Vote NOW!

The Washington Post is running a contest to determine the best political blogs. Nominations are closed, so I'm not asking readers to vote for me.

However, stop by and be counted. In most categories, there are clear left/right nominees and I obviously suggest you vote for the people on my blogroll.

Atrios, Billmon, Juan Cole (Informed Comment), Kos, and Josh Marshall (Talking Points Memo) all deserve your serious consideration in one or more categories. Sometimes, it's a tough call deciding among them.

As for the not-so-serious...It is a real shame that skippy the bush kangaroo wasn't nominated as class clown, but as a sometimes actor he's probably used to some rejection. It's not like skippy can win the role of "Mr. Happy" every time, right?

Sadly, the recent Atlantic article on "The Hollywood Campaign" overlooked blogger-actors too.

In any case, I didn't vote for Wonkette.

War fever?

I'm back from Pittsburgh and the latest meeting of the Working Group on Preemptive and Preventive Military Intervention.

Members spent a great deal of time talking about the parameters of what I often call the "Bush Doctrine," which uses the terminology of preemption to describe what many would ordinarily call preventive war.

It's bad enough to say that the US is going to war to disarm a state that has "weapons of mass destruction," even if there's no proof that the state and its weapons pose an imminent threat to the US.

It is outrageous to say that the US is going to war against states who have the intent to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Like Robin Dahl (phonetic), one of the citizens who asked a question in Friday's debate, I am still trying to parse the President's statement of October 7 about the reason for going to war in Iraq:

Chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there.

The Duelfer report also raises important new information about Saddam Hussein's defiance of the world and his intent and capability to develop weapons. The Duelfer report showed that Saddam was systematically gaming the system, using the U.N. oil-for-food program to try to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions. He was doing so with the intent of restarting his weapons program, once the world looked away.

Based on all the information we have today, I believe we were right to take action, and America is safer today with Saddam Hussein in prison. He retained the knowledge, the materials, the means, and the intent to produce weapons of mass destruction.

Damn, Bush managed to emphasize Saddam's intent to develop weapons of mass destruction three times in just a few sentences.

There's an obvious followup question: How does the US know if a state has the intent to develop WMD? It is very difficult to detect WMD capabilities, typically by national technical means. It likely requires tremendous human intelligence assets to determine a state's intent. Even then...it might not be possible.

Earlier this year, David Kay discussed states that had "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities." Remember?

How many potentially "evil states" lurk out there, wanting to pursue "weapons of mass terror," as President Bush commonly says.

Presumably, these would be the likely targets of an American attack, right?

This was an exchange between Senator Mark Dayton (MN) and David Kay, the first head of the Iraq Survey group, in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee, January 28, 2004:

DAYTON: Just based on your general knowledge, how many countries would you say in the world today would qualify under the category of developing weapons of mass destruction-related program activities or having such activities?

KAY: Senator Dayton, I hesitate to give you an off-the-cuff number because I know it'll probably is going to be like the 85 percent; I'm going to have to live with it for longer than I want to.

I would say that in the nuclear area, in addition to those that we know have possessed nuclear weapons, that includes India...

DAYTON: I want to go to the vernacular that we're using in this broader category.

KAY: The broader category. Oh, I suspect you're talking about probably 50 countries that have programs that would fall somewhere in that broader vernacular.

I repeat: It's bad enough to say that the US is going to war to disarm someone who has "weapons of mass destruction," even if there's no proof that those weapons pose an imminent threat. How bad is to say that the US is going to war against states who have the intent to develop weapons of mass destruction?

Second Presidential Debate

I'm on the road, but here are my reactions to the latest presidential debate:

1. I cannot believe the President of the US said this:

I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons

Does this mean George W. Bush wanted Saddam Hussein to have these weapons?

2. Apparently, the President fundamentally misunderstood the UN sanctions:

Remember the last debate, my opponent said that America must pass a global test before we use force to protect ourselves. That's the kind of mind-set that says sanctions were working. That's the kind of mind-set that says let's keep it at the United Nations and hope things go well.

Saddam Hussein was a threat because he could have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorist enemies. Sanctions were not working...

Why did Bush think sanctions were failing? Ah, because "the United Nations was not effective at removing Saddam Hussein."

How many of the UN Resolutions required this? Hint, it's a very small number.

To his credit, John Kerry quick pointed out that the UN aim was to disarm Hussein, not remove him from power. And Kerry noted that the disarmament mission worked.

3. This is related to #2: the President didn't pay attention to months of UN/IAEA inspections:

"we didn't find out he didn't have weapons until we got there."

I guess Bush missed ElBaradei's conclusion from March 2003, days before the war:

"After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq."

I realize that I quote this passage frequently, but it would be great to hear Kerry and/or the media note it.

4. Finally, I also wish Kerry had answered this Bush claim:

Of course, we're going to find Osama bin Laden. We've already got 75 percent of his people

Experts generally believe that al Qaeda has developed new leaders and recruited many more terrorists. The leader of Egypt, Hosni Mubarek, famously predicted last year that the Iraq war could produce "100 bin Ladens." The British Ambassador to Italy, Sir Ivor Roberts, said recently that "Bush is al Qaeda's best recruiting sergeant."

Be Careful Who Your Friends Are

Both the President and Vice President have been touting Libya's decision to give up WMD as a success in their "war on terrorism."

However, the Washington Times has a story today titled, "Iraq Minister: Libya backing terrorists" from the UPI that may make John Kerry mention Libya:

Iraqi Defense Minister Hazem Shaalan accused Libya Friday of backing insurgencies against the Iraqi government by former followers of Saddam Hussein....

Shaalan said the Iraqi government has documents proving Libya is backing the remnants of the ousted Baath regime, including al-Sabawi Ibrahim, Saddam's half-brother, and Mohammed Younes, a former member of the Baath party's military council.

"Libya is financing those two men to help them carry out their terrorist operations in Iraq," he said.

Interesting, eh?

Abu Aardvark provided the link.

I'm off to Pittsburgh for the Workshop on Preemptive and Preventive War.

Brooks-to-Cheney or Cheney-to-Brooks?

Squeaks from the Squirrel Cage - A cube with a view has an interesting find. In Tuesday's Veep Debate, Dick Cheney repeated a story from a recent David Brooks column in the New York Times.

I won't put the entire thing here (read it), but basically Cheney's reference to "terrorists" in El Salvador attempting to disrupt their election 20 years ago also appeared in a Brooks column on September 28th. Both the Vice President and Brooks conclude that elections can take the air out of insurgencies -- and both look forward to elections in Afghanistan and Iraq to prove their point.

We'll see, eh?

According to Squirrel:

There are a few possible explanations for this apparent coincidence. First, Cheney could have gotten the idea from Brooks' column. Second, Brooks could have gotten the idea from Cheney, or from a Cheney surrogate. Third, they both could have gotten the same idea from a third party. Fourth, it could be pure coincidence, not-so-great minds thinking alike.

Cheney puts himself at the scene of the Salvadoran elections (who knew?), so I'm betting, at least provisionally, on #2, Cheney gave the idea to Brooks. If that's so, it raises another question: is David Brooks registered as a 527?

Since the Brooks column includes at least 9 paragraphs on the El Salvador anecdote, it is interesting that he might merely be repeating a White House talking point -- on the New York Times op-ed page (and in wide syndication).

Who needs Judith Miller now?

Who will help Kerry fix Bush's mistake?

John Kerry claims that he can rebuild America's alliances to help with the "hard work" needed in Iraq. Remember what Kerry said in the debate?

I believe America is safest and strongest when we are leading the world and when we are leading strong alliances.

I'll never give a veto to any country over our security, but I also know how to lead those alliances. This President has left them in shatters across the globe. And we're now 90 percent of the casualties in Iraq, and 90 percent of the costs. I think that's wrong, and I think we can do better...

I know I can do a better job in Iraq, where I have a plan to have a summit with all of the allies, something this President has not yet achieved, not yet been able to do to bring people to the table.

The President countered by arguing that allies will not follow Kerry -- because he's sending such a mixed message about Iraq. The US cannot gain more allies unless it signals to the world that it is on the bright and shining path in Iraq:

...[Senator Kerry] says the cornerstone of his plan to succeed in Iraq is to call upon nations to serve. So what's the message going to be? Please join us in Iraq for a grand diversion? Join us for a war that is a wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time?

I know how these people think. I deal with them all the time. I sit down with the world leaders frequently and talk to them on the phone frequently -- they're not going to follow somebody who says this is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time.

The past two days, interesting news reports from Germany and France suggest that both these states may well be willing to provide more assistance in Iraq -- even though they think President Bush has fought the wrong war in the wrong way. Both states argue that the situation in Iraq is precarious and that there could be a common interest in preventing Iraq from becoming a failed state.

This line of analysis completely undercuts Bush's position and provides support to Kerry's. In short, perhaps Germany and France can be rather easily convinced to help fix Bush's mess. Note, however, that both states currently maintain that they will not send troops to Iraq.

Let me begin with the Germans. August Hanning, who heads Germany's Federal Intelligence Service today offered an interesting analysis of the situation in Iraq. His speech at a terror conference (and the subsequent news conference) was reported by ABCNEWS.com:

Hanning also warned that violence in Iraq risks plunging the country into the chaos of a disintegrating "failed state" resembling terrorist havens like pre-Sept. 11 Afghanistan....

A breakdown in Iraq would destabilize the Middle East, boost Islamic terrorism worldwide and might allow terrorists to put scientists involved in Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to work for them, the intelligence chief added.

Extending security across Iraq, with its diverse ethnic and religious groups, is "a tough task that will still claim many victims," he said.

"The outlook is dark if this task is not mastered," Hanning said in a speech at a terrorism conference. "In this case a trend like in Afghanistan or Lebanon in the past is a very likely scenario."

Stoked by radical Islamic views inspired by bin Laden, terrorist attacks and military action by U.S.-led troops are pushing Iraq toward "a crossroads" that could end with peaceful reconstruction or chaos, he said.

Setting Iraq firmly on the path to security and democracy "is by no means ensured because the way there is still very rocky," Hanning said.

Hanning suggested that Western nations are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of young disaffected Arabs.

"I detect a still growing, generally anti-Western mood in the Muslim countries," he said.

Now, look at what Hanning says about the solution to this:

Hanning said all countries now have a stake in the country's future because Islamic radicalism posed a global threat.

"That is why all of us have a common interest, whether we take part in the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq or not," he said. "This country must be stabilized."

Doesn't that sound like someone hinting that Germany might be brought into the coalition?

The latest news about France isn't quite the same, but is interesting nonetheless and potentially suggestive of a willingness to cooperate about Iraq in 2005. This is from the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler, yesterday:

French officials were prepared to provide as many as 15,000 troops for an invasion of Iraq before relations soured between the Bush administration and the French government over the timing of an attack, according to a new book published in France this week.

The book, "Chirac Contre Bush: L'Autre Guerre" ("Chirac vs. Bush: The Other War"), reports that a French general, Jean Patrick Gaviard, visited the Pentagon to meet with Central Command staff on Dec. 16, 2002 -- three months before the war began -- to discuss a French contribution of 10,000 to 15,000 troops and to negotiate landing and docking rights for French jets and ships.

The book, by two French journalists, claims that Chirac was willing to send troops if Saddam Hussein had blocked UN weapons inspectors. According to Kessler's account of the book, "French President Jacques Chirac decided that the Americans were pushing too fast to short-circuit inspections by U.N. weapons inspectors."

The book apparently describes an intense personal hostility between Bush and Chirac that sets the tone for US-French foreign policy.

What about the future? Do the French provide the same diagnosis as Kerry and the Germans? They do. This was from the French Embassy in the US last month:

"Yes, we had a real divergence of opinion," Jean-David Levitte told about 150 people at the World Affairs Council of Greater Richmond. But now, "let's work together to rebuild Iraq," he said.

The two countries want to see the international community stand united on the challenges of Iraqi reconstruction.
"The mood in Europe is we have to make Iraq a success story," Levitte told the group, which met at the Omni Hotel Richmond.

Levitte said French President Jacques Chirac believes that "what is at stake in Iraq is huge" - the future of the Middle East.

Failure to build a stable Iraq would mean the further spread of Islamic terrorism, Levitte said....

Though Saddam Hussein was a bloody dictator, Levitte said, in France's view he posed no imminent threat to western interests.

"Now after the war, you have terrorists in Iraq," and the U.S. military occupation of that country could trigger greater resentment among Iraqis, Levitte said....

"Our dream is to see a moderate, democratic regime in charge," he said. "It will not be a French democracy. It will not be an American democracy. It will be an Iraqi democracy.

"However, "for the time being, it is a real nightmare," Levitte said.

"It's going downhill. That's where we have to join forces."

It's almost entirely consistent with the Kerry view of the situation.

Would a new President be able to mend that relationship and encourage French help? It seems a lot more likely that Kerry could attain French cooperation than could Bush, that's for sure.

Cheney's Pants Still on Fire

To quote the Vice President, "it's hard to know where to start."

1. A Big Lie: Iraq, 9/11 and al Qaeda:

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: The Senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11.

On Meet the Press, however, Cheney did very strongly suggest that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. This is from December 9, 2001:

CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he [9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.

Actually, the Atta in Prague story is widely debunked. The Veep seemed to recognize this when he lied about his prior appearance on the show again in September 2003:

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.

Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.

The 9/11 Commission, of course, looked at all the evidence and found no collaborative relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

2. An Embarrassing Lie: Edwards was accurate about his critique of Halliburton and Cheney lied for denying the claims. I quoted this passage earlier:

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Well, the reason they keep mentioning Halliburton is because they're trying to throw up a smoke screen. They know the charges are false. They know if you go, for example, to factcheck.com** ( ** factcheck.org is the correct web address ), an independent website sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania, you can get the specific details, with respect to Halliburton.

Note that the White House website is now providing the correct link.

From factcheck.org at the University of Pennsylvania:

Cheney got our domain name wrong -- calling us "FactCheck.com" -- and wrongly implied that we had rebutted allegations Edwards was making about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton.

In fact, we did post an article pointing out that Cheney hasn't profited personally while in office from Halliburton's Iraq contracts, as falsely implied by a Kerry TV ad. But Edwards was talking about Cheney's responsibility for earlier Halliburton troubles. And in fact, Edwards was mostly right....

Halliburton has said it does about $30 million to $40 million in oilfield service business in Iran annually through a subsidiary, Halliburton Products and Services Ltd. The company says that the subsidiary fully complies with US sanctions laws, but the matter currently is under investigation by a federal grand jury in Houston.

The group finds some fault with Edwards, but this seems a particularly ironic lie given it is highlighted by the very source that Cheney said viewers should check for the truth.

2. A Small Lie (that illustrates why we might not want to trust the Bush spin machine about anything):

Now, in my capacity as Vice President, I am the President of the Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.

There are pictures floating all over the internet of Cheney standing next to Edwards at a Prayer breakfast they both attended in 2001 (apparently for 2 or 3 hours). The Vice President thanked Edwards by name in his remarks that day. Cheney was standing across from the Veep when Elizabeth Dole was sworn in as US Senator. They appeared on "Meet the Press" on the same day once and host Tim Russert says they met (and shook hands). Edwards was present and voted "nay" six times when Cheney voted "yea" to break ties on Senate votes.


The DNC has a video already.

Remember, Al Gore "lost" a debate in 2000 on similarly trivial details about his personal schedule and meetings.

Two Years Too Late

Apparently, the Iraq Survey Group has finished its final report, and, wait for it, Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction. Here are the lead paragraphs from the Washington Post story:

The government's most definitive account of Iraq's arms programs, to be released today, will show that Saddam Hussein posed a diminishing threat at the time the United States invaded and did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, U.S. officials said yesterday.

The officials said that the 1,000-page report by Charles A. Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, concluded that Hussein had the desire but not the means to produce unconventional weapons that could threaten his neighbors or the West. President Bush has continued to assert in his campaign stump speech that Iraq had posed "a gathering threat."

The group apparently concluded that Iraq had less capability in 2003 than they did in 1998, when inspectors left! Officials are quoted as saying that there's no evidence that WMD left Iraq via Syria, nor is there any evidence that Iraq was going to produce WMD once the UN left.

The CIA also issued a report this week on the alleged ties between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and al Qaeda. Again, nothing. This is from Warren Strobel and colleagues at Knight Ridder:

A new CIA assessment undercuts the White House's claim that Saddam Hussein maintained ties to al-Qaida, saying there's no conclusive evidence that the regime harbored Osama bin Laden associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

The CIA review, which U.S. officials said Monday was requested some months ago by Vice President Dick Cheney, is the latest assessment that calls into question one of President Bush's key justifications for last year's U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

The new assessment follows the independent Sept. 11 commission's finding that there was no "collaborative relationship" between the former Iraqi regime and bin Laden's terrorist network.

While intelligence officials cautioned that information about al-Zarqawi remains incomplete, Bush, Cheney and other top officials have publicly made al-Zarqawi the linchpin of their contention that Saddam's Iraq had ties to al-Qaida. Since the Sept. 11 commission's judgment in June, Bush and Cheney have repeatedly said that al-Zarqawi was an associate of bin Laden and received safe haven from Saddam.

...But Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld backed away Monday from such claims, apparently as a result of the new CIA assessment.

This is consistent with what I blogged last week.

Fact checking the Veep Debate

Via Josh Marshall, Vice President Cheney goofed last night when he sent debate viewers to a website to gather information about Halliburton:

Well, the reason they keep mentioning Halliburton is because they're trying to throw up a smoke screen. They know the charges are false. They know if you go, for example, to factcheck.com, an independent website sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania, you can get the specific details, with respect to Halliburton.

If you click the link the Vice President suggests, it automatically redirects you to George Soros's website!

Apparently, the Vice President wanted to send viewers to factcheck.org. Their server seems to have been overwhelmed today, so perhaps the correct message was relayed quickly.

If I were Soros, I'd put some Halliburton information on the front page. It is true, for example, that as head of Halliburton Cheney did argue for lifting sanctions against Iran (and Libya) and a company subsidiary is under investigation for violating the sanctions during his tenure of leadership. Cheney did not deny these claims in the debate.

Are they important? I report, you decide.

Blogging note: These days, I hardly ever link to Marshall's Talking Points Memo, even though I read it virtually every day and like it very much. I presume, however, that many if not most of my readers already read TPM regularly. Plus, Marshall very rarely engages with low-profile bloggers like me, so there's not much chance of opening a dialogue.

I don't do as much linking to other blogs as I should either, largely because of my work habits. I tend to write posts during the day, then spend free time (typically late at night) reading other blogs.

So, let me take a moment to apologize to some of those other bloggers who link to me. Sometimes, I fail to reciprocate, though I often try to catch up (even when my name is spelled incorrectly).

Instant Veep Debate Analysis

Just a few immediate thoughts about the Veep debate...

1. John Edwards missed an opportunity when Dick Cheney brought up all those missed votes. After all, Cheney spent months and months (2001 and 2002) in "an undisclosed location." And Cheney couldn't find Edwards?

It reminds me of when Joe Lieberman failed to pounce in 2000 after Cheney said his great wealth had nothing to do with the government! What a whopper, given Halliburton's defense contracts.

2. Edwards also probably should have dealt with the "flip flop" charge by pointing out that the October 2002 resolution authorized the use of force, but was not a vote for war. Even the President, when he signed it, said he hoped it would help "the cause of peace."

With this resolution, Congress has now authorized the use of force. I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not become necessary.

It was a vote for coercive diplomacy, and the President blew it. Why not use that more clearly in the debates?

3. The moderator, Gwen Ifill, blew the second half of the debate. Two questions on gay marriage, but nothing specific about national health insurance? Two questions on trial lawyers and tort reform, but none specifically on education? None on social security? I sure hope the presidential debate on domestic policy focuses on more important issues.

4. John Kerry was fine on the "global test" last Thursday. Edwards didn't explain it very well. Some bloggers (like Brad Delong) have pointed to the Declaration of Independence as an example of what Kerry seemed to have in mind:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

As I wrote the other day, this is pretty much what Kerry said when explaining the "global test."

5. MSNBC is criticizing Edwards for his inexperience. Yet, they accuse Cheney of lying in the debate (about his past comments on the 9/11-Saddam link) and don't really discuss the argument Edwards made about this experience gap. Edwards pointed out several times that a strong resume doesn't guarantee good choices.

Edwards, of course, has much more experience in national affairs than George Bush had in 2000. He's been on the Senate Intelligence Committee, for example.

Pentagon in the Papers

There are a couple of DoD-related stories in today's paper that are worth noting.

The first is about a speech Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld gave to the Council on Foreign Relations. This passage, apparently from the Q&A, has been widely quoted:

On possible connections between al Qaeda and the former government of ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, Rumsfeld said he had "not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."

However, hours later, Rumsfeld claimed that he had been "misunderstood" and that the CIA has long thought there were some links between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda. He pointed out that he has long repeated such claims.

Was Rumsfeld, who has a reputation for frankness, caught in a moment of unusual candor at the CFR? After all, CFR remarks are frequently off-the-record (and not-for-attribution). Since the Pentagon released the speech and the followup clarification, that standard practice obviously didn't apply in this case. Perhaps Rumsfeld thought the Q&A would be off-the-record?

Why would he say one thing and then renounce it hours later? Isn't that a mixed message?

The other story receiving attention concerns some conference speeches Paul Bremer has given lately. Bremer, of course, is the former administrator of the American occupation in Iraq. Though he apparently thought his latest remarks were off the record, conference organizers distributed them in a press release:

"We paid a big price for not stopping it [the initial Iraqi looting] because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," he said yesterday in a speech at an insurance conference in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. "We never had enough troops on the ground."

..."There was planning, but planning for a situation that didn't arise," he said.

Apparently, Bremer said something similar in a speech on September 17:

Bremer said he frequently raised the issue [troop levels] within the administration and "should have been even more insistent" when his advice was spurned because the situation in Iraq might be different today. "The single most important change -- the one thing that would have improved the situation -- would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout" the occupation, Bremer said, according to the Banner-Graphic in Greencastle, Ind.

Bremer too issued a clarification within hours of this story hitting the wire services:

"I believe that we currently have sufficient troop levels in Iraq," he said in an e-mailed statement. He said all references in recent speeches to troop levels related to the situation when he arrived in Baghdad in May 2003 -- "and when I believed we needed either more coalition troops or Iraqi security forces to address the looting."

Though Bremer says his support for the war hasn't wavered, this is essentially the critique Kerry offered last Thursday in the debate when he made reference to the pre-war troop assessments of Army chief-of-staff General Eric K. Shinseki.

The President said that such criticism, combined with the October vote, sends a mixed message to American troops, allies, and terrorists.

Bremer's words prove however, that it is possible to have supported the ouster of Saddam Hussein and still criticize both the way the war has been fought and the utter failure of post-war planning.

Kerry did not support the war on March 19, 2003, and has gone further with his criticisms of the situation on the ground, but the basic premise is the same.

If taken to its logical conclusion, Bush's point about mixed messages would stifle dissent and preclude the possibility of fixing bad policy on-the-ground as the situation changes.


Update: I fixed 2 minor errors (thanks for noting one, Avery).

Republicans for Kerry

As my regular readers know, I have blogged often about former (or current) Republican public officials who have either blasted the Bush administration or embraced John Kerry's political campaign.

Let me add 3 other names to the list.

As Senator Kerry himself mentioned in the first debate, John Eisenhower, the son of the former president, has strongly endorsed the 2004 Democratic challenger. Eisenhower had been a registered Republican for 50 years, but he wrote a powerful op-ed in the Manchester (NH) Union-Leader"

With the current administration’s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.

The fact is that today’s “Republican” Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word “Republican” has always been synonymous with the word “responsibility,” which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today’s whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.

Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.

Eisenhower expressed dismay about the loss of privacy and individual liberties, the budget deficit, and the distributive effects of the President's tax cuts.

It's a thorough indictment and complete repudiation of today's Republicans.

Next, consider Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. He's anti-Bush, but will not vote Kerry either:

[Chafee] has opposed Mr. Bush on everything from tax cuts to gay marriage and the war in Iraq. Now, this life-long Republican has concluded that he cannot cast his ballot for the leader of his party.

"I'll vote Republican," he said, explaining that he would choose a write-in candidate, perhaps George Bush the elder, as a symbolic act of protest.

This is perhap the equivalent of the British "no confidence" vote. Still, the lack of confidence says a great deal and I would not be surprised to see Chafee join Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords and become an Independent in 2005, depending upon how the 2004 election goes for the Democrats in the Senate. Jeffords is apparently talking to Chafee.

The third name to note is Rita Hauser, who served in the Bush adminstration as a political appointee in the area of national security! This is from the Washington Post, October 3, 2004:

Kerry does have some surprising names among his GOP endorsements. They include Rita E. Hauser. She is not exactly a household name, but is certainly known in foreign policy circles. She serves as vice chairman of the prestigious President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, appointed by none other than George W. Bush in December 2001.

Via google, I learned that there are multiple websites authored by Republicans for Kerry. The Kerry campaign has its own page too. Clyde Prestowitz worked for the Dean campaign. Owsley Brown (of Brown-Forman) is an influential member of my community.

Tora Bora Fact Check

As Steve Soto points out, members of the Bush administration are doing everything in their power to help the President win re-election, even if it means lying about national security. For example, Soto points out that Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed after Thursday's debate

"that it's a stretch to say that they knew he ([Osama] bin Laden) was there [Tora Bora] and they knew it at the time the battle was going on...I have no reason to believe that our commanders mishandled that."

I saw General Tommy Franks on TV shortly after the debate and he too denied that this was the thinking at the time, claiming that there were multiple and conflicting reports of bin Laden's whereabouts.

Journalists: Where is the fact-checking? Oh, I see, they've bought the administration's spin on this.

Yet, it took less than 2 minutes with google to demonstrate that the administration thought bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001, which means that Kerry's critique of their tactical choice (outsourcing US security) is legitimate.

Check out this "Interview of Vice President Cheney with Diane Sawyer of ABC" from November 29, 2001:

ABCNEWS' DIANE SAWYER Do we have intelligence now that we really trust? In other words, do we have any intelligence that is taking us closer to bin Laden?

VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY I think so. We're getting a lot of reports now, more than we got before. The volume has increased. And some of them conflict, but truly what's happened is we've narrowed the amount of space inside Afghanistan that he feels safe in.

SAWYER Do you believe he's in Tora Bora?

CHENEY I think he's still in Afghanistan. I think he's probably in that general area.

SAWYER Why do you think he's still there?

CHENEY Because I think he was equipped to go to ground there. He's got what he believes to be fairly secure facilities, caves underground. It's an area he's familiar with. He operated there back during the war against the Soviets in the '80s. He's got a large number of fighters with him probably, a fairly secure personal security force that he has some degree of confidence in, and he'll have to he may try to leave, that is, he may depart for other territory, but that's not quite as easy as it would have been a few months ago.

Note that on December 9, 2001, the Vice President appeared on NBC's Meet the Press and he said much the same thing about bin Laden and Tora Bora.

In any event, Sawyer and Cheney then went on at length about the high quality intelligence (both human and technical) that placed bin Laden in those caves, the logistics of finding him there, etc.

Cheney was also interviewed by Jim Angel of Fox on December 11, 2001. This time, the Vice President specifically introduced the idea that bin Laden was in Tora Bora:

Q In Afghanistan, are we now witnessing the last stand of Osama bin Laden?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I hope so. I think the results to date have been very, very good. And the Taliban clearly is finished as a military organization. A lot of the al Qaeda has been hard-hit, especially in recent days with our attacks up in the Tora Bora section. Whether or not he escapes and lives to fight another day I think is still an open question. Hopefully, we'll get him wrapped up in Afghanistan.

I found something else interesting in that Fox interview. Cheney presented John Kerry's argument about America's foreign policy priorities in the "war on terror." See if you can find what's missing:

Q Well, where does the war against terrorism go after Afghanistan? What's the next step?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: We've got the network, if you will, al Qaeda network, that clearly exists around the world. The estimates of how many people went through the training camps in Afghanistan runs as high as 70,000; that's the high side estimate.

There are cells in 50 or 60 countries around the world, many of them good friends of the United States. They're clearly there oftentimes surreptitiously, but we've uncovered al Qaeda operatives during the course of this investigation; for example, in Germany, in Hamburg; Spain, a lot of other places around the world, too.

We've got to go wrap all those up. We've got to deny them the ability to operate. We also need to drive their financial resources, which we're doing. But also, we need to work on the nongovernmental organizations and the charitable foundations that they've often used in the past to provide cover, logistics support, financing for their activities.

Hmmm. No mention of Iraq, eh?

Actually, Angle did ask Cheney about Iraq and the Vice President described it as "an area of concern," but he didn't want to predict what might or might not happen. He said the policy was likely to "evolve over time...In the course of addressing that threat, we'll want to work with our friends and allies in the region."

Was Cheney working for Kerry?

Please allow me one more history lesson from the White House website. On November 13, 2002, as the drums for war in Iraq sounded, the President himself confronted a question about the failure at Tora Bora, but predictably, he ducked it completely:

Q Shouldn't we have found him sooner though, looking back on Tora Bora?

THE PRESIDENT: We're making great progress in the war on terror. Slowly, but surely, we are dismantling the terrorist network. We're finding their sanctuaries, we're holding people to account. Our coalition of freedom-loving nations is up to 90 now. There is an international manhunt on. I warn the American people that this is going to take time to achieve our objective. We're in a different kind of war. It's a war that requires international cooperation. We've got to cut off their money, we've got to share intelligence. And we're on a manhunt. And we're not quitting. Slowly but surely, we're achieving our objective.

Since the President rarely takes questions from the press and always screens audience members in his campaign, he almost never has to face someone armed with facts who disagrees with his views.

As my former college debate colleague used to say of foes that we were crushing, in the debate, "there is no place to hide."

The post-debate spin

President George W. Bush on the campaign trail yesterday, October 1:

Let me say one other thing, one more thing I want to share with you about last night's debate. Perhaps it was the most disturbing aspect of the debate. Senator Kerry said that America has to pass some sort of global test --

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: -- before we can use our troops to defend ourselves. Think about that. He wants our national security decisions subject to the approval of a foreign government.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: Listen, I'll continue to work with our allies. I'll work with the international community. But I will never submit America's national security to an international test. (Applause.) The President's job is not to take an international poll. The President's job is to defend the United States of America.

Did Kerry actually say that foreign governments would have to approve US national security decisions?

No, of course not.

Here's Senator John Kerry in Thursday's debate:

The President always has the right and always has had the right for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War, and it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control. No President, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test, where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Ah, so the global test is about political legitimacy. The domestic population has to understand the rationale, and that needs to be something can be proved to the world.

In other words, the President should only go to war if the action can and will be viewed widely as appropriate.

Gee, does the President disagree with that? Let's look at the Bush White House's September 2002 National Security Strategy document:

The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world’s most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather. We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions. To support preemptive options, we will:

• build better, more integrated intelligence capabilities to provide timely, accurate information on threats, wherever they may emerge;
• coordinate closely with allies to form a common assessment of the most dangerous threats; and
• continue to transform our military forces to ensure our ability to conduct rapid and precise operations to achieve decisive results.

The purpose of our actions will always be to eliminate a specific threat to the United States or our allies and friends. The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in October 2002 explained the importance of the caveats to the NSS:

But this approach must be treated with great caution. The number of cases in which it might be justified will always be small. It does not give a green light -- to the United States or any other nation -- to act first without exhausting other means, including diplomacy. Preemptive action does not come at the beginning of a long chain of effort. The threat must be very grave. And the risks of waiting must far outweigh the risks of action.

So, basically, the Bush White House claims to have essentially the same standard Kerry mentioned Thursday night. They've clearly said that preemption must be coordinated with allies so that there's a common understanding of the threat -- and that it should only be employed as a last resort. Diplomacy [hmmmm, wonder if that includes talking to US allies?] must first fail.

According to Kerry, of course, the White House failed to pass the "global test" in advance of the Iraq war. And that was pretty obvious at the time, wasn't it?

Here's some polling data from US allies in the Iraq war, from a March 2003 Pew Survey. Note that neither the "willing" or "unwilling" populations were enthused about war:



Numerous governments opposed the war, including most prominently, France, Germany, Russia, China, and India. Neither Turkey nor Saudi Arabia cooperated.

Gallup-International had an extensive poll in January 2003 as well.

The population [30,000 polled] in 41 countries think military action is likely to be launched against Iraq in the next few months. But half of this population is not in favour of military action under any circumstances....In general, a war against Iraq declared unilaterally by the US and its allies does not receive much public support. Only the Americans seem to be mildly interested in this approach to events (33%).

So Iraq failed the White House's own "global test." Bush is not only twisting Kerry's words from Thursday, but he's also not telling the truth about his own administration's stated views of preemptive war.

Debate analysis

Bush in the September 30 debate:

Saddam Hussein had no intention of disarming. Why should he? He had 16 other resolutions and nothing took place. As a matter of fact, my opponent talks about inspectors. The facts are that he was systematically deceiving the inspectors.

No intention of disarming? Nothing took place?

Look, Saddam Hussein simply wasn't armed -- at least not with weapons of mass destruction! How could the UN further disarm someone without arms?

Likewise, how could the inspectors have been deceived if there were no weapons of mass destruction? He was disarmed. Period.

To quote David Kay, the President's hand-picked hawkish head of the Iraq Survey Group, "we were all wrong." Kay admitted that he expected to find WMD and simply did not. Lately, Kay says the President may be "delusional" for talking about the Iraqi WMD as if they existed.

Too bad Kerry didn't emphasize the point in this way. They may both have thought Saddah had WMD in October 2002, but Kerry was skeptical about the invasion by March 2003, and now recognizes the lack of WMD.

Personally, had I been debating, I would have pointed out that the major difference between Kerry's war vote and the President's decision to start fighting: The UN and IAEA had just reported that Iraq was actively cooperating. Indeed, the IAEA had conducted more than 200 instrusive inspections at over 140 sites and "found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq." The inspectors conducted interviews, reviewed newly provided documents, studied aluminum tubes and magnets, tested soil, air and water samples, etc.

Again, they "found no evidence or plausible indicaction of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq."

That's a pretty powerful statement, and the President himself acknowledged the ongoing importance of the IAEA in Iran. Has the administration, er, "flip flopped" on the way it views the IAEA...precisely because it was right about Iraq?

As anyone who reads this blog can guess, I also wish Kerry had taken on the "mixed messages" passage earlier and more directly, but otherwise I thought his performance was very good.

It was good to see Kerry take the gloves off and point out that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. It was sad to see the President of the United States do such a poor job.

It's time for Bush to lose his job.


Update: A slightly revised version of this post appears as an article on KentuckyDems.com.

Iraq's Terror Connections

George Bush is still pushing the idea that pre-war Iraq was a haven for international terrorism. This is from his joint press conference with Iraqi PM Allawi on September 23, 2004:

Imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein were still in power. This is a man who harbored terrorists -- Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Zarqawi.

Who are these terrorists, other than men with Arabic names?

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: Zarqawi is quickly become public enemy #1A, but I have serious doubts about whether the President should be mentioning him in his speeches about the legitimacy of the Iraq during this political campaign. First, even the Bush administration acknowledges that Zarqawi set up camps in Kurdish controlled areas during the 1990s. The Kurdish areas were politically autonomous from Saddam after 1991 because they were protected by the US-UK "no fly zones." Indirectly, the US was protecting his terrorist camps from Saddam. Some critics go even further:

NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.

Why didn't the US strike these bases under the "Bush Doctrine" in early 2002?

“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

...Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

The MSNBC story reports that the White House rejected three chances to kill Zarqawi. Thrice!

A lot of terrorist experts consider Zarqawi a rival to bin Laden, not a vital link to al Qaeda. The Bush administration claimed that he went to Baghdad a few years ago to obtain medical care (to receive an artificial leg), and that this indicated that he had Saddam Hussein's support, but not all terror experts embrace that theory. From the conservative Weekly Standard:

Zarqawi, however, is not Osama's man, and still less was he Saddam's.

Finally, as USA Today pointed out on September 14, 2004, Zarqawi was considered a peripheral figure only one year ago. He's almost certainly an opportunist who has taken advantage of the chaos in Iraq:

It was after Saddam's capture in December that the Jordanian began to emerge as a leader, by tapping into the anger and frustration of the now-leaderless members of Saddam's Baath Party.

[Kenneth] Katzman [senior Iraqi analyst at the Congressional Research Service] says Zarqawi's appeal is broad because he fights to reverse the pan-Arab sense of humiliation caused by the Western control of Arab lands. He appeals to Saddam's Sunni Muslims by advocating the subjugation of the rival Shiites, the majority in Iraq.

How could Bush mention his success as an insurgent leader as a reason to go to war in Iraq in March 2003?

Abu Abbas: He was the notorious Palestinian terrorist who lead a splinter group from the PLO that hijacked the Achille Lauro on the Mediterranean in 1985. However, by 1996, Abbas had moved to Gaza, rejected "armed struggle," apologized for the hijacking, and was implicitly recognized as a legitimate political leader by the Israelis. He died in US custody in Iraq in 2003, age 55. He was not wanted in the US for any crime and the government was not seeking his extradition. Indeed, according to the Palestinian Authority, he was immune from prosecution for any violent acts committed before 1993 as part of the Oslo Accords negotiated with Israel. Fox News described his lack of influence in his obituary:

Abbas had been a marginal figure in the PLO of late. He was a member of the PLO's executive committee, but left in 1991. His tiny faction has very few followers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip....[In 1998] Israeli attorney general Elyakim Rubinstein said Abbas did not pose a threat to Israeli security, and that it would be unreasonable to prosecute him for acts committed before 1993.

Israel didn't even consider him a terrorist anymore. So...that's not much of a major international terrorist link to Saddam, is it?

Abu Nidal: He died in 2002 at age 65, in Iraq after suffering from leukemia. There is some dispute about whether he was killed or committed suicide. Nidal was affiliated with Palestinian causes, but broke apart from the PLO in 1974 because he thought it was too moderate. He tried to kill Arafat twice, allegedly, and was sentenced to death by a Palestinian Court. Nidal was an active international terrorist in the 1970s and 1980s, but seemed to be in Iraq with his remaining small group of followers because it was the last place to excape prosecution for his crimes. This is a guy Syria expelled!

In any event, though Nidal may have been the "bin Laden of the 1980s," he was hardly an active international terrorist at the time of the Iraq war in 2003. He was a senior citizen suffering from a debilitating disease.

Oh, I probably should mention that Nidal did set up base in Iraq during his active period in the 1980s, but Saddam Hussein expelled him so that the US would be on its side in the long war with Iran?

Under the standards Bush is using, he should look for nasty links to Saddam Hussein a lot closer to home:

"Surprising" Polls: Republicans plan to vote Bush

I'm usually not keen on discussing the "horse race" side of the election. Who's ahead toda? Who will be ahead tomorrow? It's exhausting and potentially depressing. But the media continues to do this and it appears that the candidates (and maybe the voters) pay attention to this coverage. I've read recently, for example, that John Kerry's campaign has pulled ads from Arkansas (and other states) because polls show the alleged swing state is becoming a lost cause.

Hmmmm. The Zogby interactive poll on the Wall Street Journal website has the state blue for Kerry as of September 20, by 0.1%.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel had this telling headline on September 22: "On average, Bush leads state, but poll numbers vary widely" . Since Wisconsin is a swing state that went very narrowly for Al Gore in 2000 (roughly 5000 votes), the Kerry campaign is taking it very seriously. Indeed, Kerry has spent parts of 4 days this week in Wisconsin prepping for the first debate.

So, what do the Wisconsin polls show?

According to a new statewide Badger Poll, Bush enjoys a clear advantage in Wisconsin, a state Democrats have carried since the 1980s and can ill afford to lose.

Bush...leads Democrat John Kerry by double digits in the poll....

A new ABC News poll of likely voters in Wisconsin offers similar findings. Bush holds a 10-point lead in that survey...A poll released last week by Gallup also showed Bush leading Kerry, in that case by eight points.

But that's not the whole story.

In non-partisan Wisconsin surveys released this week by the American Research Group, Mason-Dixon and Zogby Interactive, Bush and Kerry are within two points of each other.

Anyone following the national and state polls knows that these widely varying poll numbers are not unique to Wisconsin. These fluctuating poll results are being found everywhere.

Look closely at the Wisconsin polls, however, and one readily gets a feel for the problem:

Kerry spokesman George Twigg termed the Badger Poll flawed.

"The majority of polling continues to show this race is a dead heat. If there's any advantage (for Bush), it's very slight," said Twigg...

Twigg also contended that the pool of voters surveyed in the Badger Poll was skewed toward Republicans. Republicans accounted for 36% of those surveyed in the Badger Poll, Democrats 29%. In the ABC poll, Republicans made up 35% of the likely voters surveyed, Democrats 29%.

Twigg pointed out that Democrats were a bigger share of the state's 2000 voters than Republicans, according to exit polls.

[Political Scientist Charles] Franklin, of the University of Wisconsin, said that's one reason to view these polls as a snapshot rather than a forecast, since the makeup of the state's electorate in November is unlikely to be as Republican as it is in the latest Badger Poll.

The pollster John Zogby had a piece on this precise concern on September 7. He emphasized the known data about party identification as compared to the party ID used in recent prominent polls like Newsweek and Gallup:

If we look at the three last Presidential elections, the spread was 34% Democrats, 34% Republicans and 33% Independents (in 1992 with Ross Perot in the race); 39% Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 27% Independents in 1996; and 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000. While party identification can indeed change within the electorate, there is no evidence anywhere to suggest that Democrats will only represent 31% of the total vote this year....

This is no small consideration. Given the fact that each candidate receives anywhere between eight in ten and nine in ten support from voters in his own party, any change in party identification trades point for point in the candidate's total support.

Point-for-point. That's enormous. Look at the 2 Wisconsin polls using 35 amd 36% Republican likely voters but only 29% Democratic. Make the new totals something like 34% Democratic and 33% Republican and the results would be dramatically different. The apparent and widely publicized 8 to 10 point Bush lead suddenly becomes something like 2 or 3%. Statistically, that's almost a tie...or nearly a coin flip.

It's the same in the national polls. Because Gallup and other organizations have been using the same methods all year, it also means that Bush was probably very far behind for much of the year, when the race was portrayed as close.

Bush has clearly gained, and probably has a small lead, but it is not at all time to panic. Movement by just 1% of the electorate from Bush to Kerry would make this race a virtual tie again. Movement by 2% and Kerry would have a small lead.

Keep working. Don't despair. In 2000, late October polls showed Bush with a 5% lead (or more), Bush took a day off from campaigning, and then Karl Rove sent him to California to demonstrate his confidence in the cakewalk.

We know what happened. The same political team pulled a similarly deceptive stunt on Iraq.

Keep the faith.

Listener alert

Thursday at 4pm ET, I'm slated to be interviewed by Mike Mercier of the University of Cincinnati. He has a new one-hour internet program called "In Depth" and we'll be talking about my book Democratizing Global Politics (SUNY, 2003), coauthored with Nayef Samhat.

The show is supposed to stream live on Cincinnati's Bearcast. Listen!


Meanwhile, here's some good news about the election. Note that this is Zogby's interactive poll, which is internet-based, rather than phone-based.