On last night’s media parade: The Prophecy Silent Running I’m not sure which is the goofier film, but both Walken and Dern play damn fine crazy folk….
On last night’s media parade:
I’m not sure which is the goofier film, but both Walken and Dern play damn fine crazy folk.
If an American envoy to Iraq were to comment proudly in the press that he’d never shaken hands with a black man, or a Buddhist, or someone from Thailand, there…
If an American envoy to Iraq were to comment proudly in the press that he’d never shaken hands with a black man, or a Buddhist, or someone from Thailand, there would be burnings-in-effigy and rioting in the streets. And if Bush then declined to condemn the comment and fire the guy, it would discredit US diplomacy around the world.
So why do these guys get a pass?
Israel’s mission to the United Nations officially protested statements made last week by the UN’s envoy to Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi, in which he called the Jewish state’s policies “the great poison in the region.”
The protest comes amid revelations by UN sources that Brahimi, a UN undersecretary-general and former Foreign Minister of Algeria, has boasted that he has never knowingly shaken hands with an Israeli or a Jew. Israel’s ambassador to the UN Dan Gillerman said that the boast, reported Tuesday in the New York Sun, proves Brahimi’s “prejudice, bigotry and anti-Semitism.”
In an April 26 letter to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Gillerman wrote that Brahimi’s statements, made to a French radio station last week, “put in doubt the objectivity of the UN staff.”
Gillerman added: “This is particularly true in this case given that Israel’s situation is not a part of Mr. Brahimi’s responsibilities, and it is improper for him to use the stature provided by his UN office to vent his personal opinions. Doing so, especially in such a vitriolic and biased manner, heightens concerns that have been raised about the UN’s own impartiality and objectivity.”
And remember that this is the wise diplomat sent to Iraq by the UN to help promote Iraqi sovereignty. Well, at least he doesn’t have the support in this stuff from his bosses, right?
The Israeli mission has also expressed concern with the UN’s response to Brahimi’s comments; last week, Annan’s spokeman, Fred Eckhard, said Friday at a press breifing that Brahimi was speaking in his personal capacity, and he noted that as a former Algerian official, Brahimi “brings to the table strongly-held and strongly-expressed views about the Middle East peace process.” Asked whether Israel’s policies are, in fact, “poison,” Eckhard called the issue “politically complex.” He noted after repeated questioning that Annan’s views on Israel “do not contain the word ‘poison.'”
Well, that’s reassuring.
(via Daimnation)
I wonder if this is why folks (you know, those “lying liars”) were suggesting that Iraq was trying to buy “yellowcake” uranium in Niger and other African nations during the…
I wonder if this is why folks (you know, those “lying liars”) were suggesting that Iraq was trying to buy “yellowcake” uranium in Niger and other African nations during the pre-war years.
It was Saddam Hussein’s information minister, Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf, often referred to in the Western press as “Baghdad Bob,” who approached an official of the African nation of Niger in 1999 to discuss trade — an overture the official saw as a possible effort to buy uranium.
What’s that? What Rethuglican flack is spreading such scurrilous tales and pathetically transparent lies about this already discredited matter? After all, we all know that former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was sent to Niger on behalf of the CIA and State Dept. to determine whether such rumors were true, and he reported back categorically that it was all a tissue of lies, which report was then blown off by an administration seeking war. So who’s peddling this claptrap?
That’s according to a new book Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador who was sent to Niger by the CIA in 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq had been trying to buy enriched “yellowcake” uranium. Wilson wrote that he did not learn the identity of the Iraqi official until this January, when he talked again with his Niger source.
Oh. Never mind.
Sahhaf’s role casts more light on an aspect of Wilson’s report to the CIA that was publicly disclosed last summer. On the heels of Wilson’s public criticism that intelligence was exaggerated and his statement that his trip to Niger had turned up no uranium sales to Iraq, agency Director George J. Tenet took the blame for allowing President Bush to make assertions about the Iraqi quest for nuclear material in his 2003 State of the Union address. Tenet said the intelligence had been too “fragmentary” to merit inclusion in the speech.
Tenet’s statement noted that Wilson had reported back to the CIA that a former Niger official told him that “in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss ‘expanding commercial relations’ between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales.”
In his book, Wilson recounts his encounter with the unnamed Niger official in 2002, saying, he “hesitated and looked up to the sky as if plumbing the depths of his memory, then offered that perhaps the Iraqi might have wanted to talk about uranium.” Wilson did not get the Iraqi’s name in 2002, but he writes that he talked to his source again four months ago, and that the former official said he saw Sahhaf on television before the start of the war and recognized him as the person he talked to in 1999.
So Wilson found no evidence of sales, but he did have indications that an Iraqi delegation had perhaps been looking to discuss uranium sales. And now it turns out that it was an actual, identifiable Iraqi official who really may have been making such inquiries.
I mean, it’s not quite a smoking gun, but it’s not Evil, Lying, Rethuglican Fantasy” time, either.
(via QandO)
Things you learn whilst working from home: Katherine is tall enough to stand on her little stool, reach up, and get the cinnamon from the kitchen cabinet wherein it resides….
Things you learn whilst working from home:
Holy moley!
I’ve been in the know on this for a couple of weeks, but didn’t blog about it here because — well, it’s likely to be getting all too much press…
I’ve been in the know on this for a couple of weeks, but didn’t blog about it here because — well, it’s likely to be getting all too much press and other coverage over the next weeks/months.
And to that end, I’ll decline to go into backstory of the sort that would be liable to end up being quoted somewhere in the press should this site be stumbled upon by someone. It’s not secret stuff, by any means, but in a brouhaha like this, stuff happens.
Same-sex event at church has conservatives seeking answers
Actually, plenty of folks seeking “answers” on this. But there are indeed some folks who are seeking answers they can use to further an end.
It wasn’t a same-sex blessing – but it was close enough that conservative Episcopalians are demanding to know from Bishop Rob O’Neill what happened last weekend at the Good Shepherd parish in Centennial.
A church official confirmed Thursday that the parish hosted a same-sex celebration in honor of Bonnie Spencer, an assistant pastor at the church, and her partner.
Spencer said she would have no comment until she spoke to O’Neill, who is out of town until next week. She added, however, that “there was no same-sex blessing.”
That is, in fact, in keeping with the information I have (and have every reason to believe). And saying that the “parish hosted” the celebration is perhaps overstating matters. The couple, and two witnesses each, were allowed use of the sanctuary on a Saturday, with the permission of the rector. No others were present.
The Rev. Lou Blanchard, who is the overseer of the region that includes the parish, said she was informed as “a matter of common courtesy” of the celebration.
“They had a party celebrating their relationship,” Blanchard said. Since she did not attend, Blanchard said she didn’t know what form the celebration took, or whether a spiritual ceremony was involved.
In point of fact, to avoid appearances of a formal church blessing, clergy were specifically instructed not to attend the event. Which, for something involving a priest, is greatly unfortunate.
Blanchard said that several months ago O’Neill denied the couple permission to perform a same-sex blessing. The bishop could not be reached for comment.
Same-sex blessings have been approved by the Episcopal Church USA, a move that has outraged conservatives in the denomination. While he supports same-sex issues, O’Neill promised conservatives he would not even consider moving ahead on developing such liturgies until after he had been in office six months. He took office in January.
Actually, the General Convention did not “approve” same-sex blessings, but acknowledged that they have been occuring, declined to condemn them, and continued to leave the matter as a “local option” to bishops while the church strives to reach consensus on the matter.
As a buzz began to build this week over what happened at Good Shepherd, a number of letters were sent to O’Neill asking exactly what happened at the 800-member parish, according to the Rev. Ephraim Radner, a writer, theologian and pastor of the Ascension parish in Pueblo.
“People are all wondering what’s going on,” Radner said.
Perhaps they should have asked the principles — Bonnie, or the parish rector, rather than just “wondering” aloud.
Speaking only as a parishioner, from my understanding of the events and the people involved, I don’t believe anything wrong or improper have occured — and, in fact, that this should be a time of joy and celebration for the couple involved. I suspect that some folk, however, will have a differing opinion, and that some will make it a fairly ugly mess.
And that’s probably all I should say at the moment, at least in this venue.
From the B5JMS List: I know I’ve been absent for a while now, but there are reasons, especially in regards to B5:TMoS*. In a project of this nature, and this…
From the B5JMS List:
So every day is a case of “Are we there yet?” and being told yes…almost.
I swear, it’s the kind of thing that could lead a monk to murder.
Thing of it is…there’s a LOT happening right now in the B5 universe, on a multitude of fronts, some of it in response to TMoS, some of it coming up completely on its own. All I can say at this moment is that if you’ve been waiting for new stuff in the B5 universe, you may be getting your wish in spades very soon.
Soon, I promise, all will be made clear. I don’t like being Mr. Mysterioso on this, but if I say too much, the-powers-that-be will use my head to make a 2.35:1 sized hole in the wall.
* the exact meaning of “TMoS” has not yet been revealed …
Other info on other stuff, too, including steady progress on an upcoming run on Dr. Strange — which should be a blast.
“The stories we tell define the nation. Stories poorly told can destroy it. ” RTWT. (via Rantingprofs)…
Disgusting reports here on the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners in a military prison. In one photograph obtained by the program, naked Iraq prisoners are stacked in a human pyramid, one…
Disgusting reports here on the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners in a military prison.
In one photograph obtained by the program, naked Iraq prisoners are stacked in a human pyramid, one with a slur written on his skin in English. In another, a prisoner stands on a box, his head covered, wires attached to his body. The program said that according to the United States Army, he had been told that if he fell off the box, he would be electrocuted. Other photographs show male prisoners positioned to simulate sex with each other.
“The pictures show Americans, men and women, in military uniforms, posing with naked Iraqi prisoners,” states a transcript of the program’s script, made available Wednesday night. “And in most of the pictures, the Americans are laughing, posing, pointing or giving the camera a thumbs-up.”
The CBS News program said the Army also had photographs showing a detainee with wires attached to his genitals and another showing a dog attacking an Iraqi prisoner. The program also reported that the Army’s investigation of the case included a statement from an Iraqi detainee who charges that a translator hired to work at the prison raped a male juvenile prisoner.
I definitely agree that the officials in charge of the prison should get nailed to the wall for this one, for it happening on their watch if nothing else. The brigadier general in charge of the prison has been reassigned — while I doubt he’ll get court martialled or anything, I expect (and hope) it will be a career-stopper.
My only disagreement with the article is the self-serving excuses from the defense attorney for one of the soldiers involved.
Gary Myers, the lawyer for one of the enlisted men charged, said in an interview that the military had treated the six soldiers as scapegoats and had failed to address adequately the responsibilities of senior commanders and intelligence personnel involved in the interrogations.
Mr. Myers said the accused men, all from an Army Reserve military police unit, had been told to soften up the prisoners by more senior American interrogators, some of whom they believe were intelligence officials and outside contractors.
“This case involves a monumental failure of leadership, where lower-level enlisted people are being scapegoated,” Mr. Myers said. “The real story is not in these six young enlisted people. The real story is the manner in which the intelligence community forced them into this position.”
Bullshit. This is not a matter of “inadequate training” or being pressured by intelligence officers, or scapegoating, or anything else. The behavior described and in the photos is clearly wrong, and is clearly a matter for jollity by the perpetrators. They deserve the full punishment for their actions, if so convicted by the courts martial they face.
(via Scott)
You know, you’d think a site like the Consumer Reports online subscription page would not have the following features: You can’t just subscribe for a set period. All electronic subscriptions…
You know, you’d think a site like the Consumer Reports online subscription page would not have the following features:
Vaguely disappointing. I’ll have to drop them a note.
Is it my imagination, or is the new $50 bill just … well … ugly? I mean, the frelling thing looks like it was designed by a committee. While there’s…
Is it my imagination, or is the new $50 bill just … well … ugly?
I mean, the frelling thing looks like it was designed by a committee. While there’s lots of keen anti-counterfeiting stuff on there, the result is a mishmosh of color and imagery. While we used to complain about how dull the old bills were, the new ones look like something from Vegas. Bleah.
At least (I guess) it’s thematically similar to the new $20.
(via GoaF)
Heck, where’s Larry Tate? My free Blog Ad over at Ghost of a Flea has drawn an amazing click-thru rate of 0.597%, or 7 clicks on 1173 pageviews. Which is…
Heck, where’s Larry Tate?
My free Blog Ad over at Ghost of a Flea has drawn an amazing click-thru rate of 0.597%, or 7 clicks on 1173 pageviews. Which is mildly disappointing, but emblematic of either (a) why I’m not in the ad biz, or (b) why I don’t bother advertising my site.
The fact is, to be a great (or even moderate) success in the blog world, viz. lots of hits, you need to be strongly dedicated to a particular topic: politics, hi-tech, whatever. Even being dedicated to Warm & Fuzzy Domestic Bliss can be successful, if you’re a good writer. But you need to both draw an audience, become the “best” at something, and then keep them. Going the scatter-gun approach like here just doesn’t do it, as folks who think my political comments are faboo go through occasional dry spells, people who think my gaming stuff is worth a repeat visit get turned off by my occasional religious screeds, and people who enjoy my comic book reviews wonder why I haven’t written one in three months.
But (to echo a theme from yesterday), my only mission here is to talk about what’s catching my eye, ear, or brain. Stream-of-life. Which, ultimately, is probably only interesting to a small set of people, since my life is not (I will be the first to admit) not that interesting to anyone who’s not living it.
Hmmm. Maybe some comic book reviews tonight …
Remarkably enough, besides going 150% calorie-wise while the Big Boss was out visiting (and may I recommend Luke’s – A Steak Place in Wheat Ridge? A faboo steak house in…
Remarkably enough, besides going 150% calorie-wise while the Big Boss was out visiting (and may I recommend Luke’s – A Steak Place in Wheat Ridge? A faboo steak house in a strip mall. Who’da thunk?), and not getting some of my exercise to boot, I still dropped a little this week, down to 216. Huzzah!
Next few weeks should be more normal, and more amenable at lunch to walking. I’ve found a more interesting route to take, so that will help. I’ve also discovered, on hot days, that a full-sized Jamba Juice is as refreshing and filling as a Tokyo Joe’s rice bowl, and a few hundred calories less, so I’ll be doing some of that, too.
I’ve decided, though, to do weighings on Tuesday and Friday, not Monday and Friday. The last two Mondays my weight has spiked up a few, and been back down by Tuesday, so I think this will help smooth the graph a bit.
Sooner or later I know things will plateau, but I’m enjoying the coast downhill just fine while it lasts.
This should have conservatives — or at least supporters of marriage — dancing in the streets, or so you’d think. Now that it is about to be legal for same-sex…
This should have conservatives — or at least supporters of marriage — dancing in the streets, or so you’d think.
Now that it is about to be legal for same-sex couples to marry, some Massachusetts employers are eliminating domestic-partner benefits for gay workers, requiring them to say “I do” if they want to keep their partners on their insurance.
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, one of the state’s largest employers, will drop domestic-partner benefits for Massachusetts residents at the end of this year, as will Babson College.
“The original reason for domestic-partner benefits was to recognize that same-sex couples could not marry,” Beth Israel spokesman Jerry Berger said. “Now that they can, they are essentially on the same footing as heterosexual couples.”
There is a huge embedded legal and contractual infrastructure around marriage in this country — evolving (rightfully), but already functioning with the lessons of years. Trying to overcome artificial barriers to marriage by creating “civil unions” and “domestic partners” bypasses that, making for a crazy-quilt of rights and obligations.
Extending marriage to gays simplifies matters, and puts everyone on an even footing. That seems pretty efficient to me.
The Sacagawea Dollar has been pretty much a flop, after over $65MM was spent on its roll-out. Sure, collectors grabbed some for their collection, but very few people (and businesses)…
The Sacagawea Dollar has been pretty much a flop, after over $65MM was spent on its roll-out. Sure, collectors grabbed some for their collection, but very few people (and businesses) actually use the thing.
So what’s the best policy decision here? Obviously it’s to do something to appeal to more collectors but not make it any more usable to consumers or businesses.
Putting the faces of U.S. presidents on dollar coins would entice collectors, but there still would be challenges in getting the coins into cash registers and people’s pockets, the chief of the U.S. Mint said Wednesday.
The proposal would replace Sacagawea, a Lemhi Shoshone Indian who helped Lewis and Clark find their way to the Pacific Ocean, now on the front of the coin, with a rotating design approach honoring presidents in the order they served the country. The face of the coin featuring a president would change four times a year. The back of the coin would feature the image of the Statue of Liberty.
While dollar coins are less expensive over their lifetime (their increased manufacturing and handling costs offset by their longer lives), those issues don’t directly impact consumers and businesses, so they’re not an incentive to change. If there’s no reason for people to switch, they won’t. Carrying dollar coins isn’t that big of a hassle (from my experience in the UK), but people will probably tend to use paper as long as it’s available.
So the Mint (and Congress) need to either (a) get rid of the dollar bill, or (b) get rid of the dollar coin. Keeping both and pandering to collectors seems both inefficient and wasteful of (ahem) money.
(via Sake of Argument)
Science is not always … well, and exact science. In particular, taxonomy and speciation studies have been known to be in error in the past. With new genetic testing and…
Science is not always … well, and exact science. In particular, taxonomy and speciation studies have been known to be in error in the past. With new genetic testing and the like, we’ve seen sometimes significant changes in how plants and animals are classified.
Ordinarily, that’s more of interest to academics than anyone else. Except when it might affect Endangered Species status.
The scientist who first classified the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse as a distinct subspecies now believes the mouse is no different from a species found widely in North America, according to Gov. Dave Freudenthal’s office. Wyoming has asked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to reconsider its 1998 decision to list the mouse as a threatened species.
Freudenthal spokeswoman Lara Azar said Wednesday that Philip Krutzsch, now professor emeritus with the University of Arizona, determined in 1954 that the Preble’s mouse was a distinct subspecies. His research analyzed three adult specimens.
A Denver Museum of Nature and Science study commissioned by the state and others has apparently changed Krutzsch’s mind. In a March 31 e-mail to Rob Roy Ramey, who conducted the new study, Krutzsch said the research clearly invalidates his own findings of almost 50 years ago. He called Ramey’s methods “cutting edge” and his analysis “in-depth and reproducible.”
Due to the Threatened status, cities and counties are faced with “restrictions on irrigation ditch maintenance, weed control, haying and other farm and ranch activities. Municipalities face having to set aside mouse habitat.” If the Endangered Species Act classification for the mouse is reversed, those restrictions will be dropped.
(via Walter)
How charmingly Orwellian: The American Civil Liberties Union disclosed yesterday that it filed a lawsuit three weeks ago challenging the FBI’s methods of obtaining many business records, but the group…
How charmingly Orwellian:
The American Civil Liberties Union disclosed yesterday that it filed a lawsuit three weeks ago challenging the FBI’s methods of obtaining many business records, but the group was barred from revealing even the existence of the case until now.
The lawsuit was filed April 6 in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, but the case was kept under seal to avoid violating secrecy rules contained in the USA Patriot Act, the ACLU said. The group was allowed to release a redacted version of the lawsuit after weeks of negotiations with the government.
“It is remarkable that a gag provision in the Patriot Act kept the public in the dark about the mere fact that a constitutional challenge had been filed in court,” Ann Beeson, the ACLU’s associate legal director, said in a statement. “President Bush can talk about extending the life of the Patriot Act, but the ACLU is still gagged from discussing details of our challenge to it.”
A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on the case.
It is certainly arguable that some of the increased search powers included in the USA PATRIOT act are necessary, even desirable. And I can certainly understand why, in the course of a n investigation, it might be desirable to have the entities where the search took place prevented from commenting about it, at least while the investigation continue.
But at a certain level, you reach a tipping point between necessary security and necessary freedom, and it occurs to this layman (without knowing more details of the actual provisions involved) that gagging even mention of a federal lawsuit regarding the USA PATRIOT Act seems quite certainly beyond that tipping point.
(I’m guessing that the gag order had to do with activities against a certain individual, which would tie into the name of the second plaintiff with the ACLU being redacted from the public copy of the complaint. so I can see how that might run afowl of the Act — but that still seems unreasonable.)
(via BoingBoing)
NASA, in looking at a Mars mission, is — maybe, though they won’t admit it — worried about … sex. Dr Rachel Armstrong, speaking yesterday at a British Interplanetary Society…
NASA, in looking at a Mars mission, is — maybe, though they won’t admit it — worried about … sex.
Dr Rachel Armstrong, speaking yesterday at a British Interplanetary Society symposium on the Human Future and Space, said the US space agency Nasa was considering how to deal with the natural urges of astronauts travelling on long journeys such as a three-year trip to Mars, where the six-strong crew would be likely to include two women.
“Nasa is talking about the chemical sterilisation of astronauts on longer journeys,” Dr Armstrong said, in a talk discussing the problems humanity may face in trying to reach the planets and, eventually, the stars.
[…] [S]cientists such as Professor Powell are concerned that the emotional fallout from having a crew where some are happier than others, or where relationships are made and then fall apart, could be disastrous. He noted the comments of one Russian cosmonaut about time spent cooped up in the Mir space station that “when you have two people locked up in a very small environment for months at a time, all the conditions for murder are met.” Mix in sex, and you almost have the script of Othello in space.
Indeed.
Among the suggestions other than hi-tech “saltpeter” and relying on “professionalism,” is going for older (presumably less horny) astronauts in their 50s. That presupposes that such folks wouldn’t be interested in sex for a looooong time.
A crew heading to Mars would potentially be away for three years: six months traveling out, two years on the Red Planet waiting for the Earth to come back into alignment for the six-month trip back.
Of course, an unspoken assumption here is that sexual tension is only likely if there is a mixed-gender crew. That may be assuming a lot. I can think of a number of solutions here, but I suspect not many of them are politically (or socially) palatable. It will be interesting to see what does happen.
(via Volokh)
Way too much politics here today, folks. My apologies. I don’t see this site as a political advocacy location, especially when it comes to candidates and political personalities and all…
Way too much politics here today, folks. My apologies.
I don’t see this site as a political advocacy location, especially when it comes to candidates and political personalities and all that felgercarb. There are way too many other things I have an interest in, as the casual browse here will, I think, demonstrate. Some folks seem to be willing to spend all or most of their time praising candidate X with Hallelujahs, or damning candidate Y with lexical brickbats. I just am not that interested in doing that (nor in reading it). So I’m not writing about Kerry or Bush all that much, except when I think one of them’s done something particularly goofy (that hasn’t been written to death or scripted already into an Us vs. Them moment), or when I think either’s being given a bum rap over something.
But when the thought occurs to me, or my Political Muse gets off her lazy butt and pokes me in the ear, I write about politics, more to simply say what I’m thinking than to persuade anyone. No, really.
It’s interesting. I’ve been cleaning up some of my older categories (moving stuff from them into the newer categories they should be in), and there’s a definite shift in political tone from the earliest entries to today. And it wasn’t 9/11 per se — this blog started only a few short weeks before that. I’m going through some Spring 2002 posts, and there I’m as paranoid and critical — well not as paranoid and critical — of the Bush Administration (remember, I voted for Gore) as the next dude.
It was the lead-up to the Iraq war that was sort of a watershed event here. Becoming convinced that the war was necessary and justified, I found myself taking more … um … well, yeah, kind of conservative positions, just because everyone seemed to be lining up along that axis, regardless of other political and social views.
The fact is, I know that sometimes I come across as a Bush apologist, and that’s not my intent (nor, I think, my position). There are a number of things, mostly social issues, that I disagree strongly with the Administration about, and I write about them here, too. I try not to let that disagreement swerve into hyperbole and demonization (too much), which perhaps may be seen as wishy-washy, but I like to think of as temperate civility.
But while there are any number of things I disagree with the President and Administration on, when I think he’s getting lambasted for something improperly or inaccurately, I’ll raise that, too, just as I’ll do with anyone else, even John Kerry.
So there may be days like this, when political topics pop up. And there may be days where nothing political appears. That lack of specialization means this site will never be an A-List blog, but that’s okay. I’m not doing it for mass readership. I’m doing it for me, and for the family and friends who care to drop by.
So. No more politics for today. Have a good one.
I agree that the Bush/Cheney testimony before the 911 Commission was, at best, poorly managed by the White House. I think the ostensible concerns and reluctance by Bush was understandable,…
I agree that the Bush/Cheney testimony before the 911 Commission was, at best, poorly managed by the White House. I think the ostensible concerns and reluctance by Bush was understandable, but it did leave him open to all sorts of sniping from the Dems.
On Capitol Hill, U.S. House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, criticized Bush and Cheney for demanding that they appear together. “I think the only advantage to them doing it together is that their comments be consistent. But I really think that the whole process would have been better served if the president had gone in alone and the vice president had gone in alone.”
Perhaps. Of course, then, if there had been any discrepancies between the two stories, it would have been lit upon to demonstrate how they were both lying bastards. And if both of them had told the same story, it would have been lit upon to demonstrate how they had pre-rehearsed their stories, the lying bastards. I guess that’s what Rep. Pelosi means by “serving the process better …”
So, yes, if Bush and Cheney are lying bastards, it’s no wonder they wanted to meet with the commission together. And if they were telling God’s Own Truth — they’d probably want to meet the commission together, too.
The same argument can be used about the other ill-seeming parts of the arrangement — that the White House legal counsel, Alberto Gonzales was there, that there were WH folks taking notes as well as the commission staffer, that the meeting was not recorded, that it was not under oath. Lying bastards would want things just that way. So would folks telling the truth, but apprehensive about how that truth might be twisted about.
Reuters clearly feels the physical arrangements were questionable, too.
The meeting, with potential election-year ramifications, took place in the very heart of presidential power, the Oval Office, rather than in a room that would have provided a traditional table-and-chair setting.
Bush and Cheney took up opposite seats in front of the fireplace, and commission members were clustered in the room on couches and chairs.
Which actually sounds kind of comfortable and informal. Nor is meeting with a delegation at the White House — or even giving testimony — unprecedented.
The commission of five Republicans and five Democrats issued a statement saying Bush and Cheney had been “forthcoming and candid” and their input would be of great assistance as it looks to complete a final report by July 26.
Which is how they’ve described everyone’s testimony so far, so nothing should be read one way or the other into it.
So, at any rate, it was not a very good PR arrangement for Bush, even if he’s Innocent as the Driven Snow. Of course, given the potential harm if someone had decided to exploit sworn, recorded, and/or solo testimony in a politically aggrandizing way (or, conversely, if he’s a lying bastard), maybe it wasn’t so stupid. It wouldn’t offend many supporters, and it’s not going to make Bush’s opposition any more torqued off at him.
What I find most mind-boggling about the whole matter, though, is that, after all the hammering on Bush to testify in the first place (as Reuters put it, Bush only agreed to meet with the commission “under pressure from victims’ families”), two of the Dems — vice-chair Lee Hamilton, and former Sen. Bob Kerrey — left in the middle of the testimony. Hamilton had to go to a luncheon where he was introducing visiting Canadian PM Paul Martin. Well, so long as it was an important commitment like that, no problem. I’m sure Kerrey had a similarly vital call on his time, like catching his favorite soap opera or something.
Speaking of disrespect for the purposes of the commission …
UPDATE: Perhaps Kerrey had to go re-watch a tape of his Daily Show appearance again to find out what questions he’d promised to ask. Certainly Kerrey has every right to appear wherever he wants on TV, and I love the Daily Show, but, damn, if that’s the sort of attitude he’s going to publicly cop, how can he possibly be serving on a “non-partisan” information-gathering commission?
The president took a hammering at the press conference the other day, didn’t he?…
The president took a hammering at the press conference the other day, didn’t he?