pageok
pageok
pageok
The Nelson Report:
In his Friday column, Paul Krugman states that "[t]he Nelson Report, a respected newsletter, reports that Mr. Bush has made it clear to his subordinates that he doesn't want to hear bad news about Iraq." As best I can tell, the relevant excerpt from "the Nelson Report" has been reprinted here. I haven't heard any more about this claim in the MSM, and my googling couldn't uncover very much about "the Nelson Report." Does anyone know anything about the credibility of "the Nelson Report" generally, or of this particular story?

  I have enabled comments, although please limit comments to the credibility of the Nelson Report generally and this particular story (rather than the general set of issues the story raises, whether true or not).
Gary Leff (mail) (www):
I don't know why The Nelson Report is considered influential, but it seemed be to called that by everyone who mentions it -- The Hill, GovExec.com, etc.

Information should be available at http://samuelsinternational.com/NelRpt.html but the website won't seem to come up. The Google cache is available, but reveals little.

Of course, you could Email Chris Nelson questions I suppose.

Lots of negative dish on the current administration, but I haven't found anything debunking. And I found the newsletter cited on the AEI website, so it isn't generally considered 'evil' on the right I'd guess.

But information ABOUT the newsletter and its reputation seems sparse.
1.9.2005 11:13am
Dick King:
The Yahoo search shows Chris Nelson to be a blogger.

This is not a decisive fact by any means, but let's face it, in this day and age people desiring to be considered serious and scholarly are not usually bloggers. Does Krugman blog?

-dk
1.9.2005 11:23am
frank cross (mail):
Not sure that criticizing a person's credibility because they are a blogger is such a good idea at this site.
1.9.2005 11:40am
Eddie Sutton (mail):
Chris Nelson the blogger and Chris Nelson of the Nelson Report are not the same person

Chris Nelson's Weblog: July 2003 Archives
... Friday July 18, 2003. Yes, I am Chris Nelson, no I am not the Chris Nelson of the "Chris Nelson Report". ...
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/chris/2003_07.html - 101k Cached Site Info
Chris Nelson's Weblog: February 2003 Archives
1.9.2005 12:07pm
DM Hancock (mail):
Nelson is a paid daily service in DC that is generally considered one of the most reliable sources for inside information in this administration. It apparently has well placed confidential sources and has broken other stories in the recent past concerning administration policy and personnel. Doesn't necessarily mean this report is accurate but it can not be dismissed out of hand.
1.9.2005 12:58pm
Brian:
The quote from the Nelson Report reads:
"Rather, Bush makes clear that all he wants are progress reports, where they exist, and those facts which seem to support his declared mission in Iraq...building democracy. “That's all he wants to hear about,” we have been told. So “in” are the latest totals on school openings, and “out” are reports from senior US military commanders (and those intelligence experts still on the job) that they see an insurgency becoming increasingly effective, and their projection that “it will just get worse.""

A school opening is a fact, evaluations and projections are not facts. If Bush didn't want to hear about terrorist attacks, or data about the current strength and composition of the insurgents, that would be a serious problem. But that isn't what this report says.

It might be wise for Bush to pay more attention to pessimistic evalutions. But then again, its hard to see how exactly they're supposed to be helpful. What's his response supposed to be, other than to concentrate on making the insurgency less effective, which I presume is already a priority, or giving up? Frankly, the report sounds to me like its saying that Bush doesn't want to listen to people making excuses as to why they're unsuccessful. And I really can't blame him.
1.9.2005 1:21pm
Thomas (mail):
Well, Josh Marshall is friends with Chris Nelson, so it doesn't get much
better than that, does it? We do know, from other columns, that PK is a
fan of Josh's TPM, so that's a good reason for PK to say that the Nelson
Report is "respected"--it's respected by Josh.

What's odd is that I don't recall hearing anything at all about the Nelson
Report before Bush entered office. Apparently Chris's sources are much
better in a Republican administration. (That might give you some
insight into the location and seniority of his sources--think State and
not political appointees.) Then again, JMM didn't begin TPM
until the 2000 election, so maybe Chris just didn't have the right
friends until then.
1.9.2005 1:59pm
sammy_finkelman (mail):
Well, if the Nelson's report claim to fame (as per Al Franken) is that it was the first thing out with the Iraqi explosives story, then it doesn't have any credibility at all! Of course since people use it, and presumably have found it honest about some things, this may apply mostly to certain subjects, and the Bush Administration must be one of those subjects. One way this may work is that it may tell the truth about matters which its subscribers are bound to find out eventually , but don't know yet, particularly personnel matters, I would guess.

It is clearly involved in Democratic Party disinformation. (Note: So far the three examples I have are all related to intelligence so we might more fine tune this)

Of course Nelson could have excuses for the Iraqi explosives story (and I am sure he was protcted with a back stiory, just like Nelson himself protected other people by being their "source" except that these people almost certainly didn't just stumble on the Nelson report not then and not now) but to me that Iraqi explosives story looks like a very carefully planned leak.

Now Bush not wanting to hear bad news about Iraq...that doesn't sound reasonable. This strikes me as phony the way the CBS National Guard story struck some people as phony to the point that they were willing to consider outright forgery of documents and then realized they could test it out and even prove it.

It might be this story about Bush and briefings does have a factual root. Perhaps he doesn't want to hear certain kinds of gloomy predictions that he distrusts, asnd now the people peddling those theories are leaking, and distorting exactly what is going on. This may have some tie in to what Brent Scowcroft and Brzinski (sp?) are saying and which Colin Powell got asked about on ABC's broadcast This Week formerly with David Brinkley today..

Here is another place where the Nelson Report was used (in July 2003) for Democratic Party and/or "old-CIA-hand" disinformation.

I don't know how to insert an URL so I will split it up

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/
movable_type/2003_archives/
001826.html

The story there seems to be claiming that Bush now realizes that he's been manipulated on intelligence - and he knows who is doing it - Condi Rice!!

And now Al Franken and Paul Krugman cite it. To me the whole thing looks like an attempt to use the logic fallacy of "argument from authority" - in this case to even create that "authority" instead of having people evaluate the ideas for themselves on their own merits. Notice that everybody who cites the Nelson Report seems to be careul to use the word "respected?" It is too any times to be a coincidence.

Of course you have to understand that while all this is more than enough to satisfy me - and probably you - going ahead and proving to others that the Nelson Report is not to be trusted on intelligence matters - and in fact maybe ought to be read in reverse - is another matter entirely and that I cannot do. Either this logic works for you or it doesn't. It ought to work but I can't make it work for you.
1.9.2005 3:49pm
Houston Corporate Bankruptcy (mail) (www):
Leaders are often more interested in popularity than facts. But to tell your subordinates not to give you the full truth is a fundamental error in my view.
1.9.2005 4:33pm
Fernando:
The blog that mentions the alleged “Nelson Report” opens with a rather peculiar phrase:

“There is rising concern amongst senior officials that President Bush…”

This latter expression is part of an intensional claim, (Intensinal with an ‘s’), making for an opaque claim. Also the claim is rather vague in that its not too clear who the “senior officials” are. Are these senior officials part and parcel of the administration? Or are they senior officials of the “Nelson Report”? Not clear! The blog containing reference to the “Nelson Report” is suspect, if anything. Comment: it’s this type of hearsay or rumor based discourse that continues to erode National credibility--what little remains! Credible quantity notwithstanding, a collective effort to preserve national credibility is a worthy collective effort. The latter comment is non-apologetic, rather it’s a bi-partisan formulation born out by a patriotic pragmatism.
1.9.2005 5:38pm
J. Peden (mail):
This Nelson Report story is another one of the "there they go again" stories. Why would anyone in their right mind not want the total relevant picture? Well, because Bush is, by definition, not in his right mind to begin with. This is also a projection of those concocting the stories themselves, and positing Bush's inherent nature, of the workings of their own minds. That's why they think the seeing only rosey pictures move alleged to be Bush's is so likely. Seeing only what they want is the way their minds work.

Maybe its just me being me, but I did not consider the "looted exsplosives" story a story to begin with, even if totally true, which it also wasn't. The same goes for the Rather revelation. They were both grasping-at-straws stories also being wished into significance. The story about Bush wanting only rosey pictures is grasping, paranoiac, projectional, tautological, and contradicts what we have come to know about Bush and his advisors, all of whom are not irrational, nor delusional. The story is also equivalent to gossip or propaganda.

Can I disprove the story? No. But can we now expect a frenzied search for the Bush memo which verifies the story? More false documents? I don't think this is a big enough fish to fry for even LLL's to pursue, especially in the face of Bush's obvious role in causing the Tsunami.
1.10.2005 2:17am
A Blogger:
J. Peden writes:

"The story about Bush wanting only rosey pictures is grasping, paranoiac, projectional, tautological, and contradicts what we have come to know about Bush and his advisors, all of whom are not irrational, nor delusional."

Did you see Bush's face during the presidential debates whenever Kerry would mention any bad news about Iraq? Did you watch how Bush reacted? He was clearly annoyed and hostile at the idea that someone -- anyone -- would say something negative about Iraq. He expressed the view that pessimism was bad for the troops; that being upbeat sends the right message about the mission. Given this, it seems quite consistent with Bush's debate performance that he would tell his advisers not to say anything negative about Iraq. Why should Bush be one way with Kerry and another way with his advisers?
1.10.2005 2:38am
Fernando:
There have been rather awkward yet coherent stipulations on behalf of the linguistic savvy within the domain of law, even around the exo-fringes, but to say that a “story” is “tautological” is asking a bit too much. Rule of blogging thumb: be critical when stipulating.


Note: there is a (personality/mood) difference between a politician knowing he’s on camera from one that knows he’s not. Survey presidential camera personnel for falsification or verification.

Note: assuming the President’s partial gathering of information is as told in the “Nelson Report,” does that necessarily exclude the possibility that the president is not epistemically in the dark with regard to all relevant Iraqi war facts (those within the pessimistic and optimistic spectrum)? Is it not possible that the man is briefed prior to meeting with senior officials (pun not intended)? It’s speculative. But what more do any of us have given our non-white house/camp David status?
1.10.2005 3:39am
J. Peden (mail):
A Blogger:"Why should Bush be one way with Kerry and another way with his advisers?"

Because he had a box under his coat which which told him what to do?

Admittedly Al Gore's sighing and confrontational forray were counterproductive. Do you think Bush did not expect to have Kerry confront him on Iraq? So he just couldn't help himself from evincing his "true" inability to consider facts? Possibly, but way low on probability.

Kerry is not one of Bush's advisers, but rather a person who had put forth no alternative to the Bush Doctrine in facing terrorists, while in effect actually opposing Bush's policy and action. I'm not going to debate the rationale for the war on terror, or the role of the war in Iraq as part of it, from which I could justify Bush's facial reaction to Kerry, even if Bush's facial response had absolutely nothing to do with these things. But it probably did. Some other people also saw it this way.

Maybe it was not politically good for Bush to display such a reaction, or maybe Bush thought it was, and appropriate as a way to communicate his perception of Kerry's [chaotic, irrational, dangerous,...] position. Do you think Bush did not realize he could be watched by cameras, because of magic "rules"?

I don't recall what Kerry was saying. I didn't even see the debates. Maybe Kerry was actively mistating the situation, for example. Leftists and other people have continuously preordained many situations as necessarily causing the end of the world. This can be painful to witness, but it could also be humorous. But the thought process involved is in fact a non-functional m.o. at best. Kerry had taken this disasterizing interpretation of facts, and non-facts, all along. This can be repulsive, or appeasing depending.

At any rate, grasping at facial expressions in an attempt to prove that Bush is irrational and delusional in facing problems per se falls into the categories I just stated above in my previous post. Bush has continuously functioned to the contrary, imho, even most recently in getting Bill Clinton to sign on to the administration's Tsunami aid program, which I see as masterful, though you might see as diabolical, since now the Left has to take on Clinton if it criticizes the administration's response, which, totally according to form, it has done.

Putting a great deal of weight upon a set of facial responses is your right, but I would avoid it like the plague as a way to evaluate capacities and situations.

I don't try to read palms either.

[We have been asked to not stray too far off the topic of the credibility of the Nelson Report, so I can't go on with this discussion. Maybe my initial post was too far off, though I didn't think so since I saw the claim as an inherent non-story, and felt impelled to spout off in an attempt to save humanity. Sorry for my exit!]
1.10.2005 4:41am
J. Peden (mail):
Except to say to Fernando that maybe I don't know what you mean about tautologies, which I hope keeps me on topic. I was trying to say that the story was so weak or uncredible that it became "Bush is dumb [incapable of being rational, not able to confront adverse facts] because Bush is dumb...." Or"the story is true about Bush being dumb, because we already have postulated that Bush is dumb', thus making the story more "credible'. Surely the story could be possibly true about its claim, but only in the sense that anything is possible.

So I still don't get the point that my lack of criticalness keeps me from alleging this tautology, unless I stated that it also must be true, which maybe I did? But I can't prove this, I know. I was really only trying out the tautology use, so maybe I flubbed?

[I can't get into to the Air America source now. This must be a part of a plot by Franken to take over the world before Bush does, because we all know that Franken wants to do it.]
1.10.2005 5:31am
A Blogger:
J. Peden,

Given that you now say that you "didn't even see the debates," my recommendation is for you to go back and see them. Bush appears to be hostile to the very idea that someone could criticize Iraq. He dismisses all efforts to point out problems (even little things like the number of American soldiers killed) as negative thinking that is insupportive of the troops. I found it rather weird; he seemed less interested in the *reality* of Iraq than finding a *story* about Iraq that would make the troops feel like what they were doing was successful.
1.10.2005 10:35am
TheWashingtonNote.com (mail) (www):
Regarding Chris Nelson's The Nelson Report, I find it one of the most reliable sources of gossipy, inside information in Washington. I had a hand in introducing Chris Nelson to Josh Marshall a few years ago -- and thus, Chris and Josh began to connect. But Chris's report far preceded Josh's writing about it. Chris's reports on the Clinton administration's Asia-Pacific economic and security policies were enormously important to me when I worked for Senator Bingaman, then at the Economic Strategy Institute, and now at the New America Foundation -- which would mean that Nelson's report was available in the early 1990s if you were either on his list as a gossip-swapper or a paid subscriber.

In any case, it's very, very well thought of in town -- and that's why Krugman refers to it.

-- Steve Clemons
1.10.2005 4:38pm
sammy_finkelman (mail):
Steve Clemmons: Regarding Chris Nelson's The Nelson Report, I find it one of the most reliable sources of gossipy, inside information in Washington.

Do you think the following report could *possibly* be accurate - or anywhere close to the truth:

(This is taken from the Semi-Daily Journal of Economist Brad DeLong


July 23, 2003
From the Nelson Report (main title)
From the Nelson Report: (italics)

Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: As one Administration source put it, privately, today: "Between Tenet and Hadley, Condi now has the choice of saying she's a fool, or a liar…if not both. Bottom line is she failed to protect the President…look at all this lame stuff about him not being a 'fact checker'. It's just incredible."

— even before last week, a source close to the White House told us, "the President now sees that he's exposed on the intel problems. And he now sees who's been manipulating him, and he's not happy about it. No president likes to be embarrassed, but this stuff goes to the heart of all the reservations, pre-9/11, about his intelligence, his attention span, and his interest in foreign affairs."

12. Three weeks ago, this source speculated that it would be "difficult" for Bush to fire the senior officials responsible, for obvious reasons, since they would include Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Rice, at a minimum, and that Tenet seemingly had so ingratiated himself at the personal level, he could escape punishment.

— today, while no one wanted to speculate about Rummy and Cheney, in the absence of new disclosures, disparate Administration sources confirm that it is "generally accepted" that Tenet will be fired from the CIA, if only because of what he started last week...

Another issue:

A Blogger:"Why should Bush be one way with Kerry and another way with his advisers?"

I wasn't really paying attention to Bush's expressions, but Bush making a face (and therefore being ubncomfortable hearing) things Kerry said in the debate is quite consistent with a loyalty to truth and sound reasoning- in fact it could be *caused* by something like that. (perhaps also with having a little trouble coming up immediately with answers. If you really know the way to answer the point, you probably won't scowl - but not knowing how to answer does not at all mean that you think, or should think, there's any validity to the point

Kerry said things like this:

But we also have to be smart, Jim. And smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden and taking if off to Iraq where the 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein, and where the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein.
This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment. And judgment is what we look for in the president of the United States of America.

[Bush never considered he was abandoning the war against Al Qaeda or NOT doing something he should in Afghanistan. Bush's reason for going to war in Iraq was unclear but it wasn't dishonesty and it probably wasn't just weapons of mass destruction and UN resolution violations, whichm as anyone with a brain should be able to tell, was emphasized only because it was a good legal justification. It probably was a fear of future terrorism - quite reasonable - combined with greater familiarity with the threat from Iraq as compared to competing threats. Because this was largely intuition, Bush was reluctant to say this. He said it, but didn't elaborate. He may have known that some of the particulars he was hearing could very well be wrong, but he was going based on the *unknown* He did not want to rest the security of the United States on the good will or good judgement of a dictator prone to evil and miscalculations. People who argue the other way basically are saying: Yes, but we could have relied on Saddam Hussein's military incompetence, something nobody was saying at the time of course. And let me say here - NOBODY predicted what actually happened - a very short extremely successful war, combined with a relentess insurgency after the defeat. here a big mistake was not understanding the Al Qaeda link to the insurgency - something of course Kerry wasn't interested in pointing out, as it conflicted with his claim of no Iraq-Al Qaeda connection.

Continuing with the debate]

I'm proud that important military figures who are supporting me in this race: former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili; just yesterday, General Eisenhower's son, General John Eisenhower, endorsed me; General Admiral William Crown; General Tony McBeak, who ran the Air Force war so effectively for his father — all believe I would make a stronger commander in chief. And they believe it because they know I would not take my eye off of the goal: Osama bin Laden.

[Now this argument from authority is just a lot of nonsense. This is only a small fraction of military people and it is not at all clear that all would endorse what Kerry says here. Why he didn't throw in Wesley Clark while he was at it]

Unfortunately, he escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too. That's wrong.

[Bush knew this was totally wrong. The real reason why osama bin laden might have escaped at Tora Bora is that the U.S. relied on the Pakistani Army to guard their side of the border. But this didn't fit with Senator Kerry's thesis. Kerry likes allies (except natives of countries U.S. forces are fightibng in) And he wanted to claim that Bush had kept too few troops in Afghanistan because he wanted t go into Iraq. Never mind that Iraq happened one year later. The error was trusting and relying on Pakistan, not relying on Afghan warlords. Diplomatic considerations may have prevented President Bush from pointing this out. It is not true they *relied* on Afghan warlords. Americans were present with all Afghhan units. Reliance on Afghan warlords may have caused other kinds of problems elsewhere - notably getting innocent people bombed based on false information.

While during the campaign nobody came up with as clear an explanation as what I am giving here - the Pakistan angle was only in the news in 2001 - still it was clear Kerry was wrong on Tora Bora - although the Bush campaign defense - in addition to saying this thing about Afghan warlords was factually incorrect - was that they didn't know for sure bin Laden was there. not at the start but in the end they did and they knew it was posisble and they knew many Al Qaeda were there.

A bit later Bush thought Kerry was accusing him of making another Gerald Ford no Soviet domination of Poland blunder (when really he had just been thinking in general terms). I think Bush didn't even understand what Kerry's accusation was.

But anyway I can understand making faces at invalid argunments.]
1.11.2005 1:12pm
sammy_finkelman (mail):
Here's another Chris Nelson excerot

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/old/dec0204.html

here he is attackinbg Bush's North Korea policy.
1.11.2005 1:24pm
Cassandra (www):
One of the most striking things about that particular debate was the way people saw what they were predisposed to see, and how many on both side of the aisle projected their hopes and fears onto the candidates.

A Blogger and other Democrats saw Bush "making faces" because they had decided he was "hostile to the very idea that someone could criticize Iraq" - a perfect example of projecting their biases onto someone else.

I (and other military folks) saw an exhausted and dehydrated President who'd spent the entire day touring a disaster area becoming increasingly exasperated with the transparent lies of a slippery opponent (who, by the way, spent the day getting a manicure and a facial) who kept stretching the truth to score political points.

The fact is, Kerry lied shamefully on the Tora Bora issue, and Bush just wasn't on his game that night. But unlike Kerry, who didn't show up for 87% of the Senate votes last year, Bush did actually have a job to do that day :) We all have our little priorities, don't we?

Try being a bit more imaginative... or charitable. The view changes, depending upon one's political perspective. At least I'm honest enough to admit that.

As for Krugman, the man's been wrong so many times, I'm not entirely sure why anyone listens to him anymore. My favorite Paul Krugman quote is "My forecasting record is not all that good."

From his mouth to God's ear :D
1.12.2005 4:01pm
sammy_finkelman (mail):
Here is the web site of the Nelson Report:

http://samuelsinternational.com

Samuels International Associates, Inc. (SIA) is a diversified international consulting firm specializing in business, trade and investment matters, particularly involving policies of American and foreign governments, economic and political risk assessments, investment strategies, and negotiations on trade and investment liberalization.

Copyright © 2001 Samuels International Associates, Inc. All rights reserved

About Christopher Nelson:

Christopher Nelson, Senior Vice President, has been a professional journalist and Capitol Hill foreign affairs analyst with Washington experience since 1966. On Capitol Hill, Mr. Nelson specialized in U.S.-China relations during the Carter Administration's normalization process. Following service on the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, and as a Senior Advisor to Senate Majority Leader Byrd from 1983, Mr. Nelson has produced daily briefings for Asia-focused international business and government clients on the politics of trade, and legislative and policy developments of concern to the business and diplomatic communities. Specific services have included fact-finding studies throughout the U.S. for international steel, automotive and government clients. A 1967 graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, with post graduate work on Africa and Asia at McGill University, Montreal, Mr. Nelson is also an author and consultant on the U.S. Civil War.

This might be the most interesting thing here: "Mr. Nelson specialized in U.S.-China relations during the Carter Administration's normalization process."

They negotiate with governments. I wonder if they ever trade favors.

Chistopher Nelson gave a lecture once once on Taiwan and China:

http://www.kkc-usa.org/index.cfm/2396

Christopher Nelson
The Nelson Report, Samuels International
“US Policy Toward China and Taiwan”
August 22, 2002
1.12.2005 7:44pm
foolishmortal (mail):
OK, on topic: All I can tell you is what you already know: things read in the Nelson Report turn out to be true quite frequently.

Now off-topic:

The surprising thing about Bush's performance in the debate that night wasn't his apparent displeasure with Kerry: it was his apparent lack of control. He seemed to be genuinely put off by Kerry's remarks. He forgot all of the speaking skills he's improved so much and reverted to the mangled diction of his first campaign. The look on his face said "How dare you talk to the POTUS like that?" He can't have gone into the debate w/o expecting an attack on the Iraq issue, so what happened? He really seemed to have a hard time taking the criticism.

And now even further off topic.
What's the deal with the Al Qa Qaa issue? Seems like an open and shut case to me, and Nelson got it first.Certainly not "Democrat Disinformation", since the info in question turned out to be true. The timing is suspicious, I'll grant you, but Nelson had zip to do with that. The proximate cause appears to have been an Iraqi official of some sort making a report to the UN. The exisitence of the report was leaked, and that set everything off. So look for long beards or blue helmets, but leave Nelson out of it.
1.12.2005 11:39pm
sammy_finkelman (mail):
This website contains all Presidential and Vice presidential debate transcripts since 1960 (and that's all there are (The very long Lincoln-Douglas series of debates in 1858 was not a presidential debate)

http://www.debates.org/pages/debtrans.html
1.14.2005 4:12pm
sammy_finkelman (mail):
From foolishmortal:

<< OK, on topic: All I can tell you is what you already know: things read in the Nelson Report turn out to be true quite frequently.
>>

??? WE ALL KNOW THIS?

So far just about everything I have found quotyed has turned out to be wrong.

Like this from the New India Times of January 12, 2001: (Vol. 31, Iss. 1; pg. 4)

"According to the Nelson Report, a newsletter focusing on Asia, Jim Lilley is the "likely" Ambassador to India. He is a former CIA official and Ambassador to China and Taiwan. In fact, he served as President [Bush]'s envoy in Beijing in 1989 at the time of massacre in Tiananmen Square."

James Lilley was NOT named Ambassador to India. (I don't know - maybe he was going to be but he failed the background check, but still this didn't turn out to be right)

the only thing Christopher Nelson turns out to be right abiuyt maybe is catfish.

http://www.gbdinc.org/html/catfish.htm

MON., DEC. 17, 2001 ODE TO THE CATFISH

The complaint is that the United States Cobngress passed a law saying that Vietbnames catfish could not be labeled catfish in the United States.

Except that the big issue really seems to have been Vietnam being considered to be guilty of dumping since it is not a market economy.

Nelson is a partisan Democrat. On Feb 24, 2004 Paul Krugman wrote in his column:

"Yet it's bad economics to pretend that free trade is good for everyone, all the time. ''Trade often produces losers as well as winners,'' declares the best-selling textbook in international economics (by Maurice Obstfeld and yours truly). The accelerated pace of globalization means more losers as well as more winners; workers' fears that they will lose their jobs to Chinese factories and Indian call centers aren't irrational.

Addressing those fears isn't protectionist. On the contrary, it's an essential part of any realistic political strategy in support of world trade. That's why the Nelson Report, a strongly free-trade newsletter on international affairs, recently had kind words for John Kerry. It suggested that he is basically a free trader who understands that ''without some kind of political safety valve, Congress may yet be stampeded into protectionism, which benefits no one.''

Mr. Kerry's Wednesday speech on trade seemed consistent with that interpretation.."

What Krugman is doing here is making an excuse for nelson to endorse Kerry because you would expect him to oppose a Democrat since he's lobbying all the time against protectionism.

On Oct 26, 2204 Paul Krugman wrote:

"Informed sources quoted by the influential Nelson Report say explosives from Al Qaqaa are the ''primary source'' of the roadside and car bombs that have killed and wounded so many U.S. soldiers. And thanks to the huge amount looted -- ''in a highly organized operation using heavy equipment'' -- the insurgents and whoever else have access to the Qaqaa material have enough explosives for tens of thousands of future bombs."

theer's no way that the main source of explosives was that ammunition dump - no way any informed person could think so since there were so many other dumps - which REALLY were left unguarded or lightly guarded that were looted. Probably well after the end of May 2003
1.14.2005 4:24pm