Welcome to 201k.com - A Commonwealth Perspective.

Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004
From: "Richard"
To: editor@201k.com

For some dumb reason the usual cast of characters, consisting of Republican attack dogs, Bush cheerleaders, and conservative pundit ideologues who regularly work the television/radio news/talk show circuit, and the conservative hosts of those shows, insist on putting a focus on John Kerry's military career with their inane obsession with his medals. Their refusal to let go of this issue is mind boggling because it puts focus on the military records of both Bush and Kerry, and Bush can't win that argument. They're so blinded by hate and ideology they can't see what a stupid tactic this is. As a Kerry supporter, I say to them, "bring it on dummies."

Now that Kerry has released his complete military record, they've had to drop their pathetic attempts to discredit one of Kerry's three Purple Hearts and they've moved on to whether or not he threw his medals or ribbons, or whatever (who cares) onto the White House lawn during an anti Viet Nam War demonstration.

There's no way to win the argument that says Bush's choice to serve (translation "hide") in the National Guard during the Viet Nam era was service that was equal to that of John Kerry's.

The National Guard in the 1960's was not the National Guard as we know it today. In the '60's the National Guard was well known to be a safe repository for draft eligible men who wanted to avoid risking their lives in an unjust and immoral war, but needed to find a way to fulfill their military obligation and avoid the draft. The truth was that the chances of a National Guardsman being sent to Viet Nam were very slim. I know of dozens of men (lots of '60's college grads who's draft deferments had expired) who signed up in the Guard precisely for that reason. Even though National Guard service during that era was pretty much a complete waste of time and taxpayer's money (except for the rare activation in the case of a domestic emergency) the possibility of getting drafted made it an appealing alternative. As a result, there were long waiting lists to enlist. But George Bush, thanks to family ties, got pushed right to the top of the list.

So maybe Bush did technically fulfill his military obligation. The emphasis is on "maybe", because there's strong doubt as to whether he actually completely fulfilled his duty. But Bush's fuzzy National Guard service record doesn't hold a candle to the military service of John Kerry who volunteered to serve in combat, and did so with courage and honor. Case closed.

And so, if the issue of "who's military service to the country was most admirable" is a voting issue, Kerry wins hands down.

Richard

Dick "Captain Halliburton" Cheney is now saying that John Kerry -- recipient of three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star -- is unfit to lead the nation on matters of national security.

And George Bush is?

Bush can't even testify before the 9/11 commission without Cheney there to help him. John Kerry may have said some rash things in front of the Senate after returning from Vietnam 35 years ago, but at least he was able to sit there and do it by himself.

Seems to us that George Bush has had other people fighting for him, speaking for him, and bailing him out of trouble his whole life. Let's face it: whether it's Cheney -- there to hold Bush's hand at the commission hearings and attack Bush's likely opponent Kerry in the press -- or any of the other helpful souls willing to help Bush get into (and out of) the National Guard, fall all over themselves "clarifying" his often inane remarks to the press, or toil away at right-wing think tanks creating his administration's policies, there is very little record of George Bush having to do anything himself -- ever.

Consider for a moment the idea of a president Kerry being called to testify before a bipartisan commission. Do you think he'd need his vice-president to babysit him? Of course not.

201k has not yet endorsed a candidate for president, but Dick Cheney's remarks prompt us to make this observation: when it comes to national security, we'd much prefer a man with a proven record of speaking for and acting on his own to a man whose only attribute seems to be access to his father's rolodex.

George Bush lay awake one night in the White House, trying to decide what to do about the war on terror. Finally, in desperation, he slid out of bed, dropped to his knees, and began to pray.

"Dear Lord," he began, "please help me figure out what to do. Most of my advisors say I should pursue Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, make our country's seaports and airliners more safe, protect our chemical plants, and give our police and fire departments more money to prepare for attacks. But Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld really want to invade Iraq, even though the military says it's no threat and the CIA says it wasn't connected to 9/11.

"You have to give me a sign, Lord," Bush prayed. "Everyone but Dick and Don says Iraq will be a quagmire and cost thousands of lives, but I really, really want to invade -- it will make me look like a big shot for the election, and if I topple Saddam my daddy may finally take me seriously.

"What should I do? Please, Lord, please -- give me a sign. If I should stay out of Iraq, then give me a sign..."

Just then, the ground shook with an earthquake. The books fell off the shelves, a vase crashed to the ground, and all the curtains in the bedroom rolled up on their own. Dogs began barking all over Washington, and out of nowhere a sudden snow storm blew in and dumped half a foot of snow on the White House while leaving the surrounding neighborhood untouched.

"A sign," Bush continued, "give me any sign at all, Lord, and I won't invade Iraq...".

Subject: Bush of Arabia
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004
Subject: War President?
To: editor@201k.com

Whenever I hear supporters of President Bush deflect criticism of his administration's policies with their self-righteous indignation, claiming that the Iraq War makes him immune from reproach because he's a "War President", I have to laugh. I hear their melodramatic protestations and I imagine them picturing Bush, the War President, astride a big white horse, waving his sword, leading his troops into battle through the sands of Iraq and into the streets of Baghdad. Sort of like "Bush of Arabia".

I concede that the war with Iraq does indeed make Bush a War President. Hello!! He's the one who started the damn war in the first place! Using this "War President" business is the same twisted logic used by those who murder their parents and then plead for mercy because now they're orphans.

Which President ever wrapped his re-election around the theme, "I'm a War President"? Not Truman, not Johnson, and not Nixon. In fact, Johnson even bailed out during a war because he knew that Americans were so opposed to the Viet Nam War that it would be futile for him to attempt re-election. The country survived that mid-war Presidential change, and it's time for another.

Richard

1. The president of the United States told the ambassador to Saudi Arabia of his decision to go to war in Iraq BEFORE he told his own Secretary of State.

2. The ambassador to Saudi Arabia has promised the president that oil prices will come down in time for the election.

What the hell is going on here? How and why did the president's reelection campaign figure in his decision to go to war in Iraq, and in negotiations with strategic war allies?

From 60 Minutes:

It was just two weeks later when the president decided to go to war.

That decision was first conveyed to Condi Rice in early January 2003 when he said, "We're gonna have to go. It's war." He was frustrated with the weapons inspections. He had promised the United Nations and the world and the country that either the UN would disarm Saddam or he, George Bush, would do it and do it alone if necessary, says Woodward. So he told Condi Rice. He told Rumsfeld. He knew Cheney wanted to do this. And they realized they haven't told Colin Powell, the Secretary of State.

So Condi Rice said, "You better call Colin in and tell him." So, I think probably one of the most interesting meetings in this whole story. He calls Colin Powell in alone, sitting in those two famous chairs in the Oval Office and the president said, "Looks like war. I'm gonna have to do this," adds Woodward.

And then Powell says to him, somewhat in a chilly way, "Are you aware of the consequences?" Because he'd been pounding for months on the president, on everyone - and Powell directly says, "You know, you're gonna be owning this place." And the president says, "I understand that." The president knows that Powell is the one who doesn't want to go to war. He says, "Will you be with me?" And Powell, the soldier, 35 years in the army, the president has decided and he says, "I'll do my best. Yes, Mr. President. I'll be with you." And then, the president says, "Time to put your war uniform on."

Woodward says he described Powell as semi-despondent because he knew that this was a war that might have been avoided. That's why he spent so much time at the United Nations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

But, it turns out, two days before the president told Powell, Cheney and Rumsfeld had already briefed Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador.

Saturday, Jan. 11, with the president's permission, Cheney and Rumsfeld call Bandar to Cheney's West Wing office, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Myers, is there with a top-secret map of the war plan. And it says, "Top secret. No foreign." No foreign means no foreigners are supposed to see this, says Woodward.

They describe in detail the war plan for Bandar. And so Bandar, who's skeptical because he knows in the first Gulf War we didn't get Saddam out, so he says to Cheney and Rumsfeld, "So Saddam this time is gonna be out, period?" And Cheney - who has said nothing - says the following: "Prince Bandar, once we start, Saddam is toast."

After Bandar left, according to Woodward, Cheney said, "I wanted him to know that this is for real. We're really doing it."

But this wasn't enough for Prince Bandar, who Woodward says wanted confirmation from the president. Then, two days later, Bandar is called to meet with the president and the president says, "Their message is my message," says Woodward.

Prince Bandar enjoys easy access to the Oval Office. His family and the Bush family are close. And Woodward told 60 Minutes that Bandar has promised the president that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices in the months before the election - to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on election day.

Woodward says that Bandar understood that economic conditions were key before a presidential election: They're [oil prices] high. And they could go down very quickly. That's the Saudi pledge. Certainly over the summer, or as we get closer to the election, they could increase production several million barrels a day and the price would drop significantly.

This idiotic Letter to the Editor of the Times indicates that those with the broken antennae are picking up the GOP's desperate attempt to discredit the 9/11 commission:

To the Editor:

I am outraged by the fact that one of the 9/11 commission members is in direct conflict with this investigation ("For Members of Panel, Past Work Becomes an Issue in the Present Hearings," news article, April 14).

Jamie S. Gorelick was deputy attorney general under Janet Reno, and had to recuse herself from questioning Ms. Reno.

The commission is tainted. As it stands, it is also a waste of taxpayer dollars and time.

BRENDA LEPICK
St. Augustine, Fla., April 14, 2004

As mentioned here last week, the revelations of the 9/11 commission are so startlingly bad for the Bush administration that the GOP has no choice but to wage an all-out attack on its credibility. So they've widened their usual strategy of character assassination to try to encompass an entire bipartisan commission.

Ms. Lepick might be fooled, but we suspect the majority of Americans aren't.

As the old lawyers' saying goes: if the law is on your side, cite the law, if the facts are on your side, cite the facts, and if neither is on your side, pound the table. The Bush administration and its friendly hacks are pounding away mightily, but most people will see it for what it is.

We aren't just whistling Dixe (pun intended). In the last week we've heard from three former Bush supporters who have turned on him completely. What's more, they are three completely different types who supported him for different reasons, and who have all turned against him.

One is a regular guy, fairly conservative without thinking about it, who doesn't normally pay attention to politics but watches Fox News, and therefor has a skewed view of reality. He asked us if we'd seen Condoleezza Rice's testimony, and when we asked why he responded, "because she was lying--it was obvious that she was lying."

And it WAS obvious--but up to that moment this chronic condition for the Bush administration had not been clear to him. It is now.

The second guy is a friend we amicably refer to as a "soldier of fortune" Republican. His political philosophy is essentially military Darwinism--he believes that the US should do whatever and take whatever it wants in the world because it has the power to do so. His philosophical underpinnings for this view start with a confusion between the ethics of emergencies and the realities of society, and go from there--but that's a tale for another day.

He, who until now has been a strident Bush supporter, and who refers to John Kerry as "Kerredy", has decided that Bush is a religious zealot controlled by the Moral Majority (paraphrased) who MUST be defeated.

The third case is the most interesting. He actually called us at home to tell us about his switch. He is a moderately conservative guy--salesman, businessman--who says he was the only one of his friends to have supported the war, which he did for one reason only: he believed Colin Powell.

Those were his words: "I told everyone I believed Colin Powell because he was a stand-up guy and if he said Iraq had weapons then it must be true". Last week he CALLED US UP to say he'd been wrong--about the weapons and about Powell--and that he was embarrassed and disappointed.

Of course, the now-gone credibility of Powell is exactly what the Bush administration needed to sell the Iraq war. Our friend was not alone. But now he's so ticked off about being lied to that he made a $100 donation to Kerry and claims he may volunteer for him--the first time for a Democrat ever.

So while the Brenda Lepicks of the world may put party loyalty ahead of the truth, we believe that a majority of Americans are coming to grips with the inescapable reality that the Bush administration will do anything and say anything not only to enact their preconceived right-wing agenda, but also to cover up for the disasters that inevitably flow from them.

Bottom line for those on the fence is to ask themselves this: how are our troops in Iraq better off fighting essentially alone, just because the Bush administration didn't want to cut France and Russia in on the oil?

Who does that greedy pig-headedness help? Our soldiers?

What percentage of the Iraq oil do you think our soldeirs would trade for a truly international coalition to be with them right now?

More importantly: who made the decision not to give that percentage up? And why?

Subject: The Buck Stops Where?
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004
From: "Richard"
To: editor@201k.com

In defense of his administration's failure to act upon the August 6, 2001 PDB report, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.", President Bush shrugs off the report's warning of airplane hijackings by saying that it meant "hijackings for hostages, not hijackings to fly planes into buildings." Huh? Bush thinks that plain old garden-variety type hijackings for hostages aren't a serious enough threat to demand action? I'm amazed that anyone would buy this thinking as exoneration of Bush's responsibility. In other words, Bush felt that your basic hostage hijacking didn't require sounding the alarm. It didn't demand an immediate shifting of U.S. security operations into a serious alert that would put airlines, airline crews, airports and passengers into a heightened terrorist awareness mode. This thinking is beyond the pale of logic. It reeks of irresponsibility. It's inexcusable out-of-touch disengaged bad judgment. And he calls himself tough on terrorism?

Hello!!! Doesn't the hijacking of an airplane for hostages stand alone as a very bad thing? And the threat of that alone should have put hijacking preventive strategies immediately into play. Acting to prevent a hijacking for hostages would have been the prudent action, the automatic consequence of which would have been to prevent a hijacking for the purpose of flying a plane into a building. And that leads me to believe that maybe something could have indeed been done to mitigate the disaster of 9/11. After all, doing something would have been better than doing nothing. Even if it was simply to alert pilots, crews, airport security and passengers to be extra vigilant.

Oh yes, I forgot, the President said the FBI was looking into it. If that isn't the height of buck passing I don't know what is. Bush blames the FBI, the FBI blames the CIA, Dick Clarke blames the President and Condolezza Rice, and Condolezza Rice blames the FBI, the CIA, and Dick Clarke. Who's in charge here anyhow? I thought President Bush was supposed to be in charge. I thought that President Truman had set the standard for all Presidents to come when he said "The Buck Stops Here".

This Bush administration pass-the-buck circle reminds me of the famous political cartoon called The Tweed Ring, in which a bunch of corrupt political cronies in 19th century New York are all depicted pointing to the next person to assign fault for rampant government misdeeds.

Richard

Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004
To: editor@201k.com
Subject: Help me understand
From: Mark

Editor,

Much has come to light recently vis a vis the government's knowledge concerning the activities of individuals plotting terrorist attacks against the United States. The unprecedented release of a previously-classified PDB on the subject is a first in my lifetime. With today's testimony of Freeh and Ashcroft underway I expect the 9/11 Commission will gather more information in order to allow them to reach a more complete conclusion regarding the events that precipitated the attacks, the fact that several commission members have publicly stated they believe the attacks could have been prevented notwithstanding.

What strikes me most plainly, though, is the utter arrogance of the Bush administration in pre-emptively concluding that no one in the administration is culpable of anything, hence no public contrition or admission of failure of any kind. Richard Clarke is the only person intimately involved with the horrible events that has shown any character whatsoever, to the extent that he spoke directly to the survivors of those killed and actually expressed remorse and culpablility.

Worst of all is Rice's declaration that, given what was known and by whom and when, she doesn't see how anything could've been done differently. She doesn't see how anyone else could have looked at the same information she did and concluded anything other than what she concluded. She talks of "structural failures", in other words, bureaucracy got in the way. It wasn't her fault, it wasn't the numerous agency's fault, it wasn't the fault of those in charge on the various agencies. In fact, it was no one's fault, least of all the infamous George W. Bush.

My question, then, is this: WHAT ARE WE PAYING THESE DAMN PEOPLE FOR, ANYWAY??? You mean to tell me that NO ONE could've put two and two TOGETHER and determined that SOMETHING was wrong??? WHO IS IN CHARGE HERE?? Is that consummate FRAUD, "Dr. Rice", suggesting that BUREAUROCRACY caused the attacks on this country!? Are the survivors of those murdered supposed to take comfort in knowing that NOTHING could've been done DIFFERENTLY???

This is an outrage, an utter OUTRAGE! I've never seen so much public ass- covering, such brittle denials of culpability, such sanctimonious obfuscation in my life. Mediocrity, thy name is REPUBLICAN!

And all we have left is the same impotent question we are always left with. Why?

Mark

...is if there had been a large GOP donor whose business was anti-terrorism.

Instead the Bush administration was interested in "missle defense".

President Bush is satisfied that he did all he could to prevent 9/11--and many, many partisan Republican hacks agree completely with him, despite all evidence to the contrary. From A.P.:

The memo specifically told Bush that al-Qaida operatives had reached American shores, had a support system in place and were engaging in "patterns of suspicious activity ... consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks."

The memo's contents are somewhat of a surprise because for two years, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice starting with a May 2002 news conference left the impression that the document focused on historical information and that any current threats mostly involved overseas targets.

A surprise to who? Who thought she was telling the truth?

Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democrat on the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saw as significant the memo's references to May 2001 intelligence about a possible al-Qaida explosives plot inside the United States.

The "leadership at the top," he said Sunday, should have "butted heads together, get them in the same room, and then pulse the agencies: 'What do you know?' Get all of your agents out there with messages to say, 'Tell us everything you know at this moment."'

To Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., however, the memo should have created a sense of urgency.

"If you are having a brief that is entitled 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S.,' and then it lays out specific things ... you would think that that would raise enough caution flags that you would haul in the FBI, that you'd put out an all-points bulletin," he said.

Slade Gorton, a Republican on the commission, said the memo "did talk about potential attacks in the United States," but "it didn't give the slightest clue as to what they would be or where they would be."

Yeah, c'mon. I mean, if the memo had said something like, "The Terrorists called the FBI this morning and told them what day, time, and flights they had in mind" then of course President Bush would have done something to stop them. But without that kind of specific information, what could he possibly have done?

Sure, the CIA knew senior al Qaeda operatives were in the country, sure FBI field agents were reporting to Washington that strange Arab men were taking flight lessons and didn't want to learn how to land, sure the White House's chief of counter-terrorism was jumping up and down for months warning about al Qaeda, sure CIA director George Tenet told the president every day that they were hearing "increased chatter", and sure, a month before the attacks the president got a daily briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S." that warned specifically about hijackings -- but if the memo didn't have the exact day and targets, what could the President of the United States possibly have done?

Besides, he was on vacation.

The fact that all the above is true -- and that for two years the White House denied it -- is easily explained: it's all partisan attacks from Bush haters who don't understand that reelecting George Bush is far more important that discovering how the worst attack on American soil in history took place, and whether or not steps are taken to prevent it from happening again.

To review:

If the question is whether a Democratic president committed a sexual indiscretion in a period of unprecedented prosperity, then it's proper to spend $40 million in tax dollars to catch him in a lie about it. But if the question is how George Bush's government failed to prevent 9/11 despite mounting evidence and specific warnings of an impending attack, then, well, we really should be looking forward to the future, and not trying to assign blame.

Got it?

There was one consensus at this morning's 201k editorial board meeting: given the determination of the 9/11 commission to reveal the truth, there can be only one remaining strategy for those Republicans and Bush administration hacks who desperately do not want the truth to come out: attack the credibility of the commission itself.

The tried and true Bush methodology of character assassination is what they used on Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, Joseph Wilson, and others. But now Republicans like Mitch McConnell and Kay Bailey Hutchinson are charged with a much more daunting task: attempt to destroy the credibility of an entire bipartisan commission before the public hears what the commission has to say.

That may be a difficult task, given today's headlines, all a variation on "Bush Was Warned of Impending Attacks Using Airplanes", which directly contradicts previous Administration claims and casts a rather unflattering light on the administration's attempts to scuttle and stonewall the commission.

How many Republican attack dogs will hang in on this one, given that at least some members of the commission seem determined to tell the public the truth? Fox News can only spin it so much. Surely some will see the writing on the wall and bail.

The "D" Word
From: "Richard"
To: editor@201k.com
09 Apr 2004

I'm amazed at why the opinions of those who at first supported the Iraq war haven't been turned around when confronted with the Bush follies consisting of: "bring 'em on", "mission accomplished", non-existent WMD, misrepresented tales of Iraqis greeting our troops with bouquets of flowers, no Iraq connection to 9/11, jokes about missing WMD, the phony notion that Iraqi oil would pay for the war, and the ugly deteriorating conditions in Iraq? How could anyone still believe in this war? Who can't see that we just lashed out at Iraq because it was an easy target for a concocted and trumped up rationale for a war that could be sold to the American public? Is there any price that war supporters aren't willing to pay just because Saddam was an evil tyrant and despot? Where's the outrage?

Where are the non-stop protests and torrents of public anger that called for policy change during the Vietnam War? Relentless protesting and lobbying by opponents of that unjust war were effective enough to convince Lyndon Johnson that it was futile to run for another term, and pressured Nixon into bringing an end to the war. Where's the national indignation now? Why is this ill-conceived war different?

I ask my questions in the rhetorical sense, of course, because I think I know the answer.

The answer is simple: No "D" word. There is no military draft. Unlike the Vietnam War, the war in Iraq is being fought by a volunteer military. As a consequence, a sort of "not in my backyard" mentality sets in, whether or not anyone is inclined to admit to it. As long as millions of American families are not asked to sacrifice, and are not subject to the prospect of having to face the possibility of losing sons & daughters, husbands & wives, brothers & sisters, and mother & fathers, there will be no overwhelming pressure brought to heavily tip the scale against support of this war, and the idea of preemptive wars to come.

True, the brave and courageous men and women who volunteered to serve in the armed forces did so with the knowledge that they might be called on to engage in combat to defend our country. I assume that for most of them, however, having America striking out first with a preemptive war policy was not part of the enlistment package that attracted them to serve. But now the burden and cost is strictly on their shoulders alone.

It's frightening to think that as long as most American families aren't at risk to pay for and share in the deadly costs of this war, or other preemptive wars, the Bush Preemption Doctrine could just keep rolling merrily along, unchecked.

Richard
Fairfield, CT

If, as Condoleezza Rice says, the government didn't have any specific warnings of an impending attack using airplanes before September 11, 2001, why did some members of the government stop flying commercial airlines in the summer of 2001?

Why? What led to that decision?

Ms. Rice said she believed that a memo from a presidential briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, contained information that the F.B.I. was "pursuing full-field investigations" of the cells.

But she said she could not recall having discussed that information with Mr. Bush.

She added that the administration was aware that there were issues inside the United States, "but I don't remember the Al Qaeda cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about."

Mr. Ben-Veniste persisted, asking, "Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice" that the presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6 "warned against possible attacks in this country?"

He ended the question by asking her to give the name of the memo, to which she replied: "I believe the title was 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.' "

Answers to common questions about 201k:

Q. Is the "we" some sort of pretentious royal op/ed "we"?

A. No. 201k is the collaborative effort of several people (though all entries are posted by the Editor), none of whom are professional journalists. It began as an informal group of like-minded individuals sending emails to each other, grew into a large email list, and then into a blog. Ideas are still bandied about mostly by email, and the Editor turns them into posts.

Q. What does the name "201k" mean?

Originally, in August and September of 2002, 201k concerned itself strictly with the intersection of money and politics. The name 201k was a lame joke from political commentator Paul Begala: that George Bush had "turned people's 401k's into 201k's." Ha-ha.

After a year's hiatus, 201k restarted in September, 2003 as a full-service political blog. We kept the name because it was already linked to by other websites, was in the search engines, and because we're lazy -- but we added the sub-title "A Commonwealth Perspective", which we think is a pretty good name.

Q. Are you a man or a woman?

A. Of the four main contributors to 201k, two are women and two aren't. The Editor is married to one of the two main contributors that isn't a man.

Q. Why do you refer to your readers as "Poor Readers"?

A. That's just a little in-joke that goes back to when 201k was an email list. It's a term of endearment.

Q. You sometimes use the phrase, "Poor thing" to refer to people. Are you some sort of arrogant male elitist?

A. No. That's another little in-joke; it's from the movie "Harvey".

Q. Do you accept submissions?

A. Yes, but we reserve the right to edit. Use the email address under Jack's photo.

Q. You frequently print positive reader email, but rarely negative ones. Why is that?

A. Because we can do whatever we want. Also because we receive 95% positive email (though our email obscenity filter might be the reason for that). And also because, quite honestly, most of the negative emails we get are unbelievably stupid, childish, off-topic, irrelevant, or just plain nutty. Unless they present comic possibilities they're not worth the bother.

Q. If you publish a reader's email, will you print the email address?

A. For positive email no, unless specifically requested to do so. For negative email you take your chances.

Q. Do you ever go back and change previous entries?

A. On a very limited basis; usually only to correct typos and grammatical errors, and very occasionally to fix a factual error -- but only, in that case, if it does not substantively alter anything relevant to the essential point of the entry. There is no professional editing process, so typos and mistakes get through, which we do go back and correct when they're pointed out.

Also, from time to time Blogger makes format changes that require our going back and updating older posts to maintain stylistic uniformity. An example is post titles, which Blogger did not have when 201k started.

But if we discover anything essential in a 201k entry that turns out to be wrong, i.e., factually incorrect, we'll make a correction in a subsequent entry and add a note to the original entry. So we try to have a little integrity, despite our being amateur cranks.

Q. A link in an old 201k post doesn't work anymore! What should I do?

A. Oh No! Sadly, we can't control this. We'll try to include at least some of the text from a link, where possible, so that future generations studying 201k will know what was being referenced if links disappear. But we don't go back and check for this, so if you see one let us know.

Q. Do you grant interviews?

A. Only by email.

Q. Are you affiliated with a political party or candidate?

A. No.

Q. Why do you hate America?

A. We passionately love America, which is why we make time to write this blog. We appreciate our good fortune to have grown up in a free society, and desperately want our children to have the same opportunity.

The reporting of the economic and employment numbers from both the government and the media has been so politically charged that you need an accountant to make sense of them.

Fortunately, Poor Readers, we at 201k have one:

To: editor@201k.com
From: kbo
Subject: the numbers behind the numbers
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004

U.S. Payrolls Grew in March
At Fastest Pace in Four Years

By JOSEPH REBELLO and PHIL MCCARTY
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
April 2, 2004 8:50 a.m.

WASHINGTON -- U.S. employers in March hired workers at the fastest clip in four years, offering the brightest sign yet for the struggling labor market.

Nonfarm business payrolls grew by 308,000 jobs last month, faster than at any time since April of 2000, the Labor Department reported Friday. Still, the unemployment rate inched up a tenth of a percentage point to 5.7%. In recent months, the unemployment rate has declined mainly because people grew discouraged and stopped looking for work.

The report surpassed forecasts. Economists had expected payrolls to grow by only 120,000 jobs, and for the unemployment rate to hold steady at 5.6%, according to a survey by Dow Jones Newswires and CNBC.

If you read further on in this article, you'll see the job increases break out as follows:

services 230,000
retail 47,000
professional and business services 42,000
??? they don't say ??? 141,000
construction 71,000
government 31,000
other 6,000

Manufacturing jobs, they say, "held steady", while information jobs were down 1,000. So let's see, we have some additional construction jobs, which are relatively well-paying, an increase in gov't jobs (hmmm) and a whopping increase once again in service jobs. The trend continues.

Once again, the headline giveth but paragraph 14 taketh away. 277,000 retail and service-sector jobs--201k wonders how many of these are full-time and have benefits--147,000 jobs not described, and 31,000 new government jobs.

You want fries with that?

The main cover story promulgated by the White House and its defenders in the media (and on the 9/11 commission) to excuse its appalling lack of preparedness leading up to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, has been a variation on the "everyone does it" defense you sometimes hear from school children when cigarette butts turn up in the boy's bathroom.

Prevented by facts from defending in any serious way their own actions -- or lack thereof -- prior to the attacks, the administration has repeatedly suggested that "mistakes were made" not only by themselves (sort of, maybe, in a vague, not really to-be-held-responsible way) but by the previous administration (mostly -- yes, it was mostly Clinton's fault).

This theme was picked up most prominently by 9/11 commission member retired Admiral John Lehman, who seems to think that the panel's mandate runs not from August 1998 to September 11, 2001, as it does, but rather from Bill Clinton's birthday forward until January 20, 2001 -- and no further. The degree to which he has been willing to pursue this agenda is frankly embarrassing, and is documented here and elsewhere.

In any event, the storyline is clear: if mistakes were made, blame should be apportioned to both the current and previous administrations -- now let's move on and forget all about it before the election. And, oh yeah, sorry -- sort of -- for all the dead people.

The one teeny, tiny problem with this story is that, like so many others from the Whte House, it probably isn't remotely true. Ample sworn testimony from Richard Clarke and others has indicated that the Clinton White House, unlike its successor, was in fact very, very, aggressive about pursuing al Queda, and while up to this point that hasn't been enough to counter the spin and willful looking-away that has marked the coverage and commentary on this issue, the ugly truth that keeps flummoxing the Bush administration has once again reared up most inconveniently:

Bush Aides Block Clinton's Papers From 9/11 Panel
By PHILIP SHENON and DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON, April 1 - The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said on Thursday that it was pressing the White House to explain why the Bush administration had blocked thousands of pages of classified foreign policy and counterterrorism documents from former President Bill Clinton's White House files from being turned over to the panel's investigators.

The White House confirmed on Thursday that it had withheld a variety of classified documents from Mr. Clinton's files that had been gathered by the National Archives over the last two years in response to requests from the commission, which is investigating intelligence and law enforcement failures before the attacks.

Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said some Clinton administration documents had been withheld because they were "duplicative or unrelated," while others were withheld because they were "highly sensitive" and the information in them could be relayed to the commission in other ways. "We are providing the commission with access to all the information they need to do their job," Mr. McClellan said.

The commission and the White House were reacting to public complaints from former aides to Mr. Clinton, who said they had been surprised to learn in recent months that three-quarters of the nearly 11,000 pages of files the former president was ready to offer the commission had been withheld by the Bush administration. The former aides said the files contained highly classified documents about the Clinton administration's efforts against Al Qaeda.

The commission said it was awaiting a full answer from the White House on why any documents were withheld.

Now, Poor Readers, we find ourselves asking the obvious question: what is the most likely reason that the Bush White House would block the release of these Clinton papers?

Bearing in mind, that is, that this is the administration that assured the nation and the world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, that suggested repeatedly that there was a connection between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorists, that tried in vain to stop the creation of this very 9/11 commission, tried in vain to keep national security advisor Condoleezza Rice from testifying under oath, tried in vain to keep the president and vice-president from having to answer questions from the entire panel (not just the co-chairs the administration itself picked), is actively trying to keep from the public the specifics of the vice-president's energy task force meeting, that overrode by executive order the Freedom of Information Act, and that gave the vice-president, for the first time in history, the sole power to classify government documents.

Bearing in mind all that, what reason leaps to mind as the most likely that they would now be blocking the release of thousands of pages of Clinton-era documents relating to the "war on terror"?