U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said on Tuesday the Bush administration had never accused Saddam Hussein of directing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

Her statement, in an interview recorded for broadcast on ABC's "Nightline," came despite long-standing administration charges the ousted Iraqi leader was linked to the al Qaeda network accused of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Democrats have accused the administration of creating a "false impression" at the heart of a widespread U.S. public belief that Saddam had a personal role in the attacks.

"We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein ... had either direction or control of 9/11," Rice said when asked about the public perception of a link.

"What we have said is that this is someone who supported terrorists, helped to train them (and) was a threat in this region that we were not prepared to tolerate."

Defending Saddam's ouster, she said he represented a threat in "a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged."

WHY I'M OPPOSED TO WES CLARK [Jonah Goldberg]

Besides the fact that the Clinton mafia is mysteriously supporting him (If they think he can win, then you'd think Hillary wouldn't want him to run since a Clark Presidency would ruin her chances to be president) I'm opposed to Wes Clark running for President because he is the only Democrat it's hard to make fun of. It's hard not to make fun of Sharpton, Kucinich, and Braun. Lieberman looks like a rodeo clown who hasn't had his foundation make-up removed yet. Edwards is a trial lawyer who would still be a trial lawyer if he looked like Kucinich. I think I've said this before, but Dean's the sort of arrogant liberal who yells at you for buying the wrong book at his used book store. John Kerry looks like some suction-cup-fingered demon sucked-out his soul through his temples. Graham thinks he's doing history some great favor by recording his bowel movements on notepads.

But what am I supposed to say about Wesley Clark? He's too neat? I'm sure we'll find something, but for now it's vexing.

CLARK CONT'D [Jonah Goldberg]

Folks, I didn't say there wasn't anything about Clark one couldn't criticize I said there doesn't seem to be much one can make fun of. There is a distinction. I appreciate all the critiques of Clark, but that wasn't really my point.

An adjunct sociology professor at the University of Oregon has sued the writers of a column published last year in the New York Post after the piece named him as an anti-Semite.

[edit]

The column, titled “Extremists on Campus,” accuses Card of describing Israel as “a terrorist state” and Israelis as “baby killers” in his course.

In his lawsuit, Card says Pipes and Schanzer are wrong about how he teaches and that their column is false and defamatory. The suit, filed by Eugene lawyer David Force, says Pipes and Schanzer refused to retract their statements after Card provided proof that they were wrong.

Engineers opposed to gas-guzzling SUVs say they have developed a safer, more fuel efficient version using off-the-shelf technology.

The Union of Concerned Scientists says the SUV, dubbed the "UCS Guardian," uses the same amount of gas as a car and is significantly safer than current SUVs, while maintaining the power and size that motorists covet.

Don't look for this SUV at your nearest dealership — it exists in concept form only. But the Guardian's designers say it could be produced now because the safety features and fuel-efficient engine in the Guardian already exist.

[edit]

Industry spokesman Eron Shosteck derided the Guardian concept as a one-size-fits-all approach, saying that some consumers want an SUV with safety features and are willing to pay for them, while others prefer less expensive models.

"If they can build this Guardian, why don't they do it?" said Shosteck, with the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. "It's nice to put something in blueprint form, but we have to build vehicles that go on pavement."

The last [survey], conducted in 1990 by a predecessor organization, found that 52 percent of American Jews who married between 1985 and 1990 did so outside the faith. That number was a fabrication produced by including marriages in which neither party was Jewish by anyone's definition, including the researchers.

Its publication created a huge stir, inspiring anguished sermons, books and conferences. It put liberals on the defensive, emboldened conservatives who reject full integration into society and alienated ordinary folks offended by the increasingly xenophobic tone of Jewish communal culture.

Regrettably, the latest survey has spawned a new myth that seems likely to reinforce the panic created by the last one.

"If the Jewish community tried harder to welcome interfaith families, that figure (of intermarried couples raising Jewish children) could be even higher." "It's not rocket science," Case said. "People respond well to being welcomed. They don't respond well to not being welcomed."

Say what you want people to believe for the front page and on TV, then whisper a halfhearted correction or apology that slips under the radar. It is really quite ingenious in its cynical effectiveness

The voice called on U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq immediately.

"We call on you to withdraw your armies as soon as possible and without any conditions or restrictions, because there is no reason for you to suffer more losses, which will be disastrous for the Americans," the voice said, claiming the recording was made in "mid-September."

ZZZZ [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
AP is reporting Wes Clark is really really running.

SO WESLEY CLARK IS IN [Ramesh Ponnuru]
Bob Graham had better watch out.

Environmental groups said Monroe is an example, but not a good one. They cited a 2000 study by Abt Associates, a group the EPA has used to gauge health effects of pollution, showing that the amount of pollution from the plant is responsible for 293 premature deaths, 5,740 asthma attacks and 50,298 lost workdays each year. They also cited an EPA model of Bush's initiative that showed the plant was not forecast to cut its sulfur dioxide.

The plant also produces 45,900 tons of nitrogen oxide and 810 pounds of mercury, the other two pollutants covered under Bush's initiative, and 17.6 million tons of carbon dioxide, which is not capped under Bush's plan.

"I'm amazed that the president would choose this plant to highlight, given how dirty it is, and how much dirtier it could become because of the administration's rollbacks of clean-air rules," said Becky Stanfield, a lawyer with U.S. Public Interest Research Group. [Emphasis mine.]

This is great if, like Norquist, all you care about in life is making tax rates lower and lower. But if you care about any other policy goals at all -- better schools, cleaner air, safer country, stronger military, healthier population -- you're not going to get anywhere with a contemporary Republican Party prepared to sacrifice everything on the altar of tax cuts.

Top Democrats in the House of Representatives said on Tuesday President Bush must fire the key architect or architects of his Iraq operations to gain help from the international community to rebuild the country.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, top Democrat on the Appropriations defense subcommittee, said it should be up to Bush whom to fire and refused to say who they felt should take the blame for policies they said were disastrously flawed.

"Somebody has to go. Somebody has to be held responsible," said Murtha, regarded as one of Congress' most pro-defense Democrats and an early supporter of the war.

Pelosi said, "I don't think you are ever going to have the appropriate change in policy" without a change in key policymakers. Bush, she added, should "decide whose head should roll."

The senior administration official said that France, at worst, would abstain from voting, and that Chirac and the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, "are moving in our direction."

According to a senior (Bush) administration official, U.S. envoys have told Moscow that "if they don't come along, you can guarantee that the next Iraqi regime will stiff them." Russian officials have signed multiyear agreements worth billions of dollars to develop Iraq's oil-production capacity.

None of the Democrats has the guts to come out and demand that U.S. forces turn tail and run when the going gets tough. If only one of them had the courage to demand cowardice like a real Democrat! So instead, they stamp their feet and demand that Bush go to the United Nations. Apparently it is urgent that we replace the best fighting force in the world with an "international peacekeeping force," i.e., a task force both feared and respected worldwide for its ability to distribute powdered milk to poor children.

Inconsolable that their pleas to "work through" the U.N. did not stop Bush from invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein, now all the Democrats are eager for the U.N. to get involved so it can wreck the rebuilding process. Since we didn't let the U.N. lose the war for us, the least we can do is let them screw up the peace.

The idea that we would involve those swine in the postwar occupation of Iraq is so preposterous that it's under serious consideration as next week's slogan for the Howard Dean campaign.

Democratic supporters had packed the 500-seat Senate gallery, and as the AWOL senators entered, they were greeted by cheers, stomping and wild applause.

[edit]

But 25 minutes into the speeches by the returning senators, invisible Republicans cut off their microphone.

The move only emboldened the crowd – which chanted, "Turn it on! Turn it on!" – and the senators, who responded in even loftier terms.

"The mike may be off but the voice of freedom will always stand true," Sen. Leticia Van de Putte of San Antonio said to raucous approval.

Afterwards, Sen. Chris Harris, R-Arlington, said as chairman of the Senate Administration Committee that he ordered the microphones shut off.

"You want to know who turned them off? I did. Because, again, they were not following the rules of the Senate," he said. "The chamber had never been allowed to be used for a political rally."

[edit]

The display attracted plenty of onlookers. Republican staff members stood quietly and watched. The Democratic aides might have been there, but the Republicans voted not to let them on the floor of the Senate.

President Bush adopted a new tack Monday in arguing for more lenient pollution regulations, saying the need to create jobs should not take a back seat to protecting the environment.

"When we talk about environmental policy in this Bush administration, we don't just talk about clean air, we also talk about jobs. We can do both," the president told cheering workers at the Monroe Edison coal-fired power plant about 40 miles south of Detroit.

The president's new emphasis on jobs in the debate over environmental policy comes as poll numbers show Americans increasingly concerned about job losses since the 2001 recession. Analysts say the high unemployment rate is a major liability for the president as he seeks reelection.

"The old regulations on the books made it difficult to either protect the environment or grow the economy," the president said. "Therefore, I wanted to get rid of them. I'm interested in job creation and clean air, and I believe we can do both."

Bush said air pollution data released Monday demonstrated that the country was making good progress in cleaning the air. He said the new EPA figures showed that since the Clean Air Act was passed, emissions of six major pollutants had fallen by 48% while economic output had increased 164%.

"Since 1974, the power generated from here has increased by 22% and yet the particulate-matter emissions have fallen by 80% to 81%," Bush said. "You're good stewards of the quality of the air."

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.

Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.

MR. RUSSERT: We could establish a direct link between the hijackers of September 11 and Saudi Arabia.

MR. RUSSERT: We have not been greeted as liberated.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I think we have by most Iraqis. I think the majority of Iraqis are thankful for the fact that the United States is there, that we came and we took down the Saddam Hussein government. And I think if you go in vast areas of the country, the Shia in the south, which are about 60 percent of the population, 20-plus percent in the north, in the Kurdish areas, and in some of the Sunni areas, you’ll find that, for the most part, a majority of Iraqis support what we did.

MR. RUSSERT: People like Ahmed Chalabi, former Iraqis who came in and briefed—you talked about—did they sell us a bill of goods? Did they tell us this would be easier, that we’d be welcomed with flowers, and not the kind of armed resistance we’re being met with?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think they felt—certainly, they were advocates of the U.S. action because they wanted to liberate Iraq from, you know, what has been one of the worst dictatorships of the 20th century, the Saddam Hussein regime. And I see and receive evidence on a fairly regular basis. I mean, if you go out and look at what’s happening on the ground, you’ll find that there is widespread support.

There was a poll done, just random in the last week, first one I’ve seen carefully done; admittedly, it’s a difficult area to poll in. Zogby International did it with American Enterprise magazine. But that’s got very positive news in it in terms of the numbers it shows with respect to the attitudes to what Americans have done.

One of the questions it asked is: “If you could have any model for the kind of government you’d like to have”—and they were given five choices—”which would it be?” The U.S. wins hands down. If you want to ask them do they want an Islamic government established, by 2:1 margins they say no, including the Shia population. If you ask how long they want Americans to stay, over 60 percent of the people polled said they want the U.S. to stay for at least another year. So admittedly there are problems, especially in that area where Saddam Hussein was from, where people have benefited most from his regime and who’ve got the most to lose if we’re successful in our enterprise, and continuing attacks from terror. But to suggest somehow that that’s representative of the country at large or the Iraqi people are opposed to what we’ve done in Iraq or are actively and aggressively trying to undermine it, I just think that’s not true.

MR. RUSSERT: You also told me, Mr. Vice President, in March that you thought Saddam would be captured or killed, turned in by his own people. Why hasn’t that happened if they view us as liberators?

"The tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes -- and it will help our economy immediately: 92 million Americans will keep, this year, an average of almost $1,000 more of their own money."

Cheney was less forthcoming when asked about Saudi Arabia's ties to al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 hijackers. "I don't want to speculate," he said, adding that Sept. 11 is "over with now, it's done, it's history and we can put it behind us."

MR. RUSSERT: There are reports that the investigation Congress did does show a link between the Saudi government and the hijackers but that it will not be released to the public.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I don’t know want to speculate on that, Tim, partly because I was involved in reviewing those pages. It was the judgment of our senior intelligence officials, both CIA and FBI that that material needed to remain classified. At some point, we may be able to declassify it, but there are ongoing investigations that might be affected by that release, and for that reason, we kept it classified. The committee knows what’s in there. They helped to prepare it. So it hasn’t been kept secret from the Congress, but from the standpoint of our ongoing investigations, we needed to do that.

One of the things this points out that’s important for us to understand—so there’s this great temptation to look at these events as discreet events. We got hit on 9/11. So we can go and investigate it. It’s over with now.

It’s done. It’s history and put it behind us.

From our perspective, trying to deal with this continuing campaign of terror, if you will, the war on terror that we’re engaged in, this is a continuing enterprise. The people that were involved in some of those activities before 9/11 are still out there. We learn more and more as we capture people, detain people, get access to records and so forth that this is a continuing enterprise and, therefore, we do need to be careful when we look at things like 9/11, the commission report from 9/11, not to jeopardize our capacity to deal with this threat going forward in the interest of putting that information that’s interesting that relates to the period of time before that. These are continuing requirements on our part, and we have to be sensitive to that.

President Bush's tax cuts, denounced by Dr. Dean for months as "$3 trillion" or, sometimes, "$3 trillion, including interest," became a $2.4 trillion cut, plus $600 billion in interest, during a rally on Friday in Plymouth, N.H. The 91 percent of new mothers in Vermont who used to get home visits within two or three weeks now get visits "mostly in their homes, some in doctors' offices," within three or four. And when Dr. Dean told supporters at the Bektash Temple in Concord, N.H., on Friday that his campaign had 150,000 donors and the next-best number was 20,000, he slipped in a "that I know of," just in case.

As criticism of the war and its aftermath intensifies, Amanpour joins a chorus of journalists and pundits who charge that the media largely toed the Bush administration line in covering the war and, by doing so, failed to aggressively question the motives behind the invasion.

[edit]

Said Amanpour: "I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled. I'm sorry to say, but certainly television and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it did, in fact, put a climate of fear and self-censorship, in my view, in terms of the kind of broadcast work we did."

[edit]

"It's not a question of couldn't do it, it's a question of tone," Amanpour said. "It's a question of being rigorous. It's really a question of really asking the questions. All of the entire body politic in my view, whether it's the administration, the intelligence, the journalists, whoever, did not ask enough questions, for instance, about weapons of mass destruction. I mean, it looks like this was disinformation at the highest levels."

On the subject of Iraq's link to al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks, Cheney connected al Qaeda to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by saying one of the participants was Iraqi and returned there. Newly searched Iraqi intelligence files in Baghdad, Cheney said, showed "this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven."

He then revived the possibility that Mohamed Atta, who led the Sept. 11 attacks, allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Baghdad five months before the attack. It is a story Cheney had repeated during a March 16 appearance on "Meet the Press" and one that his aides tried to have added to Powell's presentation in February at the United Nations.

"We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it," Cheney said yesterday. "We just don't know."

An FBI investigation concluded that Atta was apparently in Florida at the time of the alleged meeting, and the CIA has always doubted it took place. Czech authorities, who first mentioned the alleged meeting in October 2001 to U.S. officials, have since said they no longer are certain the individual in the video of the supposed meeting was Atta. Meanwhile, in July, the U.S. military captured the Iraqi intelligence officer who was supposed to have met Atta and has not obtained confirmation from him.

Cheney also seemed to broaden the intelligence on other alleged al Qaeda connections with Hussein, saying, "The Iraqi government or the Iraqi intelligence service had a relationship with al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s." Up to now, administration officials and CIA documents have said there had been eight meetings, primarily in the early 1990s, when bin Laden was in Sudan.

Cheney was less forthcoming when asked about Saudi Arabia's ties to al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 hijackers. "I don't want to speculate," he said, adding that Sept. 11 is "over with now, it's done, it's history and we can put it behind us."