Clarke Stays Cool as Partisanship Heats Up By Dana Milbank, Washington Post

Shortly before the hearing, the White House violated its long-standing rules by authorizing Fox News [the official Republican News Organ] to air remarks favorable to Bush that Clarke had made anonymously at an administration briefing in 2002. The White House press secretary read passages from the 2002 remarks at his televised briefing, and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who has declined to give public testimony to the commission, called reporters into her office to highlight the discrepancy. ”There are two very different stories here,” she said. ”These stories can’t be reconciled.”

Back at the hearing, former Illinois governor James R. Thompson, a Republican member of the commission, took up the cause, waving the Fox News transcript with one hand and Clarke’s critical book in the other. ”Which is true?” Thompson demanded, folding his arms and glowering down at the witness.

Clarke, appearing unfazed by the apparent contradiction between his current criticism and previous praise, spoke to Thompson as if addressing a slow student.

”I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done, and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done,” he explained. ”I’ve done it for several presidents.”

With each effort by Thompson to highlight Clarke’s inconsistency … Clarke tutored the commissioner about the obligations of a White House aide. Thompson, who had far exceeded his allotted time, frowned contemptuously. “I think a lot of things beyond the tenor and the tone bother me about this,” he said. During a second round of questioning, Thompson returned to the subject, questioning Clarke’s “standard of candor and morality.”

“I don’t think it’s a question of morality at all; I think it’s a question of politics,” Clarke snapped.

Thompson had to wait for Sept. 11, 2001, victims’ relatives in the gallery to stop applauding before he pleaded ignorance of the ways of Washington. “I’m from the Midwest, so I think I’ll leave it there,” he said. Moments later, Thompson left the hearing room and did not return.

Clarke served 4 presidents, including Ronald Raygun. He is a registered Republican and another outraged citizen. mjh

Telephonic Interview of the Vice President by Rush Limbaugh

[mjh: first, let’s discredit Richard Clarke]

Lush: Why did the administration keep Richard Clarke on the counterterrorism team when you all assumed office in January of 2001?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I wasn’t directly involved in that decision. He was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cyber security side of things, that is he was given a new assignment at some point here. I don’t recall the exact time frame.

Lush: Cyber security, meaning Internet security?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, worried about attacks on the computer systems and the sophisticated information technology systems we have these days that an adversary would use or try to the system against us.

Lush: Well, now that explains a lot, that answer right there explains — (Laughter.)

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, he wasn’t — he wasn’t in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff. And I saw part of his interview last night, and he wasn’t —

Lush: He was demoted.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It was as though he clearly missed a lot of what was going on. …

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I’ve worked with a lot of them over the years. I suppose he may have a grudge to bear there since he probably wanted a more prominent position than [Rice] was prepared to give him. …

[mjh: now, blame the Democrats]

Lush: But it’s just part of the — what to me appears now to be an obvious attack machine at full throttle. You have this book coming out while John Kerry is on vacation so he doesn’t have to say this stuff. The author of this book is associated with Kerry’s foreign policy advisor, up at the Kennedy School. You have a Bob Woodward book that’s coming in a few weeks from the same publisher. Despite all of these attacks, and by the way, I actually think, Mr. Vice President, if you’ll permit me an editorial comment here, you have the Clinton administration — if they had defended the country as eagerly and with as much fervor as they are attempting to defend themselves in all this, we might have — and I don’t expect you comment, I just — we might have escaped some of the attacks that we’ve had. [mjh: yup, craven Dems caused 9/11]

But with this frontal assault, the President’s poll numbers remain up [mjh: ?!]. The administration remains focused. They haven’t taken you off your game. …

Lush: Mr. Clarke, to get back to him for a moment, is saying that actually if we would just take some more time and talk to these people, understand why they hate us, we might be able to forge some kind of peace with them. … [mjh: nowhere else have I read such a quote attributed to Clarke]

THE VICE PRESIDENT: In Iraq, we were concerned not only about the fact that Saddam had hosted terrorists in the past. He’d stimulated and encouraged them by providing financial rewards for suicide bombers that hit Israel, as well as his past involvement with weapons of mass destruction. … [mjh: past?]

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, we’ve got, obviously, a very important election here, Rush. This may be the most important presidential election in many years because of the issues that are going to be decided here, especially with respect to how we defend the country in this war on terror. And it’s very important we get our side of the story out. …

Lush: When you criticize Senator Kerry’s record, it is said that you’re attacking him and going negative and this sort of thing. I see it’s not deterring you, and so forth. But how do you plan a campaign against an opponent who will claim to have said or not said anything he’s accused of having said or not said? … [mjh: 2004 winner of the Rumsfeld Obfuscation Award; ”it’s the unknown we don’t know…”]

Lush: Does it frustrate you when you see Senators Hagel and McCain, Republicans, sort of attack the administration’s attack on Kerry’s voting record and defend it… Does it bother you to see what some people regard as Republican defections? …

This transcript appears at www.whitehouse.gov — your deficit dollars at work. Blowhard Lush Limbaugh delivers his army of dittoheads to Bush. This is not the reason Lush isn’t in jail for drug crimes. Or is it? mjh

Op-Ed Contributor: The Wrong Ticket to Ride By IAN AYRES and BARRY NALEBUFF, NYTimes

Justice Scalia had flown to Louisiana in January on the vice president’s plane. But Mr. Cheney left before Justice Scalia did, so the justice and his relatives bought their own tickets home. In a 21-page memo explaining his decision not to recuse himself from a case involving the vice president, Justice Scalia wrote, ”We purchased (because they were the least expensive) round-trip tickets that cost precisely what we would have paid if we had gone both down and back on commercial flights.” …

Justice Scalia later noted, “None of us saved a cent by flying on the vice president’s plane.” But from the airline’s standpoint, it was wrong. Justice Scalia and his family probably saved a bundle by misrepresenting their intentions. …

Justice Scalia did not say how much he paid for his round-trip ticket, but it seems fair to assume that he bought what is known as a ”throw-away ticket” — something the airlines expressly prohibit. …

[Scalia] in essence has admitted to buying a ticket under false pretenses. He made a promise without any intention of fulfilling it. Justice Scalia is no doubt familiar with the legal term for such an act: it’s called promissory fraud.

The airlines’ policy may be annoying, inconvenient and customer-unfriendly. But they can legally insist that their passengers abide by it. And certainly a strict believer in the rule of law like Justice Scalia would agree.
—
[Ian Ayres is a professor of law and Barry Nalebuff is a professor of business at Yale.]

Scalia has sneered that no one could reasonably question his ethics. Then he rolled his eyes and said the nation is in serious trouble if people think a Supreme Court Justice can be bought for the price of airfare. Well, we all know the nation is in trouble. And Scalia is unworthy of the Supreme Court. Impeach Scalia! mjh

Search this blog for Scalia, the scoundrel
Google Search: Scalia

Justice Scalia’s Persuasive But Elitist Response to the Duck Hunting Controversy By MICHAEL C. DORF, FindLaw

[Scalia’s argument is] exactly right, and under the law, it fully justifies Justice Scalia’s refusal to recuse himself. Yet Justice Scalia’s memorandum is nonetheless troubling because of the uncomfortable truth it reveals — that the capital of the world’s most powerful nation is run by, and possibly for, an elite establishment. …

Justice Scalia was right not to recuse himself, and he has persuasively explained the grounds for his decision. Nonetheless, there is something objectionable about the tone, if not the substance, of his memorandum.

The not-so-subtle subtext of the opinion goes something like this: ”We Supreme Court Justices are part of the ruling elite and we’re entitled to live like it. How dare you commoners question our integrity!”

Indeed, these sentiments are not just in the subtext. Without a hint of apology, Justice Scalia writes that ”[m]any Justices have reached this Court precisely because they were friends of the incumbent President or other senior officials.” Having friends in high places is, in other words, a qualification for the job, the Justice suggests–and it would be hypocritical to pretend otherwise. …

The problem the Sierra Club thought it saw in Justice Scalia’s hunting trip was that he was too closely connected to the Bush Administration. Ultimately, that’s exactly backwards.

The real problem with the Court is not its connection to the other powerful elites that run the country. The problem is the collective disconnection of all of these elites, taken together, from the masses of ordinary citizens. And that’s something to think about as you decide which Skull and Bones man to vote for in November.
—
[Michael C. Dorf is Professor of Law at Columbia University, a non-hunting vegetarian, and arguably a member of the elite establishment this column criticizes.]

This is an interesting argument from a law professor who says Scalia is right that he need not recuse himself, but that the real problem is the disconnect of the ”ruling elites” from the masses (you and me). mjh

Bush to visit Phoenix Friday By HOWARD FISCHER, 3/23

[White House Press Aide Taylor] Gross said that did not make this a campaign trip — one that would have to be paid for from Bush’s reelection warchest.

”There’s no political component to this trip in the way of a fundraiser or a campaign rally,” he said.

”This is the president discussing and highlighting his policies, with specifics, his housing agenda,” Gross explained. ”The president has done this since he’s been in office, since before there was a campaign under way.”

Gross said he will not debate the issue with others.

“This president is president 24 hours a day, seven days a week and he will continue to press forward policies that he feels are beneficial to America and will continue to reach out to Americans to discuss those policies.”

The difference between an official trip and a campaign trip is cash. While the president and his staff still get to use Air Force One, they have to pay the equivalent of the lowest unrestricted first class airfare for everyone in the entourage, not counting security.

On Monday, America West was offering unrestricted round-trip flights from Reagan National Airport in Washington to Phoenix for $2,424 [mjh: times dozens of staffers].

President Bush Plans Albuquerque Fund-Raiser 3/20

The White House said President George W. Bush would head to Albuquerque next week to raise money for his re-election campaign.

Bush plans a conversation Friday on homeownership, employing one of the White House’s favorite formats. The staged back-and-forth features hand-picked citizens who talk about their support for Bush’s policies.

The president has already reached his campaign goal of raising $170 million.

Supporters believe Bush can easily raise $200 million for the primary season. That would double what he raised in 2000.

Bush also plans fund-raisers next week in New Hampshire and Boston.

So, Bush will fly to Albuquerque, then to Phoenix. Because he doesn’t plan a fund-raiser in Phoenix, the trip is ”official” (you and I pay for it), not a campaign trip he has to pay for out of his $200 million.

But wait, he is having a fund-raiser in Albuquerque on that same trip.

So, is White House Press Aide Gross uniformed or a liar. Neither would be a surprise, any more than a rich guy sticking America with the bill. Still, somebody should be outraged. mjh

Kerry Gets Boost From Surprising Sources By Jim VandeHei, Washington Post Staff Writer

In the past week, GOP Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Chuck Hagel (Neb.) have broken ranks and defended Kerry against President Bush’s assertion that the Massachusetts senator is weak on national defense. …

Republicans are unintentionally assisting Kerry on the domestic front, too. Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and other congressional conservatives are accusing Bush of driving up deficits, a top Kerry campaign message, and misleading the country about the cost of the new Medicare law, another Kerry target. Kerry’s campaign is circulating Flake’s recent remark that Congress would not have passed the Bush Medicare law if members had been told of its projected cost. The Office of Management and Budget estimated the law would cost about $130 billion more than advertised, but those numbers were kept secret until well after the House passed the legislation by one vote. The flap over the Medicare number threatens to turn the law into a campaign liability for Bush. …

Some Bush campaign officials privately fumed about the GOP comments as party strategists expressed concern. ”Bush has some clear enemies that were part of his team,” said GOP strategist Scott Reed. ”It hurts Bush temporarily, but, while these are distractions, Kerry still has a long way to go to get into the game.”

For Bush, who rarely ran into criticism from within his party during his first three years in office, the timing and tone of these GOP defections are undercutting his reelection message just as the presidential campaign is heating up.

”Even Republicans can’t defend what the Bush-Cheney campaign says or does, particularly when the president is caught red-handed misleading America on the true cost of the war and covering up the real cost of his Medicare giveaway plan,” said Stephanie Cutter, a Kerry spokeswoman. …

Kerry, who cruised through the nominating process with scant damage by historical measures, appeared rattled last week by Bush’s attacks on national defense and terrorism — until McCain stepped in and stepped on the Bush-Cheney message. McCain, who ran against Bush in the GOP primary four years ago, said on NBC’s “Today” show that he does “not believe that [Kerry] is, quote, weak on national defense.”

On Sunday, Hagel, a maverick Republican with a reputation similar to McCain’s for speaking his mind, criticized the Bush campaign ad that called Kerry “weak on defense.” Speaking on ABC’s “This Week,” Hagel said: “The facts just don’t measure [up to] the rhetoric.” He said it is unfair to isolate one or two votes over a 19-year career to make such a sweeping assessment of Kerry. “You can . . . take any of us, and pick out the different votes, and then try to manufacture something around it,” he said.

Grover Norquist, a GOP lobbyist close to the White House, said, “McCain is just full of bitterness. Hagel is McCain’s only friend in the Senate.”

Steve Schmidt, a Bush campaign spokesman, said the president remains “comfortable” with his assessment of Kerry, despite the brush- backs from fellow Republicans. “We will continue to make that argument throughout the campaign,” he said.

In the 2000 primary, Bush’s campaign slaughtered McCain, who has some respect from Democrats as well as Republicans. So, don’t be surprised if Bush’s crew tries to crush anyone for ‘disloyalty’. You’re with him or you’re against him — like the rest of us. mjh

FactCheck.org Bush accuses Kerry of 350 votes for ”higher taxes” — higher than what?

Summary

The President misled voters and reporters in a March 20 speech when he claimed that Kerry ”voted over 350 times for higher taxes on the American people” during his 20-year Senate career. Bush spoke of ”yes” votes for ”tax increases.”

But in fact, Kerry has not voted 350 times for tax increases, something Bush campaign officials have falsely accused Kerry of on several occasions. On close examination, the Bush campaign’s list of Kerry’s votes for ”higher taxes” is padded. It includes votes Kerry cast to leave taxes unchanged (when Republicans proposed cuts), and even votes in favor of alternative Democratic tax cuts that Bush aides characterized as ”watered down.”

Bush’s defenders will sneer at this analysis by the independent FactCheck.org, with copious supporting documentation. The Radical Right despises nuance, subtlety, anything that is not black and white. Apparently, they’re not too concerned with a President who lies. As one apologist said, ”it’s not a lie if Bush believes it.” No, that would make it a stupid remark instead of a lie. So much better. Bush may not understand everything he says, but he is responsible for its truth.

I’ve heard Republicans say Bush will say anything to get (re)elected. And yet they’ll vote for him, won’t they. mjh