Thomas Edsall at the Huffington Post has now written a second very misleading story that is simply spreading false rumors about Obama paying the Clinton debt. Obama is now all but officially the head of the Democratic party and it is time for us to get together behind him. Inflammatory and misleading stories like this one are not helping. This is New York Post quality journalism. I am really beginning to question the reliability of Huffington Post.

Below is my e-mail to Mr. Edsall explaining why his story is so misleading. Please join me in asking him to stop manufacturig these bogus controversies.

There has been some heated discussion about whether or not the Obama camaign should pay the debts of the Clinton campaign. I agree with many others that there is no justifciation for transferring funds from the small donors of the Obama campaign to the exceedingly wealthy Clintons.

However, as it turns out the controversy has been generated from an incredibly misleading story at the  Huffington Post

I explain why the entire cotreversy is bogus below with an e-mail to Thomas Edsall, the man who started the rumor. Please take the time to send an e-mail of your own to let him know that we expect better.

Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief."    NYTimes July9, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/...

9-11 Commission Report, p127:"Worst of all, al Qaeda's senior leadership had stopped using a particular means of communication almost immediately after a leak to the Washington Times [referring to the 1998 leak]. This made it much more difficult for the National Security Agency to intercept his [osama bin ladin's] conversations."
p196 Bob Woodward's Number One Bestseller Bush at War:"In a PRIVATE (my emphasis added) meeting with the Emir of Qatar, Bush showed how much he was following the signals intelligence, especially on bin Laden. `We know Osama bin Laden called his mother,' Bush told the Emir. `One of these days, he'll make the mistake, and we'll get him.'"  

Now after reading this last quote from Woodward's number one bestseller does anybody think that OBL called home for Mother's Day this year?

From Public Radio International's program To the Point with Warren Olney on 10-12-2004:

Worse, American actions in Iraq, including but not limited to the scandal of Abu Ghraib, have harmed the reputation of the U.S. in most parts of the Middle East and, according to polls, made Osama Bin Laden more popular in some countries than is President Bush. This increased popularity makes it easier for al-Qaida to raise money, attract recruits, and carry out its terrorist operations than would otherwise be the case.

http://www.sensibleforeignpolicy.net/letter.html

Here's how FactCheck summarized the v.p. debate:
Cheney and Edwards Mangle Facts (Notice how the title leaves the impression that Cheney and Edwards were equally mendacious.)

"Cheney wrongly implied that FactCheck had defended his tenure as CEO of Haliburton Co., and the vice president even got our name wrong. He overstated matters when he said Edwards voted "for the war" and "to commit the troops, to send them to war." He exaggerated the number of times Kerry voted to raise taxes and the number of small business owners who would see a tax increase under Kerry's proposals." (So far, so good.)

"Edwards falsely claimed the administration `lobbied the Congress' to cut the combat pay of troops in Iraq, something the White House never supported, and he used misleading numbers about jobs." (Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! on both counts!)

Let's look at the jobs accusation first. Here are the Cheney and Edwards statements FactCheck quoted:

Dems need to take control and focus this argument. This election is not about Vietnam- that was over 30 years ago. People can disagree with Kerry's war protests or things he said after the war. But no one can take this away from Kerry:

Nytimes very humorous and very true op-ed

In my opinion this is the case we need to make against Bush and his indefensible negligence in the lead up to 9-11.

After 9-11 The Bush Administration had problems with intelligence. (Yes pun intended.)

Officials at the CIA including the Deputy Director were "frustrated when some policymakers, who had not lived through such threat surges before, questioned the validity of the intelligence or wondered if it was disinformation...," 9-11 Commission Statement 7, p8

Two veteran CIA officers "were so worried about an impending disaster" that they considered resigning in protest and going public. 9-11 Commission Statement 7, p8

Part of the answer might lie in apocraphyl tales like this one. According to a partisan hack job of a book, Loosing Bin Laden, the Clinton administration declined an offer from the Sudanese government to hand over Bin Laden. I heard this charge repeated just yesterday by Ken Adelman on the Diane Rehm show.

Well, the 9-11 commission has investigated this charge and found no reliable evidence to support it. (p 3, Statement 5, available at www.9-11commission.gov )

True, Al Franken debunked this story in Lies and the Lying Liars, but it's hard to convince ditto-heads based on an Al Franken book.

Let's use the commission findings to debunk this charge anytime we hear a Republican repeat it.

Here are some of the reasons Kerry may be considering Bayh so seriously:

Free media According to conventional wisdom, a surprise choice for VP generates more free media coverage. Furthermore, an unexpected choice makes the candidate look bold.

Debunker: This line of reasoning ignores the very real expectations and preference for John Edwards. Many of the Kerry voters and volunteers I spoke with seemed to be under the impression they were voting for a Kerry/Edwards ticket. According to exit polls, Edwards was the first choice for VP among 40% of primary voters. See www.draftkerryedwards.com for more polls.

This clear preference and expectation for a particular vp is unprecedented. Has there ever been a movement to draft a vp?

An unexpected but uninspired choice, has the potential to hit the ground with a thud, generating a wave of dissapointment instead of a wave of excitement. The media is already speculating that Kerry might not choose Edwards because he doesn't want to be upstaged by his running-mate. As one reporter put it, if Edwards isn't chosen it will be because he is a rock star. There may also be speculation that Kerry still held a grudge against Edwards over the primary campaign. There are likely to be ridiculous conspiracy theories that the Clintons didn't want Edwards on the ticket because they want Hillary to have a clear shot in 2008 or 2012. Kerry doesn't need that kind of media attention. It sure won't make him look bold.

Furthermore, if George Bush has taught us anything it is that expectations matter. Bayh would be subjected to constant comparisons to Edwards.

Finally, if Kerry turns a deaf ear to the clearly expressed preference of the people who gave him the nomination, it may re-enforce the negative streotype of Kerry as aloof and out of touch.

Geography As a Democrat in a Midwestern Republican state, Bayh has a record of attracting ticket-splitters. Therefore, Bayh will help the ticket win moderate Republicans and independents in OH and other key Midwestern battleground states.

These are the media filters I designed the case to get through.

Media filter 1: The "they are both imperfect so they are the same filter." This is a logical fallacy that some in the media confuse with objectivity and some Nader voters confuse with a coherent political philosophy. It's like saying that a B student and an F student have equivalent academic records because neither earned an A. This filter almost always favors Bush since he tends to be the F student.

As applied to the 9-11 statements, the thinking by commentators goes like this: Both Clinton and Bush made mistakes and missed opportunities in the lead-up to 9-11. Therefore, Bush and Clinton have equivalent records on terrorism. Wrong!! The first part of the syllogism may be true, but the conclusion is demonstrably false.

yes, Clinton and Bush both made mistakes, but when the CIA was warning of an alarming increase in the terrorist threat level during the Millenium, the Clinton administration galvanized the federal government to protect people in the US and around the world from the planned attacks. With diligence and some luck, they saved lives and thwarted the attacks.

When the CIA warned that al Qaeda was planning attacks "qualitatively different" than anything we had seen before, Bush and his administration were AWOL. Read more.....

II.) Yes, Clinton and Bush both made mistakes in the lead up to 9-11, but there are very real differences in their records on terrorism.

When the CIA warned of an alarming increase in the terrorist threat level in the months preceding the 1999 Millennium celebrations, the Clinton administration galvanized the relevant federal agencies into a focused, intensive, and cooperative counterterrorism effort. With diligence and a fair amount of luck the Clinton administration managed to save lives and stave off attacks. During the spring and summer of 2001 when the CIA was warning of an impending attack that would be "qualitatively different" than anything we had ever seen, George W. Bush was AWOL.

Clinton Administration- 1999 Millennium Alerts

The CIA warned that between 5 and 15 terrorist attacks were planned against American interests in the US and overseas. (p 10, Tenet's sworn Statement)

The highest levels of the Clinton administration were "seized with the threat."  The National Security Advisor, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the CIA Director, the Attorney General, the FBI director and other top officials met almost daily for a month to coordinate the efforts of their agencies. The top-level leadership then "communicated their own sense of urgency throughout their agencies."  (p 5, Statement 8)

Secretary of Defense Cohen and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs prepared contingency plans for a rapid military response with assistance in the event of mass casualty or WMD terrorist attacks anywhere in the world, including the US homeland. (p 9, Statement 6)

The Clinton Administration made the most of a lucky break when an alert customs agent nabbed an Algerian terrorist crossing into the US from Canada with a car full of explosives and plans to blow up the Los Angelos Airport. This lucky break was pursued to break up terror cells in Toronto, Boston, New York and elsewhere. (p. 4 Berger's sworn Statement)

"By all accounts" this was a period of unprecedented cooperation between law enforcement and the intelligence community. An extraordinary number of domestic surveillance warrants were issued. (p 5, Statement 8) The activities of 21 different terrorists in 8 countries were disrupted. (p. 3 Statement 7)

Tenet described it this way, "the CIA overseas and the FBI in the US organized an aggressive integrated campaign to disrupt al Qaeda. ...Over a period of months, there were close daily consultations that included the Director of the FBI, the National Security Advisor, and the Attorney General....." (p22, Tenet's sworn statement)

Bush Administration- Spring and summer of 2001

During the spring and summer of 2001, CIA collection sources "lit up" with warnings of multiple spectacular attacks in their final stages of planning. Some of them possibly directed against targets inside the US. (p 11 Tenet's sworn Statement)

In May, Bush asked Cheney to chair an effort examining preparations for a WMD attack. That review was "just getting under way when the 9/11 attacks occurred."(pp 8-9 Statement 8)

"Rice recalled that in May 2001, as threats of possible terrorist attacks came up again and again in DCI Tenet's morning discussions with President Bush, the President expressed impatience with `swatting flies' and pushed his advisors to do more." (p 10, Statement 8)
This comment initiated a lengthy policy review process by the Deputies of the relevant agencies who met periodically to develop a comprehensive long-term counterterrorism plan. There is considerable controversy about whether or not the plan they eventually finished in September was essentially the same as the plan from the Clinton Administration. (p 11, Statement 8)

On July 3, the CIA warned the Bush administration that members of Al Qaeda believed "the upcoming attacks will be a `spectacular' qualitatively different than anything they have done to date."(p 11, Statement 8) Towards the end of July the intelligence community warned that the planned attacks might have been temporarily delayed. (p 11, Statement 8) In August, the CIA warned of Bin Laden's desire to conduct attacks in the US homeland. (p 11 Tenet's sworn statement)

Meanwhile, over in the Department of Defense, "Rumsfeld did not recall any particular counter-terrorism issue that engaged his attention before 9-11, other than the development of the Predator unmanned aircraft system for possible use against Bin Laden" (a program initiated during the Clinton administration) (p11 Statement 7). He had not ordered the preparation of any new military plans against either Al Qaeda or the Taliban before September 11th. (p12, Statement 6)

When Douglas Feith was confirmed as Undersecretary for Policy, Rumsfeld instructed him to focus on the dissolution of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. (p11, Statement 6) As of September 11th, Rumsfeld had not replaced the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict who left in January, "the key counterterrorism policy office in DOD." (p11, Statement 6) However, to be fair, Rumsfeld did order that some ships in the Persian Gulf region be sent out to sea to prevent them from becoming terrorist targets. (p11, Statement 8)

US embassies were temporarily closed. The State Department issued various travel advisories and the FBI issued a national threat advisory at the beginning of July. Cheney, Powell and Tenet made some phone calls to overseas officials to alert them to the threat. (p 11, Statement 8)

On July 5th, Rice remembered asking Clarke to involve some officials from law enforcement and other domestic agencies in his terrorism threat discussions. Some officials from those agencies met in the White House that afternoon and did issue some alerts and warnings. However, Rice and the relevant cabinet secretaries or agency heads do not appear to have attended. (p11, Statement 8)

The FAA did not learn of the "Pheonix EC", an FBI internal memo written in July 2001, which warned that the FBI should look more closely at the possibility of civil aviation schools being used by terrorists. The FAA did know of Zacharias Moussaoui's arrest by the INS in August 2001 and his suspicious behavior in flight school. (p4, Statement 3) However, the information about Moussaoui never made it to Clarke or the Counterterrorism Security Group. (p 11, Statement 8)

"Officials, including McLaughlin (Deputy Director of the CIA), were also frustrated when some policymakers, who had not lived through such threat surges before, questioned the validity of the intelligence or wondered if it was disinformation, though they were persuaded once they probed it. Two veteran CTC (Counterterrorism Center of the CIA) officers who were deeply involved in Usama Bin Laden issues were so worried about an impending disaster that one of them told us (the Commission) that they considered resigning and going public with their concerns." (p 8, Statement )

This isn't in the report but it is a matter of public record. From Aug. 4th through Aug 30th, President Bush took one of the longest Presidential vacations in modern history. Americans could turn on their tvs to see a "tanned President Bush chatting with voters in the snack bar of a Target store, clearing hiking trails, and talking expansively about the Middle East, stem cell research and national defense." According to Bush and his advisors this was really more of a "working" vacation. Hughes was quoted in the Washington Post, "I've heard a lot of people say to me, `What is all this talk about vacation? He's giving a speech a day, always someplace different.'" (Washington Post, 8-30-2001)

On September 4th,   the relevant agency heads and cabinet level officials met for the first time to discuss the threat from Al Qeada. They "apparently" approved the counterterrorism plan their deputies had developed over the past months. These high level officials had met many times before on Russia, the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. (pp 9-10, Statement 8) The plan still had not been signed by the President on September 11th. (p12, Statement 6)

III.) Debunking Bush's Excuses
The Bush Administration offers two defenses for their indefensible negligence. First, the slow confirmation process in the Senate. It took months for deputies in the defense department to be confirmed. This excuse rings hollow coming from an administration that managed to pass one of the largest tax cuts in the history of the world within their first six months in office. Yet, they couldn't agree on a plan to fight terrorism until 8 months into the administration. Furthermore, if the problem was a slow confirmation process, why did Rumsfeld ask Feith to focus on Missile defense when he was confirmed in July. Why did the administration push terrorism down to the deputy level, if the deputies were not being confirmed fast enough?

Second, they argue that Bush wanted a bold new strategy. He was tired of "swatting flies" and he didn't want to do anything weak. There are many people who argue the Bush Administration ended up adopting the plans they were presented by the Clinton Administration with a few minor changes. However, for the sake of argument let's say the Bush Administration did spend months developing a bold new plan. The Bush Administration's decision to undertake a strategic review of terrorism policy during a national security crisis is like a doctor designing a diet and exercise program for a patient who is bleeding to death-inexcusably negligent.

IV.) Conclusion
None of this is to say that the Bush administration is responsible for 9-11. There were clearly no conspiracies on the part of the administration. There was no single, specific credible threat that said terrorists were going to fly air planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon simultaneously. We have no way of knowing if leadership from the top levels of the Bush administration would have helped the relevant agencies connect the dots and prevent 9-11. However, this is not the point. The point is that the Bush administration failed to grasp the very real danger posed by al Qaeda despite multiple warnings from the Clinton Administration, the CIA and other officials involved in counterterrorism.

 The Bush administration is fond of saying things like, `we are taking the fight to the terrorists' or `it is better to play offense than defense.' However, the events of the summer of 2001 and the events surrounding the Millenium in 1999 show that although defensive measures are only a small part of the war on terror, defensive measures do matter. Vigorous, coordinated defensive actions save lives. Macho bluster doesn't.

Kohn: Geography- Gephardt has a geographic advantage over Edwards because Democrats have better prospects in the Midwest than South.

Response: Picking a candidate solely on the assumption that he/she will carry home state or have appeal in neighboring states is a mistake. Gore lost TN in 2000. Gephardt lost in IA, his own backyard, this year. In the age of national media, home state advantage isn't what it used to be. Furthermore, there are many closely contested states this year. We need a ticket with appeal to swing voters in all of the battleground states. Edwards demonstrated his appeal to disaffected Republicans and Independents in states like WI. Edwards finished ahead of Gephardt in IA. By making some of the Southern states contestable, Edwards forces Bush to spend time and resources there.

Kohn: Gephardt has a loyal labor base.

Response: Labor will be with us this year regardless of Kerry's running mate. The only substantive difference between Gephardt and Edwards here is the China vote. However, we can't really use this as a selling point because Kerry voted for China agreement. Furthermore, Gephart's labor constituency didn't demonstrate much loyalty to him in the primaries.

Kohn: Gephardt's somewhat more conservative social positions (Gephart voted for ban on partial birth abortions) will help us in the Midwest.

Response: To win a Senate seat in North Carolina as a Democrat, Edwards must be socially conservative enough to appeal in the Midwest. Besides Nader is running, Gephardt's vote to ban partial birth abortion could hurt us with potential Nader voters.

Kohn: Gephardt speaks language of blue collar workers in the Midwest.

Response: As someone who has worked in a mill himself,Edwards speaks it too. As I've already pointed out Edwards beat Gephart in IA.

Kohn: Gephardt is a better attack dog than Edwards.

Response: Gephardt is a clumsy attack dog. He hurt himself more than any of his rivals with his negative attacks in IA. Calling Bush a "miserable failure" won't help us in the general election. That kind of language turns off swing voters, allows Bush to dismiss our criticisms as attack politics as usual, and puts us in the position of defending ourselves. Edwards is an attack dog whose bite is worse than his bark. From his experience as a wildly successful plaintiff's attorney, Edwards knows how to attack Bush/Cheney's credibility withour damaging ours in the process. Edwards didn't win his trials by calling the defnedent's names. We won't win this election by name-calling. Edwards is the most qualified running mate to make our case against Bush/Cheney.

Kohn: Gephardt's political liabilities are well-known and he's overcome them in many elections in the past.

Response: Gephardt's liabilities make the Republican lines of attack against Kerry doubly effective. How many tax increases do you think Kerry/Gephardt have voted for in their 50+ years in Congress? How many contradictory positions have Kerry/Gephardt taken on issues during their long careers as insider Washington politicians? How much special interest money have Kerry/Gephardt taken and how many favors have they done for unpopular constituents? (This really hurts with potential Nader voters because it blurs the difference between Democrats and Republicans.)

Furthermore, Gephardt voted for the 87 billion in Iraq. Kerry didn't. This adds fule to the fire of Kerry as flip-flopper. Kerry is going to have a tough time explaining some of his "nuanced" positions on Iraq. Failure to reconcile Gephart's and Kerry's votes could be a serious blow to the crdibility of Kerry/Gephart.

Edwards, on the other hand, has a short voting record that, much to Edwards' chagrin during the primaries, is almost identical to Kerry's. Kerry/Edwards could present a unified position on Iraq.

Kohn: Gephardt has more experience and stature than Edwards. This would help Gephardt against Cheney and make Gehart a better vice-president or president if something happened to Kerry.

Response: Our main line of attack against Bush/Cheney is not going to be that they lack experience. If we are going to win, we need to successfully attack their record and their credibility and present our own competing vision for the future of this country. Edwards can do this better than anyone. Furthermore, Edwards has more foreign policy experience than Carter, Reagan, or Clinton when they were elected President. Edwards and Kerry were each beating Bush by about 10 points in recent national polls. This would not be the case if people didn't perceive Edwards to be qualified.

Choosing a vice-president is about shaping the image of Kerry in the public's mind. We need a vp whose close linkage to Kerry improves Kerry's brand and we need a vp who can effectively sell the Kerry package. Edwards is that man. Kerry/Edwards would be a ticket of optimism, change, and energy. Edwards is the best campaigner in our party today, he connects with voters and can sell them on Kerry. Kerry/Gephardt would be a ticket of old-style politics and Washington insiders.

Sometimes, the obvious choice is also the best choice. Please, please Senator Kerry and Democratic establishment, let's win this one. We would be crazy to pass up Edwards.

Forget the old models. If we look at the situation today and think ahead John Edwards is hands down the best VP candidate. Here's why:

1. )The Vice Presidency is where we groom our future Presidents. With 8 years experience as VP, John Edwards would be Super Candidate in 2012-invincible.
2. ) John Edwards is bar none the best campaigner in the Democratic Party right now. We need him out there everyday if we are goping to win. He would be the most effective for spokesperson for the Democratic message and he would help Kerry frame his message better and sharpen his rhetorical skill.
3. ) John Edwards would bring his considerable organization and fundraising capabilities with him. He raised over 1 million dollars in the week before Super Tuesday. Democrats are going to need every dollar they can get to fend off the looming massive assault on Kerry.
4. ) Even though Edwards might not deliver many Southern states as VP, he could at least make them contestable and force Bush to spend time and resources there. Furthermore, I think it's a mistake to pick a VP candidate based solely on the assumption that he/she could deliver their homestate. Al Gore lost TN in 2000. Gephart lost the Iowa primary (ok not his home state, but his neighboring state.) In this age of national media, state of origin matters less and less. We need a candidate like Edwards with appeal in every region of the country and in all of the battleground states.
5. ) Some people have said we need an attack dog as VP and worry that Edwards is too nice to take on that roll. However, with his years of experience as a trial lawyer, Edwards knows how to attack and defend without looking mean. He is an attack dog whose bite is worse than his bark. In other words, he can do the work of an attack dog without sounding like an attack dog.
6. ) Many of the people who voted for John Kerry seemed to be under the impression that they were voting for a Kerry/Edwards ticket. Any other nominee would have a hard time living up to the constant comparisons with Edwards that the media and public would make.
7. ) Voters have shown they would be comfortable with John Edwards a heartbeat away from the Presidency. He has more experience on the national stage than Carter, Reagan, or Clinton when they were elected President. Furthermore, Kerry anbd Edwards were both beating Bush by about 10 points in National Polls. This would not be true if voters did not think Edwards could do the job.
8. ) Edwards is a disciplined candidate with a short voting record. We should not have to spend a lot of time on damage control with him as VP.
9. ) John Edwards has demonstrated appeal to disaffected Republicans and Independents.
10. ) John Edwards has been vetted during the primaries and has gained experience and skill at running a national campaign.

Sometimes the obvious choice is the best choice.

Please, please Senator Kerry and Democratic establishment, let's win this one. Pick Edwards.