Welcome to 201k.com - A Commonwealth Perspective.

You'd think we'd have learned by this point not to gratuitously toss phrases around just because they sound good.

To: editor@201k.com
From: James
Subject: Re: A Moral Duty, Jan 31, 2004
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004

Here's a fine set of links - http://www.hayehwatha.org/026link.html - to some quality research on the world's oldest democracy. I offer them not as a "gotcha", but in the hope they enrich your life. I have bookmarked your site and intend to read it on a regular basis.

All the best,

J

The White House press corps has begun, of late, to meekly inquire of President Bush if he has any comment in regard to his oft-repeated insistence--in direct contradiction to intelligence--that Iraq possessed vast quantities of "weapons of mass destruction" with which it could threaten US interests within 45 minutes of being ordered to do so. This insubordination is unavoidable due to the public admission by chief weapons inspector David Kay that the claims were a bunch of hooey, which most people knew anyway.

Mr. Bush's response, now that he has at last given up pretending that the weapons exist, has been simple: "Who cares?"

Saddam was bad, he says. We should be glad he's gone. Why does it matter what the reasons were for doing it?

Here's why it matters:

Whatever can be said about the disturbed reasoning of the radical Islamic terrorists who hate and have attacked America, this much is certain: they should have had no quarrel with ordinary American citizens.

The great injustice of 9/11 was that the victims had done nothing to the terrorists, or to Islam, or to any Islamic nation. The notion that they were legitimate targets simply by virtue of being American is so deluded, so completely ignorant and inhuman that the sheer, stupid injustice of it nearly overwhelms the horror of the carnage itself.

Whatever offenses the terrorist may, in their minds, hold the United States culpable for, there surely was no one in the World Trade Towers or on any of the planes that had anything to do with them. It is not ordinary American citizens who operate exploitive multinational corporations, or buddy up to corrupt regimes at the expense of the poor, or arm their enemies--or whatever. But on 9/11 it was ordinary Americans who suffered and died.

The American people had done nothing to deserve it. The victims of 9/11 were innocent souls.

But now we're at a very different moment. We're on the verge of losing our innocence. If we accept Mr. Bush's answer--who cares?--we the people will have taken responsibility upon ourselves.

Many Americans believed the President when he said Iraq had WMD and ties to the 9/11 terrorists. Believing him, many supported the war.

But now we all know the weapons did not exist. The ties to Al-Qaida did not exist. And that changes everything.

We have killed thousands of Iraqis. We were told they had weapons which were an imminent threat to us, and it was strongly suggested they were in league with those who had viciously and mercilessly attacked us. That gave us the moral authority to strike.

But they weren't an imminent threat, and they didn't have ties to 9/11. To say now that they could have been a threat someday, or that Iraq was "a dangerous place", or that we're all better Saddam is gone is not the same.

If the American people choose to look the other way at being misled into bombing and invading Iraq--at the cost of hundreds of American and many thousands of Iraqi lives--then we can no longer claim innocence. We are no longer bystanders.

In our society--the world's oldest and most successful democracy--it is not only our right, but our responsibility to hold to the highest standard of American principles those we elect to wield the sword in our name. It is the moral duty of every individual American to insist that our country always acts as the world's greatest force for good, for justice, and for truth. Because the end, quite simply, does not justify the means--least of all when the means is the first preemptive war in our nation's history.

If we the people fail to do our duty then we the people must accept responsibility for the result. We will be innocent no more.

The Newshour with Jim Lehrer this evening may have done more to promote cynicism of the media than anything in recent memory--and we're talking about in 201k's minds, which is saying something.

The topic was of course David Kay's less than stunning announcement regarding the lack of WMD in Iraq, and the cynicism stems from The Newshour's decision that the two people best fit to discuss it were former CIA directors John Deutch and R. James Woolsey.

The two men promptly took sides in the debate, with Deutch arguing it was a failure of intelligence, and Woolsey arguing that it was, yes, a failure of intelligence. And that was it.

Both men elaborated at great length on this failure of intelligence, and even pretended to disagree over insignificant details of it, while of course claiming there was absolutely no reason for an independent investigation, which was just swell with The Newshour's Margaret Warner, who was perfectly happy to pretend along with them that the whole country wasn't actually trying to decide if it was really a failure of intelligence or the greatest misrepresentation in the history of the republic.

In fact, the only mention of the latter possibility was in the political context of Democrats trying to make hay. Which would be ok, we suppose, if it were not for the plethora of evidence to the contrary which has in the last few days splashed all over the nation's newsstands.

Such as James Fallows' cover article in this month's Atlantic Monthly:

Blind Into Baghdad

The U.S. occupation of Iraq is a debacle not because the government did no planning but because a vast amount of expert planning was willfully ignored by the people in charge. The inside story of a historic failure.

..and this damning timeline from the Center for American Progress, which is so comprehensive that it could nearly serve as articles of impeachment:

Neglecting Intelligence, Ignoring Warnings

A chronology of how the Bush Administration repeatedly and deliberately refused to listen to intelligence agencies that said its case for war was weak.

January 28, 2004
Updated January 29, 2004

Former weapons inspector David Kay now says Iraq probably did not have WMD before the war, a major blow to the Bush Administration which used the WMD argument as the rationale for war. Unfortunately, Kay and the Administration are now attempting to shift the blame for misleading America onto the intelligence community. But a review of the facts shows the intelligence community repeatedly warned the Bush Administration about the weakness of its case, but was circumvented, overruled, and ignored.

And let's not forget the admittedly partisan but no less compelling statement by Democratic presidential candidate General Wesley Clark, who went out of his way in last night's debate to pointedly call the whole invasion an outright fraud, claiming he'd even been asked to help promote it, which you'd think was a charge hot enough to garner mention on The Newshour's discussion of the topic.

But alas, The Newshour was this evening blissfully cocooned from the concerns and conversations of ordinary Americans, choosing instead to stay safely wrapped in the blatant poppycock they promote as a public service to the government, in exchange, presumably, for invitations to a gaggle of lovely Georgetown cocktail parties, at which they will no doubt check their press credentials at the door in order to hobnob less awkwardly with the courtiers and courtesans and Woolseys and Deutches of the oh so comfy center of the universe.

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004
From: J
To: editor@201k.com
Subject: Anyone looking for a missile...

...to lob against those pushing "tort reform" (Hello... John Edwards... anyone in there?) need look no further than this NY Times piece on Con Ed's admission that an improperly insulated wire beneath a metal plate "had contributed" to the electrocution death of the woman from the East Village walking her dogs. Funny, no mention of road salt by the company.

Apparently as a result of the accident the company intends to check its 250,000 manholes and service boxes for stray voltage and to begin conducting yearly inspections. Yearly inspections of high voltage facilities - there's an idea.

Now ask yourself: Is this an instance of admirable self regulation or abject panic over the wrongful death lawsuit the company's most likely going to be hit with? Here's a hint: they didn't agree to do any of those things a couple of years ago after that poor horse was electrocuted - steps that likely would have prevented this young woman's death.

Does anyone actually think Con Ed would have reacted the same way if the wrongful death damages in this case were capped at $250,000?

We don't know if we can say "you heard it here first", but 201k would like to at least go on record with a few predictions:

Prediction 1:

In the coming months, Dick Cheney will announce that he will not run for re-election with president Bush. We predict this for two reasons:

1. Cheney's persistence in sticking to discredited claims regarding Iraq's WMD is clearly an attempt to set himself up as the "problem" in the administration, to draw fire away from George W. Bush.

Anyone who believes this president and this vice-president would say contradictory things of such importance by accident is living in a dream world and needs to get medication.

Cheney is all but jumping up and down, trying to draw attention away from the president. When the target is clearly on him, he'll announce that he's not running, and the GOP media will pronounce the matter "settled".

2. The mainstream Washington media has, in the last few weeks, begun to criticize Cheney openly, by name, for the first time. This cannot be an accident.

Prediction 2:

Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, and perhaps others in the Bush Administration will resign in the not-too-distant future. This is simply because an independent investigation of their Iraq WMD charges is inevitable now, and the administration will need to move the targets of this investigation outside their tent.

Their replacements will be able to duck tough questions (in the unlikely event the media or Congress poses any) with the standard response that they can't answer for their predecessors, and can only look to the future, etc. Meanwhile investigations will be centered upon individuals who have left office.

On this subject, 201k would like to congratulate former White House Press secretary Ari Fleischer for having the sense to jump ship back in July. Fleischer did his job--he said what he had to, double-talked with the best of them, vigorously defended the WMD charges until the invasion was underway--then bailed and left Scott McClellan holding the bag.

Who'll bother to go looking for Ari now? Not the Congress, and certainly not the media.

Prediction 3:

The CIA will accept blame for the Iraq war, acknowledging that their "poor intelligence" was the problem, not pressure from the administration. We cite two reasons for this prediction:

1. President Bush has recently praised the CIA in public.

2. Both president Bush and David Kay, the administration-appointed weapons inspector, have backed off claims that WMD existed in Iraq. Neither would have done so had the stage not been set for someone to take the blame. The administration would be sure to get its ducks in a row before changing stories.

You heard it here first.

Yet more responses to our "New England Primer". We have evidently hit a sore spot with New Englanders everywhere.

Subject: New England Forever!
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004
From: Sean ******
To: editor@201k.com

Wicked good article, 201K. Pretty much sums up everything I was raised to believe in, being a life long Mainer and all. Godfrey Mighty but those Republicans are damn fools. (for those non-New Englanders out there, this is the worst thing we can call someone).

I know I'm reading too much into it, but I see heavy symbolic value in the Superbowl this year. A team of plucky New Englanders are marching into the heart of darkness (Texas) to do battle with the South.

And we have better beer too!

- Scoopernicus of Portland

Ayuh, been to Maine. Machias, even. Any further north and you'd have to speak French, any further east and you'd get wet. Blueberries and lobster to your heart's content, and bald eagles flying overhead like it was no big deal. And there's nothing better than a Richard Thompson concert at the State St. Church in Portland.

Awful lot of Maine boys gave their lives for the Union.

To: editor@201k.com
Subject: A New England Primer
From: "whometense"
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004

I am eternally grateful for your excellent post "A New England Primer", which I found through a link on Media Whores Online. I am a big fan of John Kerry, I am also a New Englander, and tired of apologizing for the fact. You put my thoughts into words. I hope you don't mind, but I posted it (with due attribution and link) on the Kerry forum.

Best,
Diane

Thanks, Diane, we very much appreciate it.

Some nice emails to share:

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004
Subject: Thank you...
From: RJ
To: editor@201k.com

Since I left Connecticut in 1976 for the Northwest, then Los Angeles and
then northern Arizona, I've tried to hang onto my New England roots. But
reading your New England Primer made me proud.

I've been up here in Red Neck Holler for nearly 8 years and am finally
fleeing back to LA next month. (Okay, I like the weather and my wife's a
native.)

But I'm still a Sawx fan and I don't talk about money, or religion and have
been doused with religion up here so much so that I have a hard time being
charitable to those who may sincerely Believe.

I'd like to link to your site if I may. I write a very anti-GOP anti-Bush
site http://www.atwitsend.org. I'm Yale 1970. I write passionately,
sometimes make use of profanity, am always right and am often a Cassandra.

But I love my NE roots and I love that I found your site. Makes me feel at
home.

You'll find me independent, cantankerous and all-around loveable!

Bob

Great to hear from you Bob. We once lost a girl to Yale. Link away!

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004
From: Joseph
Subject: loved your piece...
To: editor@201k.com

.. on New Englanders (I'm from Pittsfield MA) and why we're different
(and proud of it!). Can I borrow your pic of Cam Neely's banner? Not
to spread around, just to have and look at and remember how good he was.
:-)

thanks

joe
New Zealand

Hey, Joe, thanks for writing. New Zealand sure looked beautiful in those Ring movies. And we still listen to Crowded House. As for the Cam photo, well, we, uh, didn't exactly ask permission to use it ourselves. It's from the Bruin's website.

David Kay, recently resigned head of US weapons inspections in Iraq, made a stunning admission tonight on Wolf Blitzer's CNN show.

BLITZER: The man who is replacing you, Charles Duelfer, is a good man. He knows the subject quite well. Is it possible, when the dust settles, do you think, months from now, a year from now, he'll find weapons of mass destruction?

KAY: Actually, I hope so.

He does? Why?

Is David Kay saying he'd rather George Bush was proved correct than to have fewer weapons of mass destruction in the world? Weapons that could easily have fallen into the hands of terrorists by now (as the Bush administration repeatedly suggested could happen). Is he?

Is he?

Speaking of Blitzer, never has a man made more of a pathetic spectacle of himself than he did while interviewing Kay. Here's just one example:

BLITZER: In 1998, when Bill Clinton was still in the White House -- I was covering the White House in those days -- they had no doubt whatsoever that there were stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq.

KAY: That's right. And I think that's the best evidence of a systemic problem, as opposed to pressure from one political party or the other to

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Well, this is a very important issue, because a lot of Democrats, Democratic presidential candidates, members of the committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee -- you testified before them today -- they believe that the career professionals in the intelligence community, the military, the DIA, the CIA, they believe they were pressured by Vice President Dick Cheney, by Donald Rumsfeld, by the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, the president himself, to come up with evidence that simply didn't exist.

KAY: Wolf, no evidence of that.

Get it? The "very important issue" to Wolf isn't that the country went to war on false pretenses, or that our intelligence community is inept, or that the president may have knowingly misled the country and the U.N--no, the important issue is that some Democrats are trying to point it out.

And by the way, we have already heard the opinion expressed by David Kay on Blitzer's show repeated in the media several times as being that he felt the administration did not pressure the intelligence community. But Kay didn't say that. He said there was "no evidence" of it.

He's no dummy, this David Kay.

201k plays hockey on Tuesday nights, and missed the forgone conclusion that was the N.H. Primary. But we had the boys in hysterics in the locker room, describing comments by GOP pundit and sports expert Robert Novak, who complained on CNN's Crossfire that the hockey game John Kerry played in last week against the Boston Bruins Alumni team was "rigged" because Kerry scored twice, and was never "hit".

Nice work, Sherlock, what was your first clue?

That's what the Bruins Alumni team does, hosehead. They're a charity team that comes to your town and plays the police department or fire department or whoever, to raise money. It's played for laughs, and they let you score so you feel good, and so wives, girlfriends and kids in the stands have a good time.

Hey Bob, here's a newsflash for you: no one scores against them for real. They played in the NHL.

They pass the puck around, and oops! let you score, then just when you think you'll tie them or beat them, they score again. And for dog's sake, there's no hitting at all. They sign autographs and everyone has fun.

You think they come for a charity game and beat you 15-0? That would be fun, huh?

One guy I heard of played against them and had a fake fight with Terry O'Reilly. Does NHL expert Bob Novak expect someone to ACTUALLY FIGHT Terry O'Reilly?

The real problem Novak and others in the GOP have is that John Kerry is an actual regular guy, and not a fake regular guy like the one they foisted on the country four years ago. You know, the "cowboy" who's afraid of horses. The "fighter pilot" who never saw action and may not have even finished his service.

Stick to outing CIA agents, Bob, and leave the sports commentary to others.

I keep hearing people on TV say that John Kerry is "aloof".

Why? Because he doesn't walk around in a flightsuit and a cowboy hat?

Up here we call that "not acting like a jackass."

Why does the Northeast always have to apologize for who we are? We're Americans. The first Americans. New Englanders were the ones who stood up to King George. New Englanders risked their necks (literally) by tossing the tea into Boston Harbor. New Englanders lowered their muskets and fired at British soldiers when the whole world trembled at the sight of them.

Sorry if we talk too fast; it gets really cold here. We do everything quickly so we can go home. There's a pot of chowder on the stove, and the game is on.

Sorry if we don't mention Jesus every second sentence. Up here you don't talk about religion in public. It's bad manners. And frankly it drives us crazy that some of the country's politicians never shut up about him.

In New England you can live next door to very religious people for years and not know it, unless you eventually notice they're never home on Sunday mornings.

And that's high praise.

A friend once related a conversation she'd had -- and this is a true story -- with a woman in Texas while overseeing an audit at a local company. The woman had fake breasts, fake lips, a nose job, and dyed blonde hair -- a real natural beauty -- and talked openly, and endlessly, about Jesus, morality, and the fact that she'd just got married for the 5th time.

Do you know what "got married for the 5th time" sounds like to a New Englander? Good grief, they only legalized divorce in Ireland a few years ago, and they're five hours ahead of us. Around here you have to retire, move to Florida, and wait for your spouse to pass away on the golf course before you marry again.

And you'd never in a million years discuss Jesus, morality, or your four former marriages with the internal auditor who'd come from the corporate office to check your books.

On "60 Minutes" last week Ed Bradley tried to get John Kerry to describe how he got his Silver Star. Of course, Kerry did not. He never would, and those of us watching here could have told Bradley that and saved him the trouble of asking. Our own father told us he'd never been near combat in the South Pacific. Only years later did we learn from an uncle that it wasn't true.

John Kerry is a New Englander. We're taught never to talk about religion, money, or politics in public. He obviously can't avoid talking about politics, but I wouldn't expect to hear too much about religion, money, or how he got his medals. That's just the way it is here.

But ask yourself this and be honest: if you were in combat, and in trouble, who would you want to be there to bail you out: Lt. George W. Bush or Lt. John Kerry?

Here's how AP writer Pam Easton began a story today on Neil Bush:

Jan. 26, 2004 | HOUSTON, (AP) -- In the annals of embarrassing presidential relatives, Neil Bush is no Billy Carter or Roger Clinton.

Oh, got it so far? "Neil Bush is no Billy Carter or Roger Clinton". You'll remember that Roger Clinton was bagged for dealing cocaine, and Billy Carter was a redneck who accepted money from Libya (with no understanding of why that was bad). Now read on about Mr. Bush:

But his messy divorce has produced some eye-opening disclosures. Among them: He had sex with women who showed up uninvited at his hotel rooms in Asia; he had an affair and may have fathered a child out of wedlock; and he stands to make millions from businesses in which he has little expertise -- including a computer-chip company managed in part by the son of former Chinese president Jiang Zemin.

Sharon Bush also accused Neil of fathering a child with the woman he now plans to marry. The woman's ex-husband has filed a defamation lawsuit, and DNA testing has been requested.

It is not the first time Neil Bush has caused his family some trouble. At the end of his father's presidency, Neil was among a group of defendants who agreed to pay $49.5 million to settle a negligence lawsuit over the $1 billion collapse of the savings and loan he directed in Colorado.

"Neil Bush is no Billy Carter or Roger Clinton"? We'd say not. Those two are amateurs compared to this guy.

A reader shares an out-of-body media experience:

Subject: The General vs the Deserter
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:39:54 -0500

I was in a hole in the wall diner yesterday and there was a small tv on in the corner, playing Meet the Press. Tim Russert was interviewing Wes Clark and he grilled Clark for 5 - 10 minutes on Michael Moore's rally cry last week of Bush being a deserter. "Is it appropriate to call the President of the US a deserter...Do you have any evidence that George Bush was a deserter....Would you call the President...."etc etc. Clark said Michael Moore is allowed to say anything he wants, I'm proud to have him as a supporter, we have free speech here, it's not how I would handle it and anyway I don't know what Bush did, I just know we need to get this country back on track, etc. etc.

Anyway, we're finishing our eggs and an older man gets up, walks to the door (the man and my wife and I were the only people in this place besides the owner/cook and he was sitting closer to the tv than we were), and says to someone who just walked in, "what do you think about Clark calling the president a deserter? That's not right! Who is he to say that?"

My wife and I looked at each other completely bewildered....we had just watched the exact same interview!

Then, to drive the point home that I really am the crazy one here, with poor listening skills, after the interview Tim Russert is sitting with Tom Brokaw and some other geniuses who'll tell us all what the interview means. Regarding the answers to the Michael Moore questions, Brokaw described Wes Clark as "fumbling around for answers".

One thing's for certain: Russert and Brokaw will never discuss George Bush's military record with someone who isn't running for President against him. Because then they'd have to discuss--well, George Bush's military record--and not the "appropriateness" of someone else's comments about it.

201k urges Russert and Brokaw to join Peter Jennings and Michel Moore, and collectively pursue their interest in this topic with a thorough investigation. That way we can all put it behind us and get on with the 2004 election.

Anyone else find this a bit creepy?

Jan. 26, 2004 | VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Saddam Hussein's past use of "evil chemistry" and "evil biology" and the threats they posed justified the war in Iraq even if no weapons of mass destruction are ever found, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft said Monday.

He addressed reporters briefly after meeting with Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel, Interior Minister Ernst Strasser and Justice Minister Dieter Boehmdorfer. On Tuesday, he planned to meet with members of Austria's elite Cobra police commando unit.

"We share a sense of common destiny," Strasser said.

A few odds and ends, starting with an uncomplicated email:

From: "Grant"
To: editor@201k.com
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 10:30:40 -0500

Love your web site!!! Keep up the good work.

Thanks, Grant. We do enjoy unconditional love in emails. Heck, we love emails that don't require asbestos gloves to open.

Next is a brief comment on the comically snarky Maureen Dowd. Today's column, in which she managed to both attack Howard Dean and condescend to his wife while pretending to compliment her, caused an internal debate here at 201k.

Half responded to it with unprintable epithets accompanied by recollections of past offenses. This was fun to listen to, but not very helpful as far as writing something about it.

The other half decided that Dowd--the Marie Antoinette of our cocktail party government, who last week was described by a local TV pundit here as having gone beyond parody--was purposely trying to elicit more of the criticism that has echoed around the web about her. How else to explain her decision to begin with yet another critique of a candidate's clothing, after the pasting she took for devoting an entire column to the sociopolitical import of Wesley Clark's sweater?

If she's aware of the pasting, that is. Yikes, scary thought.

Ah, she must be. In any event, unless we're mistaken, an email address for her has only recently begun to be posted with her columns (appearing at the bottom for the first time today, in fact). The only possible answer is that the NY Times rates its columnists internally by the amount of email they generate.

That would explain a lot, actually.

So we've decided to believe that she's simply trying to catch up to the Recently Deranged David Brooks in the Times' email regatta (good luck).

And that's all we feel is really necessary to say about her...that's printable.

Now, most importantly: Joe Lieberman, the Democratic candidate whose support runs from one end of K Street to the other, is currently up in N.H trying to drag Independent voters to the polls to vote for him on Tuesday.

Make no mistake: Lieberman is the candidate that Karl Rove wants to do the best in N.H. That's why he was given such an undeservedly bright spotlight in last week's debate, which was broadcast by Fox News and moderated by Brit Hume. Their plan--predicted here and nowhere else, that we saw--was to get him the most exposure possible, in order to maximize his vote. Anything over 10% will do.

Because once Joe gets that, "the story" will be that his pro-war, Bush-Lite act is resonating with Democratic voters. Which it most assuredly is not.

Republicans would have you believe that they are most afraid of a moderate Democrat. Don't believe it. They know that a moderate, business-as-usual Democratic candidate (AKA Joe Lieberman) would sap the vigor and soul of Democratic voters as sure as a ruling from Anton Scalia--which suits the GOP just fine. Remember the Lieberman/Cheney debate? That's what they want.

Be very suspicious of the "Independent voter drive" that Lieberman is counting on. You don't know who's really doing the driving.

201k urges N.H. Democrats to get out on Tuesday and vote for any candidate but Joe Lieberman. Don't fall into the trap that's being set. Send the clear message to the nation that the party intends to send a fire-breathing Democrat to take on George W. Bush--because we know he can't beat one.

An astounding number of people emailed about Wednesday's post, in which 201k suggested, more mischievously than seriously, that the Bush administration could refuse to step down from office if they lost the 2004 election and get away with it as far as the media was concerned.

Even more astoundingly, only one email (that wasn't filtered by our email program directly to the trash) rejected the notion. Many, many people thought it was not so farfetched. Who knew?

This is probably due to the fact that most 201k readers -- a majority of whom come here via the link on Media Whores Online -- are members of the choir.

But the writers were (mostly) far from paranoid partisans (again -- who knew?), and nearly all had essentially the same reason for their universe-bending cynicism: the complete lack of accountability of the Bush administration.

Pretty hard to argue with, especially given the long list of outrageous specifics they mentioned that we mostly speed-read, and which need not be repeated here. Sympathetic readers will no doubt have similar lists going.

But it was the specifics that stood out. That George Bush is protected by a bubble unlike anything this country has ever witnessed is documented as well as anything since "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". How often is such extreme cynicism so thoroughly grounded?

Years ago, while working as a payroll clerk for a large defense contractor whose products don't work, 201k overheard a janitor offer his Philosophy of Life, which was, "Dem guys upstairs, dey get everything, and we don't get nothin".

This was 201k's first exposure to class-based cynicism, and it made the opposite impression the philosopher intended, owing to the fact that he was a lazy, obese idiot who made almost $20 an hour (and this was in the early eighties) for hiding in a closet and eating donuts while 201k made half that paying him. In other words, the facts didn't bear out the charge.

But the free-ride that George Bush has got over the last four years, documentation for which is only a google-search away, is apparently enough to make more than a few people question the future of our very democracy.

One example stood out:

The Republican Party spent $40 million of taxpayer money to prove that the last Democratic president lied about a marital infidelity. But no one is supposed to look into what happened on 9/11?

Secretary of State Colin Powell's decision this week to involve himself in election politics was regrettable.

His comments on the false claim that Howard Dean accused the Bush administration of prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks--which Dean did not--were an unwelcome addition to an already bitterly partisan electoral process. Powell should have had the sense to steer clear.

Powell, a man who has in his career made many sacrifices for his country, has arguably sacrificed more over the last two years than any other member of the current administration. And he should bear in mind that a thing sacrificed is gone forever.

201k.com found last night's Democratic debate in NH maddening.

The insufferable sanctimoniousness of three of the four questioners--Brit Hume, Peter Jennings, and John DiStaso--stood out more than any questions posed or answers given all night. That's not a good sign for democracy. Only Tom Griffith, anchor at New Hampshire's WMUR-TV, displayed a proper regard for the process and the voters. The others sought endlessly either to trivialize the candidates (and by extension, the election), or to play silly "gotcha" games.

We found ourselves wishing that all the candidates, and not just Howard Dean, had picked up on John Edwards' lead to turn the tables on their inquisitors, as they did with Tom Brokaw a few weeks ago. Doing so would certainly not hurt them with voters.

Unless the Democratic candidates do whatever is required to take the terms of this election back from the supercilious media, and therefor from the GOP, they risk letting the entire process end up looking like it did last night in New Hampshire, where Joe Lieberman--a candidate who did not contest in Iowa, who is polling negligible numbers, who is routinely booed by Democrats, and who has been widely reported in both the national and local press as having next to no supporters on the campaign trail--was allowed to present George W. Bush's case for going to war in Iraq not once but several times.

We literally lost count of the times Lieberman was able to repeat Karl Rove's talking points on Saddam Hussein. Indeed, it was the very last thing uttered in the debate, thanks to a meatball nicely lobbed by Fox News' Hume.

Democrats have a right to be more than a little disturbed by this, given that it is abundantly clear from both polls and previous debates than Lieberman's unqualified support for the war--expressed deliberately in terms exactly mirroring those of the Bush administration--does not reflect the majority of Democratic voters. Quite the opposite, as both John Kerry and John Edwards have discovered.

To have this determinedly Bush-like pro war stance dominate a Democratic debate courtesy of an unpopular candidate and a Fox News anchor does not bode well for the party in the upcoming election.

The same can be said for Peter Jennings' appalling triple-play, in which he simultaneously: a) attempted to hold Wesley Clark responsible for Michael Moore's calling George Bush "a deserter" (as if anyone on God's green earth could put words in or out of Michael Moore's mouth); b) insinuated that Moore should not be allowed to speak his mind (unless, presumably he clears it first with ABC News); and c) dismissed the deserter charge as "reckless".

Clark answered this nonsense very well (and of course Moore himself immediately responded). We would only add that we suspect Jennings doesn't know any better than Moore what the truth of the matter is, and that if he wants to look into it he should do that (maybe together with Moore), and not waste time in a debate trying to hold Clark--who has said nothing about Bush's military record--responsible for the remarks of others.

Lastly, we repeat our call for Al Sharpton to drop out of the race. If he would like to tell jokes in front of audiences he should try his hand at stand-up comedy; no doubt he'd be great. But he absorbs far too much spotlight for a candidate who is polling in the low single digits, who did not contest in Iowa, and who barely has a presence in NH.

If Sharpton were able to answer substantive questions as well as the equally non-polling policy wonk Dennis Kucinich, one could make a case for his continued presence in the race. But as he proved last night, fumbling badly when asked who he would pick to run the Federal Reserve, he is a better moralizer than a policy thinker.

We like Al Sharpton. Moreover we appreciate his views, and believe his presence in the field helped ground the candidates on solid liberal territory. But he is, at this point, a bit like a brilliant horn player hired for one gig who can't stop stealing the stage from the lead singer--and whether he likes it or not, the voters are making clear that he's not destined to be the singer in this particular band. He should glide gently into the backline, where he will do everyone--band and audience--more good.

"I mean, the American people aren't going to fall for these kinds of ridiculous, outrageous and irresponsible charges."

- Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Well, he certainly knows what kind they WILL fall for.

A jobs-training program?

What will he do, teach them to speak Chinese?

Let's go over this again:

1. Jobs are moving overseas. This means fewer jobs here. The only job sector that's shown signs of life is the service sector. These are low-paying, non-benefit, often part-time jobs.

So unless the Bush job-training program consists of lessons on how to properly prepare and serve cucumber sandwiches and martinis, it won't help the millions of perfectly well-trained Americans who can't find good jobs because they don't happen to live in Bombay.

2. "Increased Productivity" is not necessarily a sign of an improving economy. Right now what it means is fewer people with jobs doing all the work that needs to get done.

3. An improving stock market is good for stock owners (sometimes), employers (usually) and upper management (always). It's not necessarily a sign of good, sustainable economic growth. Today what it means is higher profits from reduced labor costs (from moving jobs overseas), lower taxes (from basing companies offshore), and reduced liabilities (from so-called "tort reform").

4. Higher profits and lower taxes do not always result in jobs growth. In fact, those who haven't figured this out yet need to put down their Ayn Rand, rub their eyes, and take a good look around. The reality today is that any increased profit that creates jobs does so somewhere else.

Business has an obligation to maximize profit, and that includes reducing labor costs. Fair enough. But let's stop pretending that their doing so will create jobs here. Because it won't, until either labor costs in Asia rise to meet ours, or our standard of living falls to theirs.

5. You know what creates jobs? Demand. You know what creates demand? People with income. You know what creates people with income? Jobs.

It's time the lie of supply-side economics--which already proved itself a failure--was finally, thoroughly exposed, and replaced by demand-side economics, which puts money in the hands of those who spend it--which in turn creates jobs.

It worked really well for decades. Remember?

6. The unemployment figures don't count the people that have given up looking for work, or have taken jobs way below their training and earning potential. And in any event, the Bush administration has taken to just plain misrepresenting the jobs figures, as pointed out by an astute reader back on January 9:

1. "Nonfarm business payrolls grew by only 1,000 jobs, far fewer than the 150,000 economists had been expecting, according to a survey by Dow Jones Newswires and CNBC. ...Those losses (38,000 in retail and 26,000 in manufacturing) offset gains in the professional- and business-services industry, which added 45,000 jobs. The majority of that gain came from the addition of 30,000 temporary-help services jobs during the month."

Reader comment: In other words, the net 1000 gain was due to 30,000 TEMPORARY jobs in the service sector. Without those, there would have been big net LOSS.

2. "Adding insult to injury, the department also cut its earlier estimates of job growth for October and November, saying the job count for those months was 51,000 less than initially thought."

Reader comment: In other words, the job growth reported in the last two months was inflated.

7. An economic system that creates increased profits without domestic job growth will result, inevitably, in a decline in the standard of living for most Americans. Not only because of job loss, but because the jobs will only come back when labor costs here are as low as they are elsewhere.

This is already happening. And George Bush knows it.

Democrats are currently concerned with choosing their presidential nominee, and wondering whether he will beat Bush. Some are also (understandably) concerned with making sure that all votes are properly counted when the election comes.

But should they be worried about something more fundamental? Should they be worried that, having lost the election, George Bush will not step down from the presidency?

Some very powerful people paid a lot of money to make Bush the president in 2000, and had no qualms about resorting to highly questionable -- not to say undemocratic -- tactics to get it for him when the votes didn't. Why would they shy away from taking things to another level if it happens again?

Bush himself, in last night's State of the Union address, said this:

"...now we face a choice. We can go forward with confidence and resolve or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us."

Taken on its face it's a purely political statement, made to set the terms of debate on Iraq, and distinguish Bush from how he hopes to characterize his opponents. But it's not hard to see how such a position could be extended as a matter of "national security", particularly from the man who, in his previous speech to the nation, strongly suggested that Americans disagreeing with his policies were aiding terrorists.

Bush's refusing to step down may sound unthinkable, but it's certainly no stretch to imagine such an act well within the capabilities of Tom DeLay, John Ashcroft, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney. Indeed, many of the steps these men have taken since Bush took office set the table very nicely for it.

It's also likely not beyond military minds like that of Generals G. Jerry "My God is Real and Yours Isn't" Boykin, and Tommy "One More Attack and the People will Support a Military Coup" Franks. How many more in uniform are there like Jerry and Tommy, we wonder?

The question remaining, we suppose, is: how many members of the media would have no problem with it either? They are, after all, the people's eyes and ears to power.

Perhaps the question to pose to our media gatekeepers is this: If George Bush lost the election but refused to step down citing national security concerns, would you support it?

Two perspectives from two readers. The first:

I think Dean has been used to firing up crowds with emotional speeches, and after their disappointing show at the polls yesterday he was trying to fire them up and be positive about his chances. Unfortunately, he forgot he wasn't just playing to the audience in the room. I didn't think he looked as strange as all of the commentators were saying, but who knows how it played in people's living rooms.

The truth is, Dean was damaged a lot by all of the attacks on him. I also think there was another factor at work and that is that he is still a relative unknown who may not be the best shot to beat Bush. Democrats REALLY want to beat Bush and, while they like Dean and his message, there's a much more practical element to their decision making this year. When push came to shove, they picked the guy who they thought looked more presidential and had the credentials (read: war hero) to take on Bush.

My feeling is that Dean will not be the nominee. However, if that's true, we will all owe him an enormous debt because he's the one who's lit a fire under the rest of the Dems and gotten them to go after Bush a lot more aggressively. He's gotten a lot of people into the political process who weren't in there before, people who REALLY want to see Bush defeated. Whoever the Democratic nominee is will benefit from what Dean's accomplished.

The second:

After some time to reflect about this.....

I realize that the president is supposed to be presidential. But after seeing the Dean list-all-the-states-clip a million times yesterday, it suddenly hit me that he's getting blasted for committing political suicide for what?...showing some passion! Let's compare:

Al Gore: too wooden...is he a robot?

John Kerry: too wooden...too aloof.

John Edwards: ah, gee....what a swell guy.

now, Howard Dean: raging lunatic....because he shows human emotion.

Yet again, we see a media leading us thru a debate of, not issues, no, that's too tough, but an easily defined image, of whether the guy is too emotional or not emotional enough. I just heard someone on NPR say, "I don't know, I was for Howard Dean, but after the other night, I don't know about him anymore." That's super. It's like we're voting for Mr. Potato Head. I want wavy hair, small nose, distinguished chin, and just the right amount of attitude. I guess that's how we end up with a president who doesn't read and brags about how his advisors do his homework for him.

Howard Dean may have lost the Democratic nomination last night -- and not from the caucus votes, but from his appearance afterward.

Perhaps his over-the-top performance worked in the room -- we weren't there. But on TV it looked and sounded awful, and while everyone has bad nights, this time the cameras were rolling and the media got the footage they've been craving: Howard Dean looking angry.

The smug satisfaction of the CNN status quo patrol was palpable.

Dean, in one misstep last night, may have given the establishment the stick they'll use to beat him with from this point forward.

It started with the troll we here affectionately call "That Piece of S*** Bill Schneider", CNN's "Senior Political Analyst", who learned to arch his eyebrows quizzically at Democrats at the American Enterprise Institute (not that CNN ever informs its viewers of his affiliation). His carefully considered opinion (and by that we mean he'd written it days ago and was just waiting for a chance to heave it at America) was that Dean's momentum slipped a month ago, when, Schneider tells us, Saddam was caught.

Bill the Shill's point is that Dean's momentum had come only from his criticism of the Iraq war, which, like all criticism of Bush's war policies, was rendered irrelevant by Saddam's capture. Got it?

Tell that to the families of soldiers killed since we got Hussein. Jeez, you'd think they'd have the decency to realize they're inconveniencing Schneider's story line.

The truth, of course, is that Howard Dean's momentum slowed a month ago -- when the press went bananas on him, ripping and shredding him to bits at every turn.

One solid month of attacks: magazine cover stories, front-page newspaper articles, and hours and hours of cable news sleaze -- and the media put the brakes on Dean's campaign. And last night Dean slipped, letting the damaged they'd done show. And they got it on tape.

Has there been an American with the moral authority of Dr. King since he left us? Off the top of our heads we can't think of a religious leader who isn't mostly huckster, and as for our political and business leaders--oy.

We're open to suggestions if we've missed anyone.

There was a farmer had a farm
got paid for planting nothing...
U.S. subsidy!
U.S. subsidy!
U.S. subsidy!
But none for you and me-o.

There was a comp'ny made a jet
that cost a billion dollars...
We'll take 83!
We'll take 83!
We'll take 83!
Now let's go bomb Iraqis.

There was a Congress on a hill
with laws they liked to sell-o...
not to you my friend,
not to you my friend,
you don't pay my friend--
so you can go to hell-o.

There was a comp'ny drilled for oil
and never paid its taxes...
thanks to RNC,
thanks to GOP,
thanks to FEC,
and all their lying asses.

There is a rugged man I know
who talks like Rush's echo:
"We don't need D.C!"
"State's rights victory!"
"Don't you Tread on Me--
"Now where's my gov'mint check-o?"

There was a boy whose dad was Prez
who thinks he is a cowboy...
went to Yale, of course,
old school money source,
never rode a horse,
--the hat is just for show, boy.

There was a land ruled by a few
with pockets they did gild-o
now they want the world,
now they want the world,
they want all the world,
and we're the ones get killed-o...

...we're the ones get killed-o.

But we're not sure what this guy's is.

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:17:19 -0600
To: editor@201k.com
From: "s.k. snedegar"
Subject: searching
Cc: SinisterSiders@yahoogroups.com

To whomever so long as he searches for the truth:

I searched your current archive and found the term "oil" only twice in the section, and that was embedded in the word "boil" in both instances.

I guess you don't see the O'Neill information the same way I do . . .

I guess you don't see the truth in the same way I do.

I guess you didn't know that they had a plan for going to war in Afghanistan long before 9/11, and it had nothing to do with Usama Bin Laden?

I guess you're not aware of the Syria-Lebanon pipeline which is there to carry oil from the northern Iraqi fields to the Med?

I guess you know about as much as Bush.

Sam

Not sure what to make of this email, but here's our initial thoughts:

To whomever so long as he searches for the truth:

Um, ok.

I searched your current archive and found the term "oil" only twice in the section, and that was embedded in the word "boil" in both instances.

Um, ok.

I guess you don't see the O'Neill information the same way I do . . .

And that would be...?

I guess you don't see the truth in the same way I do.

And that would be...?

I guess you didn't know that they had a plan for going to war in Afghanistan long before 9/11, and it had nothing to do with Usama Bin Laden?

A carpet of gold, or a carpet of bombs, yes, we've all heard it. Of course as far as Afghanistan is concerned, there was also the little incident on 9/11, which bin Laden seemed pretty proud of. We don't trust the Bush administration any more than the next guy, but the subtext of O'Neill's story would be Iraq. So what exactly is your point?

I guess you're not aware of the Syria-Lebanon pipeline which is there to carry oil from the northern Iraqi fields to the Med?

I guess you know about as much as Bush.

Wait a minute! Are you saying the Bush administration is connected to the oil industry? And that their policies may reflect that? My god, you may be right! What insight! How could we have been so BLIND? We guesswe know about as much as Bush!

Sam, you need to let someone know about this RIGHT AWAY! This will be a huge story once it gets out.

What a maroon.

A reader cc'd us on her letter to the Times; they didn't publish it, but it's so good we thought it should be seen. The column it's in reference to has been archived, and is no longer available for free. It was printed Monday, December 29, 2003, and was titled, "The White-Collar Blues".

Dear Mr. Herbert,

You couldn't be more right. This is a topic near and dear to my heart and one that I've been talking about for several years to anyone who will listen.

I work for a contract manufacturing company, which is one that other companies outsource their manufacturing to. In other words, we build product for the likes of IBM, HP, Honeywell, Rockwell, etc. Like most contract manufacturers, during the last several years we have closed down plants in the US and Europe and moved the production to low-labor regions like Mexico, Malaysia and China. Our customers are completely price-driven and in some cases have actually required in their contracts that we provide a "manufacturing solution" in one of these low-cost regions or lose their business. A Mexican factory worker brings home about $30 a week; in the Far East it's far less.

Recently, we've started to hear a lot about this loss of manufacturing jobs. But the job loss extends well beyond the factory floor. At my husband's mutual fund employer, hundreds of IT jobs have been outsourced to India. A former colleague who is a CFO at a telecom start-up told me that they were looking into outsourcing a number of their engineering jobs to India, since the average salary for an experienced engineer was under $10K versus over $100K in his company. Call centers, reservations centers, insurance claim processing centers - these continue to be moved to low cost regions such as India, the Phillipines, Mexico, etc.

On a recent business trip to the Far East, every traveller I chatted with was there on some sort of outsource deal - a plastics R&D plant in Korea, a Boeing manufacturing operation, an engineering center in Korea. This is what I've seen for the last several years and meanwhile there seems to have been little or no recognition in the US that the world is changing around us. Politicians either ignore the issue or point fingers at each other trying to assign blame and capitalize on the issue. Nobody seems able to address the root of the problem.

When I talk about this with my work colleagues, they all agree that the jobs are leaving America and most likely will not return. Most of these people hold out hope that America will think of the next thing that we can do to maintain our economic dominance, but I wonder. We always pointed to our technological prowess, but it seems that Indian, Chinese or Korean engineers are just as capable. It seems to me that our standard of living will inevitably fall. When the largest US employer morphs from General Motors to Wal-Mart isn't that inevitable?

All we hear about is productivity gains and increasing profits. Please! Productivity is only a mathematical formula and all it proves is that the same amount of work is getting done by fewer and fewer people. As one of the fortunate ones who still have a decent job, I've seen rounds and rounds of layoffs all around me and am one of the remaining employees who are desperately trying to hold onto jobs by working longer and longer hours. Productivity gains, my foot. And while profits may indeed be on the upswing, it will not translate into a stronger economy for most Americans. I haven't had a salary increase since 2000, and in fact, my company gave a 10% pay cut during the time. (Meanwhile, may I add, our senior management team collected their substantial guaranteed bonuses and refused to accept the pay cut which they enacted.)

This isn't an easy subject with an easy solution. Americans want low-priced products. Producing them, developing them and servicing them in low-cost regions allows companies to keep their prices down. Selling them through low-wage employers like Wal-Mart helps get these products to market cheaper. Are we all willing to pay more for the goods we buy? Are American companies willing to apply decent labor and environmental standards in all of the countries in which they do business? Are retailers willing to provide a living wage to their employees?

Not only is this globalization affecting our pocketbooks, but it is contributing greatly to the growing gap between the haves and have-nots. We are turning into a nation of plantation owners and the people who service us. This isn't who we want to be as a nation and isn't a social model that can be sustained without revolution. Recent studies have shown a huge and widening income gap in the US, greater than at any time since early in the 20th century and also shows a hardening of the income and social levels, with little upward movement. This is enormously disturbing.

The American Dream is a promise and a hope that any one of us, with brains and hard work, can rise up and achieve great things. We all know that this isn't always true, that some people have advantages that open doors while others have disadvantages that put obstacles in the way. But still I always had faith that we were working toward the realization of this dream for all citizens, that we were striving to create this sort of society. I'm not so sure I can believe that anymore.

The power of corporations has never been greater. The core beliefs of a great deal of our power elite seem to reflect a deeply held belief that their success is a sign of their inate worthiness. There is a sense of entitlement and a lack of compassion and tolerance that does not bode well for the ordinary person. I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and the state of our democracy.

So far, the working class people who have taken the worst hit seem to support the Republicans, who they have come to believe are champions of the ordinary guy. What a feat of genius. I wish someone would emerge who would speak the truth - talk about the power of corporations, talk about the ersosion of the American standard of living, talk about the gutting of environmental, labor and other laws designed to protect the common good, talk about the enormous disparity between the top earners in this country and the rest of us.  We need someone to awaken us from our stupor. Too bad the right-wing media owns most of the outlets to reach the ordinary person and too bad the Democrats can't seem to get it together and just speak the truth - damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

There is so much at stake here. There is everything at stake here. Good for you for trying to shine some light on this subject. Let's hope someone has the courage to address these very difficult issues.

Last night was "Cam Neely" night at the Fleet Center. The Boston Bruins retired Cam's number 8, hoisting it to the rafters, where it now hangs alongside those of Ray Bourque, Phil Esposito, Terry O'Reilly, Milt Schmidt, Dit Clapper, Lionel Hitchman, Johnny Bucyk, Eddie Shore, and oh yeah, Bobby Orr.

Why tell you this? Two reasons:

1. Hockey is, in fact, the best metaphor for life. You have to play as a team. You have to play hard. Sometimes you need skill to win, sometimes you have to send in the goons.

2. Watching the clips of Neely's career, we realized how much we missed him.

It's time for Al Sharpton to drop out. Last night he succeeded, once again, in promoting himself (a lost cause) by lowering the level of debate -- this time by smearing the front-runner Howard Dean.

To the delight of the media, we might add. Sputtering faux-liberal Chris Matthews could hardly contain his glee, immediately zeroing in on Sharpton's pointed and pointless attack on Dean as the most important moment of the debate -- when in fact it was meaningess.

Sharpton's point, boiled down to its essence, is that Howard Dean can't (or shouldn't?) discuss the racial problems in the Democratic Party because he didn't have any minorities in his cabinet as Governor of Vermont.

Has Al Sharpton been to Vermont?

Leaving aside the fact that Dean was governor of Vermont and not Alabama, and that he had a senior staff member who was Latino -- leaving all that aside -- what the hell does this prove?

Is he calling Dean a racist?

Is he saying the candidates shouldn't discuss race?

Is he saying that you have to have a lot of minority constituents in your state to care about minorities?

Is he saying because Dean didn't scour Vermont for cabinet-level minority appointees he can't discuss race issues in the Democratic party?

Is he suggesting that only he, Sharpton, can discuss minority issues? Or that you have to get his permission to do so?

Or was he just throwing bombs to make himself the center of attention?

Carol Moseley Braun (who would make a great Secretary of State, in our opinion) had the guts and the presence of mind to call Sharpton on this useless, distracting and destructive crap -- and had us cheering -- but it was too late as far as the media was concerned. Even the Times made this stupid exchange the center of its story (and headline).

In truth, Sharpton's specific quote was particularly stupid: "If you want to lecture people on race," he said, "you ought to have the background and track record to do that."

Dean hasn't lectured anyone on race. What he's said is that the GOP has for 36 years successfully used race to divide people who should share the common interests of the Democratic party, and that the party should talk about this openly. What's wrong with that? Why do you have to have Al Sharpton's permission to do that?

For the record, according to the 2000 U.S. Census, 96.8% of the population of Vermont (which has an extraordinarily small government) are "White persons". One half of one percent (0.5%) are "Black or African American persons". That works out to 3,065 in the whole state. How many are Democrats we don't know.

0.4% of Vermonters are "American Indian and Alaska Native persons". 0.9% are "Asian persons", and 0.9% are "Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin".

In other words, it's not exactly a melting pot. So what? Is Sharpton suggesting Dean should have trucked minorites into Vermont so he could hire some?

The way we see it, the most pressing issue facing African-Americans today is getting their damn votes counted. Does Sharpton think George Bush and the Republicans are the ones to handle that problem?

The O'Neill story finally shows up on the front page of the Times online this morning. Presumably, with the Sunday issue out of the way, they felt it was ok to link to the story. Here's the headline:

Bush Sought to Oust Hussein From Start, Ex-Official Says

This one is a Times story (not just the Reuters one) by Richard W. Stevenson. Of course we're paranoid, but we can't help noticing that Stevenson split the "money quote"--putting the more benign, "From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go"--which no one would argue with--in the second paragraph, and dropping the more disturbing quote that it was "all about finding a way to do it,"--which a lot of people might find alarming--down into the middle of the next paragraph.

Of course, we may not be paranoid at all, for Stevenson entirely omits the most disturbing and potentially damaging quote of all: here is the whole sentence from O'Neill, from the 60 Minutes transcript:

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying Go find me a way to do this," says O'Neill.

"Go find me a way to do this"? George Bush said that, and neither Richard Stevenson nor the NY Times found it worth quoting? We'd have thought it would be the headline:

Bush: Find me a Way to Topple Saddam, Ex-Official Says

Another small point: Stevenson repeats the reminder (from the wire stories) that the policy of "regime change" in Iraq started with Clinton:

Since the Clinton administration, the official position of the United States, backed by bipartisan votes in Congress, has been to call for "regime change" in Iraq.

For some reason, however, Stevenson does not follow that point with, "But the Clinton administration, which repeatedly tried in vain to warn the incoming Bush administration of the looming danger from Al Queda, never used any event as a pretext for an Iraq invasion, whereas the Bush administration did just that, using now largely discredited allegations of weapons of mass destruction and connections to terrorists to link the terrorist attacks of 9/11 with Iraq."

Anything non-factual about that last paragraph? Don't think so. In fact, it's not only factual, it's utterly relevant, and serves to further illuminate the very point of O'Neill's charge--which is supposedly the point of the article. But for some reason Stevenson and the Times don't bother.

...just nowhere you could find it. Not the front page, not in the "More Headlines" section, not under "Washington", not under "National"...

The Sunday New York Times, January 11, 2004:

Report: Bush Planned Iraqi Invasion Before Sept. 11

Search for "O'Neill" and you find the story--twice. Once in "News" and once in "Washington".

But go to "Washington" and it isn't there. Nowhere. Not even in the extended headlines listing. 19 stories and it simply isn't there. Even though the story is dated today: Sunday, January 11, 2004.

So it must be in "News", right? That's what the search results said. Wrong--there is no "News" section. If you go to the O'Neill story from a search, then click back one link to "News"--it goes to the same story with a different URL--it's a link to this one Reuters article. There is no NY Times "News" section.

In other words, you CANNOT get this story on the NY Times online without either searching for it specifically in the online search, or going to Reuters and scrolling down seven sections--where it's the last entry.

As for the Bush administration's very good friends at A.P.--they also don't have the story on their front page. If you click on "More Headlines" or "National" you'll find it--23 stories down. That's after "Chinese Mourn Pop Star" and "Lion Attack Victim Recovers".

As for the A.P. story itself: four and a half paragraphs are given to O'Neill's charge, and eight and a half provide either the Administration's direct rebuttal, or back-story that attempts to undermine O'Neill.

The so-called liberal media.

Our childishness must be catching. A reader sent us her scribbled comments on these excerpts of a WSJ article:

A few key points to note:

1. "Nonfarm business payrolls grew by only 1,000 jobs, far fewer than the 150,000 economists had been expecting, according to a survey by Dow Jones Newswires and CNBC. ...Those losses (38,000 in retail and 26,000 in manufacturing) offset gains in the professional- and business-services industry, which added 45,000 jobs. The majority of that gain came from the addition of 30,000 temporary-help services jobs during the month."

Reader comment: In other words, the net 1000 gain was due to 30,000 TEMPORARY jobs in the service sector. Without those, there would have been big net LOSS.

2. "Adding insult to injury, the department also cut its earlier estimates of job growth for October and November, saying the job count for those months was 51,000 less than initially thought."

Reader comment: In other words, the job growth reported in the last two months was inflated.

Feeling childish today; rather then write something we just scribbled all over a NY Times article that someone forwarded to us:

I.M.F. Says Rise in U.S. Debts Is Threat to World's Economy

The preamble:

You know what they've been up to: loot the treasury from the top, throw it into massive deficit, then try to make up the deficit by cutting programs and entitlements for the middle and working-class. They get to fulfill their dream of dismantling the New Deal while simultaneously pulling off the biggest heist in history.

------------------------
To: editor@201k.com
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 7:55 AM

Let's see, I've heard this from somewhere before- oh, right - Paul Krugman for the last YEAR! Now Robert Rubin came out this week with the same warning. Go Bush, great job - trash the world economy in 3 short years.

January 8, 2004

I.M.F. Says Rise in U.S. Debts Is Threat to World's Economy
By ELIZABETH BECKER
and EDMUND L. ANDREWS

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 -- With its rising budget deficit and ballooning trade imbalance, the United States is running up a foreign debt of such record-breaking proportions that it threatens the financial stability of the global economy, according to a report released Wednesday by the International Monetary Fund.

Prepared by a team of I.M.F. economists, the report sounded a loud alarm about the shaky fiscal foundation of the United States, questioning the wisdom of the Bush administration's tax cuts and warning that large budget deficits pose "significant risks" not just for the United States but for the rest of the world.

The report warns that the United States' net financial obligations to the rest of the world could be equal to 40 percent of its total economy within a few years — "an unprecedented level of external debt for a large industrial country," according to the fund, that could play havoc with the value of the dollar and international exchange rates.

The danger, according to the report, is that the United States' voracious appetite for borrowing could push up global interest rates and thus slow global investment and economic growth.

"Higher borrowing costs abroad would mean that the adverse effects of U.S. fiscal deficits would spill over into global investment and output," the report said.

White House officials dismissed the report as alarmist, saying that President Bush has already vowed to reduce the budget deficit by half over the next five years. The deficit reached $374 billion last year, a record in dollar terms but not as a share of the total economy, and it is expected to exceed $400 billion this year.

[Yup, he's going to cut section 8 housing, school lunch programs, Head Start, etc. Because he really hates wasteful spending.]

But many international economists said they were pleased that the report raised the issue.

"The I.M.F. is right," said C. Fred Bergsten, director of the Institute for International Economics in Washington. "If those twin deficits — of the federal budget and the trade deficit — continue to grow you are increasing the risk of a day of reckoning when things can get pretty nasty."

Administration officials have made it clear they are not alarmed about the United States' burgeoning external debt or the declining value of the dollar, which has lost more than one-quarter of its value against the euro in the last 18 months and which hit new lows earlier this week.

[We believe that they're not PERSONALLY alarmed. What do they care?]

"Without those tax cuts I do not believe the downturn would have been one of the shortest and shallowest in U.S. history," said John B. Taylor, under secretary of the Treasury for international affairs.

["Besides," he added, "the tax cuts saved me a bundle. And if the economy collapses it will cost less to re-roof my house in sterling silver. They'll be DOZENS of guys who'll need the work.]

Though the International Monetary Fund has criticized the United States on its budget and trade deficits repeatedly in the last few years, this report was unusually lengthy and pointed. And the I.M.F. went to lengths to publicize the report and seemed intent on getting American attention.

"I think it's encouraging that these are issues that are now at play in the presidential campaign that's just now getting under way," said Charles Collyns, deputy director of the I.M.F.'s Western Hemisphere department. "We're trying to contribute to persuade the climate of public opinion that this is an important issue that has to be dealt with, and political capital will need to be expended."

[Because for some reason it never gets mentioned on Fox.]

The I.M.F. has often been accused of being an adjunct of the United States, its largest shareholder.

But in the report, fund economists warned that the long-term fiscal outlook was far grimmer, predicting that underfunding for Social Security and Medicare will lead to shortages as high as $47 trillion over the next 70 years or nearly 500 percent of the current gross domestic product in the coming decades.

[We're sure the Bush Administration is just devastated over the prospect of Social Security and Medicare being underfunded.]

Some outside economists remain sanguine, noting that the United States is hardly the only country to run big budget deficits and that the nation's underlying economic conditions continue to be robust.

"Is the U.S. fiscal position unique? Probably not," said Kermit L. Schoenholtz, chief economist at Citigroup Global Markets. Japan's budget deficit is much higher than that of the United States, Mr. Schoenholtz said, and those of Germany and France are climbing rapidly.

["Is my house on fire? Probably. But the guy next door, his house is on fire, too." And hey, if you can't trust the chief economist at Citigroup, who can you trust?]

In a paper presented last weekend, Robert E. Rubin, the former secretary of the Treasury, said that the federal budget was "on an unsustainable path" and that the "scale of the nation's projected budgetary imbalance is now so large that the risk of severe adverse consequences must be taken very seriously, although it is impossible to predict when such consequences may occur."

Other economists said they were afraid that this was a replay of the 1980's when the United States went from the world's largest creditor nation to its biggest debtor nation following tax cuts and a large military build-up under President Ronald Reagan.

[You know, the last time a Republican took over from a Democrat.]

John Vail, senior strategist for Mizuho Securities USA, said the I.M.F. report reflected the concerns of many foreign investors.

"I would say they reflect the majority of international opinion about the United States," he said. And he added, "The currency doesn't have the safe-haven status that it has had in recent years."

Many economists predict that the dollar will continue to decline for some time, and that the declining dollar will help lift American industry by making American products cheaper in countries with strengthening currencies.

[Great. So they can bust unions here to lower pay scales to Asian levels. Oh joy.]

"In the short term, it is probably helping the United States," said Robert D. Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International.

["Or, at least the Americans that I know personally." And if you can't trust the vice chairman of Goldman Sachs, who can you trust?]

Fund officials and most economists agreed that the short-term impact of deficit spending has helped pull the economy through a succession of crisis.

[Though they couldn't in a million years defend that suppostion, since a stimulus--even one creating a deficit--could have been created in a number ways far better than giving tax cuts to billionaires. How about a jobs program? A middle-class tax cut? A payroll tax cut? Oh, we forgot, those constituents don't have lobbyists.]

And unlike Argentina and other developing nations that suffered through debt crises, the United States remains a magnet for foreign investment.

[For now.]

Treasury Secretary John W. Snow did not address the fund's report directly. But in a speech to the United States Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday, he said Mr. Bush's tax cuts were central to spurring growth and reiterated the administration's pledge to reduce the deficit in half within five years.

"The deficit's important," Mr. Snow said. "It's going to be addressed. We're going to cut it in half. You're going to see the administration committed to it. But we need that growth in the economy. We had an obligation to the American work force and the American businesses to get the economy on a stronger path. We've done it and we have time to deal with the deficit."

["Besides," he added, "If Taylor is doing his roof in sterling, then I want mine gilded. And with the dollar declining and jobs evaporating, I should be able to get that done for peanuts pretty soon."]

But the report said that even if the administration succeeded it would not be enough to address the long-term problems posed by retiring baby boomers.

[But never fear, we put that crucial bit of info in paragraph 26. If you think about it, it should be the headline. "IMF: BUSH ECONOMIC PLAN INSUFFICIENT EVEN IF SUCCESSFUL. SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE DOOMED. MILLIONS SCREWED."]

Moreover, the fund economists said that the administration's tax cuts could eventually lower United States productivity and the budget deficits could raise interest rates by as much as one percentage point in the industrialized world.

"An abrupt weakening of investor sentiments vis-a-vis the dollar could possibly lead to adverse consequences both domestically and abroad," the report said.

[Unless you happen to be fabulously wealthy, or in the banking business that is. Then it will just give your money even more buying power as prices fall and interest rates rise. Remember that Henry Ford thought the Depression was a wonderful period. And it was--for him.]

The election season approaches and we're not yet settled on which Democratic candidate we like the best. But there's no question that our antipathy for Joe Lieberman grows with every debate.

The joke around 201k for months has been that Lieberman's support runs from one end of K Street to the other. Yeah, we're a funny bunch. But seriously, who other than lobbyists for insurance companies thinks this guy should be president?

On that subject here's the hilarious MWO's take on the only known photo of a Lieberman supporter.

Lieberman has only himself to blame for this. His constant attacks on Dean are so lame, so shallow, and so desperate that he makes himself sound even more marginal than he is -- no mean feat given his poll standings.

In fact, Lieberman hasn't mounted this vigorous an attack since he led the charge against (Bill Clinton's SEC Chairman) Arthur Leavitt's attempts to clean up accounting practices (in 1994, 1999, and 2000).

In yesterday's debate Lieberman was incensed -- incensed! -- that Dean hadn't released his private papers from Vermont. We wish we could remember Joe being as incensed at George Bush's locking up of HIS papers. Or Dick Cheney's.

Actually, Dean has said he'd be happy to give all the papers to a judge, and would release any the judge allowed, which sounded reasonable to us, and probably to everyone else on earth -- except Joe, of course, who has so very little to say in this campaign that he can't afford to let go of any bone he digs up, no matter how little meat is left on it.

In this instance he was left shaking the bone by himself in the corner, like a little dog snarling to itself while the family has dinner. The debate moved on without him -- which is actually a better response than the outright booing he's received in several of these debates -- so perhaps his team was encouraged.

Pretty much all he has to offer Democratic voters (the ones that don't run investment banking or insurance businesses) is that he's kind of in the same clique as Bill Clinton -- even though Clinton's VP tossed him over for Dean faster than Lieberman himself threw in Gore's towel during the 2000 Florida recount.

Lieberman has so little to offer beyond his Clinton association that in one debate he actually said his favorite song was "Don't Stop Thinking about Tomorrow". The guy is even using Clinton's theme music.

Given his record his theme song should be "There Ain't Nobody Here But Us Chickens".

Why should Dean have to respond, in debate after debate, to pot-shots from a guy who's pulling single digits in the polls? What the heck is Lieberman even doing on stage? Rather than give him the time of day, Dean should simply say, "I don't have to answer to a guy who isn't competing in this caucus, and is routinely booed by audiences of Democrats".

Obviously Lieberman would love the boost he'd get if Dean returned fire like that, and we doubt Dean will do more than politely defend himself. But the constant, fratricidal attacks are tiresome, and around here we've found ourselves wondering if Joe is only in this thing to torpedo Dean.