Welcome to 201k.com - A Commonwealth Perspective.

A lovely Sunday morning in the Commonwealth. 201k are enjoying our coffee over the paper. Hmm.

Pope: same-sex unions "degrade" marriage

Feb. 28, 2004 | VATICAN CITY (AP) -- Pope John Paul II urged authorities Saturday to stop approving gay marriages, saying they "degrade" the true sense of marriage between a man and a woman.

Huh. Guess he's not going to allow priests to marry each other. Oh well. Here's another fun one:

Pfizer to end tests of Viagra for women

Feb. 28, 2004 | NEW YORK (AP) -- Pfizer Inc. is ending research on whether the anti-impotency drug Viagra can be used treat female sexual problems because studies on women were inconclusive, the company said.

Joe Feczko, president of Worldwide Developing at Pfizer, said diagnosing sexual difficulties in women "involves assessing physical, emotional and relationship factors, and these complex and interdependent factors make measuring a medicine's effect very difficult."

Now THERE'S news.

What a surprise--they're talking about cutting Social Security benefits.

201k is hardly shocked. We see this as phase two of the right's long-term plan to destroy FDR's most successful program--one into which Americans have paid enormous amounts of money.

To those who suggest that the problem with Social Security transcends party, we ask simply: what happened the the huge surplus that Bill Clinton left for George Bush a mere three years ago, and how did it turn into a half-trillion dollar deficit?

The answer we hear from Republicans--it was the economic downturn, it was the terrorist attacks, it's the war in Iraq, the dog ate my surplus--are rubbish. What happened is that George Bush succeeded in carrying out the right's ancient plan to get rid of Social Security not by assaulting it directly--which the public would never accept--but by killing it from within with a lack of funding--which the public wouldn't suspect in a million years a president would do, especially one who denies it so sincerely.

But this president does a lot of things he denies sincerely. In fact, in a lot of ways it's what he does best, and Americans should wake up to this reality before their Social Security goes the way of the budget surplus, Enron's 401k, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the minutes of Dick Cheney's energy task force meetings, and George Bush's National Guard paper trail.

Let us be blunt with you, dear readers: the reason they're not proposing to cut the benefits of those nearing retirement is that those Americans pay attention to these sorts of things and would not accept it, while those a little further away are too busy, too trusting, or too naive to realize they're getting shafted.

February 27, 2004

The Hot Potato of Issues Is Dropped Anew
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON

WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 — Ever since the 2000 campaign, when he began pushing the idea of shifting some Social Security taxes to private personal investment accounts, President Bush has danced around the question of whether more painful steps would also be necessary to put the retirement system on sound financial footing.

So when Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman, said on Wednesday that prudent long-term fiscal policy in the face of federal deficits would require cuts in benefits, Mr. Bush, who is headed into what looks like another close election, instantly distanced himself.

He restated his longstanding position that people in retirement or near retirement age should not see any change in their expected benefits and added that younger workers should be able to count on a combined benefit, from Social Security and the proposed investment accounts, at least equal to what they are promised now.

His own economists, though, are more explicit about what his approach to Social Security would require.

In the latest Economic Report of the President, sent under Mr. Bush's signature this month to Congress, the White House Council of Economic Advisers recommended some reduction in the benefits promised under the current system as part of a broader overhaul that would add benefits from the personal accounts.

"Reform should include moderation of the growth of benefits that are unfunded and can therefore be paid only by assessing taxes in the future," the report said.

201k isn't big into images, preferring to fill the page with long-winded blather. But here a picture we found last year comes in handy. It's from the website of the Cato Institute, who are the leading architects of the right's effort to slowly disassemble Social Security. We took a "snapshot" of it on the 201k supercomputer back in September of 2002--just before the elections--when Republicans in both the Congress and the White House were insisting they'd never wanted the "privatization" of Social Security, but rather were in favor of the newly-named "personal retirement accounts", euphemistically offered as Social Security "choice".

The problem was, whoever did the Cato website forgot to change the "title" tag in the html when he or she changed the text. Take a look:

Far from being distracted by president Bush's attempt to divide the country on the social issue of gay marriage, 201k is still mulling over the credibility issue of Mr. Bush's service in the National Guard during Vietnam.

On February 13, we said that our problem was not with Mr. Bush's service itself, but with the current G.I Joe routine that marks his nearly every appearance, and which throws his service into relief.

The president's handlers endeavor mightily to surround him with military bunting. They use the US armed forces the way a theater company uses a backdrop. The most famous example was his flightsuit appearance on an aircraft carrier, but there are other, smaller examples--as when Mr. Bush himself said, "I've been to war".

A little story:

201k went to high school at a hockey powerhouse. It is a school which has sent many players on to college and Olympic teams.

201k played junior varsity. J.V.

Fast forward some years, and 201k is still playing in pickup leagues with other over-the-hillers. And when 201k plays with a new group, the question sometimes comes up in the locker room of where 201k played as a youth.

Now here's the thing: 201k never says, "I played at ____". Even though it's technically true--201k did play there. But saying just that would of course leave the impression that 201k had played Varsity. Which 201k did not.

If pressed, 201k will admit to having "played J.V. there". 201k would never, ever leave out the qualifier, never leave the impression of having played Varsity--even though no one would be the wiser.

Because 201k didn't play Varsity, and knows it. It is, as we have said before, a matter of internal integrity and external honesty.

George Bush did serve in the National Guard, but he did not serve in Vietnam. George Bush played J.V. The Varsity was over in Asia. And he knows it.

Which is why, when his advisors came to him and suggested he pull on his old jersey for a few photos, he should have said no.

Instead he allowed them to put a Varsity sweater on him and parade him around in front of sailors as if he'd been a three-letter man. Sailors who were returning from a war.

We can't tell you how much more respect we'd have for the man if he'd told his handlers no. But he didn't. And still doesn't.

When Mr. Bush says things like, "I've been to war", he isn't just taking literary license; he's calling himself up to the Varsity 40 years later.

And the really bad thing about it isn't so much that he's lying to us--he's a politician, and that's what they do.

The bad thing is that he himself knows. And yet he does it anyway.

201k is starting to see some incredibly offensive and stupid smears regarding John Kerry's war record.

The details are too insipid to repeat; what's of interest is that of course they are coming in the form of anonymous emails. Anonymous--like the doctored photo of Kerry that purported to show him on stage with Jane Fonda, and like the rumor of his "affair".

We suppose it was only a matter of time. But these smears served to remind us of the Great GOP Mystery, which is: why in the world does George Bush have any support among rank and file Republicans?

We remember the vicious smears that were slipped like a knife into another war hero, John McCain, after his upset victory over George Bush in the 2000 N.H. Republican primary.

Smears always rise out of the mist whenever something threatens a Bush. But that's a different GOP mystery.

McCain, who unlike George Bush is a real conservative, isn't the sort of guy who's willing to sell the country out wholesale to corporate interests He'd at least get retail for it. So immediately after his N.H. win, reprehensible--and anonymous--rumors began to spread about him in S. Carolina.

Push polls, flyers, gossip. Sure he was a war hero and had been a POW, but...what did it do to his mind to have been in the Hanoi Hilton for five years? Wasn't he just a little edgy? He sure got angry quickly. Was it true he had an illegitimate "ethnic" child? Someone said that someone said he'd had another wife in Vietnam...and so on.

Dirty, nasty, vicious stuff. Anonymous smears that impugned the character and even the sanity of a man who'd made everything short of the ultimate sacrifice for his country while George Bush was occasionally dropping in for his National Guard service.

The smears did the job--McCain stumbled in S.C. and never recovered.

And now the same sort of smears are springing up again. No surprise. The anonymous slimers don't care if they smear a conservative war hero or a liberal war hero--as long as George Bush benefits.

But the mystery is, what good does it do rank and file Republicans to smear bona fide war heroes of both parties just to elect George Bush?

We at 201k hold the controversial opinion that John McCain would have mopped the floor with Al Gore in 2000, and would very likely be coasting to easy reelection by now.

But McCain didn't get the nomination. Somehow he got derailed by a guy who lost the popular vote to Al Gore, and almost lost the state his brother is governor of--and yet many Republicans think he's their man.

Why? Why is George Bush better for ordinary, everyday Republicans than John McCain?

A reader shares her thoughts on Max Cleland:

From: "Nan"
To: editor@201k.com
Subject: War Hero!
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004

Even if the circumstances were as she stated, he would still be a "war hero". He is a "war hero" because his accident would not occurred if he hadn't been in a war zone, and most of all because he survived, surmounting enormous obstacles to take his place in society. Thank you for standing up for him.

Thank you. Look, our understanding is that "she" is as wrong about the circumstances of Cleland's injury as she is about everything else.

But think for a minute what kind of partisan low-life you'd have to be to decide that the best way to defend against perfectly legitimate questions surrounding George Bush's military service--given all his "warrior" posturing, mind you--is to strike out at another guy who lost three limbs to a dropped hand grenade while he was serving in a combat capacity in Vietnam.

Even if he was on his way to have some beers with his buddies--don't you think he deserved them? Can't a guy have a beer four days after being cited for "exceptionally valorous action" and "gallant action...in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service" which reflected "great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army" ?

Four days later someone dropped a grenade and blew his legs and arm off. Jesus Christ and she's got a problem with that?

201k maintains that George Bush's service record would not be an issue for us if not for his current actions. He's the one who said "I've been to war". He's the one who launched the first preemptive war in our history--on highly questionable intelligence. He's the one who said, "Bring 'em on." He's the one who paraded around an aircraft carrier in a flight suit.

It's George Bush's advisors who brought this scrutiny on him. They're the ones the right wing should be attacking. Whichever of them had the bright idea to dress him up like GI Joe is the one they should be angry at.

For them to take it out on Max Cleland is disgusting.

Another reader wrote to clarify our confusion with local talk radio. We expressed surprise at the odd coincidence of both a dj and a caller deciding that John Kerry was to blame for the war in Iraq--since that was the stupidest thing we'd heard in a while. Mark, who is familiar with the program, wrote to explain that both dj and caller were, "muddle-headed, lick-spittle, servile, obsequious sycophants".

Well, that clears that up.

The next time someone quotes the shameless right-wing harpy who claims Max Cleland is not a war hero because he lost his limbs in an accident, remind them that he was a war hero before the accident--a fact she conveniently omitted from her despicable and partisan attack on him.

Four days before losing both legs and an arm to a grenade dropped by another soldeir, Max Cleland was cited for "exceptionally valorous action":

"Awarded: Silver Star; Date Action: 4 April 1968; Theater: Republic of Vietnam

"Action: For gallantry in action while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an armed hostile force in the Republic of Vietnam. Captain Cleland distinguished himself by exceptionally valorous action on 4 April 1968, while serving as communications officer of the 2nd Battalion, 12th Calvary during an enemy attack near Khe Sanh, Republic of Vietnam.

"When the battalion command post came under a heavy enemy rocket and mortar attack, Capt. Cleland, disregarding his own safety, exposed himself to the rocket barrage as he left his covered position to administer first aid to his wounded comrades. He then assisted in moving the injured personnel to covered positions. Continuing to expose himself, Capt. Cleland organized his men into a work party to repair the battalion communications equipment which had been damaged by enemy fire. His gallant action is in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service, and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.

"Authority: By direction of the President, under the provisions of the Act of Congress, approved 9 July 1968."

We at 201k are still talking about this business of Laura Bush defending George's military record. Some readers have emailed to say, hey, she has a right to defend her husband. Fair enough.

But we'd draw a distinction here. Everyone has a right to defend his or her spouse (and we'd hope they would). But Laura Bush didn't say "my husband is a man of great integrity--I trust him and so should all Americans". That would be her opinion, and she's entitled to it.

What she said, essentially, was that he was there, he served--and that goes right to the heart of a factual dispute at the center of a current political controversy. No one else from the White House could say that to a reporter without being challenged on it.

And she went further than that, attributing motives to those who are asking question about the president's record. And again it went unchallenged.

Comparisons to Hillary Clinton, who as first lady had a great deal to say about both politics and policy, make our case. Hillary officially dove into the swamp, and took plenty of lumps for it. She put herself in play, and was fair game.

Laura Bush has not put herself in play. She has chosen the far more common path of detached political spouse--a speech on children or education here and there, and not a controversial policy statement in sight. And for that she has rightly been off-limits.

But in commenting on her husband's military service, she has ventured into a political red zone--one in which the ball is very much up in the air, with lots of hands grabbing at it. It is no place for someone who expects to be considered above the fray.

She cannot fairly expect to both jump into the scrum, and not be in the game. She can't have it both ways.

And there's something else. What if it turns out that George Bush's National Guard service is not what he's claimed all these years? We're not saying we know one way or the other, obviously. But it is a question we think is still very much up in the air.

And that being the case we think someone in the White House should have made sure that the first lady didn't take a public stand on it.

It really isn't fair of first lady Laura Bush to be commenting on how "political" it is that people are calling her husband's military service into question.

Because, of course, no one would dare say to the first lady, "Well, ok, so where was he all those months?" Can you imagine the outcry if someone did that?

How dare someone ask tough political questions of the first lady, they'd say. How ungallant, how rude. And of course, no one has.

But then, well, shouldn't she not be taking advantage of that? Shouldn't she not be commenting on it?

Jeez, if you had a suspicious mind, you'd think the Bush campaign people knew this, and maybe even were doing it on purpose. What with the timing of it and all.

Nah. That would be hiding behind...well, you know.

James Glanz, in today's Times:

Scientists Accuse White House of Distorting Facts
By JAMES GLANZ

The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad, a group of about 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement issued today.

Dr. Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University who signed the statement and spoke in the conference call, said the administration had "engaged in practices that are in conflict with the spirit of science and the scientific method." Dr. Gottfried asserted that what he called "the cavalier attitude toward science" could place at risk the basis for the nation's long-term prosperity, health and military prowess.

The scientists denied that they had political motives in releasing the documents as the 2004 presidential race began to take clear shape, a day after Senator John Kerry won the Wisconsin Democratic primary and solidified his position as President Bush's likely opponent in the fall. The organization's report, Dr. Gottfried said, had taken a year to prepare — much longer than originally planned — and had been released as soon as it was ready.

"Political motives"?

People have been screaming this stuff for three years and the media has ignored them. Now, finally, the world's top scientists come together to demand accountability, and the media feel obligated to ask if there are political motives for it?

Why is every criticism of the Bush administration, no matter how well documented, subject to this caveat?

We honestly suspect that if video footage of George Bush beating his grandmother were to fall out of his pocket during a press conference, the media would describe it as "election-year fodder for Democrats".

How about this: does the media ever ask the White House if their interpretation of scientific data--or intelligence--is "politically motivated"?

201k admits to watching a bit of CNN, especially NewsNight with Aaron Brown--who is sometimes criticized for trying to elevate discussion above the third-grade level--and Paula Zahn, who we've found occasionally challenges both Republicans and Democrats rather than just the Democrats.

However, Zahn's show is a different animal when hosted by CNN anchor Daryn Kagan.

On each occasion that Kagan has guest-hosted Paula Zahn Now she has made our teeth ring with her snarky attitude and, frankly, biased approach.

Partisan paranoia, you say? The transcripts don't lie. In fact, given that transcripts don't adequately describe Kagan's smirky demeanor, they actually do her more justice than she deserves.

Examples abound, but last night's show will do fine. Here she is talking to Crossfire's James Carville:

DARYN KAGAN: Let's focus on John Kerry, the front-runner. As you see it today, how strong of a candidate is he across the country for a national election?

CARVILLE: Well, he's won 14 out of 16 primaries. And he's leading President Bush in all of the polls. But John Edwards

KAGAN: Well, that goes back and forth, not all of them. Some days, Bush is.

Devils's advocate, you say. There's no Republican so she has to play the roll, you say.

CARVILLE: OK. Very few that he doesn't lead, OK?

KAGAN: OK.

CARVILLE: And any instance, any challenger that's in this kind of shape right now, it portends pretty good for the fall. So -- but the truth of that matter is, I guess, if Edwards came up and won a couple of primaries, he does quite well against Bush also. I don't think it takes very much to beat President Bush right now.

KAGAN: Really?

You will have to look for a video to hear how sarcastically she said the word "really".

KAGAN: Well, you're very -- you're optimistic about that.

Devils's advocate, you say. There's no Republican so she has to play the roll, you say.

KAGAN: Republicans will point out, Democrats, oh, Democrats are great at whining, great at talking about what's wrong, but they're not good at putting out a vision for what they see.

Devils's advocate, you say. There's no Republican so she has to play the roll, you say.

CARVILLE: I have no idea what they're talking about. Under Bill Clinton, we had peace and prosperity. I don't know which one of the two so offended them. And we had a $5.6 trillion budget surplus when he left office.

They have offered us nothing on what to do to control rising health care costs. So they're a whole bunch of areas out there that Democrats can offer not just a different alternative and vision, but just talking about it would be more than this administration is doing.

KAGAN: Well, and we'll see how they do. And we gave you the free ride there because it is a Democratic primary tonight.

See, she was merely playing devil's advocate because there was no Republican to counter Carville. She even felt the need to say so. Well, at least there was a balanced approach--Carville's and hers.

KAGAN: James Carville, thank you.

CARVILLE: You bet.

KAGAN: We decided a free ride wasn't the best idea. We wanted to get a Republican view of tonight's primary.

Surprise! Before half a second had passed, ta-da, a Republican!

Well, no matter--she's the devil's advocate. She'll reverse gears and challenge the GOP guy as directly as she did Carville. You know, all that "Democrats are great at whining" stuff.

KAGAN: For that, we bring on Rick Graber. He is chairman of the Republican Party in Wisconsin. He speaks tonight for the Bush-Cheney campaign. And he joins us from Milwaukee. I'm sure you were able to hear James Carville there talk about -- become, he doesn't care which Democrat. He thinks any Democrat could beat George Bush in 2004. I imagine you see it differently, sir.

GRABER: Oh, we absolutely do.

James obviously hasn't spent a whole lot of time in the state of Wisconsin lately. We have a very, very united party that believes very strongly in what this president is doing to make this a safer world, what he's doing to improve the economy. He inherited a very difficult economy from the Clinton administration, and we're seeing slowly but surely jobs are coming back. The economy is improving. People are getting back to work. We feel very, very good about our chances this fall.

Jobs are coming back? Oh boy, here is comes! Daryn Kagan, devil's advocate, is going to let this guy have it now. Hee-hee, we can't wait!

KAGAN: Well, and let me ask you specifically about Wisconsin. It's so interesting, went back and looked it up. In 2000, if your state had been any closer, it would have been Florida, two-tenths of one percentage point going, though, to Al Gore, not to George Bush. In that time, your state has lost a number of jobs. Do you think, in 2004, are you confident it will tilt the other way for the Bush-Cheney ticket?

Um...wait a sec..that wasn't...wait...she just...

GRABER: ...we look forward to the opportunity to compare the president's record with John Kerry's record, which -- he is the presumptive nominee. It's a record that's very confusing to us.

You look at where he was on the war against Iraq, where he was on the Patriot Act, where he was on the No Child Left Behind legislation, and now see what he's talking about on the campaign trail, and it's two different worlds. People in Wisconsin like straight shooters.

Ok, NOW she's going to let loose. He just directly criticized John Kerry using GOP talking points, with no Democrat there to rebutt. She hates that--just look at what she said to Carville. Here we go...

KAGAN: Very interesting that you're bringing up John Kerry as if he is the presumptive nominee. What do you think would be better for the Republicans at this point, for the Democrats to wrap it up, so that John Kerry is the true nominee, then you can zero in, target him, and make it a one-on-one race, or would it be better to have this go on and on, let the Democrats spend some of their cash, and deplete those resources?

What "would be better for the Republicans at this point"?? That's what she asked? That's her response to his unchallenged partisan shots at Kerry? What happened to the devil's advocate? Why, if we didn't know better we'd think the GOP got some kind of unfair advantage from Daryn Kagan. Carville gets the devil's advocate routine, but Graber gets "advise and consent"? Hard to see how it could have been worse.

KAGAN: Oh, we have time for more questions.

Oh for the love of...

GRABER: Sure.

KAGAN: What are you going to look for with the results for tonight? It is different in that it's an open primary. Anybody can step up and vote. So what kind of results will give you the kind of information you're looking for?

GRABER: I don't think you're going to see extreme amounts of Republican switch over. Again, the people feel passionately about the president.

I expect Republicans went to the polls today and voted for George Bush, even though he was the only candidate on the ballot for Republicans today. Beyond that, we're going to be looking at local elections. We'll certainly be looking at what the margin of victory is for Senator Kerry, if, in fact, that's how it turns out. But we're really getting ready for the fall. That's what our focus is right now.

KAGAN: Thank you. Appreciate you joining us tonight.

For the record on this last point, a huge number of Republicans turned out to vote in the Democratic primary. According to CNN's own exit polls--which Kagan undoubtedly knew about, because within moments she and Wolf Blitzer would begin trading talking points about them in anticipation of the 9pm poll closings--a full 10 percent of voters in the Democratic primary were Republicans, and the vast majority of them voted against John Kerry.

Let us repeat that Daryn Kagan knew that by this point. Yet she asked Wisconsin's GOP chief the bizarre question, "what kind of results will give you the kind of information you're looking for?"

The question obviously should have been: "Given that this is an open primary, what effect do you think the votes of Republicans and Independents will have on the result, and what will it mean?" Right? But instead, after hob-nobbing with him for five minutes, she asked whether the results will give him the information he was looking for. What kind of question is that?

Memo to Paula Zahn: take as many days off as you want, but we're not watching if Daryn Kagan sits in. Get someone who can at least pretend to be unbiased.

The 40 percent of non-Democrats who voted for John Edwards in yesterday's Democratic primary in Wisconsin may have thought they were harming front-runner John Kerry by splitting the vote, but in fact they did him, and all Democrats, a big favor.

The candidate who is most harmed by a longer Democratic primary process is George W. Bush, because as soon as the race for the nomination is over, two things will happen: the press will stop covering John Kerry except in reference to Bush, and Bush's own campaign will be able to let loose, without distraction, the mountain of slime they have piled up for Kerry.

Whether they like it or not, the mainstream press is obliged to cover the Democratic primaries. As long as there is a contest, their coverage will give Democrats the platform from which they've made headway with the public by pointing out the realities of Bush's catastrophic policies.

It's the only thing that has brought substantive criticism of Bush to television. And we have no doubt that once there is no reason for the media to cover "the race" for the nomination, they'll go right back to the strange and obsequious silence that has marked their approach to the president since, well, since he announced his candidacy for office.

We also doubt that John Edwards and John Kerry will now turn on each other. Neither man is stupid enough to fall into that trap. Both surely recognize that the key to success--for them and for the party--is to continue to focus their weapons on the ultimate target: Bush.

If there's a down-side to Wisconsin for either of them, it's that with the imminent demise of the Dean effort, CNN's GOP campaign mole Candy Crowley (who can't even pronounce her own name right), will be freed up to latch onto one of the remaining Democrats, in much the same way that the Alien tried to do to Sigourney Weaver.

Call us cynical, but we're betting CNN assigns her to Kerry.

Forget the hard drive break-in scandal in the Senate--it's the NY Times that seems to have a problem with shared data.

Today David Brooks is channeling Thomas Friedman--or at least has come up with another stupid device for insisting that John Kerry keep up George Bush's war in Iraq.

How weird is it that conservative Brooks and "liberal" Friedman would both be stretching their imaginations (and reader's credulity) towards the same end: maintaining the war in Iraq?

Freidman's tactic was to concoct the notion that Iraq was at a "tipping point"--which was pure nonsense--to explain why Kerry had to carry on with Bush's crusade, WMD or no WMD (see 201k February 15). And to do it he employed Times columnist William Safire's favorite rhetorical device: the imaginary conversation.

Safire likes to tell his readers what to think by telling them what Richard Nixon thinks down in hell.

Brooks, who, coincidentally, a week ago used the Safire/Friedman imagination technique to "imagine" what president George Bush should have said to Tim Russert (as opposed to what he did say), came up with his own reason for why John Kerry needs to keep swinging the big hammer that George Bush dropped on Iraq: he has to be more like Truman and Kennedy and less like Carter.

Oh, and the smart people in the Democratic party have "recovered from Vietnam".

Never mind the humor of any Democrat, let alone John Kerry, taking advice from David Brooks, who in the same column concludes that Kerry's having fought the Vietnam war then protested it suggests "expediency". No word from Brooks what George Bush's having supported it but not fought it suggests. Honor and dignity, presumably.

Forget that it was listening to hawks that led John Kennedy to make the second biggest mistake of his presidency--the Bay of Pigs invasion--a mistake borne of being new to the job and not realizing just how misguided by ideology were those who advocated it.

Never mind that the "lessons of Vietnam" were never more relevant than today, a world in which the very people who didn't learn them ended up in charge, and--what do you know--led us into a foreign war under questionable circumstances, and now are straining mightily to cover their tracks.

Most of all ignore the fact that Brooks invents this silly political diorama with no reference to the somewhat relevant fact that Iraq had no WMD or ties to Al-Qaeda, and wasn't actually an imminent threat to the US--which should probably figure into any discussion of whether we should have fought a war there at all, let alone why John Kerry will best be served by continuing to wage it.

No, the thing to really marvel at is that in one week both David Brooks and Thomas Friedman have cooked up stupid rationalizations in the NY Times for insisting that John Kerry get in touch with his inner hawk. Presumably later this week Safire will report from Hades that Nixon thinks Kerry should invade Syria.

Is this theme week at the NY Times? Or should someone there check the hard drive security, to see if these guys are looking in each other's files?

201k listens to very little talk radio, but did tune in to Boston's 96.9FM for a few minutes today. Wow.

This station is owned by Greater Media, which operates several stations out of the same office in town. Don't know whether they are themselves owned by someone else. Probably.

Anyway, we listened for about five minutes, which was long enough to hear the dj and a caller agree completely about who was to blame for the fact that we have troops in Iraq on the basis of bad intelligence. Actually, it was kind of weird how much they agreed; it was less of a call-in and more of a mutual affirmation that just kept going and going.

Their shared opinion, mind you, was simply a matter of looking at all the available evidence, and in no way reflected any political or partisan leanings. It just happened that they both had come to the conclusion that all the facts clearly indicated that--all protestations and evasions to the contrary--one man was ultimately responsible.

One man, though he may try mightily to deny it, could not, in their opinion, duck responsibility for the bad intelligence that led to our troops being in Baghdad--which was a good thing, make no mistake, because it got rid of Saddam and made us all safer from terrorism--but as far as the poor intelligence itself that led to the decision to go to Iraq, it was clear to both of them that there was one man responsible, and that man was Sen. John Kerry.

Seriously. We couldn't possibly make this up.

Their reason, if you care, was that having served for so many years in the Senate he would have had access to intelligence data, and therefor should have known the Iraq intel was bad.

So there you go, in case, in your unenlightened fog, you maybe had thought of one or two other names that might just possibly have had something to do with it.

All we can say is, if there are people out there that believe this kind of thing, and believe the people and the media outlets that tell it to them, then this country is in much worse shape than we suspected.

We spent most of last night catering to a sick toddler instead of sleeping. The repercussion is the residual paranoia borne of time spent in the late-night anxiety closet between trips to his room.

The product of which is the mind-numbingly stupid notion that--get this--someone is controlling what we see and hear on TV and radio.

No, the impetus for this preposterous idea was not the shock of discovering we shared it with the comically dishonest William Safire--though that should be reason enough. No, it's worse than that.

It's not because we believe that the institution of a broadcast delay in live TV is an over-reaction to Janet Jackson's classless Super Bowl stunt. Although we do.

It's not even from learning that networks and cable outlets are now picking and choosing among political ads from interest groups and "public service messages" from the Bush administration. Though frankly we found that disturbing.

No, believe it or not, the last straw, the thing that pushed us over the edge into tinfoil hat land, was when we learned that the Canadians are now going to do the same.

In case you missed it (and who didn't?) Canada is currently in an uproar over two separate incidents of Quebecois-bashing on TV. The most recent came courtesy of the puppet Triumph the Insult Comic Dog during a Toronto taping of the Conan O'Brien show, and the previous from legendary hockey scold Don Cherry, who is sort of a cross between Ray Walston, a plaid blanket, and, well, Triumph the Insult Comic Dog.

The result of which is that Canadian TV will now have a seven-second delay to "to suppress any future insults before they are broadcast".

Putting aside the chilling image of what hockey commentary--or any television, really--will be like when someone in a broadcast booth can delete, at his sole discretion, anything deemed "insulting", doesn't it strike anyone as odd that this happened within weeks of the same thing here in the US? What are the odds of that?

In the last month both the US and Canada have had incidents which caused network TV to institute broadcast delays of unscripted events--one to prevent "obscenity", the other to prevent "insults". Both result in someone, somewhere, being able to delete remarks from the public's hearing without, as far as we know, any publicly-discussed guidelines for doing so.

This at a time when US networks are actually choosing between political and public-service ads--airing some and refusing to air others while rival networks do the opposite--with one, ABC, deciding to air only an edited version of a government ad.

Meaning that a viewer's assessment of reality may literally depend on which network he or she watches.

It's bad enough for diversity of opinion and free speech that five companies own essentially every media outlet in America. Are we now being tricked into allowing outright censorship?

We await the men in the white suits to pick us up and take us to Happy Land. At least we'll be able to sleep in the truck.

Is it just us, or is NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman completely full of baloney?

His most recent column is as good an example as we've seen. As always he starts with an agenda and works his way backwards til he's filled a page--and as always he's about as subtle as a pro wrestler cheating behind the referee's back.

The tip off to Friedman's increasingly ham-fisted machinations is that they always have a faulty premise. This is because, unlike people who are using reason, he doesn't actually start with a premise but with a conclusion for which he has to construct a plausible beginning.

This time his agenda is to put John Kerry on the spot in committing the US to achieve Friedman's goal of continued military dominance of Iraq (and who knows how much else of the Middle East) through the device of an imaginary interview with Tim Russert. (What is it with Times columnists and imaginary conversations?)

The premise which conveniently requires Sen. Kerry--as a matter of grave importance, of course--to promise to uphold the war which Friedman hold so dear, is the notion that Iraq is at a crucial "tipping point":

The situation in Iraq is fast approaching the tipping point. The terrorists know that if they can wreak enough havoc, kill enough Iraqis waiting in line to join their own police force, they can prevent the U.N. from coming up with a plan for elections and a stable transfer of U.S. authority to an Iraqi government. Once authority is in Iraqi hands, the Baathists and Islamists have a real problem: They can't even pretend to be fighting the U.S. anymore. It will be clear to all Arabs and Muslims that they are fighting against the freedom and independence of Iraq and for their own lunatic ideologies. Which is why they are desperate to prevent us from reaching that tipping point. Their strategy is to sow chaos, defeat President Bush and hope that his Democratic successor will pull out. Which is also why at this moment the most important statement on Iraq that can be made — one that could even save lives — is nothing President Bush could say. No, the most important statement on Iraq right now could only come from the likely Democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry.

In case you don't get it, we're at "a tipping point".

Rubbish. The "Baathists and Islamists" won't stop when a government is established. They'll keep killing and wreaking havoc because they won't consider any government legitimate other than one that consists of themselves. The "Arabs and Muslims" who share their views will agree, and those who don't already know about their "lunatic ideologies".

There's no "tipping point". The people now killing anyone who cooperates with the US in Iraq will keep killing after a government is set up, and after we've left. They won't stop trying to destabilize the country, and they don't care what Arabs and Muslims who don't agree with them think. That's who they're killing now. And the sad fact is, a great many Arabs and Muslims in the world do agree with them.

It's a bad situation. One that many people predicted would happen if Saddam was toppled. But nothing about it requires John Kerry to assure anyone--not Baathists, not Islamists, and certainly not Thomas Friedman--of anything at all, let alone that he'll vow to continue to manage George Bush's colossal blunder to Mr. Friedman's specifications.

Now that questions about his National Guard service and his Iraq WMD claims have finally dented the public's perception of George Bush's vaunted credibility, 201k recalls another time in which the president's bona fides didn't exactly shine.

In a 1999 Republican primary debate Mr. Bush was asked, along with the other candidates, to name the "political philosopher or thinker" with whom he identified most. He answered, "Christ, because he changed my heart."

201k, watching the debate, was intrigued by the notion of Christ as "political philosopher or thinker," and waited eagerly for Mr. Bush's answer when he was asked to elaborate for viewers.

Mr. Bush's elaboration was: "Well, if they don't know, it's going to be hard to explain. When you turn your heart and your life over to Christ, when you accept Christ as a savior, it changes your heart and changes your life, and that's what happened to me."

This non-answer struck 201k as bewildering at the time, and has stuck in our heads ever since. How could George Bush, a self-described "born-again" Christian, be unable to cite even one specific example of the philosophy of Christ?

Not one.

201k were not exactly the star pupils at bible class--and yet we can think of four right off the top of our heads. Candidate Gary Bauer, who also named Christ, quoted scripture and mentioned the obligations he felt Christians have. But the best Mr. Bush, who supposedly reads the bible every day, could come up with was, "if you don't know then I can't explain"?

His campaign claimed that this response reflected a conscious decision on Mr. Bush's part to avoid turning the debate into a religious discussion. But that just doesn't cut it.

The truth is Mr. Bush's answer was lame. Particularly since he was the one who'd brought Christ into it in the first place.

The uncomfortable question this episode raised in our minds--which has lingered to this day--is whether Mr. Bush was a sincere born-again Christian who truly felt that Christ was his favorite philosopher but after saying so wasn't able to articulate precisely why--or if he was the type of person who said things he thought people wanted to hear, and got churlish or evasive if asked to back them up.

Nothing that's happened since has dissuaded us of the impression that it's the latter.

The GOP hooey machine has managed, in the last few days, to cajol the media into pretending that the issue at the heart of the flap over George Bush's military record is the service itself. Even the occasionally honest Paula Zahn is on board.

The question is not the president's service, it's his honesty.

The issue of who had to fight the Vietnam War and who did not is bigger than George W. Bush. It was a national blemish that has never really been examined with the kind of public soul-searching that it deserves. The fact is that many wealthy kids didn't have to go, while many poor kids did.

On this issue 201k agrees with New York Rep. Charlie Rangel, who believes that in the future any military draft should include everyone's kids. That way, he argues, those in the Congress casting their votes for war will know their own kids will have to go. This was not the case during Vietnam, and George W. Bush is not personally responsible for that. He was just one of many who benefited from an unfair system.

But he is responsible for what he does now. And that's the problem.

The President's surrogates are pointing to Bill Clinton's non-service as if it proves hypocrisy on the part of Democrats. What hypocrisy? Bill Clinton opposed the war.

Further, Bill Clinton bore the burden of his non-service for two terms. Every time the question of sending troops somewhere in the world arose, Republican partisans cried foul, arguing he had no right to be Commander-in-Chief. Far from getting a pass on his non-service, he had to answer for it constantly.

The GOP points to John Kerry's anti-war activities after his service as if it proves something horrible about his character. What it really proves is that John Kerry is a man of integrity; he served with distinction in the war, turned against it, and came home and fought it, also with distinction. He was consistent in his committment to his convictions.

George Bush supported the war in Vietnam. And like others who did, he was lucky enough to get a state-side position so he wouldn't have to go there and fight it. Also like many, he perhaps didn't take that position too seriously, and was eventually allowed to walk away from it. That's the way it was then, and he should not be held personally responsible for the system that permitted it.

But he is responsible for how he acts now. And what he does is go out of his way to portray himself in a blatantly military way.

George Bush knows he didn't fight in Vietnam. He knows he failed to accomplish his medical examine and was grounded, after which he never flew a jet again. He knows it. So when someone came to him with the idea of jetting out to an aircraft carrier to parade around in a flight suit for the cameras, he should have said no.

This stunt, like many others his handlers have come up with, was done for the express purpose of giving him a military-looking photo op. And it was only one of many. In fact we cannot remember the last time the president spoke to a non-military audience. At every event he is surrounded by flags, ships, and uniforms.

In January of 2002, President Bush said, "I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go to war." A joke, perhaps, but an uncomfortably revealing one. It's not one that someone should make, who knows, in his heart, that he had not been to war. There should have been a little voice that stopped him from saying it.

It is not George Bush's service record from thirty years ago that bothers 201k. It is the lack of that little voice. It is a question of internal honor, and external honesty.

He should not be held responsible for the draft system of yesteryear. But knowing what he does about his own service, he should have had the integrity to resist basking in the reflected glory of the US military.

President Bush brought upon himself this unpleasant examination of his record, and he has from the beginning had it in his power to make it go away. He should be honest with himself, and the country, about his service. We are a forgiving nation; few will hold him accountable for his actions of thirty years ago.

It is what he does now, and how he handles and acknowledges his past, that is the true test of his character.

President Bush tried today to backpedal from remarks made this week by the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, N. Gregory Mankiw, who said that the epidemic of US companies sending jobs overseas is a good thing:

"Outsourcing is a growing phenomenon, but it's something that we should realize is probably a plus for the economy in the long run," Mr. Mankiw said.

The problem with Mr. Mankiw's remarks, for President Bush, is that they reveal how his administration and its supporters in big business actually feel.

Mr. Mankiw is not the only one saying that outsourcing is good for the economy. You can read that opinion any day of the week in the business section. Because it is good--for some people.

It's the same theory as always: lower costs (and taxes) produce higher profits which theoretically leads to growth and jobs--except for the jobs part, which are being created overseas where it's cheaper. But maybe, the believers continue to chant, if the profits keep up, well, someday hiring will pick up here. Maybe if folks had enough "training".

So Mr. Mankiw can be forgiven for thinking this way--they all do.

But he wasn't supposed to tell the plebes.

The Top Ten Reasons to Support Gay Marriage:

10. Don't believe it affects own marriage at all.

9. Really don't care what other consenting adults do in their bedrooms.

8. Actually know some gays.

7. Heard George Bush was against it.

6. Don't want to vote on someone else's civil rights because they might want to vote on mine.

5. Don't secretly hate gays.

4. Fantasizing about 70's-style "key party" with hot lesbian couple down the street.

3. Think more hair salons should be "pop & pop" operations.

2. Don't believe it's "activist" for the Massachusetts SJC to rule on the constitutionality of a case before it, but is "activist" to want to change the Constitution if you don't like the ruling.

1. Skin crawls to hear activist from Alabama come to Boston and drawl, "We want to hold our legislators accountable."

A reader's thoughts on the anti-gay marriage carpet-bagger express:

To: editor@201k.com
Subject: We Wish They Were In Dixie
From: Diane
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004

Hey,

Great post!! I'd been noticing the very same thing as I watch the news. Who the hell are these people, and why are they lobbying OUR legislature????

On the other hand, as a resident of the very gay-friendly Brookline, I have noticed that every person quoted in the papers as being pro-gay marriage seems to be from Brookline.

201k noticed the same thing.

Here's a message to the Dixie anti-gay brigade: these people who want to get married are our friends, neighbors and relatives, not yours.

201k has noticed something disturbing about the anti-gay marriage forces that have appeared in Massachusetts to fight the SJC's decsion. Most of them aren't from here.

• "We want to hold our legislators accountable," said [Jenny] Whatley, 25, a volunteer for the Massachusetts Family Institute, which crafted the original constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage. Whatley, who is from Alabama, said yesterday's outcome "is vital to our nation."

• Leading the charge in late 2003 to form the Coalition for Marriage, which includes seven out-of-state groups, was Massachusetts Family Institute President Ron Crews. A former Georgia state lawmaker, Crews helped ban gay marriage in Georgia, Kentucky and Tennessee before relocating to Massachusetts to lead the Institute.

• The Coalition for Marriage is comprised of a growing list of local and national members, a steering committee ... Former Louisiana State Representative Tony Perkins...

And the list goes on.

A quick web search shows that this anti-gay marriage group has been moving around the country from state to state, pushing for gay marriage bans.

Do we really want Massachusetts law written by these people?

A reader sent a link to this story:

Texas mom faces trial for selling sex toys

DALLAS, Texas (Reuters) -- [Joanne] Webb, 43, was arrested in November by two undercover police officers for selling sexual toys and charged with violating Texas obscenity laws. She could face up to a year in jail and a fine of $4,000 if convicted.

Webb is a representative for Passion Parties, a California company marketing potions, lotions and sexual toys sold at gatherings that mimic Tupperware parties.

Two undercover police officers posed as a couple trying to spice up their love life and Webb sold the woman a vibrator. Webb instructed her on its use and explained how it could enhance lovemaking.

That's where she got into trouble.

Texas law allows for the sale of sexual toys as long as they are billed as novelties... But when a person markets sex toys in a direct manner that shows their actual role in sex, then that person is subject to obscenity charges...

According to reports in the local media, police said a few residents, who they declined to identify, lodged complaints. A few prominent citizens with strong Christian beliefs were angered by Webb and her activities and asked police to investigate, local media reported.

Gloria Gillaspie, a pastor at Lighthouse Church in Burleson, said she has met and counseled some women who had talked to Webb about the products she sold.

"It was causing problems with their marriages," she said.

201k admits to being a bit curious as to what problems, exactly, vibrators were causing in marriages. That anyone would admit to, that is.

Maybe that's why they declined to be identified.

A reader has reminded us to go back and re-read Robert Byrd's speeches on Iraq, starting in February of last year.

Example from March 11, 2003 (pre-war):

"I believe this coming war is a grave mistake, not because Saddam Hussein does not deserve to be disarmed or driven from power, not because some of our allies object to war, but because Iraq does not pose an imminent threat to the security of the United States. There is no question that the United States has the military might to defeat Saddam Hussein, but we are on much shakier ground when it comes to the question of why this nation, under the current circumstances, is rushing to unleash the horrors of war on the people of Iraq.

In many corners of the world, the United States is seen as manufacturing a crisis in Iraq, not responding to one. Key members of the U.N. Security Council, including France and Russia, have vowed to veto any move to secure the imprimatur of the UN on war with Iraq. The UN weapons inspectors have pleaded for more time to do their work....

Mohamed El Baradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, threw cold water on a key assertion of the Bush Administration, that Iraq is actively pursuing a nuclear capability on two fronts -- by importing high-strength aluminum tubes which could be used as part of a centrifuge to produce enriched uranium and by attempting to buy uranium from Niger. Dr. El Baradei said the inspectors have found no evidence that Iraq is attempting to revive its nuclear weapons program, concluding that the aluminum tubes were for a rocket engine program, as Iraq claimed, and that the documents used to establish the Niger connection were faked."

201k would add that while George Bush followed the neocon line into Iraq, Pakistanis were selling nuclear secrets. Americans should be very uncomfortable with this, given the prevalence of fundamentalist Islamic sentiment in the Pakistani military. And of course the fact that Osama bin Laden is hiding out somewhere around there.

Now, after two years of playing to the cheap seats with his "either you're with us or with the terrorists" routine, George Bush is belatedly going back the world to try to stem the flow of nuclear technology. Of course he'll present it as a new challenge posed to the international community by his administration, but only viewers of Fox News will believe that.

In reality Bush has come all the way back to "police action" as the means to fight terrorism--which is where the U.S. and everyone else was before he abandoned it in favor of unilateral military action.

If the next smoking gun is indeed a mushroom cloud, as George Bush warned, will anyone hold his administration responsible for its decision to take the "War on Terrorism" to Iraq, while nuclear secrets were escaping from Afghanistan's neighbor?

201k stands second to no one in our admiration for intelligent, independent, and even slightly eccentric women. In fact, we love them.

But someone needs to tell Theresa Heinz Kerry to stand still while Sen. Kerry is talking.

This is not a matter of anti-feminism, or any "stand by your man" stepford wife baloney. It's purely about theatrical body language. When someone fidgets next to a speaker it sends the visual message that what the speaker is saying is not compelling. It distracts the eye and the ear of viewers.

People listen with their eyes. This is stage technique 101, and if Ms. Heinz going to be on stage with Sen. Kerry she needs to learn the chops.

No matter how many times you've heard a speech, you have to remember that many people in the audience are hearing it for the first time. You have to sell it each time. That's the gig. It's what every actor, musician and yes, politician learns.

Every member of every performance of every kind has heard every line in it a hundred times. But when it comes time to deliver those lines to an audience they have to be as riveted by them as they want the audience to be--otherwise they send the signal that what's being said isn't worth hearing.

Why do people (well, not real people--the media) keep saying Al Gore has "moved to the left" in his increasingly hostile criticism of George Bush?

What has calling Bush names got to do with left or right? Al Gore isn't advocating socialized healthcare or nationalization of the railroads. He's calling George Bush a liar. Political theory has nothing to do with it.

Just because you hate the Yankees doesn't automatically make you a Red Sox fan.

We have sympathy for this situation because we get so many emails that start "you liberals..." and we always wonder, why are we "liberals" because we don't believe the Bush administration's budget numbers? Or its "intelligence" about WMD in Iraq?

Especially since we've been right about it all. Pun intended.

Look, when we start arguing for the raising of taxes to pay for social programs, call us liberals. When we point out that irresponsible tax cuts have put the federal budget a half trillion dollars in the red, we're not liberals, we're "people who can do math".

Of course, 201k isn't really confused at why this happens. It's labelling to avoid confronting the issues. The media can avoid dealing with Al Gore's charges by just calling him a "leftie".

So it's come down to this.

The White House's explanation for the questions surrounding George Bush's National Guard service boil down to five main arguments:

1. He got paid so he must have been there.

2. He was honorably discharged so he must have been there.

3. No one can prove he wasn't there.

4. We won't stand here and listen to people question the honor of the National Guard.

5. John Kerry is a Massachusetts liberal.

The problem with numbers 1 and 2 is that, well, lots of people got paid and received honorable discharges without attending.

The problem with number three is the documentation saying he wasn't there.

The problem with number four is that it's an insult to the intelligence of the American people to pretend anyone is denigrating the National Guard by wondering exactly when George Bush left it, and whether he was given credit for attending when he didn't.

The problem with number five is that John Kerry graduated from Yale University--just like George Bush--volunteered for Vietnam, saw combat, was decorated, and then came back to fight against the war openly, publically and honestly.

What in the world is NY Times writer Richard W. Stevenson doing, injecting partisan politics into this quote?

Democrats and liberal groups responded to the interview with further attacks on Mr. Bush's credibility, suggesting that the president exaggerated the degree of cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda...

Technically true, we suppose, but look:

The President himself--after grammatically joining them for months--admitted there was no "cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda", even as his own Vice-President continued to claim such a connection existed.

If the White House has a problem with this allegation now it's because they couldn't even get their own story straight. For Stevenson to go out of his way to mention that "Democrats and liberal groups" are pointing out the contradictions is a little beside the point.

Two days after president Bush's Meet The Press interview with Tim Russert, the NY Times' coverage of it has passed into the realm of the bizarre.

201k has not received a reply from the Times' "public editor" Daniel Okrent to our email questioning why the paper has nowhere, in all of its reporting on the interview, mentioned allegations that the Bush administration exaggerated Iraq WMD intelligence (see 201k Feb 8).

On Monday morning, an AP story which disparagingly referred to the charge in passing, calling it "election-year allegations", was replaced by a Brian Knowlton article--using the same URL as the AP story--which contained no mention whatsoever of the charge.

But today the Times has had the equivalent of a nervous breakdown. For while the news division still refuses to acknowledge even the existence of the allegation, both the editorial page and columnist Bob Herbert call president Bush to task for it, one calling his explanations "inaccurate" and the other asking him to "do himself and his country a favor by establishing a closer relationship with reality".

While 201k recognizes the difference between editorializing and reporting (perhaps better than many news organizations), we wonder what in the world is going on when editorialists at the Times are criticizing President Bush for something their own news division hasn't--or won't--report?

This is where this stands as of now at the Times:

Today the paper reports on the interview twice, in an article by Elisabeth Bumiller--which mentions the allegation not at all--and in one by Richard W. Stevenson, who mentions only the (now disproved) notion of a connection between Iraq and Al Qaida--attacks on which he colors as partisan:

Democrats and liberal groups responded to the interview with further attacks on Mr. Bush's credibility, suggesting that the president exaggerated the degree of cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda

That's it. "Democrats and liberal groups...suggest" an "exaggeration". That's the extent of the news division's coverage of the charge that is literally all over the place, and which is clearly spelled out on the paper's own editorial page:

Another question average Americans will be asking themselves this election year is whether the Bush administration, which wanted to invade Iraq even before Sept. 11, manipulated the intelligence reports to frighten Congress and the public into supporting the idea. The president's claim yesterday that Congress had access to exactly the same intelligence he had was inaccurate, and his comments about the new commission he has appointed to look into intelligence gathering made it clear that he has no intention of having his administration's actions included in the probe.

The question itself, posed to President Bush by Russert, is in the Times, in the interview transcript:

RUSSERT: There is a sense in the country that the intelligence that was given was ambiguous, and that you took it and molded it and shaped it, your opponents have said "hyped" it, and rushed to war.

BUSH: Yeah.

RUSSERT: And now, in the world, if you, in the future, say we must go into North Korea or we must go into Iran because they have nuclear capability, either this country or the world will say, 'Excuse you, Mr. President, we want it now in hard, cold facts.'

BUSH: Well, Tim, I and my team took the intelligence that was available to us and we analyzed it, and it clearly said Saddam Hussein was a threat to America. Now, I know I'm getting repetitive, but I'm just trying to make sure you understand the context in which I was making decisions...

The rest of the president's (non) answer is not important, because 201k is not concerned with the truthfulness of the allegation. At least not yet. What we're concerned about is the reluctance of the New York Times to even report that it exists.

The sad truth is that this sort of duality by the Times--and others--is exactly what got the country here in the first place. By refusing to accurately report clear contradictions and dissembling by the Bush administration, the paper contributed to the president's credibility. Editorial page tsk-tsking means nothing if the facts are not reported.

It is not "partisan" to report on legitimate questions, especially if the questions go to the heart of the credibility of the president of the United States.

Pretending questions do not exist does no one but partisans a favor.

201k is stunned. The New York Times has replaced this morning's objectionable A.P. article on president Bush's Meet The Press interview--an unsigned piece that went out of its way to smear as "election-year allegations" perfectly legitimate questions about the White House's use of Iraq WMD intelligence--with a new version, penned by the International Herald Tribune's Brian Knowlton, which makes no mention at all of any such possible misuse.

This new story has the same URL as the previous one, meaning all links to the old one lead to the new one.

We thought the press could not do worse than A.P.'s blatant editorializing on this very serious charge. But the New York Times has gone one better by literally expunging it from the record.

President Bush's good friends at the Associated Press jumped in early on his behalf today, in their first report of his interview with GOP bagman Tim Russert on Meet The Press.

The most pressing question on everyone's minds, of course, is whether the White House cherry-picked or otherwise influenced the intelligence which led to the war in Iraq. And A.P. deals with it in their second paragraph:

Bush denied he led the United States into war under false pretenses, but he acknowledged that some prewar intelligence apparently was inaccurate. He did not directly respond to election-year allegations that his administration exaggerated intelligence to bolster a march to oust the Iraqi president.

"Election-year allegations"?

This is the Associated Press' first report of president Bush's first response to his first direct question on the most explosive charge that can be leveled at a president. The evidence for this charge is literally everywhere, including on the covers of some of the nation's leading magazines.

But A.P. can't report on this simple fact without smearing it as partisan--in an unsigned article.

The only thing relevant about this being an "election year" is that if it were not, George Bush would not feel obligated to go on a talk show and try to explain away this debacle. Otherwise we could all go f*** ourselves as far as he's concerned.

Week two of The Newshour's embargo on entertaining the notion that the Bush administration might have cherry-picked the prewar intelligence ended, finally, with their first explicit broach of the subject.

The interviewer was once again Margaret "Not On My Watch" Warner, who had the misfortune of having former Sen. Bob Graham repeat the charge until she could simply ignore it no longer. Though she tried.

MARGARET WARNER: Sen. Graham, what was your reaction to what the president did today? Do you think this will get to the bottom of these intelligence problems in the WMD area?

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: ...There are some issues that are going to have to be dealt with from the standpoint of the perception of the American people that this is a totally independent group. One is, it should be made clear, that they will have the authority not only to look at the capabilities of the intelligence community but how the product of the intelligence community was used by decision-makers.

This, Sen. Graham's first remark on the program, clearly spells out his primary concern regarding the credibility of the independent commission.

Second the commission should have the power of subpoena and there should be a commitment by those agencies such as the FBI that they will enforce those subpoenas. We had a situation with our 9/11 review in which legally authorized subpoena was issued and the FBI refused to deliver it.

Third: accountability. I don't think that we can put off until March of 2005 determining who was responsible for the intelligence lapses that have recently occurred, and finally, intelligence reform. It will be three and a half years after Sept. 11, when we reach March of 2005.

So Graham raised three main concerns, and spelled them out clearly. But Maggie hears only one, to which she adds her own--"scope":

MARGARET WARNER: Sen. Roberts, do you think that the deadline is too far in the future? And obviously part of that is the scope of this inquiry because it is looking beyond Iraq but do you think it should be shorter and more tightly focused on Iraq?

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: (Picks up on the "scope" idea--which came from Warner--then rambles on, repeating irrelevant talking points.)

Warner follows by asking both men their opinion of the commission members, and whether they lend it credibility----still ignoring Graham's primary condition for credibility.

MARGARET WARNER: ...I'm wondering whether you think that the fact that the president appointed all these members does in any way compromise either the independence or credibility of this group.

But Graham will not be deterred:

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: Yes, I think it does create a cloud over the commission's work and therefore steps to try to remove that cloud need to be taken, such as the two that I mentioned. One was to be assured that the commission will have the authority not just to look at the capabilities of the intelligence community but how the intelligence community's information was then utilized by decision makers and second, that it needs to have a full array of legal capabilities including the power to subpoena witnesses, the power to subpoena documents and the understanding that the appropriate federal investigative and law enforcement agencies will comply with and if necessary, enforce those subpoenas.

Ok, that's twice he's said it. But Maggie is not going to budge. She hears only the second half of his answer, which she quickly dismisses before returning to her point, which is the members themselves:

MARGARET WARNER: Well, the president did say that he was directing all the agencies to cooperate but more on the make-up of the commission. There are really only three people out of the seven names so far who have any real background in intelligence. Secondly there's one the sitting member from the House or the Senate, Sen. McCain, on the committee. There's no Democrat. Does that concern you? Were you asked?

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: If that question is directed at me, the answer is no. (Comments on some of the commission members.)

MARGARET WARNER: And how about you, Senator Roberts, how do you feel about the make-up of the commission, in terms of not having people who've dealt a lot with intelligence or military matters?

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: (Rambles on, repeating irrelevant talking points.)

Finally, after more than a week of pretending this question does not exist (see 201k's entries for Jan 30, Jan 31, and Feb 3) The Newshour and Margaret Warner, unable to avoid it further, ask the question the whole country has been asking for weeks:

MARGARET WARNER: Sen. Roberts go ahead now and comment on the point that Sen. Graham has raised a couple of times having to do with whether this commission will be able to and should look not only at intelligence gathering and analysis by the agencies involved but at how the White House used it. Sen. McCain did say today over in Munich that he did think everything would be looked at but the president did not mention it. Do you think this commission should look at that aspect?

Readers can go to www.newshour.org and watch the video to see for themselves how uncomfortable Warner was while asking this question. She even felt the need to drop John McCain's name as an excuse for asking it. And having managed--barely--to get the words out, she was more than happy to let Roberts evade it completely:

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: We have the same kind of situation in regards to the Senate, the Senate Committee on Intelligence where there's been a lot of talk about the use of intelligence. As a matter of fact there was a memo that was talked about quite a bit several months ago about the vague notion of use. If that simply means you do a Lexis Nexis search of public statements by top administration officials and then you take a look at the intelligence and you say wait a minute, doesn't back it up and you simply ask people to come down and explain that, I think that's already been done by a host of administration officials.

It's hard to decide what's worst about this answer: that Roberts didn't answer the question, switching the subject from the independent commission to his own Senate Committee, or the fact that America should accept his reasoning that what questions have already been asked about the difference in the WMD claims and the reality in Iraq are sufficient.

No, actually, the worst thing is that Warner is pleased as punch to accept this answer, and goes along with the switch to the Senate Committee:

MARGARET WARNER: Do you want to give us -- I know there's a draft report of your committee's report circulating privately. Do you want to tell us what was your bottom line assessment about what was underneath the intelligence failure in Iraq or whether it was an intelligence failure?

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: I would love to tell you but I don't think I can do that.

And that was the end of that.

That's as close as the Newshour has yet got to the question that every other news source is openly debating. And it took Sen. Bob Graham's dogged persistence in bringing it up to get even that much out of them.

Is it just us, or is it a little odd that president Bush announced the independent commission on prewar WMD intelligence before all the members were selected?

Has that ever happened before? A presidential press conference to announce a bipartisan commission--with only five of the seven members chosen? When the story first appeared, 201k was cursing the NY Times for not reporting all seven names. It never occurred to us that all seven names hadn't been, well, named.

And, with no disrespect intended, 201k has only heard of a few of the people selected. This commission is charged with looking into what may have been the gravest error ever made by the United States. Its members should be the most respected, most recognized, most high-profile names in America: former presidents, chairmen of the joint chiefs, etc.

Instead we get the president of Yale and Lyndon Johnson's son-in-law?

As for the choice of Sen. John McCain: while he is well-known, respected, and possessed of a famously independent streak, the fact is that he's gone on record repeatedly in the last week as completely supporting the war, and flatly stating that he could not accept the notion that a president would mislead the American people. With all due respect to Sen. McCain, those are conclusions best left for after the investigation, not predetermined before. This is, after all, a matter of US credibility.

201k has seldom found solace in the words of Senate minority leader Tom Daschle, whose tepid style and constant strategic retreats frankly drive our combative East Coast natures bananas. But we completely agree with him on this:

"I still believe we need a comprehensive, genuinely independent inquiry to provide our troops and all Americans the answers they deserve."

For some reason the punditocracy expects the country to believe that Tim Russert is a tough, fair-mided journalist, and that this Sunday's interview with George Bush will be a challenge for the President. Bull cookies.

Russert is a GOP bagman, and make no mistake, Bush would not be going on Meet the Press if it weren't in the bag.

Don't believe us? Take a look back at the video tapes of the Clinton/Lazio NY senate debate. Or the Romney/O'Brien Massachusetts gubernatorial debate. Or the (Jeb) Bush/Graham Florida gubernatorial debate. In all three cases the GOP candidates were in trouble before their Russert-moderated debates, and of the three only Hillary survived to win the election.

In all three debates Russert either sprung some cheap trick on the Democratic candidates or just went easy on the Republican. (You'll recall the video footage of Hillary Clinton defending her husband in NY, and the left-field question to Massachusetts Democratic candidate Shannon O'Brien about a minor's right to an abortion without parental consent--an existing law that had nothing to do with O'Brien or the election, but which had no politically correct answer.)

Russert is the guy the GOP calls when they need a media heavyweight to bail them out. And he always answers the bell.

You heard it here first: whatever he's asked, George Bush will do "surprisingly well" on Meet the Press, and before the end of the day the talking heads will be telling the country what a great job he did.

201k bets the script for that has already been written at Fox News.

CNN commentator and newly-minted populist firebrand Lou Dobbs has suddenly discovered that American jobs are being shipped overseas because--get this--the labor is cheaper and there's less regulation.

201k was stunned to learn of this from Big Lou, and wonders why the heck, if it's true, he's only getting around to mentioning it now.

Whew Doggy! Listen to Lou rip into evil foreign outsourcer Atul Vashistha, who's taking American jobs to India:

DOBBS:...when we watch and as we document here, literally hundreds of thousands of jobs being shipped to cheap overseas labor markets, those jobs are replaced typically by salaries that are 30 percent lower and there is no migration up the value chain, it's down the value chain. So, how does that help America?

• ...let's talk about those hundreds of thousands of jobs -- people glibly talk about training. Men and women who have trained themselves in a variety of skills who have a variety of educational pursuits and degrees, I hear people start talking about training as if that's a panacea.

What jobs should they train themselves for? We are shipping high value jobs overseas to India, to the Phillipines, to Ireland, to Poland, to Russia, for crying out loud. What in the world are we supposed to train them to do?

• Now, I understand the profit motive, as a matter of fact, no one is more pro business, pro American free enterprise than I am, but I'm also pro American worker. What in the world -- you talk about pain, we're seeing evidence of it every day.

• So what you end up is, a race to the bottom as it's been styled. Because if one company is go over to India to get a job, to pay a salary that is a tenth of what they would be paying in this country. They are forced to compete. Is not free trade. This is not comparative advantage, as envisioned by David Ricardo, this is the wholesale exportation of American wealth.

• Consumption power in this country for the last three decades have declined over the past three years has actually fallen even more dramatically than that average over three decade. It is quite the inverse.

• We created 22 million jobs during the course of the Clinton administration, 1992 to 2000.

VASHISTHA: ...what is happening today is I think this is the next evolution in the global economy.

DOBBS: That's wonderful. Great evolution, if you believe that the United States should be shipping its wealth, its jobs, standard of living and quality of life to third world countries where there are no regulations for environment, no regulations for labor, no standards that is a requirement here in this country.

The logical extrapolation it seems to me, Atul, is that if we are going to compete fairly, with fair trade and a globalized market, it seems to me that India, the Phillipines, Mexico, a Central American nation should have the same standards, otherwise we're competing simply on the price of labor.

• You are not innovating. You are not being more efficient. You are talking about hiring cheaper labor. Those are only code words for cheap labor. McKenzie did a study, as you're aware of, in what is the bulk of the gain for American companies

VASHISTHA: Well, it's...

DOBBS: All in labor savings.

VASHISTHA: A bulk.

DOBBS: The bulk, as in 70 percent of it.

• Atul, I understand your position. I understand the profit motive, but corporations have a stake in this country do they not?

• And they have a stake in the community, in investing in their people. They have a responsibility, because they are the beneficiary of this national American economy.

• I would much prefer to hear business people, men and women in this country running corporation and folks like you trying to make a dollar, you have a responsibility to this national economy. This is not just a market place. It's a nation. Right?

Wow. Lou seems to be bucking for the "William Jennings Bryan Award"--or maybe even a column in The Nation.

Don't get 201k wrong; we're thrilled to hear a national TV business commentator finally state the blindingly obvious, even if it's one who cheered on the "new economy" for years.

But what thrills us more is the suspicion that national TV business commentators only resort to stating the blindingly obvious when their email indicates that their viewers have caught on to it. That's a most encouraging thing.

Now if only Lou would consider the implications of everything he said on current U.S tax policy.

You need to get out front on the issue of so-called "tort reform". Look what the Bush campaign is saying:

[Bush campaign manager Ken] Mehlman said an incumbent president is often at his most difficult point right before it is clear who the opponent will be. "When people focus more on the choice, numbers historically have changed," Mehlman said. Bush's approach of lower taxes, less lawsuits and less regulation will resonate with voters, he said.

201k agrees with a Jan. 30 email from a reader who blasted John Edwards for his tepid and ineffective response to a question on tort reform during a recent primary debate. If Edwards, a world-class plaintiffs' attorney, can't do better, then the GOP and George Bush might just have its way with this issue. There's no need for that: this is an issue Democrats can win.

What Bush is trying to do is limit the rights of ordinary citizens to get their day in court. It's that straightforward. The "tort reformers" may ta