What's it LIKE, being at the convention?
The Fleet Center is a big sports arena. You already know what the hall looks like, from TV. I walked around on the main floor before the convention started, and it's smaller than it looks like on TV. (Everyone says that about TV.) Things are close by. When someone is on the stage, they are right there, not too far from you. I'll try to get a pass to walk around on the main floor today after the convention opens, to get a feel for what it must be like to be a delegate, so I can write about that.
From where I'm sitting way up in the stands, though, it actually looks bigger way down there, and your television is a much better seat for seeing the convention.
The proceedings themselves are entirely geared to TV. All day people are giving speeches and almost nobody is listening, except maybe the delegation of the state the speaker is from. Then there are the big speeches. There was times last night when the speaker would be saying something from the stage, and people would be cheering, and we'd all be going, "What did he say?" and the cheering would get louder and the speaker would just keep talking. (Probably to stay on schedule.) So on TV you would hear the cheering but not at the amazing overwhelming level that we hear it in the arena. It would be like the "Dean Scream" where the part you hear (over and over and over) makes him sound like a loon yelling his head off, but if you were actually there all you could hear was the crowd and him trying to talk loud enough for people to hear him.
I said it is a big sports arena, and when you go out into the hallway surrounding the main floor that is exactly what it is like there, too. There are concession stands with amazing prices (a large Coke is $5), and stands with people selling hats and buttons and t-shirts. It's very hard to find a drinking fountain. (And of course it is about half ice.)
Now, for the political junkies, here's how it is not like a sports arena. Steve Soto and I went wandering around for a while yesterday. We started out in the press area -- which looks so different from what you see on TV or what you might expect. I posted a picture of the scene in the Press Filing Room yesterday -- long tables covered with white plastic, little chairs, crowded, dirty with trash people have left behind and full wastebaskets. The press area is down in the part of the arena people never see, and it's all cement and cardboard and pipes and wires. Cement walls and floors, and rigged up "rooms" with curtains for walls with signs made with marker pens that say things like "CBS RF", or "DIGITAL DARKROOM."
We're walking around and Steve says "That was Wolf Blitzer," and then "Sam Donaldson." We passed a lot of people like that. The faces you recognize coming by every fourth person. We decided we'd become "The Blogger Story" if we told Andrea Mitchell "Your husband is Bush's Bitch." Anyway, we just stopped and watched press people go by for a while to see who we could pick out. A nudge from Steve, "Isn't that...?" "Hey, look who's over there..."
Then we went walking around on the ground floor, where there's an area for talk radio shows, and there's Sam Seder and Air America, so I'm talking to Sam about the right-wing communications infrastructure. The people who the New York Times Magazine story from Sunday talked about are supposed to be on either tonite or tomorrow, and I'm going to nail down when that is and be sure to be there to hear it live, maybe be on the show he says. AND I'm going to show up to see Randi Rhodes for sure. Of course, there's Al Franken and I'll make sure to see that live as well. I have run into him a few times walking around.
Running into people walking around... After we talked to Air America a while we went down to the McDonalds because drinks cost much less there. We're in line and Ted Sorenson walked by, being helped by a couple of guys because he's pretty old. And then Michael Moore comes in the door, and he is SURROUNDED by a cocoon of press and camera, with the TV camera guys walking backwards in front of him and the lights on him and the microphone booms overhead and this weird gaggle comes walking down the hall. I've never experienced anything like this. And they're coming straight for us and the cameramen back right into us and look at us like, "Who the f... are you?" so we get out of the way and the procession slowly goes by. Al Franken jumps into the middle of it to say Hi. I'm thinking that I could never, ever live like that. And there's another press gaggle down the hall a ways and we see it's Jesse Jackson. And in the crowd around him Steve is saying, "That's, oh darn, I can't remember his name." (Another one upstairs and it's two of the Daily Show guys.)
So the power of celebrity and the power of the press? It's everything you read about but still, when you see it, it's both amazingly attractive and also somehow perverted and shameful at the same time.
It's crowded. It's a Democratic gathering, which one journalist speaking to yesterday's blogger breakfast, Walter Mears from the AP, described as a big class reunion. That was a great description. He's an old guy with a respected career in journalism and he talked about striving for objectivity (and the bloggers made faces at that and some of us thought about starting to chant, "Nedra, Nedra, Nedra" but we didn't.)
I hope I have been able to give you some sense of What It's Like to be at a convention -- with a press pass.
7/27/2004
Clinton
This is Dave from Boston. I wrote this last night, pretty late.
Clinton. OK, so I'm a political blogger. I'm supposed to write about The Speech. But what is there to say? Clinton. OK? The big dog barked. You saw it. There just isn’t anything left to say. I was there, but you saw it on TV (so you actually got to hear all of it.) And if you didn't see it on TV you're probably not a person who is reading a political weblog. So you aren't here.
What's to say? You're floored. I'm floored. He's the best. As Richard would say, "Period, end of story."
After, a few of us went out looking for food and beer. So in the wisdom of the owners of restaurants of Boston they all closed JUST before a crowd of approximately 20,000 people came flooding out of the Fleet convention center toward downtown, all hungry and looking for food.
Finally, after maybe an hour walking around Boston the Long Warf Marriott bar had food. But there's a funny story about this trek, because on the way there we passed by a large crowd with a lot of lights next to Faniuel Hall, and it turns out it's the Hardball show live. And we're too busy looking for food to stop and watch so we try to go around the crowd, and we get behind where the show is and we see from behind who it is on the show and there's Joe Trippi sitting there. Obviously a commercial is on, so we all start saying, "He Joe, we're bloggers from the convention" and stuff like that so he comes over to that end of the back of the stage to talk to us. He asked if we're hanging around but we said no we're looking for food and does he know anywhere open? (The mind becomes incredibly concentrated after a day with no food.) But he's got to go back on before the commercial break ands, and we simply have to find food, so we go our different ways. He says he'll see us at the"Blogger Bash" Wednesday night.
Beer and food and gossip about other bloggers (never mind that) at the Marriott. At about 1:30am I started walking across town. (Remember, this is only 10:30 California time – still too late for me but before the Daily Show is on at home.) Tom said something about walking through town at night, getting mugged… Christian asked if the computer is insured. So I'm walking down alleys, through the middle of the Commons, trying to get someone to hit me on the head and take the damn computer…
Clinton. OK, so I'm a political blogger. I'm supposed to write about The Speech. But what is there to say? Clinton. OK? The big dog barked. You saw it. There just isn’t anything left to say. I was there, but you saw it on TV (so you actually got to hear all of it.) And if you didn't see it on TV you're probably not a person who is reading a political weblog. So you aren't here.
What's to say? You're floored. I'm floored. He's the best. As Richard would say, "Period, end of story."
After, a few of us went out looking for food and beer. So in the wisdom of the owners of restaurants of Boston they all closed JUST before a crowd of approximately 20,000 people came flooding out of the Fleet convention center toward downtown, all hungry and looking for food.
Finally, after maybe an hour walking around Boston the Long Warf Marriott bar had food. But there's a funny story about this trek, because on the way there we passed by a large crowd with a lot of lights next to Faniuel Hall, and it turns out it's the Hardball show live. And we're too busy looking for food to stop and watch so we try to go around the crowd, and we get behind where the show is and we see from behind who it is on the show and there's Joe Trippi sitting there. Obviously a commercial is on, so we all start saying, "He Joe, we're bloggers from the convention" and stuff like that so he comes over to that end of the back of the stage to talk to us. He asked if we're hanging around but we said no we're looking for food and does he know anywhere open? (The mind becomes incredibly concentrated after a day with no food.) But he's got to go back on before the commercial break ands, and we simply have to find food, so we go our different ways. He says he'll see us at the"Blogger Bash" Wednesday night.
Beer and food and gossip about other bloggers (never mind that) at the Marriott. At about 1:30am I started walking across town. (Remember, this is only 10:30 California time – still too late for me but before the Daily Show is on at home.) Tom said something about walking through town at night, getting mugged… Christian asked if the computer is insured. So I'm walking down alleys, through the middle of the Commons, trying to get someone to hit me on the head and take the damn computer…
More on Daily Show
This is Dave from Boston. Computer is working today (finders rossed) AND I am online at a Starbucks. So all is well.
The Daily Show: I figure I was probably in trouble right away, from when I said, "I'm sorry, what was your name again? Did you say Samantha?" I think I said, "Are you the producer?" Now that I think about it, she was probably thinking to herself, "Oh man, this is going to be really good."
I have a feeling some of you are wondering what I'm talking about, and some of you are rolling your eyes and saying, "Oh man, this is going to be really good."
OK, I have seen some clips from "The Daily Show" online, but, well, it's on too late. OK? Now some of you are thinking, "What time is it on?" and some of you are thinking, "Oh man, this is going to be really good."
So, was it on last night?
The Daily Show: I figure I was probably in trouble right away, from when I said, "I'm sorry, what was your name again? Did you say Samantha?" I think I said, "Are you the producer?" Now that I think about it, she was probably thinking to herself, "Oh man, this is going to be really good."
I have a feeling some of you are wondering what I'm talking about, and some of you are rolling your eyes and saying, "Oh man, this is going to be really good."
OK, I have seen some clips from "The Daily Show" online, but, well, it's on too late. OK? Now some of you are thinking, "What time is it on?" and some of you are thinking, "Oh man, this is going to be really good."
So, was it on last night?
George W. Bush failed: 9/11 Report
(A non-Conventional post from Portland, Oregon)
The media consensus seems to be that the 9/11 Commission report either exonerates Bush, or else says that Bush and Clinton were equally bad. But the consensus is wrong.
Here's Richard Clarke's verdict: "Yet, because the commission had a goal of creating a unanimous report from a bipartisan group, it softened the edges and left it to the public to draw many conclusions. Among the obvious truths that were documented but unarticulated were the facts that the Bush administration did little on terrorism before 9/11, and that by invading Iraq the administration has left us less safe as a nation". (archive link)
Most of the media have taken the report's discreet refusal to draw any conclusions to mean that they should not draw any conclusions either. But as Clarke says, the report merely leaves it up to us to articulate the "obvious truths" ourselves. (As I have phrased it, "Some assembly is required"). One of these truths is that the Bush administration's pre-9/11 counter-terrorism performance was poor, and definitely worse than Clinton's. Another is that the link he claimed between Iraq and al Qaeda – one of the main justifications of the war – was non-existent.
The only positive note in the 9/11 report was "The Millenium Exception":
"Before concluding our narrative, we offer a reminder, and an explanation, of the one period in which the government as a whole seemed to be acting in concert to deal with terrorism—the last weeks of December 1999 preceding the millennium. In the period between December 1999 and early January 2000, information about terrorism flowed widely and abundantly.... After the millennium alert, the government relaxed .....In the summer of 2001, DCI Tenet, the Counterterrorist Center, and the Counterterrorism Security Group did their utmost to sound a loud alarm, its basis being intelligence indicating that al Qaeda planned something big. But the millennium phenomenon was not repeated." (XI, pp. 358-9)
The report charitably explains the difference by the fact that in 2001 there was no millennium scare to get people excited. But there was another, more important difference between 1999 and 2001: a change of administration. And whereas Clinton, during the millennium scare, was banging heads and shaking the trees in order to get some action, during his first eight months in office Bush exhibited a complete lack of leadership on counterterrorism. The supposed "organizational deficiencies" of structure and process in the counterterrorism effort were in large part due to the fact that in 2001 the man on top wasn't interested.
Clarke's tenure with Bush consisted of a long series of unsuccessful attempts to get the attention of his superiors, especially Rice. Under the Clinton administration, Clarke (as counterterrorism coordinator) had been a de facto member of the NSC "principals" committee, but under Bush, counterterrorism was relegated to the lower-level "deputies" level. Partisan Bush supporters use this to argue that Clarke is simply a disgruntled former employee with a personal grudge against Bush, but Clarke was not himself demoted. He retained his title and his responsibilities, but Bush, despite repeated warnings from Clarke and from outgoing Clinton staffers, simply did not think that counterterrorism was as important as Clinton did. (VI, pp. 199-204)
Bush is quoted as saying that he was tired of "swatting at flies". Besides the characteristic Bush Administration contempt for anything the Clinton Administration did, this statement probably indicates Bush's (mistaken) belief that the problem of terrorism should be dealt with at the state level -- there are a number of complaints in the report about the folly of wasting good three million dollar missiles on mud huts. But what Bush "really meant" isn't too important, because before 9/11 he did nothing much about state-level terrorism either --- deciding, for example, not to retaliate against the late-2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole. (VI, pp. 211-213; X, p. 335; VI, pp. 201-2)
And it also must be said that many of those who now criticize Clinton for not being aggressive enough against al-Qaeda are the same ones who made jokes about "wagging the dog" whenever Clinton did try to do anything, and who did their level best to cripple him during his term in office (in the process tying up 78 FBI agents who could have been out chasing terrorists.)
The report is also devastating for Bush on the Saddam-al Qaeda links. Clarke told Rice as early as September 18 that there was little evidence for links between Saddam and Osama, and Atta's supposed trip to Prague is also debunked in the report. While the report does show that the Clinton administration had also suspected a Saddam-al Qaeda connection, and that there were indeed some feelers back and forth between al Qaeda and Saddam, these feelers came to nothing in the end and it has to be concluded that Saddam had nothing at all to do with the 9-11 attack. (X, p. 334; VII, pp. 228-9)
In the report Wolfowitz is seen as the strongest advocate by far of an attack on Iraq. There are four instances in which Bush is shown resisting the idea of attacking Iraq, but (in an account disputed by Bush) Clarke has also testified that as early as September 12 Bush asked him to explore possible Iraqi links to 9/11, and on September 17 Bush admittedly ordered that a contingency plan be drawn up for an Iraq attack. The strongest evidence that Bush decided to attack Iraq very early on, however, was his repeated statements that not only terrorists, but harborers would be attacked. While these statements obviously included the Afghans, they were not really necessary if only the Afghans were intended, since al Qaeda were located in Afghanistan and would have to be attacked there. I think that in speaking so often of the harborers, Bush was setting the stage for the attack on Iraq he had been planning all along. (X, pp 335-6; pp. 326, 330, 333)
Throughout the report I found myself wondering whether Bush's loyal aides were coordinating their testimony in order to protect Bush (as well as themselves), and to me it seems possible that Wolfowitz has already been selected to be the fall guy if one is needed -- though as far as I know, the official story is still that the Iraq War was an enormous success.
It's not really surprising that the media are mostly ignoring this report, but it's disappointing that the Democrats apparently aren't capitalizing on it much either. From one point of view, the report doesn't tell us much that we don't know already, and from another point of view it leaves out a lot of important questions that deserve more attention, but there's still a lot of now-incontestable ammunition for use against candidate Bush this fall. And as far as I know, this is still a free country where we elect our presidents.
9/11 Commission Report
September 10, 2001: Ashcroft denies FBI request for more counter-terrorism funding
August 6, 2001: Bush is informed that al Qaeda is determined to strike within the U.S., and immediately goes on vacation for a month
(Three dropped sentences restored, 3:25 p.m. PDT).
7/26/2004
Look For Me On the Daily Show
This is Dave from Boston. I missed Gore's speech because I was being interviewed for the Daily Show on the Comedy Channel. Look for it!
Computer Died
This is Dave from Boston. Computer is completely dead. As soon as it has booted up it restarts, goes to CheckDisk... boots up, restarts. I'll try again tomorrow.
I can borrow computers to blog from, but can't post pictures. Expect a lot of pictures after I get back.
I can borrow computers to blog from, but can't post pictures. Expect a lot of pictures after I get back.
More Monday Pics
Here are two more pictures from the convention.
This is reporters covering reporters interviewing bloggers while bloggers interview the reporters.
This is my view in the Press Filing Room.
I just noticed over at the Convention Bloggers website that everyone posted at the same time - around 4pm, so the wireless upstairs must be working, AND I just heard the Star Spangled Banner being sung, so I'm leaving behind this nice Press Room view and heading upstairs now.
This is reporters covering reporters interviewing bloggers while bloggers interview the reporters.
This is my view in the Press Filing Room.
I just noticed over at the Convention Bloggers website that everyone posted at the same time - around 4pm, so the wireless upstairs must be working, AND I just heard the Star Spangled Banner being sung, so I'm leaving behind this nice Press Room view and heading upstairs now.
Pics from the Convention
Here are a couple pictures from this morning.
Gov. Howard Dean at the "Blogger Breakfast"
The view of the convention floor from the Blogger seats.
Gov. Howard Dean at the "Blogger Breakfast"
The view of the convention floor from the Blogger seats.
Monday Afternoon from Boston
This is Dave from Boston Monday afternoon. (Of course, you'll be reading this after I finally do.)
I STILL haven't been able to get on the Internet. I'm in the press room, and they have Ethernet outlets but I don't have an Ethernet cable. (They also don't have more than maybe 20 power outlets in a room with maybe 150 computer stations.) I'm typing while I wait to borrow one from Tom Burka of Opinions You Should Have. The wireless that was set up for the bloggers isn't working well – only some can get on but I don't even see the signal. Tom's here in the press room for the same reason.) (By the way, Tom's great and everyone should go read his weblog.) And to top it off my computer is starting to flake out. It is restarting all by itself while I'm typing, and when it restarts again the file system is corrupt. I can run diskcheck and then use the computer again for a while, but this isn't a good sign at all…
So I went to a blogger breakfast, and Howard Dean showed up! He talked about innovation in campaigns and opening up campaigns to a two-way interaction, as he did. I suggested that one thing he hadn't mentioned was that his campaign was clearly reading blogs VERY early, and letting us know, and that this put him at an advantage because they were aware of the leading edge of opinion even before those opinions became salient with a wider public.
Anyway, the convention is starting soon, and when it does I'll stop blogging about bloggers and leave that story to all the reporters who are reporting about bloggers. (They were even filming us EATING at the blogger breakfast. One guy opened up a laptop and the film crews went NUTS.) I'll write about the convention and I'll be talking to as many actual delegates as I can to try to bring you a story that is "closer to home."
Do any readers have any particular state delegations you want me to try to talk to?
I STILL haven't been able to get on the Internet. I'm in the press room, and they have Ethernet outlets but I don't have an Ethernet cable. (They also don't have more than maybe 20 power outlets in a room with maybe 150 computer stations.) I'm typing while I wait to borrow one from Tom Burka of Opinions You Should Have. The wireless that was set up for the bloggers isn't working well – only some can get on but I don't even see the signal. Tom's here in the press room for the same reason.) (By the way, Tom's great and everyone should go read his weblog.) And to top it off my computer is starting to flake out. It is restarting all by itself while I'm typing, and when it restarts again the file system is corrupt. I can run diskcheck and then use the computer again for a while, but this isn't a good sign at all…
So I went to a blogger breakfast, and Howard Dean showed up! He talked about innovation in campaigns and opening up campaigns to a two-way interaction, as he did. I suggested that one thing he hadn't mentioned was that his campaign was clearly reading blogs VERY early, and letting us know, and that this put him at an advantage because they were aware of the leading edge of opinion even before those opinions became salient with a wider public.
Anyway, the convention is starting soon, and when it does I'll stop blogging about bloggers and leave that story to all the reporters who are reporting about bloggers. (They were even filming us EATING at the blogger breakfast. One guy opened up a laptop and the film crews went NUTS.) I'll write about the convention and I'll be talking to as many actual delegates as I can to try to bring you a story that is "closer to home."
Do any readers have any particular state delegations you want me to try to talk to?
From Boston
This is Dave from Boston, Monday morning. I'm waiting for the press office to open so I can get credentials. I still haven't found anywhere to get online, but I DID get something to eat this morning. I didn't eat all day yesterday. (My wife won't believe that.) I tried a couple of Starbucks, but for some reason I haven't been able to use my new T-Mobile HotSpot account… But I am confident that I will be able to get online, check my e-mail and start finding out what is going on in the world. A reporter here assures me no cities have been nuked or anything.
Last night I went to a blogger gathering in a bar in Cambridge. I met several of the bloggers we all read. Like Jeralyn from TalkLeft, Matthew Gross, Jesse and Ezra from Pandagon and Tom Burka from Opinions You Should Have and American Street.
On the subway coming back from last night's blogger gathering one station was full of people with signs saying "You Can't be Catholic and Pro-Abortion." I'm wondering where the "and Pro-War" or "Pro-Death Penalty" signs were.
So at the blogger gathering there were reporters who were there to interview the bloggers! I was told the bloggers at the convention is a BIG story. I'm told that there is even a special section of the convention where bloggers have seats assigned and CNN is maybe going to set up a camera to televise us while we "blog." (Talk about not "getting it.")
So there I am the night before the convention even starts and I have reporters asking me the question, "What is the difference between blogging and journalism?" And "Will all this attention co-opt the bloggers?" I'm thinking, "What attention?" but I'm getting signs of what is likely to come.
So here is how I answered. I compared blogging and journalism to the music industry. You've got a lot of great music out there, but you've got a huge commercial music industry. And you can be in Santa Cruz and turn on KPIG and hear great music in no format, or you can drive over to Silicon Valley and go through Clear Channel station after Clear Channel station and hear the same old commercial crap – "Every Breath You Take" is a great song, but not when it is on every station at the same time – and the reason it's on the air is because the corporations are paying for it to be there… They have carefully prepared playlists designed to maximize the marginal return… Blogging is "keeping it real."
There seems to be something "stale" about much of the professional punditry. For one thing, so many of the pros have been doing it for soooooo long…. But I think something happens when you are hired and start getting paid and start HAVING to write and produce and create and do it on a schedule. I think when you're in that situation you moderate what you write. AND the publication has its own requirements so your editors might moderate what you write for you. I'm talking about punditry, not reporting here – reporting is an entirely different story and we talk in the "blogosphere" about what is wrong with the So-Called-Liberal-Media so I won't here today.
I gave an example of a difference between blogging and professional journalism. I sent an e-mail to RSVP that I was going to attend an event this week, and I got a response that said only "I put you down!" So if he was going to put me down I was going to send a reply "I fart in your general direction." And I said I was going to blog that. So the reporter said, "I can't put that in my article" and I said "That is preciselym the difference." (Actually after no food and two beers I said something less coherent but you get the idea.)
Blogging is regular people voicing what regular people are feeling, and doing it because they feel they have to say this because no one else is. There are plenty of bloggers who "quit" and the two weeks later they're back. It's because you just have to say it. And the blogging that has made a difference – like bringing Howard Dean to the forefront of public attention back in 2003, or sticking on the Trent Lott story because the press wouldn't – was written because people were PISSED OFF and were going to write about it, and yell, and try to bring attention to stories that NEEDED attention.
And finally, for those who follow MY ISSUE here at Seeing the Forest, if you haven't seen the big NY Times Magazine article about changing the nature of politics on the "Progressive" side, please go read it. It is important, it is what I have been talking about for three years, finally breaking into the "mainstream" so it will be talked about a lot this week. The story is online online here.
Last night I went to a blogger gathering in a bar in Cambridge. I met several of the bloggers we all read. Like Jeralyn from TalkLeft, Matthew Gross, Jesse and Ezra from Pandagon and Tom Burka from Opinions You Should Have and American Street.
On the subway coming back from last night's blogger gathering one station was full of people with signs saying "You Can't be Catholic and Pro-Abortion." I'm wondering where the "and Pro-War" or "Pro-Death Penalty" signs were.
So at the blogger gathering there were reporters who were there to interview the bloggers! I was told the bloggers at the convention is a BIG story. I'm told that there is even a special section of the convention where bloggers have seats assigned and CNN is maybe going to set up a camera to televise us while we "blog." (Talk about not "getting it.")
So there I am the night before the convention even starts and I have reporters asking me the question, "What is the difference between blogging and journalism?" And "Will all this attention co-opt the bloggers?" I'm thinking, "What attention?" but I'm getting signs of what is likely to come.
So here is how I answered. I compared blogging and journalism to the music industry. You've got a lot of great music out there, but you've got a huge commercial music industry. And you can be in Santa Cruz and turn on KPIG and hear great music in no format, or you can drive over to Silicon Valley and go through Clear Channel station after Clear Channel station and hear the same old commercial crap – "Every Breath You Take" is a great song, but not when it is on every station at the same time – and the reason it's on the air is because the corporations are paying for it to be there… They have carefully prepared playlists designed to maximize the marginal return… Blogging is "keeping it real."
There seems to be something "stale" about much of the professional punditry. For one thing, so many of the pros have been doing it for soooooo long…. But I think something happens when you are hired and start getting paid and start HAVING to write and produce and create and do it on a schedule. I think when you're in that situation you moderate what you write. AND the publication has its own requirements so your editors might moderate what you write for you. I'm talking about punditry, not reporting here – reporting is an entirely different story and we talk in the "blogosphere" about what is wrong with the So-Called-Liberal-Media so I won't here today.
I gave an example of a difference between blogging and professional journalism. I sent an e-mail to RSVP that I was going to attend an event this week, and I got a response that said only "I put you down!" So if he was going to put me down I was going to send a reply "I fart in your general direction." And I said I was going to blog that. So the reporter said, "I can't put that in my article" and I said "That is preciselym the difference." (Actually after no food and two beers I said something less coherent but you get the idea.)
Blogging is regular people voicing what regular people are feeling, and doing it because they feel they have to say this because no one else is. There are plenty of bloggers who "quit" and the two weeks later they're back. It's because you just have to say it. And the blogging that has made a difference – like bringing Howard Dean to the forefront of public attention back in 2003, or sticking on the Trent Lott story because the press wouldn't – was written because people were PISSED OFF and were going to write about it, and yell, and try to bring attention to stories that NEEDED attention.
And finally, for those who follow MY ISSUE here at Seeing the Forest, if you haven't seen the big NY Times Magazine article about changing the nature of politics on the "Progressive" side, please go read it. It is important, it is what I have been talking about for three years, finally breaking into the "mainstream" so it will be talked about a lot this week. The story is online online here.
7/25/2004
Something Completely Different
(A non-Conventional post from Portland, Oregon)
A couple of years ago I swore I'd never use my awesome blogging powers for selfish purposes, but sooner or later each of us must fall.
So now I'm promoting my son's album. "Amelia" is a classy indie band whose self-released CD is getting some airplay (reviews below). If you just hate alt country or anything that's called "retro", you won't like them, but if you like that kind of thing they are in the top rank. Their lyrics tend toward the edgy and dark. I love their stuff but then, I've never been known for my objectivity.
P.S. The band is politically cool but for some reason does not want to be closely identified with my vivid persona.
You can find out more here: http://www.ameliaband.com
Buy here: http://www.ameliaband.com/store.html
This link should take you directly to free Napster downloads: http://tinyurl.com/3qlux
This link should take you directly to free Rolling Stone downloads: http://tinyurl.com/66dup
REVIEWS:
"Sultry and sophisticated cabaret pop with just a whisper of twang that flits in and out like a friendly ghost. The music of Amelia is a staggeringly cool exercise in understatement".
Clay Steakley, "Performing Songwriter"
"'After All' opens with the sound of a needle being dropped into the groove of an LP, or maybe an old 78, telegraphing Amelia’s retro approach to their music, but there’s nothing old-fashioned about their playing, songwriting or the smoky confidence of lead singer Teisha Helgerson."
Waxed J. Poet (?), "No Depression"
"Subtle bands like Amelia usually count on such audience diligence, but the indie group from Portland, Ore., is immediately addictive with 'After All.'"
Chuck Campbell, Scripps
A couple of years ago I swore I'd never use my awesome blogging powers for selfish purposes, but sooner or later each of us must fall.
So now I'm promoting my son's album. "Amelia" is a classy indie band whose self-released CD is getting some airplay (reviews below). If you just hate alt country or anything that's called "retro", you won't like them, but if you like that kind of thing they are in the top rank. Their lyrics tend toward the edgy and dark. I love their stuff but then, I've never been known for my objectivity.
P.S. The band is politically cool but for some reason does not want to be closely identified with my vivid persona.
You can find out more here: http://www.ameliaband.com
Buy here: http://www.ameliaband.com/store.html
This link should take you directly to free Napster downloads: http://tinyurl.com/3qlux
This link should take you directly to free Rolling Stone downloads: http://tinyurl.com/66dup
REVIEWS:
"Sultry and sophisticated cabaret pop with just a whisper of twang that flits in and out like a friendly ghost. The music of Amelia is a staggeringly cool exercise in understatement".
Clay Steakley, "Performing Songwriter"
"'After All' opens with the sound of a needle being dropped into the groove of an LP, or maybe an old 78, telegraphing Amelia’s retro approach to their music, but there’s nothing old-fashioned about their playing, songwriting or the smoky confidence of lead singer Teisha Helgerson."
Waxed J. Poet (?), "No Depression"
"Subtle bands like Amelia usually count on such audience diligence, but the indie group from Portland, Ore., is immediately addictive with 'After All.'"
Chuck Campbell, Scripps
Ashcroft in the 9/11 Committee Report
(An non-Conventional post from John in Portland)
In the 9/11 Committee report, no one looks worse than John Ashcroft. Since 9/11 Ashcroft has used the threat of terrorism to justify enormously expanding the powers of his office at the expense of traditional civil liberties. He has viciously attacked anyone who has questioned what he does: "Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies." Ashcroft's appointment was a plum for the religious right, and the religious right's pet issues take up much of his time: he's been tough on medical marijuana, assisted suicide, prostitution in New Orleans, and Tommy Chong's bongs.
So what did Ashcroft do about terrorism before 9/11? Approximately nothing.
When the acting head of the FBI tried to brief him about terrorism in 2001, Ashcroft told him to shut up: "Attorney General Ashcroft was briefed by the CIA in May and by Pickard in early July about the danger. Pickard said he met with Ashcroft once a week in late June, through July, and twice in August. There is a dispute regarding Ashcroft’s interest in Pickard’s briefings about the terrorist threat situation. Pickard told us that after two such briefings Ashcroft told him that he did not want to hear about the threats anymore. Ashcroft denies Pickard’s charge." (9/11 Committee Report, VIII, p. 265).
Ashcroft offered no leadership, but just let things happen: "The Attorney General told us he asked Pickard whether there was intelligence about attacks in the United States and that Pickard said no. Pickard said he replied that he could not assure Ashcroft that there would be no attacks in the United States, although the reports of threats were related to overseas targets. Ashcroft said he therefore assumed the FBI was doing what it needed to do. He acknowledged that in retrospect, this was a dangerous assumption. He did not ask the FBI what it was doing in response to the threats and did not task it to take any specific action. He also did not direct the INS, then still part of the Department of Justice, to take any specific action." (VIII, p. 265)
During the year 2001, Ashcroft was preparing a budget for 2003 to be presented to Congress in 2002. Counter-terrorism was not featured in this budget: "The budget guidance issued the next day [May 10, 2004], however, highlighted gun crimes, narcotics trafficking, and civil rights as priorities. Watson told us that he almost fell out of his chair when he saw this memo, because it did not mention counterterrorism....." (VI, p. 209). The FBI tried unsuccessfully to change Ashcroft's mind: "The Justice Department prepared a draft fiscal year 2003 budget that maintained but did not increase the funding level for counterterrorism in its pending fiscal year 2002 proposal. Pickard appealed for more counterterrorism enhancements, an appeal the attorney general denied on September 10." (VI, p. 210)
September 10, 2001. Great timing!
Chapter 6 pdf
Chapter 8 pdf
In the 9/11 Committee report, no one looks worse than John Ashcroft. Since 9/11 Ashcroft has used the threat of terrorism to justify enormously expanding the powers of his office at the expense of traditional civil liberties. He has viciously attacked anyone who has questioned what he does: "Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies." Ashcroft's appointment was a plum for the religious right, and the religious right's pet issues take up much of his time: he's been tough on medical marijuana, assisted suicide, prostitution in New Orleans, and Tommy Chong's bongs.
So what did Ashcroft do about terrorism before 9/11? Approximately nothing.
When the acting head of the FBI tried to brief him about terrorism in 2001, Ashcroft told him to shut up: "Attorney General Ashcroft was briefed by the CIA in May and by Pickard in early July about the danger. Pickard said he met with Ashcroft once a week in late June, through July, and twice in August. There is a dispute regarding Ashcroft’s interest in Pickard’s briefings about the terrorist threat situation. Pickard told us that after two such briefings Ashcroft told him that he did not want to hear about the threats anymore. Ashcroft denies Pickard’s charge." (9/11 Committee Report, VIII, p. 265).
Ashcroft offered no leadership, but just let things happen: "The Attorney General told us he asked Pickard whether there was intelligence about attacks in the United States and that Pickard said no. Pickard said he replied that he could not assure Ashcroft that there would be no attacks in the United States, although the reports of threats were related to overseas targets. Ashcroft said he therefore assumed the FBI was doing what it needed to do. He acknowledged that in retrospect, this was a dangerous assumption. He did not ask the FBI what it was doing in response to the threats and did not task it to take any specific action. He also did not direct the INS, then still part of the Department of Justice, to take any specific action." (VIII, p. 265)
During the year 2001, Ashcroft was preparing a budget for 2003 to be presented to Congress in 2002. Counter-terrorism was not featured in this budget: "The budget guidance issued the next day [May 10, 2004], however, highlighted gun crimes, narcotics trafficking, and civil rights as priorities. Watson told us that he almost fell out of his chair when he saw this memo, because it did not mention counterterrorism....." (VI, p. 209). The FBI tried unsuccessfully to change Ashcroft's mind: "The Justice Department prepared a draft fiscal year 2003 budget that maintained but did not increase the funding level for counterterrorism in its pending fiscal year 2002 proposal. Pickard appealed for more counterterrorism enhancements, an appeal the attorney general denied on September 10." (VI, p. 210)
September 10, 2001. Great timing!
Chapter 6 pdf
Chapter 8 pdf
7/24/2004
Convention Bloggers
Remember to also check DNC 2004 Weblogs: News Aggregator for convention news from bloggers.
Heading To Boston
I'm leaving in the morning for Boston, arriving about 4:30pm Boston time. So this is my last post before I arrive. There's a blogger gathering tomorrow evening and I'll let you know how that goes, depending on when I can get a connection, and time. Same throughout the week -- connection and time. There is supposed to be WIFI for bloggers in the convention hall. I also have signed up for T-Mobile so I can use Starbucks as needed. (They have those in Boston, right?) (That was a joke.) (But they DO have a Peets in Harvard Square so I'll be able to get some ACTUAL coffee while I'm there...)
I'm also attending numerous events outside the hall, put on by organizations like the New Democrat Network, 21st Century Democrats, etc., and I'll write about those.
I have a digital camera and will try to post pictures each day as I get time.
To everyone who contributed a bit for this trip - THANKS, and I'll write to each of you during the trip or after, depending on time and connectivity.
And finally, not very many people wrote or left comments with specific requests for things to talk about from the convention. So feel free to leave a comment here. What should I, and other bloggers, look for? What should bloggers do that is different from so-called "journalists?" (At BOPNews I left a comment that I'll be trying to be LIKE a real reporter, and flock to everything I hear about where there is free food and drinks.)
I'm also attending numerous events outside the hall, put on by organizations like the New Democrat Network, 21st Century Democrats, etc., and I'll write about those.
I have a digital camera and will try to post pictures each day as I get time.
To everyone who contributed a bit for this trip - THANKS, and I'll write to each of you during the trip or after, depending on time and connectivity.
And finally, not very many people wrote or left comments with specific requests for things to talk about from the convention. So feel free to leave a comment here. What should I, and other bloggers, look for? What should bloggers do that is different from so-called "journalists?" (At BOPNews I left a comment that I'll be trying to be LIKE a real reporter, and flock to everything I hear about where there is free food and drinks.)
The Divider
Voters Are Very Settled, Intense And Partisan, and It's Only July:
His supporters would say that he says what he needs to say to get elected, or to get things done, and that's OK because they trust that he is on their side, and the things he wants to accomplish are things they agree should be done. So deceptions like scaring the wits out of the country to get them to go to war with Iraq are OK and are fully consistent with changing the rationale after the fact to say that we are there to bring democracy and liberate the people and Americanize the Middle East. Most Republicans I talk to are in agreement with this, and freely say that it was probably necessary to do the things he did to get the Congress to vote to pay for, if not fully authorize, the invasion. They understand propaganda, and like it.
And on so many other issues the Freepers and the Limbaugh Dittoheads and other self-identified "movement conservatives" are fully on board with the strategy of saying one thing and doing another. They don't see it as a failing, they see it as a strength. If you point out to them that Bush lies when he says he is helping Africans with AIDS because he isn't providing the funding, or lies when he talks about the No Child Left Behind Act because he refuses to provide the money, or point out that his "War On Terror" budget did not provide even one penny to help rebuild Afghanistan they'll laugh at you and tell you to "get over it." Thet get what he is trying to accomplish, and agree.
And, in case we forget where the divisiveness and nastiness came from, here's a reminder. And here. And here. (Read these carefully - he is accusing "liberals" of doing things that they do not, in order to justify the Right actually doing them.) And here. Just a few examples, of so many.
"Rarely has a presidential campaign been this intense, this polarized, this partisan, this early."I think the contrast between Bush's 2000 campaign slogan, "I'm a uniter, not a divider", and the reality of his term-to-date speaks volumes. Directly resulting from Bush's "governing" style, the country is more divided than ever before. Yet he campaigned as a uniter. This is an example of what drives his opponents nuts, while strengthening his base.
His supporters would say that he says what he needs to say to get elected, or to get things done, and that's OK because they trust that he is on their side, and the things he wants to accomplish are things they agree should be done. So deceptions like scaring the wits out of the country to get them to go to war with Iraq are OK and are fully consistent with changing the rationale after the fact to say that we are there to bring democracy and liberate the people and Americanize the Middle East. Most Republicans I talk to are in agreement with this, and freely say that it was probably necessary to do the things he did to get the Congress to vote to pay for, if not fully authorize, the invasion. They understand propaganda, and like it.
And on so many other issues the Freepers and the Limbaugh Dittoheads and other self-identified "movement conservatives" are fully on board with the strategy of saying one thing and doing another. They don't see it as a failing, they see it as a strength. If you point out to them that Bush lies when he says he is helping Africans with AIDS because he isn't providing the funding, or lies when he talks about the No Child Left Behind Act because he refuses to provide the money, or point out that his "War On Terror" budget did not provide even one penny to help rebuild Afghanistan they'll laugh at you and tell you to "get over it." Thet get what he is trying to accomplish, and agree.
"Nowhere are the partisan divisions sharper than in the voters' views of President Bush. Eighty-four percent of the Republicans approve of the job he is doing, but just 16 percent of the Democrats do, according to the latest Times/CBS News poll."Committed Republicans are fully cognitive of the politicization of everything, and like it. Just listen to the callers to the Limbaugh show on any given day, as they talk about how things should be spun to trick the general public into agreement. Limbaugh's audience is not small, and it is not fringe.
And, in case we forget where the divisiveness and nastiness came from, here's a reminder. And here. And here. (Read these carefully - he is accusing "liberals" of doing things that they do not, in order to justify the Right actually doing them.) And here. Just a few examples, of so many.
Covering the Democratic Convention - Please Help Fund My Trip
I have received press credentials to cover the Democratic Convention next week. So please leave a comment and let me know what YOU want to hear about! That will be my first priority, and I'll try to post as often as possible.
I'm asking Seeing the Forest readers if they could pitch in and help me pay for this trip. I'll be staying with friends at least some of the time. So, I need to get there from California, and pay for local transportation and food, and maybe a night's lodging or two. (And I lose a whole week's pay -- I'm not getting paid while I'm there.)
On the right side of this page, under the Beat Bush button, there is a Paypal "Donate" button, and an "Amazon Honor System" button. Please pitch in, even if it's only a dollar or two. THANKS!
Update - I'm resetting the date on this to keep it at the top of the page this week.
I'm asking Seeing the Forest readers if they could pitch in and help me pay for this trip. I'll be staying with friends at least some of the time. So, I need to get there from California, and pay for local transportation and food, and maybe a night's lodging or two. (And I lose a whole week's pay -- I'm not getting paid while I'm there.)
On the right side of this page, under the Beat Bush button, there is a Paypal "Donate" button, and an "Amazon Honor System" button. Please pitch in, even if it's only a dollar or two. THANKS!
Update - I'm resetting the date on this to keep it at the top of the page this week.
Amazing Luck - Big Class Action
With amazing luck and timing my laptop is starting to flake out. I leave tomorrow at 8am for Boston. Great, huh?
Here's what it is - (yes this is leading to something.) Sony Vaio laptops have two memory slots. There's the one that comes with memory installed, and a second slot. The second slot is cheap plastic and isn't soldered well. So the laptop stopped recognizing my second ram bank, and got really slow. It's hard to describe how slow Windows can get. (You can't put more than 256mb in one slot.)
I had to have a PC to do my job, OK? Don't start with me. My wife has a really nice new PowerBook. OK?
Anyway, I found that this is a common problem and one place I found suggested putting a piece of a CD over the memory card and closing the lid on it, so it pushes the card down and forces the contacts to contact. AND THAT WORKED - for a while. But for some reason that causes the screen to suddenly go black at random times. Which is no good.
Here's where this is leading: I read in my search for answers one forum talked about a site called Big Class Action, where you can go see if your problem is subject to a class action suit, and can describe the problem so a lawyer can see if it SHOULD be subject to a class action suit! SO if you have a product problem, or a problem with a big company that might be something worthy of joining with others to go to court over, check out this site.
Other laptop problems - It keeps downloading Windows XP Service Pack 2 BETA, filling up the hard drive, and asking if I want to install it. I don't. AND I have the setting for downloading updates turned off. After a lot of back-and-forth with MS tech support they said it was probably due to a virus. It isn't. That's the oldest tech support weenie answer in the book, so I gave up.
AND I just got a new "G" 108mb wireless card, but the configuration utility just beeps and won't run. AND whenever I come back from standby or hibernation the only way I can get the wireless card to find the internet (it does connect to the transmitter) is to force it to disable and then re-enable...
AND now it ALWAYS does "checkdisk" when I restart.
For some reason it takes almost 10 minutes to boot up when I restart. And it won't even finish unless I right-click on the desktop, which starts the hard drive spinning again and then something happens for a nother 2 or 3 minutes before I can do anything.
There must be 100 other quirks that I have found ritualistic and superstitious ways around just to get my work done. And this next week I have to sit and wait while it swaps things out to disk, because the computer won't recognize more than 256mb, and Windows wants a LOT more than that.
Why did Microsoft have to crush BeOS? I know the answer, but jeeze.
Here's what it is - (yes this is leading to something.) Sony Vaio laptops have two memory slots. There's the one that comes with memory installed, and a second slot. The second slot is cheap plastic and isn't soldered well. So the laptop stopped recognizing my second ram bank, and got really slow. It's hard to describe how slow Windows can get. (You can't put more than 256mb in one slot.)
I had to have a PC to do my job, OK? Don't start with me. My wife has a really nice new PowerBook. OK?
Anyway, I found that this is a common problem and one place I found suggested putting a piece of a CD over the memory card and closing the lid on it, so it pushes the card down and forces the contacts to contact. AND THAT WORKED - for a while. But for some reason that causes the screen to suddenly go black at random times. Which is no good.
Here's where this is leading: I read in my search for answers one forum talked about a site called Big Class Action, where you can go see if your problem is subject to a class action suit, and can describe the problem so a lawyer can see if it SHOULD be subject to a class action suit! SO if you have a product problem, or a problem with a big company that might be something worthy of joining with others to go to court over, check out this site.
Other laptop problems - It keeps downloading Windows XP Service Pack 2 BETA, filling up the hard drive, and asking if I want to install it. I don't. AND I have the setting for downloading updates turned off. After a lot of back-and-forth with MS tech support they said it was probably due to a virus. It isn't. That's the oldest tech support weenie answer in the book, so I gave up.
AND I just got a new "G" 108mb wireless card, but the configuration utility just beeps and won't run. AND whenever I come back from standby or hibernation the only way I can get the wireless card to find the internet (it does connect to the transmitter) is to force it to disable and then re-enable...
AND now it ALWAYS does "checkdisk" when I restart.
For some reason it takes almost 10 minutes to boot up when I restart. And it won't even finish unless I right-click on the desktop, which starts the hard drive spinning again and then something happens for a nother 2 or 3 minutes before I can do anything.
There must be 100 other quirks that I have found ritualistic and superstitious ways around just to get my work done. And this next week I have to sit and wait while it swaps things out to disk, because the computer won't recognize more than 256mb, and Windows wants a LOT more than that.
Why did Microsoft have to crush BeOS? I know the answer, but jeeze.
War With Islam
Nicholas Kristoff's column, Jesus and Jihad, in the NY Times today, revived a post I've been working on. I don't normally read Kristoff anymore, but several people forwarded the column to me. He writes about the "Left Behind" novels, and what they are saying.
I've often said that the way to know what the Right is saying is to understand what the intended audience is hearing. Another way is to learn what the Right says to each other rather than what has to be said in order to trick the public.
Here's an article in the "Christian Press," Conservative Attributes Bush's Pro-Islam Comments to Politics
. Paul Weyrich isn't just any "conservative."
Want more of what Weyrich and the Right are saying about war with Islam? Read here and here and here.
"The latest is "Glorious Appearing," which has Jesus returning to Earth to wipe all non-Christians from the planet. It's disconcerting to find ethnic cleansing celebrated as the height of piety.
[. . .] In "Glorious Appearing," Jesus merely speaks and the bodies of the enemy are ripped open. Christians have to drive carefully to avoid "hitting splayed and filleted bodies of men and women and horses."
[. . .] As my Times colleague David Kirkpatrick noted in an article, this portrayal of a bloody Second Coming reflects a shift in American portrayals of Jesus, from a gentle Mister Rogers figure to a martial messiah presiding over a sea of blood. Militant Christianity rises to confront Militant Islam."
I've often said that the way to know what the Right is saying is to understand what the intended audience is hearing. Another way is to learn what the Right says to each other rather than what has to be said in order to trick the public.
Here's an article in the "Christian Press," Conservative Attributes Bush's Pro-Islam Comments to Politics
. Paul Weyrich isn't just any "conservative."
(AgapePress) - The head of a Washington, DC, think tank who has access to the White House says people of faith do not need to be concerned about President Bush's public comments about Islam. The conservative activist says the president does know the "real score."
Six days after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush visited the Islamic Center in the nation's capital where he addressed reported intimidation demonstrated by some Americans toward Muslims. After quoting an English translation from the Koran, the president made the following statement: "The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace."
Since that time, Bush has appeared to go out of his way to bolster his September 17, 2001, statement and embrace the American-Muslim community, even going so far as to host Ramadan celebrations at the White House.
Paul Weyrich, president of the Free Congress Foundation, says he is concerned about the growth of the Muslim faith in the United States. But he emphasizes he is not concerned about President Bush's frequent references to Islam as a "religion of peace" that has simply been hijacked by a radical fringe.
"I can say with certainty that [the president] knows what the real score is," Weyrich says. "He feels he has to say these things -- and maybe if you and I were president, we'd have to do the same thing."
Weyrich says if the president actually declared that America is in a war against Islam, there might be more Muslims taking up arms against the U.S. -- a "real jihad," as he puts it. So Bush, according to Weyrich, is soft-peddling his rhetoric in order to "tamp down" any worldwide activity that might occur.
"I know the president has to say certain things -- and I understand that," the conservative icon says, "but I also know that he doesn't believe it."
Want more of what Weyrich and the Right are saying about war with Islam? Read here and here and here.
9/11 Commission: Who Cares?
The 9/11 Commission report has fallen off the first page of Google News, and none of the big Democrats except Conason are talking about it. (Maybe there will be more interest tomorrow when people finish plowing their way through the 500+ pages.) The initial media spin was to blame the CIA and Congress, but not Bush or Clinton -- I think that the idea was to cut some kind of deal with the Democrats.
Democrats would be stupid to accept that deal: Bush is running and Clinton isn't.
I'm working on it, but for the moment are a few links.
No essential documents missing, 9/11 panel says
"Kean said the commission has been assured that it was able to get copies of each document that apparently was lost. If those lost documents had written notations from former President Clinton or others, they would have been included in those copies, Kean said."
The Berger hooplah is phony. Berger didn't have or lose any unique documents, but just copies. Nothing was withheld from the 9/11 commission. (Apparently where he was working was not the archive itself, but a working library of copies for people who wanted access to archive materials. The materials were important because they were secret, but they were not irreplacable).
"One result is that the report has cast a pall over the president's vacation plans"
Poor George. This article has lots of interesting stuff about the Bush Administration's resistance to outside ideas and his original resistance to the establishment of the 9/11 Commission.
The 9/11 Commission (and other related investigative committees)
There's a lot of interesting old stuff in there about Bush's bitter resistance to the 9/11 commission every step of the way, as well as some of the conflicts of interest of the members of the commission. (While I'm finding the commission report usable, you still have to do a lot of reading between the lines, and it would be a mistake to think that they are irreproachable.)
Bush and Cheney adamantly insisted on being questioned together. When you read that Bush confirmed Cheney's claim that his shoot-down order had been authorized by Bush, you have to keep that fact in mind.
Just for laughs, here's Scooter Libby's description of Cheney's order: "President Cheney was asked for authority to engage the aircraft. His reaction was described by Scooter Libby as quick and decisive, 'in about the time it takes a batter to decide to swing'" (p. 41).
Libby belongs in the Kissass Hall of Fame.
Democrats would be stupid to accept that deal: Bush is running and Clinton isn't.
I'm working on it, but for the moment are a few links.
No essential documents missing, 9/11 panel says
"Kean said the commission has been assured that it was able to get copies of each document that apparently was lost. If those lost documents had written notations from former President Clinton or others, they would have been included in those copies, Kean said."
The Berger hooplah is phony. Berger didn't have or lose any unique documents, but just copies. Nothing was withheld from the 9/11 commission. (Apparently where he was working was not the archive itself, but a working library of copies for people who wanted access to archive materials. The materials were important because they were secret, but they were not irreplacable).
"One result is that the report has cast a pall over the president's vacation plans"
Poor George. This article has lots of interesting stuff about the Bush Administration's resistance to outside ideas and his original resistance to the establishment of the 9/11 Commission.
The 9/11 Commission (and other related investigative committees)
There's a lot of interesting old stuff in there about Bush's bitter resistance to the 9/11 commission every step of the way, as well as some of the conflicts of interest of the members of the commission. (While I'm finding the commission report usable, you still have to do a lot of reading between the lines, and it would be a mistake to think that they are irreproachable.)
Bush and Cheney adamantly insisted on being questioned together. When you read that Bush confirmed Cheney's claim that his shoot-down order had been authorized by Bush, you have to keep that fact in mind.
Just for laughs, here's Scooter Libby's description of Cheney's order: "President Cheney was asked for authority to engage the aircraft. His reaction was described by Scooter Libby as quick and decisive, 'in about the time it takes a batter to decide to swing'" (p. 41).
Libby belongs in the Kissass Hall of Fame.
7/23/2004
Finding Convention Blogs
You'll find a good source of convention info here, at ConventionBloggers. This site will always have the latest from ALL the bloggers at the convention.
Also, you can sign up to have Seeing the Forest e-mailed to you daily by scrolling down until you see "Enter your email address below to subscribe to Seeing the Forest!" on the right column of this page, entering your e-mail address, and clicking the "Subscribe" button.
Also, you can sign up to have Seeing the Forest e-mailed to you daily by scrolling down until you see "Enter your email address below to subscribe to Seeing the Forest!" on the right column of this page, entering your e-mail address, and clicking the "Subscribe" button.
Some assembly required: politicizing 9/11
The bipartisan 9/11 commission was careful not to blame individuals or draw political consequences from the events. The media have also come to the speedy conclusion that no one was really to blame. (And as an emergency back-up, they have also concluded that Clinton and Bush were equally to blame. As I said below, it's as if they failed keep score and called the game a tie.)
So that part of the job is left to us -- the politicization, which the commission was forbidden by its charter to do. In free countries you have political parties, and issues tend to become politicized in a partisan way. Countries where this does not happen are called dictatorships. The Republicans have already done a tremendous job of politicizing 9/11 -- the War on Terror is practically the only thing Bush has to run on.
We Democrats are playing catch-up. Bush's wretched counter-terrorism performance before 9/11, as revealed especially in Chapter 8 of the report, is a legitimate political issue.
One man's "fingerpointing" is another man's accountability. Certainly the worst thing we can do with the 9/11 issue is to conclude that "mistakes were made" -- no one's to blame, everyone's to blame, and Clinton and Bush were equally to blame. That's more or less what the commission said, but they had to say that. The facts they gave us are not so nonpartisan.
But suppose I make the Republicans an offer. And I'll go first, too: from here on out, I'm not going to defend Clinton's performance. You can have Clinton. Hang him high. But you can't defend Bush either. Deal?
I don't think so. The 9/11 issue is going to be politicized, and that is as it should be. Bush is going to have to defend his record against Kerry.
And that seems sort of unfair, since Kerry has never been President and doesn't have a record on counter-terrorism. But that's OK, because Bush (whose pre-Presidential record was short and skimpy) has been going through Kerry's 30-year political record with a fine-tooth comb for a year now, looking for waffles and flipflops. Bush didn't waffle much during his short career because he hardly did anything. His Presidential record is all he's got, and 9/11 is the biggest part of it. (And sometimes, you know, if a pitcher is really stinking up the place, you pull him in put in someone else just to see what they can do).
We still do have a democratic two-party system in this country. Let the wild rumpus begin!
So that part of the job is left to us -- the politicization, which the commission was forbidden by its charter to do. In free countries you have political parties, and issues tend to become politicized in a partisan way. Countries where this does not happen are called dictatorships. The Republicans have already done a tremendous job of politicizing 9/11 -- the War on Terror is practically the only thing Bush has to run on.
We Democrats are playing catch-up. Bush's wretched counter-terrorism performance before 9/11, as revealed especially in Chapter 8 of the report, is a legitimate political issue.
One man's "fingerpointing" is another man's accountability. Certainly the worst thing we can do with the 9/11 issue is to conclude that "mistakes were made" -- no one's to blame, everyone's to blame, and Clinton and Bush were equally to blame. That's more or less what the commission said, but they had to say that. The facts they gave us are not so nonpartisan.
But suppose I make the Republicans an offer. And I'll go first, too: from here on out, I'm not going to defend Clinton's performance. You can have Clinton. Hang him high. But you can't defend Bush either. Deal?
I don't think so. The 9/11 issue is going to be politicized, and that is as it should be. Bush is going to have to defend his record against Kerry.
And that seems sort of unfair, since Kerry has never been President and doesn't have a record on counter-terrorism. But that's OK, because Bush (whose pre-Presidential record was short and skimpy) has been going through Kerry's 30-year political record with a fine-tooth comb for a year now, looking for waffles and flipflops. Bush didn't waffle much during his short career because he hardly did anything. His Presidential record is all he's got, and 9/11 is the biggest part of it. (And sometimes, you know, if a pitcher is really stinking up the place, you pull him in put in someone else just to see what they can do).
We still do have a democratic two-party system in this country. Let the wild rumpus begin!
Oh No!
San Franciscans (never, ever say, "Frisco") will understand what this means.
I was looking at a schedule of convention-related entertainment events and came across this:
I was looking at a schedule of convention-related entertainment events and came across this:
"Thursday, July 29, 2004Oh No!
CRITICAL MASS BIKE RIDE/PROTEST
starts at 8 a.m. at Copley Square, Boston."
7/22/2004
Text of Bush's August 6, 2001 PDB
"Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US"
"Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example ofWorld Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and “bring the fighting to America.” After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a [—] service.
An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an [—] service at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operative’s access to the US to mount a terrorist strike. The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Ladin’s first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself,but that Bin Ladin lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own US attack.
Ressam says Bin Ladin was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although Bin Ladin has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Ladin associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.
Al-Qa’ida members—including some who are US citizens—have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.Two al-Qua’ da members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s. A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American outh for attacks.
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [—] service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Shaykh” ‘Umar ‘Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives."
From the 9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 8
"Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example ofWorld Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and “bring the fighting to America.” After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a [—] service.
An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an [—] service at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operative’s access to the US to mount a terrorist strike. The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Ladin’s first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself,but that Bin Ladin lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own US attack.
Ressam says Bin Ladin was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although Bin Ladin has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Ladin associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.
Al-Qa’ida members—including some who are US citizens—have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.Two al-Qua’ da members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s. A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American outh for attacks.
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [—] service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Shaykh” ‘Umar ‘Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives."
From the 9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 8
The system was blinking red, but Bush was on vacation
The 9/11 report doesn't dot the i's or cross the t's. It doesn't come out and say that Bush and his team screwed up. But if you read Chapter 8, there's really no other conclusion that you can come to.
On Aug. 6th Bush was read a brief titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US", which was the 36th briefing he had mentioning Bin Ladin or al Qaeda. He then went on vacation for a long month, apparently without talking about al Qaeda either with Ashcroft, with Rice, or with Tenet.
The official story line of the 9/11 report is that there were failures of process and structure leading to inefficiency and lack of coordination, which led in turn to a failure to confront the challenge of terrorism. But the details of the story itself show us Bush, Ashcroft, and Rice repeatedly being briefed about a rising threat level by Tenet and an increasingly agitated Clarke, without any of the three of them ever taking any initiative on the issue whatsoever.
Chapter 8 of the 9/11 Commission report (pdf)
Page 7:
During the spring and summer of 2001, President Bush had on several occasions asked his briefers whether any of the threats pointed to the United States. Reflecting on these questions, the CIA decided to write a briefing article summarizing its understanding of this danger.Two CIA analysts involved in preparing this briefing article believed it represented an opportunity to communicate their view that the threat of a Bin Ladin attack in the United States remained both current and serious.35 The result was an article in the August 6 Presidential Daily Brief titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US" It was the 36th PDB item briefed so far that year that related to Bin Ladin or al Qaeda, and the first devoted to the possibility of an attack in the United States.
The President told us the August 6 report was historical in nature. President Bush said the article told him that al Qaeda was dangerous, which he said he had known since he had become President. The President said Bin Ladin had long been talking about his desire to attack America. He recalled some operational data on the FBI, and remembered thinking it was heartening that 70 investigations were under way. As best he could recollect, Rice had mentioned that the Yemenis’ surveillance of a federal building in New York had been looked into in May and June, but there was no actionable intelligence.
He did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so. He said that if his advisers had told him there was a cell in the United States, they would have moved to take care of it. That never happened.
Page 9:
We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. DCI Tenet visited President Bush in Crawford,Texas, on August 17 and participated in PDB briefings of the President between August 31 (after the President had returned to Washington) and September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat during this period.
Page 12:
Attorney General Ashcroft was briefed by the CIA in May and by Pickard in early July about the danger. Pickard said he met with Ashcroft once a week in late June, through July, and twice in August. There is a dispute regarding Ashcroft’s interest in Pickard’s briefings about the terrorist threat situation. Pickard told us that after two such briefings Ashcroft told him that he did not want to hear about the threats anymore. Ashcroft denies Pickard’s charge.
On Aug. 6th Bush was read a brief titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US", which was the 36th briefing he had mentioning Bin Ladin or al Qaeda. He then went on vacation for a long month, apparently without talking about al Qaeda either with Ashcroft, with Rice, or with Tenet.
The official story line of the 9/11 report is that there were failures of process and structure leading to inefficiency and lack of coordination, which led in turn to a failure to confront the challenge of terrorism. But the details of the story itself show us Bush, Ashcroft, and Rice repeatedly being briefed about a rising threat level by Tenet and an increasingly agitated Clarke, without any of the three of them ever taking any initiative on the issue whatsoever.
Chapter 8 of the 9/11 Commission report (pdf)
Page 7:
During the spring and summer of 2001, President Bush had on several occasions asked his briefers whether any of the threats pointed to the United States. Reflecting on these questions, the CIA decided to write a briefing article summarizing its understanding of this danger.Two CIA analysts involved in preparing this briefing article believed it represented an opportunity to communicate their view that the threat of a Bin Ladin attack in the United States remained both current and serious.35 The result was an article in the August 6 Presidential Daily Brief titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US" It was the 36th PDB item briefed so far that year that related to Bin Ladin or al Qaeda, and the first devoted to the possibility of an attack in the United States.
The President told us the August 6 report was historical in nature. President Bush said the article told him that al Qaeda was dangerous, which he said he had known since he had become President. The President said Bin Ladin had long been talking about his desire to attack America. He recalled some operational data on the FBI, and remembered thinking it was heartening that 70 investigations were under way. As best he could recollect, Rice had mentioned that the Yemenis’ surveillance of a federal building in New York had been looked into in May and June, but there was no actionable intelligence.
He did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so. He said that if his advisers had told him there was a cell in the United States, they would have moved to take care of it. That never happened.
Page 9:
We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. DCI Tenet visited President Bush in Crawford,Texas, on August 17 and participated in PDB briefings of the President between August 31 (after the President had returned to Washington) and September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat during this period.
Page 12:
Attorney General Ashcroft was briefed by the CIA in May and by Pickard in early July about the danger. Pickard said he met with Ashcroft once a week in late June, through July, and twice in August. There is a dispute regarding Ashcroft’s interest in Pickard’s briefings about the terrorist threat situation. Pickard told us that after two such briefings Ashcroft told him that he did not want to hear about the threats anymore. Ashcroft denies Pickard’s charge.
George W. Bush and Terrorism
The premise of the bipartisan commission was neutrality and bipartisanship: both sides are equally to blame. They came to that conclusion because they looked around the table, counted noses, and saw that they were divided 5-5. It's as if they agreed not to keep score, and then called the game a tie.
So it's our job to figure out whether Bush deserves to be blamed or not, since the 9/11 commission made a point of not asking that question. (We can ask the same question of Clinton too, but the question about Bush is more important, since he's running for reelection in four months and Clinton isn't.)
I haven't been able to look at the 9/11 report yet, but here are some links to earlier research of mine on the topic. This stuff is several months old and there are probably some dead links, but there a lot of stuff there.
The Bush Administration's indifference to counter-terrorism (pre-9/11)
Missed Warnings of 9/11
The Iraq War and the War on Terror
The Republicans and the Islamofascists before 9/11
The 9/11 commission assures us that our Saudi and Pakistani allies had nothing whatever to do with 9/11. I'm not so sure, as you can see here:
Who was Bandar Bush?
So it's our job to figure out whether Bush deserves to be blamed or not, since the 9/11 commission made a point of not asking that question. (We can ask the same question of Clinton too, but the question about Bush is more important, since he's running for reelection in four months and Clinton isn't.)
I haven't been able to look at the 9/11 report yet, but here are some links to earlier research of mine on the topic. This stuff is several months old and there are probably some dead links, but there a lot of stuff there.
The Bush Administration's indifference to counter-terrorism (pre-9/11)
Missed Warnings of 9/11
The Iraq War and the War on Terror
The Republicans and the Islamofascists before 9/11
The 9/11 commission assures us that our Saudi and Pakistani allies had nothing whatever to do with 9/11. I'm not so sure, as you can see here:
Who was Bandar Bush?
Excerpt: In December 2000, Bush met with Clinton for a two-hour, one-on-one discussion of national security and foreign policy challenges. Clinton recalled saying to Bush, "I think you will find that by far your biggest threat is bin Laden and the al Qaida." Clinton told us that he also said, "One of the great regrets of my presidency is that I didn't get him (bin Laden) for you, because I tried to." Bush told the Commission that he felt sure President Clinton had mentioned terrorism, but did not remember much being said about al Qaida. Bush recalled that Clinton had emphasized other issues such as North Korea and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/politics/9218389.htm
http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=36720
No Saudi
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-commish22jul22,1,1408771.story?coll=la-home-headlines
IHT mixed
http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?file=530717.html
exec sum 6:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer/ap.asp?category=1110&slug=September%2011%20Executive%20Summary%206
exec sum
http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=36720&format=text
put options
http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/ap/2004/07/22/ap1466721.html
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/politics/9218389.htm
http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=36720
No Saudi
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-commish22jul22,1,1408771.story?coll=la-home-headlines
IHT mixed
http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?file=530717.html
exec sum 6:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer/ap.asp?category=1110&slug=September%2011%20Executive%20Summary%206
exec sum
http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=36720&format=text
put options
http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/ap/2004/07/22/ap1466721.html
Bush doesn't look so good on 9/11
I am in agreement with Dave that we shouldn't waste any more time on the pitiful, ridiculous Berger distraction. That's all just designed to divert attention -- primarily from the 9/11 Commission report, which doesn't make Bush look at all good for Bush, and secondarily from the upcoming Democratic National Convention. I have never seen the trolls so ferocious and vivid.
Initial press reports seem to be spinning it this way: Bush and Clinton were both equally to blame, but really no one was to blame, since it was an institutional problem which should be dealt with by -- ta-DAH! -- a bureaucratic reshuffling! You expect something like that from a bipartisan blue-ribbon commission, and of course the media should be expected to deliver us mush. However, I feel that a closer look will find lots of interesting stuff.
Below are the URLs of the three reports: the recent 9/11 Commission report, the relatively recent Senate Intelligence Committee Report, and the 2002 Congressional 9/11 report. Everything is in PDF format; sometime when you've got a few hours, come around and explain to me why ANYTHING should ever be in PDF format.
And there's a link at the bottom where you can buy print versions; the recent 9/11 report is less than $20.
9/11 Commission Report (2004)
http://www.9-11commission.gov/
Senate Intelligence Committee Report (2004)
30 page PDF summary of Senate Intelligence Committee Report on pre-Iraq War Intelligence: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_rpt/ssci_concl.pdf
Complete Senate Intelligence Committee Report:
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_rpt/index.html
Analysis of Senate report from Brad Delong's site:
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/001229.html
Congressional 9/11 Report (2002)
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html
Print versions of all three reports can be bought here.
The 9/11 report is cheap.
http://bookstore.gpo.gov/911commission.html#911
Clearing Something Up
The reaction from "our side" to the Berger smear should be to simply ignore it. We have a bigger fish to fry. The 9/11 Report came out today and every single one of us should be speaking loudly, saying, "This report says that Bush was 'asleep at the switch' and let 9/11 happen!"
We should do this for three simple reasons:
"Our side" has a RESPONSIBILITY to overcome their distractions and get the truth out.
We should do this for three simple reasons:
1) It is what the report says.They have planned this Berger smear for months. They are using it to claim that Clinton was responsible for 9/11. They are using it to manipulate the voters. They are using it to distract us all from the conclusions in the report - and when we spend time on the Berger smear that is exactly what is happening to us.
2) Bush was asleep at the switch and let 9/11 happen.
3) It is the right thing to be doing, for the good of the country and for our own protection.
"Our side" has a RESPONSIBILITY to overcome their distractions and get the truth out.
The Mark of the Beast
I think that the Berger classified documents kerfluffle is pretty good diagnostic test for Republican tools. Everyone flogging this story bears The Mark of the Beast indelibly on his forehead (or hers: hi, Steno Sue!) and should never be taken seriously again.
And as Dave (almost) says below, Democrats who take the story at face value bear the mark of a different beast on their own foreheads. A weaker and more pitiful beast.
As Dave points out, this is a staged event meant to distract from the 9/11 Commission's report. It's been sitting on the shelf for months. The offense was not taken terribly seriously by the relevant authorities (e.g.the FBI or the 9/11 Commission itself). It's not certain that what Berger did was a crime at all. And no information was destroyed or concealed from the committee -- all Berger ever had was copies.
Most of the people circulating this story have to know that they're lying. There's really an smell of desperation among the trolls these days.
The pants-and-socks part of the story bears all the marks of a Rove operation -- make your opponent look silly. It reminds me of the storyline way back when about Noriega's red underpants. What kind of guy would wear red underpants? What kind of guy would put top secret documents in his socks, or grind them down into his groin area? (I tend to suspect that Berger put the documents in the parts of his pants called "the pockets", where most people put things, but that doesn't sound nasty enough.)
The odious Wolf Blitzer played along. Berger's spokesman stated that Berger had indeed carried away some documents in his leather portfolio. But when Blitzer later referred to the portfolio, he had to call it "his little briefcase". (See? Berger is such a ridiculous guy that even his briefcase is is a silly little briefcase! How much sillier could he get?)
My guess is that Berger failed to realize that, not only was he not the boss anymore, but that he was now on the opposing team. There were people waiting for him to screw up, and he screwed up. At this point no one has said anything about how strictly security rules had been applied before then, or how seriously cases of this kind are normally treated. But we do know that, early on, information about Berger's offense was in the hands both of Ashcroft's Justice Department and Rove's White House -- two organizations which have the habit of leaking sensitive material for political purposes.
The inside-baseball stuff is stupid and weak. One guy says that he thinks that the Democrats Biden or Holbrooke did the leaking. A lot of people argue that when Berger failed to inform Kerry about the leak, it showed that he was no damn good at all, and go on to argue that the fact that Kerry had trusted Berger (who does not have a long rap sheet) proves that Kerry is not fit to be President. (Follow that? -- and this mostly comes from supporters of a guy who appointed several convicted Republican felons to high government positions!)
Except that there is so much at stake, these clowns would be hard to take seriously. But let me ask a question. Why is it that the various people talking gravely and thoughtfully about this farce are the sensible, mainstream professionals -- and why is it that Dave and I are the wacko extremists?
And as Dave (almost) says below, Democrats who take the story at face value bear the mark of a different beast on their own foreheads. A weaker and more pitiful beast.
As Dave points out, this is a staged event meant to distract from the 9/11 Commission's report. It's been sitting on the shelf for months. The offense was not taken terribly seriously by the relevant authorities (e.g.the FBI or the 9/11 Commission itself). It's not certain that what Berger did was a crime at all. And no information was destroyed or concealed from the committee -- all Berger ever had was copies.
Most of the people circulating this story have to know that they're lying. There's really an smell of desperation among the trolls these days.
The pants-and-socks part of the story bears all the marks of a Rove operation -- make your opponent look silly. It reminds me of the storyline way back when about Noriega's red underpants. What kind of guy would wear red underpants? What kind of guy would put top secret documents in his socks, or grind them down into his groin area? (I tend to suspect that Berger put the documents in the parts of his pants called "the pockets", where most people put things, but that doesn't sound nasty enough.)
The odious Wolf Blitzer played along. Berger's spokesman stated that Berger had indeed carried away some documents in his leather portfolio. But when Blitzer later referred to the portfolio, he had to call it "his little briefcase". (See? Berger is such a ridiculous guy that even his briefcase is is a silly little briefcase! How much sillier could he get?)
My guess is that Berger failed to realize that, not only was he not the boss anymore, but that he was now on the opposing team. There were people waiting for him to screw up, and he screwed up. At this point no one has said anything about how strictly security rules had been applied before then, or how seriously cases of this kind are normally treated. But we do know that, early on, information about Berger's offense was in the hands both of Ashcroft's Justice Department and Rove's White House -- two organizations which have the habit of leaking sensitive material for political purposes.
The inside-baseball stuff is stupid and weak. One guy says that he thinks that the Democrats Biden or Holbrooke did the leaking. A lot of people argue that when Berger failed to inform Kerry about the leak, it showed that he was no damn good at all, and go on to argue that the fact that Kerry had trusted Berger (who does not have a long rap sheet) proves that Kerry is not fit to be President. (Follow that? -- and this mostly comes from supporters of a guy who appointed several convicted Republican felons to high government positions!)
Except that there is so much at stake, these clowns would be hard to take seriously. But let me ask a question. Why is it that the various people talking gravely and thoughtfully about this farce are the sensible, mainstream professionals -- and why is it that Dave and I are the wacko extremists?
Berger - Missing the Point!
Missing the point on the Berger thing... I'm reading Alterman, and Talking Points, and Kevin, and Slate, and everyone else, and it's like they're blind. They're all caught up in what Berger did or didn't do and how bad was it and why aren't the Republicans investigating Plame, etc...
Just not getting it at all. Just missing the point. Just seeing the trees and missing the forest.
Here is what is going on. The Republican Noise Machine is saying this proves Clinton is to blame for 9/11. Got that? Just as the 9/11 Comission releases its report, they are saying that the proof of Clinton's guilt was there, and Berger took and shredded that proof. Let that sink in a while. This theme is ALL OVER THE MEDIA - at least the media that matters to the voters they want to reach. Never mind that he only took copies of drafts of the documents, and they still have the originals -- that small fact is slipping WAY under the radar, and no one on "our side" even seems to understand that is the central issue.
Here's a sample headline: Clinton Spook Sandy Berger is Caught Destroying Terror Evidence.
Here's an example of a small-town newspaper editorial, One Sandy Berger and a side of lies:
I checked Instapundit (for the first time in at least a year) and got so disgusted I just left without gathering any quotes to link to. I never, ever read Andew Sullivan, so you're on your own as to what he is saying. (And this is the first time I have ever used his name on this blog.)
AND they are now working to EXPAND the story. This is the tactic of overwhelming. By the time anyone can refute the lies put out at 8am, the lies put out at 9am and 10am are what is being talked about. Here are a couple of examples: Did Sandy Berger "Fry" Flight 800 Records?,
This has been planned for MONTHS, from the day the 9/11 Commission was formed. It took TIME to research and put together that story about Berger's military records. Limbaugh surely didn't put that complicated 3-part smear together himself. And - and this is important - all these talking points and military record research, etc. were obviously prepared before the story leaked this week.
Just not getting it at all. Just missing the point. Just seeing the trees and missing the forest.
Here is what is going on. The Republican Noise Machine is saying this proves Clinton is to blame for 9/11. Got that? Just as the 9/11 Comission releases its report, they are saying that the proof of Clinton's guilt was there, and Berger took and shredded that proof. Let that sink in a while. This theme is ALL OVER THE MEDIA - at least the media that matters to the voters they want to reach. Never mind that he only took copies of drafts of the documents, and they still have the originals -- that small fact is slipping WAY under the radar, and no one on "our side" even seems to understand that is the central issue.
Here's a sample headline: Clinton Spook Sandy Berger is Caught Destroying Terror Evidence.
"Berger stuffed highest-classified documents, including leather-bound after-action reports on Millennium attacks, into his clothing to get them out of the National Archives before they were reviewed by the 9/11 Commission. ... After-action documents showing the Clinton "response" to al-Queda terror plans still are missing. ... Stolen documents were all the originals of after-action drafts, and Berger was caught in a sting, when given another copy, by stealing it too."Never mind that this is just a lie. That doesn't matter.
Here's an example of a small-town newspaper editorial, One Sandy Berger and a side of lies:
"The central question now is, what was he trying to hide?Even Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert said this,
We know that some of the discarded documents had to do with the foiled Millennium bombing plot and what the administration did with the gathered intelligence afterward. Attorney General John Ashcroft testified in April about the documents we now know Berger was trying to hide. "The NSC's Millennium After-Action Review declares that the United States barely missed major terrorist attacks in 1999 - with luck playing a major role,- Ashcroft told the Commission."
"Was Mr. Berger trying to cover-up key facts regarding intelligence failures during his watch? What happened to those missing documents?"and this,
"What could those documents have said that drove Mr. Berger to remove them without authorization from a secure reading room for classified documents? What information could be so embarrassing that a man with decades of experience in handling classified documents would risk being caught pilfering our nation's most sensitive secrets?"Which coincidentally exactly parallels what Limbaugh is saying.
I checked Instapundit (for the first time in at least a year) and got so disgusted I just left without gathering any quotes to link to. I never, ever read Andew Sullivan, so you're on your own as to what he is saying. (And this is the first time I have ever used his name on this blog.)
AND they are now working to EXPAND the story. This is the tactic of overwhelming. By the time anyone can refute the lies put out at 8am, the lies put out at 9am and 10am are what is being talked about. Here are a couple of examples: Did Sandy Berger "Fry" Flight 800 Records?,
So, what does this link between Bill Clinton and Flight 800 have to do with the current John Kerry presidential campaign? Well, perhaps nothing, except that John Kerry also referred to Flight 800 as a terrorist incident in a televised interview. The problem is that, with the upcoming release of the final report of the '9-11' Commission, the general public will have the opportunity to refresh their memory about the link between Flight 800 and terrorism.and Sandy Berger's Curious Military Records,
"I think it's ironic that Kerry, who takes every opportunity to tout his military record, picks as his [informal] adviser on national security and reportedly short-lists as a potential secretary of state a man with the military service record of Sandy Berger," B.G. Burkett, co-author of "Stolen Valor -- How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of Its Heroes and Its History," tells NewsMax.Once again, just so you get it, they are saying that this proves that Clinton is responsible for 9/11, that it is a big cover-up, and that this proves Kerry is somehow implicated in trying to hand the country over to our enemies.
This has been planned for MONTHS, from the day the 9/11 Commission was formed. It took TIME to research and put together that story about Berger's military records. Limbaugh surely didn't put that complicated 3-part smear together himself. And - and this is important - all these talking points and military record research, etc. were obviously prepared before the story leaked this week.
Kerfluffle
Mark of the Beast desperation indicator
Rules, infection control, big cheese, even though 9/11 opposing team, for use later, should have known of course
pants socks Noriega 2 socks pockets
little briefcase Mark of Beast Blitzer how low
stakes high, clowns otherwise
http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/071804.htm#072104
Kerfluffle big boys
trolls
Rules, infection control, big cheese, even though 9/11 opposing team, for use later, should have known of course
pants socks Noriega 2 socks pockets
little briefcase Mark of Beast Blitzer how low
stakes high, clowns otherwise
http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/071804.htm#072104
Kerfluffle big boys
trolls
Where was Bush? and other stuff from the Kerry campaign.
The Democrats seems to be learning hardball. The DNC has a site up called "Where was Bush?" which conveniently summarizes the questions about Bush's military service.
I'm not a military guy myself, but I'd love to see Kerry call out Bush personally during the debates. Kerry's speechwriters should be working up a few zingers that he could throw in somewhere -- something like "I'd really love to have seen what kind of soldier you would have been, little man!" Bush is a fake in pretty much everything he's ever done, and if Kerry calls him on that personally on TV, it might work.
Here is a Kerry release asking why the Bush administration has still not supplied body armor to all of the American troops in Iraq, and suggesting that maybe Jeb Bush could have a word with his wayward brother.
Here is a summary of the failures of Bush's domestic policies.
Scott Ritter: How we got it so wrong in Iraq
Scott Ritter, one of the few Americans in the loop who got it right before the Iraq War, points out that both the British nor the American Iraq War commissions (both of which were stacked with promoters of the Iraq War) got to the root of the problem. The search for WMD was never taken seriously by the Bush administration; all they wanted from it was an excuse to invade Iraq.
"The unwillingness of the American and British governments to capitalize on the dramatic breakthroughs regarding the disarmament of Iraq between July 1995 and July 1996 only underscores the reality that, when it came to the fate of Saddam's government, the outcome had been preordained. There was never an intention to allow a finding of Iraqi compliance concerning its disarmament obligation, even if one was warranted. Saddam was to be removed from power, and WMD were always viewed by the policymakers as the excuse for doing so.
The failure of either the Senate committee or the Butler Commission to recognize the role that the policy of regime change had in corrupting the analytical efforts of U.S. and British intelligence services means that not only will it be more difficult to achieve meaningful reform in these services, but more importantly, the general public will continue to remain largely ignorant of the true scope of failure regarding Iraq policy. "
Scott Ritter: How we got it so wrong in Iraq.
Ritter was the victim of a smear campaign early in 2002 and has never been quite rehabilitated. More information here and here. If there are any decent Republicans left, they have to be bothered by the Rove administration's propensity for smearing professionals, even former staff members, who dare to disagree with Bush.
7/21/2004
It Started in April -- Smearing the Report
There are three well-planned, coordinated Republican smear operations underway, designed to discredit key accusers who told us that the Bush administration was asleep on the job before 9/11.
I'll bet if you took a poll of voters, at least 40% of the likely voters would call these the biggest stories of the election, while most of those on our side of the political spectrum have barely even heard about them. The context of the smears is to destroy the credibility of those accusing Bush of not paying attention before 9/11, and of lying about WMD before the Iraq war, and, finally, to blame Clinton for all of it. It is ALL OVER the Right-wing media, but is largely "under the radar" for most of us.
The first smear is the "Gorelick memo." This is a bit complicated, but is a key to this effort to shift blame from Bush to Clinton. It started in April, and lays the groundwork for the second smear I'll be talking about. During the 9/11 hearings Attorney General Ashcroft accused former Clinton Justice Department official Jamie Gorelick of having written a memo that caused agencies of the government to not share information that would have been crucial to learning that the 9/11 plot was underway. It is called the "Wall of Separation" memo. (Note the allusion to the hated "Wall of Separation" between church and state.) Some background from an April National Review column:
The second is this week's Sandy Berger smear. If you just read the newspapers, it doesn't seem like a big deal. But if you pay attention to the Right's channels of communication, it is a very big deal. On talk radio it is the ONLY thing.
The NY Times has a little story about Berger today, A Kerry Adviser Leaves the Race Over Missing Documents
But all day yesterday on Limbaugh's show, and Beck's, and others, it was a different story. Limbaugh, Trousergate: Serious: Theft of Papers Showing Al-Qaeda in US Under Clinton is HUGE:
The third component is the Joe Wilson story. Joe Wilson is the guy who went to Niger, came back and said Iraq was not trying to buy uranium, and went public with this after Bush claimed Iraq WAS trying to. So in retaliation the Bush administration "outed" his wife, a covert CIA agent tracking down people who peddle WMDs. In preparation for the Berger story, and to counter the damage done by the White House's "outing" of his wife, the Right has been circulating a new batch of lies about Wilson. In A Right-Wing Smear Is Gathering Steam, Wilson writes,
Did you wonder why the Republican machine made such a big deal about Gorelick, and demanded that she resign from the 9/11 Commission? Well, now we know -- it was all preparation for this week. So, we have Gorelick, and by extension Clinton, preventing the government from sharing information. We have Wilson, and by extension Clarke and other accusers, discredited. And now we have Berger, the guy who led the effort to stop the Millenium bombing and who was trying to get the incoming Bush Administration to pay attention to al Queda, discredited.
Note that even Limbaugh credits Ashcroft with setting this all up in his April testimony to the 9/11 panel, obliquely referencing the things that were "leaked" this week. Remember, by April the entire Berger situation was over. But Ashcroft knew about it and they were using it to weave this tale to discredit critics of Bush.
Any why this week? Because this week the 9/11 Commission releases its report. And what happened was that the Clinton Administration was ALL OVER the terrorism threat, while the Bush Administration ignored it and went on vacation. That is the essence of what happened. That's the big picture. So how do they counter that? The same way they're countering ANOTHER big picture - that Kerry is a war hero and Bush didn't show up for even the light duty his daddy had arranged for him. How they do that is they spread a fog of smears so thick that people lose track of what really happened.
As Richard Clarke told us, when the government detected increased "chatter" in 1999 they TOOK ACTION. They convened a task force to see what was going on, and put top people on the problem, and coordinated, and stayed up nights, AND THEY CAUGHT THE MILENIUM BOMBERS. Contrast that with the Bush Administration before 9/11 -- on vacation, literally. And the 9/11 commission report comes out this week, and it is probably going to SAY that. Even if they don't explicitly say that, it's there and it will be the story. The Clinton Administration did their job, and governed. The Bush administration was never about governing, and we all have to live with the consequences.
So the Republicans have to knock this story down. The way Republicans fight back is with smears to discredit their accusers. They constructed a 3-part discrediting action that phased in, coming to a conclusion just before the commission releases its report.
Update - Go read this.
Update - this post was modified slightly about an hour after original posting - because Blogger went down for an hour while I was working on it.
I'll bet if you took a poll of voters, at least 40% of the likely voters would call these the biggest stories of the election, while most of those on our side of the political spectrum have barely even heard about them. The context of the smears is to destroy the credibility of those accusing Bush of not paying attention before 9/11, and of lying about WMD before the Iraq war, and, finally, to blame Clinton for all of it. It is ALL OVER the Right-wing media, but is largely "under the radar" for most of us.
The first smear is the "Gorelick memo." This is a bit complicated, but is a key to this effort to shift blame from Bush to Clinton. It started in April, and lays the groundwork for the second smear I'll be talking about. During the 9/11 hearings Attorney General Ashcroft accused former Clinton Justice Department official Jamie Gorelick of having written a memo that caused agencies of the government to not share information that would have been crucial to learning that the 9/11 plot was underway. It is called the "Wall of Separation" memo. (Note the allusion to the hated "Wall of Separation" between church and state.) Some background from an April National Review column:
"In his public testimony before the 9/11 Commission the other day, Attorney General John Ashcroft exposed Commissioner Jamie Gorelick's role in undermining the nation's security capabilities by issuing a directive insisting that the FBI and federal prosecutors ignore information gathered through intelligence investigations. But Ashcroft pointed to another document that also has potentially explosive revelations about the Clinton administration's security failures. Ashcroft stated, in part:More on this later. (Other related April Gorelick stories from the Right here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and so on. This just touches the surface of the attention the Right gave to this.)
... [T]he Commission should study carefully the National Security Council plan to disrupt the al Qaeda network in the U.S. that our government failed to implement fully seventeen months before September 11.What is Ashcroft talking about? An article in Reader's Digest, "Codes, Clues, Confessions" (March 2002; by Kenneth R. Timmerman), provides some valuable insight. It states, in part:
The NSC's Millennium After Action Review declares that the United States barely missed major terrorist attacks in 1999 ? with luck playing a major role. Among the many vulnerabilities in homeland defenses identified, the Justice Department's surveillance and FISA operations were specifically criticized for their glaring weaknesses. It is clear from the review that actions taken in the Millennium Period should not be the operating model for the U.S. government.[. . .] When the Department of Justice began interviewing "Norris"/Ressam, they didn't have a clue who he was. But Judge Bruguière did. He called the Department of Justice, and offered prosecutors his file on Ressam and his ties to al Qaeda. At the time, Bruguiere said, DOJ had no idea what a big catch they had, nor did DOJ have access to any intelligence about Ressam's ties to al-Qaeda. Ultimately, because of "The Wall" Bruguiere had to testify for seven hours in Seattle to lay out the al Qaeda connection to help U.S. prosecutors make their case against Ressam.In other words, the "wall of separation" constructed by Jamie Gorelick made it virtually impossible for U.S. authorities to stop Ahmed Rassam, the "Millenium Bomber," by design or intention. It was left to blind luck. The NSC's Millennium After Action Review ? which, based on Attorney General Ashcroft's testimony, must be devastating in its analysis of not only this event but of the Gorelick policy ? remains classified. And, most significantly, it's likely the Review's criticisms and warnings were either ignored or rejected by the Clinton Justice Department. ..."
The second is this week's Sandy Berger smear. If you just read the newspapers, it doesn't seem like a big deal. But if you pay attention to the Right's channels of communication, it is a very big deal. On talk radio it is the ONLY thing.
The NY Times has a little story about Berger today, A Kerry Adviser Leaves the Race Over Missing Documents
Mr. Berger's aides acknowledged that when he was preparing last year for testimony before the Sept. 11 commission, he removed from a secure reading room copies of a handful of classified documents related to a failed 1999 terrorist plot to bomb the Los Angeles airport. Republicans accused him on Tuesday of stashing the material in his clothing, but Mr. Breuer called that accusation "ridiculous" and politically inspired. He said the documents' removal was accidental.No big deal.
But all day yesterday on Limbaugh's show, and Beck's, and others, it was a different story. Limbaugh, Trousergate: Serious: Theft of Papers Showing Al-Qaeda in US Under Clinton is HUGE:
"The 9/11 commission leaked this. This is a 9/11 commission leak, I think, and I'm wondering. The White House claims they didn't know about this investigation, even though the justice department was doing it. I'll tell you what this does. This puts this into even greater context. You remember when Ashcroft showed up and testified on television even before the commission and outed Jamie Gorelick with her memo that built the wall? I think this places a lot of that in greater context now, why he did that. I think he might have been -- he couldn't discuss the investigation, but he was letting everybody know what he did know. [. . .] When he went in there to "inadvertently" purloin these documents and stuff 'em down his pants, there was no Clinton administration. He was sent in there by Bill Clinton, not the Clinton "administration."Let me clear one thing up - nothing is "missing". The documents that Berger took out were copies of drafts of the memos. But the entire premise of Limbaugh's - and the rest of the Right's - massive explosion yesterday is that Berger took and shredded the only copies of documents criticizing Clinton. It is just a lie. But it is repeated and repeated and repeated -- and Limbaugh's audience is very large. And for those that missed it on Limbaugh the same story was on every other right-wing talk show I tuned in yesterday.
[. . .] Here I am laughing about it, but it's big. This is big, and I'll tell you why. It's the stuff that was stolen, the stuff that's probably now been shredded, the stuff that he just inadvertently sloppily can't find.
[. . .] You know what those documents contained? Elements of evidence that Al-Qaeda was in the country in 1999! It's all part of this millennium plot that the Clinton administration tried to take a lot of credit for stopping when in fact it was just good police work by a single Customs agent. It was not the results of any directive. This all came out in the 9/11 commission report as well, or hearings. But what's missing is that there are documents elevating, or detailing elements of, Al-Qaeda entry into the United States in 1999, and so when Sandy Burglar says, "Yeah, well, I was sent by the Clinton administration," da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da, of course he was sent there by Bill Clinton to get the evidence out. That's what one of the suspicions is, because the whole point of all this has been to shove every bit of Al-Qaeda, 9/11 blame onto the Bush administration. So, you know, none of this is an accident. You don't go in there and inadvertently take things out when you're the national security advisor! You know what the rules are.
[. . .] And you know who he's working for now is John Kerry. Now, how much of what he saw did he pass on to John Kerry? Is it time maybe for John Kerry to have something to say about this? I mean, look at two of Kerry's advisors: Joe Wilson -- now patented liar -- and Sandy Berger, thief. Well, presumed, alleged thief. Oh, he admitted it. He's a thief. He admitted he took the documents, a sloppy, sloppy thief. I think it's time for Senator Kerry here to maybe tell us a little bit more than just that he went to Vietnam: what he thinks of some of his advisors.
[. . .] Now, look, there are many of us, uh, ladies and gentlemen, who suspect that one of the objectives of the 9/11 commission Democrats is to deflect any blame or association for any acts of terrorism on this country to inaction or lackadaisical behavior, laziness on the part of the Clinton administration -- and the reason we believe this is because we know that the Clinton people have been hauling ass trying to rewrite a legacy for this man.
They have been doing everything they can to erase the Monica Lewinsky image from everybody's frontal lobe when they think and hear the name Bill Clinton, and so Clinton has been doing everything he can to rehab his image. He has a very large coterie of loyal supporters, one of whom is on the 9/11 commission, one of whom should have been a witness, not a member -- one of them, Jamie Gorelick, whose memo erected the wall that prevented intelligence from sharing information it gathered with law enforcement, and now we find out that Sandy Burglar, Clinton's #1 spook outside of the CIA. I mean this is the national security advisor guy!
[. . .] So you will pardon us if we have some doubts and suspicions about this when it's the critical assessments that are suspiciously missing. The former national security advisor himself, Sandy Burglar, had ordered his anti-terror czar Richard Clarke in early 2000 to write the after-action report. He has spoken publicly about how to review brought to the forefront a realization that Al-Qaeda had reached America's shores and required more attention. That's what's missing. Berger testified that during the millennium period, "We thwarted threats, and I do believe it was important to bring the principals together on a frequent basis to consider terror threats more regularly."
[. . .] Now, let's go back, and ask: "What is this really all about, folks?" because this, despite the obvious humorous aspects, this is really serious stuff because there is an ongoing effort to spare the Clinton administration -- and Bill Clinton personally -- of any responsibility whatsoever for anything that has happened deleteriously to this country in the world of terrorism.
[. . .] And something very, very suspicious about this information that was never put into action, and that's I think another reason why it's vanished. But this information clearly illustrations and I think points out how Al-Qaeda in 1999 and 2000 are in the country, and the United States government knew it, and they didn't put any plan into action to deal with it, and that's what they are deathly afraid of having been seen. So Sandy Berger has fallen on the sword -- and as Web Hubbell had to do, may have been asked to roll over here. The information was so obviously damning that he risked his career and freedom to take this information out of there and do who-knows-what with it, and that means, folks, that that report and those documents related to it provided advice and information relevant to the 9/11 attacks, some kind of complete breakdown which was not improved later otherwise it wouldn't have been necessary to get rid of it, and that's the bottom line. Take all this sloppiness out. Take all this inadvertently out." [all emphasis added]
The third component is the Joe Wilson story. Joe Wilson is the guy who went to Niger, came back and said Iraq was not trying to buy uranium, and went public with this after Bush claimed Iraq WAS trying to. So in retaliation the Bush administration "outed" his wife, a covert CIA agent tracking down people who peddle WMDs. In preparation for the Berger story, and to counter the damage done by the White House's "outing" of his wife, the Right has been circulating a new batch of lies about Wilson. In A Right-Wing Smear Is Gathering Steam, Wilson writes,
"For the last two weeks, I have been subjected ? along with my wife, Valerie Plame ? to a partisan Republican smear campaign. In right-wing blogs and on the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and the National Review, I've been accused of being a liar and, worse, a traitor."This story is all over the Right-wing media. From the same Limbaugh show,
"I mean, look at two of Kerry's advisors: Joe Wilson -- now patented liar -- and Sandy Berger, thief."In other words, don't believe anything you may have heard about the White House "outing" a CIA agent, and, by extension, anything about Bush lying about WMDs in Iraq.
Did you wonder why the Republican machine made such a big deal about Gorelick, and demanded that she resign from the 9/11 Commission? Well, now we know -- it was all preparation for this week. So, we have Gorelick, and by extension Clinton, preventing the government from sharing information. We have Wilson, and by extension Clarke and other accusers, discredited. And now we have Berger, the guy who led the effort to stop the Millenium bombing and who was trying to get the incoming Bush Administration to pay attention to al Queda, discredited.
Note that even Limbaugh credits Ashcroft with setting this all up in his April testimony to the 9/11 panel, obliquely referencing the things that were "leaked" this week. Remember, by April the entire Berger situation was over. But Ashcroft knew about it and they were using it to weave this tale to discredit critics of Bush.
Any why this week? Because this week the 9/11 Commission releases its report. And what happened was that the Clinton Administration was ALL OVER the terrorism threat, while the Bush Administration ignored it and went on vacation. That is the essence of what happened. That's the big picture. So how do they counter that? The same way they're countering ANOTHER big picture - that Kerry is a war hero and Bush didn't show up for even the light duty his daddy had arranged for him. How they do that is they spread a fog of smears so thick that people lose track of what really happened.
As Richard Clarke told us, when the government detected increased "chatter" in 1999 they TOOK ACTION. They convened a task force to see what was going on, and put top people on the problem, and coordinated, and stayed up nights, AND THEY CAUGHT THE MILENIUM BOMBERS. Contrast that with the Bush Administration before 9/11 -- on vacation, literally. And the 9/11 commission report comes out this week, and it is probably going to SAY that. Even if they don't explicitly say that, it's there and it will be the story. The Clinton Administration did their job, and governed. The Bush administration was never about governing, and we all have to live with the consequences.
So the Republicans have to knock this story down. The way Republicans fight back is with smears to discredit their accusers. They constructed a 3-part discrediting action that phased in, coming to a conclusion just before the commission releases its report.
Update - Go read this.
Update - this post was modified slightly about an hour after original posting - because Blogger went down for an hour while I was working on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)