Welcome to 201k.com - A Commonwealth Perspective.

As usual, it takes a Commonwealth citizen to make the most sense of things:

To the Editor:

You quote Justice Antonin Scalia's comment that "nothing stands behind the court's assertion that governmental affirmation of the society's belief in God is unconstitutional except the court's own say-so" ("Justices Allow a Commandments Display, Bar Others," front page, June 28).

"Society" has no "belief" in God. Society has a wide variety of beliefs in God, including nonbelief. It is the genius of our system to reflect that fact.

Justice Scalia should place his faith in a Constitution written for society as a whole, not for one part of it. That's what the majority has done, and it is the majesty of that rational, liberating faith that stands behind them.

Rick Reibstein
Lexington, Mass., June 28, 2005

At a party this weekend we were asked when, if ever, we thought the Bush administration would level with the American people about it's hyping of the need to invade Iraq, inasmuch as it's clear now to all but the most partisan of observers that the facts, as the famous memo goes, were being "fixed around the policy".

The answer, sadly, is: never. No member of the Bush administration will ever admit the truth about their claims regarding "the grave and gathering threat" that Saddam Hussein supposedly posed to the U.S. Never.

Why? Because nearly 1,750 American soldiers have died in the effort, and thousands more have been wounded. To allow in any way that the cause for the invasion was hyped--that the case for Saddam's possession of WMD was "fixed" to deliver the pre-determined decision of an invasion--would be to destroy the legacy of Bush's administration and ruin the political reputations and futures of his deputies.

This they will never allow.

The Republican Party in general and George W. Bush in particular revel in their self-identification with all things military--incongruous though such parading may be. The president cannot get enough of being photographed in front of those who put themselves in harm's way for their country. It is essential for his image that he be understood to have the greatest gravitas at sending them to do so. To be caught having done it under false pretenses would ruin him utterly.

It would also destroy, or at least cripple, the careers of countless Bush sympathizers in the media--those who cheered the effort on and spread the gospel of invasion as solemnly as their peers once hyped the miracle of business that was Enron.

This is why they vociferously attack any questioning of their policy as unpatriotic and "anti-troop"--it's compensation, designed to deflect attention away from any serious questioning of exactly how and why so many brave Americans have died or been wounded.

For all of them--the administration, the press--to be revealed as having hyped the case for war in Iraq is to be responsible for the deaths of over seventeen hundred American soldiers.

They won't allow that--ever. The plain truth is they value their careers more than the truth, and more than anyone's life.

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

Note: We've received a lengthy email from Dr. Michael Egnor in response to our remarks on his letter to the editor of the NY Times. 201k will be off for an extended Fourth of July weekend starting Thursday; if we don't post Dr. Egnor's letter and our response before then we'll do it early next week.

Oh, the shock and betrayal.

The Times covers former F.B.I. acting director L. Patrick Gray III's thoughts on W. Mark Felt's coming out as "Deep throat":

L. Patrick Gray III, the acting director of the F.B.I. at the time of the Watergate break-in...felt shock and betrayal by the disclosure that his former deputy, W. Mark Felt, was Deep Throat.

"...I can't begin to tell you how deep was my shock and my grief when I found that it was Mark Felt...I can't understand how Mark could have let himself do to me what he did when I trusted him so implicitly."

If he could, Mr. Gray said, he would say to Mr. Felt: "Mark, why? Why didn't you come to me? Why didn't we work it out together?"

The poor man!

Now, skip down to paragraph ten:

After the bureau began investigating the break-in, Mr. Gray turned over raw F.B.I. interview reports and lead sheets to John W. Dean, Nixon's counsel, who ran the effort to conceal White House ties to the Watergate burglars. Later, in the fireplace of his Connecticut home, Mr. Gray burned files that he had been given from the White House safe of E. Howard Hunt, whose phone number was found in address books of the Watergate burglars.

Mr. Gray said he...had been justified in burning the files because their contents were unrelated to Watergate.

One file contained top-secret cables apparently forged by Mr. Hunt that made it appear the administration of President John F. Kennedy had been implicated in the assassination of President Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam in 1963. A second file contained false letters apparently intended to embarrass Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, if he ran for president.

Mr. Gray said he burned the papers because he was following the instructions of Mr. Dean and John D. Ehrlichman, Nixon's top domestic affairs adviser, never to reveal their contents. "I had an order, direct order from the president's principal adviser, to whom he had previously ordered me to report," Mr. Gray said, adding that he trusted Nixon and his aides.

Gee, wonder why Felt didn't go to Gray to "work it out together"?

As we predicted, the hooey has commenced. Dr. Sherry Eros has posted a comment below ("Make Way For Hooey") which purports to refute the Schiavo autopsy. We felt we'd deal with it here rather than in a comment.

A quick google search of her name will tell discerning readers all they need to know about Dr. Eros and her agenda (though not if that's her real name or if she knows Gene Simmons). On her website, for instance, one will find a link to her condemnation of the media's "lurid, exaggerated, inflammatory and prejudicial" reporting of Rush Limbaugh's legal and drug problems.

As you may suspect, nothing in the "refutation" of the Schiavo autopsy is based on evidence. Dr. Eros did not examine Terri Schiavo and did not participate in the autopsy. Her opinion has all the authority of that of a certain Dr. Frist, who, unlike Dr. Eros, has a great deal to lose by continuing to defend his long-distance "diagnosis" in the wake of the autopsy report.

What we're dealing with is a variation on the "expert witness" technique used by doctors in courtrooms when they are being asked to support or refute a piece of medical evidence in opposition to observable reality. It consists of trying to undermine an evidenced position by talking about a whole lot of other stuff while downplaying the tenuous connection that stuff has to the matter at hand.

Speaking of which, the staff attorney here at 201k finds it funny that doctors--who will never second-guess each other at a malpractice trial--have no qualms about doing so on talk-shows, blogs, and "conservative websites" where the burden of evidence is, to say the least, less than that required by a court of law.

Being a trial attorney she is naturally predisposed to disdain these types of doctors, but her point is still a good one.

Consider, for instance, the doctors who testified on behalf of the Schindlers, and contrast the reckless bloviating they felt free to unleash on cable TV with the assertions they made in court (under oath), and you'll understand what we're talking about.

Or, in the instant matter, consider statements like the one from Dr. Eros that "the 'cortical blindness' claimed by the ME was almost certainly an artifact of the dehydration..." [emphasis added] which, coming from someone who neither examined Terri Schiavo nor witnessed her autopsy is, to put it nicely, a degree of certainty more suited to right-wing websites than medical testimony.

If you're really in the mood for some of Dr. Eros' analysis treat yourself to her semantic discussion of the phrase "consistent with", as in, "consistent with a permanent vegetative state" (which is what the Medical Examiners found Terri Schiavo's brain condition to be). Not surprisingly, Dr. Eros feels that the very phrase itself is meaningless--which is a happy coincidence for her, given that if it isn't meaningless it would indicate that Terri Schiavo's brain condition was consistent with a permanent vegetative state.

You get the idea.

It's always a fun ride when ideologues start dissecting the meaning of words and phrases. Perhaps she and Dr. Egnor can have a "semantic-off". Let's hope they do it under the "cone of silence".

In any event, we'll cut to the quick on this: we're happy to entertain any comments from Dr. Egnor because we posted an entry on his letter to the Times. In fact we're looking forward to what he could possibly have to say in the wake of that embarrassing letter.

But we're not going to waste our time nor the time of our readers on agenda-driven "refutations" of the Schiavo autopsy, nor will we provide space for ideological horseshit masquerading as medicine. Dr. Eros' comment--which she also emailed to us--can stay, but any further use of this site by self-promoting right-wing zealots will be treated like mail from a Florida time-share.

Stop what your doing and read this from Media Matters:

Klein nailed on falsehoods in Al Franken Show grilling

Hosts Al Franken and Katherine Lanpher, and guest Joe Conason confronted author Edward Klein on the many factual errors, distortions, and misleading claims in his attack book on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), The Truth About Hillary (Sentinel, 2005).

Read the complete transcript.

Head's up. We received this email today:

Sir,

I am the neurosurgeon who wrote the letter to the New York Times this week about Terri Schiavo. I posted a comment on your site yesterday, pointing out that you had made some pretty serious errors in your comments and offering to correct the errors. My comment wasn't posted, and I haven't heard back from you.

If your goal is the truth, I can help you get there. I would be happy to discuss the medical facts and the ethics of the Schiavo affair, with you, on your blog, so your readers can judge for themselves what the real issues are. If you are uncomfortable discussing these issues with a physician, I would be happy to discuss them with any expert of your choice (I hear Jack Kevorkian has some time on his hands). I doubt that you have the stomach for this, but I thought I'd give you a chance.

Mike Egnor

This was our reply:

Thanks for your thoughtful email. The comment posting on Blogger is automatic; we don't control it. If you posted a comment, it should have appeared and we should have received a confirmation email. No idea why it wouldn't work for you.

Try again, or feel free to email your comments here; we're happy to deal with it on 201k.com.

Regards,

Editor
201k.com

This should be good.

Once again Paul Krugman stands head and shoulders above his peers in Big Media by telling it like it is. In today's Times he goes where few in the press have dared--or wanted--to go: the truth:

Leading the nation wrongfully into war strikes at the heart of democracy. It would have been an unprecedented abuse of power even if the war hadn't turned into a military and moral quagmire.

The U.S. news media largely ignored the [Downing Street] memo for five weeks after it was released in The Times of London. Then some asserted that it was "old news" that Mr. Bush wanted war in the summer of 2002, and that W.M.D. were just an excuse. No, it isn't. Media insiders may have suspected as much, but they didn't inform their readers, viewers and listeners. And they have never held Mr. Bush accountable for his repeated declarations that he viewed war as a last resort.

On one side, the people who sold this war, unable to face up to the fact that their fantasies of a splendid little war have led to disaster, are still peddling illusions: the insurgency is in its "last throes," says Dick Cheney. On the other, they still have moderates and even liberals intimidated: anyone who suggests that the United States will have to settle for something that falls far short of victory is accused of being unpatriotic.

We need to deprive these people of their ability to mislead and intimidate. And the best way to do that is to make it clear that the people who led us to war on false pretenses have no credibility, and no right to lecture the rest of us about patriotism.

Major media organizations still act as if only a small, left-wing fringe believes that we were misled into war, but that "fringe" now comprises much if not most of the population.

Krugman leaves one question unasked, and it's the elephant in the room:

Why did Big Media want this war? They helped promote it, and they continue to cover for it.

Why?

The Schiavo beat goes on in the letters to the editor of the NY Times today.

Carl d'Angio, M.D., of Mount Vernon, N.Y says:

Her family loved what was left of her and asked only to be permitted to care for her at their own expense.

Ah, no. He parents didn't "ask only" that. That's the way they phrased what they were asking, but it wasn't what they were asking. They were asking to be named Terri Schiavo's legal guardians in place of her husband--with all that entailed.

We refer Poor Readers to the 2000 decision of presiding Judge Greer:

"During the period of time following the incident of February 25, 1990 the parties worked together in an attempt to provide the best care possible for Terri Schiavo. On February 14, 1993, this amicable relationship between the parties was severed. While the testimony differs on what may or may not have been promised to whom and by whom, it is clear to this court that such severance was predicated upon money and the fact that Mr. Schiavo was unwilling to equally divide his loss of consortium award with Mr. and Mrs. Schindler. They have literally not spoken since that date. Regrettably, money overshadows this entire case and creates potential of conflict of interest for both sides."

Note that it was not Terri Schiavo's medical judgment money that the Schindler's wanted at this point, but Michael Schiavo's loss of consortium award.

"The record before this court discloses that should Mr. and Mrs, Schindler prevail, their stated hope is that Mr. Schiavo would divorce their daughter, get on with his life, they would become appointed guardians of Terri Schiavo and become her heirs at law. They have even encouraged him to "get on with his life". Therefor neither side is exempt from finger pointing as to possible conflicts of interest in this case."

Lest there be any confusion as to what Judge Greer thought of some of the "witnesses", he wrote:

The court also had the opportunity to observe the witnesses when they testified, to note body language, pauses, inflections and other non-verbal factors utilized in determining credibility which would not appear in a transcript of these proceedings.

Read the entire decision and you'll see Judge Greer wasn't referring to Michael Schiavo here.

Moving on we find this curiously idiotic letter from the vice chairman of the department of neurological surgery at SUNY, Michael Egnor, M.D.

To the Editor:

Terri Schiavo's autopsy report claimed that she was probably blind. Supporters of the decision to starve her to death have hailed this finding as bolstering their argument that withdrawal of her feeding tube was ethical.

Their reasoning is hard to follow.

If Ms. Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state, blindness is a meaningless diagnosis. Only sentient people can see, and only sentient people can be blind. And if she were blind, then she was sentient, and the diagnosis of persistent vegetative state was a genuinely fatal mistake.

The lapses in logic aside, it's chilling to assert that it's more ethical to starve a handicapped person if that person is blind. This is what passes for ethics among advocates for euthanasia.

Michael Egnor, M.D.
Stony Brook, N.Y., June 18, 2005

Um...wow.

The autopsy report said that the portion of Terri's Schiavo's brain responsible for vision was dead. "Blind" was just a word that was tossed around as short-hand to make clear to lay people that she couldn't have tracked a balloon, as some people--including some doctors--suggested she could.

The medical examiners explicitly avoided making any clinical judgment on whether Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state, as that is a clinical and not a pathological matter. They said only that their findings were consistent with that.

What was revealed was that Terri Schiavo couldn't have tracked a balloon because the vision centers in her brain were dead. That people use the word "blind" may offend Dr. Egnor's sense of semantics, but it certainly doesn't create a conflict over Schiavo's condition. There was never any credible conflict over that, as the autopsy has confirmed.

But clearly there is more than an overdeveloped sense of semantics going on with Dr. Egnor. No one with any credibility called Terri Schiavo "handicapped", let along suggested that the handicap of blindness was reason for "euthanasia".

Does anyone recall an argument for euthanizing the blind? Neither do we.

What was argued was that Terri Schiavo--whose severely atrophied brain had "zero electrical activity"--was in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery and wouldn't have wanted to live that way. The diagnosis has been confirmed by autopsy, and her wishes were determined as best as possible by a court of law.

Dr. Egnor can dislike the court decision, but he is not entitled to simply reformulate the historical, medical or philosophical facts at issue to suit himself.

Note to self: don't send son to SUNY.

David Brooks must have a clause in his contract that requires him to tell the truth a few times a year. His piece today on Bill Frist says, in a nice way, what we here have felt about the Senate Majority leader for a while: that he's let his political ambitions supplant his better judgement.

Brooks says:

...because he is behaving in ways that don't seem entirely authentic, he is often trying just a bit too hard, striking the notes more forcefully than they need to be struck.

That is what happened during the Terri Schiavo affair. It's not quite fair to say that Frist diagnosed Schiavo from a TV screen, but he did put himself on the wrong side of the autopsy that came out last week. He did betray his medical training, which is the core of his being, to please a key constituency group.

And it wasn't a case of cynical opportunism.

Well, actually, of course it was. What else do you call it when someone "betrays" "the core of his being" "to please a key constituency group"?

Now, making compromises for political gain is what politicians do; you can't complain too loudly about it. But in the Schiavo matter Frist must also be charged with monumentally bad judgement, which is more serious.

Why? Because as a doctor he knew the truth, and therefor knew how that sad affair would inevitably end. And yet he plunged into "the wrong side of the autopsy report" anyway.

Perhaps Jeb Bush, with the problem sitting in his lap, decided that groveling to the religious right in a losing cause was worth it. Perhaps Tom DeLay truly believed that Terri Schiavo would suddenly jump out of bed and start speaking in tongues. But Bill Frist knows how to read an MRI, and he knows what it means when a neurologist says someone's brain has "zero electrical activity."

He knew. He knew not only what her condition and prognosis was, but he knew how it would inevitably end and what the autopsy would say. And yet he decided to jump in on behalf of a misguided vocal minority in his party.

Frist should have declined to get involved in the Schiavo matter--no matter what pressure was brought to bear on him--citing his conservative views on family privacy. Yes, he would have taken heat at the time; but once the autopsy report came out he would have been vindicated. Think how much respect people would have had for him once they realized that he'd used a combination of medical insight and common sense.

Instead he gained nothing from the consituency he was trying to please, and looks like a fool to everyone else.

The NY Times editorial page properly lambasts Florida Governor Jeb Bush today for his decision to respond to Terri Schiavo's autopsy results not by ducking and covering--the option wisely pursued by others who made fools of themselves trying to make political hay out of that sorry situation--but by turning the hay machine up a notch and launching an investigation into 25-year-old allegations against Michael Schiavo.

The political math behind Bush's decision is interesting, and warrants watching, but more interesting for now is a letter to the editor from the governor himself, which might just be one of the most thoroughly evil documents ever written.

In his letter Bush states:

While many medical professionals said she was in a persistent vegetative state, still other highly respected neurologists said there was a chance that she was not.

This is a distortion that borders on an outright lie. If any of the so-called "experts" who testified that Schiavo was not in a persistent vegetative state were neurologists of any kind, let alone "highly respected" it's news.

We recall one doctor whom Bush referred to as a "renowned neurologist" whose credibility and "diagnosis" were openly mocked by recognized neurologists, and another who came as close as anyone can to being called a liar and a fraud by a court and not face perjury charges.

To call them "highly respected neurologists" is to try to etch into historical stone what was a bald-face lie to begin with. It's akin to saying "many highly respected paleontologists" believe in Creationism.

But there's more. Bush goes on to say:

In cases where patients do not have an expressed written directive regarding end-of-life decisions and where the patient's guardian has a conflict of interest, it only makes sense to err on the side of life.

This is mind-blowing. Bush blithely ignores seven years of litigation, mountains of testimony and medical evidence, and indeed the entire concept of the judicial system's role in resolving disputes, and simply offers up a platitude that substitutes his judgment for us to obey. It's almost beyond belief. But it gets worse:

Terri's life and her death remind us all that life is fragile and must be valued.

Despite claims of cynicism and being "agenda-driven," we will continue to strive to protect our most vulnerable citizens. All innocent human life is precious, and government has a duty to protect the weak, the disabled and the vulnerable.

Look, partisan as we may be, we don't like to just flat-out call people names, but let's be honest: Jeb Bush represents a group of people who cherish two, and only two, things: money and power. Their lack of concern for the weak, the disabled, and the vulnerable will someday fill history books. His class of Americans and their global counterparts care not a wit for the weak, nor, frankly, for life at all, let alone the life of any individual American.

For him to scribble pious nothings on behalf of the weak and the vulnerable can be nothing more than the rankest political demagoguery. May his constituents reward him accordingly.

This must be some new right-wing debate technique.

201k noted on Wednesday RNC chair Ken Mehlman's bizarre response to the Downing Street memo, which was that he "respectfully disagreed" with it--as if it were a matter of opinion.

Then Poor Reader Diane commented that

"McCain on This Week said, when questioned about the DSM, 'I don't believe in it.' Say what? Is it the tooth fairy??"

Well today Piniellas-Pasco Medical Examiner Dr. Jon Thogmartin released the autopsy report for poor Terry Schiavo. It said that Terry had massive, irreversible brain damage, that far from being able to track a balloon, she was blind due to the death of the vision areas of the brain. It said her brain was half the size it should have been, and that no amount of therapy or treatment would have improved her condition, which was "consistent with a persistent vegetative state".

So what did David Gibbs III, the lawyer for Schiavo's parents, say today?

The lawyer for the Schindlers said at a news conference today that the parents continue to believe their daughter was not in a persistent vegetative state...

Of course. Why would they believe otherwise?

Stayed tuned as we ponder this new wave of faith-based intellectualism. In the meantime we believe we will become invisible and walk down to the local bank.

Oh, one other thing. Gibbs also had a unique theory on whether Terry Schiavo would have wanted to live in a persistent vegetative state with half a brain:

"If Teri Schiavo had wanted to die, she had a lot of opportunities to die."

Of course--makes perfect sense. The blind vegetative woman with half a brain didn't get up and jump out the window. So there you have it.

You have been waiting tables a long time. You have an excellent memory. You're outgoing, friendly--practically a celebrity in the place.

But the lemon twist was for the soda water; the martini was with olive. The Jamesons was on the rocks and the vodka was with soda, not tonic.

The tips had the baked potato, the salmon had the veg, and only one salad had feta.

Write It Down.

Apparently quite a few people believe that the movie Groundhog Day has profound religious meaning, insofar as it seems to presume the existence and authority of a higher power at work judging and controlling Bill Murray's character.

They're wrong. It's a video game. He's stuck on a level and he has to get it right before can move on to the next one.

Get it?

Duh.

Dear Sirs,

Re: "Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn't Made" By DAVID E. SANGER Published: June 13, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/13/politics/13downing.html

Does the Times really contend that the phrase "no political decisions" in a briefing document written July 21, 2002 in anticipation of a July 23, 2002 meeting erases and supersedes what was said at the actual meeting itself on the 23rd? A meeting in which the head of British Intelligence told Prime Minister Tony Blair that in "his recent talks in Washington" he'd discovered that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"?

A meeting in which the British Defense Secretary reported that "he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections"?

A meeting in which one of the military options being planned was a U.S. "continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli"?

A meeting in which the British Foreign Secretary said "it seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin"? And went on to suggest "an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors" to "help with the legal justification for the use of force"?

Yet the Times trumpets "Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn't Made"?

We have truly entered the Twilight Zone.

Regards,

Editor
www.201k.com

Here's how the A.P. described the Downing Street memo this evening:

According to those minutes -- known as the Downing Street Memo -- British officials who had just returned from Washington said the Bush administration believed war was inevitable and was determined to use intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

Not exactly.

The Downing Street memo did not say the Bush administration "believed war was inevitable and was determined to use intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the ouster of Saddam Hussein".

It said: "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Not the same thing, are they?

A.P. has seen fit to spin its description of the Downing Street memo to comport with the Bush Administration's claim that the invasion was predicated on faulty intelligence. It does so in a way that can plausibly--though not honorably--deny being a lie, as on a purely grammatical level the phrasing is technically true. But it is not actually true, as it does not accurately describe what the Downing Street memo says.

"...determined to use intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the ouster of Saddam Hussein"?

"Use"?

Who at A.P. chose the word "use"? As opposed to, say, "fix"? That's the word in the actual memo: "..the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Isn't it odd that the A.P. mischaracterized the Downing Street memo in a way that exactly matches the Bush Administration's spin on the lead-up to the Iraq war?

Who at A.P. made that decision? The reporter? An editor?

Here's two other goodies from the memo A.P. leaves out:

But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

And check out military option two:

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli.[italics added]

Initiated by an Iraqi casus belli?

Yes, that means what you think it means.

We knew George W. Bush saw himself as a cowboy; we didn't realize it was Lee Marvin in "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance."

But back to the messenger: Can Americans trust the Associated Press?

The mainstream press finally got around to mentioning the Downing Street memo, sort of.

RNC chair Ken Mehlman answered Tim Russert's tender inquiries into the matter by falsely claiming the memo had been "discredited" and adding that he "respectfully disagreed" with it, as if the existence of the memo and the substance of its contents were a matter of opinion.

Then, Reuters correspondent Steve Holland asked Tony Blair and George W. Bush, "On Iraq, the so-called Downing Street memo from July 2002 says intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military action. Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?"

Holland should have asked if the memo was "an accurate reflection of what happened" in the meeting, but didn't, so Mr. Blair was able to ignore the memo entirely and repeat his Iraq talking points, saying that "the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all." No one asked Mr. Blair the obvious follow-up: "Are you saying that the statements in the so-called Downing Street memo do not accurately reflect what was said in the meeting?"

Mr. Bush followed Mr. Blair by suggesting that the memo had been politically motivated without addressing its validity. He was careful not to say the memo had been "leaked"--which would suggest it was true--but that someone had "dropped it out"--as if it were an unpleasant-smelling substance of unknown origin found in the locker room at the country club rather than what it was: the minutes of a Downing Street meeting attended by, among others, Mr. Blair, the Defense Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, and the Attorney-General of Great Britain.

So, the Downing Street memo was carefully raised and carefully answered, everyone doing their part in the made-for-TV version of democracy that the GOP and the press have been putting on for us.

Which leads us to our game of "Name That Dodge": Can you guess, poor readers, how the administration will handle future inquiries into the Downing Street memo (if there are any) now that it has been timidly raised twice (sort of) by the press?

Here's how:

*Roll of the eyes* "We have been over this and over this. We've answered all these questions already. This has been looked at and looked at, and now it's time to move on to subjects that matter to the American people."

And if that doesn't work (though it will) they'll go to this one: "We need to be very careful about giving creedence to crazy rumors that might give comfort to the terrorists who are determined to attack us."

Oh, you bet they'll say that. Yes they will.

Heraldblog passed us a book meme yesterday (we had no idea what a book meme was, by the way, but don't tell anyone) so here it is:

Last Book bought: "'French Women Don't Get Fat" by Mireille Guiliano. We were hoping it would have some sexy scenes in it, but it's all about what French women eat, and stuff like that.

Last Book read: "Why Not Me" by Al Franken. Really funny and truly bipartisan "political fiction"--a "diary" of a fanciful Franken 2000 presidential candidacy that will make you laugh til you drool. Would have gotten more attention had the farce of the actual 2000 election not overshadowed it. It's too bad right-wingers with sticks up their butts presumed this was a "liberal" book just because Franken wrote it. It isn't. It's mostly just plain silly, and it's hilarious.

Five Books that Meant A Lot:

1. "The Last Hurrah" by Edwin O'Connor.
O'Connor's oft-misunderstood look at the end of old-school politics at the hands of the New Deal is wonderfully funny, and an essential primer for understanding the political, religious, and ethnic tensions that still reverberate just under the surface of east coast society.

2. "A Confederacy of Dunces" by John Kennedy Toole.
As a rule we're not fond of humor that makes us squirm uncomfortably on behalf of a character, but the genius of Toole's masterpiece will assert itself and make you laugh hours later, when your squeamishness has worn off and just the sheer brilliance of the thing remains. Quite possibly the funniest damn book ever written.

3. "I've Got To Be Me" by Derek Sanderson with Stan Fischler.
The best skills player of his day and once the world's highest-paid athlete, Sanderson was the Joe Namath of hockey: a modish "swinger" who partied, dated multiple beautiful women (at the same time) and owned part of the Playboy Club in Boston. The jury is still out on whether his having a mustache corrupted Boston's youth.

4. "The Proud Tower" by Barbara W. Tuchman
How anyone could even attempt to understand the 20th century without having read this book is beyond us. It's simply not possible.

5. "Much Ado About Nothing" by William Shakespeare.
As a boy we were so infatuated with Beatrice that we searched the world over to find her, and quickly married her when we did.

Now passed to Saheli, Paul Z. Myers, Noble Savage, Diane, and Rogier. Sorry, folks.

Guesting for Maureen Down in the New York Times, Fortune writer Matt Miller pretends to lament the loss of "persuasion" in politics, and offers by way of example this:

Take me. I hadn't thought much about Iraq before I read Ken Pollack's book, "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq," a platonic ideal of careful analysis meant to persuade. It worked. I was persuaded! So what should we conclude when a talent like Pollack can convince us - and then the whole thing turns out to be based on a premise (W.M.D.) that is false?

What should we conclude, Poor Readers, when someone like Mr. Miller claims to be unable to recognize that an entire argument is based on one premise--let alone one the falsity of which was easily ascertainable by anyone on the face of God's green earth in the run-up to the Iraq war?

Shall we conclude that, other than Pollack, Matt Miller read only Judith Miller in the, uh, New York Times? Or are we Poor Readers not quite that thick?

Whatever we think of his decision or his rationalization of it, Mr. Miller, at least, has forgiven himself--and then some. In fact, he sees himself in quite a noble light:

In the meantime, like Sisyphus, those who seek a better public life have to keep rolling the rock uphill. If you've read this far, maybe you're up for the climb, too.

Sisyphus? Did Sisyphus pretend all day that the rock was a bird, then wonder why it was still at the bottom of the hill the next day?

Mr. Miller will forgive us for not following him up any more hills with big rocks on them.

Heraldblog's comment for the previous post is worth posting here, even though we disagree with him, because one of his favorite movies is Arsenic and Old Lace, which means he is a man of character:

I agree, but the logic cuts both ways. Clinton apologists say their hero was too distracted by Monicagate to successfully prosecute the brewing war against Osama bin Laden.

I accepted a book meme challenge, and named you as one of five bloggers to pass it on. Here's the link.

Not at all. As becomes ever clearer, Clinton was prosecuting the war on terrorism and bin Laden the right way, emphasizing clandestine operatives, financial investigations, and international cooperation (as opposed to sending the Army to blow up Iraq then leaving it there with insufficient resources and no exit plan) and MAY have been distracted from the task by the relentless investigations into his personal and financial life driven and paid for by his political opponents--none of which found any criminal wrong-doing.

Nixon was prosecuting the war in Vietnam disastrously, using Cold War logic that we all now recognize was hopelessly outdated and destined to fail. He was, in fact, pursuing similar wrong-headed strategies all over the globe. See: Chile.

Not surprisingly, meanwhile, he and his "associates" committed actual felonies here at home, motivated by nothing more than the desire to keep their party in power, then abused their office and extorted money from donors to cover up their crimes.

Where's the comparison?

As for the book meme, thanks for the nod; we'll have it tomorrow.

In case you missed the latest right-wing hooey line of the day, Nixonian revisionists have ratcheted-up the rhetorical war against the legacy of "Deep Throat" whistle-blower W. Mark Felt.

Having been granted by the media a license to paint Nixon as Betrayed Victim, themselves as Loyal Disciples, and Felt as Judas (do Republicans never tire of this analogy?) these ex-felons and pathological liars have now moved on to claiming Felt "lost the Vietnam War" by helping to topple Nixon before, their argument goes, the former President could "finish the job" in southeast Asia.

As a corollary, they say, Felt is responsible for the deaths of millions of Cambodians who, presumably, Nixon would have saved right after he stopped bombing them.

Clearly no one in the contemporary mass media is capable of explaining the history of the Vietnam War and Watergate to their audience; that would take more time than applying their makeup and ordering drinks. But surely one of them could get out this simple sentence before going to a commercial for an arthritis medication that doesn't work:

Even if one bought the fallacious argument that the Vietnam War would have ended any better had Nixon and his cronies--who actually made it much, much worse--remained in office, why wouldn't one conclude that it was their own fault for having committed the crimes that forced Nixon's resignation, and not the fault of the people who caught them?

Too complex a sentence? How about this one:

Aren't they like a burglar making the claim that if the homeowner hadn't woken up no one would have been shot during the robbery?

The next time you hear one of the blowhards of the right talk about how liberals and feminists emasculate men, tell them they've got it backwards.

Turns out it's the chemical industry, who give 79% of their money to Republicans.

The disclosure that W. Mark Felt was "Deep Throat" has sparked a national debate on whether Felt was a good guy or a bad guy.

On the one hand, myriad former Nixon cronies, convicted Watergate felons, pathological liars, and current Nixonian GOP operatives decry Felt as having violated something they'd violated worse (if you look at it a certain way and don't actually mention what they'd done) or indeed that Felt himself was responsible for "Watergate" for not having reported corruption at the highest level of government to the corrupt members of the government who were actively engaged in suppressing any investigation into their corruption.

On the other hand there's everyone else.

June 1, 2005

It was nice to see the parade of convicted Watergate felons and their modern-day wannabees parading across CNN last night, trying to recast "Deep Throat" as the bad guy. From what I saw you were the only commentator who even came close to questioning their spin.

Some of us--even us younger ones--remember the truth. My first political memory is Nixon's resignation. My father--a Republican--told me it was "very sad". So maybe there was a generational component--back then. He'd fought the bad guys personally, and expected them to come over the walls again any moment, this time with Karl Marx in one hand and electric guitars in the other.

Now, though, it's just more evidence of the turning of the tide, and the erosion of justice and sanity.

I've thought for a long time that what the right learned from Watergate was different than what the rest of us learned. We learned about the failures of leadership. They learned that if they could control the message they could get away with anything. So they set about to control the message, and thirty years later they do.

And now they can get away with anything; including rewriting the history of Watergate. Next they'll be cooking up wars on phony pretext. Nah--they'll never get away with that.

Regards...