THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE

About Richard Clarke, that is. Now good luck finding it.

I've been trying to follow this firestorm for the past five days, and after all the excerpts, quotations, interviews, allegations, attacks, rebuttals, and counter-rebuttals...well, frankly I'm confused. Certainly my instinctive distrust of the Bush administration leads me to suspect that his story is probably true, but then again, how should I know? I mean, I wasn't there, obviously.

That said, as both Josh Marshall and Fred Kaplan at Slate have pointed out, there's at least one emerging pattern that indicates that there's some fire here and not just smoke: some of the administration's responses have been spectacularly lame. My personal favorite is this quote from Deputy National Security Adviser James Wilkinson, giving an interview to Wolf Blitzer:

WILKINSON: Wolf, let me finish. The terrorists weren't overseas, the terrorists were here in America. By June, the FBI says 16 of 19 terrorists in the 9/11 attacks were already here. I just don't see what this focus on process and titles and meetings. Let me also point something. If you look in this book you find interesting things such as reported in the Washington Post this morning. He's talking about how he sits back and visualizes chanting by bin Laden and bin Laden has a mystical mind control over U.S. officials. This is sort of "X-Files" stuff, and this is a man in charge of terrorism, Wolf, who is supposed to be focused on it and he was focused on meetings.

Here is the quote from the Washington Post to which Wilkinson is referring:

"It was as if Osama bin Laden, hidden in some high mountain redoubt, were engaging in long-range mind control of George Bush, chanting 'invade Iraq, you must invade Iraq,' " Clarke writes.

It should be completely obvious to anyone that Clarke was not saying that he actually believes Osama Bin Laden was engaging in mind control via chanting, and that he was simply making a joke to get his point across. At worst, Wilkinson is deliberately distorting the quote in order to smear Clarke, and at best, he's being unbelievably careless. After all, if you read something that seemed to indicate that a career government official believed that Osama Bin Laden was capable of mind control, wouldn't you re-read it to make sure you hadn't misunderstood?

But more to the point, if the administration has a legitimate case that Clarke's story is inaccurate, why don't they lay it out? Why are their spokespersons resorting to such bizarre and flimsy attacks instead? As far as I can tell, they've made exactly one effort to address his story in detail (which can be found online here), and even then, they've written it up in a "Myth/Fact" format that allows them to portray Clarke's claims however they want. For example:

Myth: Before 9/11 the Administration was focused on Iraq rather than on al-Qaida.

The Facts:

* The President and the Administration were legitimately concerned about the threat posed by Iraq. Iraq had sponsored terrorism, attacked its neighbors, used chemical weapons, violated 16 U.N. Security Council Resolutions, kicked out UN weapons inspectors, was circumventing sanctions to acquire billions of dollars to fund its illegal activities, and continued to try to shoot down U.S. and U.K. aircraft patrolling the no-fly-zones.

* But the Administration completed a comprehensive strategy to eliminate al-Qaida well before it completed a strategy to address Iraq. In fact, the directive to eliminate al-Qaida, approved by the Principals on September 4, 2001, was President Bush's first major foreign policy directive.

The problem, of course, is that "Before 9/11 the Administration was focused on Iraq rather than on al-Qaida" is a rather vague statement which can easily be "refuted" simply by pointing out that the Administration didn't ignore al-Qaida completely and which may or may not accurately reflect the substance of Clarke's claims. Some points in their rebuttal are more specific, such as one that deals with the dates on which certain meetings took place, but a great deal of it just sounds like spin.

Obviously this story has yet to play itself out completely. Personally, I'm not holding out much hope for a "smoking gun," and in a way the confusion may actually benefit the Administration if people eventually just decide they don't know who to believe and quit following the story (though a heavily critical final report from the 9/11 commission, particularly one that backed up Clarke's view, might change that). I can't offer any pearls of wisdom myself without having read Clarke's book (which I do intend to do, hopefully in the near future), but from pretty much any perspective, the Administration would do better to knock it off with these desperate-sounding attacks on his credibility and stick to dealing with actual facts.

BUSH'S LATEST ENDORSEMENT

It's not clear if the group in question really speaks for Al-Qaeda (and it probably doesn't mean anything even if they do), but I couldn't help but chortle a little at the second half of this story, especially with all the right-wing griping about Kerry's "foreign leaders" remark and the Spanish election:

Purported Al Qaeda Letter Calls Truce in Spain
Wed Mar 17, 4:56 PM ET
By Opheera McDoom

CAIRO (Reuters) - A group claiming to have links with al Qaeda said on Wednesday it was calling a truce in its Spanish operations to see if the new Madrid government would withdraw its troops from Iraq, a pan-Arab newspaper said.

In a statement sent to the Arabic language daily al-Hayat, the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, which claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombings that killed 201 people, also urged its European units to stop all operations.

"Because of this decision, the leadership has decided to stop all operations within the Spanish territories... until we know the intentions of the new government that has promised to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq," the statement said.

"And we repeat this to all the brigades present in European lands: Stop all operations."

Skepticism has greeted previous claims of responsibility by the group for attacks in Turkey and Iraq. U.S. officials say its links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network are unclear.

An unrelated videotape of a man describing himself as al Qaeda's European military spokesman also claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombing, saying it was in retaliation for outgoing Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's domestically-unpopular support for the U.S.-led Iraq war.

In a shock election result three days after the Madrid bombs, Spain voted in the Socialist party, which has since said it will probably withdraw its troops from Iraq.

"The Spanish people... chose peace by choosing the party that was against the alliance with America," the statement said.


WE WANT BUSH TO WIN

The statement said it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."

In comments addressed to Bush, the group said:

"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."

"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."

The group said its cells were ready for another attack and time was running out for allies of the United States.

"Whose turn is it next? Will it be Japan or America, or Italy, Britain or Oslo or Australia?" the statement said, adding Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were also targets.

The group is named after Muhammed Atef, also known as Abu Hafs, a close bin Laden aide killed in the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan.

All together now: If we re-elect Bush...the terrorists have won!

THE FUTURE OF THE SENATE

Most of the chattering class would agree that the Democrats have a stronger chance of winning back the Presidency this fall than they do of taking back the House or the Senate (particularly the House, where redistricting has just about made a joke of the whole process). However, things have started looking up on the Senate side lately: Republicans are having trouble fielding top-tier candidates, while Democrats are displaying uncharacteristic (but very welcome) signs of actually having their act together for a change. (Illinois seems to be a bit of a mess, but they should win there anyway -- more on that a little later.) In the normally Republican bastion of Alaska, for example, appointed-incumbent Lisa Murkowski appears vulnerable in a race with former Gov. Tony Knowles, who, as far as I can tell, is probably the single Alaska Democrat with even a prayer of winning, and when Colorado just recently became an open-seat race, Democrats displayed good sportsmanship in coalescing around Attorney General Ken Salazar, a popular moderate, rather than putting themselves through a tough primary battle. Even in states as "red" as Oklahoma and South Carolina, polls have shown Democratic candidates in the lead.

Unfortunately, there's one major obstacle lurking in many of these races that I think Democrats will still have to overcome: coattails, or in this case, lack thereof.

That is to say, the conventional wisdom is that in close races in a Presidential election year, a win by one party's presidential candidate often helps that party's "down-ticket" House and Senate races. The problem is that many of these states, as I mentioned before, are not just leaning Republican but considered solidly Republican. With an assist from the Daily Kos's Senate Outlook (with one modification of my own), here's a rundown of the races currently considered competitive, ranked in decreasing order of competitiveness:

Republican Seats:

1. Illinois
2. Oklahoma
3. Alaska
4. Colorado (my own ranking -- Kos hasn't updated his since before Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell announced his retirement)
5. Pennsylvania
6. Missouri
7. Kentucky

Only two of these (Illinois and Pennsylvania) are blue states, and only one of the red states (Missouri) is considered a swing state. In Illinois, former Republican Gov. Jim Edgar declined to run, and the Democrats should be able to win simply due to natural advantage, regardless of who the candidate is (it's looking like Chicago State Sen. Barack Obama at the moment). Conversely Pennsylvania and Missouri have well-entrenched incumbents (Arlen Specter and Kit Bond, respectively) who will be tough to unseat no matter how well Kerry does -- both survived 1992, for example. (Though if Specter is unseated in the primary by conservative challenger Rep. Pat Toomey, the Democrats may start out with the upper hand.)

Of the rest, I'd have to say that only Colorado stands much of a chance of going blue in November, and that's doubtful unless Kerry is winning in a Clinton-style semi-landslide. In other words, the Democratic candidates in the four remaining states have to win at least partly on their own: they'll need either a significant number of ticket-splitters or a disproportionate number of Bush supporters choosing not to vote at all in these races. Either way, the turnout for Kerry alone won't likely be enough to carry any of them past the finish line if previous trends hold up.

Democratic Seats:

1. Georgia
2. South Carolina
3. North Carolina
4. Florida
5. Louisiana
6. South Dakota

In this case, *all* of these are red states except, arguably, Florida, and I don't know of anyone who thinks Kerry has much of a shot at winning Georgia, South Carolina, or South Dakota (and even North Carolina is a stretch, though John Edwards' role in this race remains a wild card at this point). That's not to say it's completely hopeless -- most people seem to think the Senate races in both Carolinas will be competitive, Florida could yet swing decisively into the blue column (and anyway, the Dems picked up a Senate seat there in 2000 even amidst all electoral hell breaking loose on the Presidential front), Louisiana has gone Democratic in both of its last two major statewide elections, and Daschle will probably manage to defy South Dakota's Republican trend once more.

Still, the smart oddsmaker would say that the Republicans will not come up 0-for-6 in these races. So let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Republicans take Georgia and the Democrats take Illinois. At that point, it's still a wash, and if Bush is re-elected, they need a net gain of two for a Cheney-proof 51-49 majority. That means they have to go 2-for-6 in the remaining close races -- which, most likely, means they have to go 2-for-3 in OK, AK, and CO. If the Republicans pick up not one but two currently Democratic seats, then the Democrats only get to 51 by winning all three of those races or by taking down Specter, Bond, or Jim Bunning of Kentucky. If the Republicans pick up three, it's probably game, set, and match as far as the Senate is concerned.

Finally, there's one more potential curveball for the Democrats: it seems unclear, last I heard, what exactly will happen in Massachusetts if Kerry wins and vacates his Senate seat. Not surprisingly, the Republican governor and Democratic legislature disagree over who calls the shots and how in appointing a replacement. Still, there's at least a possibility that a Kerry victory means one more Republican Senator, at least in the short term (whoever it is would probably lose his or her seat in the next round, especially if a special election is scheduled relatively quickly).

It is perhaps somewhat ironic, then, that the outcome of the Presidential race will arguably still be the biggest factor in determining how the next Senate actually behaves. Even a 51-49 or 52-48 Democratic advantage would require extraordinary party discipline (unlikely, even without the headache whose initials are Zell Miller) to be a functioning majority, which means the vice-presidential tiebreaking vote could be crucial. On the other hand, the same may hold true for the Republicans: Senators like Chafee, McCain, Snowe, and Collins don't strike me as naturally disposed to knee-jerk partisan obstruction, and none of them would have much to gain from it politically (particularly Chafee and McCain -- the former is by far the most liberal Republican in the Senate, the latter is a good friend of Kerry's, and both thrive on their reputations as mavericks). In the end, coattails or not, the Senate and Presidential races may still be double-or-nothing for the Democrats: if they want to become the dominant force in the Senate, they'll probably need a President Kerry to back them up one way or the other.

KERRY/MCCAIN '04?

No, I don't think it would actually happen, and I'm not sure how the two of them could make the ideological case for it (despite a maverick streak, McCain is still pretty conservative), but it's fun to imagine Karl Rove going nuts when he hears about McCain's comments this morning.

Meanwhile, for further indications of an already-intense race, hop over to Salon and check out their "New Pentagon Papers" story and the announcement of their new Washington Bureau and plans for aggressive coverage of the '04 election.

THIS EPISODE OF KEVIN'S MARGINALIA BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE NUMBERS 2162 AND 270

I've updated the Scorecard again with all the Super Tuesday numbers I can find at the moment. While I'll continue updating it once a week until the primaries are over, I'll be devoting my number-crunching time more towards monitoring state-by-state Bush vs. Kerry polls from now on. I'm working on a feature that will combine those numbers with the 2000 results for one of those fun little red vs. blue "If the election were held today..." thingies, which I'll put online sometime this weekend.

WE ACTUALLY WON....NO, REALLY!

First off, a brief note about Rhode Island. It looks like we came up a little short of our stated goals: a delegate sweep (Edwards picked up 4 out of 21) and the largest percentage vote for Kerry of any Super Tuesday states (Massachusetts beat us by 1%), but we did well despite the low voter turnout. Speaking of which, on the down side, it looks like we'll have the fewest votes of any non-caucus state despite having a significantly larger population than Vermont, where Howard Dean loyalists pulled off a well-deserved win for their candidate. Of course, one problem in Rhode Island is that many voters often seem to think that elections are foregone conclusions and that it doesn't really matter if they vote -- it's a discouraging attitude, but with results like Kerry's 71%-19% win, or Gore's 61%-32% margin over Bush in 2000, I must concede that they're probably right at least some of the time.

Anyway, despite having been with the John Kerry campaign through thick and thin, I must admit it's still a little hard to believe that he's actually wrapped up the nomination less than two months after he had been written off as political dead meat. Many other Kerryites believed all along that he'd pull it off in the end, but I, ever the pessimist, must admit that I cannot count myself among their number. Certainly I had *hope* that he'd win, but I thought it was unlikely right up until the Iowa results were announced, and even after New Hampshire I kept thinking something was going to blow up in our faces somehow.

I use the first-person plural, incidentally, with some hesitation. If I've learned anything in the last six months, it's that American politics is like some sort of crazy wild animal, prone to unpredictable turns that may lie beyond the control of all the people doing the grassroots work. I don't doubt that our efforts helped (and our group of Brown students did most of the work ourselves for the Rhode Island signature drive), but I don't know that Kerry could have won New Hampshire, for example, without the bounce from Iowa and the resulting media attention and momentum. At times I've felt more like a passenger in a speeding car than a cog in a well-oiled machine, but it's been a simultaneously exhilarating and bewildering ride, and despite the long days, the sleep-deprived nights, and the backlog of academic work I now find waiting for me, I plan to stay on board all the way until November.

So then. Now comes the hard part. (g)

LAST THOUGHTS BEFORE SUPER TUESDAY

With John Kerry having won almost all of the primaries thus far and only John Edwards remaining as a serious opponent, tomorrow looks to be the most pivotal day in the Democratic primary race since the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. Here in Rhode Island, things are still relatively quiet. We've done some phonebanking and some roadside visibilities, but at nowhere near the intensity of New Hampshire, and the only real question seems to be whether Edwards will reach the 15% threshold here and prevent Kerry from taking all the state's delegates. A recent Survey USA Poll has Kerry leading 66%-23% in RI, but with so little publicity and awareness of the primary here, turnout may end being the deciding factor.

From what I can tell, a complete sweep for Kerry does at least seem possible. While Survey USA has Edwards narrowing the gap to 46-42 in Georgia, I haven't seen any state polls that actually show Edwards leading. California, New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island appear headed for lopsided Kerry victories, and he seems to have a strong lead in Ohio as well. The numbers have been all over the place in Maryland, but even the closest projected margin there -- Kerry ahead by 7% according to American Research Group on February 25 -- has now widened to 12% in the same poll. Massachusetts and Vermont have not been polled, but the former is not exactly considered a nail-biter for obvious reasons, and Edwards is not on the ballot in the latter. That leaves only Minnesota, which also has not been polled and which could be a toss-up.

I won't be too surprised if Edwards does manage to win Georgia and maybe Minnesota, but unless he pulls off an upset or a very close second-place finish somewhere else, I think the pressure on him to drop out will be pretty high. Barring some huge upsets, he'll still be pretty far behind in the delegate count after tomorrow, and that makes the math of a road to the nomination for him even tougher than it already is.

Anyway, we're doing visibility off and on at some polling places tomorrow, then heading over to a local bar for a results-watching party (which may run pretty late since we'll have to wait until 11 PM Eastern Time for California). Edwards seems to have banked his fortunes mostly on Georgia, Minnesota, and Ohio, so those are probably the states to watch in terms of whether this race will keep going for a while or wind down relatively soon.