraqis would be cheering from the rooftops at our marching in there.
And I have always said that no matter how much the Iraqis hated Saddam Hussein, we ought not to assume that that was automatically going to transfer for love and affection for the Americans. 'Cause first and foremost, Iraqis are an extraordinarily proud people. They have a long and distinguished history. More of them remember the exploits of Saladin and Nebuchadnezzar than Americans remember Washington, Lincoln, or Al Gore. (laughter) I mention Al Gore because it's more recent. They know what it's like to be conquered. They were under the Ottomans for several hundred years. They know what it's like to be conquerors. They don't like being conquered. They particularly don't like to be conquered - or one should have assumed from the very beginning they weren't going to like being conquered - by a couple of countries that have been in the forefront of maintaining economic sanctions on the population for twelve long years. Which economic sanctions devastated the middle class - the glue that holds a society together. This is a proud people that we had already brought to it's knees over twelve years.
We could have done this much differently.
Now there were three or four different foreign policy agendas in play here, only one which was true.
There was the weapons of mass destruction agenda, which was handled by 1441.
There was the terrorism agenda, which was handled by Afghanistan.
When Carl Levin and I debated Jim Woolsey and John McCain on Nightline, Ted Kopple started the evening by saying, "There's an old Arab saying ..." (I think actually it's a Chinese saying but he said it was an Arab saying) "that says, 'Sometimes to get the monkey's attention, you kill the chicken'". Well we did that. We did that in Afghanistan.
And if in fact the monkeys whose attention we were trying to get were the other two countries of the Axis of Evil - North Korea and Iran, let me suggest to you that there were two lessons they took away from it.
One was, "We'd better get nuked up real quick so that if these guys decide to come after us we have our deterrence in place."
And two was, "They're not going to come after us. We're too strong. They went after the weak sister. They went after the country whose army they had already defeated twelve years ago. Whose army they'd kept under economic sanctions, whose population they'd kept under economic sanctions for twelve years, and whose anti-aircraft and other defenses they had run a several month long campaign to deteriorate and degrade before they ran the march to Baghdad."
Which by the way, as valiant as our solders was, this was not the liberation of Paris. The only thing that slowed down our juggernaut getting into Baghdad was the speed limit signs on the highways going up there. And I mean no disrespect to our military in this. We run military campaigns very well. But we were not running a military campaign against the elite of the elites. As somebody said, "This was like the New York Yankees playing Podunk High." And even our military - I used to be political advisor to Commander in Chief Armed Forces Europe, I still have contacts with command - even some of our military officers were absolutely dismayed at the slaughter they were inflicting on poorly trained, poorly equipped, Iraqi conscripts on the way up there. All this will come back to haunt us.
Weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, liberation, were the three agendas.
The real agenda in all of this of course, was to redraw the political map of the Middle East.
Now that is code, whether you like it or not, but it is code for putting into place the strategy memorandum that was done by Richard Perle and his study group in the mid-90's which was called, "A Clean Break - A New Strategy for the Realm." And what it is - cut to the quick - is if you take out some of these countries, some of these governments that are antagonistic to Israel then you provide the Israeli government with greater wherewithal to impose its terms and conditions upon the Palestinian people - whatever those terms and conditions might be. In other words, the road to peace in the Middle East goes through Baghdad and Damascus. Maybe Tehran. And maybe Cairo and maybe Tripoli if these guys actually have their way. Rather than going through Jerusalem.
Now it's pretty clear to me, looking at the way in which the Palestinians and the way Hamas has reacted to the road map, that in fact, you've got real problems on two fronts in the Middle East now.
But that is the real agenda.
You can put weapons of mass destruction out there. You can put terrorism out there. You can put liberation out there.
Weapons of mass destruction got hard-headed realists on board - through a bunch of lies as I've said.
Terrorism got everybody who was still reacting viscerally to 9-11 on board.
And liberation got liberals, bleeding hearts, on board. Americans who hate dictators, on board.
End of speech
NOTE: We are well aware that when speaking about Israel one must be careful, lest the argument be misconstrued as modern day form of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. However, we felt that Wilson was a person of long experience whose views were worthy of exposition - especially since he is a key figure in the current Niger affair.
