Saddamn's weapons

Dana Priest and Dana Milbank wrote another great story on the hunt for WMD in Iraq in Saturday's Washington Post. David Kay released his report on Iraqi WMD today. Here are the interesting developments:

1. No evidence was found that Iraq tried to purchase Uranium from Niger.
2. Another unnamed African country tried to sell uranium to Iraq, but Hussein turned them down.
3. Iraq attempted to buy missile parts from Korea. The missiles would have been No Dong (1300 km range) missiles. Korea pocketed the money and never shipped the missiles (2001). These missiles violated UN weapons sanctions.
4. Kay estimated that Iraq was 5-7 years away from developing a nuclear weapons program (he didn't mention if that was WITH or WITHOUT inspectors pestering Saddam 365 days a year)
5. Iraq had no significant chemical or nuclear weapons program in place (although they had small quantities of germs).
6. Iraqi scientists have been particularly cooperative in the last 30 days. Some have been moved to other countries for their own safety.

How does this report play politically? Well, Bush has been citing it all week as a victory for his side and a justification for the war. We all know that this is ludicrous. To demonstrate Bush's inability to grasp this issue, the Post quotes him in May saying, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction," after the US found several empty trailers in Southern Iraq.

Of course we were led to war under false pretenses, of course the WMD will not ever be found, and of course they never existed in any significant quantity. This issue is dead, it's been beat into people's heads endlessly. If I were Bush, I'd just let it die and stop making brash assertions about "being right all along". Most people know that the WMD don't exist, and most people don't care. Getting rid of Hussein is justification enough for most of the public, post-de-facto. It wouldn't have flown before the war, of course.

Brilliant

Roses are red
Violets are blue
Oh my, lump in the bed
How I've missed you.
Roses are redder
Bluer am I
Seeing you kissed by that charming French guy.
The dogs and the cat, they missed you too
Barney's still mad you dropped him, he ate your shoe
The distance, my dear, has been such a barrier
Next time you want an adventure, just land on a carrier.

By George W. Bush

Brilliant...

More on Rush

Here's an Allen Barra column (slate) that is somewhat controversial, but I think it should be read, especially by liberals who are apt to just immediately jump on everything Rush says.
Allen Barra's column

The guy IS a racist. Say Barra's right...MAYBE he's not being racist in this incident. But he certainly has been racist in many other incidents.

Study - misperceptions on Iraq related directly to which news broadcast one watches

A Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) study found that those who watch Fox News are more likely to have certain misperceptions about the war in Iraq. The study looked at three common misperceptions -

1. That Iraq perpetrated the 9-11 attacks.
2. That Iraq was connected to Al Qaida.
3. That WMD have been found.

Here are their results:
80% of Fox News watchers had at least one of these misperceptions
71% for CBS
61% for ABC
55% for NBC
55% for CNN
47% for Print Sources
23% for NPR/PBS

Here are the percentages of people who had NONE of these misconceptions:
Fox - 20%
CBS - 30%
ABC - 39%
NBC - 45%
CNN - 45%
Print Sources - 53%
NPR/PBS - 77%

This study seems to suggest that 1. the accuracy of the public's information is directly related to their source of news (an important point that political scientists are arguing furiously over right now) and 2. Fox News watchers are misinformed compared to those who watch straight news like NPR or PBS or those who read print sources. The study also found a strong correlation between those who had misperceptions and those who supported the war (something that most of us on the left have suspected for a while). Here is the study - seriously, take a look at it. It'll be much more convincing if you read the methods and the fine print:

PIPA Study

Rush

Ok, at the request of my good friend Robert Fraker, here is a post about Rush Limbaugh:

He's a big fat idiot.

More on that story as it develops...

Israeli wall

Here's a LA Times news story on Israel's wall.

What is my opinion? Well, the area of contention here is WHERE the wall is going to be built, not whether it is going to be built. Should it encompass many west bank Jewish settlements?

Honestly, I don't really care at this point. If the wall truly provides security, then the terrorist government of Palestine can take the scraps of land that they've been given and be happy that the occupation is over. If the wall does not end suicide bombings, or at least curb them significantly, then it is pointless. Only time will tell.

Obviously this wall is going to hurt a lot of Palestinians who commute and work in Israel, but until their "democratically" elected government commits to rooting out terrorists, then they can expect things like jobs in Israel to disappear.

On the plus side for Palestinians, now they can have a state. They haven't had elections since the mid 90s, so that would also be a positive step. They can create a liberal democracy that will be an example for the Middle East. I think the US would be willing to support such a state with vast quantities of aid.

Another plus for Israel - once the security issue is addressed, conservative reactionists like Sharon can be voted out of office, and the reconciliation process between Israel and Palestine can begin.

It's all the lawyers fault!

Medical costs are rising. Should we blame improvements in technology (and therefore, better actual medical precedures - bang for your buck), lack of public funding, or deregulation of the medical industry? No. Let's blame lawyers!

Lawyers, like all historical scape goats, are easy to attack, but are they at fault for rising health care costs (or even rising insurance costs for physicians?) Check out this Washington Monthly article for more information (it's kind of a followup and rebuttle to a piece in the New York Times Magazine recently.

Arnold groped some women

Will this hurt his chances? I think it will hurt a bit. But, as they say on the stock market, the electorate has already weighed and internalized Arnold's past and present rudeness towards women. There was already enough news of Arnold's bad behavior out there that those who would be affected by that information have probably already decided to change sides.

I actually think this allegation could hurt Davis as much as Arnold (although not Bustamante). Many see it as a last ditch effort by the Davis camp to smear Arnold's name. Is it? Well, sure. But the charges are legitimate charges to bring against another canididate.

Let me explain my views on sex allegations in politics. Anything should be game, EXCEPT for affairs. Those are not important (unless the affair exposes the candidate as a hypocrite).

Parallel with Dean?

Let's look at the different comparisons that people have thrust upon Dean. Then I'll give you my own personal belief -

1. Media Darling Candidate - Paul Tsongas, John McCain, Ross Perot, and Gary Hart all enjoyed this status - before eventually crashing and burning because their blunt insurgency candidates challenged party institutions (I lump Perot in here because he certainly challenged the institutional party status quo). All of these candidates had a few moments in the lead, but never seriously challenged for the nomination (or the presidency in Perot's case). Dean, however, is the frontrunner right now. He has double the money or anyone else and is clearly ahead of the pack, so I don't think this comparison stands up.

2. Dean as the Ghost of Landslide Past - This comparison traditionally includes McGovern and Mondale, but I'd like to add Goldwater. Essentially people are saying that Dean represents a very narrow regional constituency and that he will be trounced in the general election. While there is quite a bit I agree with in this analysis, I think it needs to be qualified. This is a different time period. The country is ideologically polarized. Democrats and Republicans are all piled into their own respective states, and there are very few toss ups. So while I don't think Dean has as good of a chance to win as Kerry or Clark, I DO think he can win many states and make it quite close.

3. Jimmy Carter comparison - Carter of course was a Georgia anti-establishment Governor who rose out of the ashes of the Nixon presidency Watergate scandal. I don't see any scandal of that magnitude occurring in the Bush Administration (although we'll have to watch the Wilsongate scandal). Carter's candidacy was based on the fact that 1. he was anti-Washington (the first candidate to really convey this campaign theme) 2. he was NOT Nixon or associated with Nixon and 3. he was a Southern Democrat. Dean certainly is an anti-establishment candidate, but in the post 9-11 era, do voters really want that? I think the only valid comparison between Carter and Dean is that the Democratic Party was/is scared to death of either one of them getting the nomination.

4. My comparison - I'd compare Dean with Ronald Reagan in the 1976/1980. Reagan was trying to move his party to the right with pure, unabashed conservatism. He felt that there was a huge, untapped reserve of voters who were conservative and would just itching to vote for that unapologetically conservative candidate, but had never been presented with him. He also saw the Democrats as a party that was representing very narrow interests, and took great care to point it out.
Similarly, Dean thinks that the country has been hijacked by Conservatives who don't represent the views of most in America. He wants to "take America back" just like Reagan wanted to "make America proud again." It's a similar argument - that America is being represented by the wrong people - Democracy itself is not functioning. Both Reagan and Dean prescribed a whole new course for America and a realignment of the parties. Dean is not McGovern or Mondale, hopelessly clinging to the tattered remains of the 60s New Left. He's trying to forge a modern movement.

Who knows whether he'll succeed. I don't know if these "unrepresented people" really exist out there. Sure, they exist at the margins (enough of them exist to help a pragmatic Democrat be elected) but we are a very conservative society. This kind of liberal revolution will probably not take, at least not in 2004. If Democrats win next year, it will because Bush fumbled and a pragmatic and likeable candidate picked up the ball. I don't think the type of cultural revolution that Dean has in mind is ready to happen.

David Kay's report

As expected, David Kay will reveal nothing of substance in his WMD report today. Does this matter? Most conservatives' arguments in the Spring when the WMD weren't turning up were, "They'll turn up eventually." What do they argue now?

Sleeping scandals and media caution

It's interesting how these scandals incubate for several months and then creep to the surface. The only thing that is new about the Wilsongate scandal is the Justice Department's intention to investigate - the facts have remained nearly the same since July. I'm not blaming the media for ignoring this story for so long - this is pretty typical of scandal coverage. I think the media should err on the side of caution when it comes to investigating these things. Remember Monica? When a reporter prints something, the urge is for partisans to grab it, circulate it, and claim it as truth just because it's "out there". I urge caution among fellow liberals not to become spinsters of lies and deceit. Be especially cautious of media reports that cite only one anonymous source (especially if the source is given the ambiguous title, "administration official". If everything that was ever attributed to anonymous sources was true, then President Clinton would be guilty of several counts of rape and murder.

On another note - there has been much criticism of Robert Novak's decision to release the name of Wilson's wife. Most of it is in liberal circles. I don't see that criticism as legitimate. If a government source wants to play dirty tricks, then I think that's a legitimate news story. It probably would have been more advisable for Novak or one of the other 5 reporters contacted to just write a story, "Bush administration official tries to leak CIA operative's name". That's the newsworthy part of the leak.

Holy Mother of Edwards!!!

According to a recent poll, John Edwards (I repeat) John Edwards is in the lead in South Carolina by a substantial margin. Now nevermind that 46% are undecided or that he's the only candidate to advertise in this state, let alone put much campaigning in.

Here's the problem for Edwards. Even if he leads in South Carolina up until Iowa (which he probably won't), he will still lose all momentum with a sixth place finish in Iowa and New Hampshire (which he's heading for right now). Furthermore, whoever wins these states will be ensured at least a strong finish in South Carolina, if history is any judge. So, Edwards had better start pounding his chest about this lead, TODAY. If he can somehow frame South Carolina as an important Southern state and part of some sort of early primary trio (seriously, he should start using rhetoric like that - "Iowa/New Hampshire/South Carolina: the crucial early primary trio. My candidacy is leading in one of these important states.") then he might just make some headway and truly become a first tier candidate. I doubt it will happen, personally. I'm really just trying to think of some creative ways that Edwards could make his way into this race (just like I was trying to think of some creative ways that Davis and Bustamante could win in my last post).

Recall coverage
Well, the media has pretty much written Bustamante off. I'm not so sure that he should be written off. First of all, Arianna's recent self-sacrifice should add a few points to Bustamante's column. Her cruel words towards Arnold might also invigorate a few more lefties to go out and support Bustamante. I think Davis' goose is cooked, barring something dramatic happening in the next week, but Bustamante still has a shot. The latest LA Times poll has him down only 6 points, and that does not factor in Huffington's exit from the race.

Of course, this might all be wishful thinking on my part. Many of these supposed McClintock supporters might decide not to throw their vote away come recall time and might decide to support Arnold. Of course, I would suspect that many of them might not even show up (many on the right are obviously disgusted by Arnold's social liberalism). I'm afraid that this is Gray Davis' only hope - that McClintock's supporters, seeing that they cannot win, decide not to vote (rather than throwing their vote to Arnold). This is quite a stretch, I admit, but it would be quite a stretch to see Davis win this recall.

As for Bustamante - he needs to hope that Latino turnout is ridiculously high. I think Arnold's post-debate high will wear off slightly as the election approaches. Apparently he won the debate. I suppose, like Bush, he beat expectations (the expectation was that he'd grope Ms. Huffington or make a sexist comment). When the bar is low...

I do have to admit that Bustamante's performance was uninspired. He looked confused, medicated, and depressed. Arnold and Arianna's exchanges were amusing, albeit unprofessional.

Wilson's role in the first Bush Administration

Here is a quote (from a Washington Post article) that describes Joseph Wilson. I just figured I'd post it because the man has been attacked quite a bit lately.

In 1990, while sheltering more than a hundred Americans at the U.S. Embassy and diplomatic residences, he briefed reporters while wearing a hangman's noose instead of a necktie -- a symbol of defiance after Hussein threatened to execute anyone who didn't turn over foreigners.

The message, Wilson said: "If you want to execute me, I'll bring my own [expletive] rope."

This toughness impressed President George H.W. Bush, who called Wilson a "truly inspiring" diplomat who exhibited "courageous leadership" by facing down Hussein and helping to gain freedom for the Americans before the 1991 war began.

His critics are denouncing him as a liberal hack, but this man much more than that. He's a hero and a patriot for standing up for what is right, in 1990 AND in 2003.

Right wingers still contend that Plume was not undercover

According to Newsmax.com, Joe Wilson came out today and admitted that his wife, Valerie Plume, was not an undercover agent. Here is the exchange that they site:

Asked if the leak "in any way put your wife in danger," Wilson told ABC's "Good Morning America" host Charlie Gibson, "Well, not that I'm aware of."

The Bush administration critic said that while there was always the potential that a CIA employee could become a target, he reiterated, "I don't have any specific threats to talk about at all."

What does any of that prove? Just because he's not aware of any threats doesn't mean they don't exist. And just because he's not aware of any threats doesn't mean she's not a covert agent. The right wingers can continue to try to spin this propaganda, but after a while, it's going to stop working - especially once the subpoenas start rolling in.

Bush makes courageous stand against leaks

Today Bush said, and I quote, "Leaks of classified information are bad things, and we've had too many lately in Washington. We've had leaks from the executive branch and leaks from the legislative branch. I want to know who the leakers are.

George W. Bush
September 30th, 2003"

Bush is trying to lump this event with other leaks, but the difference here is clear - this leak 1. put lives in danger, and 2. this leak was intended to silence CIA critics of the Administration.

Here's another quote:

"Don't you think this is more serious than some third-rate burglary? It would be worst than Watergate, wouldn't it?"
-Chris Matthews

10 years in jail. That's what we're talking about here. That's the punishment for this crime. Who would have access to this information? A high ranking Bush Administration official.

My guess is that the Administration was feeling invincible. They'd just won a war and they were riding high. This was the result of carelessness. I am convinced that this was orchestrated at the highest political level at the White House. I know I'm repeating myself here, but I smell blood, and I think the only way to win this is to pound the message over and over. Democrats cannot let this die.

An outright lie

Right wing rhetoric yesterday was, "She's an analyst, not a spy."

That was a lie propagated by Robert Novak. According to a White House memo written by Albert Gonzalez, "We were informed last evening by the Department of Justice that it has opened an investigation into possible unauthorized disclosures concerning the identity of an undercover CIA employee (emphasis added)."

Novak's undeniable claim

If Plume is just an analyst, and Novak claims, why hasn't she come forward and done interviews and admitted to such? Because she's obviously an undercover agent. In which case, she can't come forward and announce herself as such. Either way, Novak wins (until someone else in the CIA leaks that she is an undercover agent, which is not likely to happen since the first leak caused such a controversy).

Novak is also claiming that HE called his source and tried to get information about Wilson. Regardless of who called who, it is clear that 6 other journalists were called by a White House official and given the information about Plume.

I can only conclude that Novak's claims are highly dubious and partisan.

Bob Novak changes his story

Bob Novak is now saying that Plume was an analyst and not an undercover agent. There would be no risk that I can think of in revealing Plume's name if she was only an analyst...but I'm skeptical. Wilson right now is mum about the whole thing.

Post and TPM on the story - the rest of the media snoozes

go to Talking Points Memo
or
the Washington Post
for ongoing coverage of the Wilsongate story. TPM has the full press conference transcript (audio available at CSPAN. From today's press conference, it's becoming apparent that the White House has NO STRATEGY in dealing with this scandal except for repeating the phrase, "the Justice Department is investigating".

Hilarious quote

This is from the Post article:

Wilson said Aug. 21 at a public forum in suburban Seattle that it is of keen interest to him "to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs."

I like it.

Framing is important as well

Other than kisses, sighs, and drunk driving, framing a candidacy is also important. I didn't mean to discount it. For example, Al Gore ran as an angry populist, and that helped him a great deal. Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative", and framing himself thusly helped shore up more female votes. My point still stands, however, that policy stands don't really have much of an effect on the race, although they contribute to the framing of the issues. The one exception would probably be HUGE issues like taxes and war. For example, Clark is framing himself as a moderate by supporting a middle class tax cut to replace the cuts on the rich.

Dream Candidate

I hear it all the time. "Don't you think Clark is just doing so well because people are treating him like a blank slate? They're attributing all of their favorite qualities to him even though they don't know anything about him?"

I think this is absurd. It assumes that people making their voting decisions on candidate's policy positions or other technicalities that we don't know about Clark. In the 2000 election, 3 issues shifted the poll numbers. 1. Gore's Kiss (helped Gore), 2. Gore's debate performance (helped Bush) and 3. Bush's DUI (helped Gore). Nothing else really moved the poll numbers. That's because these sort of superficial issues are the only important ones. My point is, if people want to "project" onto Clark, then that's fine. Aren't we really just "projecting" onto all of the candidates? Have any of us really ever met any of them? Sure, Clark hasn't revealed many policy stances, but does it matter? Does anyone really imagine that his policy stances will be so radical that they will scare voters away?

I don't mean to imply that Clark's numbers might not fall. They very well might. Excitement will die down eventually, but this isn't just some random Senator declaring. The reason why people are supporting Clark in droves right now is because he is clearly a very qualified and electable candidate.

Big day for Washington Post

The Washington Post had a big day today. They broke the Wilson story and they have a good article on the WMD intelligence.

What does all of this mean? Well, like I've said before, Bush's credibility will be further eroded. Missing WMD sort of became a forgotten issue - I'd argue it wasn't really a salient issue except among the left, but it's rising back into the foreground again.

The scandal involving Wilson's wife is probably the biggest scandal of the administration so far. Pay close attention to how they handle it. I wouldn't be surprised if Tenet or Rice are blamed and then dumped. Right now I'm betting on Rice. Tenet is brilliant at bureaucratic sniping and would probably take down someone with him were he canned. Rice has zero credibility right now, and frankly, she's done a terrible job as NSA, but Bush is good friends with her and that will play a factor. This is all speculation, of course, but I'm pretty sure that this is going to be a big scandal. Whoever leaked Plume's name (Wilson's wife) committed a felony and put Plume and her various contact's lives in danger, and they did it for political purposes. And like I said earlier, when Fox News turns against the administration, it has to be big.

Read today's TPM

I hate to just defer to someone else's blog, but today's Talking Points Memo does a pretty good job covering whole Ambassador Wilson controversy. Take a look at it and especially pay attention to seriousness that even Fox News is giving this story.