Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Smoking Gun: Admin Was Warned Early that Iraq Nuke Claims Were False

New York Times: How the White House Embraced Disputed Iraqi Arms Intelligence—it seems the administration knew (or, for those who didn't read intelligence reports, should have known) that “the government’s foremost nuclear experts had concluded” that the aluminum tubes on which the administration based much of its claim that Iraq was trying to build nuclear weapons “were most likely not for nuclear weapons at all.” Oddly, though, CIA head George Tenet seems for a long time to have made no effort to learn about the views of his most expert subordinates, or to understand the reasons for their disagreement with the analysts favored by the White House.

I think that chunks of this article collate facts already in corners of the public record, e.g. the 9/11 commission report or previously-ignored and buried Washington Post reports, rather than breaking new ground. [Update: did the Daily Show scoop everyone?] Even so, in putting the pieces together into a narrative, the article paints a new and even more disturbing picture of a deeply dysfunctional administration. These guys shouldn’t be trusted with your dollar, must less your lives, fortunes, or sacred honors.

What a pity we didn’t get this article before the debate on international issues. Still, I suppose it’s fair game for the Vice-Presidential debate.

Posted in Iraq | 3 Comments

William Jenning Bryan, the Wizard of Oz, and Coral Gables

Polymath Robert Waldman, who lives in Italy, educates me about Coral Gables, the town I live and work in. In Presidential Candidates in Coral Gables, he outlines Coral Gables's connection with William Jenning Bryan, and simultaneously transforms my understanding of The Wizard of Oz:

William Jenning Bryan was the model for the cowardly lion, who was not a caricature of draft dodging hawks. This is demonstrated by Hugh Rockoff in an article belaboring the obvious point that the Wizard of Oz is an allegory on monetary policy (Journal of Political Economy Vol 98 pp 739-760.

It will never be the same…

Posted in U.Miami | 5 Comments

Torture Outsourcing Update

Obsidian Wings has an important Torture Outsourcing Update, with news about the the House Republicans' attempt to legalize “Extraordinary Rendition” and the growing, and horrified, reaction to it. Well, outside of the Ashcroft Justice Dept., which is all for it.

This episode alone fully justifies voting against George Bush.

Katherine R. at Obsidan Wings concludes her update with this query:

I want to ask—very loudly ask— a direct question to any members of the media who might end up reading this post:

Newspapers have reported that the second highest ranking official in the Department of Justice signed the order deporting Maher Arar to Syria, and that the President has signed a secret “finding” authorizing extraordinary renditions.

But George W. Bush and his press secretary have never, ever been asked about what happened to Maher Arar. Nor have they ever been asked about their position on extraordinary rendition.

Why not?

Posted in Civil Liberties | 4 Comments

What I Missed

The DNC has kindly provided a highlights video called “Faces of Frustration” to show what I missed by not watching the split-screen TV version of the debate. It's quite something.

Posted in Politics: US: 2004 Election | 12 Comments

Kerry Won Big

Listening to the excerpts of the debate on the radio this morning, I realize Kerry won big. The soundbites are (1) Kerry saying he made a mistake speaking about the war, but Bush made a mistake invading, which is worse? and (2) Bush sounding amazingly lost and hesitant, then petulant, after being called on his sly suggestion that the Iraq invasion was retaliation for 9/11. His “I know OBL attacked us” sounds like a five year old in the playground trying unsuccessfully to deflect teacher's ire.

According to the utterly unbiased Kerry-Edwards web page, the instapolls confirm that Kerry won big.

Continue reading

Posted in Politics: US: 2004 Election | 5 Comments

Debate Highs and Lows

Kerry's worst mistakes: (1) a slip on a “global test” for preemptive war. While he meant that any war must be something we can justify to the world. It will be twisted to mean he'll demand approval from the black-helicopter-UN before sneezing. (2) Somewhat robotic repetition of some of the same talking points.

Bush's worst mistakes: (1) inarticulate, bad body language, sounded flustered by unexpected questions; (2) didn't seem to have a full command of the facts

Kerry's best moves: Great delivery: strong and dignified and articulate (when not repeating himself). Hit key points he had to hit

Bush's best move — suggesting that Kerry's claim the attack on Iraq was wrong doesn't square with his expressed desire to “win” now. (Despite Kerry's later reference to the Pottery Barn theory, which was not a great corrective.)

Things that await the spin: Korea 2-party or 6-party talks? Bush's set-piece about meeting a war widow.

Prediction: The anti-Kerry soundbites will be all the same they were before — why let facts get in the way.

But I mostly heard this on the radio. Did it look different on TV?

Posted in Politics: US: 2004 Election | 17 Comments