There's a lot of food for thought in William Saletan's Slate essay on the Bush press conference and this post on the same subject by Ezra Klein at Pandagon -- but I think the gist of what they're trying to say is presented most deftly by Ezra's partner, Jesse Taylor, who boils down Bush's apparent philosophy of governance to these two principles:

1.) It doesn't really matter what the right thing to do was, because Bush did it, is doing it, and will continue to do it, and all your objections do is distract from how right he is.

2.) The only accountability Bush has is towards himself. Did Bush do what Bush wanted to do? Yes. Therefore, there is no real problem.

That really is what Bush (and most of his advisors) seem to be saying all the time, isn't it?

L'ETAT, C'EST TOI

Lucianne Goldberg is highlighting this quote from yesterday's Ashcroft testimony on her Web site:

"We have been aggressive. We have been tough. And we have suffered no small amount of criticism for our tough tactics. We accept this criticism for what it is: the price we are privileged to pay for our liberty."

Notice something weird about this? Almost imperceptibly, Ashcroft shifts what he means by "we" from "we in the Bush administration" to " we, the people of the United States of America" -- as if they're the same thing.

Creepy.

By the time a CIA briefer gave President Bush the famous Aug. 6, 2001, presidential daily brief headlined "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," the president had seen a stream of alarming reports on al Qaeda's intentions. So had Vice President Dick Cheney and Bush's top national security team, according newly declassified information released Tuesday by the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks.

In April and May, 2001, for example, the intelligence community headlined some of those reports, "Bin Laden planning multiple operations," "Bin Laden network's plans advancing" and "Bin Laden threats are real." ...

--Dana Priest in The Washington Post

I don't care if it's necessary to redact the bulk of these memos. Please, please, let them be declassified. That's the only way they'll have real impact. Facsimiles of memos with these dates and titles, even if the texts are heavily blacked out, would be devastating to the "We knew nothing!" crowd in the executive branch.

And in case it isn't clear that the Right now feels the need to attack anyone who threatens Bush's reelection chances (see the post directly below), here comes Dorothy Rabinowitz in The Wall Street Journal with an attack on 9/11 widows -- specifically the widows known as the Jersey Girls, and any other 9/11 survivors who agree with them:

Who, listening to them, would not be struck by the fact that all their fury and accusation is aimed not at the killers who snuffed out their husbands' and so many other lives, but at the American president, his administration, and an ever wider assortment of targets including the Air Force, the Port Authority, the City of New York? In the public pronouncements of the Jersey Girls we find, indeed, hardly a jot of accusatory rage at the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. We have, on the other hand, more than a few declarations like that of Ms. Breitweiser, announcing that "President Bush and his workers ... were the individuals that failed my husband and the 3,000 people that day."

Rabinowitz is a smart woman, but she fails to understand plain words. Fail, in this context, means (according to my dictionary) "to disappoint the expectations or trust of." Al Qaeda didn't fail the 9/11 victims -- the victims placed no trust in Al Qaeda.

Rabinowitz goes on from there to talk about "the darker side of this spectacle of the widows" -- which is, specifically, that they now seem to have the right to pass judgment on 9/11.

But why does this surprise her? For more than thirty years in this country, conservative politicians have pushed the concept of victims' rights. The notion that victims should speak in court before criminals are sentenced came from the "law and order" right. The "law and order" right supports law after law specifically named after victims -- "Megan's Law," "Laci's Law," and so on. This is bipartisan now, but a generation ago it was a way of using victims to attack Democrats and liberals as "soft on crime." This is simply how we do things in America now. We can't ask victims to speak and then tell them to shut up if they don't say what we want to hear.

Well, as soon as I come to the conclusion that the 9/11 commission has begun to win the trust and respect of America, here comes the New York Post with a somewhat different opinion, articulated in an editorial on its front page:

NATIONAL DISGRACE

The national 9/11 commission has been hijacked by political shills -- men and women eager to subordinate truth to partisan advantage; who hold a transitory victory on Election Day more dear than American victory in the war on terror.

Tawdry ambition has eclipsed sacred duty; all Americans are diminished, but none more than the families of the 9/11 victims -- who expect better from the commission, and certainly deserve it.

Unless it is the thousands of young Americans now under arms in Iraq and elsewhere; their bravery and devotion to duty is inspirational. How shameful that the commission attack dogs hold their sacrifices so cheaply.

And John F. Kerry, who presumes to the presidency, acquiesces. What a disgrace....

Yeah, Kerry too. It's all one Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy.

The facts don't matter to the Post, by the way:

Yesterday, Democratic shills Richard Ben-Veniste and Bob Kerrey hectored Attorney General John Ashcroft. They implied he was a coward for travelling on government aircraft at a time of heightened pre-9/11 security - if not, in fact, a scoundrel in possession of advance notice of the attack.

Here's a transcript of the questioning of Ashcroft. Kerry says nothing about Ashcroft's decision not to fly commercial. And here's Ben-Veniste's one question on the subject:

Let me ask you, as my time is expiring, one question, which has been frequently put to members of this commission; probably all of us have heard this one way or another.

And we are mindful that part of the problem with the Warren commission's work on the Kennedy assassination was the failure to address certain theories that were extant and questions and much of the work was done behind closed doors. So I would like to provide you with the opportunity to answer one question that has come up repeatedly.

At some point in the spring or summer of 2001, around the time of this heightened threat alert, you apparently began to use a private chartered jet plane, changing from your use of commercial aircraft on grounds, our staff is informed, of an FBI threat assessment. And, indeed, as you told us, on September 11th itself you were on a chartered jet at the time of the attack.

Can you supply the details, sir, regarding the threat which caused you to change from commercial to private leased jet?

Ashcroft replied, and Ben-Veniste said,

I'm pleased to have been able to give you the opportunity to clarify that issue for all who have written to this commission and communicated in other ways about their questions about that, sir.

To the Post, this is "hector[ing]." This is "impl[ying Ashcroft] was a coward ... if not, in fact, a scoundrel."

Well, the spin of the stories on the hearings is "blame all around," not "Ashcroft blames Clinton." The commission's criticism of the FBI seems to have greater weight. Is it me, or is the commission becoming one of the few institutions in our national political life that's seen as honest and fair-minded and above the fray?

As for the press conference, I think, alas, that Bush actually might have helped himself a wee bit with swing voters; the gung ho stuff works -- though less surely would have been more. He did go on and on, didn't he? I think this seems normal to a lot of people, but I can never get past the tone of these things -- testy, exasperated contempt. And he repeats himself -- and I don't think it's just because he can't think on his feet and needs to keep returning to the same bullet points. I think he's standing there thinking, This stuff is so obvious -- why don't these idiots get it? He has absolutely no respect for anyone who disagrees with him or doubts him. He repeats himself and articulates ... every ... word -- some people talk to non-English speakers this way, as if they think non-English speakers will understand English eventually if you just ... talk ... to ... them ... like ... children. His father eventually shrugged off losing in'92, but if W. loses this year he'll never stop being bitter about it -- he'll be sure it's just because we're so ignorant.

Silly me -- last week I predicted that Condi Rice would play the Ollie North card and pitch her testimony to the cheap seats.

I was wrong -- that was Ashcroft's job.

I haven't seen it, but apparently he did it beautifully, the perfect self-righteous warmup act for President You-Talkin'-to-Me?'s press conference tonight.

So the blame-Clinton-for-9/11 movement emerges from its far-right rat hole and nabs the lead all over TV tonight:

CBS lead story: Ashcroft Blames Clinton -- Pinning blame on his predecessors, Attorney General John Ashcroft told the Sept. 11 panel he didn’t know the attacks were coming because 'for nearly a decade our government had blinded itself to our enemies.'"

ABC lead story: "'Blinded' -- Attorney General John Ashcroft, testifying before the 9/11 commission, said the U.S. government had "blinded itself" to enemy threats prior to Sept. 11."

CNN lead story: "Ashcroft: Government 'blinded itself to enemies'"

We'll see if it plays as appropriate righteous indignation or just whining. Meanwhile, I suppose this is also Clinton's fault:

Ashcroft Cut off Al-Qaeda Briefings, Ex-FBI Official Testifies

U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft stopped a series of briefings on al-Qaeda in the months before Sept. 11, saying he no longer wanted that type of information, the former leader of the FBI told a panel looking into the attacks.

The comments by Thomas Pickard, former acting director of the FBI, came in testimony before the 10-member independent commission....

The lead story on page 1 of today's print New York Times is "Bush Sees Need for Reorganizing U.S. Intelligence." This comes on a when Bush plans a rare news conference.

I wonder: Is he going to lead off by announcing a big reorganization of the FBI and domestic intel?

Bush likes to throw reporters off guard; Bush knows that the FBI is going to look really, really bad this week; front-page NYTimes and WashPost stories regularly hint at pending announcements; and Bush likes to jump out in front of parades (see, e.g., the formation of the Homeland Security Department).

Just a hunch.

It's always a bit of a surprise to be reminded that the right-wing bias of the New York Post extends even to Page Six, its gossip column. Today, Page Six features Mark W. Smith, author of The Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy ("A primer to provide Republicans with the arguments they need 'to defeat the Loony Left,' it claims to overturn 'the 100 biggest myths spread by the ACLU, NOW, Greenpeace, Handgun Control and a host of other Birkenstock-wearing, Brie-eating weenies'"). Here's a nugget from the book:

"Hillary Clinton once said she would 'trust big government over big business any time.' With all due respect to the Woman Who Would Rather Be President Than Right, that's nuts."

Did Hillary ever say that? Apparently not.

Here's a quote from a review, by Raymond L. Fischer, of Peggy Noonan's The Case Against Hillary Clinton that appeared in USA Today (the weekly magazine, not the newspaper):

The most chilling revelation in the book details Mrs. Clinton's ideas espoused during her years as first lady of Arkansas. Her "special baby" was the governor's school for gifted students, special summer semesters seemingly designed to make religious students feel that their beliefs were backward and unsophisticated, free market economies were bad and government control good, and, while "ministers might be suspect and strange, left-wing radicals, feminists, and witches were not." Hillary Clinton told the students that she would trust big government over big business anytime. Never once in succeeding years has she moderated or negated these radical ideas.

Note that Fischer uses quotation marks for a direct quote (of Noonan's words, presumably), but there are no quote marks around trust big government over big business anytime.

What we have here is Fischer saying that known Hillary-hater Noonan says that Clinton said this -- though not in so many words.

Ever play telephone as a kid? Ever play telephone with a really mean kid who hated the person who started the game?

In any case, now this is in quotes, and I guarantee you'll see it again, described as straight from Hillary's lips, with the Post cited as a "reliable source."

American Spectator senior editor compares Bill Moyers to Lenin.

No, really, I'm not kidding.

Well, we all knew this, but we should be grateful that readers of Newsday's giveaway NYC paper, amNew York, are being reminded:

Price of Truth

Clinton investigations: $65M

9/11 Commission: $15M

It's also good to recall that Clinton's Lewinsky testimony was under oath and was immediately made public.

Yup, there sure are a lot of people getting kidnapped in Iraq these days, but that's nothing new. Note this headline from an issue of Christian Science Monitor last September: "Kidnapping in Iraq on the Rise." It's happening to foreign nationals now, but Iraqis have been going through this for some time.

A SMALL OVERSIGHT

On Saturday, the New York Post published an op-ed piece by Bob Lonsberry entitled "Fight Like America." ("Don't pussyfoot around with these jihad boys, blow them to hell. This isn't Marquis of Queensbury, this is kill or be killed. And with armaments, technology and numbers like we've got, the other side should be nothing but a grease spot in the road.")

The Post identified Lonsberry as "a veteran journalist and talk-radio host."

Here's what the Post didn't tell you:

...the [Rochester, New York] Democrat and Chronicle got wind of a pair of off-the-cuff comments made during two of his shows in late August and early September [2003]. In the first, responding to a news item about an orangutan escaping from the Rochester zoo, Lonsberry headed into a commercial break by saying, "Headline - orangutan escapes from zoo, runs for county executive. Fascinating stuff." In the second, on September 18, Lonsberry wrapped up his show with his usual "Listeners on the Loose" segment, in which callers have 15 seconds to make a comment or, often, play a sound effect down the line. In response to a caller who played monkey noises, Lonsberry said, "Freakin' monkey's loose up at the zoo again...and he's running for county executive. What's with that?"

Lonsberry is a frequent and outspoken critic of Democratic county executive candidate and Rochester mayor Bill Johnson, who happens to be black....

Nice people you're hiring, Rupert.

I love it -- the Club for Growth and like-minded more-Reaganesque-than-thous might cost the GOP the Senate:

Unexpected retirements and divisive Republican primary races have turned the battle for control of the US Senate into a tossup...

Part of the GOP's troubles are within its own ranks. In Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, and Florida, cultural conservatives are challenging more moderate Republicans for the chance to be senator, and the battles are forcing Republicans to spend money early.

In Pennsylvania, Toomey has narrowed Specter's lead in the polls by attacking the four-term senator as too liberal.

"I think it's the most important race in the country for ideological reasons," said Stephen Moore, president of the conservative Club for Growth, which he said so far has raised $1 million in donations for Toomey and another $1 million for ads....

The intraparty wars are being waged as well in Florida -- where conservative Bill McCollum is challenging the more moderate Mel Martinez for the Republican nomination -- and in Oklahoma. There, [Democrat Brad] Carson, a member of the Cherokee Nation, is benefiting from a testy fight between Kirk Humphreys, a candidate favored by the Republican establishment, and Tom Coburn, the pick of his party's ultraconservatives.

"There is a battle between social-movement conservatives and country-club Republicans," said Brad Woodhouse, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, predicting that whoever wins will be weakened by the fight....

--Boston Globe

Now, if we could only throw in Roy Moore for President, this might be a fun election year.

(Globe link via Pandagon.)

All this time we've been wondering why the Bush administration wasn't able to take the various scattered bits of pre-9/11 intelligence and "connect the dots" -- and now we know that the Bushies never even managed to connect the dots within the text of the August 6 PDB.

The PDB, by the way, runs a whopping 470 words (plus 5 or so that were redacted) and takes up a little more than a page. (Text version; PDF facsimile.)

The PDB says: Bin Laden wants to strike America. Bin Laden has people in America. Bin Laden was recruiting people in the U.S. for attacks in 1998, and bin Laden begins planning his strikes years in advance. The FBI sees a lot of suspicious stuff going on. Some people say bin Laden's operatives want to hijack airplanes.

Therefore we may currently be at risk for...? Class? Anyone?

I imagine Bush might have a problem making his way all the way through a memo of this length ("C'mon! I don't care about all this! I want something new! New!"), but Condi, who clearly can read and think, said, "It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States" -- all of which is true if you confine yourself to the first 193 words of the briefing's main text, or, arguably, the first 257 words -- just up to the point where it says,

Al-Qa'ida members -- including some who are US citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.

which eventually leads to

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

Did anyone actually read this thing all the way to the end?

I'm reminded of the old Woody Allen standup routine -- Woody is kidnapped and his father receives a ransom note: "So he gets into bed at night with the ransom note, and he read half of it, you know, and then he got drowsy and fell asleep...."

This New York Daily News cover doesn't look good for Bush -- the text and photo together make him look like hapless. And note the first real news headline on the Daily News home page: WHAT, ME WORRY? The story attached to this headline is neutral, but the News clearly doesn't think Joe Lunchpail expects Bush to be treated with kid gloves.

THE MOST TRUSTED NAME IN NEWS

So, Jack Cafferty just informed us [on CNN] that John Kerry is making a big mistake by pulling out a "misery index" because in 1979 Jimmy Carter did something similar and his focus on the negative aspects of the economy caused him to the lose the subsequent election.

--Atrios, about half an hour ago

Er, no, that's completely inaccurate. Here's the story:

"The misery index" was first made politically newsworthy by Democratic Presidential Candidate Jimmy Carter in 1976.

During the Presidential campaign of that year, Mr. Carter constantly attacked then-President Gerald Ford for his mishandling of the American economy. Carter frequently noted that "the misery index" was in the mid-teens, as compared to much lower levels during the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s. Mr. Carter's criticism of President Ford's economic mismanagement was effective, helping him defeat the incumbent Republican President during the November 1976 election.

As the saying goes, however "what goes around, comes around" (or something like that). During the 1980 Presidential election four years later, Republican Candidate Ronald Reagan constantly made reference to President Carter's economic failings, as measured by "you know what."

By Election Day 1980, the "misery index" had moved even higher, with several monthly measurements above 20. Candidate Reagan's late battering of President Carter with his own index was also very effective, as Reagan handily defeated the incumbent Democratic President.

So there you go -- two presidential candidates in recent history have used numerical measures of economic miseery in campaigns, and both of them won. Nice work, CNN.

Bush wanted what some Permian Basin diehards called the "Elephant Field" and Bush called "The Liberator," the big mother lode. Bush spent some time trying to convince the trustees of one of the fabled ranches in Texas, the 500,000-acre Waggoner Ranch near Wichita Falls, to let his two-man operation explore for oil there....

But the project was simply too large for him, and it was like putting a steel cap on a dream. Owen knew that it was too big and Bush was "extremely" disappointed at losing the "big company maker, a home run" ....

"We never found that huge liberator," is what Bush once said to a Dallas writer.

--Bill Minutaglio, First Son: George W. Bush and the Bush Family Dynasty, p. 201

By now, there's a narrative of the months leading up to 9/11 that both Condoleezza Rice and Richard Clarke could agree on: Bush, tired of "swatting flies," wanted a big, comprehensive strategy against jihadist terror. As of 9/11, it still wasn't in place.

And we all know the narrative of the "war on terror": Rather than limiting his focus to Al Qaeda and its allies, Bush embraced the grand neocon strategy of trying to remake the entire Middle East in America's image and got stuck in Iraq.

When he was an oilman, Bush tried for the big score -- and couldn't figure out that it was beyond his capabilities.

Now that he's president, he's doing the same thing -- and getting the same result. Only this time it's not rich friends' money that's at stakes -- it's lives. Yet he still can't put aside his dream of a massive victory and focus on what actually needs to be done.

Andrew Sullivan, one year ago today:

THE COMING SPIN: You can see it now. Chaos. Looting. Disorder. Losing the peace. It's not that there won't be some truth to these stories; and real cause for concern. The pent-up fury, frustration and sheer anger of three decades is a powerful thing, probably impossible to stop immediately without too much force. And the last thing we want is fire-power directed toward the celebrating masses. The trouble is that they could become the narrative of the story, especially among the usual media suspects, and erode the impact and power of April 9.

By "April 9" he meant, of course, the fall of Baghdad and the famous toppling of the Saddam statue. He was morally certain that that downed statue would be the indelible symbol of a victory secured, as long as we damn liberals didn't use our filthy propaganda techniques to spoil the triumph.

The Times Book Review, got Christopher Caldwell of The Weekly Standard to review Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, Good for America by Jonathan Rauch. I'm not surprised that he hates the book, but I didn't expect anything in his review to be out-and-out stupid -- yet here he is, snarking off after quoting Rauch and getting egg on his own face:

''If the possibility of procreation is what gives meaning to marriage,'' [Rauch] writes, ''then a postmenopausal woman who applies for a marriage license should be turned away at the courthouse door. What's more, she should be hooted at and condemned for breaking the crucial link between marriage and procreation.'' Not necessarily. The state's reluctance to engage in purposeless Maoist persecution of the infertile does not mean the state has no interest in fertility.

Does Caldwell really not know what Rauch is doing here? Does hereally not understand that Rauch is imagining an older woman who wants to marry being treated precisely the way gay people are treated right now under the same circumstances? Can it really be that Caldwell describes as "purposeless Maoist persecution" precisely what he and his fellow conservatives want society to do to gay people in perpetuity?

In The New York Times Book Review, David Herbert Donald, the Pultizer Prize-winning historian and author of the recent bestseller Lincoln, reviews William Rehnquist's new book on the disputed presidential election of 1876 and notices a few things about Rehnquist's skills as a historian:

There is no evidence that his study involved any digging into the original sources, like the richly rewarding Rutherford B. Hayes papers or the Samuel J. Tilden papers. Indeed, ''Centennial Crisis'' does not draw on some of the best secondary literature: C. Vann Woodward's ''Reunion and Reaction: The Compromise of 1877 and the End of Reconstruction'' (1966) is cited in the bibliography, but the text makes no reference to that pioneering study, which showed how economic forces, especially powerful railroads, helped shape the election outcome. Perhaps Roy Morris's rollicking ''Fraud of the Century: Rutherford B. Hayes, Samuel Tilden, and the Stolen Election of 1876'' (2003) appeared too recently to attract Rehnquist's attention, but Keith Ian Polakoff's ''Politics of Inertia: The Election of 1876 and the End of Reconstruction,'' the most insightful analysis of the political background, has been available since 1973.

If this is how well Rehnquist researches his books, how careful and conscientious do you think he is when he's doing his day job? Oh, wait -- I guess we already know the answer to that question, don't we?

Nick Confessore over at The American Prospect proposes, in all seriousness, inviting Howard Stern to join the lineup of Air America.

Is Stern more skilled at doing radio than, say, Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo? Sure. And Confessore says the downside is just that Stern is "trashy."

No, that's not the downside. If you want to know what the downside is, listen to a few choice Stern bits -- like, say, "Don't Go Rioting," a song parody from the time of the Rodney King trial (the second line is "you African-Americans"), or "Black History - Van Washington" (both available here, though the link for "Infamous 'Ni**er hatin' hats' bit" doesn't seem to work). Straight-up racist, as Air America's Chuck D said years ago in another context.

Remember back a couple of weeks ago, when Richard Clarke was being described as nothing more than a commercial product foisted on an unsuspeting public by evil, liberal, synergistic Viacom? Well, USA Today notes that, after Condoleezza Rice testified, Clarke refused to give an interview to CBS -- or to any TV news organization other than ABC. (Clarke is a consultant to ABC and has appeared on that network regularly since he left government.) ABC and Clarke's publisher (Free Press, a dvision of Viacom's Simon & Schuster) gave Clarke leave to make the rounds, according to USA Today, but he declined.

Surely some conservative will explain how this is the work of a man (and a multimedia empire) willing to do anything, even destroy Western civilization, in order to sell books. I look forward to being enlightened.

(USA Today link via Publishers Lunch.)

An Afghan city falls to anti-government foreces:

Fighters loyal to one of Afghanistan's most powerful warlords have seized a major northern city from pro-government forces, raising fears that the country is sliding into civil war.

The forces of General Abdul Rashid Dostum, a special adviser to President Hamid Karzai, who is known for crushing his prisoners under tanks, invaded the northern province of Faryab on Wednesday, according to officials.

The provincial capital, Maimana, fell yesterday after Gen Dostum's forces attacked it, officials said....

Last month there were bloody battles in the western city of Herat - previously considered the safest city in Afghanistan - between pro-government fighters and militiamen loyal to the city's warlord governor, Ismail Khan. Mr Khan's men triumphed, driving Mr Karzai's troops from the city and leaving scores of men dead....

"First in Herat, and now in the north, we're seeing war lords taking on the central government and succeeding," said Samina Ahmed of the International Crisis Group....

"This violence has far-reaching consequences, it's very worrying," Ms Ahmed said. "In the south, the insurrection is being run by poor individuals who have not profited in the slightest from the war two years ago.

"Now we're seeing powerful commanders also confronting the government. This is a far more dangerous development than anything we've seen in the south."...

--Guardian

(Thanks to Rational Enquirer for the link.)

Weird -- everyone on the right thinks Condoleezza Rice is the bee's knees, but Peggy Noonan imagines her, literally, as a miracle worker walking on earth. Lions don't literally lie down with lambs after Rice testifies in Noonan's fantasy, but that's one of the few miracles that doesn't occur.

To get of sense of what Noonan thinks is truly important, note that, in her dream of God's providence smiling down on the earth, Richard Clarke, Jacques Chirac, and John McCain grovel before Bush's majesty, Ted Kennedy humiliates himself ("...I am, uh, roughly, arguably the size of Connecticut, and can personally moon Europe. Thank you"), and the Pope openly blesses The Passion -- but Osama bin Laden apparently remains at larrge.

When Kos (a veteran of the U.S. military) put up an intemperate blog post about the private security contractors who were killed and mutilated in Fallujah ("They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them"), he incurred the wrath of not only the right-wing blogosphere but also the likes of James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal.

Well, a week later there are Japanese hostages in Iraq, and their captors may burn them alive.

Guess who's not merely dissing the hostages but openly playing Blame the Victim?

From Free Republic:

ANTI-USA/PRO-ACTIVIST JAPANESE WEBSITE OF JAPAN 'HOSTAGE' FOUND/TRANSLATED (IRAQ)

...This is the last e-mail dispatch (yesterday) in Japanese by Mr. Imai, who is reported to have been taken hostage and threatened with death by terrorists in Iraq, along with (2) other young Japanese.

The writings are on a Japanese language website that gives strong indication that the kidnapped Mr. Noriaki Imai was connected to an anti-American, pro-peace activist group in Japan, with activities centering on "DU" (depleted uranium) and the US mission in Iraq.

(Apparently, being concerned about depleted uranium makes one automatically anti-American. Someone needs to tell the four New York Army National Guard soldiers with DU poisoning, and the New York Daily News, which has been reporting on their plight.)

Also from Free Republic:

About those Japanese "Hostages"...

This story is just beginning to break, but the so-called Japanese hostages may actually be a staged event by leftist Japanese anti-war protesters operating inside Iraq.

The source for this is a comment at the frothing right-wing blog Little Green Footballs (LGF). A Japanese commenter at another LGF thread says of hostage Noriaki Imai that "he and others had [the] same interest as the terrorist who kidnapped them." He cites Japanese Web pages as the smoking gun proving this pro-terrorist allegiance; here's one such page, with some text in English -- text that seems to be messages from Iraqis:

title: I'm Iraqi guy in Baghdad Are you really going to send Japanese troops to Iraq? Well, if you want my opinion, please don't. Because we do not want to see Japanese soldiers get killed in Iraq.If you really want to help us, come and get over here. And help us rebuild our country, but not with your weapons, but with your technology & industry. P.S. I feel really sad for the murder of 2 Japanese persons in Tikrit, because I have many Japnese friends.

Now I write you the comment of my friend; "Japanese government must not always follow the US government, but it must take its own decisions" Dia Al Dulaimi Taxi driver in Baghdad

Dia Sulaibi Baghdad, Iraq

We are welcome to get friends from all over the world. They are thinking about Iraqi people. And we want them as a friend, not as army. Kadum Abid Age30 Doctor ...

And on and on in that vein.

How appallingly anti-American! They dared to publish anti-occupation e-mails. Screw 'em. Burn 'em alive.

It's the all-Condi-spin edition of the New York Post!

THE LADY IS A CHAMP

RICE THRIVES IN THE COOKER

SHE'S 'CAN-DO' CONDI

AS 'GREAT' AS W. KNEW SHE'D BE

CONDI'S COUP

THE TRUTH HURTS

Even from Murdoch, isn't this a tad much?

One of the largest Christian bookstores in Canada has refused to stock the latest book in the most popular Christian fiction series of all time, saying it promotes a dangerous worldview that exacerbates global tensions.

Regent College Bookstore, which is affiliated with a world-renowned evangelical graduate school in Vancouver, won't be selling the 12th installment in the phenomenally popular "Left Behind" series, which was released Tuesday across North America to huge fanfare.

...a manager at Regent College Bookstore said the Christian books "mix a dangerous theology with politics--and we don't want to sell it." Ian Panth, whose Christian bookstore is a nonprofit arm of Regent College, on the University of British Columbia campus, said Tuesday: "The book is very American-centric. It suggests the United States is successful because it has supported the state of Israel. It portrays the Antichrist as a Romanian who has risen up to take over the United Nations. It also paints the European Union as entirely demonic."

The majority of faculty at the evangelical Christian graduate school, Panth said, are appalled by the bad writing and bad theology in the apocalyptic series....

--BeliefNet

(Link via Publishers Lunch.)

Holy crap -- it's a popular uprising:

Iraqi marchers break through US roadblocks in bid to relieve rebel bastion

BAGHDAD - Thousands of Iraqi sympathisers, both Sunni and Shiite Muslim, forced their way through US military roadblocks in a bid to bring aid from the capital to the besieged Sunni rebel bastion of Fallujah.

Troops in armoured vehicles attempted to stop the convoy of cars and pedestrians from reaching the western town where US marines have met ferocious resistance in a two-day-old offensive against the insurgents.

But the US contingents were overwhelmed as residents of villages west of the capital came to the convoy's assistance, hurling insults and stones at the beleaguered troops.

...Two US Humvees attempted to stop the marchers but were forced to drive off as residents joined the marchers, shouting "Allahu Akbar" (God is greater).

US troops armed with machine guns and backed up by armour again blocked the highway further west, but were forced to let the Iraqis past as they came under a hail of stones.

The cross-community demonstration of support for Fallujah had been organized by Baghdad clerics both Sunni and Shiite....

--AFP

We now have only two choices left: accept defeat or react with brutality.

Damn George W. Bush and his entire administration for getting us into this mess, in a country that had no ability to harm us.

Colo. Governor Refuses to Welcome Atheist Group

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -- Gov. Bill Owens  and Mayor Lionel Rivera declined to extend an official welcome to the Atheist Alliance for its national convention this weekend, and attendees said they felt slighted.

Rivera said he thinks the group's request for a letter of welcome was the only one he had turned down in his 11 months in office. Terry Sullivan of the Colorado Springs Convention and Visitors Bureau  said the governor rarely declines requests for welcome letters.

Rivera said he refused to offer a letter of welcome in part because the group scheduled its convention during Easter and just days after Passover.

"Anybody in the United States is welcome to express their beliefs and opinions," Rivera said. "I just think it's bad timing."...

--AP, via Fox News

Anti-secularism is the anti-Semitism of the right.

The Left Behind series of books has sold 40 million copies, and the publisher printed 2 million copies of Glorious Appearing, the newest book, it says here ... but the book wasn't able to enter the USA Today bestseller list at #1. Glorious Appearing is #2.

Richard Clarke is #1.

I think that's a sign of the non-apocalypse.

Republican 9/11 Commission member John Lehman goes on Sean Hannity's radio show and praises Condi Rice's public testimony before it takes place while attacking Bill Clinton.

Democratic 9/11 Commission member Bob Kerrey writes an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal ... and praises Bush's Iraq war while attacking Richard Clarke.

Sigh.

Remember this the next time someone tries to persuade you that Democrats are just a bunch of nasty, win-at-all-costs partisans, as bad as Republicans or worse.

By the way, don't miss what James Risen writes in today's New York Times about the nature of the Iraqi resistance -- as opposed to what your government wants you to believe about it. Risen writes:

United States forces are confronting a broad-based Shiite uprising that goes well beyond supporters of one militant Islamic cleric who has been the focus of American counterinsurgency efforts, United States intelligence officials said Wednesday.

That assertion contradicts repeated statements by the Bush administration and American officials in Iraq....

...intelligence officials now say that there is evidence that the insurgency goes beyond Mr. Sadr and his militia, and that a much larger number of Shiites have turned against the American-led occupation of Iraq, even if they are not all actively aiding the uprising....

Meanwhile, American intelligence has not yet detected signs of coordination between the Sunni rebellion in Iraq's heartland and the Shiite insurgency. But United States intelligence says that the Sunni rebellion also goes far beyond former Baathist government members....

Well, I was wrong -- I don't see an obvious soundbite in Rice's opening statement.

I thought there'd be more said to the families -- The New York Times said yesterday, "In her opening statement, Ms. Rice is expected to speak directly to the survivors of those killed in the Sept. 11 attacks," and wow, she really poured her heart out to them:

Many families of the victims are here today, and I thank them for their contributions to the Commission's work.

I've only read the transcript, but I bet there wasn't a dry eye in the house after that.

The rest is just what we should have expected -- a spirited defense of the Bush theory that it's better to have a big, broad, bold plan that takes a long time to get off the ground and accomplishes none of its goals than to be like, y'know, Clinton.

GROUNDHOG DAY

Looters have cleaned out bombed factories, houses and buildings, taking away industrial equipment, household appliances, and even pillows, mattresses and live chickens.

Reuters correspondent Matthew Green, with U.S. Marines on the outskirts of Baghdad, watched scores of young men make off with home generators and other booty from a factory on Monday.

"They were literally emptying the premises," he said.

--CNN, April 8, 2003

An official in the occupation authority ... cited reports that government buildings, police stations, civil defense garrisons and other installations built up by the Americans had been overrun and then stripped bare, of files, furnishings and even toilet fixtures.

--New York Times, April 8, 2004

BUSH'S OTHER ACCOMPLISHED MISSION

Kabul — A powerful Afghan warlord launched a broad assault against two rivals in northern Afghanistan, the Defence Ministry said Wednesday, as the fighting threatened to further destabilize the fragile country.

Forces loyal to Abdul Rashid Dostum moved into Faryab province late Tuesday and were advancing toward the provincial capital along three fronts, Deputy Defence Minister Rahim Wardak told The Associated Press.

Details were sketchy from the remote province, about 400 kilometres northwest of Kabul, but Mr. Wardak said: "For sure, there are casualties, but I can't confirm how many." ...

In Kabul, the capital, a defence ministry spokesman said 750 troops from the new U.S.-trained national army were being rushed to Faryab to calm the situation. But it was not clear if the troops would arrive in time to stop Mr. Dostum's forces from taking Faryab's capital, Maymana....

--Toronto Globe and Mail/AP

Yeah, this is pretty much what Easter used to be like before activist judges and that damn Madalyn Murray O'Hair screwed it up:

Easter Bunny whipped at church show; some families upset

A church trying to teach about the crucifixion of Jesus performed an Easter show with actors whipping the Easter bunny and breaking eggs, upsetting several parents and young children.

People who attended Saturday's performance at Glassport [Pennsylvania]'s memorial stadium quoted performers as saying, "There is no Easter bunny," and described the show as being a demonstration of how Jesus was crucified.

Melissa Salzmann, who took her 4-year-old son J.T., said the program was inappropriate for young children. "He was crying and asking me why the bunny was being whipped," Salzmann said....

Performers broke eggs meant for an Easter egg hunt and also portrayed a drunken man and a self-mutilating woman, said Jennifer Norelli-Burke, another parent who saw the show in Glassport, southeast of Pittsburgh....

--Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/AP

(Link via Pandagon.)

FRom yesterday's White House press gaggle:

MR. McCLELLAN: ... There are those who are opposed to democracy and freedom in Iraq. They represent a small minority.

"Minority." The White House likes this word. The White House likes it so much that Scott McClellan used it again today -- a lot:

MR. McCLELLAN: ...the President has great confidence in our troops and he knows that they will defeat these minority extremist elements that are trying to undermine democracy and freedom for the Iraqi people....

MR. McCLELLAN: ...This is part of taking our fight to these minority extremist elements who are trying to derail the transition process and prevent a democratic future from taking hold in Iraq....

MR. McCLELLAN: ...But we will continue to stay the course and finish the job, and we will defeat these minority of extremist elements that exist in Iraq....

MR. McCLELLAN: ...There are some minority extremist elements that want nothing more than to derail the transition process and prevent the Iraqi people from realizing a free and democratic future....

MR. McCLELLAN: ...There is this small minority of extremist elements that want to do everything they can to derail that process, but they cannot....

If this were coming from any other administration, I'd say it suggests that they're confusing insurrection (or multiple insurrections) with a Massachusetts town meeting -- that they don't understand that you can raise holy hell in a country without first getting holy hell approved by a majority vote.

But this is the Bush administration we're talking about. What does Bush know, or care, about democracy?

I think the administration is confusing the situation in Iraq with an annual shareholders' meeting. That's what Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld know best; even Condi the Academic has logged time in the world of big business, as a onetime Chevron board member.

There can be a lot of anger and discontent at a shareholders' meeting. But if the disgruntled don't own 50% of the shares plus at least one share above that, it's as if they don't exist at all.

That's what the Bushies know. That's how they think everything in the world should work. I'm not sure they understand that some things just don't operate that way.

Look here and here.

War porn. Lots and lots of pulse-quickening pictures of camouflage and weaponry and men being menacing.

Do you get the feeling that, if they'd been able to choose between (a) a nice, smooth, peaceful transition to June 30 and (b) huge U.S. casualties followed by a round of self-righteous Yank ass-kicking, a lot of the right-wing armchair warriors who are enjoying what's posted on these pages would have chosen (b) in a heartbeat?

9/11 COMMISSIONER DOUBLES AS BUSH ADMINISTRATION P.R. FLACK

John Lehman appears on Sean Hannity's radio show and makes an in-kind donation to the Bush campaign, as NewsMax reports:

Lehman: Rice Testimony Will Be 'Compelling'

Sept. 11 Commissioner, former Navy Secretary John Lehman is predicting that tomorrow's testimony by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice will be "compelling," based on her previous testimony to the Commission behind closed doors.

"We had four hours with her in private and she was so articulate and so credible and so compelling that all of us felt that the American people had to hear her discuss what the Bush policies were," Lehman told radio host Sean Hannity.

The 9/11 Commissioner complained that the hearings so far had been "monopolized by a view that basically accused Condi Rice of being asleep at the switch."

For credibility's sake," he explained, "the administration needed to have her appear in public to refute what is really a distorted view."...

Two days ago, we had this from NewsMax:

9/11 Commissioner former Navy Secretary John Lehman said Monday that President Bill Clinton's decision not to accept Sudan's offer to extradite Osama bin Laden to the U.S. in 1996 was probably the biggest blunder in the war on terrorism.

Reacting to NewsMax.com's audiotape of Mr. Clinton admitting he turned down the Sudanese, Secretary Lehman told radio host Sean Hannity, "[Clinton's comments offer] a very good insight into the overall policy during the Clinton administration, which was essentially dominated by lawyers [who treated bin Laden] as a law enforcement, not a foreign policy or a prevention issue."...

("Clinton's mistake was to treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue" is one of the Right's favorite spin points.)

Lehman's unabashed pro-GOP politicking seems to be under the radar so far -- he's not mentioned at all in an "9-11 Panel Struggles to Keep Politics Out," an AP story that appears today.

Well, here it is, from The New York Times:

In her opening statement, Ms. Rice is expected to speak directly to the survivors of those killed in the Sept. 11 attacks, some of whom will be in the audience in a Senate hearing room.

There's your big sound bite. There's the lead on every newscast tomorrow night. There's what everyone (except a few snotty lefty grumblers like you and me) is going to remember from her testimony.

I don't know what she's going to say, apart from the fact that it won't be an apology, according to the Times, but I assure you that more effort has been expended on this sound bite in the West Wing over the past week than on troop strength in Iraq.

Meanwhile, here's some pre-testimony Rice hagiography, from AP ("Friends, Foes Say Rice Has Spirit, Toughness She'll Need for Sept. 11 Testimony") and the New York Post's Deborah Orin ("Inside Condi's Private World").

Please note the dog that has yet to bark: Many, many Americans believe that Hillary Clinton is a pathologically ambitious, unfeminine, manipulative bitch, and everyone else in America knows that this is what many of their fellow citizens think. Then there's Condi Rice, unmarried, and described glowingly (in the two stories I've linked and elsewhere) as a go-getter, steely under pressure, and able to mold the mind of the President of the United States. Isn't it odd that Rice hasn't had to fight her way to respect through widespread catcalls about inadequate femininity, excessive levels of ambition, or sinister subterfuge in the manpulation of powerful male leaders? There's a tiny bit of that, but with Hillary Clinton it's mainstream.

Anyone who sees an equivalence in the ability of right-wingers and left-wingers to disseminate deeply divisive partisan messages has to explain away this fact.

(Just for the record, I don't want to see Rice attacked this way. I favor the high road: Get her on the issues.)