Welcome to 201k.com - A Commonwealth Perspective.

Anti-American terrorist forces in Iraq have likely been enboldened by Democratic Senator Zell Miller's recent criticism of former White House chief of counter-terrorism Richard A. Clarke:

March 31, 2004

5 G.I.'s and 4 Contractors Are Killed in Separate Attacks
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN and JOHN F. BURNS

ALLUJA, Iraq, March 31 -- An enraged mob attacked a group of foreign contractors here today, shooting four people to death, burning their vehicles, dragging their bodies through the downtown streets and then hanging the charred corpses from a bridge.

Meanwhile, less than 15 miles away, in the same area of the increasingly violent Sunni Triangle, five marines were killed in one of the deadliest roadside bomb incidents for coalition troops in weeks. The marines were traveling through a dusty village along a supply route when the explosion ripped into their vehicles.

The steadily deteriorating security situation in the Falluja area, west of Baghdad, has become so dangerous that no American soldiers or Iraqi security staff responded to the attack against the contractors.

Clearly, evil forces have taken encouragement from the fact that U.S. Senator Zell Miller has publicly criticized Clarke -- the man widely recognized as most responsible for the pursuit of terrorist enemies of the U.S. -- and called into question the patriotism of any American who supports the 9/11 commission's demand that president George Bush cooperate with their investigation.

Confident that any effort to uncover why the U.S. government failed to prevent the 9/11 attacks -- despite significant prior information -- will be blocked, anti-American forces surely realize they can act with impunity. With demagogues like Miller willing to cast as "appeasers" anyone who tries to get at the root of our failure to prevent 9/11, terrorists are safe in the knowledge that nothing will be done to stop them as long as doing so harms George Bush politically.

While 201k cherishes the freedoms all Americans enjoy, it's clear that with people like Miller aiding and comforting the enemy, there need be limits on freedom. Those who, like Miller, encourage terrorists, must be silenced. The safety of our troops -- indeed, of all Americans -- depends on it.

From: "Richard"
To: editor@201k.com
Date: 31 Mar 2004

Amen to your piece on Zell, the weasel, Miller. The guy is beneath contempt. I want to see more of this repudiation of him and his kind.

We appreciate the sentiment. Perhaps another Senator could ask Miller to identify -- to name -- those he thinks are "appeasers". You know, those who think the 9/11 commission has a right to demand that the White House cooperate with the investigation.

According to Miller, anyone who believes that is "energizing our enemies".

He should be required to name names.

Democratic Senator Zell Miller has set a new standard for pernicious political speech--no mean feat in this current atmosphere. Here's the A.P. report of his remarks:

March 30, 2004 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- The 9/11 commission's public quarrels with the Bush administration could "energize our enemies and demoralize our troops," Sen. Zell Miller, D-Ga., said Tuesday.

In a speech on the Senate floor, Miller, the Senate's lone Democrat to endorse Bush for re-election, also denounced former Bush counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke, who has criticized the president as being slow to act against the al-Qaida terrorist network.

"The vindictive Clarke has now had his revenge, but what kind of hell has he, his CBS publisher, and his ax-to-grind advocates unleashed?" Miller said. Miller has backed Bush on practically every major foreign and domestic initiative. He said if there were intelligence breakdowns, Clarke was most to blame because he was in the "catbird seat" for a decade.

"It's obvious to me that this country is rapidly dividing itself into two camps -- the wimps and the warriors," Miller said. "The ones who want to argue and assess and appease, and the ones who want to carry this fight to our enemies and kill them before they kill us."

Zell Miller has decided not only to use his Senate perch to grossly politicize the 9/11 commission and to attribute motives to Richard Clarke; he's saying that he considers anyone who questions the details of president Bush's highly questionable "war on terror" an "appeaser" who is "energizing" our enemies

This is the president, let's remember, who opposed the creation of the commission in the first place, who until yesterday refused to let his national security advisor testify under oath while letting her go on countless television programs to call Clarke every name in the book, and who until yesterday refused himself to meet with the entire commission.

We're talking about the commission charged with determining how it was that 3,000 people died on 9/11 despite the fact that several government agencies had significant prior knowledge that could very well have led them to prevent the attacks.

But this is secondary, in Zell Miller's opinion, to protecting president Bush's political ass. And he's ready to accuse anyone who feels differently of comforting our enemies.

"Wimps and warriors"? How dare he.

Let us return the favor: Zell Miller is a hack and a scoundrel. While he pretends to care about the future welfare of "our troops", it's clear that the only welfare he cares about is that of his political master.

Noting is more un-American, more disgusting, than accusing political opponents of treason; it is an act of political cowardice and demagoguery almost beyond comparison. For Miller to do it now, placing George Bush's political career ahead of the rights of the 9/11 victims, and possibly ahead of the safety of all Americans, is among the ugliest things we have ever witnessed.

Zell Miller should be censured by the U.S. Senate.

They just can't stop saying it.

One outside adviser to the White House said Mr. Bush's political staff was inclined to compromise on Ms. Rice's testimony, judging the political costs of continuing to fight in the midst of a tight re-election campaign to outweigh any cost from showing flexibility on the principle.

"It's fair to say many of the senior political advisers understand the principle but have a more pragmatic view," said the adviser, who insisted on anonymity, saying he wanted to keep his role behind the scenes.

This adviser said Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's senior adviser and political strategist, wanted to move the election away from questions like "Were there intelligence failures?" and to put the focus instead on which candidate could better protect against any future efforts by terrorists to attack the United States.

"If we're going to have a discussion about W.M.D. and intelligence failures and Osama bin Laden, that's not an election George W. Bush wins," the adviser said. "If it's about who keeps you safer, that's the ground we want to be on."

See, if the "discussion" is about those pesky factual things--W.M.D, intelligence failures or Osama bin Laden--that's bad. But if it's about a nice vague political talking point uncluttered by facts or evidence, like, "who keeps you safer", well, that's just dandy for the White House.

Once again, it's not reality that matters--it's how you look at it.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain; just keep looking at the smoke and fire.

To: editor@201k.com
Subject: In a nutshell
From: Mark
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004

Editor,

I think it's more like how the Chimp's administration *doesn't* see it. Pathological, systemic myopia.

"None are so blind as they who would refuse to see."

And, speaking of seeing, I've seen enough of Condoleeza Rice to last me a lifetime.

Mark

Mark is being too kind to the administration; in our opinion they've known all along what they were doing: fulfilling the long list of neocon pre-election agenda items, evidence and reality be damned.

And while we agree that under normal circumstances the less seen of Condoleezza Rice the better, in this case, well...schadenfreude about says it.

Wonder what she'll say tomorrow?

A new quote from National Insecurity Advisor Condoleezza Rice sums up the Bush White House's political Theory of Everything:

Rice said "the war on terrorism is well served by the victory in Iraq."

Told there have been more terrorist attacks since Sept. 11 than before it, she replied: "I think that's the wrong way to look at it."

See, it's not reality that matters--it's how we spin it.

Weapons of mass destruction? Depends how you look at it.

Iraq's ties to al Qaeda? Depends how you look at it.

Global warming? Who really benefits from the tax cuts? What caused the California energy "crisis"?

It all depends how you look at it.

Two Republican newspapers--the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post--identified the holdout juror in the Tyco trial, which has led to a motion to dismiss.

Kozlowski and Swartz are accused of taking more than $400 million. The trial has cost an estimated $15 million. Certainly the case was in trouble anyway, but the Journal and the Post have driven a nail in it, just in case.

If the American people at large won't wake up to the coup d'etat that walked off with their democracy, maybe American shareholders will. That money belonged to somebody. Maybe you?

201k would like to draw your attention to a matter that seems to have escaped the notice of those whose job it is to notice.

Many media outlets have reported that the supposedly contradictory 2002 "background briefing" given by former White House head of counter-terrorism Richard Clarke was leaked to the press by the White House. Some have mentioned that it was leaked specifically to Fox News, while a few have gone on to note that it then made its way into the hands of a Republican member of the 9/11 commission, former Governor James R. Thompson.

But none that we have seen found reason to point out the extraordinary fact that Thompson had this document before Clarke testified. Think about what that means.

It means that the White House -- which had vetted Clarke's book and therefor knew what he was going to say -- formulated a plan to question his credibility by contrasting it with his remarks at the 2002 "background briefing", leaked those remarks to Fox News, which then faxed a copy to a Republican member of the supposedly independent 9/11 commission, who had it, and the phony credibility argument, ready to hold up for the cameras by the time Clarke was sworn in.

Which, by the way, he made sure to hold up with his fingers covering the Fox News logo. Go back and look at the video.

What the heck is going on here?

The White House, a major news organization, and a member of the independent commission all working together, in advance, to discredit a witness before his crucial testimony regarding the most lethal attack ever visited upon the United States?

201k suggests that the media needs to look into exactly what steps that classified document took to get from the White House to James Thompson.

Something is rotten in Denmark. This is what George Bush said a few days ago:

"Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us, I would have used every resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people."

But it turns out that National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice tried, in closed session, to recant her statement that the administration couldn't have known about possible attacks using airplanes

Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed this week that Rice had asked, in her private meetings with the commission, to revise a statement she made publicly that "I don't think anybody could have predicted that those people could have taken an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center . . . that they would try to use an airplane as a missile." Rice told the commission that she misspoke; the commission has received information that prior to Sept. 11, U.S. intelligence agencies and Clarke had talked about terrorists using airplanes as missiles.

What's going on here? If Rice knew, why wouldn't the president know?

This is serious stuff.

Despite our optimism that the testimony of Richard Clarke would finally bust open the Bush administration's cabal of secrecy regarding what they knew about possible terrorist attacks prior to 9/11, certain realities suggest to us that darkness may yet triumph.

1. The pathetic partisanship of the Republican members of the 9/11 commission -- especially that of John F. Lehman. That he, and Former Governor James R. Thompson, would use their forum on the commission to pursue the White House's agenda of character assassination against Clarke and blame-shifting to Bill Clinton rather than address known facts of the Bush administration's incompetence, suggests a level of cynicism almost beyond comprehension.

Undoubtedly history will not be kind to either Lehman or Thompson. But in the meantime we are left listening to Lehman argue, repeatedly, that blame for 9/11 should be placed on the Clinton administration because they did not retaliate for the the bombing of the Cole after getting a preliminary suggestion from the CIA, in November of 2000, that al Qaeda may have been responsible. Nevermind that two months later, in January, 2001 -- when Bush was president -- the CIA formally assigned blame to al Qaeda, and that Bush never retaliated. It's Clinton's fault for not reacting to the November "preliminary" finding.

Can you imagine what Republicans -- like Lehman -- would have done if he had? With two months left in office? And no official assignation of blame from the CIA?

Lehman also pretends to be confused that Clarke's testimony before the commission "differs" from what he gave before the Congressional 9/11 committee. Of course, Lehman, like everyone in Washington, knows that for the Republican-controlled Congressional committee Clarke answered the questions he was asked, many of which were -- surprise! -- about Clinton. He was not asked about Iraq. He was not asked what Condoleezza Rice knew and when she knew it. He was not asked how many times he "urgently" tried to get Rice to pay attention to al Qaeda.

The testimony he gave before the Republican congressional committee followed the questions he was asked, and the questions followed a GOP script. He was not allowed to testify to the whole truth. This is the reason he wrote his book. It's one of the reasons truth-minded people knew there needed to be an independent commission. And it's the main reason the Bush administration opposed one.

Meanwhile Governor Thompson pretends to be shocked that Clarke, acting as a member of the Bush administration, would follow orders and put positive spin on its performance against terrorism, even as he takes as gospel CIA Director George Tenet's outrageous dissembling and lies.

Does anyone on earth really believe Tenet when he says the CIA didn't "understand" the Clinton White House' directive to kill bin Laden? What's not to understand? What of the classified documents Sandy Berger referred to that make this directive unambiguous? If there really was a "misunderstanding", wouldn't one call from the Director to the White House clear it up?

Why has no one on the commission asked Tenet that? It's simple enough: "If the CIA was confused about the White House directive to kill bin Laden, why didn't you ask for clarification?"

2. The media coverage of the commission has been horribly garbled. 201k watched CNN, and if they are the standard, then the truth is in jeopardy. Anyone who watched the hearings and then CNN's coverage will surely come to the same conclusion.

Beginning with GOP mole Wolf Blitzer's post-testimony coverage on Wednesday, CNN pursued a policy that can only be described as pernicious. Immediately following the session, Blitzer "discussed" the entire day's events with a British "terrorism expert", and CNN's Dana Bash. The "expert's" only remarks were to essentially ignore all of Clarke's testimony and instead focus on the lame Republican talking points impugning his credibility. Dana Bash was then brought in to give "the White House's perspective", as if any more of that were needed.

Worse, in replaying video of Clarke's testimony, CNN freeze-framed Clarke's retort to Thompson in response the former governor's claim that he spoke "untruths" on behalf of the Bush administration. This freezing, which CNN repeated throughout the day, had two effects: it created the false impression that Clarke's remark was a smug admission of duplicity, instead of an excellent rejoiner to Thompson's shameless demagoguery, and more importantly, it eliminated the audience's very positive response.

And CNN stayed away entirely from Clarke's later devastating dismissal of Thompson's charge, which elicited a spontaneous burst of loud applause in the audience. CNN, apparently, does not want its viewers to know just how effective Clarke was, and how much support he had. They prefer to present a "balanced view" of the testimony, which is to say, they want to give equal credence to ridiculous Republican propaganda and ass-covering as to legitimate, factual testimony. We can only imagine what is going on over at Faux News.

Meanwhile, the administration's official news outlet, PBS' The NewsHour, provided Donald Rumsfeld a forum on Thursday, and will have Colin Powell on tonight. Perhaps Rice will be next, or maybe Richard Nixon.

Oddly, prior to airing a Margaret Warner interview with Howard Dean, Jim Lehrer felt the need to point out to viewers that the interview was taped before the NewsHours' interview with Rumsfeld. Why, you ask, was this necessary? How could anything Rumsfeld have said impact the Dean interview? You had to watch to find out.

Dean, in the course of his interview, criticized the Bush administrations' prosecution of the war on terror. Specifically, he cited Clarke's testimony that taking the war to Iraq had weakened the country's fight against terrorism. So what had this to do with Rumsfeld? Why did Jim Lehrer need to tell viewers that Dean was speaking before Rumsfeld had? What had Rumsfeld said that somehow undermined Dean's remarks?

Rumsfeld said that the war in Iraq was in fact a proper venue for the war on terror.

Oh.

No proof, no evidence, just a flat statement from the man who said he "knew" where the WMD were. But that was good enough for Lehrer, and worth a disclaimer before the Dean interview.

Meanwhile, Condoleezza Rice continues to be given an unquestioning forum on TV to call Richard Clarke every name in the book without having to provide any proof. And when she returns, under duress, to testify in front of the commission, she will not have to be under oath. Hmmm.

Here's the ugly reality that the media has failed, and will likely continue to fail, to make clear to the public: in the months prior to 9/11 the FBI knew there were "foreign Arabs" taking flight lessons who were not interested in learning to land. The CIA knew that senior al Qaeda operatives had entered the country. Neither fact was relayed to the White House's chief terrorism official, who was nevertheless "urgently" requesting meetings with the National Security Advisor -- and was told to go through underlings.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration was pursuing the pre-conceived agenda of focusing on Iraq -- a strategy developed out of office in right-wing think tanks by the very same people who would eventually mislead the country into invading Iraq under false pretenses.

How much clearer could this be?

In his interview last night on 60 Minutes, Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counter-terrorism coordinator, said some of the most damning things we can ever recall hearing about a sitting president. If true, and publicized, it would certainly be enough to bring about Bush's defeat in November, if not get him impeached before then.

Of course, the right-wing smear machine is surely prepared to drop their usual load of dung on Clarke forthwith. Or perhaps they'll kill the story with silence, though that will be a good trick with his upcoming testimony. We shall see.

In any event, Clarke's contention that George Bush is doing "a terrible job on the war against terrorism" -- and that was one of the least damaging things he said -- got us thinking about Bush's track record on, well, just about everything.

We're stumped here at 201k, trying to think of any enterprise in which George W. Bush has been involved that wasn't somehow tainted. Any.

His business dealings, from his "oil executive" career to his "ownership" of a baseball team, are rife with questionable stock sales, SEC investigations, and seemingly unmerited advances, stock awards, and promotions.

His "election" to the presidency was the most controversial in the country's history. His administration's pre-9/11 "highlights" include the highly contentious "Energy Task Force" and its yet-to-be-determined connection to the west coast energy "crisis", a cozy connection with the major players in the largest corporate fraud in history, and an environmental policy that was written by the companies it's meant to regulate and which precipitated the first international wave of anti-Americanism of his term.

Bush's post-9/11 performance has been a disaster that literally rivals anything in modern history. Missing in action for hours the day of the attacks, Bush eventually responded with a public-relations campaign meant to cover for his appalling lack of leadership. Meanwhile his staff was scheming to use the attacks as a pretext for waging their predetermined agenda of a war in Iraq.

What followed -- the intentional misleading of the American people and the world regarding Iraq's supposed WMD and connections to Al Qaida, the debacle that is the occupation, and the attempts by the administration to thwart any investigation into what it knew about the impending attacks, or its use of intelligence in promoting the Iraq war -- stands as perhaps the greatest misuse of power exercised by an American president in history.

So the question we're asking is: has George W. Bush ever been invloved in any professional activity that wasn't somehow questionable?

You know, this free press thing might actually work out to be a good thing for democracy. They should try it more often.

Thanks to a Reader for sending this link.

Looks like Poland may follow Spain out of George Bush's "Axis of the Duped":

Poland may withdraw Iraq troops
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Monika Scislowska

March 18, 2004 | WARSAW, Poland (AP) -- President Aleksander Kwasniewski, a key Washington ally, said Thursday he may withdraw troops early from Iraq and that Poland was "misled" about the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

His remarks to a small group of European reporters were his first hint of criticism about war in Iraq, where Poland currently has 2,400 troops and with the United States and Britain commands one of three sectors of the U.S.-led occupation.

"Naturally, one may protest the reasons for the war action in Iraq. I personally think that today, Iraq without Saddam Hussein is a truly better Iraq than with Saddam Hussein," Kwasniewski told the European reporters.

"But naturally I also feel uncomfortable due to the fact that we were misled with the information on weapons of mass destruction," he said, according to a transcript released by the presidential press office.

If this keeps up the only organization headed by a non-American that supports the war will be Fox News.

We suppose the Republican congress will now rename kielbasa "Freedom Log".

By the way: "french toast" is an American food; it was created in Albany by a man named French. Which is why 201k continues to believe the vast majority of Republican congressmen and women are complete nitwits.

Prove us wrong.

Our letter to the Times' Public Editor received this response:

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004
To: "Editor - 201k.com"
From: Public
Subject: Re: Hello again. A.P. misquote?

Dear 201k.com,

Thank you for your message.

The misquote was whether Kerry said he met foreign leaders or he had heard that foreign leaders said that... Even Kerry has not backed away from the suggestion that there are leaders around the world who would like to see President Bush defeated.

An editor at NYTimes.com changed the language in the AP story from assertion to suggestion which is the language Times reporters used this morning in their story.

Sincerely,
Arthur Bovino
Office of the Public Editor

And, indeed, the sentence is question was changed from:

The speech was part of Kerry's effort to cast his campaign in terms of his war-hero background and, at the same time, deflect criticism over his vote in the Senate against an $87 billion funding bill for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also has been criticized for his assertion that some foreign leaders hope he defeats Bush in November.

to:

The speech was part of Kerry's effort to cast his campaign in terms of his war-hero background and, at the same time, deflect criticism over his vote in the Senate against an $87 billion funding bill for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also has been criticized for suggesting that some foreign leaders want to see Bush defeated in November.

But we're still puzzled over the word "foreign":

Mr. Bovino,

Thanks for your response. Yesterday's Times' story on the correction does not have the word "foreign" in it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/politics/campaign/16POOL.html

Mr. Kerry said on Sunday that he had used the word "heard," not "met," prompting Mr. Healy to revisit the recording. On Monday, he sent out a corrected transcript, clarifying that the quotation actually began, "I've met more leaders who can't go out and say it all publicly."

Thanks to the editor (and to you?) for the change from assertion to suggestion. I agree that the new sentence is more accurate. But what of the word 'foreign"?

Regards,

201k.com

Two days after a Boston Globe reporter acknowledged that he accidentally misquoted John Kerry, the New York Times printed an A.P. story that repeats the misquote:

The speech was part of Kerry's effort to cast his campaign in terms of his war-hero background and, at the same time, deflect criticism over his vote in the Senate against an $87 billion funding bill for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also has been criticized for his assertion that some foreign leaders hope he defeats Bush in November.

It would be interesting to hear what the Times' policy is on wire stories that contain known errors. Guess it's time for another letter to the Public Editor.

Reader email:

From: "Richard"
To: editor@201k.com
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004

I'm surprised that no one has picked up on Bush's comment that 'We've got Al Queda on the run", and played that back in juxtaposition with footage of the bombings in Spain.

Richard
Fairfield, CT

Yeah, how bout that?

201k apologizes for our recent absence; our crack staff have been busy with various projects, and we haven't had an editorial meeting in a while. But tomorrow is St. Patrick's Day, so we have a feeling the group will be assembling soon...

Isn't it funny how no matter what goes wrong for the Bush administration, they claim it affirms their policies?

They bully the Spanish government into the Iraq war against the wishes of 90% of the Spanish people -- who rightly questioned the relevance of it to the "war on terror", and had the wisdom to wonder what the ramifications would be -- and when it turns out the relevance is demonstrably nil and the ramifications are predictably horrible, the administration insists the policies were correct and the people are wrong. Again.

The bombing, and subsequent removal of the Aznar government (which shared with Mr. Bush's the insulting habit of substituting propaganda for information) is now seen by the White House and its shills as proof that "weakness" against terrorists only "encourages" them.

The problem with this nonsense, besides the fact that it's a lot of hot air meant to distract attention from the worst foreign policy since "Manifest Destiny", is that it has only one natural end: kill them all.

To realize this one only has to read the uncomically dishonest Richard Perle, whose scorched earth philosophy and rhetoric found common cause with the oil interests ensconced in the White House. And make no mistake, "kill them all" is exactly what Mr. Perle, and anyone in the administration who agrees with him, has in mind.

Apart from its questionable moral underpinnings, this "philosophy" has a more concrete problem: it's impossible. You can't actually kill them all. Not without destroying half the world in the process. As we've said in the past, it's a global game of "whack a mole": the more you try to bash them with a hammer, the more moles you create.

Nothing is more effective at its job than the hammer; and nothing does more damage when used for the wrong job. Mr. Bush used the wrong tool for the wrong job, and made a mess of it -- as predicted. Now he and his defenders resent that the people of Spain have joined most of the world in calling him on it.

Even the best people to strike back when attacked. It's this natural and perfectly legitimate human trait that George Bush exploited when he used the post-9/11 anger to gain approval for his war on Iraq.

But even the angriest people will resent being tricked into striking back at the wrong enemy, as most Americans are beginning to feel they were. And many, like the Spanish -- who overwhelmingly questioned taking the war to Iraq in the first place -- will at the first opportunity exercise their ability to remove and reject those that abused their trust.

No amount of dissembling and inflammatory rhetoric will change that now.

We don't expect the Bush administration either to own up to its mistakes, or to stop blaming those who fail to toe the party line. But we do expect that a people so viciously misled -- no safer than they were on 9/10 -- will take the first opportunity to punish the liars responsible.

Once that is accomplished, the people can get about the business of truly protecting themselves from terrorist threats, unrestrained by either the mind-boggling greed or apocalyptic political hackery that drives the Bush Administration.

Our week just wouldn't be complete without an email to the "public editor" of the NY Times. Those poor guys.

To: public@nytimes.com
From: "Editor - 201k.com" editor@201k.com
Subject: Bush Will Answer All Questions From 9/11 Panel, Aide Says

Hello Mr. Okrent and Mr. Bovino,

A question about this story:

Bush Will Answer All Questions From 9/11 Panel, Aide Says
By KIRK SEMPLE

Published: March 9, 2004

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/09/politics/09CND-BUSH.html

President Bush will answer all the questions of a federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House spokesman said today, suggesting that the president will be more flexible in his approach to the commission.

Commission members said late last month that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the commission, saying that they would meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush would submit to only a single hour of questioning.

The apparent shift in the president's position today followed accusations by Senator John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, that Mr. Bush was hindering the commission's investigation by not agreeing to more than an hour of questioning about intelligence and law enforcement blunders in the months and years before the 2001 attacks.

"He's going to answer all the questions they want to raise," the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, told reporters today. When pressed, Mr. McClellan repeated this statement but did not clarify whether the time restriction had been dropped.

"That's what it's scheduled for, an hour, but look, he's going to answer all the questions that they want to raise," Mr. McClellan said.

The spokesman said the president still planned to meet only with the panel's top two officials.

The question is this: If the president is still only meeting for an hour with the top two officials on the committee, what "shift in the president's position" has "apparently" occurred?

In what way will he be "more flexible"? Were there other "strict limits" that have been removed? None are mentioned.

The headline sounds like a big concession, but there's no concession in the text. Were there questions he wasn't going to answer?

Best,

201k.com

A guest editorial from a Poor Reader:

"It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine" - Michael Stipe

I don't know if any of you listen to the Howard Stern show, but I've been listening pretty religiously for about 3 years, on and off for about 8 years. Maybe you don't like the show, which I can understand, what with the variety of material they present on a daily basis. But, if you can get past the strippers and lesbians and racist guests and what-have-you, you'll find that Howard is an extremely talented interviewer and an astute observer of human nature -- he's dumb like a fox, one might say.

Well, like him or not, these might be the last days of the Howard Stern Show. Why, you might ask? What has changed? What obscene, vile act did he perform on his show this time?

He dared to bash Bush.

Why is this interesting, you might ask? Why should I care? A little background might help.

Since the 9/11 attacks, Howard has become quite the war-monger. No surprise to you, perhaps, but it steadily got worse as the months wore on. By the time we invaded Iraq, Howard was a full-on Bush supporter--the more s*** we blow up the better, he'd say. It got to the point where at times I wanted to turn him off. I tell you, all of a sudden the guy was Rush Savage. Bush could do no wrong.

It surprised me, because there was no denting his belief in Bush. People would call in with opposing views, he would shoot them down without a second thought. He was steadfast in his belief that George W. Bush was doing the right thing as far as these terrorists were concerned, and that was enough for him. He would make fun of Al Franken and Al Gore and anyone else who didn't support George. I was more than a little disappointed; I always thought that deep down Howard was a smart guy who took the time to form his own opinion. But it got to the point where the conspiracy theorist in me wondered if he had become a shill for the White House--somehow, maybe his broadcaster Clear Channel had gotten to him and made him their patsy. I listened on, though; like I said--if you can get through the bulls*** it's a great show.

Fast-forward to February; the FCC is in an uproar over Janet's boob and the damage caused to our poor children. Within weeks, a congressional hearing is called to investigate (it took over a year, meanwhile, to organize any hearings or investigation into the 9/11 attacks, you may recall). Media moguls are called in to testify. The politicians start wailing, the choke hold is placed, the gauntlet thrown down, and the moguls fall right into step-- bigger fines for everyone, and if you get fined once, you and your boss get fired!

Howard comes back from vacation the week after President's Day, meanwhile, and to my surprise one of the first things he says is that he read Al Franken's book, about the Lying Liars or something, and if you read this book you will never vote for George W. Bush. What a great, well-researched book, he says. I was shocked but pleased--he actually read an opposing viewpoint. Now, there was the "thinking man" I'd come to know! He went on to say how disenchanted he was with the whole Bush administration; the stem-cell research issue, ignoring environmental issues, gay marriage, the FCC coming down hard, and Bush's alignment with the religious right. He talked for an hour about all the things Bush has been doing that make him crazy. The next day, he kicked it up a notch--"I don't know about Kerry, but I think I'm an Anybody But Bush guy right now," he said. "Bush must go."

Two days later, Howard was gone.

Clear Channel pulled the Howard Stern show off the 6 of their stations that broadcast the show; two of them are in Florida, one in Pennsylvania. That same day, the head of Clear Channel, big Bush contributor Lowry Mays, was to appear before the congressional committee investigating the Janet Jackson fiasco. It seems that suddenly Stern's long-running show is "vulgar, offensive and insulting." I heard the "real" reason is because someone used the N-word and talked about anal sex on Stern's Tuesday show--which is funny, because those subjects come up on just about every show.

This morning, the AP released this report:

Fri Mar 5, 4:05 am ET

NEW YORK -- Amid a widening and increasingly politicized campaign to clean up the nation's airwaves, regulators are proposing fines against many of the nation's major radio companies for carrying well-known "shock jocks," Federal Communications Commission officials told The Wall Street Journal.

About a dozen cases are being finalized, these officials said, and one target is Howard Stern, one of the nation's most popular and controversial radio hosts. The FCC is deciding on penalties against his employer, Viacom Inc.'s Infinity Broadcasting.

This news was released too late (why 4 am?) to make the Friday papers, so it'll fly under the radar nicely. You'll never know that the complaint that triggered this latest fine is from 3 years ago. Did you know that the new law (awaiting Senate approval) would have raised fines from $27,500 to $275,000-- but a Congressional committee voted 49-1 to change that to $500,000?

Howard today said his goodbyes to his audience, saying he feels the end is near. He doesn't see any way Viacom can stand up to the FCC and still run a business. He's thinking of going to satellite radio, but it turns out Clear Channel owns 30% of XM radio. He has some TV shows coming out, but if the FCC deregulates TV like they did radio, guess who will be buying up all the stations?

I'll miss listening to him; if this is any indication of the future of the airwaves, it's certainly the end of a big part of my world as I know it. He has decided, though, to make his message clear to all his faithful, loyal followers in the time he has left on radio--the only thing we can do is vote Bush out of office.

So I feel fine.

- angryjr

The GOP attack line on John Kerry has already been defined, and it's so simple even a NASCAR dad can understand it. Which is precisely the point, of course.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, here it is:

When John Kerry does something controversial, to any degree whatsoever -- whether it be to protest the Vietnam war, testify against it in the Senate, or vote against a terrible defense bill -- he's a bad person of bad character.

When John Kerry does something unquestionably good, such as be a war hero, dedicate his life to public service, fight tenaciously for the rights of veterans, marry the woman he loves, or run for president, it's out of "expediency", and done only to serve his boundless ambition.

Got it? Anything bad he does is because he's bad, and anything good he does is because he's bad.

The Bush campaign's predictable shamelessness in using images from 9/11 in TV ads has caused predictable reactions: those with a sense of outrage are outraged, those with a sense of cynicism are cynical, and those with Bush stickers on their bumpers pretend it's completely appropriate for the president to do it.

Most of the discussion (if you can call the endless circular repeating of talking points a discussion) accepts that 9/11 was "the defining moment" of Bush's presidency. It "changed" him, the story goes; before that day he was slipping into single-term irrelevance, and after it he became our shining wartime president.

On this all agree: the only question in debate is whether using images from that awful day in campaign ads is in good taste.

But as usual, most of the discussions left us wondering about something else. Leaving aside that the prophets now casually noting the mediocrity of George Bush's pre-9/11 presidency are the very same ones who ignored the mediocrity of his whole career before his election. We're stuck on another, more mundane point:

What, exactly, did George Bush do on 9/11 that was so great?

What did he do, before, during, or after, that was so great?

Seriously -- what?

When the Bush campaign ads start playing today, remind Americans that he's the guy who two years ago gave a speech at a box company in St. Louis promoting his tax cuts as a jobs program -- standing in front of a painted backdrop depicting boxes that said "Made in U.S."

The actual boxes in the factory were made in Asia, but those labels had been blacked out with tape. Here's the ABC story (with photo at the link):

American-Made Mystery Speech Backdrop Snafu Had White House Thinking Out of the Box

St. Louis, Jan. 22
The White House, long known for its catchy, attention-grabbing backdrops, had designed a gigantic banner made to look like stacked boxes stamped with "MADE IN U.S.A."

To television viewers around the country, the banner was indistinguishable from a real wall of boxes made in the good old U.S. of A., which were perfectly lined up on either side of the banner.

For an event meant to draw attention to the president's plan to help small businesses hurt by the sagging economy, it appeared to be another hit designed by the White House advance staff, known for their eye-catching "made for TV" backgrounds.

The pitch was to deliver the president, concerned about the economy, taking time out of his busy schedule to visit a mom-and-pop company he says would save thousands of dollars under his tax-relief plan.

The problem was that the real boxes surrounding the president at the scene of his speech -- a small shipping and receiving plant, JS Logistics -- should have read: "NOT Made in U.S.A."

The president was introduced by the company's owner, John Cochrane.

Next to the banner and stacked around his podium were hundreds of boxes labeled "Made in China" -- and Taiwan and Hong Kong. Someone apparently became aware of the mixed message, for white stickers and brown packing tape were mysteriously taped over the true origin of the real boxes that travel through the trucking and warehouse business daily.

Many of the boxes also had handwritten numbers meant to represent routing codes written across them with markers.

White House officials traveling with the president today said the tape job came as a complete surprise to them. Deputy press secretary Claire Buchan attributed the cover-up to an overzealous advance office volunteer and said the matter would be taken up through the appropriate channels.

Workers busily taking apart the stage after the president's departure were chuckling over the incident. No one in the group could say exactly who was responsible. One said, "They just sort of appeared yesterday."

The point here is clear enough: Rather than take steps to actually bring box manufacturing back to the US, George Bush just has someone make a fake backdrop to stand in front of while pushing tax cuts that help the box company owner.