Not less than a week ago, we heard from the Bush campaign that they were scaling back their ad buys. Not because the ads had been ineffective, mind you, but because it was all part of their Grand Strategy.

Well, with Kerry stepping up his advertising, Bush is doing the same. But we're sure it was all planned, so it seems that the grand strategy must have included lying about the grand strategy:

WASHINGTON, April 24 — President Bush's campaign is unleashing a direct and meticulously planned assault on John Kerry's national security credentials this week with a nearly $10 million advertising drive intended to undermine what both sides describe as Mr. Kerry's potentially greatest asset.

The tough television attack advertisements, combined with a speech Vice President Dick Cheney will deliver in Missouri on Monday, reflect what both sides see as an increasingly critical question: whether Mr. Kerry can convince Americans that he would be a strong enough president in a time of war. The advertisements will begin Monday night and will be broadcast on stations in nine states and on some national cable networks.

The assault on Mr. Kerry comes as Mr. Bush has been facing discouraging news from Iraq and challenges to his response to warnings about the Sept. 11 attacks. The White House has been cheered by polls suggesting that those developments have not undermined Mr. Bush's standing.

But this new challenge to Mr. Kerry also coincides with the first anniversary on May 1 of the speech Mr. Bush gave on an aircraft carrier off the coast of California celebrating the fall of Baghdad. While Mr. Bush's advisers said the timing of the new advertisements had nothing to do with that, they said they were girding for attacks from Mr. Kerry and Democrats, who are planning to use the anniversary to stage challenges to Mr. Bush's policy in Iraq.

Of course, we Weasels have our own theory, and it includes substantial panic in the Bush camp over how little traction they've gotten against Kerry when he was basically sitting and taking whatever they dished out. With Kerry raking in the dough and counterattacking, it would seem the Bushies are in a bit of a tizzy.

The ads, by the way, make use of the same dishonest crap the Bushies have been dishing out all along. Let's hope their stepped up advertising buys them some stepped-up scrutiny.

I'm currently attempting to make some major updates to the site. Thus far, Blogger and Frontpage have some issues; hopefully, we'll get them resolved soon. The result should be a far more useable and informative site, incorporating blogging, news and more extensive writings.

Richard Clarke is nothing if not consistent. After having his criticisms of the Bush administration vindicated in their entirety (despite rabid slander efforts by pro-Bush GOP flacks throughout the conservative media), he's reminding us once again why he's been trusted by four administrations to tirelessly lead the fight against terrorism:

The 9/11 commission and President Bush seem to be in a race to propose creating a "director of national intelligence," who would be given control over all American intelligence agencies. The commission may also recommend a domestic security intelligence service, probably modeled on Britain's MI-5.

. . .

We do not need another new agency right now. We do, however, need to create within the F.B.I. a strong organization that is vastly different from the federal police agency that was unable to notice the Al Qaeda presence in America before 9/11. For now, any American version of MI-5 must be a branch within the F.B.I. — one with a higher quality of analysts, agents and managers.

Rather than creating new organizations, we need to give the C.I.A. and F.B.I. makeovers. They cannot continue to be dominated by careerists who have carefully managed their promotions and ensured their retirement benefits by avoiding risk and innovation for decades. The agencies need regular infusions throughout their supervisory ranks of managers and thinkers from other, more creative organizational cultures.

In the new F.B.I., marksmanship, arrests and skill on the physical training obstacle course should no longer be prerequisites for recruitment and retention. Similarly, within the C.I.A. we should quash the belief that — as George Tenet, the director of central intelligence, told the 9/11 commission — those who have never worked in the directorate of operations cannot understand it and are unqualified to criticize it.

Finally, we must try to achieve a level of public discourse on these issues that is simultaneously energetic and mutually respectful. I hoped, through my book and testimony, to make criticism of the conduct of the war on terrorism and the separate war in Iraq more active and legitimate. We need public debate if we are to succeed. We should not dismiss critics through character assassination, nor should we besmirch advocates of the Patriot Act as fascists.

We all want to defeat the jihadists. To do that, we need to encourage an active, critical and analytical debate in America about how that will best be done. And if there is another major terrorist attack in this country, we must not panic or stifle debate as we did for too long after 9/11.

The editorial is well worth reading in its entirety. It's clear that Clarke is warning us against simple "quick fixes" like invading Iraq or forming our own MI-5, when there are more appropriate, effective and faster ways to combat the problem.

Agree or disagree, Clarke is the real deal, and we likely ignore him at our ongoing peril...

Looks like Bush is making yet another pledge on the environment:

Speaking at a nature reserve in Wells, Maine on the 30th anniversary of the first Earth Day, Bush pledged to increase the amount of acreage set aside for wetlands.

. . .

"Instead of just limiting our losses, we will expand the wetlands of America," the president said. "We can achieve this goal. It is a realistic goal. To do so, we will work to restore and to improve at least 3 million acres of wetlands over the next five years," he said

As usual, when Bush conducts a photo-op on the environment, it's a good idea to look at the fine print. And here it is...

After Bush spoke, former Environmental Protection Agency head Carol Browner told CNN that the president had redefined wetlands so that nearly half of U.S. wetland areas were no longer protected by the EPA, which was created in response to the first Earth Day.

But surely, we can trust Bush's word, right? Well, let's review the record...

• March 13, 2001: Bush did an about-face on an explicit campaign promise to limit industry carbon dioxide production.


• April 14, 2001: Despite frequent campaign appearances at Boys and Girls Club branches, libraries, children's hospitals, etc. and professions of support, Bush's first budget slashed funding for all of these.


• May 8, 2001: Bush goes back on a campaign pledge of support for reducing the worldwide number of nuclear weapons, and slashes funding for anti-proliferation efforts.

The list goes on. And on. And on. From Head Start to the environment to promises of support for a worldwide campaign against AIDS, the President has an almost flawless record of promising something then going back on his word. In fact, the best indicator of his future actions is to assume they'll be the opposite of what he claims he'll do.

As as for wetlands themselves, this isn't the first time Bush has promised to protect them. In fact, Bush's promise today sounds eerily familiar: in April, 2001, the Bush administration announced it would keep Clinton administration wetlands protections in place. Less than four months later, Bush reversed himself:

The Army Corps of Engineers yesterday proposed relaxing a series of year-old rules designed to protect streams and other wetlands, despite opposition to the move by several federal environmental agencies.

Environmentalists complained that the proposal would undercut President Bush's pledges to preserve wetlands, making it easier for developers and coal mining companies to dig them up and fill them in. They also said the plan would encourage development in flood-prone areas and noted that the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies opposed it.

"For Earth Day this year, George W. Bush and his administration touted wetlands protection as an important part of their environmental agenda. However, President Bush's action today is a leap in the opposite direction," said Todd Hutchins of Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund.

So perhaps, just perhaps, an iota of skepticism may be in order.

Today, Kerry's military records (which, as Kos says, are pretty much solid gold) and their release were making headlines. And it would appear some people weren't too happy. From the Bush campaign, we have this lame whine:

Terry Holt, a spokesman for President Bush's campaign, said the issue was never Mr. Kerry's military service but what he said was Mr. Kerry's hypocrisy in calling for full disclosure of various aspects of Mr. Bush's presidency while Mr. Kerry had not released his own military records or the tax returns of his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry.

"What this reinforces is something very basic about John Kerry — that he only responds to political pressure," Mr. Holt said. "We're going to hold him accountable. But that doesn't mean that it's one of the main themes of the campaign."

Strange -- I thought the main problem the Bush campaign had with Kerry is that he's a flip-flopper who blows with the political winds, telling everyone what they want to hear. Now, we hear that he only responds to "pressure". Which is it, guys?

Fortunately, the Washington Post is here to clear things up. In addition to having a glowing military record, Kerry drew another distinction with Bush: he released records of his contacts with lobbyists. And they had this to say:

Kerry was a hard lawmaker to persuade, lobbyists said, and therefore he was not as beseeched as much as other lawmakers. "If your interests coincided he'd be a great advocate," Kip O'Neill said. "But he wouldn't carry anybody's water because he knew them or had a meeting with them."

Wow -- this almost sounds like the guy has principles! Whatever is a Bush to do?

Looks like President Bush, despite his spokesman's claims that John Kerry doesn't have a plan for Iraq, is rapidly adopting Kerry's advice:

When Bush endorsed plans last week to create a U.N.-appointed government to take power in Iraq on June 30, and left its composition in the hands of U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, it sounded like a passage from one of Kerry's speeches.

Kerry, a Massachusetts senator who voted to authorize the war, has criticized Bush's failure to gain more global support for the Iraq mission. But he also called last week for a partnership with the United Nations, a broader role for Brahimi and a NATO security force under U.S. command to keep order.

You're only about 500 soldiers late, Mr. Bush...

Looks like this hasn't gotten much attention in the blogosphere. Thanks to Tom Manatos (advisor to U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi), we see that Rep. Charles Rangel is all over the latest abuse of the Bush administration:

For Immediate Release
Tuesday, April 20, 2004

Congressman Rangel Praises Treasury IG for Broadening Probe of Possible Use of Department Resources for Political Purposes

Washington, D.C. -- Congressman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Committee that oversees the Treasury Department, praised a move by the Treasury Department Inspector General (IG) to broaden a review into the possible use of civil servants for political purposes. The IG already was looking at the Department's analysis of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's tax proposals that appeared on a Republican National Committee (RNC) website. According to news reports, the IG broadened its investigation after Mr. Rangel brought to their attention several press releases that claimed to be "April 15th Tax Day Reminders" but included clearly political rhetoric.
"In the run-up to April 15th, one would think that the Treasury Department would have enough work to do to help Americans navigate the increasingly complex tax code. But not only were they doing campaign research on the Kerry tax plans, it now appears they were putting out ‘Tax Day reminders’ that were thinly disguised Bush campaign releases. They had nothing to do with April 15th and everything to do with November 2nd," said Rep. Rangel.

The following controversial language appeared in the Treasury Department news releases: "America has a choice: It can continue to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President’s policies are doing; or it can raise taxes on American families and small businesses, hurting economic recovery and future job creation." This same language also appeared verbatim on the RNC website in a document dated April 19.

In a follow-up letter sent today, Rep. Rangel thanked the IG and brought up several questions about the RNC and Treasury Department releases including who developed the language and whether the RNC might be privy to updated tax data before it was publically released.

"Nobody questions the right of Administration officials to speak for the President and explain his policies. But there is a difference between representing the Administration and using tax-payer provided resources for electioneering,'' said Rep. Rangel. "I asked the Inspector General to investigate this matter to determine whether there is a pattern of crossing that line at the Bush Treasury Department."

This, of course, is not the first time the Bush administration has misused the Treasury for explicit politicking. Remember this?

June 21, 2001 | WASHINGTON -- The fight in the House of Representatives over an IRS mailing criticized by Democrats as essentially a Bush campaign letter got ugly late Wednesday night.

. . .

The controversial IRS letter credits President Bush by name for the forthcoming rebate check, saying that "the United States Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into law" the tax bill, "which provides long-term tax relief for all Americans who pay income taxes ... for years to come." Written in consultation with the White House and the Treasury Department, the letter will be sent to 91 million Americans in July, with the stated claim of helping clear up confusion about the $300-per-person, $600-per-couple tax rebate.

Well, there's consistency for you. Hopefully, Rangel can clean house on this one.

It was billed as the Ad Blitz of Doom. John Kerry, emerging from a primary battle with eight competitors, was in debt and unable to fight back. George Bush, taking a page from the Bill Clinton playbook, planned to use his vast campaign warchest to define Kerry before he could define himself, sowing such serious doubts with the public that Kerry could not recover.

Fast forward nearly two months, and the polls have nothing but bad news for Bush. Despite having spent tens of millions on advertising, Bush's approval ratings, if anything, have fallen slightly, his approval marks on fighting terrorism and handling the Iraq conflict have fallen precipitously, and election matchups show Bush vs. Kerry very little changed.

At this point, it would appear that Bush has gotten even less "bang for the buck" out of his advertising blitz than the economy got out of his tax cuts. According to insiders, nearly half of the budgetted Bush advertising budget at this point has been consumed. And the latest word is that the Bush campaign is scaling back on ad buys. The reason, Bush spokespeople say, is not because the ads have been ineffective; rather, it's all part of the strategy.

Bush representatives can probably be forgiven for false bravado; many news outlets (and undoubtedly the Bush campaign strategists) predicted dire outcomes for Kerry once Bush brought his huge financial advantage to bear. Democrats fretted; Republicans gloated, and shortly after the advertising began, it looked like Bush might be getting something for his money.

And yet, despite an onslaught of negative advertising targetting Kerry, he's still standing. The polls tell the tale:



Clearly, the Bush campaign's poor fortune has been the result of several factors. They include early advertising blunders (the use imagery form September 11 depicting caskets being removed from the wreckage of the World Trade Center, which resulted in a PR fiasco as relatives of the dead and a firefighters' union raised a ruckus), generally ineffective ads, extensive counter-advertising in battleground states by so-called "527" interest groups, a series of scandals and major news events (such as an Iraq situation gone from bad to terrible, repeated allegations regarding September 11 and the administration's handling of terrorism threats, a terrible jobs creation record), defense of Kerry by several prominent people including Republicans, and last (but not least), a Democratic challenger who has fought back. Many, of not most, of these factors are as likely as not to get worse, rather than better, for the administration.

From the beginning, it appeared that the Bush campaign had misunderstood the lesson of Clinton's 1996 efforts. While it's true that Clinton jumped out ahead of the Republicans with early advertising, there were other factors involved which helped Clinton. These included a moderately favorable economic record, a Republican Congress available to use as a foil, Clinton's "hijacking" of key Republican issues such as welfare reform and balanced budget efforts), and (arguably) a far less charismatic challenger.

And now, it would appear that John Kerry, somewhat bruised but nonetheless still on top, is about to begin an ad blitz of his own. Some of that advertising will no doubt directly counter dishonest statements made by the Bush Campaign; time will tell whether Bush will experience a backlash of some sort.

Regardless, the smell of fear is in the air. And if I were the Bush campaign, I'd be sweating bullets right about now.

They say you can know someone by his or her friends. And it looks like friends of this administration include some of the least-desirable and looniest people around:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Jamie Gorelick, a member of the commission investigating the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, said Saturday that she received death threats this week after a number of conservatives alleged that her former work in the Justice Department may have contributed to failures leading to the attacks.

In the mid-1990s, Gorelick served as deputy attorney general of the United States. During that time, she wrote a memorandum establishing distinctions between intelligence that could be used for law-enforcement purposes and intelligence that could be used for national security purposes.

. . .

"I can confirm that I've received threats at my office and my home," she told CNN on Saturday. "I did get a bomb threat to my home."

She added, "I have gotten a lot of very vile e-mails. The bomb threat was by phone."

"This is not a basis for resignation," she said, noting that Ashcroft's own deputy ratified the memorandum in August 2001.

Gorelick said she has recused herself from reviewing any actions that occurred while she was at the Justice Department.

Democratic and Republican commission members, including Chairman Tom Kean, supported her decision.

Look for more of this sort of thing from dittoheads, freepers, and other crackpots unhappy with the fact that the Bush administration is imploding...