Category: Politics

Matt Yglesias gives a bunch of reasons why Nader voters should think again. Only thing it’s missing is some links to back up his claims, but that’s what Google is for.

The LA Times (registration required, but Yahoo! reprints it) has a good piece about the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report, in specific, a section devoted to the differences between two versions of a key report on Iraq’s weapons capabilities used to help justify the US’s attack – the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002. Not surprisingly:

The panel laid out numerous instances in which the unclassified version omitted key dissenting opinions about Iraqi weapons capabilities, overstated U.S. knowledge about Iraq’s alleged stockpiles of weapons and, in one case, inserted threatening language into the public document that was not contained in the classified version.

The changes made a qualified, nuanced document into one which laid out the case for war.

For example, the panel cited changes made in the section of the NIE dealing with chemical weapons:

“Although we have little specific information on Iraq’s CW stockpile,” the classified NIE read, “Saddam Hussein probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons” of such poisons.

In the unclassified version of the report, the phrase “although we have little specific information” was deleted. Instead, the public report said, “Saddam probably has stocked a few hundred metric tons of CW agents.”

Skipping over several other similar instances of changes made to the document, we get to the kicker: who made the changes and why. And here it gets even more infuriating.

Who made the changes:

During a briefing before the report was released, one committee aide said the Senate panel had asked Tenet and Stu Cohen

It’s not quite Wag the Dog but it’s close…

A third source, an official who works under ISI’s director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis “have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs before [the] election is [an] absolute must.” What’s more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: “The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq’s] meetings in Washington.” Says McCormack: “I’m aware of no such comment.” But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that “it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July”–the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.

Source: The New Republic. Thanks Josh Marshall for the pointer.

Overall, response to Kerry’s naming of Edwards is as expected. The Swing States Project gets the honors for best or at least most original line so far:

Previously, I’ve called New Jersey a Jack Daniel’s state. North Carolina is the exact opposite: A Dom Perignon state – if you see this state go blue on election night, break out the bubbly and start celebrating.

Naming Edwards to the ticket does, I think, increase that chance.

UPDATE: Digby also does an excellent job on Edwards, digging out a year-old analysis of the man that’s worth a read.

So Josh Marshall was wrong and the popular choice got chosen. And a good thing too.

More later after the formal announcement.

All eyes are on the Kerry VP choice right now. I personally feel the VP candidate should be announced at the Convention if for no other reason than to make it something other than a big waste of time and money. I seem to be a minority view, though. Opinion seems to be the choice will be announced sometime this week.

I’ve mentioned it once or twice over on dKos but I want to say it one final time, because it’s something a lot of people seem to be losing sight of (per Josh Marshall):

If you look back over recent American history you have to go back to Ronald Reagan’s choice of George Bush in 1980 to find an instance in which a favorite or even prominent contender got picked. In fact, with the possible exception of Lloyd Bentsen in 1988, I think you might even argue that not since Reagan’s choice of Bush has a presidential candidate chosen a vice-presidential candidate who anyone had even considered a serious contender for the VP slot.

and

Now, like everyone else did in 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996 and 2000, I certainly figure that it’ll be one of the logical choices — Edwards or Gephardt most likely. But if it is one of those two, it’ll be a break from the trend of the last quarter century.

Not that my opinion matters, but I’d be happy with Edwards as the VP. Not so much with Gephardt, but he’s no Dan Quayle either. But if Marshall is right, neither will be on the ticket. I know zero about Vilsack so have no opinion about him other than it might be a good idea to get someone outside of Congress on that ticket. But my hedge bet is on Wes Clark.