Dick Morris has some interesting points on Gore's ill-fated strategy.

Guilt by association

WaPo's Charles Krauthammer asks the question: Why is Cheney under attack?

Cheney made millions when he sold his Halliburton stock in the summer of 2000. The stock then was worth more than $50 per share. It is now about $13. As the Los Angeles Times puts it: "Cheney seems to share one defining characteristic of ex-CEOs whose actions are now under intense scrutiny: He became a millionaire many times over by cashing in his stock options before problems came to light and ordinary shareholders began losing their shirts."

But wait. Cheney did not sell his stock because he had inside knowledge that the stock market -- and his company's shares -- were headed south. He was forced to sell his stock when he was chosen by George Bush to be his running mate.

He wasn't dumping. He didn't want to sell. In fact, the big brouhaha at the time was Cheney's wanting to retain some of his stock options. He sold purely to avoid conflicts of interest. Not from any foreknowledge. Certainly not from any guilty knowledge.

CK also appears to agree with me(earlier post on NYT's Gerth piece) with regard to Cheney's alleged wrongdoing in the Dresser acquisition...

How can this be construed as wrongdoing? Dresser may have learned about increased asbestos liability (from a subsidiary it had spun off six years earlier) just before the merger. But there is no evidence that Cheney knew. Moreover, the claims then brought against Halliburton by the former Dresser subsidiary "were largely resolved in Halliburton's favor" (New York Times, same story). The company is suffering now because of new claims from this ex-subsidiary that were not lodged until June 2001, long after Cheney had left the company.

Much to the fish-wraps' dismay, there is no there, there.

'Distinguished gentlemen'

Great cartoon, Jake!

Hollywood activism

This Matt Welch piece about corporate welfare for Hollywood really hits it. Glenn Reynolds, of course, caught it before most. It reminds me of a story I once heard about Ben Stein("Bueller?...Bueller?"). Writing for a popular TV comedy at the time, Mr. Stein came up with an idea for a new bit. The show had roasted politicians, businessmen, religious figures, etc.- why not Hollywood? They could do a sketch on Hollywood producers/actors/moguls speaking out for raising taxes to benefit the poor- then hiring lawyers/accountants/financial planners to squeeze every tax loophole and offshore account benefit they could. Mr. Stein presented his idea to the assembled group of writers and show producers....utter...silence. They didn't get it. I guess it hit a little too close to home.

Can we be your friends, too?

Georgia May Let U.S. Troops on Soil. Day by day, we're needing Saudi Arabia less and less.

Tedo Dzhaparidze, secretary of Georgia's Security Council, said Washington hadn't offered to deploy U.S. troops for operations. But, he added, "When we get it, we will be ready to consider it."

Message to Bush admin.: Skip the trial close. If that wasn't a buying signal, I don't know what is.

Countdown to Attack

My own prediction for military action in Iraq is January- at least one or two weeks prior to the State of the Union address. By that time, we will have replenished munition stockpiles used up in Afghanistan, moved the necessary troops into position in the region, and completed necessary base construction in eastern Afghanistan, Qatar, Jordan, Kuwait, and northern Iraq. The European elections will have come and gone(Sept-Nov), thus the short-term political interests currently afflicting leaders like Germany's Gerhard Schroeder will no longer present an obstacle. The "no-fly" zones will permit the US to soften up Iraqi air defenses for the months leading up to any large-scale ground troop insertions; while January and February offer suitable weather conditions for large ground force contingents. Special Ops have been reported as already active in northern Iraq, setting up a potential in-country landing strip and base for quick-strike sorties. Kurdish representatives, who've just met with leaders in Tehran to discuss a post-Saddam Iraq, are next expected in Washington to further discuss their partnership for regime change. November's too soon, December's too cold. No, it's mid-January, early February at the latest. Saddam will be dead before St. Patrick's Day.

Bush's plan of patience

WaPo's Jim Hoagland thinks a slow build-up for an offensive in Iraq is smart strategy. As for the media fuss and diplomatic hand-wringing...

This cacophony on Iraq is not unhelpful to Bush. He can let Saddam Hussein twist in the windstorm of words through the rest of the year. A well-managed war of nerves raises the pressure on the Iraqi dictator. It could even gain some of Bush's objectives before the shooting starts.

A slow, deliberate buildup to the conflict does not bring only political disadvantages for Washington and its allies, as is widely assumed, or leave the initiative in Iraqi hands. It reshapes the terrain of the eventual battle.[Emphasis mine]

Meanwhile the rest of the Middle East are left to stew in their juices pondering an inevitable choice...

Neither Jordan nor Saudi Arabia wants to give Iraq a pretext for new aggression before the United States is ready. But if the windstorm turns into a real storm next winter, no government near the path of destruction can afford to be unresponsive to U.S. war needs and goals. That would be choosing suicide.

Whatever grudging assistance is eventually wrested from these "friends" of ours, my sense is that Dubya will not forget the damage already done. The House of Saud's days are numbered. The often-used 'Draining the swamps' metaphor would be inapt were we to omit these well-heeled enablers of terror. Given their nation's complicity in the terror business- I doubt many will mourn their loss. How does the Republic of Arabia sound to you?

Iraqi policy

How Saddam deals with military defectors.

Iranian policy

World Tribune reports: Iran recruits Arabs for security crackdown

Iranian dissent

WorldNetDaily reports: Ayatollah resigns in protest of Tehran's human-rights violations

Kaus skewers Krugman

"The Note" seems to have accepted Paul Krugman's latest assertions ...

Paul Krugman, in writing about Big Casino and the Trifecta, claims to have caught the Office of Management and Budget altering an old press release on the web, Orwellian-style. Maybe someone can/will ask Ari about this one.

The Blogosphere has not. Mickey Kaus debunks the charge and offers what he sees as a pattern for Mr. Krugman...

I agree this isn't as big a Krugman error as his misreporting of Bush's Texas Rangers deal (see below). But there's a pattern here! The pattern is a) Krugman gets a lot of things wrong; b) Krugman reflexively vilifies his opponents as evil and dishonest; c) Krugman gets a lot of things wrong because he reflexively vilifies his opponents as evil and dishonest; and d) rather than admitting it when he gets it wrong he tends to shift the topic to another, better-supported charge (that even if Bush didn't get a "$12 million gift" as charged he was still a "crony capitalist," that even if O.M.B. didn't "lie" as charged they didn't publicly "retract" either.) ...P.S.: The issue of when it's 'Orwellian' to go back and correct a Web site, rather than publicly issuing a correction, is not new. Separately-published corrections are certainly good, and the O.M.B. should have issued one. But I'd argue you do get some points for simply erasing an error from a Web site. Imagine if O.M.B. had not excised its error -- critics like Krugman would say "A month later the lie is still posted on the Web, ..." etc.

Telling it like it is

WaPo is reporting that a Pentagon Briefing Depicted Saudis as Enemies.

"The Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot-soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader," stated the explosive briefing. It was presented on July 10 to the Defense Policy Board, a group of prominent intellectuals and former senior officials that advises the Pentagon on defense policy.

"Saudi Arabia supports our enemies and attacks our allies," said the briefing prepared by Laurent Murawiec, a Rand Corp. analyst. A talking point attached to the last of 24 briefing slides went even further, describing Saudi Arabia as "the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent" in the Middle East.

The board which gave the briefing was said to have recommended an ultimatum for the House of Saud. The DoD's official comments, in response, were less impressive...

"Saudi Arabia is a long-standing friend and ally of the United States. The Saudis cooperate fully in the global war on terrorism and have the Department's and the Administration's deep appreciation."

I'm pleased that the Bush administration is reluctant to divulge specific plans or potentials dates for an Iraqi invasion. I'm pleased because I'm convinced that it's coming and I don't need to be informed several months in advance to support it. Furthermore, I'd be disappointed if this information were publicly available prior to said invasion. Military campaigns should not be prosecuted according to news-cycles. But it ticks me off to hear official comments out of the Pentagon which stand in stark contrast to news already consumed by the public. I suspect this statement is merely window-dressing for containment of a known problem. We are most likely putting off the Saudi question until after a successful move on Iraq. Nevertheless, offering public endorsements of Saudi Arabian policy right now seems more than inappropriate. At least where foreign policy is concerned, a little blunt harsh truth might do a world of good. Message to world: Don't piss down our backs then tell us it's raining.

Chick Hearn, 1916-2002

Los Angeles has lost a legend. "Golden Throat" left us after attempts at cranial surgery failed to relieve the swelling in his brain. The Hall of Fame broadcaster set an endurance record with his 3,338 consecutive Laker games announced, but that does not explain his greatness. "Chickie baby" was a pioneer. The man was responsible for more basketball terminology than Naismith. "Slam dunk", "air-ball", "finger-roll", the list goes on forever. When Chick put a game in the "fridge", the game was over. His signature call near the end of Laker victories left millions with smiles on their faces and warmth in their heart...

"This game's in the refrigerator! The door's closed, the lights are out, eggs are cooling, the butter's gettin' hard, and the JELLOOO's jigglin'!

We will miss you, Chick.

...and we're here to help

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins." -- H.L. Mencken, 1923

Spinsanity alerts us to more Democratic email demagoguery

"Don't let them steal your Social Security! Keep your retirement safe."

LAX alert

Another evac at LAX- looks like the Southwest terminal. Local news ABC7 is reporting that a suspicious package has been found. More to come...

Thank God for Condi Rice

From the UK TimesOnline, comes this warning against a move on Iraq...

Brent Scowcroft, who remains close to the Bush family, urged the President to concentrate on trying to broker peace between the Israelis and Palestinians while separately pursuing terrorist threats to the United States. But he said that by going to war with Iraq without linking President Saddam Hussein and September 11, Washington was risking a conflagration in the Middle East that would also engulf its efforts to defeat global terror groups.

This is poor speculation. We've heard before that US military action in the Middle East, whether Afghanistan, Iraq, or elsewhere, would result in an "explosion" or "conflagration." It didn't happen. Scowcroft ought to know better, by now. As a former NSA in 41's administration, he had the opportunity to witness this for himself; Afghanistan proved to be no different. The point is that we risk "conflagration" if we DON'T deal with Saddam. These dark lords respect only force. Diplomacy has bought Saddam time to consolidate his remaining power, reconfigure his arsenal, and resurrect his WMD program. What has it bought us?

Field Marshal Lord Bramall called on Tony Blair to exercise caution, saying that an invasion to topple Saddam may not be morally or legally justified. “You don’t have licence to attack someone else’s country just because you don’t like the leadership."

True- otherwise we would have invaded France. However, we do reserve the right to vaporize those who would perform murder on a massive scale. Saddam has, already, done this and gotten away with it once. This time around, the sovereignty argument carries less weight.

Mr Scowcroft pointed to the “almost consensus” around the world against the United States going to war with Iraq. British officials have since September 11 repeatedly warned the US not to use the War on Terror as an excuse to attack Saddam.

The last resort of the anti-war crowd: no one else wants us to do it, so we shouldn't. Setting aside the accuracy of the "almost consensus" statement, the rest of the world has been quite content to sit on it's ass while the US fought on it's behalf over 250 times since WWII. Protecting the interests of civilization has become our job, like it or not. If Britain no longer has the stomach for it, so much the worse. But attacking Iraq is part and parcel of the campaign to defeat global terror. We cannot allow the world's most dangerous and despicable dictator to continue his reign and pursue WMD's. The war on terror would be incomplete without his destruction.

Boston v. New York

Kennedys Clintons in convention feud. This could be fun!

Davis-Simon update

The LATimes has a front page piece today on GOP donors giving to Gray Davis(link requires registration). They quote John J. Coffey, general manager of government relations for ChevronTexaco Corp., on the subject of Simon's campaign...

"I don't think any of us want to throw money away on a campaign without being convinced it can win. Maybe at some point you get there, but not yet."

Simon's campaign has been utterly unimpressive. I suspect few Californians would argue otherwise. That some Republican donors haven't fallen in line behind the campaign, however, is less an indication of Simon's political impotence than a testament to Davis' tangible leverage.

Davis and his spokesmen vehemently deny any connection between the contributions he receives and his actions as governor. But the perception that Davis is closely watching who gives what to whom is firmly fixed in the minds of many who do business in Sacramento, which can have the same intimidating effect. "I call it the fear factor," said Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, a nonprofit organization in Los Angeles that studies campaign finance matters. "If you don't give, what's he going to do?"

Screw you every chance he gets. Which is why some traditional GOP donors are playing it safe this time around- at least until Sept. 30, the end of the bill-signing period. It's gotten so ugly that...

In September, Davis' chief political strategist, Garry South, sent a memo to the governor's political supporters warning that any campaign contributions given to his Republican rival, Richard Riordan, would be "instantly transparent" under new public disclosure laws. At the time, Riordan seemed to pose the most serious political threat to Davis, who ultimately helped dispatch the former Los Angeles mayor in the GOP primary with a $10-million negative ad campaign...South insisted "there was no threat, either implied or suggested." But, he later added, "If the memo stopped money from going to Riordan, more power to me."

Californians have had it with this power-hungry buffoon but will keep the devil they know before voting for the devil they don't. Simon now has less than three months to get his message across to the voters that he is more than just "the man running against Davis." The votes are there for a Simon victory- he simply needs to earn them.