Calling Bush's Bluff. Ed Thibodeau challenges Bush administration claims against Richard Clarke with, get this, actual facts. [Open Source Politics]

As this article says, most of what Clarke has said this last week was already published almost 2 years ago in Time magazine. What do you have to write a book before anyone takes any notice? Or has the political terrain shifted enought for people to finally notice?  comment []11:17:37 PM    

Marine Defends Guant·namo Detainee, and Surprises Australians

comment []11:06:39 PM    

O'Reilly, 3/23/04.

O'REILLY: Thanks for staying with us. I'm Bill O'Reilly.

In THE FACTOR "Follow-Up" Segment tonight, we've been following the various demographic shifts throughout America, and now the Census Bureau estimates, by the year 2050, white Americans will make up less than 50 percent of the population. How will that change the USA?

Joining us now from Washington is Dr. William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution. Here in the studio, John McManus, the editor in chief of "American Demographics" magazine.

So I guess this is being driven by Hispanics, right, with all the illegal immigration, millions of people coming in here and the higher birth rate among Hispanics in America. That's what's driving this?

JOHN MCMANUS, "AMERICAN DEMOGRAPHICS": The Hispanic population is the greatest increase that we'll see over the time period that we're talking about. Illegal immigration is a portion of the story, but it's the increase in -- rapid increase in immigration and birth rate in people of Hispanic origin that we'll see.

O'REILLY: All right. Because black birth rate is fairly stable, right?

MCMANUS: Proportionately, black birth rate and increases in their population will level out and be less significant in growth in that time period. I think Bill will be able to address the numbers better than I can, but...

O'REILLY: OK. And how about Asian? What's the situation with that?

MCMANUS: Asian -- we're going to see a 213 percent increase, according to the Census Bureau projection, and so that will be a very rapid increase of the percentage of their population in the U.S. as well.

O'REILLY: All right. Now, Doctor, the Census Bureau really doesn't tell us how this is going to affect the country. Do you have any theories on it?

WILLIAM FREY, PH.D., BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Well, I really think what's happening is going to be this phasing out or fading out of the white baby boom population. It is a 50-year time period we're talking about...

O'REILLY: Yes. We'll all be dead. Thank God, right?

[Eschaton]

Well, I guess we can thank God that Bill O'Reilly will be dead, that's for sure.  comment []10:53:27 PM    

From a reader.... From a reader ... I can't help wondering who at the White House reviewed Clark's book and cleared it for publication? And where will they be working next week? They sure don't act like they saw this one coming. Maybe... [Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall]

Considering how much lead time they had, this Administration's response has been pretty poor. Lots of ad hominem attacks but little concerted attacks on the facts. I wonder if History will view his testimony before the 9/11 commission much as it does Dean's on Watergate, the testimony that changed the entire direction of a government. Hope so.  comment []10:50:13 PM    

The Coming Draft. With the military facing a dramatic overextension of troops and a rapidly declining enlistment, a draft could come as early as 2005. [AlterNet]

If Bush remains in office, we will have a draft. There is no way tey can maintain the military readiness they claim to need without one. Almost 50% of the soldiers in Iraq will not re-enlist. The Guard and Resreves are pretty wel down. ONly by bringing back the draft will they be able to keep it going. The numbers and the legislation are all there. The American people are not prepared for it but I am sure that this Adminstration will coordinate events to make it seem necessary.If they are elected this time.  comment []10:47:31 PM    

"The Bush administration fears voters will believe Richard Clarke's allegations" [Daypop Top 40]

The Guardian always makes interesting reading.  comment []10:34:40 PM    

"It's a groundbreaking court decision that legal experts say will affect everyone: Police officers in Louisiana no longer need a search or arrest warrant to conduct a brief search of your home or business" [Daypop Top 40]

Somehow, listening o a police representative say, 'There are checks and balances to make sure the criminal justce system works in an effective manor' does not give me comfort. That they can enter and search my home without a warrant seesm to be contrary to the Constitution and to the implied right to privacy. I guess that is gone, now that it is a crime for an innocent person to refuse to provide their name to a police officer. Police ask, you had better answer.   comment []10:32:37 PM    

Electrolite, sparing you yet another pun on the name "Rice.". From the Daily News, quoted by Contrapositive:

Rice, who has refused to testify before the panel under oath and in public, met with the commission privately for four hours Feb. 7.

One issue was her May 16, 2002, statement at the White House when she said, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center...that they would try to use ..a hijacked airplane as a missile." Intelligence reports had detailed such plans as much as five years before 9/11.

Richard Ben-Veniste, a member of the 9/11 panel, said that during a closed door session Rice revised that statement.

"She corrected [herself] in our private interview by saying, 'I could not anticipate that they would try to use an airplane as a missile,' but acknowledging that the intelligence community could anticipate it," Ben-Veniste said.

"No reports of the use of airplanes as weapons were briefed or presented to Dr. Rice prior to May 2002," said her spokesman Sean McCormack.

Prior to May 2002? What was the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States doing? Did she swear off newspapers for Bizarro World Lent?

Contrapositive provides a nice selection of discussions of pre-9/11 intelligence about airplanes as weapons, all of which appeared between September 11, 2001 and May 16, 2002, in such obscure places as the Washington Post, the Christian Science Monitor, and the Los Angeles Times.

Remember, this is one of the people who's supposed to be briefing Himself on what's in the papers, so he can focus on being resolute and decisive and like that.

I'll start laughing my ass off just as soon as I stop being frightened half to death. These are the people protecting us? Maybe we're better off with psychic tips after all. [Electrolite]

Jeez. you think someone would have briefed her on the use of airplanes as weapons shortly after Sept. 11, 2001? Unless someone severely misspoke, she was not briefed for 9 months!!! Newspapers were talking about pre 9/11 inlelligence on airplane missiles but no one told her. I have to believe that there are real problems with this statement. I thought thet Bush relied on others to at least read the papers since he does not. To take this statement at face value, perhaps the story that he did not have a clue becomes easier to see.  comment []9:27:30 PM