April 13, 2004:

There is continuing fatalism in the Administration about terrorism. Have you noticed? This is something I've been meaning to write about since Rice testified last Thursday, but with passing time it seemed less worth pointing out. It was re-invigorated in tonight's press conference.

When Rice said there was no silver bullet that would (could?) have prevented 9/11, it seemed as if an effort was being made to condone the lack of effort by focusing on the low likelihood of success. As if to say, we couldn't have, so are you really asking we should have tried? At the same time, it seemed like a pre-emptive strike against failures in the future: the terrorists only have to be lucky once, she said, and Bush reminded us of that tonight. Yes, it's true: but it doesn't mean we should give up.

Are we safer now than we were before 9/11?

Well, when you saw those frequent breakaway shots of White House staff, did you notice that the trio shown was Rice, Karl Rove, and Andy Card?

That is, where was Vice President Dick Cheney?

If we're safer now than we were on 9/10, why couldn't we afford to have the VP in the same room?
Link 11:08 PM

The post below contains my greatest outrage, but overall I was horrified by the guy. He says on the one hand that he has no intention of losing his job, but in a later question says he'll leave his performance up to the voters to decide. That is, he'll use braggadocio as he sees fit, and how he sees fit. And his answers, whenever he could pull it off, were incoherent. For instance, when asked why he and Cheney had to appear together before the 9/11 Commission, he took the line that it was to the benefit of the commission: when everyone knows that the commission only accepted this condition in order to get Bush to testify.

In most similar investigations conducted by Congress, witnesses are interviewed separately to prevent them from trying to coordinate their testimony.

"It was the suggestion of the White House," Mr. Kean said, adding that it seemed a good compromise "in exchange for getting all 10 commissioners to be able to ask any questions they wanted to."

The man is continuing to lie. He's horrible.
Link 9:59 PM

Reflection not allowed in the White House. Is there anything more dangerous than hubris in the Presidency? In the most powerful nation in the world? In tonight's press conference, a reporter from NBC noted to Bush that a major criticism of him is that he never accepts any guilt or responsibility for his missteps, such as the overstatement of WMDs in Iraq. He kind of dodged that, as you might expect... But it didn't even heighten his sensitivity to the issue, because about 20 minutes later a reporter from Time asked him what he saw as his greatest mistake (failure? I don't have a transcript yet) since September 11. Bush's first response to the question was to joke that he'd wished he'd been submitted that question in advance so he could have thought about it more... He fumbled, and danced around, and admitted he was having trouble answering it. But not only could he not identify his greatest mistake, he didn't list any. That's right, he has no personal failures that he is aware of. He can't list any. This suggests that personal growth is not an issue for the bastard: everyone who wants to grow goes through self-examination, but apparently not President Bush, since he didn't bother to list a single failure at all. He's pure as the virgin snow.

Here's the transcript:

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa.

You've looked back before 9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?

BUSH: I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it.

John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could've done it better this way or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet.

I would've gone into Afghanistan the way we went into Afghanistan. Even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still would've called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein.

See, I'm of the belief that we'll find out the truth on the weapons. That's why we sent up the independent commission. I look forward to hearing the truth as to exactly where they are. They could still be there. They could be hidden, like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm.

One of the things that Charlie Duelfer talked about was that he was surprised of the level of intimidation he found amongst people who should know about weapons and their fear of talking about them because they don't want to be killed.

You know, there's this kind of -- there's a terror still in the soul of some of the people in Iraq.

BUSH: They're worried about getting killed, and therefore they're not going to talk. But it'll all settle out, John. We'll find out the truth about the weapons at some point in time.

However, the fact that he had the capacity to make them bothers me today just like it would have bothered me then. He's a dangerous man. He's a man who actually not only had weapons of mass destruction -- the reason I can say that with certainty is because he used them.

And I have no doubt in my mind that he would like to have inflicted harm, or paid people to inflict harm, or trained people to inflict harm, on America, because he hated us.

I hope -- I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.

Not quick on his feet about coming up with a mistake. And he pretends to be Christian?
UPDATE: Originally this post led with the word "circumspection;" I think "reflection" captures it better.
Link 9:45 PM

In LA we were surprised to get white tuna in a sushi restaurant which was frozen. But apparently US food laws mandate that sushi is not fresh, but frozen and thawed — to kill all the bad thingies living inside the raw fish. But tuna seems to escape this rule?
Link 4:23 PM

My late thoughts on Richard Clarke's book (having finished it while on vacation) are that the Bush administration's reactions are completely understandable, even though I disagree with them. Clarke is certainly no classic liberal, and in his book he comes out against liberal causes like the Kyoto agreement; so, in addition to his official credentials, he comes off as a law and order conservative, and the Bush admin couldn't simply write his charges off as those of some whacko.

Beyond questions of the distinctions between treating antiterrorism as urgent vs. important — a distinction which in and of itself any capable politician could easily dodge — Clarke does seem to compliment the Clinton administration for its efforts. For example, on page 144, Clarke writes:

The first time I had proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass." We tried, but failed. We learned that often things change by the time you can get a snatch team in place. Sometimes intelligence is wrong. Some governments cooperate with terrorists. It was worth trying, however, because often enough we succeeded.

I don't remember descriptions of similar moments in the Bush administration, unless you count the let's-go-to-Iraq enthusiasm of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld. So politically, the book is more damaging to Bush than I'd expected, because it does portray an active Clinton administration.

I'm still puzzled by Clarke's omission of the Brooklyn bombing plot of Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer. So far as I can tell this was different from the landmarks bomb plot of Sheik Omar Rahman, which had happened years earlier. At one point Mezer had been thought to have been tied to Hamas, but in court the only motive he described was wanting to kill as many Jews as possible — and with a target like the Atlantic Avenue transit hub he would have accomplished that and far more. But even if only an independent operator (the only reason I can conceive of Clarke not mentioning the event in a book seemingly about organized terror), the omission seems odd in a book which feels a little padded. Mezer certainly had terrorist motives, even if he wasn't connected to Al Qaeda.
Link 3:47 PM

To remind you of a valuable link: Cursor is continuing to provide access to important reactions to Rice's appearance before the 9/11 commission. I will have some reactions later, as soon as I make sure they haven't been talked about elsewhere first.
Link 9:32 AM

---

We'll be back to our regular programming shortly, but for now I want to mention a few things about our trip. First and foremost, it was great to see my sister-in-law and meet her new squeeze. They are hoots by themselves, and exponentially so when they're together. They are also lucky to live in a nice area, a short drive from Runyon Canyon and its wonderful dog run. Morning hikes were a great way to start several of the days.

We also made it out of LA on our own, and my favorite part of the trip was a brief afternoon at Joshua Tree National Park (expect to see pictures in the weeks to come in the "today's gratuitous photo" space on the blog front). Easy hiking, some bloomage from the Joshua Trees and assorted wild flowers, and a nice afternoon. Yes, they even play U2 in the visitors' center.

Ab's favorite part, I think, was the San Diego Zoo. It's tough to say how it compares to the Bronx Zoo, because the Bronx Zoo feels more spread out. Certainly the animals are different (no pandas in the Bronx Zoo, for instance), and the San Diego Zoo has an added beauty due to its being terraced. But the Bronx Zoo has prairie dogs, one of my favorites. So it's a toss-up.

Zoë had a few favorites: seeing her aunt was high on the list, as well as going on her first upside-down roller coaster at Six Flags Magic Mountain. But one of the best was completely unanticipated: Anne Hathaway (star of "The Princess Diaries" and "Ella Enchanted") was at the next booth when we had sushi last week, and after considerable to-ing and fro-ing about whether or not to approach her, Ab did (before her food arrived, fortunately), and Ms. Hathaway quickly invited Zoë (hiding at this point) over to say hello. She was very pleasant to Zoë, who somehow forgot to point out that we all hail from Brooklyn, like her. Zoë got her autograph on a paper placemat, and was ecstatic for days.
Link 9:11 AM

April 11, 2004:

Just arrived from LA about an hour ago, too late to say much... Look for more tomorrow!
Link 11:51 PM

On hiatus until mid-April.

April 1, 2004:

The Bush campaign is so fond of that shot of Bush walking in that nice suit. I just can't wait to see it followed up, in someone else's ad, showing the suit empty. I think enough people know what the phrase "empty suit" means (maybe the phrase needs to appear on screen), and I think there are enough ways to tag him on it. I mean, here are some that come to mind:

• Bring 'em on.
• That silly statement that we can see how well it's going by how desperate they're getting.
• His statement in the Brit Hume interview that he didn't need to read the papers, he could rely on what he's spoon fed.
• The 9/11 footage of him sitting in the classroom (although that might take too long for an ad).
• Any footage where his eyes shift while trying to answer a question, such as on Meet The Press.
• A reminder about when he accused North Korea of breaching agreements they'd never made.

What leader needs to have his Veep testify along by his side?
Link 12:13 PM

---

They spun again, of course. In my post below you can read a statement from Scott McClellan re the 9/11 commission's reaction to the idea of Bush and Cheney testifying together:

The commission very much welcomed the decision of the President and the Vice President to sit down together and meet with the entire commission and answer whatever questions they want to raise with the President and Vice President.

Is "welcomed" the truth? Here's what we had in Tuesday's New York Times, when the agreement was announced:

In most similar investigations conducted by Congress, witnesses are interviewed separately to prevent them from trying to coordinate their testimony.

"It was the suggestion of the White House," Mr. Kean said, adding that it seemed a good compromise "in exchange for getting all 10 commissioners to be able to ask any questions they wanted to."

So, if there was any welcoming, it was only to the idea that they would be able to have the entire commission present; it probably was not to the idea of Bush and Cheney doing a tag team. And the context in which McClellan was answering was not about the entire commission meeting, but about Bush and Cheney together. The question was about Bush and Cheney together, and McClellan deliberately linked it to something which the commission did welcome.
Link 11:26 AM

---

We were focused on Al Qaeda! We were! Honest! Had September 11, 2001 gone differently, Condi Rice would have given a big speech about "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday" without mentioning Al Qaeda, says the Washington Post.

Can we start talking about outplacement for the whole crew?
Link 10:55 AM

---

Ah, the reason Cheney and Bush will testify together is so that the 9/11 panel will get the answers in a timely manner! From yesterday's White House briefing:

Q Can I stay on that subject -- we need to stay on that subject, briefly. Could you explain to us why the White House requested that the President and Vice President jointly answer questions, as opposed to separately?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, one, we've said from the very beginning that it's important for the 9/11 Commission to have all the information they need to do their job. And we've worked very closely and cooperatively with the 9/11 Commission to make sure they have all that information. We have provided, as the Chairman and Vice Chairman have pointed out, unprecedented access to information from the administration to the 9/11 Commission, including our most sensitive national security documents. And that's the spirit in which we have worked.

Now, keep in mind that the 9/11 Commission already has more than 2.3 million pages of documents, there have been more than a hundred briefings, and that includes at the head-of-agency level, there have been more than 800 interviews and meetings with administration officials, some 900 audio cassette tapes of meetings and other materials that have been provided to them, and more than 60 compact discs of radar, flight and other information. So they already have a lot of information. And we want to work in a way that helps make sure that they have the information they need.

The commission very much welcomed the decision of the President and the Vice President to sit down together and meet with the entire commission and answer whatever questions they want to raise with the President and Vice President. This is a good way to make sure that they're getting the information that they need to do their job.

Q Why the specific insistence that they be together? I mean, they could --

MR. McCLELLAN: This is a good way to help them get the information they need and do so in a timely manner. Remember, they've already got a lot of the information, they've already conducted a lot of the interviews. And what they're trying to --

Q But they were separate interviews, right?

MR. McCLELLAN: What they're trying to do is get the information they need to complete their work and provide a full report to the American people. And we are helping every step of the way. And this is a way that will help them move forward in those efforts.

Q But why is the joint session better than separate sessions, which is what they --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, one, it will help make sure they get that information in a timely manner. They can talk to both of them and help better understand how to piece together all the information that they've already received.

Now, the odd thing here is that I would think it would be easier to get the information sooner by scheduling them separately; we know how precious the President's time is, as well as the Veep's, and I'm sure it's not easy to find a three hour slot when they're both available. Also, notice that this condition is not something which the panel asked for, even though the White House seems to feel it's in the panel's best interest. It is so good to know the White House has the investigation's best interests at heart; we have to remember how happy the White House was with the whole idea from the beginning.
Link 10:45 AM

Back to top.