Welcome to 201k.com - A Commonwealth Perspective.

Punch-me-faced prep David Brooks takes time out from writing his new book, "Tattooed, Middle-Class Bobos Who Didn't Marry and Procreate Before Thirty and So Are Doomed to a Life of Mediocrity" to opine in today's Times that the Valerie Plame Wilson scandal -- "a crime so heinous that her husband was forced to endure repeated magazine photo-shoots" -- is "[n]othing. A piffle."

The reason? Why, of course it's that the revelation that the "primary leaker" was Richard Armitage -- as opposed to say, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby or Dick Cheney -- renders it a "politically useless wrongdoing" that can no longer be used as "a way to expose the black heart of the Bush administration."

This, of course, is in keeping with "The Latest Right-Wing Line of Hooey" ™ which boils down to "Nothing To See Here -- Move Along, People."

You wish, David Brooks.

July 13, 2006

Valerie Plame Wilson and Joseph Wilson, IV

Plaintiffs

v.

I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, Karl C. Rove, Richard Cheney, and John Does 1-10.

Defendants

This Complaint arises out of a conspiracy among current and former high-level officials in the White House and actions taken by and on behalf of those officials in 2003 to violate the constitutional and other legal rights of Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV. Those officials sought to punish Mr. Wilson for his public statements regarding assertions by the President of the United States in the 2003 State of the Union address that he used to justify war against Iraq. As their chief method of punishment, the White House officials destroyed Mrs. Wilson's cover by revealing her classified employment with the CIA to reporters prior to and after July, 14, 2003, the date on which a newspaper column by Robert Novak made public that employment.

According to a filing by Special Counsel Fitzgerald in United States v. Libby, "There is ample evidence that multiple officials in the White House discussed [Valerie Wilson's] employment with reporters prior to (and after) July 14." On information and belief, the multiple officials include Defendants Cheney, Rove, Libby, and John Does No. 1-10.

We recommend the entire complaint to readers; it is not insubstantial stuff, though you likely won't hear a word of it in the mainstream media.

It certainly puts into perspective, if not comic relief, the convenient notion (appearing now, six weeks after the filing of this suit), that the whole thing was "nothing", and the accidental work of a hapless and repentant Richard Armitage.

The suit lists many - presumably undisputed -- facts that link high-level White House officials directly to a campaign to out Plame and discredit her husband. We say "undisputed" because it's clear that the defendants in this case will never mount a defense on the merits, instead using every legal maneuver at their disposal to get the suit dismissed.

Brooks should hope they succeed, for if the Wilson's are allowed to take discovery in this matter, the truth will out - and the tattooed middle-class bobo's might catch on to who and what Brooks really is.

You've no doubt seen this already, but if not, here's Keith Olbermann reminding Donald Rumsfeld that we live in a democracy.

Actual Journalist John Carroll mentions 201k in today's Phoenix, then goes on to call Tom Reilly's integrity into question. For evidence he cites some evidence.

Pretty gorgeous day here in the Land of the Eternal Bass Boat; maybe later we'll consult with JJ re some retaliatory bloviating.

Well, the New York Times is satisfied.

According to Neil A. Lewis, the admission by former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage that he was Robert Novak's source for the information that Valerie Plame Wilson was a Central Intelligence Agency officer "ends what has been a tantalizing mystery".

Retribution by the White House for Joseph Wilson's Op-Ed in the Times? No, no, no -- that's only something "some administration critics" say. The White House, according to Lewis, was concerned only with articles written by Nicholas Kristof and Walter Pincus, and only "wanted to know how much of a role [Plame] had in selecting [Wilson] for the assignment."

So there you go--nothing to see, all a big misunderstanding...

...conveniently explained now, after the Wilsons file a civil suit, which entitles them to discovery.

Now, presumably, the White House and its employees in the press sit back and wait to see if the American people buy this load of dung. (Answer: Of course they will.)

This is the photo that accompanies a NY Times article entitled "Taking Humdrum Astronaut Food, and Kicking It Up a Notch"



What the hell is that?

OH MY GOD -- THEY'RE EATING EACH OTHER!

THE ASTRONAUTS ARE EATING EACH OTHER!!!!!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!!!!!!!!!!


Sorry. Bear in mind we're still on vacation.

Rumsfeld Lashes Out at Bush's Critics
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
August 29, 2006


SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (AP) -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration's Iraq and counterterrorism policies of trying to appease "a new type of fascism."

In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration's critics as suffering from "moral or intellectual confusion" about what threatens the nation's security and accused them of lacking the courage to fight back.

Wow, strong stuff.

(Pause for effect)

Hey, look:



Hmm...so now we're confused. Which is it? "Donald Rumsfeld: Courageous Moral Visionary" or, "Donald Rumsfeld: Expedient, Dissembling Dinkweed"?

Let's check Google:

Definitions of "expedient" on the Web:

1. serving to promote your interest; "was merciful only when mercy was expedient";
2. a means to an end; not necessarily a principled or ethical one;
3. appropriate to a purpose; practical; "in the circumstances it was expedient to express loyalty".

Guess that settles that.

We're still on vacation -- and again, spending a little quality time with our old friend JJ -- so we're resorting to making a post out of comments on the previous one:

Comments:
Hi Mike. John Carroll sent me. Well, we're glad you perused the site....I guess. Dunno why the type size bothers you so much - first complaint I've heard, and there's always the "view" menu in your browser toolbar - or reading glasses! ;) (Also, in our defense, we don't have total control over how the site looks.)

"Too many links"? What's that about? We try to supply sources for the things we say. Otherwise it's pure bloviation, and that wears thin after a while.

"Reader opinions." That's a big part of the point of our site. It's become a community site, not just a forum for the three of us to pontificate, which we think is pretty cool. And, not incidentally, when we went to the software that allows readers to put up their own posts last December, our traffic quickly tripled and has been increasing steadily since then. The more the merrier!

What else? Oh yeah - Mihos. Surely you jest!
# posted by David : 4:16 PM, August 26, 2006

Well, the choice is clear before us: on the one hand sourcing and a sense of community, on the other bloviating and pontificating.

Readers can rest assured that 201k will never waver in its commitment to the latter.
# posted by Editor - 201k.com : 6:08 PM, August 26, 2006

I'm personally down with the bloviating, which is why I keep coming back here. Since Carroll forced the endorsement on you, can I assume it's facetious? Or are you serious? In which case I'd be very interested to hear why you put Patrick 4th.

I'm of the same mind as Elias (I know, I know - another damned link...). I'm still undecided. As time goes by, in fact, I seem to be more and more undecided. But just as long as there's no Gov. Kerry Healey EVER, I think I can live with the results whatever they turn out to be.

Honestly, we don't know why we bother writing if people can't read.

We repeat:

Two of our top three favorite candidates are known to us, either personally or professionally. And that stuff matters. We at 201k are loyal, if nothing else.

Do we have to draw a diagram?

No -- strike that. It's our fault. See, 201k's editor spends a lot of time writing songs, and that gets one in the habit of burying points within and behind, instead of throwing it all out in simple sentences. The habit and technique are ingrained at this point -- and the only thing that keeps us interested -- so don't expect it to stop. If readers can't be bothered to read carefully and think a bit then, well, we might as well just hand things over to the clever, lying bastards who, um...are already running things. Oh well, so much for that analogy.

Regarding David and his comments: there's nothing we can do to help.

As for Diane: yes, we're serious. We gave it a lot of thought, and ultimately decided that Kerri Healey as Governor would be preferable only to Danny Bonaduce -- but that even Bonaduce would be preferable to Romney.

Reilly is our choice. He's a local guy, and a man of unquestionable integrity -- and frankly, 201k has lived long enough to find that that quality trumps all others. We don't expect the younger, more devoted, more passionate, and undoubtedly smarter Democrats out there to use the same measuring stick, but we knows what we knows, and that's what we know. Trust the jaded rock musician on this one: integrity is the greatest attribute a leader can have.

If you have any doubts, take a look at the leadership the country is suffering under now. We don't want to get all serious here or anything, but the truth is that what makes George W. Bush the worst president in history is not his lack of intelligence or curiosity, or his mean-spiritedness, or his loony religious views, or his greed, or any of his other many, many, many faults; it's his utter lack of integrity. Because even a man lacking in all other qualities, if he had integrity, would have changed course long before now -- which Bush will never do. He'd have dumped his crackpot advisors -- which he'll never do. And he'd have admitted his mistakes -- which he'll surely never do, at least not sincerely.

He is a man who knows he dodged the Vietnam war yet paraded around in a Navy flight suit. He is a man who blamed his generals, then the media, and now the American people for the debacle in Iraq.

In short, he is a man of absolutely no integrity. That's the ultimate problem with him. It's at the root of all his many, many, many faults.

[Pssst: That's the problem with Romney, too]

Reilly is no politician and he's made mistakes in this campaign. But what he is, is an honest cop. And that, folks, is worth its weight in gold. We need more of them right now.

201k is again on vacation, this time in the once-pristine White Mountains of New Hampshire (state bird: the mosquito, state animal: the internal combustion engine, state flower: sand. The rest is mostly ants). We're sitting with our friend JJ -- both of us with our toes in the water (although, technically, JJ's are in ice) -- pondering New Hampshire-type ponderables, such as: if a jet-skier goes by your place at full throttle, ignoring the "no wake" signs, are you allowed to shoot him?

But, alas, we're called upon to ponder weightier issues by Actual Journalist John Carroll, last seen here for the invitation that brought us to discuss Truth, Justice, and American Grandstand with his students at B.U. (many of whom are too young to remember a world without Mo Rocca). The cause? Something to do with an election back home.

Ah, home -- where you can buy ketchup that isn't made entirely out of corn syrup and where the meat has inspection stickers on it.

From: John Carroll
Subject: Endorsements?
Date: August 25, 2006
To: editor@201k.com

Hi, Mike,

Hope all's well with you. I'm currently doing a weekly campaign media column for the Phoenix (through election day), and am writing for next week about poliblogs and Blue Mass Group's endorsement of Deval Patrick.

Two questions:

What do you think of BMG deciding to endorse someone?

Are you planning to endorse anyone yourself?

If you feel chatty, you could call me at xxx-xxx-xxxx. Otherwise an e-mail would do fine.

Best,
John

Oh great.

We were really hoping to avoid this. First, we've no desire to join the circular firing squad, and thereby give anti-Democrat ammunition to the anti-democratic press (which seems to be nearly all of it these days) moving towards the general election. After all, this is the press that let Mitt Romney spin his fantastic tales here, propelling him first to the Governor's Mansion and thence to the vice-Presidency, without once pointing out that the guy would clearly say anything to get elected.

So he organized the Olympics -- whoop-dee-doo. The only Gold Medal he'd have a shot at is "Evasive Maneuvers". Yet the press went gaga over him. If memory serves, Mr. Carroll's own former boss wore a miniskirt, fishnet stockings, and false eyelashes when interviewing Romney on Greater Boston -- frankly we were embarrassed for her, throwing herself at a married man like that.

This is the press that let a succession of Republican gadflies saunter through the Commonwealth's executive branch on their way to other, even less-challenging jobs (Celucci as Ambassador to Canada, Weld as Squash Pro at the Upper, Upper West Club, and Swift at Dairy Queen), without once doing what John Ellis had the courage to do at Fox News: step in and declare his candidate the winner regardless of who the voters thought they'd chosen.

What good is a free press if it can't deliver Democratic candidates? Don't they know there's a war on?

Oh wait -- they were for this war.

JJ says we digress.

Second, we have some conflicts. Two of our top three favorite candidates are known to us, either personally or professionally. And that stuff matters. We at 201k are loyal, if nothing else.

So, we were hoping to avoid this. But John Carroll must be answered. There's no hiding under the couch when John Carroll knocks. Not if we want to get mentioned in his column or be invited back to speak at B.U. ever again.

But before our endorsement, the first question:

What do you think of BMG deciding to endorse someone?

We had to read a lot of Blue Mass Group to answer this, and frankly, it wasn't easy. We found the site very difficult to read, owing to its format. It's surprising that such smart guys (except for the musician, obviously) would create a site so hard to digest. Smallish print, lots of little paragraphs and indentations, too many links in the text. It was like reading Highlights. And what's with allowing all those reader opinions? Who cares what they think? That's the problem with Democrats -- too damn inclusive.

Give us endless, loping, long-winded blathering that preaches down from above any day.

Our answer is that Massachusetts Democrats are spoiled for choice. BMG can endorse who they want. It's just too bad that a candidate wasn't chosen in a smoke-filled room months ago, to save money and effort for the general election. If the Republicans don't waste their time and money on the democractic process we don't know why Democrats have to.

But John Carroll must be answered. So here, Poor Readers, are our Endorsements for Governor of Massachusetts in 2006, in descending order of preference:

1. Tom Reilly
2. Chris Gabrielli
3. Christy Mihos
4. Deval Patrick
5. Butch Patrick
6. Patrick Stewart
7. Jackie Stewart
8. Stan Jonathan
9. Stan Laurel
10. Barry OR Eliot
11. Kerry Healey
12. Danny Bonaduce
13. Mitt Romney

Have we forgotten someone? JJ, little help?

No? Useless Irish bastard.

Yet another random look at the current A.P. wire news stories.

Monday, August 21, 2006, 10:34 pm ET. Articles from 10:43 am to 9:58 pm.

Stories on the JonBenet Ramsey case: 4

Stories on the war in Iraq: 2

November 22, 2005:

No Conspiracy Evidence Seen in Leak Case, Journalist Says

Bob Woodward of The Washington Post said yesterday in a television interview that he had not seen any evidence that the Bush administration conspired to discredit Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador who had publicly criticized the administration's rationale for the war in Iraq.

"Was there some sort of conspiracy, or organized effort, or effort by one person to out, to disclose publicly that Joe Wilson's wife was an undercover operative?" Mr. Woodward said, according to a transcript of his taped appearance on CNN's "Larry King Live." "I haven't yet seen evidence of that."

August 21, 2006:

Calendar Studied in CIA Leak Case

Then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage met with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward in mid-June 2003, the same time the reporter has testified an administration official talked to him about CIA employee Valerie Plame.

When contacted at home Monday night, Woodward declined to discuss his meeting with Armitage or the identity of his source in the CIA leak case.

The calendar released to the AP is the first confirmation that Woodward and Armitage met during the key time in the CIA leak case that was the focus of Fitzgerald's probe.

The identity of Woodward's source remains one of the big mysteries in the case because the Post reporter is the first member of the news media known to have discussed Plame's CIA employment with an administration official.

Woodward has said Plame came up incidentally during an interview he was conducting for a book he wrote on the Iraq war. He said the source told him that Plame was a CIA analyst on weapons of mass destruction...

Another random look at the current A.P. wire news stories.

Monday, August 21, 2006, 12:20 pm ET. Articles from 12:23 am to 11:53 am.

Stories on the JonBenet Ramsey case: 3

Stories on the war in Iraq: 1. Sort of.

It's not an actual article, but some short blog entries from three reporters in Iraq. A.P.'s headline for this -- and the first blog entry -- is about U.S. soldiers handing out candy to Iraqi children.

Of the remaining six entries, two are about the food available to Marines:

Everyone in the military loves tuna...I happily ate tuna fish sandwiches for a week straight in a Marine base in Ramadi. It was delicious, as you can imagine, but few will catch me eating tuna back in the U.S.

and:

Have it your way at Burger King ... in Iraq? As a visitor to one of the larger bases in Iraq such as Anaconda, one of the things that strikes you is the odd comforts from home that have been imported. One of them is Burger King.

The last entry is about sectarian violence. The opening sentence for this entry is, "Political correctness has come to Iraq."

Random look at the current A.P. wire news stories.

Sunday, August 20, 7:32 pm ET. Articles from 9:32 am to 6:52 pm.

Stories on the JonBenet Ramsey case: 5

Stories on the war in Iraq: 0

Lieberman Calls for Rumsfeld to Resign

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: August 20, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. Joe Lieberman on Sunday called on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign and backed an international conference to find a way out of the crisis in Iraq.

Uh...too late, Joe.

Lieberman...also criticized some fellow Democrats. He said several Democrats are trying to impose a "litmus test" on the party.

Actually, Joe, it's called "an election".

Sheesh, these people live in their own world, huh?

Our letter to the the Public Editor of the Times was forwarded to Rich Meislin, "Associate Managing Editor - Internet Publishing" at the paper. Here is our complete exchange:

On Aug 18, 2006, at 6:51 AM, Rich Meislin wrote:

Dear editor@201k.com,

When we're following a rapidly changing news story like the death of Zarqawi in real time, articles and headlines are written and rewritten throughout the day as developments warrant. A headline you see at one moment can be replaced a minute or an hour later by another that an editor decides reflects the situation better.

More generally, articles on NYTimes.com that include "cnd" as part of the URL are written or edited by our continuous news desk, the group of reporters and editors charged with updating our coverage of major news events between the press runs of the printed paper. Some or all of the articles prepared by the continuous news desk as a breaking news event unfolds are typically replaced in the evening by the package of articles and headlines written for the following day's newspaper, which often benefit from the additional time for reporting, analysis and editing. (At the same time, some of the CND articles prepared for the Web are also used in the printed newspaper.)

The news analysis you refer to -- "Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency" -- took the headline from the newspaper, "Hatred He Bred Is Sure to Survive Terrorist Death." But it still discusses Zarqawi and the impact his death would have. (I found it by using the link from your June 8 blog post.)

My guess is the Burns video was also replaced by later material, but I haven't yet been able to track down the producer who handled it to confirm that.

Sincerely,
Rich Meislin
Associate Managing Editor
Internet Publishing

At 8:33 AM -0400 8/18/06, Editor - 201k wrote:

Dear Mr. Meislin,

Thanks for your response. I have to point out that the article now found at the link which previously went to, "Analysis: Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency" has nothing whatsoever to do with Zarqawi. The new article, entitled, "Hundreds of Iraqi Detainees Get First Taste of Freedom" is about the "good-will" release of Iraqi prisoners from detainee camps by Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki. Neither Zarqawi, nor his death, nor the impact from it, are mentioned.

Thanks also for the explanation of how "continuous news desk" stories are replaced. Can you shed some insight on what "reporting, analysis and editing" led to the relevant headline changes, and when?

1. "Leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq Is Killed" became "U.S. Strike Hits Insurgent at Safehouse";
2. "With Note of Caution, Bush Hails Killing of Zarqawi." became "Bush Cautiously Notes Chance to 'Turn the Tide'";
3. "How the News Spread in the White House" became "After Welcome Piece of News, a Decision to Stay Silent".

Given the news that "the anti-American insurgency has continued to strengthen despite the killing of the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi", prior hopes, statements and opinions to the contrary -- from both government and the press -- are worthy of analysis. We'd like to do that analysis, but are faced with two Times "analysis" articles that are no longer available, and three whose themes have been undeniably softened somewhere in the last two and a half months.

Can the Times explain these specific changes and deletions, and provide the missing analyses?

Regards,

201k.

On Aug 18, 2006, at 12:38 PM, Rich Meislin wrote:

Sorry, I'm not sure what the confusion is. As I said, when I click the link that was previously "Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency" I get a news analysis entitled "News Analysis: Hatred He Bred Is Sure to Survive Terrorist Death," not the "First Taste of Freedom" article you're referring to. The "Hatred He Bred" article is the analysis was written on June 8 and remains as it appeared in the printed newspaper of June 9.

I'm taking the link in question from the June 8 post on your site. It's: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/08/world/middleeast/08cnd-assess.html

As I also said, the final changes to the continuous news desk articles were likely to have been made when they were substituted with their counterparts from the newspaper. That generally occurs in the range of 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. as the printed newspaper goes to press.

I hope this helps. / Rich Meislin

At 1:30 PM -0400 8/18/06, Editor - 201k wrote:

Thanks again for the response. Clicking on the link in our June 8 post that was previously "Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency" brings me to "Hundreds of Iraqi Detainees Get First Taste of Freedom", as does clicking on, or cutting and pasting, the same link in your email below.

To check this I cleared the cache, then tried again. Additionally I asked two different 201k contributors in two different states to try, and they both got "First Taste of Freedom" as well.

I appreciate the time you've taken to answer my questions; may I just verify that you're saying that the Dexter Filkins article "The Hatred He Bred" article is the same article that was "Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency", even if we cannot get to it by its previous link, and that the headlines to the other three articles were changed later the same day or evening they were first posted, and that the printed versions have the newer headlines?

Again -- thank you for your time.

201k

On Aug 18, 2006, at 2:22 PM, Rich Meislin wrote:

That's very odd. I'm sending you a copy of the Filkins news analysis in a separate e-mail. It is the successor to the one that appeared earlier as "Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency." I'd appreciate your letting me know where you are physically located; the problem may have something to do with a cache problem on a remote server.

And yes, the three other headlines would have been changed later the same day or that evening, and the printed versions in the June 9 newspaper would have similar or identical heads. (They sometimes change between printed editions as well.) / Rich Meislin

On Aug 19, 2006, at 1:40 PM, Editor - 201k wrote:

201k readers in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, and Colorado all get the "First Taste of Freedom" article. No one gets the "Hatred He Bred" article.

Two different searches of the Times' archives -- one for "Zarqawi" and one through "Times Topics > People > Z > Zarqawi, Abu Musab al-" -- found none of the original stories from June 8 (or, actually, ANY Zarqawi stories from June 8) with either their original or altered headlines.

The Dexter Filkins article "The Hatred He Bred" -- which I have to take your word for is the article formerly called, "Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency" -- comes up neither in "Times Topics > People > Z > Zarqawi, Abu Musab al-" nor in a search for "Zarqawi". It does come up in a search for "al-Zarqawi".

[Note: To clarify for 201k readers: The "Hatred He Bred" article, which Mr. Reislin called "the successor" to "Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency", does not come up when you click the link to the original "Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency" article. Additionally, it's dated June 9, the day after "Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency" was published.]

The Christine Hauser article, "With Note of Caution, Bush Hails Killing of Zarqawi" now called, "Bush Cautiously Notes Chance to 'Turn the Tide'" comes up in no searches -- not even in a search of her name.

Thanks again your time.

First, two notes: 1. We found the Burns video piece by searching the Times' listing of articles on the "topic" of Zarqawi, though its title has been changed from "The Times's Baghdad bureau chief explains the impact of today's announcements in Baghdad" to "Death of a Terrorist: John F. Burns reports on the killing of the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq and the aftermath", and 2. We realized after sending our last reply to Mr. Meislin that he'd described the Dexter Filkins article as "the successor" to "Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency" and not as the same article with a new headline.

So here's the problem:

Of the five stories the Times put on its on June 8 front page on the death of Zarqawi, all five have had their headlines (and who knows what else) changed in a way that unquestioningly softens the purported impact of Zarqawi's death. Two are impossible to find using their original links or the Times' search -- though "a successor" to one of them is findable through the search if you look really, really hard (but not under "Zarqawi" or at the Times' own listing of articles on Zarqawi).

Moreover, while Mr. Reislin was generous with his time - which we appreciate - he offered absolutely no illumination as to why these articles were changed. We have no idea what additional "reporting, analysis and editing" led "an editor" to decide that downplaying the reaction and importance of Zarqawi's death "reflect[ed] the situation better" -- or when. We know only that the articles were changed -- not only online but possibly after early editions had gone to print.

Here's the reality: on June 8, 2006, when the NY Times first reported the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- a man whose centrality in the insurgency had been greatly promoted by both the Bush Administration and the press -- they had no less than seven headlines on it on the front page. Of those seven, five linked to articles, one linked to a photo essay, and one brought readers to the forum for a "discussion" of the importance of the death. They also sent out a "News Alert" email.

The headlines of three of those initial articles were:

1. Leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq Is Killed.

2. How the News Spread in the White House.

3. With Note of Caution, Bush Hails Killing of Zarqawi.

Sometime after these articles were published (and possibly even after early editions were printed) the headlines were changed to:

1. U.S. Strike Hits Insurgent at Safehouse

2. After Welcome Piece of News, a Decision to Stay Silent

3. Bush Cautiously Notes Chance to 'Turn the Tide'

The fourth article from June, called "Analysis: Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency", is nowhere to be found. We're told its "successor" is an article called "The Hatred He Bred". We have no way of comparing the original to its "successor", but we do know three things: 1. the new headline softens the import of Zarqawi's death, 2. the "successor" article isn't the one you get when you click on the link to what had been "Analysis: Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency", and 3. you can't find the original article in the Times' archives, and you have to look pretty damn hard to find its "successor".

We also know you won't find any of the original articles (with either headlines) if you search for "Zarqawi" or even go to the Times' own listing page for articles on the topic of "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi". In fact, you won't find any stories on Zarqawi from June 8 at all -- the archives skip June 8. June 8 never happened.

And you won't find any version of the Christine Hauser article originally titled "With Note of Caution, Bush Hails Killing of Zarqawi" and now titled, " Bush Cautiously Notes Chance to 'Turn the Tide'" -- not even if you search for the name "Christine Hauser".

What you will find is this:

THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: THE PRESIDENT; Bush Responds To the Killing Of a Terrorist With Caution
June 9, 2006, Friday
By JIM RUTENBERG; CARL HULSE CONTRIBUTED REPORTING FOR THIS ARTICLE. (NYT); Foreign Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 11, Column 6, 774 words

DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - In celebrating the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as a victory for Iraqis and Americans, White House officials were careful on Thursday to acknowledge that his death would not mean the end of the insurgency he had led. The muted approach marked a departure from the triumphalism with which the White House has greeted some other major events in the war in Iraq.

It boils down to this: a reader researching the Times' archives for their coverage of the death of Zarqawi will find articles reporting a measured, "cautious" reaction to it.

Why is this important? Because in reality, when Zarqawi was killed, the NY Times made a big deal about it. They ran seven headlines on the front page. The top story was "Leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq Is Killed". They covered multiple angles, including the President's reaction ("Bush Hails Killing of Zarqawi"), backstage color on how the White House handled the news ("How the News Spread in the White House"). They offered an "analysis" called "Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency" and an opinion from their Baghdad bureau chief "explain[ing] the impact of today's announcements in Baghdad".

There was nothing "cautious" about it.

It was all very, very dramatic -- especially considering that, exactly two years earlier, the Times described this "Leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq" as "a Jordanian jihadist who sought help from Al Qaeda in waging the anti-American insurgency after the fall of Mr. Hussein...whose links to the terrorist group and Mr. Hussein's government remain sketchy".

This is a man about whom, a month before his death, the Times said: "officials' view of Mr. Zarqawi as the main architect of violence in Iraq is more convenient than the possibility that much of the mayhem is committed not by foreign jihadists but by Iraqi-born Sunni Arabs".

And as we've discovered, two and a half months after his death, the Times reports that "the anti-American insurgency has continued to strengthen despite the killing of the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi".

The question before us is simple: given the Bush Administration's history of building up individuals in order to "put a face" on the enemy, and given the Times' history of, well, let's be generous and call it "buying into" Administration spin on things, and given the specific history of the Times' evolving and somewhat inexplicable descriptions of Zarqawi: what should a reader think about this "odd" -- but uniform, and consistent -- revision of the paper's coverage of the death of Zarqawi?

Is it just a matter of the paper recognizing that their original excitement was misplaced? If so, exactly what does it mean that they can simply change history? Is reinterpreting the main thrust of an event "a correction"? Shouldn't it at least be noted somewhere?

In other words, exactly what is "the record" at the "paper of record"?

Or, has the Times changed not just their coverage of Zarqawi, but the history of their coverage of Zarqawi in accordance with the changing importance the Bush Administration has put on him? First, an unknown "Jordanian terrorist" whose effectiveness and connections to al Qaeda were "sketchy", then the "Leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq" whose death was "hailed" by Bush, then just an "insurgent at a safehouse" about whose death the White House decided to "stay silent"?

Which is it?

Hello Mr. Calame or Mr. Plambeck;

I'm the editor of the political blog www.201k.com. In the past I've exchanged emails with Mr. Bovino, who was always very helpful.

Today I encountered something odd on the Times online that I hope is simply a mistake. The story "Bombs Aimed at G.I.'s in Iraq Are Increasing" By Michael R. Gordon, Mark Mazzetti and Thom Shanker (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/world/middleeast/17military.html) -- which is on the front page of the online Times Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 1:14 PM ET, and which begins with the paragraph:

"The number of roadside bombs planted in Iraq rose in July to the highest monthly total of the war, offering more evidence that the anti-American insurgency has continued to strengthen despite the killing of the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi"

-- sent me back to a post 201k had done on June 8, which contained links to various stories the Times posted June 8 on the death of Zarqawi. But I was surprised to find several odd problems with those links.

First, one of them, to an article entitled, "Analysis: Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency" now brings a reader to an entirely different article that has nothing to do with Zarqawi. Additionally, a search of the Times for an article entitled "Analysis: Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency" returns no results, and a search for "Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency" does not find the June 8 article on Zarqawi.

We were hoping to do a comparison of the content of the August 17 article, "Bombs Aimed at G.I.'s in Iraq Are Increasing" and the content of the June 8 article, "Analysis: Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency". Can you tell us what happened to the June 8 analysis, and provide a link to it for our readers? We don't have as many as the Times, but we have a few.

Second, can you provide a link to or transcript of John F. Burn's video report -- also from the front page of June 8 -- entitled, "The Times's Baghdad bureau chief explains the impact of today's announcements in Baghdad." The link for this report, which also no longer works, is: http://www.graphics.nytimes.com/audiosrc/international/20060608_burns.mp3.

Third, we found that the headlines of three other articles on the death of Zarqawi --all from the front page of June 8 -- have changed:

On June 8 the headline of the story at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/08/world/middleeast/08cnd-iraq.html was, "Leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq Is Killed." Now it's, "U.S. Strike Hits Insurgent at Safehouse".

The headline of the story on June 8, found at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/08/world/middleeast/07cnd-reaction.html was, "With Note of Caution, Bush Hails Killing of Zarqawi.". Now the headline is, "Bush Cautiously Notes Chance to 'Turn the Tide'".

Similarly, on June 8 the headline of the story at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/08/world/middleeast/08cnd-bush.html was "How the News Spread in the White House." Now it's "After Welcome Piece of News, a Decision to Stay Silent".

Can you tell us when -- and why -- these headlines were changed, and what the Time's policy is on changing headlines after an article has been published online? Can you also tell us whether other changes were made to these articles besides the headlines?

On its face it's somewhat troubling, given the news that the death of Zarqawi has had no effect on the insurgency in Iraq, that of the five stories on his death featured on the front page of the Times on June 8 -- only two and a half months ago -- three have new headlines that lessen the import of Zarqawi, the White House reaction to his death, or both -- and two are seemingly no longer available.

Can you provide some illumination - and links to the missing articles?

As always, this letter will be printed on our website.

Thanks for your attention,

Editor - 201k.com

My, things happen so quickly around here.

On June 8, 2006, 201k noted that the New York Times had responded to the killing in Iraq of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi with no less than seven stories linked from the front page (along with an emailed "News Alert").

Having followed the bizarre and inexplicable history the press has had with its descriptions of Mr. Zarqawi (See: "The Amazing Career Trajectory of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi") -- and what it meant in regard to the actual import of his death -- we wondered at the time what relevance the many stories on his death would have "three months from now".

Two months and ten days later we have the answer.

Bombs Aimed at G.I.'s in Iraq Are Increasing

By MICHAEL R. GORDON, MARK MAZZETTI and THOM SHANKER
WASHINGTON, Aug. 16 -- The number of roadside bombs planted in Iraq rose in July to the highest monthly total of the war, offering more evidence that the anti-American insurgency has continued to strengthen despite the killing of the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

"The insurgency has gotten worse by almost all measures, with insurgent attacks at historically high levels," said a senior Defense Department official who agreed to discuss the issue only on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for attribution. "The insurgency has more public support and is demonstrably more capable in numbers of people active and in its ability to direct violence than at any point in time."

So there you have it.

But you don't have all of it. It writing this post we've discovered something odd: one of the links we listed back on June 8, to an article entitled, "Analysis: Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency", no longer brings you to that article, but to a different one, entitled, "Hundreds of Iraqi Detainees Get First Taste of Freedom" which has nothing to do with the death of Mr. Zarqawi.

Even more strangely, a search of the Time's database finds no results for an article called "Analysis: Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency", and a search for "Eliminating a Face of the Insurgency" doesn't bring up the original linked article.

How very odd.

Looks like it's time for a letter to the Time's "Public Editor", Byron Calame.

From: Beth
To: 201k

This sort of crap personally embarrasses me. I refer to the case of Zulima Farber, the attorney general of New Jersey, who resigned yesterday amidst allegations of improper conduct relating to her rushing to the scene in her official car when her live-in boyfriend was stopped for failure to wear his seatbelt. He had, by the way, an suspended license and expired registration.

But that's not the bad part.

This woman was confirmed as attorney general despite this traffic record: including 12 speeding tickets, 4 bench warrants and 3 license suspensions.

And why? Could it be because the Democrats are so desperate to be The Party Of Everybody that they will shove ANY WARM BODY into a position if she meets certain cosmetic qualifications? Farber is female, black, and hispanic. An immigrant from Cuba. Trifecta. Oh well; so she's an unqualified unethical scofflaw -- hey, let's make her attorney general!

Makes me want to tear up my party card.

We dunno. As we said before, we can't help thinking there's probably been one or two white guys in positions of power who've helped a friend out of a parking ticket. Or the National Guard.

But as the saying goes: when a Democrat does it, it's corruption; when a Republican does it, it's patronage.

So the Attorney General of New Jersey had to resign for trying to get her boyfriend out of a traffic ticket.

Attorney General Zulima V. Farber, in a tense and combative statement, resigned this evening after a state investigation found that she had violated her own department'Õs code of ethics by going to the aid of her live-in companion during a traffic stop.

On the morning of May 26, she was in a state car driven by a trooper when she received a call from Mr. Goore, who had been stopped at a seatbelt enforcement checkpoint. The Fairview police determined that he had a suspended license and an expired registration.

Ms. Farber said she had her driver take her to Fairview, but that she did not intercede in any way, did not speak to any police officers and did not see any tickets. She acknowledged, however, that Mr. Goore had told the police that his companion was coming to help remove some items from his van --Ñ and that his companion was the attorney general.

The governor's office ordered the investigation on July 5, about a week after the first news reports about the traffic incident.

Those reports prompted some Republicans to demand Ms. Farber's immediate resignation, and even some Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which had approved her nomination seven months ago, called for her to reappear before the panel to explain herself.

So, to summarize:

If you're a Republican, you can loot the treasury, violate the Constitution, skip out on your military service, ignore warnings of impending terrorist attacks, impede investigations, suppress votes, rig elections, write scurrilous court decisions to give your party the presidency, and -- oh yeah -- start a war under false pretenses.

But if you're a Democrat and get a blow job or try to get your boyfriend out of a traffic ticket, you're in big trouble.

Got it?

We await the shame-faced resignation of every powerful white man that ever got someone off on a traffic ticket.

<Crickets Chirping>

We know there's a war on and that our democracy is crumbling around us, but...

You people with the "walkie-talkie" cell phones. Jesus H. Christ.

*Be-deep* "Hey."

*Be-deep* "S'up?"

*Be-deep* "What are you doin'?"

*Be-deep* "Nothin'."

*Be-deep* "Where are you?"

*Be-deep* "I'm here. Where are you?"

*Be-deep* "I'm here."

*Be-deep* "What are you doin'?"

*Be-deep* "Nothin'."

*Be-deep* "Where's Jimmy?"

*Be-deep* "What?"

*Be-deep* "Where's Jimmy?"

*Be-deep* "I dunno."

*Be-deep* "What are you doin'?"

*Be-deep* "Nothing. S'up?"

*Be-deep* "I'm here."

*Be-deep* "Ok, talk to you later."

*Be-deep* "Ok."

Here's a hint: If you're not a contractor, a cop, or a hit man, you don't need a goddamn walkie-talkie. Jesus H. Christ will you people shut up.

</Childish Rant>

Connecticut Democrats Oust Lieberman

Pathological Hatred of Bush, Anti-Semitism, Terrorist Sympathies Only Explanation

Story at Eleven.

201k, August 07, 2006

Lieberman [has] been the Bush Administration's prize Democratic cheerleader -- a position [he] assumed gleefully, going as far as adopting the Administration's rhetoric and vocabulary on the war and its pernicious habit of labeling its critics as soft on terror

Salon's War Room, August 8, 2006

The vigor and intensity of the opposition to Lieberman stem not merely from the fact that he shared the president's positions on Iraq and foreign policy generally, but far worse, that he adopted the Bush/Rove political rhetoric on those issues and -- alone among prominent Democrats -- repeatedly wielded that rhetoric as a tool to bash and demonize anyone who opposed Bush's policies.

Oh, look, the NY Times is running an Op-Ed from New Republic senior editor Noam Scheiber in which he says that Liberman's defeat was due to anti-Bush lefty bloggers demanding increasing partisanization that will hurt the party's "electability".

Amazing coincidence, huh? All the same talking points CNN was pounding last night -- in direct contradiction to known reality -- repeated nearly word-for-word in the country's most influential paper less than an hour later.

Seems to keep happening.

Think we're exaggerating? Here, for your reading pleasure, is our abridged version of Mr. Scheiber's article:

In truth, Mr. Lieberman's problem wasn't so much the war as the perception that he's a less than reliable partisan. [T]here was a time when the support of key Democratic interest groups would have more than made up for such heresies.

But over the last six years this old model has broken down. As anyone who hasn't been living in a cave knows, traditional Democratic interest groups have steadily lost ground to a more partisan, progressive movement skilled at using the Internet to communicate and raise money. The most visible faces of the new movement are the thousands of political bloggers...

Call them the counter-Bushies, after the president whose singular talent it is to drive them to paroxysms of rage. But the rising influence of the counter-Bushies raises...problems. [T]heir judgment may be flawed when it comes to questions of electability.

So, to sum up: Lieberman's loss represents anti-Bush lefty bloggers demanding increasing partisanization that will hurt the Democratic party's "electability".

Got the message? Good.

Now, to reality: Mr. Scheiber, like Candy Crowley and all the other stenographers in the media, isn't fooling anyone (we hope). Scheiber's only attempt to connect his these talking points to reality -- since he mentions not at all the poll numbers that show that most Americans, and not just Democrats, share Mr. Lamont's and not Mr. Lieberman's views -- is his suggestion that "the new model" (read: those whacky left-leaning, Bush-hating bloggers) care less than "the old model" that Lieberman "...was a reliable vote on what Connecticut liberals care about: defending the right to abortion, fighting oil drilling in the Alaskan Arctic, raising the minimum wage."

Memo to Mr. Scheiber: the "modern" Democratic candidates, if you want to call them that, support all those things. There's no compromise on those issues -- just the opposite: the progressive candidates that voters want (a fact neither the New Republic nor CNN want to hear about) support not only those issues but also the rest of the ones Democratics care about.

Which Lieberman didn't.

Lieberman personally led the Senate charge against Arthur Leavitt, the Clinton-appointed S.E.C. Commissioner who tried to curb Wall Street's pernicious influence in Washington.

Lieberman sided with Bill Frist, George Bush, and the extreme religious right when they attempted to abuse both the rule of law and an individual's right to privacy, using religious demagoguery and mob tactics to interfere in the lawful disposition of the will of Terri Schiavo.

Lieberman joined the anti-free speech movement in their dangerous and disingenuous attacks on their shibboleth, the "Hollywood Liberals".

Lieberman not only backed the War in Iraq, he adopted both the Bush Administration's rhetoric and its reprehensible tactics in defending it when not just a majority of Democrats but a majority of Americans oppose the war, and when Bush's favorability ratings are as low as any president's in modern history.

Lieberman went out of his way to condemn Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinski scandal when not just a majority of Democrats but a majority of Americans saw the Whitewater investigation as a partisan witchhunt, and when Clinton's favorability ratings were as high as any president's in modern history.

Lieberman let Dick Cheney walk all over him in a debate when nine out of ten Democrats who aren't United States Senators could have taken the vice-President apart on known facts and misrepresentations.

Lieberman conceeded legal ground in the disputed 2000 presidential election when it was not only unnecessary, it was a catastrophic surrender completely unmerited by the situation.

No, Mr. Scheiber, we aren't compromising anything by tossing out Joe Lieberman. All we're losing from the Democratic party is a maddeningly consistent anti-Democratic voice.

Or, on the other hand, Lieberman could lose and refuse to acknowledge it:

Senator Lieberman, a national party leader and the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2000, conceded defeat in a phone call to Mr. Lamont shortly before 11 p.m. But then, in a combative speech to supporters in Hartford that was carried live on television news, the senator declared that he was not dropping out of the race, but would instead run for re-election as an independent this fall.

"As I see it, in this campaign, we've just finished the first half and the Lamont team is ahead, but in the second half, our team, Team Connecticut, is going to surge forward to victory in November," Mr. Lieberman told cheering supporters.

"Team Connecticut"? What happened to "Team Democratic Party"?

Actually, Joe, what happened was: you lost the election.

Lieberman may figure the only way to continue his pro-Bush agenda is to split the Democratic vote in the general election in the hopes that a Republican will get the seat. Surely the man who clothes-lined former S.E.C. Commissioner Arthur Leavitt -- a Bill Clinton appointee who attempted to curb Wall Street's increasing power in Washington -- would find a Republican preferable to an actual Democrat, who might advocate for Democratic voters over the objections of the corporate interests that Joe has represented for 18 years.

If he does, he'll find no opposition on "Lieber-TV" -- formerly known as CNN -- whose coverage of the primary last night veered between frustrating and surreal.

To begin with, CNN, which we haven't watched in months, recognizes no story other than "CRISIS IN THE MIDDLE EAST", which is to say, the one between Israel and Lebanon. For hour after hour CNN reminded its viewers who was really responsible for the war (hint: it wasn't George Bush, nor the invasion of Iraq, nor the war-mongering neocons in Washington and Israel, nor our ridiculous and inexcusable dependence on oil), and paraded a gaggle of talking heads to vehemently disagree over whether we should pursue Option A or Option A-subset-2 (since options B-Z would be helping the terrorists.)

Much, much later -- after the Red Sox had lost in Kansas City, even -- Anderson Cooper mentioned the war in Iraq in passing before going to yet another commercial for yet another pharmaceutical product about which we should ask our doctor. We have no idea if he got back to Iraq or for how long, but somewhere along the line he dropped in on CNN's resident campaign liar Candy Crowley, who paused between heavy breaths to repeat the GOP talking points on the Connecticut Senate primary: that Lieberman was the "centrist", that "lefty bloggers" and "anti-Bushies" had propelled the neophyte Lamont ahead, that it would be a terrible thing for the Democratic party if Lamont was elected, and would be evidence only of the "deep partisanization" of politics (instead of an expression of popular will completely in accordance with polls on the views of all Americans), and that if Lieberman ran as an Independent he'd win.

It never occurred to Crowley to consider reporting that a candidate's refusing to drop out of a race after losing a primary would be a stunning slap in the face to his party, to voters, and to democracy.

Which is what everyone but Candy Crowley and whoever the hell she represents was thinking.

Crowley, by the way, had earlier told CNN viewers that Lieberman might have been ahead (due to "cheers" she said she'd heard in the room) when every newspaper and wire service on earth was reporting that Lamont was winning and, in fact, had never trailed.

During Lieberman's "concession" speech Crowley gave a report -- inexplicably from a cell phone; she may have popped over to Burger King -- talking over his speech to report to viewers that Lieberman was a centrist who would win if he ran as an Independent against the lefty-blogger-and-anti-Bushies-propelled Lamont, whose election would be seen by "Democrats" -- presumably the ones she knows, not the ones who actually voted -- as a step in the wrong direction for the party.

Later, when Lamont gave his acceptance speech, CNN covered it not at all, instead running a pre-produced Crowley piece in which she reported to viewers that -- you guessed it: Lieberman was a centrist who would win if he ran as an Independent against the lefty-blogger-and-anti-Bushies-propelled Lamont, whose election would be seen by "Democrats" as a step in the wrong direction for the party.

It will be months before we watch CNN again -- if ever. Screw them.

...but 201k has a bad feeling we're being set up for a surprise Lieberman victory tomorrow. His opponent's lead in the polls has inexplicably vanished in the course of a week, and the NY Times is running an Anne Kornblutt report (video, so no link -- sorry) which suggests that because Lieberman "is in such a good mood now...that he will actually be able to turn the tide..."

We're not sure how a candidate's mood was able to knock four points off a polling deficit in 24 hours, but we'll defer to Kornblut, who prior to this report was given the front page of the Times to run a smarmy hit-piece on Hillary Clinton, by way of defending Lieberman by contrast:

There was a time when Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's position on the Iraq war seemed to place her in the same political peril afflicting Senator Joseph I. Lieberman.

The senators, both Democrats, voted to authorize the military invasion and both refused to apologize for their votes as the occupation began to falter and opposition to the war swelled. Both were labeled as hawks within Democratic ranks.

But while Mr. Lieberman, his party's vice presidential nominee in 2000, has wound up vulnerable to an antiwar challenger in his re-election race in Connecticut, Mrs. Clinton has suffered few, if any, serious consequences in her campaign in New York.

The reason for this, Kornblut explains, isn't the many substantive ways in which Ms. Clinton's stance on the war differs from Lieberman's -- though Kornblut lists them -- nor to Lieberman's having been the Bush Administration's prize Democratic cheerleader -- a position Lieberman assumed gleefully, going as far as adopting the Administration's rhetoric and vocabulary on the war and its pernicious habit of labeling its critics as soft on terror -- it's due to Clinton's "skillful repositioning and adaptation to changing circumstances."

Ah. And all this time we thought it was because Lieberman spent so much time as the house pro-Bush Democrat on Fox News.

Meanwhile, Lieberman himself is spinning revisionist polling history, claiming in Kornblut's video piece that "we did some polling early on, in different scenarios, which said to me, that this was going to end up a dead heat, and that's exactly what's happened."

They did? He did?

It did?

This is starting to sound a lot like the predictions of the legions of evangelicals that would turn out to push George W. Bush over the edge in the 2004 presidential election -- an election that far more likely turned on the machination of electronic voting machines than on any supposed religious turn-out.

We hope we're wrong. When it comes to cynicism, well, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Another Great Moment in Religious History.

By TERENCE CHEA Associated Press Writer

August 05,2006 | SAN FRANCISCO -- Previously hidden writings of the ancient Greek mathematician Archimedes are being uncovered with powerful X-ray beams nearly 800 years after a Christian monk scrubbed off the text and wrote over it with prayers.

Born in the 3rd century B.C., Archimedes is considered one of ancient Greece's greatest mathematicians, perhaps best known for discovering the principle of buoyancy while taking a bath.

The 174-page manuscript, known as the Archimedes Palimpsest, contains the only copies of treatises on flotation, gravity and mathematics. Scholars believe a scribe copied them onto the goatskin parchment from the original Greek scrolls.

Three centuries later, a monk scrubbed off the Archimedes text and used the parchment to write prayers.

Claude Allen, former domestic policy advisor to George Bush, gets probation.

Ex-Adviser to Bush Gets Probation for Theft
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

ROCKVILLE, Md. (AP) -- A former White House adviser pleaded guilty to theft Friday, briefly breaking into tears as he tried to explain to a judge why he made phony returns at discount department stores while working as a top aide to President Bush.

''Something did go very wrong,'' Claude Allen said.

Allen, 45, pleaded guilty in Montgomery County Circuit Court to one misdemeanor count of theft under $500. He was sentenced to two years of supervised probation and ordered to pay a $500 fine.

Allen was President Bush's domestic policy adviser until he abruptly resigned in February, saying he wanted to spend more time with his family. The resignation came after he was arrested in January leaving a Gaithersburg Target store with merchandise that authorities said he didn't pay for.

He told the White House about the arrest, but said it was the result of a mix-up with his credit cards. President Bush later said it would be ''deeply disappointing'' if Allen had misled White House officials.

Something struck us weird about this story, and it took us a while to put our finger on it. It's not that Allen only got probation -- that's about right in these cases.

No, it's that Claude Allen, a top advisor to George Bush, only stole less than $500.

What an amateur.

Allen, invited to join the Legion of Loot and work side-by-side with Captain Halliburton and his faithful ward, Oil Boy, actually walked the same halls down which strode the late Commander Enron and a host of other legends of "The Great G.O.P. Public-to-Private Wealth Transfer Initiative" -- literally rubbing elbows with the greatest looters in the history of the republic -- and the best he could do is chisel a measly $500 out of department stores?

What is he -- a Democrat?

"Deeply disappointing'', indeed. Throw the bum out.

John McCain, Aug. 3, 2006

Pentagon generals warn of Iraq civil war

WASHINGTON -- Two top Pentagon commanders said Thursday that spiraling violence in Baghdad could propel Iraq into outright civil war, using a politically loaded term that the Bush administration has long avoided.

The Bush administration's handling of the war drew sharp rebukes from Democrats and some Republicans Thursday. Sen. John McCain likened the positioning of forces in Iraq to a game of "whack-a-mole," where generals try to curb violence in one area only to see it pop up somewhere else.

201k, Sept. 14, 2003

How to fight a war against millions of individuals is the essential question the Bush administration has failed to grasp. Declaring "war" on an abstract noun -- in this case "terror" -- may make for great soundbites, but bombing it turns out to be problematic. Ultimately you end up bombing places you think it may be hiding near, but that tends to create more problems than it solves -- especially for the innocent people who happen to live in the vicinity.

What you end up with is a global game of "whack-a-mole", the carnival game in which no matter how hard you swing at the mole, it disappears while another one pops up somewhere else. You can turn around and shoot the carnival owner, of course, but then you have to contend with his family. Do you shoot them, too? Then what?

Welcome to "whack-a-mole".