Wednesday, October 06, 2004 7:05:39 AM
WAR ROOM '04 -- October 5, 2004
"Taking out Zarqawi"
When Gwen Ifill first asked Dick Cheney about the new CIA report [ http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6422548 ] delivered to the White House last week that said there was "no conclusive evidence" that the Saddam Hussein regime had harbored Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- he dodged the question. But Ifill later returned to the topic, and Cheney had this to say[ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_1005.html ]:
"But let's look at what we know about Mr. Zarqawi. We know he was running a terrorist camp, training terrorists in Afghanistan prior to 9/11. We know that when we went into Afghanistan that he then migrated to Baghdad. He set up shop in Baghdad, where he oversaw the poisons facility up at Kermal (ph), where the terrorists were developing ricin and other deadly substances to use."
"We know he's still in Baghdad today. He is responsible for most of the major car bombings that have killed or maimed thousands of people. He's the one you will see on the evening news beheading hostages. He is, without question, a bad guy. He is, without question, a terrorist. He was, in fact, in Baghdad before the war, and he's in Baghdad now after the war."
"The fact of the matter is that this is exactly the kind of track record we've seen over the years. We have to deal with Zarqawi by taking him out, and that's exactly what we'll do."
But what Cheney didn't mention is that the administration had several chances to "take out" Zarqawi [ http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?day=20040304 ] in the run-up to the Iraq war, but chose not to.
-- Geraldine Sealey
[21:07 PDT, Oct. 5, 2004]
----------
Cheney's bad memory
There will be quite a bit of fact-checking of tonight's debate between Dick Cheney and John Edwards -- but the vice president probably didn't expect the corrections to begin with a conversation with Elizabeth Edwards on the stage in Cleveland directly after the debate.
During the debate, Cheney, trying to make the point that Edwards missed votes and was hardly ever in Washington, said: "You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate. Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of the Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session." And he ended with this zinger: "The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight."
Some pundits were very impressed, apparently, with this line from Cheney. Andrea Mitchell went on "Hardball" and said she thought Cheney did "awfully well at, first of all, putting John Edwards in his place, saying that I have been presiding over the Senate and I didn't meet you until tonight. Talking about his not having been on the job was pretty devastating." Except, it's not true.
He has, in fact, met Edwards, and Elizabeth Edwards corrected Cheney right after the debate, according to Kerry advisor David Ginsberg. The two men first met at a National Prayer Breakfast, the Kerry-Edwards campaign said -- here's the transcript [ http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:S4X7WDzDUcoJ:static.highbeam.com/w/washingtontranscriptservice/... ] -- and then later in the Senate when Edwards escorted fellow North Carolinian Elizabeth Dole to her swearing-in. (Update: The Kerry campaign now has a photographic evidence [ http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/Cheney-Edwards.jpg ]!)
-- Geraldine Sealey
[20:19 PDT, Oct. 5, 2004]
----------
Quick survey by CBS looks good for Edwards
CBS "instapoll" results, from 200 undecided voters nationwide:
"Who won?"
Edwards: 42 percent
Cheney: 29 percent
tie: 29 percent
"Debate improved your opinion of the candidate?"
Cheney: 29 percent, opinion improved
Edwards: 58 percent, opinion improved
And perhaps the most telling statistic of the quick survey, in light of moderator Gwen Ifill's question to Edwards regarding his qualifications to be within a "heartbeat" of the top job: 24 percent of the undecided voters polled by CBS apparently said that they were "scared" of the idea of Dick Cheney as president.
-- Mark Follman
[20:08 PDT, Oct. 5, 2004]
----------
The pre-debate sit & spin
With the presidential debate not scheduled to start until 9 p.m. Eastern time, hundreds of reporters who would be well into the cocktail hour back home find themselves stuck in Cleveland, waiting to watch the show on TV just like everybody else. Time moves very slowly.
You can kill a lot of it just wading through security. Reporters won't get anywhere near the candidates -- the press will watch the debate in a gymnasium next to the debate hall -- but the Secret Service apparently considers the Tad Devines and Karl Roves of the world worthy of full bomb-sniffing-dog protection. We came through with Fox's Chris Wallace, who passed the time by talking with an acquaintance -- not us -- about last week's presidential debate. Wallace said he was surprised that Bush wasn't better prepared for charges that he "fucked up" Iraq; he said folks in the Bush-Cheney campaign had assured him that they'd spent time hurling "insults" at the president, just so he could practice reacting by not reacting.
Inside the gym, Cheney advisor Mary Matalin spent a chunk of her afternoon pre-spinning NBC's David Gregory. CNN's Jeff Greenfield hung for a few minutes with Ben Ginsberg, the Bush campaign lawyer who resigned in August when it was revealed that he was also advising the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Ginsberg is here to spin, but only unofficially, of course. Upstairs at the gym, in a makeshift bar and grill where Anheuser-Busch plied reporters with free food, free beer and commemorative mugs, Time's Joe Klein got triple-teamed by Kerry-Edwards spinners Joe Lockhart, David Ginsberg and Jennifer Palmieri.
Outside the food hall, Sean Hannity posed for photos with some fans. His partner, Alan Colmes, wandered around the gym with his sunglasses on. Their fair-and-balanced colleagues were a little more businesslike. Shepard Smith stomped around looking pissed off, as he seems to do a lot at these things. Maybe it's his makeup; for all the Drudge-speak about John Kerry's orangey glow, Mr. Smith has looked positively pumpkinesque of late. The same can't be said for his colleague Carl Cameron. Fox's No. 1 fiction writer [ http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2004/10/01/fox_fake/inde... ] looked tan, rested and ready as he noodled about his laptop Tuesday afternoon. His nails were perfect.
-- Tim Grieve
[16:04 PDT, Oct. 5, 2004]
----------
A "sensitive situation"
Work in a war zone as a foreign correspondent, risk your life, and tell the truth about what you see, and you just might end up a problem employee at the center of a "sensitive situation" in your newsroom -- as Wall Street Journal reporter Farnaz Fassihi has become after a private e-mail she wrote about the deteriorating conditions in Iraq spread around the globe. You may remember Fassihi's missive [ http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/001161.html ], which was linked on several blogs and was the subject of news stories, but if not, here's an excerpt:
"Being a foreign correspondent in Baghdad these days is like being under virtual house arrest. Forget about the reasons that lured me to this job: a chance to see the world, explore the exotic, meet new people in far away lands, discover their ways and tell stories that could make a difference."
"Little by little, day-by-day, being based in Iraq has defied all those reasons. I am house bound. I leave when I have a very good reason to and a scheduled interview. I avoid going to people's homes and never walk in the streets. I can't go grocery shopping any more, can't eat in restaurants, can't strike a conversation with strangers, can't look for stories, can't drive in any thing but a full armored car, can't go to scenes of breaking news stories, can't be stuck in traffic, can't speak English outside, can't take a road trip, can't say I'm an American, can't linger at checkpoints, can't be curious about what people are saying, doing, feeling. And can't and can't. There has been one too many close calls, including a car bomb so near our house that it blew out all the windows. So now my most pressing concern every day is not to write a kick-ass story but to stay alive and make sure our Iraqi employees stay alive. In Baghdad I am a security personnel first, a reporter second."
As Editor & Publisher [ http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000653017 ] notes, Fassihi is now taking a "scheduled vacation" -- but whether she'll continue reporting for the Journal from Iraq after that is apparently still up in the air. "Barney Calame, deputy managing editor, declined to speak at length, but confirmed 'it's a very sensitive situation and it is one we are trying to make sure we all understand. Paul (Steiger) is involved and we are deciding on it collaboratively.' This raises the questions: Why is the situation 'sensitive,' and what do Journal editors have to decide about it?"
E&P goes on to point out, via a Hartford Courant report that queried other Baghdad-based reporters, that Fassihi's assessment, although intended for private distribution and not as a Journal-sanctioned report on the war, was an eloquent inside look at the reality in Baghdad.
"Alex Berenson, just back from Iraq for The New York Times, told Halloran that the Fassihi e-mail was 'entirely accurate in its description of reporting conditions.' Thanassi Cambanis, still in Iraq for The Boston Globe, described the risk of 'being carjacked, murdered, kidnapped or blown up.' Chicago Tribune reporter Colin McMahon, also in Baghdad, said, 'I spoke with a woman yesterday and I wanted to go to her house and interview her, and she said, 'No, I don't want an American seen coming to my house.'"
"[Courant reporter Liz Halloran] also asked what the reporters thought of charges that they were ignoring the 'good news' from Iraq. 'To write about a re-painting of a school when three car bombs go off killing how many dozens would be irresponsible journalism, I think,' Cambanis said. Asked the Times' Berenson: 'What good news are we supposed to be reporting when the murder rate in Baghdad has gone up 20-fold or more since we entered the city last year, and when we can't even walk the streets?'"
Does Fassihi deserve to lose her beat -- or do Americans deserve to know what's actually happening on the ground in Iraq, even if it clashes with the administration's rosy pronouncements?
-- Geraldine Sealey
[14:51 PDT, Oct. 5, 2004]
----------
Did Cheney break the law on 9/11?
For months the Bush administration fiercely resisted having the president and vice president testify before the 9/11 Commission. It was only under intense public pressure that the two leaders eventually agreed to do so -- and then only under the conditions that they would testify jointly, would not speak to the commission under oath, and that there would be no written material or transcript allowed from the session.
It was clearly the behavior of leaders who aimed to keep an airtight grip on the narrative of their minute-by-minute actions on that fateful day. A new report in Vanity Fair magazine reveals why Bush and Cheney may have wanted to remain in firm control of their story.
In its November issue (obtained by War Room), the magazine reports that after Bush and Cheney's all but hermetically sealed session with the 9/11 Commission, some of the bipartisan investigators remained highly skeptical of the duo's testimony that Cheney cleared his order with the president on 9/11 to have U.S. fighter jets shoot down hijacked civilian aircraft.
"Some members of the 9/11 commission and its staff are convinced that Cheney acted on his own -- before receiving the president's approval -- which would mean he broke the chain of command and, by exceeding his constitutional powers, acted unlawfully," the story says. "The final report of the 9/11 commission stops just short of saying that the conversation with the president before Cheney gave the order never happened ... the report goes as far as to say 'there is no documentary evidence for this call ...' Only after Cheney twice issued a shootdown order is there clear evidence that he called Bush and received authorization to order fighter jets to shoot down hijacked aircraft."
As one commission member told Vanity Fair on condition of anonymity, the panel was concerned about how to handle the politically explosive issue: "We purposely did not reach a conclusion. We just laid it out. Some people may read what we wrote and conclude the authorization call had not preceded the [shootdown] order. People can come to their own conclusion. We didn't want to be in the position of saying the president and the vice president were lying to us."
Bob Kerrey, the former Democratic senator from Nebraska and an outspoken member of the 9/11 commission, said: "We don't see that it happened the way he [Cheney] recalled it."
And one commissioner told the magazine (also anonymously) that the panel's members simply did not buy Cheney's account. "We tried to work out language that allows the reader to get that," he said, "without saying the vice president did not tell the truth."
Indeed, as the article further details, the bipartisan panel was forced to perform some linguistic acrobatics on the issue, after the White House applied intense pressure:
"A series of staff statements issued by the commission, as well as the final report, were first sent to the White House for review. The draft of staff statement No. 17, dealing with the shootdown, brought an angry letter from [White House counsel Alberto] Gonzales, objecting to the wording. Cheney also telephoned both [9/11 Commission leaders Thomas] Kean and [Lee] Hamilton, complaining vociferously about the language.
"Philip Zelikow, the commission's executive director, confirmed that changes were made, and approved by the commissioners, in both the staff statement and the final report after the White House letter was received and Cheney made his phone calls. But Zelikow said 'our fundamental judgment' had not changed. 'Which is the President and Vice President have offered an account. Their account could be true but we can't find corroborating documentary evidence to prove conclusively that it is true.'"
Such corroborating evidence of an earlier call to the president, the article adds, could not be found in two different sets of personal notes kept by Lynne Cheney and Lewis "Scooter" Libby -- both of whom accompanied the vice president in the secure bunker under the White House that morning -- nor in seven different phone logs kept by various White House operations, from the Secret Service to the White House Military Office.
-- Mark Follman
[14:07 PDT, Oct. 5, 2004]
----------
Mr. Vice President, meet Sen. Patrick Leahy
The pre-debate mind games have begun.
The Kerry-Edwards camp announced its list of surrogates and spinners for tonight's debate earlier today. Among them: Sen. Patrick Leahy. Now, Leahy hasn't played a central role in the Kerry campaign to date, but he'll be front and center tonight -- well, in the second row of the debate hall, at least -- to serve as a visual reminder of the injudicious language the vice president used in June on the Senate floor. You may remember the event: Cheney and Leahy got to talking, Leahy mentioned a company called Halliburton, and Cheney told Leahy to "fuck himself."
Sources in the Kerry-Edwards campaign told us that the Republicans have lodged a complaint. It wasn't immediately clear whether the complaint was lodged with the Commission on Presidential Debates or just with Kerry's debate negotiators. Either way, what is clear is that the Leahy appearance has gotten under somebody's skin. And the Democrats aren't done yet. Just a few minutes ago, the Democratic National Committee distributed Halliburton hospitality bags to the press corps. The contents included a small box of Tide -- a reminder of how a Halliburton subsidiary charged the military $100 for a 15-pound bag of laundry -- and "your very own no-bid contract."
We couldn't track down anybody from the Bush-Cheney campaign to comment, but we did find Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie roaming the press center just outside the debate hall. He didn't have the talking points, at least not yet. Asked about Leahy's appearance, he said: "I don't know what the rules are, but aren't senators allowed to come?"
-- Tim Grieve
[13:31 PDT, Oct. 5, 2004]
----------
In the polls
After the first presidential debate Gallup and Newsweek came up with somewhat different national poll results, but they reflected the same trend: Kerry gained between 7 and 9 points in both surveys. But five new polls released late yesterday and today are mucking up the waters again, with a range of results from The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Pew Research Center, the American Research Group and Zogby.
On one side of the spectrum is the Pew poll, which gives a 7-point lead to Bush. On the other is American Research Group, giving a 3-point lead to Kerry. The others fall somewhere in between, but don't clump in a way that would indicate that either the Pew or the ARG poll is an outlier.
The polls are slightly more conclusive when it comes to identifying whether Kerry has made gains: None of the seven polls show Kerry having lost support since the debate, though how much he gained ranges from zero to nine points.
The following are the 3-way race results of all seven polls conducted since the debate, in the order of greatest Kerry lead to greatest Bush lead, and followed by the number of points that Kerry has gained since each poll's last survey:
ARG -- (K47--B44), Kerry gains 2
Newsweek -- (K47--B45) Kerry gains 7
New York Times -- (K47--B47) Kerry gains 9
Zogby (Likely Voters) -- (K43--B46) no change
Gallup -- (K47--B49) Kerry gains 9
Wash Post/ABC -- (K45--B50) Kerry gains 1
Pew Research Center -- (K41--B48) Kerry gains 1
Averaging all seven gives Bush a lead of less than 2 points. And on average, Kerry has made a 4-point gain in each poll. Beyond that, you'll have to draw your own conclusions.
-- Jeff Horwitz
[12:04 PDT, Oct. 5, 2004]
----------
Shocking incompetence -- or worse
The New York Times editorial board [ http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/05/opinion/05tue1.html ] raises an important point this morning about the implications of the paper's report last Sunday that showed how President Bush's pre-war claim that Saddam Hussein was on the brink of developing a nuclear bomb, based on the theory that Hussein was using aluminum tubes to make nuclear bomb fuel, had already been debunked by experts within the U.S. government and also from the International Atomic Energy Agency before Bush informed the American people of the supposed threat. Either Condoleezza Rice knew the nuke theory was wrong, and not only let Bush scare the American people with it during his State of the Union address but stated it publicly herself -- or she didn't know the available intelligence on this critical issue. And if she didn't, then, why didn't she? Although the buck ultimately stops with Bush, it's clear that Rice -- and Powell and Cheney, too -- failed miserably at their jobs, with great consequence.
From the editorial:
"It's shocking that with all this information readily available, Secretary of State Colin Powell still went before the United Nations to repeat the bogus claims, an appearance that gravely damaged his reputation. It's even more disturbing that Vice President Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, had not only failed to keep the president from misleading the American people, but had also become the chief proponents of the 'mushroom cloud' rhetoric."
"Ms. Rice had access to all the reports debunking the [aluminum tubes to make nukes] theory when she first talked about it publicly in September 2002. Yet last Sunday, Ms. Rice said that while she had been aware of a 'dispute' about the tubes, she had not specifically known what it was about until after she had told the world that Saddam was building the bomb."
"Ms. Rice's spokesman, Sean McCormack, said it was not her job to question intelligence reports or 'to referee disputes in the intelligence community.' But even with that curious job disclaimer, it's no comfort to think that the national security adviser wouldn't have bothered to inform herself about such a major issue before speaking publicly. The national security adviser has no more important responsibility than making sure that the president gets the best advice on life-and-death issues like the war."
"If Ms. Rice did her job and told Mr. Bush how ludicrous the case was for an Iraqi nuclear program, then Mr. Bush terribly misled the public. If not, she should have resigned for allowing her boss to start a war on the basis of bad information and an incompetent analysis."
-- Geraldine Sealey
[07:53 PDT, Oct. 5, 2004]
----------
Bremer, Rummy give Kerry fodder
John Kerry has fresh ammunition against George W. Bush in Paul Bremer's remarks, published on the front page of the Washington Post [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7053-2004Oct4.html ] this morning, criticizing the administration for poor planning in Iraq. The former U.S. administrator in pre-handover Iraq says a lack of adequate forces and failure to prevent the violence and looting early on hampered the occupation.
"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," Bremer said, according to the Post. "We never had enough troops on the ground." The Post points out that "Bremer's comments were striking because they echoed contentions of many administration critics, including Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry, who argue that the U.S. government failed to plan adequately to maintain security in Iraq after the invasion. Bremer has generally defended the U.S. approach in Iraq but in recent weeks has begun to criticize the administration for tactical and policy shortfalls."
According to the pool report from the Kerry bus, Kerry adviser and spokesman Mike McCurry hopped aboard to tell reporters that Kerry would seize on Bremer's comments at this morning's town hall campaign event. "Bremer? I think you're going to hear a little bit about his comments today...," McCurry said. And hinting at the White House's reputation for punishing those who dare cross it, McCurry said: "We're going to hit it before the administration makes him eat his words later today."
Kerry's also expected to jump on another thorny development for the administration -- Donald Rumsfeld's remarks [ http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=596332§ion=news ] on Monday to the Council on Foreign Relations that he knows of no "strong, hard evidence" linking Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al-Qaeda. After his appearance at CFR, Rumsfeld issued this statement [ http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2004/nr20041004-1352.html ] that his answer to a question about Saddam's ties to al-Qaida "regrettably was misunderstood."
-- Geraldine Sealey
[07:16 PDT, Oct. 5, 2004]
----------
Tuesday's must-reads
USA Today [ http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-04-vp-debate-matters_x.htm ]: Cheney vs. Edwards could be a historic moment; it's a vice presidential debate that actually matters.
Reuters [ http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=6409163 ]: Halliburton to play a special role at VP debate tonight; Edwards expected to invoke name of Cheney's former company as example of "cronyism."
AFP [ http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1506&ncid=703&e=7&u=/afp/20041005/ts... ]: Attempting to stop his slide in the polls, Bush uncharacteristically changes his Wednesday schedule to add a "significant speech" on terrorism and the economy.
Knight-Ridder [ http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/9836114.htm ]: CIA report ordered by Dick Cheney "undercuts the White House's claim that Saddam Hussein maintained ties to al-Qaida, saying there's no conclusive evidence that the regime harbored Osama bin Laden associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi."
Washington Post [ http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/9836114.htm ]: Et tu Paul Bremer? Former U.S. official who governed Iraq after invasion says administration made major mistakes not deploying enough troops and not containing violence and looting after Saddam Hussein's fall.
-- Geraldine Sealey
[06:34 PDT, Oct. 5, 2004]
----------
Department of pork barrel security
If jihad should happen to explode onto the vast plains of Wyoming, folks in that sparse prairie state will be seven times better equipped to defend themselves than the denizens of New York City would be facing another attack. That is, if federal anti-terrorism spending under the Bush administration is any indication.
Veteran Washington Post reporter and presidential debate watcher Morton Mintz has put together a list of questions [ http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/debatequestions6.html ] for the four campaign debates now underway, and while there is no indication that any of his questions will be used, he has one that would be particularly apropos for the sitting veep on Tuesday night.
"The administration's latest distribution of funds to localities for anti-terrorism preparations," writes Mintz, "gives New York State $5.47 per person, or $2.30 below the national average. Wyoming gets $38.31 per person, or $30.54 above the national average. In fact, New York gets less than any state other than California, which is also far below the national average.
"Why are seven times more security dollars, on a per capita basis, going to Wyoming, a remote prairie state with a population of a half-million that happens to be home to Vice President Cheney, than to New York, where thousands died in a terrorist attack on its -- and the nation's -- largest city, population 8 million?"
Of course, the per-capita breakdown belies the smaller overall sum allotted to Cheney's home state, but with the Bush government facing record deficits and slashing funding for the nation's front-line protectors [ http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room//index.html#va_cuts ], one would think that every dollar would count. At least the livestock can rest easy.
-- Mark Follman
[15:34 PDT, Oct. 4, 2004]
----------
Dept. of "This just in… "
"Oct. 4, 2004, WASHINGTON (AP) -- In the presidential campaign's closing weeks, Democrats are bracing for an 'October Surprise,' an event so dramatic it could influence the election's outcome. The capture of Osama bin Laden, for instance."
-- Mark Follman
[14:50 PDT, Oct. 4, 2004]
----------
Fun while it lasted
From the it-was-too-good-to-be-true department, this is now on the Harvard Crimson's corrections page [ http://www.thecrimson.com/corrections.aspx ]:
"In reference to Scalia Describes 'Dangerous' Trend: The Sept. 29 news story 'Scalia Describes 'Dangerous' Trend' misquoted Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as saying that 'I even take the position that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged.' In fact, Scalia said, 'I even accept for the sake of argument that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged.'"
War Room cited the original Scalia comment as published in the Crimson as a "quote of the day," but sadly, it turns out that what he actually said wasn't quite as juicy. We're still not sure we would want to listen to Scalia talk about orgies under any circumstances, though.
-- Geraldine Sealey
[13:00 PDT, Oct. 4, 2004]
----------
Bush repays Purple Hearts with red tape nightmare
As President Bush acknowledged 11 times during last Thursday's presidential debate, the U.S. war effort in Iraq is "hard work." Perilous might have been a better way to say it: From the start of the war through August, more than 13,800 U.S. Army personnel alone have been wounded or become sick and have been evacuated from Iraq, according to military watchdog Global Security.org [ http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm ]. That doesn't include the number of soldiers injured during a combat-heavy September, nor does it include the number of U.S. Marines wounded in the fierce fighting in Fallujah and elsewhere throughout the war. (The Marine Corps keeps a much tighter lid on casualty figures than the Army.)
But while the Bush administration has put hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers in harm's way in Iraq, it is cutting funding for the already beleaguered support services for U.S. veterans damaged in war zones.
From the Washington Post [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2946-2004Oct2.html ]:
"The disability benefits and health care systems that provide services for about 5 million American veterans have been overloaded for decades and have a current backlog of more than 300,000 claims. And because they were mobilized to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly 150,000 National Guard and reservist veterans had become eligible for health care and benefits as of Aug. 1. That number is rising. At the same time, President Bush's budget for 2005 calls for cutting the Department of Veterans Affairs staff that handles benefits claims, and some veterans report long waits for benefits and confusing claims decisions.
"'I love the military; that was my life. But I don't believe they're taking care of me now,' said Staff Sgt. Gene Westbrook, 35, of Lawton, Okla. Paralyzed in a mortar attack near Baghdad in April, he has received no disability benefits because his paperwork is missing. He is supporting his wife and three children on his regular military pay of $2,800 a month as he awaits a ruling on whether he will receive $6,500 a month from the VA for his disability."
Through the end of April 2004 -- the most recent accounting the VA could provide, according to the Post -- nearly 10, 000 claims by U.S. veterans of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for service-related disabilities have yet to be processed. During fighting in Sadr City in April, Westbrook was hit by mortar shrapnel, severing his spine; he is now paralyzed from the chest down, has limited movement in his right arm and battles constant infections. Though he praised the way the Army has treated him since his injury, including providing excellent medical care, he told the Post that he's struggled to make it on his regular pay since he returned to the U.S. on July 14.
"'They're supposed to expedite the process, and they have not done that,' he said, adding that officers in his Army unit have been trying in vain to help. Charities have been set up in his honor to help defray costs. 'It's very draining, because I don't know what to do, and my family is asking when we'll get the money,' he said. 'It's the hardest part about this whole thing.'"
The administration is facing a nightmare budget deficit nurtured on its watch -- but is cutting funding for veterans' programs during a war with no end in sight really the way the Bush team wants to deal with the fiscal quagmire? (Would it qualify as "hard work" to divert some of the president's tax cuts favoring the wealthy to VA funding?)
Meanwhile, there is another troubling way in which the plight of vets makes Iraq look increasingly like Vietnam redux: Post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health concerns are expected to become a "dominant issue," VA Secretary Anthony J. Principi told the Post. Added David Autry, a spokesman for Disabled American Veterans: "The system is already strained, and it's going to get strained even worse. It's not a rosy picture at all, and they can't possibly hope to say they're going to provide timely benefits to the new folks if they can't provide timely care to the people already in the system."
-- Mark Follman
[12:34 PDT, Oct. 4, 2004]
----------
In the polls
Two new polls show John Kerry charging ahead after his strong performance in last week's debate: A Newsweek poll [ http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=617800&TICK=NEWS&STORY=/www/story/10... ] of registered voters puts the Kerry-Edwards ticket up 47-45 in a three-way race (Nader still scratches out two percent in the three-way; without him it's 49-46, Kerry over Bush). And while Gallup [ http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/default.aspx?ci=13240&pg=2 ] still gives Bush a two-point lead among the registered voters it sampled, Kerry has made up a lot of ground: Gallup's poll from the week before put Bush in the lead 53-42 -- now it's a slim 49-47 lead in Bush's favor (well within the margin of error).
Newsweek was among those criticized after the Republican Convention for a sampling that included more Republican than Democratic voters. With the latest poll that's changed; Democrats sampled outnumbered Republicans 38-33. Larry Husick, project manager for the Newsweek poll, attributes that fluctuation to some voters' tendency to identify with party momentum. "If you asked how many people were Cardinals fans at the beginning of the season you might get eight percent," he tells War Room. "But if the Cardinals win that season, it might be 15 percent by the end."
Not surprisingly, the Newsweek poll concludes that Kerry's debate performance (perhaps combined with Bush's lack of one) made him a lot more likeable. With Kerry's favorability rating around 35 percent last month, the Drudge report equated the senator's public profile with that of a fallen Martha Stewart, as well as Joseph McCarthy and Herbert Hoover. It makes one wonder who Drudge would compare Bush to today, with more voters having "a favorable impression" of Kerry (52-40) than President Bush (49-46).
Even so, while the majority of voters Newsweek surveyed gave Kerry the lead overall and like him more, they still don't think he's a winner. Asked who was more likely to win in November, 55 percent said Bush, and only 29 percent said Kerry.
Finally, the Newsweek poll suggests that, with Friday's debate on the economy approaching, voters are a lot more open to John Kerry's economic plan than that of the incumbent. Fifty-two percent trust Kerry to successfully handle the economy, while only 39 percent trust Bush to do the same.
Democrats also made gains in recent senate polling. In three of the hottest races -- Alaska [ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/28/135718/735 ], Florida [ http://www.sptimes.com/2004/09/29/Decision2004/US_Senate_contenders_.shtml ] and Oklahoma [ http://www.claremoreprogress.com/archive/article16336 ] -- Democrats lead by six points or more, and in another four very competitive states -- Louisiana, North Carolina [ http://www.citizen-times.com/cache/article/regional/62490.shtml ], South Dakota [ http://www.nativetimes.com/index.asp?action=displayarticle&article_id=5224 ] and Colorado -- lead by smaller margins.
It's striking that nearly all of the tightest races are in states that are unabashedly Republican. The conventional wisdom was that the retirement of five southern Democratic Senators and the nomination of a northeastern Democrat would add up to a Republican Senate windfall. Part of the Dems' strategy appears to be distancing themselves from their own presidential nominee. Tom Daschle's campaign in South Dakota has run commercials showing the senate minority leader embracing President Bush, while Inez Tenenbaum's campaign slogan, "An independent voice for South Carolina," may only be a slightly more subtle way of saying "I'm not with John Kerry."
-- Jeff Horwitz
[11:34 PDT, Oct. 4, 2004]
----------
Who among us does not like making up quotes?
Avid New York Times readers probably recognize this quote from the paper of record's campaign coverage: "Who among us does not like NASCAR?"; or perhaps, "Who among us does not love NASCAR?" The paper has attributed some iteration of the quote to John Kerry in several opinion columns and news stories since March, always to make the point that try as he might, John Kerry just doesn't get the common, NASCAR-loving man, and when he tries to adopt a regular-guy persona, the result is laughably unconvincing.
Here are a few examples from the Times:
Maureen Dowd, March 18, 2004: Even when he puts on that barn jacket over his expensive suit to look less lockjaw -- and says things like, "Who among us doesn't like Nascar?" -- he can come across like Mr. Collins, Elizabeth Bennet's pretentious cousin in "Pride and Prejudice."
Sheryl Gay Stolberg, July 30, 2004: To anyone who has listened to Mr. Kerry extemporize at length -- who among us can forget his "Who among us doesn't like Nascar?" remark? -- the thought of the Brahmin from Boston disdaining speechwriters and trying humor seemed odd, shall we say, for the most important address of his career.
Frank Rich, Sept. 5, 2004: Mr. Kerry, having joined the macho game with Mr. Bush on the president's own cheesy terms, is hardly innocent in his own diminishment. From the get-go he's tried to match his opponent in stupid male tricks. If Mr. Bush clears brush in Crawford, then Mr. Kerry rides a Harley-Davidson onto Jay Leno's set. When the Democrat asks "Who among us does not love Nascar?" ..he is asking to be ridiculed as an ''International Man of Mystery."
And to show how ingrained the NASCAR quote has become in the Times' coverage of the Democratic candidate, the headline "Who Among Us Does Not Love Windsurfing?" was used (without further explanation within the story – because at this point, who needed it?) in a Sept. 5, 2004 piece that questioned Kerry's choice of recreational sports [ http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/05/weekinreview/05bigp.html?ex=1097035200&en=2f2f862bf612b132&... ].
A couple of weeks ago, a handful of liberal bloggers, including Atrios [ http://www.atrios.blogspot.com/2004_09_19_atrios_archive.html#109569934223732927 ] and Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler [ http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh092104.shtml ], questioned the accuracy of the Kerry quote. A Nexis search (we did one too) found that the "who among us" remark curiously seemed to originate with a Maureen Dowd column. Letters were sent to the Times public editor (we sent one, too). A search was on for some proof that Kerry actually said this. Well, it turns out he never did say it -- that's right, Kerry never made a statement that has now become 2004 campaign legend at the New York Times.
Bob Somerby has the story [ http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh100204.shtml ]: "We finally have the full information. Yes, Maureen Dowd invented that fake NASCAR quote -- the comical 'quote' from pretentious old Kerry."
-- Geraldine Sealey
[09:58 PDT, Oct. 4, 2004]
----------
Traditional GOP blocs question Bush in Fla.
Two newspaper articles, two historically-reliable Republican voting blocs Bush is having trouble with in Florida:
From the Los Angeles Times [ http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arab04oct04,1,654526.story?coll=la-headlines-na... ]:
"On Sunday night, a surprising new ethnic thread wove itself into Florida's ever-complicated political fabric: the frustrated Arab American. Business owners, physicians, lawyers and others -- furious over the Bush administration's post-Sept. 11 policies that many believe unfairly target Muslims and Arab Americans in the government's quest to root out terrorists -- huddled in a hotel ballroom across the street from Disney World to demonstrate how much they wanted a change in the White House. The meeting, intended to be a bipartisan affair sponsored by the Washington-based Arab American Institute, turned into a cheering session for Democratic nominee Sen. John F. Kerry -- illustrating a dramatic shift in a traditionally Republican group 'I thought Bush was another Ronald Reagan on a small scale for what he believed in,' said Ashley Ansara, president of a clinical research company in Orlando. 'I found out he's no Reagan. Not even close.' He said this would be the first presidential election since he moved to the U.S. in 1973 that he wouldn't be voting Republican."
And from the Sun-Sentinel [ http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-dcubadems27oct04,0,6092937.story?coll=sfla-h... ], the state of the Cuban-American vote:
"Although President Bush is expected to win the majority of South Florida's Cuban-American vote, many Cuban-Americans have increasingly criticized his administration. That could be a problem for Bush, who by some estimates won about 80 percent of the Cuban vote in 2000. Any erosion of that support could be significant, since the 2000 presidential election was decided by just 537 votes."
"The turning point for Pezon, who met his wife about three years ago in Cuba and married her last year, was the recent policy that restricts Cuban-Americans to one family visit every three years. Before the change, Cubans could go once a year without a Treasury license, and each year Pezon received permission for additional visits. Because he thinks the Bush administration's policy is too harsh, Pezon is pinning his hopes on Kerry's promises to allow 'principled travel' to the island. 'If your mom is in Cuba and she's dying of some illness, you can't go,' Pezon said. 'Suppose your wife was having a child, you can't go. Life's not black and white, but the law now is like that.'"
-- Geraldine Sealey
[06:32 PDT, Oct. 4, 2004]
----------
Monday's must-reads
New York Times [ http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/04/politics/campaign/04vote.html?hp ]: Deadlines are fast approaching or have already passed in most states -- and the data show new voters are registering in droves. " ... How many of the newly registered will vote is a matter of some debate. But it is clear the pace is particularly high in urban areas of swing states, where independent Democratic groups and community organizations have been running a huge voter registration campaign for just over a year."
IHT [ http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?file=541735.html ]: New polls show John Kerry was widely viewed as the winner of the first presidential debate, and Bush's aides and surrogates set out on the Sunday shows to attack Kerry and attempt to slow his momentum.
Washington Post [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4587-2004Oct3.html ]: Conventional wisdom was that Tuesday's Cheney-Edwards debate would be merely an entertaining sideshow, but it takes on a new significance with pressure on Cheney to boost his ticket after Bush's less than stellar debate performance.
AFP [ http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041003/ts_alt_afp/us_vote ]: "Already scrambling to make up ground lost after last week's debate, US President George W. Bush's campaign was forced further on the defensive by a report that the White House knew before invading Iraq that key intelligence on the country's alleged nuclear weapons program was questionable."
AP [ http://ap.indystar.com/dynamic/stories/N/NADER?SITE=ININS&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT ]: With the presidential race virtually tied less than a month before the election, Ralph Nader announces he will continue campaigning in key battleground states.
-- Geraldine Sealey
[06:10 PDT, Oct. 4, 2004]
----------
Bush flunks the "global test"
The Bush-Cheney campaign has never been shy about misrepresenting John Kerry's views. At the Republican National Convention, for instance, Zell Miller claimed that Kerry "has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations. " It's a reference to a quote from an interview Kerry gave to the Harvard Crimson 35 years ago -- and hence just as accurate as saying that George W. Bush "has made it clear that he likes to get drunk every night."
But even by the slippery standards of the Bush-Cheney camp, the president's latest misrepresentation about a Kerry position shows a remarkable willingness to veer from the truth. On the campaign trial this weekend, Bush has lambasted Kerry for what the Republicans call Kerry's "'global test' doctrine." In Ohio Saturday, Bush said: "In the debate, Senator Kerry said something revealing when he laid out the Kerry doctrine. He said -- he said that America has to pass a global test before we can use American troops to defend ourselves."
Only that's not what Kerry said. At Thursday night's debate, Kerry said that an American president "always has the right, and always has had the right, for pre-emptive strike." He said that he would never "cede away" the right "to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America." But, Kerry said, "you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reason."
Hear that, George? You've got to be able to "prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." That's called the past tense -- as in, act now and ask questions later. What Kerry said -- what Kerry plainly meant -- was that the United States was free to take pre-emptive action if there was a legitimate reason for doing so, a reason so powerful that the world would understand.
Former U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke held a conference call with reporters Saturday to set the record straight, but it shouldn't have been necessary. A few hours beforehand, the Bush-Cheney campaign sent around an email highlighting Bush's attack on Kerry. It included Bush's quotes from Ohio, followed immediately by the words Kerry actually said during the debate. One of these things was not like the other, but the Bush-Cheney campaign apparently thought no one would notice.
-- Tim Grieve
[11:57 PDT, Oct. 2, 2004]
----------
Fox News gives Kerry extreme makeover!
By now you've probably heard about the fake story that "chief political correspondent" Carl Cameron peddled on Fox News' Web site this morning -- you know, the one that had John Kerry making girlish (French?) pronouncements about his "manicures" and "pedicures." Josh Marshall [ http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_09_26.php#003556 ] is all over it. Fox has since pulled the piece and apologized, citing "fatigue and bad judgment," for quoting Kerry as saying the following:
"Women should like me! I do manicures."
"Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!"
"I'm metrosexual — [Bush's] a cowboy."
Note to pro-Bush bloggers: We're not sure exactly how many days without sleep it takes to read those lines as authentic -- but probably at least a couple more than it takes to determine whether they were churned out with a typewriter from the 1970s.
-- Mark Follman
[16:01 PDT, Oct. 1, 2004]
----------
White House message control on Iraq
In a story [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60725-2004Sep29.html ] yesterday -- likely buried by all the media coverage of the presidential debate -- the Washington Post reported that the Bush administration is redoubling its efforts to control and put a positive spin on public perception of the situation in Iraq. They're concentrating on Americans who are working the front lines:
"The Bush administration, battling negative perceptions of the Iraq war, is sending Iraqi Americans to deliver what the Pentagon calls 'good news' about Iraq to U.S. military bases, and has curtailed distribution of reports showing increasing violence in that country.
"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's office has sent commanders of U.S. military facilities a five-page memorandum titled 'Guidance to Commanders.' The Pentagon, the memo says, is sponsoring a group of Iraqi Americans and former officials from the Coalition Provisional Authority to speak at military bases throughout the United States starting Friday to provide 'a first-hand account' of events in Iraq. The Iraqi Americans and the CPA officials worked on establishing the interim Iraqi government. The Iraqi Americans 'feel strongly that the benefits of the coalition efforts have not been fully reported,' the memo says.
"USAID said this week that it will restrict distribution of reports by contractor Kroll Security International showing that the number of daily attacks by insurgents in Iraq has increased. On Monday, a day after The Washington Post published a front-page story saying that 'the Kroll reports suggest a broad and intensifying campaign of insurgent violence,' a USAID official sent an e-mail to congressional aides stating: 'This is the last Kroll report to come in. After the WPost story, they shut it down in order to regroup. I'll let you know when it restarts.'"
And while President Bush chastised John Kerry during the debate Thursday about the notion that interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is some form of "puppet" leader, the Post reports that the Bush team in fact had a heavy hand in crafting a speech that Allawi gave during his recent visit to Washington.
"The unusual public-relations effort by the Pentagon and the U.S. Agency for International Development comes as details have emerged showing the U.S. government and a representative of President Bush's reelection campaign had been heavily involved in drafting the speech given to Congress last week by interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. Combined, they indicate that the federal government is working assiduously to improve Americans' opinions about the Iraq conflict -- a key element of Bush's reelection message."
Bush administration spokesman Scott McClellan denied any White House involvement in the Allawi speech, according to the Post, "but administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the prime minister was coached and aided by the U.S. government, its allies and friends of the administration. Among them was Dan Senor, former spokesman for the CPA who has more recently represented the Bush campaign in media appearances. Senor, who has denied writing the speech, sent Allawi recommended phrases. He also helped Allawi rehearse in New York last week, officials said. Senor declined to comment."
-- Mark Follman
[15:33 PDT, Oct. 1, 2004]
----------
The "busting" of A.Q. Khan and other tall tales
When President Bush patted himself on the back last night for "busting" the "A.Q. Khan network," many of the 55 million Americans watching -- most of whom probably never heard of Mr. Khan -- probably thought that sounded pretty darn good. But who is this A. Q. Khan, and has his network been "brought to justice," as Bush claimed? Hardly.
Abdul Qadeer Khan, also known as the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, was pardoned by Pervez Musharraf after admitting he gave nuclear technology to other countries, including North Korea and Iran. Bush, who said last night that nuclear proliferation "in the hands of a terrorist" enemy was the greatest threat to our national security supported the pardon of A.Q. Khan [ http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/02/05/pakistan.nuclear/ ], even though he admittedly proliferated nuclear technology right into the hands of the last two nations standing in Bush's Axis of Evil.
Not only has Khan been pardoned, the Washington Post reports [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63944-2004Sep30.html ] that "not a single person involved in his network has been prosecuted anywhere." And just today, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency complained to the BBC [ http://www.dawn.com/2004/10/01/top1.htm ] that Pakistan won't even let the UN watchdog agency interview Khan.
The misrepresentation of A.Q. Khan's status wasn't the only factual-fudging we saw last night. Salon's Jeff Horwitz detailed [ http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2004/09/30/100ktroops/in... ] Bush's overstatement on how many Iraqi security forces have been trained.
Bush repeated his bogus claim that three-quarters of al-Qaida leadership have been "brought to justice." As we pointed out last month [ http://archive.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/09/09/zawahiri/ ] (he says this one a lot), a 9/11 commission member said of this line, it "sounds like it was pulled out of somebody's orifice."
The Progress Report [ http://www.progressreport.org/ ] has the goods on several Bush misstatements, quoting other news sources:
-- MISSTATING THE RATIONALE FOR WAR IN IRAQ: Bush tried to rebut Kerry about the prewar need for more patience on Iraq, saying diplomacy wouldn't have persuaded Saddam to disarm. Writes the Boston Globe, "It was almost as though the president has forgotten that no stockpiles of forbidden weapons have been found in Iraq."
-- MISSTATING VOTER REGISTRATION SUCCESS IN AFGHANISTAN: Bush stated, "10 million people have registered to vote in Afghanistan." The problem: most sources agree there aren't even 10 million eligible voters in the country ...
-- MISSTATING NORTH KOREA DIPLOMACY: Bush inexplicably claimed Kerry's proposal to have direct talks with North Korea would end the six-nation diplomacy that the administration has pursued over Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions, claiming it would also "drive away China, a key player in the negotiations." He was unable to explain this charge, however."
-- MISSTATING NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION EFFORTS: Last night, Bush said he'd increased spending by "about 35 percent" on nonproliferation efforts since he took office. The Washington Post points out that in his first budget, "he proposed a 13 percent cut -- about $116 million -- and much of the increases since then have been added by Congress."
And Fact-Check.org's post-debate truth-squadding [ http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=271 ] concluded that both candidates had some issues with the truth from time to time:
"Bush glossed over significant problems with US reconstruction efforts in Iraq when he claimed that the US is 'spending money' and that 100,000 Iraqi security forces have been trained. And Kerry overstated the case when he said Bush allowed Osama bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora by "outsourcing" fighting to Afghans. Bush misquoted Kerry, distorting his position on withdrawing troops from Iraq. And Kerry said the Iraq war has cost $200 billion, when the cost so far is actually just over $120 billion."
-- Geraldine Sealey
[11:57 PDT, Oct. 1, 2004]
----------
Running scared
The ever-cautious mainstream media is mostly calling Bush-Kerry Round 1 a draw this morning. Perhaps they don't trust the instapolls [ http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2004/09/30/cbspoll/index... ] or the folks in Ohio [ http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2004/09/30/ohio_6/index.... ]. Perhaps they are CBS [ http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/29/cbs_wmd/index.html ].
But a number of conservatives are calling it like they saw it -- and it ain't pretty for their man.
Jay Nordlinger [ http://www.nationalreview.com/nordlinger/nordlinger200410010114.asp ], managing editor of the right-wing flagship National Review magazine, wrote up his thoughts immediately following the debate, without talking to anyone else or listening to other commentary. He said that an effective, relaxed Kerry "spoke clearly, and at a nice pace," while Bush, "a little desperate," pulled a Dan Quayle. (Ouch.) Here is part of his take on the president's quagmire in Coral Gables:
"I thought Kerry did very, very well; and I thought Bush did poorly -- much worse than he is capable of doing. Listen: If I were just a normal guy -- not Joe Political Junkie -- I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate, I would. If I were just a normal, fairly conservative, war-supporting guy: I would vote for Kerry.
"Kerry went right to the alliances. He emphasized the importance of such relationships. At least you can't accuse him of succumbing to Republican mockery on the subject, of shucking this core conviction of his. Bush, throughout the evening, as Kerry spoke, had that pursed and annoyed look. I think it must have driven many people crazy. ...
"Bush said, 'We're makin' progress' a hundred times -- that seemed a little desperate. He also said 'mixed messages' a hundred times -- I was wishing that he would mix his message. He said, 'It's hard work,' or, 'It's tough,' a hundred times. In fact, Bush reminded me of Dan Quayle in the 1988 debate, when the Hoosier repeated a couple of talking points over and over, to some chuckles from the audience.
"Staying on message is one thing; robotic repetition -- when there are oceans of material available -- is another… I hate to say it, but often Bush gave the appearance of being what his critics charge he is: callow, jejune, unserious. And remember -- talk about repetition! -- I concede this as someone who loves the man.
"Bush was weary -- harmfully weary, I think. He let a million opportunities go by."
(Did we say, ouch?) Read Nordlinger's entire lengthy analysis -- it's honest, and it's brutal.
This morning Nordlinger had some company on the Dan Quayle point: Fox News icon Bill O'Reilly, on his morning radio show, also berated Bush for saying Iraq was "hard work" over and over in the debate. Then there was Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol [ http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2004/09/30/kristol/index... ] (Republicans are "deflated"), and conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan [ http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2004/09/30/sullivan/inde... ] (a "Carter-Reagan rematch," with the two parties flip-flopped).
And how about those critical women voters? "Bush blew an opportunity," was the assessment of Janice Shaw Crouse [ http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/crouse200410010856.asp ], spokesperson for the Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee:
"Bush was inexplicably unfocused; he lacked energy and seemed distracted. He didn't seem prepared. He struggled to talk knowledgeably about his record -- his clearly outstanding record. Bush virtually sleepwalked through the debates, only occasionally mustering up the passion to hammer home his points.
"The president allowed John Kerry to set the agenda and ended up on the defensive. He simply needed to be presidential and stand on his record; instead he repeatedly answered his opponent and bowed to Kerry's agenda. …
"The net outcome is that Kerry exceeded expectations; he skillfully, if not honestly, addressed all the accusations against him. Bush did not live up to expectations; he did not even seem presidential. The Bush campaign had hoped to seal the election with the first debate; instead, it is going to be a long road to November 2."
While the mainstream media trips over itself today to be "fair" in its post-debate assessments, at least some conservatives know reality TV when they see it: "The Bush Blowout" has been cancelled.
-- Mark Follman
[11:48 PDT, Oct. 1, 2004]
----------
"Faces of frustration"
Before last night's debate, we wrote a post suggesting [ http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2004/09/30/debate_rules/... ] (we were only half-serious at the time, we will admit) that with all of the tight rules and regs surrounding the forum, the networks' decision to ditch the debate commission rules and show renegade "cutaway shots" of whichever candidate wasn't speaking could actually make the whole thing more interesting ... well, it did. George W. Bush seemed to learn nothing from the treatment Al Gore got four years ago when he sighed and fidgeted during his opponent's answers. Now, Bush is the one getting gored for smirking, blinking, and appearing agitated while Kerry spoke.
Last night after the debate, the pundits almost instantly set in on Bush's apparent "smirking," as Wolf Blitzer said. As ABC's The Note pointed out this morning, three Florida (swing state!) newspapers noted Bush's facial expressions in their lead debate coverage, with the Jacksonville paper [ http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/100104/met_16790590.shtml ] saying "Bush appeared to grimace or sigh sometimes at Kerry's rips on his record." And Knight-Ridder's Ron Hutcheson [ http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002051070_debateanal01.html ] wrote that Bush "frowned, pursed his lips and bit the inside of his cheek as Kerry attacked the president's performance in office again and again." The New York Times' Alessandra Stanley wrote [ http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/01/politics/campaign/01teevee.html?adxnnl=1&oref=login&adxnnl... ]: "The cameras demonstrated that Mr. Bush cannot hear criticism without frowning, blinking and squirming (he even sighed once). They showed that Mr. Kerry can control his anger and stay cool but that he cannot suppress his inner overeager A student, flashing a bleach-white smile and nodding hungrily at each question."
And Democrats have spliced all of Bush's shifting and smirking into a video montage called "Faces of Frustration [ http://www.democrats.org/ ]."
Reaction to Bush's clear discomfort last night is certainly not at fever pitch, not the overarching media storyline Gore's sighing was in 2000 (although Saturday Night Live hasn't had its way with Bush's smirks yet) but it's got to be enough to bug the bejeezus out of Bush's staff who took pains to prevent this very thing from happening -- to prevent us from seeing Bush when he thinks the cameras aren't on.
-- Geraldine Sealey
[10:23 PDT, Oct. 1, 2004]
----------
Archived War Room: [F6 note -- links appear at this location on the page; use link below]
----------
Copyright 2004 Salon.com
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room//index.html
"Taking out Zarqawi"
When Gwen Ifill first asked Dick Cheney about the new CIA report [ http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6422548 ] delivered to the White House last week that said there was "no conclusive evidence" that the Saddam Hussein regime had harbored Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- he dodged the question. But Ifill later returned to the topic, and Cheney had this to say[ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_1005.html ]:
"But let's look at what we know about Mr. Zarqawi. We know he was running a terrorist camp, training terrorists in Afghanistan prior to 9/11. We know that when we went into Afghanistan that he then migrated to Baghdad. He set up shop in Baghdad, where he oversaw the poisons facility up at Kermal (ph), where the terrorists were developing ricin and other deadly substances to use."
"We know he's still in Baghdad today. He is responsible for most of the major car bombings that have killed or maimed thousands of people. He's the one you will see on the evening news beheading hostages. He is, without question, a bad guy. He is, without question, a terrorist. He was, in fact, in Baghdad before the war, and he's in Baghdad now after the war."
"The fact of the matter is that this is exactly the kind of track record we've seen over the years. We have to deal with Zarqawi by taking him out, and that's exactly what we'll do."
But what Cheney didn't mention is that the administration had several chances to "take out" Zarqawi [ http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?day=20040304 ] in the run-up to the Iraq war, but chose not to.
-- Geraldine Sealey
[21:07 PDT, Oct. 5, 2004]
----------
Cheney's bad memory
There will be quite a bit of fact-checking of tonight's debate between Dick Cheney and John Edwards -- but the vice president probably didn't expect the corrections to begin with a conversation with Elizabeth Edwards on the stage in Cleveland directly after the debate.
During the debate, Cheney, trying to make the point that Edwards missed votes and was hardly ever in Washington, said: "You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate. Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of the Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session." And he ended with this zinger: "The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight."
Some pundits were very impressed, apparently, with this line from Cheney. Andrea Mitchell went on "Hardball" and said she thought Cheney did "awfully well at, first of all, putting John Edwards in his place, saying that I have been presiding over the Senate and I didn't meet you until tonight. Talking about his not having been on the job was pretty devastating." Except, it's not true.
He has, in fact, met Edwards, and Elizabeth Edwards corrected Cheney right after the debate, according to Kerry advisor David Ginsberg. The two men first met at a National Prayer Breakfast, the Kerry-Edwards campaign said -- here's the transcript [ http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:S4X7WDzDUcoJ:static.highbeam.com/w/washingtontranscriptservice/... ] -- and then later in the Senate when Edwards escorted fellow North Carolinian Elizabeth Dole to her swearing-in. (Update: The Kerry campaign now has a photographic evidence [ http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/Cheney-Edwards.jpg ]!)
-- Geraldine Sealey
[20:19 PDT, Oct. 5, 2004]
----------
Quick survey by CBS looks good for Edwards
CBS "instapoll" results, from 200 undecided voters nationwide:
"Who won?"
Edwards: 42 percent
Cheney: 29 percent
tie: 29 percent
"Debate improved your opinion of the candidate?"
Cheney: 29 percent, opinion improved
Edwards: 58 percent, opinion improved
And perhaps the most telling statistic of the quick survey, in light of moderator Gwen Ifill's question to Edwards regarding his qualifications to be within a "heartbeat" of the top job: 24 percent of the undecided voters polled by CBS apparently said that they were "scared" of the idea of Dick Cheney as president.
-- Mark Follman
[20:08 PDT, Oct. 5, 2004]
----------
The pre-debate sit & spin
With the presidential debate not scheduled to start until 9 p.m. Eastern time, hundreds of reporters who would be well into the cocktail hour back home find themselves stuck in Cleveland, waiting to watch the show on TV just like everybody else. Time moves very slowly.
You can kill a lot of it just wading through security. Reporters won't get anywhere near the candidates -- the press will watch the debate in a gymnasium next to the debate hall -- but the Secret Service apparently considers the Tad Devines and Karl Roves of the world worthy of full bomb-sniffing-dog protection. We came through with Fox's Chris Wallace, who passed the time by talking with an acquaintance -- not us -- about last week's presidential debate. Wallace said he was surprised that Bush wasn't better prepared for charges that he "fucked up" Iraq; he said folks in the Bush-Cheney campaign had assured him that they'd spent time hurling "insults" at the president, just so he could practice reacting by not reacting.
Inside the gym, Cheney advisor Mary Matalin spent a chunk of her afternoon pre-spinning NBC's David Gregory. CNN's Jeff Greenfield hung for a few minutes with Ben Ginsberg, the Bush campaign lawyer who resigned in August when it was revealed that he was also advising the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Ginsberg is here to spin, but only unofficially, of course. Upstairs at the gym, in a makeshift bar and grill where Anheuser-Busch plied reporters with free food, free beer and commemorative mugs, Time's Joe Klein got triple-teamed by Kerry-Edwards spinners Joe Lockhart, David Ginsberg and Jennifer Palmieri.
Outside the food hall, Sean Hannity posed for photos with some fans. His partner, Alan Colmes, wandered around the gym with his sunglasses on. Their fair-and-balanced colleagues were a little more businesslike. Shepard Smith stomped around looking pissed off, as he seems to do a lot at these things. Maybe it's his makeup; for all the Drudge-speak about John Kerry's orangey glow, Mr. Smith has looked positively pumpkinesque of late. The same can't be said for his colleague Carl Cameron. Fox's No. 1 fiction writer [ http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2004/10/01/fox_fake/inde... ] looked tan, rested and ready as he noodled about his laptop Tuesday afternoon. His nails were perfect.
-- Tim Grieve
[16:04 PDT, Oct. 5, 2004]
----------
A "sensitive situation"
Work in a war zone as a foreign correspondent, risk your life, and tell the truth about what you see, and you just might end up a problem employee at the center of a "sensitive situation" in your newsroom -- as Wall Street Journal reporter Farnaz Fassihi has become after a private e-mail she wrote about the deteriorating conditions in Iraq spread around the globe. You may remember Fassihi's missive [ http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/001161.html ], which was linked on several blogs and was the subject of news stories, but if not, here's an excerpt:
"Being a foreign correspondent in Baghdad these days is like being under virtual house arrest. Forget about the reasons that lured me to this job: a chance to see the world, explore the exotic, meet new people in far away lands, discover their ways and tell stories that could make a difference."
"Little by little, day-by-day, being based in Iraq has defied all those reasons. I am house bound. I leave when I have a very good reason to and a scheduled interview. I avoid going to people's homes and never walk in the streets. I can't go grocery shopping any more, can't eat in restaurants, can't strike a conversation with strangers, can't look for stories, can't drive in any thing but a full armored car, can't go to scenes of breaking news stories, can't be stuck in traffic, can't speak English outside, can't take a road trip, can't say I'm an American, can't linger at checkpoints, can't be curious about what people are saying, doing, feeling. And can't and can't. There has been one too many close calls, including a car bomb so near our house that it blew out all the windows. So now my most pressing concern every day is not to write a kick-ass story but to stay alive and make sure our Iraqi employees stay alive. In Baghdad I am a security personnel first, a reporter second."
As Editor & Publisher [ http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000653017 ] notes, Fassihi is now taking a "scheduled vacation" -- but whether she'll continue reporting for the Journal from Iraq after that is apparently still up in the air. "Barney Calame, deputy managing editor, declined to speak at length, but confirmed 'it's a very sensitive situation and it is one we are trying to make sure we all understand. Paul (Steiger) is involved and we are deciding on it collaboratively.' This raises the questions: Why is the situation 'sensitive,' and what do Journal editors have to decide about it?"
E&P goes on to point out, via a Hartford Courant report that queried other Baghdad-based reporters, that Fassihi's assessment, although intended for private distribution and not as a Journal-sanctioned report on the war, was an eloquent inside look at the reality in Baghdad.
"Alex Berenson, just back from Iraq for The New York Times, told Halloran that the Fassihi e-mail was 'entirely accurate in its description of reporting conditions.' Thanassi Cambanis, still in Iraq for The Boston Globe, described the risk of 'being carjacked, murdered, kidnapped or blown up.' Chicago Tribune reporter Colin McMahon, also in Baghdad, said, 'I spoke with a woman yesterday and I wanted to go to her house and interview her, and she said, 'No, I don't want an American seen coming to my house.'"
"[Courant reporter Liz Halloran] also asked what the reporters thought of charges that they were ignoring the 'good news' from Iraq. 'To write about a re-painting of a school when three car bombs go off killing how many dozens would be irresponsible journalism, I think,' Cambanis said. Asked the Times' Berenson: 'What good news are we supposed to be reporting when the murder rate in Baghdad has gone up 20-fold or more since we entered the city last year, and when we can't even walk the streets?'"
Does Fassihi deserve to lose her beat -- or do Americans deserve to know what's actually happening on the ground in Iraq, even if it clashes with the administration's rosy pronouncements?
-- Geraldine Sealey
[14:51 PDT, Oct. 5, 2004]
----------
Did Cheney break the law on 9/11?
For months the Bush administration fiercely resisted having the president and vice president testify before the 9/11 Commission. It was only under intense public pressure that the two leaders eventually agreed to do so -- and then only under the conditions that they would testify jointly, would not speak to the commission under oath, and that there would be no written material or transcript allowed from the session.
It was clearly the behavior of leaders who aimed to keep an airtight grip on the narrative of their minute-by-minute actions on that fateful day. A new report in Vanity Fair magazine reveals why Bush and Cheney may have wanted to remain in firm control of their story.
In its November issue (obtained by War Room), the magazine reports that after Bush and Cheney's all but hermetically sealed session with the 9/11 Commission, some of the bipartisan investigators remained highly skeptical of the duo's testimony that Cheney cleared his order with the president on 9/11 to have U.S. fighter jets shoot down hijacked civilian aircraft.
"Some members of the 9/11 commission and its staff are convinced that Cheney acted on his own -- before receiving the president's approval -- which would mean he broke the chain of command and, by exceeding his constitutional powers, acted unlawfully," the story says. "The final report of the 9/11 commission stops just short of saying that the conversation with the president before Cheney gave the order never happened ... the report goes as far as to say 'there is no documentary evidence for this call ...' Only after Cheney twice issued a shootdown order is there clear evidence that he called Bush and received authorization to order fighter jets to shoot down hijacked aircraft."
As one commission member told Vanity Fair on condition of anonymity, the panel was concerned about how to handle the politically explosive issue: "We purposely did not reach a conclusion. We just laid it out. Some people may read what we wrote and conclude the authorization call had not preceded the [shootdown] order. People can come to their own conclusion. We didn't want to be in the position of saying the president and the vice president were lying to us."
Bob Kerrey, the former Democratic senator from Nebraska and an outspoken member of the 9/11 commission, said: "We don't see that it happened the way he [Cheney] recalled it."
And one commissioner told the magazine (also anonymously) that the panel's members simply did not buy Cheney's account. "We tried to work out language that allows the reader to get that," he said, "without saying the vice president did not tell the truth."
Indeed, as the article further details, the bipartisan panel was forced to perform some linguistic acrobatics on the issue, after the White House applied intense pressure:
"A series of staff statements issued by the commission, as well as the final report, were first sent to the White House for review. The draft of staff statement No. 17, dealing with the shootdown, brought an angry letter from [White House counsel Alberto] Gonzales, objecting to the wording. Cheney also telephoned both [9/11 Commission leaders Thomas] Kean and [Lee] Hamilton, complaining vociferously about the language.
"Philip Zelikow, the commission's executive director, confirmed that changes were made, and approved by the commissioners, in both the staff statement and the final report after the White House letter was received and Cheney made his phone calls. But Zelikow said 'our fundamental judgment' had not changed. 'Which is the President and Vice President have offered an account. Their account could be true but we can't find corroborating documentary evidence to prove conclusively that it is true.'"
Such corroborating evidence of an earlier call to the president, the article adds, could not be found in two different sets of personal notes kept by Lynne Cheney and Lewis "Scooter" Libby -- both of whom accompanied the vice president in the secure bunker under the White House that morning -- nor in seven different phone logs kept by various White House operations, from the Secret Service to the White House Military Office.
-- Mark Follman
[14:07 PDT, Oct. 5, 2004]
----------
Mr. Vice President, meet Sen. Patrick Leahy
The pre-debate mind games have begun.
The Kerry-Edwards camp announced its list of surrogates and spinners for tonight's debate earlier today. Among them: Sen. Patrick Leahy. Now, Leahy hasn't played a central role in the Kerry campaign to date, but he'll be front and center tonight -- well, in the second row of the debate hall, at least -- to serve as a visual reminder of the injudicious language the vice president used in June on the Senate floor. You may remember the event: Cheney and Leahy got to talking, Leahy mentioned a company called Halliburton, and Cheney told Leahy to "fuck himself."
Sources in the Kerry-Edwards campaign told us that the Republicans have lodged a complaint. It wasn't immediately clear whether the complaint was lodged with the Commission on Presidential Debates or just with Kerry's debate negotiators. Either way, what is clear is that the Leahy appearance has gotten under somebody's skin. And the Democrats aren't done yet. Just a few minutes ago, the Democratic National Committee distributed Halliburton hospitality bags to the press corps. The contents included a small box of Tide -- a reminder of how a Halliburton subsidiary charged the military $100 for a 15-pound bag of laundry -- and "your very own no-bid contract."
We couldn't track down anybody from the Bush-Cheney campaign to comment, but we did find Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie roaming the press center just outside the debate hall. He didn't have the talking points, at least not yet. Asked about Leahy's appearance, he said: "I don't know what the rules are, but aren't senators allowed to come?"
-- Tim Grieve
[13:31 PDT, Oct. 5, 2004]
----------
In the polls
After the first presidential debate Gallup and Newsweek came up with somewhat different national poll results, but they reflected the same trend: Kerry gained between 7 and 9 points in both surveys. But five new polls released late yesterday and today are mucking up the waters again, with a range of results from The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Pew Research Center, the American Research Group and Zogby.
On one side of the spectrum is the Pew poll, which gives a 7-point lead to Bush. On the other is American Research Group, giving a 3-point lead to Kerry. The others fall somewhere in between, but don't clump in a way that would indicate that either the Pew or the ARG poll is an outlier.
The polls are slightly more conclusive when it comes to identifying whether Kerry has made gains: None of the seven polls show Kerry having lost support since the debate, though how much he gained ranges from zero to nine points.
The following are the 3-way race results of all seven polls conducted since the debate, in the order of greatest Kerry lead to greatest Bush lead, and followed by the number of points that Kerry has gained since each poll's last survey:
ARG -- (K47--B44), Kerry gains 2
Newsweek -- (K47--B45) Kerry gains 7
New York Times -- (K47--B47) Kerry gains 9
Zogby (Likely Voters) -- (K43--B46) no change
Gallup -- (K47--B49) Kerry gains 9
Wash Post/ABC -- (K45--B50) Kerry gains 1
Pew Research Center -- (K41--B48) Kerry gains 1
Averaging all seven gives Bush a lead of less than 2 points. And on average, Kerry has made a 4-point gain in each poll. Beyond that, you'll have to draw your own conclusions.
-- Jeff Horwitz
[12:04 PDT, Oct. 5, 2004]
----------
Shocking incompetence -- or worse
The New York Times editorial board [ http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/05/opinion/05tue1.html ] raises an important point this morning about the implications of the paper's report last Sunday that showed how President Bush's pre-war claim that Saddam Hussein was on the brink of developing a nuclear bomb, based on the theory that Hussein was using aluminum tubes to make nuclear bomb fuel, had already been debunked by experts within the U.S. government and also from the International Atomic Energy Agency before Bush informed the American people of the supposed threat. Either Condoleezza Rice knew the nuke theory was wrong, and not only let Bush scare the American people with it during his State of the Union address but stated it publicly herself -- or she didn't know the available intelligence on this critical issue. And if she didn't, then, why didn't she? Although the buck ultimately stops with Bush, it's clear that Rice -- and Powell and Cheney, too -- failed miserably at their jobs, with great consequence.
From the editorial:
"It's shocking that with all this information readily available, Secretary of State Colin Powell still went before the United Nations to repeat the bogus claims, an appearance that gravely damaged his reputation. It's even more disturbing that Vice President Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, had not only failed to keep the president from misleading the American people, but had also become the chief proponents of the 'mushroom cloud' rhetoric."
"Ms. Rice had access to all the reports debunking the [aluminum tubes to make nukes] theory when she first talked about it publicly in September 2002. Yet last Sunday, Ms. Rice said that while she had been aware of a 'dispute' about the tubes, she had not specifically known what it was about until after she had told the world that Saddam was building the bomb."
"Ms. Rice's spokesman, Sean McCormack, said it was not her job to question intelligence reports or 'to referee disputes in the intelligence community.' But even with that curious job disclaimer, it's no comfort to think that the national security adviser wouldn't have bothered to inform herself about such a major issue before speaking publicly. The national security adviser has no more important responsibility than making sure that the president gets the best advice on life-and-death issues like the war."
"If Ms. Rice did her job and told Mr. Bush how ludicrous the case was for an Iraqi nuclear program, then Mr. Bush terribly misled the public. If not, she should have resigned for allowing her boss to start a war on the basis of bad information and an incompetent analysis."
-- Geraldine Sealey
[07:53 PDT, Oct. 5, 2004]
----------
Bremer, Rummy give Kerry fodder
John Kerry has fresh ammunition against George W. Bush in Paul Bremer's remarks, published on the front page of the Washington Post [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7053-2004Oct4.html ] this morning, criticizing the administration for poor planning in Iraq. The former U.S. administrator in pre-handover Iraq says a lack of adequate forces and failure to prevent the violence and looting early on hampered the occupation.
"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," Bremer said, according to the Post. "We never had enough troops on the ground." The Post points out that "Bremer's comments were striking because they echoed contentions of many administration critics, including Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry, who argue that the U.S. government failed to plan adequately to maintain security in Iraq after the invasion. Bremer has generally defended the U.S. approach in Iraq but in recent weeks has begun to criticize the administration for tactical and policy shortfalls."
According to the pool report from the Kerry bus, Kerry adviser and spokesman Mike McCurry hopped aboard to tell reporters that Kerry would seize on Bremer's comments at this morning's town hall campaign event. "Bremer? I think you're going to hear a little bit about his comments today...," McCurry said. And hinting at the White House's reputation for punishing those who dare cross it, McCurry said: "We're going to hit it before the administration makes him eat his words later today."
Kerry's also expected to jump on another thorny development for the administration -- Donald Rumsfeld's remarks [ http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=596332§ion=news ] on Monday to the Council on Foreign Relations that he knows of no "strong, hard evidence" linking Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al-Qaeda. After his appearance at CFR, Rumsfeld issued this statement [ http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2004/nr20041004-1352.html ] that his answer to a question about Saddam's ties to al-Qaida "regrettably was misunderstood."
-- Geraldine Sealey
[07:16 PDT, Oct. 5, 2004]
----------
Tuesday's must-reads
USA Today [ http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-04-vp-debate-matters_x.htm ]: Cheney vs. Edwards could be a historic moment; it's a vice presidential debate that actually matters.
Reuters [ http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=6409163 ]: Halliburton to play a special role at VP debate tonight; Edwards expected to invoke name of Cheney's former company as example of "cronyism."
AFP [ http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1506&ncid=703&e=7&u=/afp/20041005/ts... ]: Attempting to stop his slide in the polls, Bush uncharacteristically changes his Wednesday schedule to add a "significant speech" on terrorism and the economy.
Knight-Ridder [ http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/9836114.htm ]: CIA report ordered by Dick Cheney "undercuts the White House's claim that Saddam Hussein maintained ties to al-Qaida, saying there's no conclusive evidence that the regime harbored Osama bin Laden associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi."
Washington Post [ http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/9836114.htm ]: Et tu Paul Bremer? Former U.S. official who governed Iraq after invasion says administration made major mistakes not deploying enough troops and not containing violence and looting after Saddam Hussein's fall.
-- Geraldine Sealey
[06:34 PDT, Oct. 5, 2004]
----------
Department of pork barrel security
If jihad should happen to explode onto the vast plains of Wyoming, folks in that sparse prairie state will be seven times better equipped to defend themselves than the denizens of New York City would be facing another attack. That is, if federal anti-terrorism spending under the Bush administration is any indication.
Veteran Washington Post reporter and presidential debate watcher Morton Mintz has put together a list of questions [ http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/debatequestions6.html ] for the four campaign debates now underway, and while there is no indication that any of his questions will be used, he has one that would be particularly apropos for the sitting veep on Tuesday night.
"The administration's latest distribution of funds to localities for anti-terrorism preparations," writes Mintz, "gives New York State $5.47 per person, or $2.30 below the national average. Wyoming gets $38.31 per person, or $30.54 above the national average. In fact, New York gets less than any state other than California, which is also far below the national average.
"Why are seven times more security dollars, on a per capita basis, going to Wyoming, a remote prairie state with a population of a half-million that happens to be home to Vice President Cheney, than to New York, where thousands died in a terrorist attack on its -- and the nation's -- largest city, population 8 million?"
Of course, the per-capita breakdown belies the smaller overall sum allotted to Cheney's home state, but with the Bush government facing record deficits and slashing funding for the nation's front-line protectors [ http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room//index.html#va_cuts ], one would think that every dollar would count. At least the livestock can rest easy.
-- Mark Follman
[15:34 PDT, Oct. 4, 2004]
----------
Dept. of "This just in… "
"Oct. 4, 2004, WASHINGTON (AP) -- In the presidential campaign's closing weeks, Democrats are bracing for an 'October Surprise,' an event so dramatic it could influence the election's outcome. The capture of Osama bin Laden, for instance."
-- Mark Follman
[14:50 PDT, Oct. 4, 2004]
----------
Fun while it lasted
From the it-was-too-good-to-be-true department, this is now on the Harvard Crimson's corrections page [ http://www.thecrimson.com/corrections.aspx ]:
"In reference to Scalia Describes 'Dangerous' Trend: The Sept. 29 news story 'Scalia Describes 'Dangerous' Trend' misquoted Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as saying that 'I even take the position that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged.' In fact, Scalia said, 'I even accept for the sake of argument that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged.'"
War Room cited the original Scalia comment as published in the Crimson as a "quote of the day," but sadly, it turns out that what he actually said wasn't quite as juicy. We're still not sure we would want to listen to Scalia talk about orgies under any circumstances, though.
-- Geraldine Sealey
[13:00 PDT, Oct. 4, 2004]
----------
Bush repays Purple Hearts with red tape nightmare
As President Bush acknowledged 11 times during last Thursday's presidential debate, the U.S. war effort in Iraq is "hard work." Perilous might have been a better way to say it: From the start of the war through August, more than 13,800 U.S. Army personnel alone have been wounded or become sick and have been evacuated from Iraq, according to military watchdog Global Security.org [ http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm ]. That doesn't include the number of soldiers injured during a combat-heavy September, nor does it include the number of U.S. Marines wounded in the fierce fighting in Fallujah and elsewhere throughout the war. (The Marine Corps keeps a much tighter lid on casualty figures than the Army.)
But while the Bush administration has put hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers in harm's way in Iraq, it is cutting funding for the already beleaguered support services for U.S. veterans damaged in war zones.
From the Washington Post [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2946-2004Oct2.html ]:
"The disability benefits and health care systems that provide services for about 5 million American veterans have been overloaded for decades and have a current backlog of more than 300,000 claims. And because they were mobilized to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly 150,000 National Guard and reservist veterans had become eligible for health care and benefits as of Aug. 1. That number is rising. At the same time, President Bush's budget for 2005 calls for cutting the Department of Veterans Affairs staff that handles benefits claims, and some veterans report long waits for benefits and confusing claims decisions.
"'I love the military; that was my life. But I don't believe they're taking care of me now,' said Staff Sgt. Gene Westbrook, 35, of Lawton, Okla. Paralyzed in a mortar attack near Baghdad in April, he has received no disability benefits because his paperwork is missing. He is supporting his wife and three children on his regular military pay of $2,800 a month as he awaits a ruling on whether he will receive $6,500 a month from the VA for his disability."
Through the end of April 2004 -- the most recent accounting the VA could provide, according to the Post -- nearly 10, 000 claims by U.S. veterans of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for service-related disabilities have yet to be processed. During fighting in Sadr City in April, Westbrook was hit by mortar shrapnel, severing his spine; he is now paralyzed from the chest down, has limited movement in his right arm and battles constant infections. Though he praised the way the Army has treated him since his injury, including providing excellent medical care, he told the Post that he's struggled to make it on his regular pay since he returned to the U.S. on July 14.
"'They're supposed to expedite the process, and they have not done that,' he said, adding that officers in his Army unit have been trying in vain to help. Charities have been set up in his honor to help defray costs. 'It's very draining, because I don't know what to do, and my family is asking when we'll get the money,' he said. 'It's the hardest part about this whole thing.'"
The administration is facing a nightmare budget deficit nurtured on its watch -- but is cutting funding for veterans' programs during a war with no end in sight really the way the Bush team wants to deal with the fiscal quagmire? (Would it qualify as "hard work" to divert some of the president's tax cuts favoring the wealthy to VA funding?)
Meanwhile, there is another troubling way in which the plight of vets makes Iraq look increasingly like Vietnam redux: Post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health concerns are expected to become a "dominant issue," VA Secretary Anthony J. Principi told the Post. Added David Autry, a spokesman for Disabled American Veterans: "The system is already strained, and it's going to get strained even worse. It's not a rosy picture at all, and they can't possibly hope to say they're going to provide timely benefits to the new folks if they can't provide timely care to the people already in the system."
-- Mark Follman
[12:34 PDT, Oct. 4, 2004]
----------
In the polls
Two new polls show John Kerry charging ahead after his strong performance in last week's debate: A Newsweek poll [ http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=617800&TICK=NEWS&STORY=/www/story/10... ] of registered voters puts the Kerry-Edwards ticket up 47-45 in a three-way race (Nader still scratches out two percent in the three-way; without him it's 49-46, Kerry over Bush). And while Gallup [ http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/default.aspx?ci=13240&pg=2 ] still gives Bush a two-point lead among the registered voters it sampled, Kerry has made up a lot of ground: Gallup's poll from the week before put Bush in the lead 53-42 -- now it's a slim 49-47 lead in Bush's favor (well within the margin of error).
Newsweek was among those criticized after the Republican Convention for a sampling that included more Republican than Democratic voters. With the latest poll that's changed; Democrats sampled outnumbered Republicans 38-33. Larry Husick, project manager for the Newsweek poll, attributes that fluctuation to some voters' tendency to identify with party momentum. "If you asked how many people were Cardinals fans at the beginning of the season you might get eight percent," he tells War Room. "But if the Cardinals win that season, it might be 15 percent by the end."
Not surprisingly, the Newsweek poll concludes that Kerry's debate performance (perhaps combined with Bush's lack of one) made him a lot more likeable. With Kerry's favorability rating around 35 percent last month, the Drudge report equated the senator's public profile with that of a fallen Martha Stewart, as well as Joseph McCarthy and Herbert Hoover. It makes one wonder who Drudge would compare Bush to today, with more voters having "a favorable impression" of Kerry (52-40) than President Bush (49-46).
Even so, while the majority of voters Newsweek surveyed gave Kerry the lead overall and like him more, they still don't think he's a winner. Asked who was more likely to win in November, 55 percent said Bush, and only 29 percent said Kerry.
Finally, the Newsweek poll suggests that, with Friday's debate on the economy approaching, voters are a lot more open to John Kerry's economic plan than that of the incumbent. Fifty-two percent trust Kerry to successfully handle the economy, while only 39 percent trust Bush to do the same.
Democrats also made gains in recent senate polling. In three of the hottest races -- Alaska [ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/28/135718/735 ], Florida [ http://www.sptimes.com/2004/09/29/Decision2004/US_Senate_contenders_.shtml ] and Oklahoma [ http://www.claremoreprogress.com/archive/article16336 ] -- Democrats lead by six points or more, and in another four very competitive states -- Louisiana, North Carolina [ http://www.citizen-times.com/cache/article/regional/62490.shtml ], South Dakota [ http://www.nativetimes.com/index.asp?action=displayarticle&article_id=5224 ] and Colorado -- lead by smaller margins.
It's striking that nearly all of the tightest races are in states that are unabashedly Republican. The conventional wisdom was that the retirement of five southern Democratic Senators and the nomination of a northeastern Democrat would add up to a Republican Senate windfall. Part of the Dems' strategy appears to be distancing themselves from their own presidential nominee. Tom Daschle's campaign in South Dakota has run commercials showing the senate minority leader embracing President Bush, while Inez Tenenbaum's campaign slogan, "An independent voice for South Carolina," may only be a slightly more subtle way of saying "I'm not with John Kerry."
-- Jeff Horwitz
[11:34 PDT, Oct. 4, 2004]
----------
Who among us does not like making up quotes?
Avid New York Times readers probably recognize this quote from the paper of record's campaign coverage: "Who among us does not like NASCAR?"; or perhaps, "Who among us does not love NASCAR?" The paper has attributed some iteration of the quote to John Kerry in several opinion columns and news stories since March, always to make the point that try as he might, John Kerry just doesn't get the common, NASCAR-loving man, and when he tries to adopt a regular-guy persona, the result is laughably unconvincing.
Here are a few examples from the Times:
Maureen Dowd, March 18, 2004: Even when he puts on that barn jacket over his expensive suit to look less lockjaw -- and says things like, "Who among us doesn't like Nascar?" -- he can come across like Mr. Collins, Elizabeth Bennet's pretentious cousin in "Pride and Prejudice."
Sheryl Gay Stolberg, July 30, 2004: To anyone who has listened to Mr. Kerry extemporize at length -- who among us can forget his "Who among us doesn't like Nascar?" remark? -- the thought of the Brahmin from Boston disdaining speechwriters and trying humor seemed odd, shall we say, for the most important address of his career.
Frank Rich, Sept. 5, 2004: Mr. Kerry, having joined the macho game with Mr. Bush on the president's own cheesy terms, is hardly innocent in his own diminishment. From the get-go he's tried to match his opponent in stupid male tricks. If Mr. Bush clears brush in Crawford, then Mr. Kerry rides a Harley-Davidson onto Jay Leno's set. When the Democrat asks "Who among us does not love Nascar?" ..he is asking to be ridiculed as an ''International Man of Mystery."
And to show how ingrained the NASCAR quote has become in the Times' coverage of the Democratic candidate, the headline "Who Among Us Does Not Love Windsurfing?" was used (without further explanation within the story – because at this point, who needed it?) in a Sept. 5, 2004 piece that questioned Kerry's choice of recreational sports [ http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/05/weekinreview/05bigp.html?ex=1097035200&en=2f2f862bf612b132&... ].
A couple of weeks ago, a handful of liberal bloggers, including Atrios [ http://www.atrios.blogspot.com/2004_09_19_atrios_archive.html#109569934223732927 ] and Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler [ http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh092104.shtml ], questioned the accuracy of the Kerry quote. A Nexis search (we did one too) found that the "who among us" remark curiously seemed to originate with a Maureen Dowd column. Letters were sent to the Times public editor (we sent one, too). A search was on for some proof that Kerry actually said this. Well, it turns out he never did say it -- that's right, Kerry never made a statement that has now become 2004 campaign legend at the New York Times.
Bob Somerby has the story [ http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh100204.shtml ]: "We finally have the full information. Yes, Maureen Dowd invented that fake NASCAR quote -- the comical 'quote' from pretentious old Kerry."
-- Geraldine Sealey
[09:58 PDT, Oct. 4, 2004]
----------
Traditional GOP blocs question Bush in Fla.
Two newspaper articles, two historically-reliable Republican voting blocs Bush is having trouble with in Florida:
From the Los Angeles Times [ http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arab04oct04,1,654526.story?coll=la-headlines-na... ]:
"On Sunday night, a surprising new ethnic thread wove itself into Florida's ever-complicated political fabric: the frustrated Arab American. Business owners, physicians, lawyers and others -- furious over the Bush administration's post-Sept. 11 policies that many believe unfairly target Muslims and Arab Americans in the government's quest to root out terrorists -- huddled in a hotel ballroom across the street from Disney World to demonstrate how much they wanted a change in the White House. The meeting, intended to be a bipartisan affair sponsored by the Washington-based Arab American Institute, turned into a cheering session for Democratic nominee Sen. John F. Kerry -- illustrating a dramatic shift in a traditionally Republican group 'I thought Bush was another Ronald Reagan on a small scale for what he believed in,' said Ashley Ansara, president of a clinical research company in Orlando. 'I found out he's no Reagan. Not even close.' He said this would be the first presidential election since he moved to the U.S. in 1973 that he wouldn't be voting Republican."
And from the Sun-Sentinel [ http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-dcubadems27oct04,0,6092937.story?coll=sfla-h... ], the state of the Cuban-American vote:
"Although President Bush is expected to win the majority of South Florida's Cuban-American vote, many Cuban-Americans have increasingly criticized his administration. That could be a problem for Bush, who by some estimates won about 80 percent of the Cuban vote in 2000. Any erosion of that support could be significant, since the 2000 presidential election was decided by just 537 votes."
"The turning point for Pezon, who met his wife about three years ago in Cuba and married her last year, was the recent policy that restricts Cuban-Americans to one family visit every three years. Before the change, Cubans could go once a year without a Treasury license, and each year Pezon received permission for additional visits. Because he thinks the Bush administration's policy is too harsh, Pezon is pinning his hopes on Kerry's promises to allow 'principled travel' to the island. 'If your mom is in Cuba and she's dying of some illness, you can't go,' Pezon said. 'Suppose your wife was having a child, you can't go. Life's not black and white, but the law now is like that.'"
-- Geraldine Sealey
[06:32 PDT, Oct. 4, 2004]
----------
Monday's must-reads
New York Times [ http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/04/politics/campaign/04vote.html?hp ]: Deadlines are fast approaching or have already passed in most states -- and the data show new voters are registering in droves. " ... How many of the newly registered will vote is a matter of some debate. But it is clear the pace is particularly high in urban areas of swing states, where independent Democratic groups and community organizations have been running a huge voter registration campaign for just over a year."
IHT [ http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?file=541735.html ]: New polls show John Kerry was widely viewed as the winner of the first presidential debate, and Bush's aides and surrogates set out on the Sunday shows to attack Kerry and attempt to slow his momentum.
Washington Post [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4587-2004Oct3.html ]: Conventional wisdom was that Tuesday's Cheney-Edwards debate would be merely an entertaining sideshow, but it takes on a new significance with pressure on Cheney to boost his ticket after Bush's less than stellar debate performance.
AFP [ http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041003/ts_alt_afp/us_vote ]: "Already scrambling to make up ground lost after last week's debate, US President George W. Bush's campaign was forced further on the defensive by a report that the White House knew before invading Iraq that key intelligence on the country's alleged nuclear weapons program was questionable."
AP [ http://ap.indystar.com/dynamic/stories/N/NADER?SITE=ININS&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT ]: With the presidential race virtually tied less than a month before the election, Ralph Nader announces he will continue campaigning in key battleground states.
-- Geraldine Sealey
[06:10 PDT, Oct. 4, 2004]
----------
Bush flunks the "global test"
The Bush-Cheney campaign has never been shy about misrepresenting John Kerry's views. At the Republican National Convention, for instance, Zell Miller claimed that Kerry "has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations. " It's a reference to a quote from an interview Kerry gave to the Harvard Crimson 35 years ago -- and hence just as accurate as saying that George W. Bush "has made it clear that he likes to get drunk every night."
But even by the slippery standards of the Bush-Cheney camp, the president's latest misrepresentation about a Kerry position shows a remarkable willingness to veer from the truth. On the campaign trial this weekend, Bush has lambasted Kerry for what the Republicans call Kerry's "'global test' doctrine." In Ohio Saturday, Bush said: "In the debate, Senator Kerry said something revealing when he laid out the Kerry doctrine. He said -- he said that America has to pass a global test before we can use American troops to defend ourselves."
Only that's not what Kerry said. At Thursday night's debate, Kerry said that an American president "always has the right, and always has had the right, for pre-emptive strike." He said that he would never "cede away" the right "to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America." But, Kerry said, "you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reason."
Hear that, George? You've got to be able to "prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." That's called the past tense -- as in, act now and ask questions later. What Kerry said -- what Kerry plainly meant -- was that the United States was free to take pre-emptive action if there was a legitimate reason for doing so, a reason so powerful that the world would understand.
Former U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke held a conference call with reporters Saturday to set the record straight, but it shouldn't have been necessary. A few hours beforehand, the Bush-Cheney campaign sent around an email highlighting Bush's attack on Kerry. It included Bush's quotes from Ohio, followed immediately by the words Kerry actually said during the debate. One of these things was not like the other, but the Bush-Cheney campaign apparently thought no one would notice.
-- Tim Grieve
[11:57 PDT, Oct. 2, 2004]
----------
Fox News gives Kerry extreme makeover!
By now you've probably heard about the fake story that "chief political correspondent" Carl Cameron peddled on Fox News' Web site this morning -- you know, the one that had John Kerry making girlish (French?) pronouncements about his "manicures" and "pedicures." Josh Marshall [ http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_09_26.php#003556 ] is all over it. Fox has since pulled the piece and apologized, citing "fatigue and bad judgment," for quoting Kerry as saying the following:
"Women should like me! I do manicures."
"Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!"
"I'm metrosexual — [Bush's] a cowboy."
Note to pro-Bush bloggers: We're not sure exactly how many days without sleep it takes to read those lines as authentic -- but probably at least a couple more than it takes to determine whether they were churned out with a typewriter from the 1970s.
-- Mark Follman
[16:01 PDT, Oct. 1, 2004]
----------
White House message control on Iraq
In a story [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60725-2004Sep29.html ] yesterday -- likely buried by all the media coverage of the presidential debate -- the Washington Post reported that the Bush administration is redoubling its efforts to control and put a positive spin on public perception of the situation in Iraq. They're concentrating on Americans who are working the front lines:
"The Bush administration, battling negative perceptions of the Iraq war, is sending Iraqi Americans to deliver what the Pentagon calls 'good news' about Iraq to U.S. military bases, and has curtailed distribution of reports showing increasing violence in that country.
"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's office has sent commanders of U.S. military facilities a five-page memorandum titled 'Guidance to Commanders.' The Pentagon, the memo says, is sponsoring a group of Iraqi Americans and former officials from the Coalition Provisional Authority to speak at military bases throughout the United States starting Friday to provide 'a first-hand account' of events in Iraq. The Iraqi Americans and the CPA officials worked on establishing the interim Iraqi government. The Iraqi Americans 'feel strongly that the benefits of the coalition efforts have not been fully reported,' the memo says.
"USAID said this week that it will restrict distribution of reports by contractor Kroll Security International showing that the number of daily attacks by insurgents in Iraq has increased. On Monday, a day after The Washington Post published a front-page story saying that 'the Kroll reports suggest a broad and intensifying campaign of insurgent violence,' a USAID official sent an e-mail to congressional aides stating: 'This is the last Kroll report to come in. After the WPost story, they shut it down in order to regroup. I'll let you know when it restarts.'"
And while President Bush chastised John Kerry during the debate Thursday about the notion that interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is some form of "puppet" leader, the Post reports that the Bush team in fact had a heavy hand in crafting a speech that Allawi gave during his recent visit to Washington.
"The unusual public-relations effort by the Pentagon and the U.S. Agency for International Development comes as details have emerged showing the U.S. government and a representative of President Bush's reelection campaign had been heavily involved in drafting the speech given to Congress last week by interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. Combined, they indicate that the federal government is working assiduously to improve Americans' opinions about the Iraq conflict -- a key element of Bush's reelection message."
Bush administration spokesman Scott McClellan denied any White House involvement in the Allawi speech, according to the Post, "but administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the prime minister was coached and aided by the U.S. government, its allies and friends of the administration. Among them was Dan Senor, former spokesman for the CPA who has more recently represented the Bush campaign in media appearances. Senor, who has denied writing the speech, sent Allawi recommended phrases. He also helped Allawi rehearse in New York last week, officials said. Senor declined to comment."
-- Mark Follman
[15:33 PDT, Oct. 1, 2004]
----------
The "busting" of A.Q. Khan and other tall tales
When President Bush patted himself on the back last night for "busting" the "A.Q. Khan network," many of the 55 million Americans watching -- most of whom probably never heard of Mr. Khan -- probably thought that sounded pretty darn good. But who is this A. Q. Khan, and has his network been "brought to justice," as Bush claimed? Hardly.
Abdul Qadeer Khan, also known as the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, was pardoned by Pervez Musharraf after admitting he gave nuclear technology to other countries, including North Korea and Iran. Bush, who said last night that nuclear proliferation "in the hands of a terrorist" enemy was the greatest threat to our national security supported the pardon of A.Q. Khan [ http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/02/05/pakistan.nuclear/ ], even though he admittedly proliferated nuclear technology right into the hands of the last two nations standing in Bush's Axis of Evil.
Not only has Khan been pardoned, the Washington Post reports [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63944-2004Sep30.html ] that "not a single person involved in his network has been prosecuted anywhere." And just today, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency complained to the BBC [ http://www.dawn.com/2004/10/01/top1.htm ] that Pakistan won't even let the UN watchdog agency interview Khan.
The misrepresentation of A.Q. Khan's status wasn't the only factual-fudging we saw last night. Salon's Jeff Horwitz detailed [ http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2004/09/30/100ktroops/in... ] Bush's overstatement on how many Iraqi security forces have been trained.
Bush repeated his bogus claim that three-quarters of al-Qaida leadership have been "brought to justice." As we pointed out last month [ http://archive.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/09/09/zawahiri/ ] (he says this one a lot), a 9/11 commission member said of this line, it "sounds like it was pulled out of somebody's orifice."
The Progress Report [ http://www.progressreport.org/ ] has the goods on several Bush misstatements, quoting other news sources:
-- MISSTATING THE RATIONALE FOR WAR IN IRAQ: Bush tried to rebut Kerry about the prewar need for more patience on Iraq, saying diplomacy wouldn't have persuaded Saddam to disarm. Writes the Boston Globe, "It was almost as though the president has forgotten that no stockpiles of forbidden weapons have been found in Iraq."
-- MISSTATING VOTER REGISTRATION SUCCESS IN AFGHANISTAN: Bush stated, "10 million people have registered to vote in Afghanistan." The problem: most sources agree there aren't even 10 million eligible voters in the country ...
-- MISSTATING NORTH KOREA DIPLOMACY: Bush inexplicably claimed Kerry's proposal to have direct talks with North Korea would end the six-nation diplomacy that the administration has pursued over Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions, claiming it would also "drive away China, a key player in the negotiations." He was unable to explain this charge, however."
-- MISSTATING NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION EFFORTS: Last night, Bush said he'd increased spending by "about 35 percent" on nonproliferation efforts since he took office. The Washington Post points out that in his first budget, "he proposed a 13 percent cut -- about $116 million -- and much of the increases since then have been added by Congress."
And Fact-Check.org's post-debate truth-squadding [ http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=271 ] concluded that both candidates had some issues with the truth from time to time:
"Bush glossed over significant problems with US reconstruction efforts in Iraq when he claimed that the US is 'spending money' and that 100,000 Iraqi security forces have been trained. And Kerry overstated the case when he said Bush allowed Osama bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora by "outsourcing" fighting to Afghans. Bush misquoted Kerry, distorting his position on withdrawing troops from Iraq. And Kerry said the Iraq war has cost $200 billion, when the cost so far is actually just over $120 billion."
-- Geraldine Sealey
[11:57 PDT, Oct. 1, 2004]
----------
Running scared
The ever-cautious mainstream media is mostly calling Bush-Kerry Round 1 a draw this morning. Perhaps they don't trust the instapolls [ http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2004/09/30/cbspoll/index... ] or the folks in Ohio [ http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2004/09/30/ohio_6/index.... ]. Perhaps they are CBS [ http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/29/cbs_wmd/index.html ].
But a number of conservatives are calling it like they saw it -- and it ain't pretty for their man.
Jay Nordlinger [ http://www.nationalreview.com/nordlinger/nordlinger200410010114.asp ], managing editor of the right-wing flagship National Review magazine, wrote up his thoughts immediately following the debate, without talking to anyone else or listening to other commentary. He said that an effective, relaxed Kerry "spoke clearly, and at a nice pace," while Bush, "a little desperate," pulled a Dan Quayle. (Ouch.) Here is part of his take on the president's quagmire in Coral Gables:
"I thought Kerry did very, very well; and I thought Bush did poorly -- much worse than he is capable of doing. Listen: If I were just a normal guy -- not Joe Political Junkie -- I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate, I would. If I were just a normal, fairly conservative, war-supporting guy: I would vote for Kerry.
"Kerry went right to the alliances. He emphasized the importance of such relationships. At least you can't accuse him of succumbing to Republican mockery on the subject, of shucking this core conviction of his. Bush, throughout the evening, as Kerry spoke, had that pursed and annoyed look. I think it must have driven many people crazy. ...
"Bush said, 'We're makin' progress' a hundred times -- that seemed a little desperate. He also said 'mixed messages' a hundred times -- I was wishing that he would mix his message. He said, 'It's hard work,' or, 'It's tough,' a hundred times. In fact, Bush reminded me of Dan Quayle in the 1988 debate, when the Hoosier repeated a couple of talking points over and over, to some chuckles from the audience.
"Staying on message is one thing; robotic repetition -- when there are oceans of material available -- is another… I hate to say it, but often Bush gave the appearance of being what his critics charge he is: callow, jejune, unserious. And remember -- talk about repetition! -- I concede this as someone who loves the man.
"Bush was weary -- harmfully weary, I think. He let a million opportunities go by."
(Did we say, ouch?) Read Nordlinger's entire lengthy analysis -- it's honest, and it's brutal.
This morning Nordlinger had some company on the Dan Quayle point: Fox News icon Bill O'Reilly, on his morning radio show, also berated Bush for saying Iraq was "hard work" over and over in the debate. Then there was Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol [ http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2004/09/30/kristol/index... ] (Republicans are "deflated"), and conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan [ http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2004/09/30/sullivan/inde... ] (a "Carter-Reagan rematch," with the two parties flip-flopped).
And how about those critical women voters? "Bush blew an opportunity," was the assessment of Janice Shaw Crouse [ http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/crouse200410010856.asp ], spokesperson for the Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee:
"Bush was inexplicably unfocused; he lacked energy and seemed distracted. He didn't seem prepared. He struggled to talk knowledgeably about his record -- his clearly outstanding record. Bush virtually sleepwalked through the debates, only occasionally mustering up the passion to hammer home his points.
"The president allowed John Kerry to set the agenda and ended up on the defensive. He simply needed to be presidential and stand on his record; instead he repeatedly answered his opponent and bowed to Kerry's agenda. …
"The net outcome is that Kerry exceeded expectations; he skillfully, if not honestly, addressed all the accusations against him. Bush did not live up to expectations; he did not even seem presidential. The Bush campaign had hoped to seal the election with the first debate; instead, it is going to be a long road to November 2."
While the mainstream media trips over itself today to be "fair" in its post-debate assessments, at least some conservatives know reality TV when they see it: "The Bush Blowout" has been cancelled.
-- Mark Follman
[11:48 PDT, Oct. 1, 2004]
----------
"Faces of frustration"
Before last night's debate, we wrote a post suggesting [ http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2004/09/30/debate_rules/... ] (we were only half-serious at the time, we will admit) that with all of the tight rules and regs surrounding the forum, the networks' decision to ditch the debate commission rules and show renegade "cutaway shots" of whichever candidate wasn't speaking could actually make the whole thing more interesting ... well, it did. George W. Bush seemed to learn nothing from the treatment Al Gore got four years ago when he sighed and fidgeted during his opponent's answers. Now, Bush is the one getting gored for smirking, blinking, and appearing agitated while Kerry spoke.
Last night after the debate, the pundits almost instantly set in on Bush's apparent "smirking," as Wolf Blitzer said. As ABC's The Note pointed out this morning, three Florida (swing state!) newspapers noted Bush's facial expressions in their lead debate coverage, with the Jacksonville paper [ http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/100104/met_16790590.shtml ] saying "Bush appeared to grimace or sigh sometimes at Kerry's rips on his record." And Knight-Ridder's Ron Hutcheson [ http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002051070_debateanal01.html ] wrote that Bush "frowned, pursed his lips and bit the inside of his cheek as Kerry attacked the president's performance in office again and again." The New York Times' Alessandra Stanley wrote [ http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/01/politics/campaign/01teevee.html?adxnnl=1&oref=login&adxnnl... ]: "The cameras demonstrated that Mr. Bush cannot hear criticism without frowning, blinking and squirming (he even sighed once). They showed that Mr. Kerry can control his anger and stay cool but that he cannot suppress his inner overeager A student, flashing a bleach-white smile and nodding hungrily at each question."
And Democrats have spliced all of Bush's shifting and smirking into a video montage called "Faces of Frustration [ http://www.democrats.org/ ]."
Reaction to Bush's clear discomfort last night is certainly not at fever pitch, not the overarching media storyline Gore's sighing was in 2000 (although Saturday Night Live hasn't had its way with Bush's smirks yet) but it's got to be enough to bug the bejeezus out of Bush's staff who took pains to prevent this very thing from happening -- to prevent us from seeing Bush when he thinks the cameras aren't on.
-- Geraldine Sealey
[10:23 PDT, Oct. 1, 2004]
----------
Archived War Room: [F6 note -- links appear at this location on the page; use link below]
----------
Copyright 2004 Salon.com
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room//index.html
Greensburg, KS - 5/4/07
"Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty."
from John Philpot Curran, Speech
upon the Right of Election, 1790
F6
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
