Welcome to 201k.com - A Commonwealth Perspective.

201k is on vacation. Back July 6th.

Happy 4th of July!

Last night CNN's resident Wall Street flunky Lou Dobbs took a break from his recent populism to sneak a little propaganda for the Bush administration past his audience. The subject was the terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

DOBBS: Tonight, U.S. forces attacked a building that the military says was a safe house used by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al Qaeda's leader in Iraq.

What a difference a week makes. In five short days Mr. al-Zarqawi has gone from a known terrorist whose ties to al-Qaeda were a matter of rather serious political debate to "al Qaeda's leader in Iraq."

This rapid career advancement--for which Dobbs gives no evidence--prompted 201k to look at a week's worth of references to al-Zarqawi in the press. The source is a text search of the New York Times for "al-Zarqawi", which turned up Times, A.P. and Reuters stories. We searched only the last week. Here are the results, starting on June 17, 2004 and continuing til this morning:

JUNE 17

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/17/politics/17assess.html

RICHARD W. STEVENSON

...Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whose links to the terrorist group and Mr. Hussein's government remain sketchy.

JUNE 19

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/19/politics/campaign/19BUSH.html

ELISABETH BUMILLER

...a Jordanian jihadist who sought help from Al Qaeda in waging the anti-American insurgency after Mr. Hussein's fall...

JUNE 20

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/20/international/middleeast/20CND-FALLUJ.html

By FOOAD AL SHEIKHLY and JEFFREY GETTLEMAN

...one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq and the suspected mastermind of dozens of suicide attacks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/20/international/middleeast/20IRAQ.html

By EDWARD WONG and SOMINI SENGUPTA

the Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whom American officials accuse of being responsible for many of the spectacular suicide car bombs that have devastated Iraq.

So up to June 20, 2004 he's a terrorist who "sought help from Al Qaeda". But never fear, the arm of the Bush administration known as the Associated Press is on the job:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/21/international/middleeast/21KORE.html

June 21, 2004

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

...a Jordanian-born terrorist linked to Al Qaeda.

Linked? By whom?

The Times is not convinced:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/22/international/middleeast/22CND-KORE.html

June 22, 2004

By EDWARD WONG

...Jordanian terrorist

But A.P. is not about to give up, firing back:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq-Explosions.html

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 4:25 p.m. ET

...Al-Zarqawi, who is thought to have ties to al-Qaida...

By whom? Where is the attribution? Who thinks that? What is their evidence? Note the time of this story, and the two that follow.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq-Zarqawi-Glance.html

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: June 22, 2004

Filed at 7:26 p.m. ET

...Attacks claimed by groups associated with Jordanian terror suspect Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who is believed to have ties to al-Qaida...

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-US-Iraq-Chalabi.html

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: June 22, 2004

Filed at 11:06 p.m. ET

...the militant Abu Musab Zarqawi, an ally of Osama bin Laden...

And there you have it. Between 4:25pm and 11:06pm on June 22, A.P. took al-Zarqawi from "is thought to have ties to al-Qaida" to "an ally of Osama bin Laden" without a shred of evidence to explain the change. What, exactly, did A.P. learn in those six and a half hours that warranted this change? And why isn't it in the story?

Thereafter Reuters got a split personality, and couldn't decide if al-Zarqawi's links to al-Qaeda were an assertion or a fact:

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-iraq-falluja.html

REUTERS

Published: June 22, 2004

Filed at 5:16 p.m. ET

FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - The U.S. military said it launched a "precision strike'' on a safe house used by militants linked to al Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the Iraqi city of Falluja on Tuesday night.

So at dinnertime on the 22nd it's a fact. But by next morning it's American speculation again:

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-security-iraq-allawi.html

June 23, 2004

Filed at 3:54 a.m. ET

DUBAI (Reuters) - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who the United States says is al Qaeda's link to Iraq...

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-iraq.html

June 23, 2004

Filed at 7:04 a.m. ET

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - ...Washington, which views Zarqawi as an ally of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network...

Meanwhile, back at the Times, al-Zarqawi is still just a "Jordanian terrorist":

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/23/international/middleeast/23IRAQ.html

June 23, 2004

By EDWARD WONG and JAMES GLANZ

The killers were believed to be members of a group called Jamaat al-Tawhid and Jihad, which is linked to the Jordanian terrorist, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

This "confusion" is what made Dobb's assertion so startling. In the face of all of this he leapt to the head of the Bush league by promoting al-Zarqawi right to the top. Here it is again:

DOBBS: Tonight, U.S. forces attacked a building that the military says was a safe house used by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al Qaeda's leader in Iraq.

So why is it so important to Dobbs and A.P. that al-Zarqawi's ties to al-Qeada be cemented? Here's why:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/19/politics/campaign/19BUSH.html

"By the way," Mr. Bush said of Mr. Zarqawi, "he was the fellow who was in Baghdad at times prior to our arrival. He was operating out of Iraq. He was an Al Qaeda associate. See, he was there before we came. He's there after we came. And we'll find him."

See, if he's a terrorist tied to al-Qaeda then Bush didn't lie in taking the U.S. to war in Iraq. But if he's just a terrorist...

Obviously Zarqawi is a bad guy, whatever his party affiliation. But we'd love to know exactly what information the press had that would prompt them to go in a matter of hours from being uncertain of his connection to al Qaeda to calling him its leader in Iraq.

Vice-president Dick Cheney continues to insist that there was a "collaborative relationship" between al Queda and Iraq, despite the findings of the 9/11 commission and the CIA, and as evidence he cites a book that's just come out. The book bases its conclusion on data supplied by Douglas Feith, who, uh, works for Cheney.

Is that right? Did we get that straight?

Why are these people not in jail?

Remember the old Eddie Murphy routine where his girl says she saw him coming out of another women's apartment at 5am? He says, "wasn't me" and she says, "but I saw you--you were wearing the jacket I gave you for Christmas," and he says, "wasn't me", and she screams, "I saw you come out of her apartment at 5am wearing the jacket I gave you for Christmas, get in your car and drive away!" and he says, "wasn't me", and she pauses for a second and says, "well, maybe it wasn't him..."?

Apparently that's where the Bush administration is getting their political strategies. It's the "people believe what they want to believe" theory.

Here's a taste:

June 17, 2004

Bush's View on Qaeda-Iraq Ties Remains Unchanged Despite Report
By MARIA NEWMAN

A day after the commission investigating 9/11 reported that it had found no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, President Bush reiterated today that there were nonetheless links between the terror group and the Iraqi dictator.

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda," Mr. Bush told reporters after a cabinet meeting today.

But the 9/11 commission staff's lengthy chronology of the events of Sept. 11, 2001, said that although there was evidence of repeated contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 1990's, "they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

Speaking to a conservative think tank in Florida on Monday, Mr. Cheney said that Mr. Saddam "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda."

"It's not surprising people make that connection," he said about the polls.

The president himself made clear today that he has no regrets over his remarks.

"I always said that Saddam Hussein was a threat," Mr. Bush said today. "He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He was a threat because he was a sworn enemy to the United States of America, just like Al Qaeda. "

Wasn't me.

They really are just going to BS their way through this. Will the media let them get away with it?

Of course it will. Don't be silly.

The New York Times continues to make good on its Iraq War coverage mea culpa, today questoning, in the aftermath of the 9/11 Commission's unequivocal statement that Iraq had no connection to al Queda or the attacks on the U.S., whether George Bush is a liar ("knew he was not telling the truth") or "has a capacity for politically motivated self-deception that is terrifying in the post-9/11 world."

Coincidentally, two 201k contributors discussed that very question two nights ago. For the record, one thought it was the latter, and the other a variation of the former (the variation being the notion that he is not so much a liar as "the boss' idiot a-hole son who inherited the company, thinks he's hot s***, and treats the help badly").

But we fear that, as usual, those getting their news through a cathode ray tube will hear a somewhat different interpretation. Last night on CNN, Aaron Brown allowed a gaggle of Bush sympathizers (including the "terror expert" and GOP mole Peter Bergen) to water-down the impact and meaning of the commission's findings.

It didn't take long for "no credible evidence" to turn into "no proof", which is entirely different. We presume that's the hooey line of the week, and will soon appear everywhere. As in, "sure, there's no proof Iraq was connected to al Queda, but..." which leaves doubt not present in "no credible evidence," whose meaning is no evidence except that which is NOT CREDIBLE.

Sadly, one of the participants in this degradation of the truth was commission co-chair (and Democrat) Lee Hamilton, who was responsible for this bit of revisionist history:

BROWN: Congressman, tell me if this is overstating the situation that as we look at it today at almost every level, the intelligence community, the military community, to some degree even first responders in New York and perhaps to a lesser degree in Washington that no one was really ready for the kind of attack that al Qaeda envisioned on the United States on September 11, 2001.

HAMILTON: Oh, I think that's absolutely right. We just did not have the imagination to think about airplanes flying into the World Trade Tower or into the Pentagon and, in a sense, all of us were unprepared.

I was impressed again and again today with how slow we were, all of us, all aspects of government, the American people, in understanding the gravity of the threat from Osama bin Laden.

To 201k this sounds an awful lot like Condoleezza Rice's "no one could have foreseen" line, which, thanks to Richard Clarke, we all know is a lie.

Notice, by the way, Brown's choice of the phrase, "perhaps to a lesser degree in Washington". He may not be the most aggressive interviewer in the world, but he's precise. He knows that the idea that "no one was really ready for the kind of attack al Qaeda envisioned" is a canard.

So why is Lee Hamilton repeating it?

201k doesn't know if its proper to keep citing and commenting on the letters to the editor of the New York Times, but we are starting to get addicted to it. The way we figure, if a letter is published it's fair game. And they're never more than 100 words, which keeps it within fair-use. So until we're convinced otherwise, we're going to keep it up.

Today's contributors weighed in on the SC's decision to bounce Michael Newdow's challenge of the "under God" phrase in the pledge of allegiance on a technicality:

To the Editor:

You say "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950's to distinguish the United States from "godless Communism" (front page, June 15).

Generations like mine, born in the 1960's and beyond, grew up with this phrase and others like it, and the context of its inception has been wiped away by time. Therefore, it seems disingenuous and legalistic to me when the zeitgeist of 50 years ago is used as a reason to strike the phrase from the pledge.

The phrase may be the child of anti-Communist fervor, but it is no longer a child; to call for its removal solely to correct a past mistake would seem as shortsighted as inserting it in the first place.

JAMES MECHALAKOS
Cold Spring, N.Y., June 15, 2004

James apparently has never heard the phrase "those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it". Thankfully not all of his generation, "born in the 1960's and beyond" are so dimwitted to think that just because something happened before they were born (the insertion of "under God", the American Revolution, the Enlightenment, the discovery of fire, etc.) doesn't mean its context has been "wiped away by time".

James presumably believes that the "context" for Hitler's rise has been "wiped away by time"--after all, it happened almost thirty years before he was born.

Note to James on "context" and "time": 201k's father was born in 1922. That was four years after the Red Sox won their last World Series. He lived his entire life without seeing them win it. His grandson watched them lose last night. His father was born a scant few years after the end of slavery in the U.S.

Time is shorter than you think, James, and there's "context" all around us. Get a map--or better, a calendar--and get in the game.

Speaking of the thinking that only what we believe has value...

To the Editor:

At least Michael A. Newdow's daughter has the choice to refuse to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, because it goes against her father's beliefs. The children of parents who believe in God and creation have no such choice when they are in biology class every day and are forced to learn about evolution.

MARK SHIREY
Farmington Hills, Mich.
June 15, 2004

Well, actually, they have lots of choices. They could home-school. They could put their kids in private school, or religious school. Better still they could drop "biology class" and take "theology class"--or at least stop confusing the two and expecting others to abide by their mistake. But there's more to this than that.

Some time back we watched a documentary that dealt with the struggle of fundamentalist students studying archeology in Christian colleges. (To us that would seem a struggle indeed). One student explained, with all the self-seriousness of the college-aged, his dilemma:

On the one hand, he said, is the evidence and the history of accumulated study. On the other was his faith.

He weighted them equally.

Now, it's not to us to criticize anyone's faith. But we could not believe that someone of faith would have no recognition of its natural parameters. It never occurred to him that perhaps he--not God, and not science--was wrong.

Faith, by definition, is belief without proof. By its very nature it rejects the need for proof. Faith is something one believes because one believes it. And there's nothing wrong with that for matters of religion--everyone is entitled to their faith in America. But this unquestioning acceptance comes with a price. The price is the understanding that faith has a realm.

201k doesn't know archeology--or the bible, for that matter--from a bowl of oatmeal. But unlike the student or the letter writer we would not presume to assert whether God does or does not exist, nor would we, in our ignorance, lightly dismiss the established sciences of archeology and evolution because of something we "believe".

Those, like Mark Shirey, who demand that science bend to their faith, should be glad that science doesn't turn around and return the favor, demanding that his faith meet the requirements of the scientific method.

How would that work out for the faithful?

Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004
To: editor@201k.com
Subject: Reagan and Powell
From: Mark

Editor,

I've just two considerations today. Recently Colin Powell made the following remark vis a vis a State Dept report on the global threat assesement of terrorism: "Nobody was out to cook the books." Seems the report indicated that terrorism was on the decline post-9/11 when the truth of the matter is that terrist attacks have increased. Hmmmm. An official report stating a bald-faced lie. Has this occurred recently in any other forum? Oh, yeah, it was that State of the Union speech regarding WMDs in Iraq. Or was it the actual cost of the Medicare prescription drug benefit? No, wait, it was the total cost of the war in Iraq, that's it. Or maybe it was that whole "Mission Accomplished" thing. I'm confused. The more I seek the truth to set myself free, the more I become ensnared in utter prevarication. It's sad, really.

It was surreal to watch the sycophantic fawning of the press coverage of Reagan's funeral. To me Reagan was the guy who gassed college kids in Sproul Plaza with military-grade tear gas not to mention exhorting the SS, excuse me, I mean the constabulary, to "spill some blood", or words to that effect. He's the guy who had his own personal Watergate moment, otherwise known as Iran-Contra. He's the guy who said, "I know in my heart that we did nothing wrong but the facts say otherwise." Imagine that. Factual, verifiable evidence of criminal conspiracy and fraud that totally undermines what he "knows in his heart". I'm sorry, but the guy was a two- dimensional media creation. He's as controversial today as he was then and I suggest everyone needs to remember.

Mark
West Kingston, RI

To: editor@201k.com
From: "Kathleen"
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004
Subject: buried in the last paragraph of a story...

...on Bush and Kerry trading barbs on the campaign trail. Bush is bashing Kerry's "pessimism" (hmmm....let's see, what's the opposite of pessimism? And who has been getting round the clock coverage for his wonderful optimism? Let's see, the name's on the tip of my tongue)...

Anyway, back to the subject at hand:

Bush's campaign cited U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics figures showing the average salary for non-supervisory workers at $15.64 an hour.

But the bureau also reports that a bulk of the new jobs -- 978,000 -- come from the private services sector, where the average hourly salary is $15.24. Of the sector's professional and businesses services jobs created in May, nearly half are temporary help, the bureau said.

Subject: Reagan
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004
From: "Richard"
To: editor@201k.com

Thank God the Ronald Reagan coast-to-coast farewell tour is finally over. I hope Nancy makes sure he's in that coffin; I wouldn't be surprised if Bush has him stuffed and mounted and used as a stage prop during the Republican convention.

Richard
Fairfield, CT

Distracted by life and the nice weather, the amateur news cranks here at 201k have seen very little television the last week. What we have seen has been All Reagan All The Time, so we don't feel we've missed much.

But by complete coincidence we happened to be watching CNN last night when George W. Bush arrived in Washington and went, with first lady Laura Bush, to pay his respects at Reagan's casket. And it was weird.

We confess that Bush's mannerism and behavior baffle us; we've never taken away from his speeches, body language or facial expressions what his supporters and so much of the media seem to. To us he has always seemed to bounce between panicked insecurity and the highly unlikable swagger of a bully. His tough guy routine--the cocked-head squint he adopts when reading lines like "...or you're with the terrorists" has always struck us as unintentionally hilarious, like Pee Wee Herman doing Clint Eastwood.

In other words, we're no judge. But to us, his behavior last night at Reagan's casket was bizarre. He arrived to the usual Big Deal that accompanies his every choreographed move: a circle of hushed onlookers, the cameras and lights buzzing, etc. Clearly it was set up to give Bush a Great Moment.

But he approached the casket very quickly, looking distracted and even agitated. After stepping up to the coffin he seemed unsure what to do, then gave Laura -- who frankly looked confused as to what he was doing -- a nod, at which they both bowed their heads ever so briefly, before he gave her another nod, after which they exited so quickly it left everyone in the room -- and on CNN -- stuck for words. The whole thing lasted less than a minute.

Now we've said we just don't get this guy, so it could be that this was his attempt to look strong and reflective in a kind of Connecticut Cowboy way. But to us it was just weird. And judging from the awkward silence on air and in the room, we were not alone.

We wonder if the media will repeat the footage in its entirety, or will edit it to his benefit. Showed whole it makes for pretty uncomfortable viewing. Why couldn't Bush stand solemnly over Reagan's casket for more than 5 seconds? Where was the reflection from the man who claims to be Reagan's ideological heir?

Did Bush just have to go to the bathroom or something? Couldn't he have gone before?

To: editor@201k.com
Subject: Re: You are getting sleepy
From: "Diane
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:00:38 -0400 (EDT)

Hey, thanks for the post. My cognitive dissonance is SO much better now.

Diane

Well, thanks.

Man oh man. Last night we finally turned the TV on (to watch the Red Sox), only to be thwarted by a rain delay. So we flipped around the channels to find: All Reagan All The Time.

We honestly had no idea it was this bad. It's been a busy week and the tube hasn't been on. We didn't realize that's all they were playing. C-Span, CNN, Faux News, the networks, even the local news. They had every ridiculous angle covered, including some nitwit hack woman who claimed on CNN that Nancy Reagan was a more "important" (or maybe she said "influential") first lady than Eleanor Roosevelt.

Yeah, right.

Talk about revisionist history. Look, it's not worth explaining that having influence over you spouse (which Nancy Reagan surely had) doesn't make a first lady influential in the greater sense. And by the way, doesn't it just give you the creeps to say "first lady"? When did we turn back into a monarchy?

What's more important is the ham-fisted attempt by Republican partisans to create a Rooseveltian image for both the Reagans.

Look, we've long thought that most right-wingers suffer from jealousy and feelings of inferiority -- usually stemming from their inability to laid in college -- that often manifests itself as Roosevelt Envy. Extremist commentator Ann Coulter is a perfect example of this. Her adolescent drag-queen act reeks of geek, if you know what we mean.

As far as Reagan himself is concerned, we suppose you could make a case for his being Roosevelt's evil doppleganger. But, with all due respect to Nancy Reagan, running ads for the "Just Say No" campaign and getting into catfights with Raisa Gorbachev don't elevate her to the level of Eleanor Roosevelt, no matter how many Stepford GOP pundits wish it.

Ask yourself this, poor readers: how many little girls, do you think, want to grow up to be Nancy Reagan?

From the letters to today's Times:

The Torture Memo, and the Outcry

Published: June 9, 2004

To the Editor:

Re "Lawyers Decided Bans on Torture Didn't Bind Bush" (front page, June 8):

Invoking national security, administration lawyers determined that an international treaty and a federal law prohibiting torture "must be construed as inapplicable to interrogation undertaken pursuant to" the president's "commander-in-chief authority."

The arrogance and shortsightedness of this opinion would be shocking were it not fully consistent with many other actions indicating that the Bush administration considers itself above international law.

Don't the administration and its legal advisers realize that this interpretation provides a license for leaders of every other country to ignore anti-torture agreements, placing Americans (including American troops) at risk around the world?

MARK E. HAHN
Vineyard Haven, Mass., June 8, 2004

Yes, Mark, they realize. THEY DON'T CARE.

Get it? They don't give a s***. As far as they're concerned, "American troops" are lucky to have jobs, and if they don't like the possibility of getting tortured they don't have to enlist.

THE PEOPLE RUNNING THE COUNTRY DON'T GIVE A S*** ABOUT ANYTHING BUT MONEY AND POWER.

What did anyone expect? They're from the OIL BUSINESS.

Permit us three hockey-related posts in three years.

Well, we said we wanted Dave Andreychuk to get the Cup, and not only did he win it, he put it in his car and took it home!

From the St. Petersburg Times:

[Times photo: Dirk Shadd]
Dave Andreychuk places the Stanley Cup into the back seat of his vehicle in the player's parking lot at 3:35 a.m. today after enjoying the celebration.

You gotta love this game. You win the Stanley Cup, and they let you take it home.

A little explanation for those readers who don't follow hockey:

The Stanley Cup, at 111 years, is the oldest sports trophy given in North America. And it is unique in pro sports (as far as we know) in that every player on the team that wins it gets his name engraved on it. We kid you not. That's what all the rings on it are.

So if you win the Cup, your name goes on it--alongside names like Bobby Orr, Maurice Richard, Guy Lafleur, Wayne Gretsky, etc.

And in case that's not cool enough, every player on the winning team gets to take the Cup anywhere they want for at least a day. Some guys bring it home to show the town -- say, Moose Jaw Saskatshewan or New York, New York -- some guys take it fishing. Rumor has it that years ago (before the NHL realized they'd better send a curator along with it) one team took turns jumping out of a hotel window into the pool below with it.

Pretty damn cool.

Repeat after me:

He was universally loved.

We all loved him.

He was universally loved.

We all loved him.

You loved him.

He was the most popular president ever.

Everyone loved him.

Only Communists didn't love him.

You are getting sleepy.

He was universally loved.

While 201k has not yet endorsed a candidate for president (that cliff hanger will come later) we do want to weigh in on the other major contest of the season, which will be decided tonight.

With all due respect to the city of Calgary, to Jarome Iginla, and to Darryl Sutter (whose ill-conceived remarks last week do not overshadow his hockey pedigree), we're going with Tampa Bay, for two reasons: 1) we greatly admired the play of Dave Andreychuk when he was a Bruin, and 2) we still remember the other-worldly performance we saw Martin St. Louis put on while skating for UVM against Harvard many years ago.

So while a Lightning victory may give a photo-op to George W. Bush (who probably thinks hockey is what he played from the National Guard), we'll put up with it to see Andreychuk hoist the Cup.

Finally, to all the big-time sports media people who look to 201k for guidance -- and we know you do -- one note from Mrs. 201k, who worked for the paper for which the Lightning's arena is named: It's in St. Petersburg, not Tampa. The "Tampa Bay" in the team's title refers to the body of water, not the city of Tampa.

Historian Rick Perlstein has aptly summed up the concern we have over the GOP's efforts -- abetted, as usual, by the media -- to paint a picture of Ronald Reagan as a universally loved figure, which he was not.

It's in the interests of the Republican party to rewrite history in this way, turning Reagan into some sort of cuddly grandfather-like cartoon. The truth is much more complicated. While there's no doubt that Reagan had a great sense of humor, possessed extraordinary communication skills, and was generally liked as a person, he was by no means a universally loved politician. Far from it.

Moreover, it must be acknowledged that one of his political legacies is the deeply partisan atmosphere currently dividing the nation.

On this subject we sent an email to CNN's Aaron Brown, who, it must be said, is pretty good about responding, whatever you think of his answers. Here's the exchange. Make of it what you will:

-----Original Message-----
From: 201k
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 6:04 PM
To: Aaron.Brown
Subject: Kicking a man when he's down.

Hello,

Not that I disliked the guy personally, but there are a LOT of people
with substantive problems with Ronald Reagan -- and I don't just mean
partisans.

For instance my mother-in-law (an elderly Air Force widow), who never
forgave him for cutting military benefits. And she's not alone.

I'm not suggesting you beat on a dead guy, but some polite balance
would be ok. Seemed like a nice enough guy, but people have long
memories -- and they like to have their values affirmed too.

Regards

From: Aaron.Brown

the best answer is the honest one..

all in good time. I think over the next couple of days those issues will find their way to the table

If the initial TV news coverage of Ronald Reagan's death is any indication, the next couple of weeks will be very good for George W. Bush. It's a GOP circle-j*** out there.

ABC spent the last half hour talking about Bush (not Reagan) and CNN just treated us to Jean Kirkpatrick explaining that Reagan's great gift was understanding that "individual initiative" moved history forward.

By the time the media is done with the funeral the average out-of work union member will be quoting Ayn Rand.

As if the current GOP -- and their leader in particular -- knows anything about "individual initiative".

Wonder which intrepid news agency will point out that Reagan passed the largest tax increase in U.S. history?

Sheesh, they're shameless. "Individual initiative" is as foreign to this draft-dodging, silver-spoon, corporate give-away, hog-fest GOP crowd as "Just Say No" was to Heidi Fleiss.

We finally understand why the New York Times, under Howell Raines, was mired in poor judgement, poor writing, non-existent fact-checking, and dumb-ass, smarmy kvetching:

He's an idiot.

Talk about the Peter Principle. While the Times is on their recent "mea culpa" tear they ought to explain how someone with so little to offer intellectually as Raines ever got hold of their editorial page, let alone the whole paper.

Yikes.

Wow, the GOP controlled Senate Intelligence Committee blames the intelligence community for 9/11. What a surprise. Frankly we're shocked they didn't just blame Bill Clinton. Or FDR.

Here's why we think George Tenet really resigned:

In the wake of the latest neocon scandal, involving Ahmad Chalabi, we theorize that the Tenet was given instructions from the White House -- presumably for the C.I.A. to take the blame -- that he could not obey.

Everyone knows -- but of course the press doesn't say -- that Chalabi was the White House's man. But now that they're through with him, and either a) he's being thrown under the bus, or b) he really did give secrets to Iran, the White House needs someone else to take the hit.

And this, given how torn between the intelligence community and the executive branch he already is, Tenet simply couldn't do.

Hmm, let's see...How about we try, "We Need George Bush, not a 'Washington Insider'" again?

No? Ok, how about, um, "A Compassionate Conservative" again? They loved that one.

Not buying that one either? Ok, uh, hmmm. How about, "He'll Keep Us Safe"?

Why are they laughing? Ok, er...how about, "Look Out! A Terrorist! Right over there!! AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!"

So let's see...they used Chalabi to get rid of Saddam, and now they're getting rid of Chalabi.

The Sopranos have nothing on the Bush crew, eh?