Public Nuisance |
|
|
Random commentary and senseless acts of blogging.
The first Republican president once said, "While the people retain their virtue and their vigilance, no administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can seriously injure the government in the short space of four years." If Mr. Lincoln could see what's happened in these last three-and-a-half years, he might hedge a little on that statement. Blog critics Gryffindor House Slytherin House Ravenclaw House House Elves Beth Jacob Prisoners of Azkaban Muggles
Party Animals:
Jewish Bloggers Join >>  
|
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Kevin Drum says that Gephardt has the inside track to be Kerry's VP. Like Kevin, I deeply hope this is wrong. Kevin focuses on Gephardt's lack of national security expertise. That's a valid concern, but my primary worry is that, as a long-term Washington insider who is an uninspiring campaigner, last thing Kerry needs on the ticket is somebody with the same negatives. On the plus side, I'd love to have a VP debate on the topic "My daughter's queerer than your daughter".
Monday, March 29, 2004
Contradictions The last week has been dominated by claims that Richard Clarke's current description of the Bush administration is contradicted by his earlier accounts, even to suggesting a charge of perjury. Most of the accounts have focussed on the briefing Clarke gave in August 2002, praising Bush as an off the record White House aide. I was unable to find a transcript of Clarke's commission testimony, but a good summary of Clarke's positions can be found in his 60 Minutes interview, this talk with Salon, and his interview on MTP. The spin on the briefing is certainly different from what Clarke is saying today, but a careful comparison shows that the factual picture given is not inconsistent. From 2002:
Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. This is the only point where I find any problem in reconciling Clarke's accounts factually. Clarke was questioned on this later and repeated that no plan was given to Rice when she took office.
QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?
I want Dr. Rice's testimony before the 9-11 Commission declassified, and I want the thing that the 9-11 Commission talked about in its staff report this week declassified, because there's been an issue about whether or not a strategy or a plan or something useful was given to Dr. Rice in early January. And she says it wasn't. So we now have the staff report of the 9-11 Commission, and it says, "On January 25th, Clarke forwarded his December strategy paper to the new national security adviser, and it proposed covert action to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, significantly increasing CIA funding, retaliating for the USS Cole, arming the Predator aircraft, going after terrorist fund raising."
Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office ? issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.
All of this is emphasizing the continuity of policy on counter-terror activities between the Clinton and Bush administrations. But Clarke's criticism of Bush isn't that he adopted a new policy on terror, but that he and his aides failed to take it seriously, which the Clinton team did. Thus, although the official policy remained the same, less was actually done.
So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda. This is the main basis for the suggestion that Bush was preparing a more aggressive response to al Qaeda before 9/11. However, it's unclear whether the plan to increase the CIA covert action resources was specifically aimed at al Qaeda. In either case, no attempt was made to increase current funding, putting off action against Bin Laden to October, when the funds would actually be available, at the earliest.
The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies - and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.
This restates the point, agreed on in Clarke's recent testimony, that on Sept 4 the Bush national security principals finally did meet and approve the January plan in principle. Clarke puts the empahasis on the actions that were ultimately taken rather than on the delay, and gives an excuse for the delay, that key personnel weren't in place in some cases until early summer. This isn't an entirely unreasonable excuse, but the truth is that Bush was able to get things done in numerous areas between Jan 20 and Sep 11. The reality of missing personnel in some departments made counter-terror initiatives harder, but they still could have been undertaken had they been a priority.
Some other moments in the questioning are quite interesting.
QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the ? general animus against the foreign policy?
Note the clever non-denial denial. Clarke cites his own retention (but not his de facto demotion) and says it "doesn't sound like animus". He never actually denies that animus against Clinton did warp the Bush policy, although on a careless reading he appears to.
Clarke: One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.
There was a decision in June 2001 to seek improved ties with Pakistan, while continuing to ask for Pakistani assistancce in getting the Taliban to expel or turn over Bin Laden. This may well have been a good choice, and perhaps contributed to Musharraf's decision after 9/11 to assist in the overthrow of the Taliban. But it also means that Pakistan was given somewhat improved relations withou actually delivering any results as far as acting against al Qaeda, which it was implicitly supporting as the main sponsor of the Taliban, while key Pakistani officials gave al Qaeda active support including warning Bin Laden in 1998 of the planned cruise missile attack against him.
Clarke: And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination. This is the other incident cited to back up the story that Bush was engaged on a tougher line against al Qaeda before 9/11, and often cited in the past week by White House spinners. But it is really a classic example of Bush fecklessness rather than foresight. Bush didn't have a detailed discussion of the problems involved in going after al Qaeda, he didn't approve or request any specific action, and he never followed up the many times that al Qaeda was discussed in his daily briefings.
It's actually classic Dubya. Rather than take the serious steps needed to address a real problem, just assume that once you set your Texan genitalia swinging in the breeze, the display of bumptious machismo will overcome all obstacles.
The main elements of Clarke's case against Bush are the obsession with Iraq before and after 9/11, the lack of a serious response to the threats of terror activity that were visible in the late spring and summer of 2001, the low emphasis placed on the problem of terrorism prior to 9/11, and the poor choice to invade Iraq after. None of this is contradicted by what Clarke said in August, 2002. In the one area where there is a potential contradiction, the document prepared for Condi Rice on Jan 24, the commission's own reports confirm that his more recent statements are the more reliable. Furthermore, only in a few details is it necessary to rely on Clarke as a witness. The Iraq fixation, for instance, was confirmed by Paul O'Neill as well as by the anonymous sources that General Clark often cited during his campaign - for which he was viciously attacked by GOP spinners. Bush himself admitted to Bob Woodward that terrorism had been a low priority before 9/11. Even the attacks on Clarke have often served to underline his essential points - they have suggested that he is bitter because his mandate was reduced and he was demoted, but the very fact that these things happened is an indication of how unserious the Dubya team was about terrorism prior to 9/11. Thursday, March 18, 2004
Suggestions that the recent elections in Spain are a victory for "appeasement" insult both the character and the intelligence of the Spanish voters. Quite apart from the moral implications of trying to buy radical Islamists off, there is no evidence that any way exists to do so. One of the striking points of the war with al Qaeda is that it appears to be absolute. Al Qaeda has never proposed peace terms. It has made only one major demand, the removal of American forces from Saudi Arabia. The Bush administration is in the process of complying with this demand, although none of those who denounce Zapatero for appeasement seem troubled by this. And it probably isn't why Bush has now been endorsed bu the al Qaeda faction that, perhaps falsely, claims responsibility for the Madrid atrocities.
Spain is particularly likely to remain a target for al Qaeda, since much of the nation was once Arab and it is is clear that the most extreme Muslims still regard it as occupied territory. It may well be significant that most of the current suspects are from Morocco - many of those who were driven from Spain after the fall of Granada settled in Morocco, where their descendants strill live. Even if Spain - or the US - were to declare Islam the state religion, abolish its legal structure in favor of sharia, and ban women from appearing in public unveiled, it might not be enough to satisfy al Qaeda. Saudi Arabia does all of these and more, and that doesn't prevent it from being a target.
There have been past terror attacks timed to coincide with national elections, possibly including the USS Cole attack of October, 2000. But there's no real evidence that any of these, including the Madrid attack, was specifically intended to affect the elections. Certainly it's doubtful that the goal was to remove hardline governments; Ariel Sharon was voted in partially as a reaction to some of the first major suicide bombings in Israel while Barak was in office. (Those bombings were organized by Palestinian factions, not al Qaeda.) Wednesday, March 10, 2004
This interview from Intervention has a lot of good material on the occupation of Iraq, as well as confirming the story that I blogged about earlier, that soldiers considered insufficiently loyal to George Bush were denied a Thanksgiving dinner so Bush would be guaranteed a big cheer from the troops. Sleep Well, America From an excellent recent article on counter-terrorism in TNR: Assessing the nation's thousands of vulnerable industrial sites, railways, electric grids, and so on is supposed to be central to the DHS mission. But 30 months after September 11, almost nothing has been done. Last year, an impatient Congress asked DHS to produce a plan for its nationwide risk assessment--not the actual assessment, just a plan for devising it--by December 15, 2003. The deadline came and went. Two days later, the White House quietly issued a directive giving DHS an entire year to develop a "plan" explaining its "strategy" for how to examine infrastructure. An actual infrastructure analysis, one DHS official told Congress last fall, could take five years. Let's review that for a moment. The original target was not something wildly unreasonable, like 'actually correct security failings in the near future'. It was, more than two years after 9/11 to have a plan of how to assess infrastructure security. That has been pushed back - the administration now expects to take 40 months after 9/11 before they have a plan. The actual assessment will be another five years. That means that, if he wins, Bush doesn't expect to have assessed infrastructure vulnerability to terrorists by the end of his second term. Actually correcting vulnerabilities will presumably take even longer - not to mention there's no money for it. This is from an administration whose major claim is their effectiveness in fighting terrorists. It's the only area in which poll show Bush with a large advantage over Kerry. If people find out just how weak the Bush anti-terror effort is, he's going to be in deep trouble. Monday, March 01, 2004
With one day to go before the California primary, there's little effort by either presidential campaign here and very little noticable interest among voters. Edwards and kerry have small offices in Northern and Southern California, but don't seem to be running paid media. The only candidate running normal ads is Kucinich.
I also caught one ad from LaRouche, a rather bizarre 30 minute speech broadcast in it's entirety. In the speech, LaRouche strongly condemned Albert Gallatin, Jeremy Bentham, and Martin van Buren, while never mentioning, that I noticed, George Bush or any contemporary issue. His knowledge of history was impressive, although the interpretations, invariably delivered ex cathedra, were probably 95% crackpot. The audience, apparently as stunned by this strange display as I was, never once interrupted, although he was given a standing ovation at the end.
There is a race to challenge Barbara Boxer for the Senate, but if the candidates are advertising at all, they aren't doing so here in the Republican-poor districts of the Bay Area.
The voter interest, as far as I can tell, is no higher than the advertising budgets. |
