NOTE: Tom Tomorrow is currently in the process of putting his life into boxes and transporting it to a new place entirely. In the interim, Bob Harris will be guest blogging (though Tom may pop in occasionally, if only to confuse things). Also note: Tom is exceedingly unlikely to respond to email for the next couple of weeks.

---

(Note: this entry posted by Bob Harris)

Headline we all knew was coming: "Wolfowitz Says Iraq Stay Could Last Years."

This shouldn't be big news, if anyone's paying attention. I mentioned here four months ago that Jay Garner was openly saying the U.S. presence in Iraq should last "the next few decades," with Iraq to be used (in the neocon wet dream) as a long-term base for further operations extending U.S. military power.

Further down in the article, Wolfowitz says it's possible that "U.S. troops could be used to enforce Iraqi martial law."

Possible? Try damned likely -- in fact, the U.S. has already warned Iraq's new "leaders" that "only the US-led coalition has the right to adopt emergency powers after the June 30 handover of sovereignty."

Um... what kind of "sovereignty" is it when not only are you still occupied -- but the occupiers decide which set of laws the country uses?

If you think about it slightly, June 30 should be described as the U.S. "handing over" "power" to a "new" "government." Seriously. Almost every word in that phrase is a distortion, in one way or another.

Meanwhile, further down in this article, Iraq's new hand-picked "prime minister" Iyad Allawi backs away from his recent comment that not only would he resurrect aspects of Saddam's former military, but his government would quite possibly impose martial law:

"No, I didn't specifically say martial law meaning martial law," he said.

Oh my. He'll do nicely.

So never mind the sanctioned torture of innocents. Or kick-starting Saddam's old army. Or the martial law. They love us. It's all fabulous. Everything's fine.

Chatting about this with my buddy Emo yesterday, we joked that the next prime minister after Allawi would be a clean-shaven, vaguely-familiar guy named Shmaddam Hussein.

Whom, you recall, Rumsfeld once traveled halfway around the world to coddle, support, and reassure in the midst of his crimes.

I just wish it felt more like a joke.

posted by Bob Harris at 04:13 AM | link

(Note: this entry posted by Bob Harris)

That's the headline on a current AP story. Wow. We have a king! Who knew?

And unless you're one of the 30 million or so belligerent pod people running loose whose mutated version of loving America includes contempt for logic, truth, history, science, human rights, and most everyone else on the planet, that sure seems like Holy Crap! territory.

Although last week Rumsfeld admitted he signed off on a violation of international law, and the fuss is already dying down. Gee, who can remember that far back?

Speaking of pod people running rampant, here's another Holy Crap! moment buried in the story:

An Aug. 1, 2002, Justice Department memo argues that torture — and even deliberate killing — of prisoners in the terror war could be justified as necessary to protect the United States. The memo from then-assistant attorney general Jay Bybee also offers a restricted definition of torture, saying only actions that cause severe pain akin to organ failure would be torture.

Bybee is now a justice on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Hold on here. There's a sitting Appeals Court justice, robes and all, right this minute, who views anything short of "severe pain akin to organ failure" as acceptable.

Yet another reason to defeat Bush: he's stacking the federal courts (and thus the interpretation of the Constitution for much of the next generation) with twisted creepazoids you wouldn't turn your back on with a plastic spork.

Update: Human Rights Watch has this handy summary of the international and U.S. laws on torture, including specific language on precisely what legally constitutes said no-no. This stuff's just not ambiguous. Have a read, and see why the liars are starting to freak.

posted by Bob Harris at 03:25 AM | link

Why yes, that is Jesus crucified on a cell phone tower. Explanation here.

posted by Tom Tomorrow at 08:16 PM | link

(Note: this entry posted by Bob Harris)

What could possibly bring Muslims and Hindus together in India?

Protesting George W. Bush's policies, that's what.

Thousands cheered the emotionally charged speeches and shouted slogans against the US. It was perhaps for the first time that crowds could be seen shouting slogans like "Allah-o-Akbar and "Har Har Mahadev" in the same breath.

For those who just came in, "Allahu Akbar" is Arabic for "God is the greatest" and is shouted by Muslims as a call to prayer; "Har Har Mahadev" is shouted by Hindus and roughly translates as "In the name of the greatest God," invoking Lord Shiva. I usually read about people yelling these things at each other, with the kind of tension you'd get if the Crips and Bloods had nuclear weapons.

Now they're yelling for God together.

Christ almighty, this is getting interesting (the agnostic with Theravada Buddhist leanings said).

Via Juan Cole, who is worth reading every day.

posted by Bob Harris at 08:35 PM | link

(Note: this entry posted by Bob Harris)

Given that (at least according to an unprecedented public censure of Bush from a bipartisan raft of former diplomats and military officers) Bush's mideast policies have actually weakened the U.S., will Al-Qaeda attack the U.S. before November, hoping to give Bush four more years?

According to a new book by a senior U.S. intelligence official... yes.

Hell of a president we've got. Hell of a media, too. When John Kerry says (stating the obvious) that some foreign leaders would prefer him as president, giant hullaballoo. But Al-Qaeda itself would quite logically want Bush to be re-elected? Not a peep.

One side note, re whether bad guys will bomb the Olympics: I might be wrong, but, um, no. No way in hell. What Bush calls the Tara-ists aren't pervasively, indiscriminately evil, trying to ruin everything nice in the world, and then take candy from children, too. It would be comforting to think so, since that means we can just go to mindless bug-eyed rage and feel good about it, but nope. The bad guys have clear, obvious, explicitly-stated goals (see below). For a solid year, the military strategy has been to isolate the United States. (Which, I add, Bush has done a magnificent job of helping with.) Attacking a global lovefest like the Olympics would gain Al-Qaeda nothing but a few billion new enemies. They're murderous and evil, yes. Not stupid.

That's not to say some local faction won't do something idiotic, but we've got well-armed criminals here in L.A., too. Which is why I'm headed to Athens myself if I can squeeze it in, with no worries.

A September plane ride back to the U.S., however... that's gonna be a little more scary.

posted by Bob Harris at 07:58 PM | link

(Note: this entry posted by Bob Harris)

(Note: nothing in the following should be considered as even slightly pro-bad-guys. Remember, Charlie Manson only got locked up after Vince Bugliosi got inside Charlie's brain. Understanding the bad guys is how you defeat them. Pretending you do, then attacking an entirely different enemy, while making up shit to justify it, is how you get your ass kicked.)

A few minutes ago on CNN they were blithering about an Al-Qaeda offshoot group's claim to Saudi police collaboration in the kidnapping and murder of Paul Johnson. The question was framed, and I quote: "Saudi Arabia -- ally or enemy?"

Um, kids...?

Saudi Arabia (members of whose Army Signal Corps I once trained, back when I first got out of college, before I had a freakin' clue) is a nasty dictatorship steeped in puritanical Wahhabism whose populace is as likely to support Al-Qaeda as oppose it, in large part because they've been bullied by a selfish regime tight with the West for as long as anyone can remember.

In short, what we're looking at may well be 1970s Iran, all over again.

But...

A big chunk of what Al-Qaeda wants -- and they've always been pretty damned up front about it -- is to get the West out of what they consider holy land. (That's not to justify a damned thing they do. But even bad guys have motives, and we need to understand them to fight intelligently.) More than that, once the former Saudi Arabia is in their hands, they intend to harness the region's oil resources to finance a greater war against the West.

Which puts the U.S. in an interesting position right now. Support the Saudis in a greater crackdown? Al-Qaeda probably gains in the long term. Withdraw support for the Saudis? Al-Qaeda probably gains in the short term.

Thanks a bunch, Mr. President. Thanks for not staying focused on Al-Qaeda full-on.

Did Saudi cops actually assist with the kidnapping? Hell if I know.

But would convincing America that they did -- and in turn, leading us to begin questioning our support for the Saudi government -- be absolutely perfect PR for Al-Qaeda right now? You betcha.

This is absolutely not the last time you're going to hear Al-Qaeda claim they have support within the Saudi police, military, or government.

So what do we do next? Good question. Actually using our leverage to help the Saudi citizenry gain the most basic of palpable rights -- like, say, um, voting -- as fast as possible might help defuse the situation. This stuff really isn't that hard, people. If you're a Saudi cab driver, and you're getting a better deal just by hanging out and doing your job, you're a lot less likely to sign on to blowing yourself to bits as a method of personal advancement.

Given that the only long-term options the House of Saud really have are a) reform or b) overthrow, it seems like a plan. The fact that Bush isn't openly pushing for it in Saudi Arabia tells you just how meaningless his rhetoric about democracy really is.

In any case, here's the point of this post: I sure as hell wish Wolf Blitzer (or any of these damned idiots) was capable of framing a debate in realistic, informed terms -- instead of the with-us-or-against-us stupidity of framing an entire country suddenly as "ally or enemy."

The way it's sounding, I'm afraid we're about to start hearing a lot about how 15 of the 19 WTC hijackers were actually Saudi -- almost 3 years too late.

We have one hell of a crappy ally in Saudi Arabia. Really, really super crappy. But mindless reporting like this -- submitting Saudi Arabia into a possible national enemy -- is playing directly into Al-Qaeda's hands.

posted by Bob Harris at 07:02 PM | link

(Note: this entry posted by Bob Harris)

It shouldn't have to be pointed out constantly, but it does. Every time a national poll comes out showing some result like:

Kerry 48
Bush 43
Wish for a candidate you'd allow in your house 9

... it doesn't mean a bloody thing about who's gonna win, since the electoral college means that we have 51 separate elections, not one national one. You'd think that 2000 would have taught everyone that permanently, but no.

So if you want to keep track of how things are really going, there are several websites which monitor state polls and display the results graphically. I'm fond of electoral-vote.com for its simplicity, but with about 30 seconds and a Google search I'm sure you can find a dozen others.

There's also a cool map over at the vestigal Edwards for President site, showing how the U.S. would look if the states were physically proportional to their electoral size. Cheneyland suddenly looks teeny.

Reassuring, that.

Update: I should note that the Edwards site isn't the official one. Incidentally, I'd personally rate the likelihood of Edwards becoming Kerry's VP choice as extremely high. Whether that's accurate or not, one thing to remember -- the longer Kerry is able to delay the choice, the more free media he gets on slow news days.

posted by Bob Harris at 03:48 PM | link

...and then I'm done. This time I mean it.

GUANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba, June 19 — For nearly two and a half years, American officials have maintained that locked within the steel-mesh cells of the military prison here are some of the world's most dangerous terrorists -- ''the worst of a very bad lot,'' Vice President Dick Cheney has called them.

The officials say information gleaned from the detainees has exposed terrorist cells, thwarted planned attacks and revealed vital intelligence about Al Qaeda. The secrets they hold and the threats they pose justify holding them indefinitely without charge, Bush administration officials have said.

But as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on the legal status of the 595 men imprisoned here, an examination by The New York Times has found that government and military officials have repeatedly exaggerated both the danger the detainees posed and the intelligence they have provided.

In interviews, dozens of high-level military, intelligence and law-enforcement officials in the United States, Europe and the Middle East said that contrary to the repeated assertions of senior administration officials, none of the detainees at the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay ranked as leaders or senior operatives of Al Qaeda. They said only a relative handful -- some put the number at about a dozen, others more than two dozen -- were sworn Qaeda members or other militants able to elucidate the organization's inner workings.

Story here.

Now, if you'll excuse me, all those Precious Moments figurines aren't going to pack themselves...

posted by Tom Tomorrow at 02:37 PM | link

Iraq Might Welcome a Strongman

BAGHDAD — On the eve of sovereignty, Iraq (news - web sites) is a nation in disarray, riven by bombings, assassinations and sabotage. Yet many people here appear cautiously optimistic that a tough-talking new government run by Iraqis can confront the withering cycle of violence better than their U.S.-led occupiers.

Talk of imposing martial law or restoring the death penalty has been welcomed by many among a war-weary populace.

Story.

posted by Tom Tomorrow at 01:55 PM | link

...or, every time I try to get out, they pull me back in. New York Times this morning:

Mr. Moore may also be criticized for the way he portrays the evacuation of the extended bin Laden family from the United States after Sept. 11. As the Sept. 11 commission has found, the Saudi government was able to pull strings at senior levels of the Bush administration to help the bin Ladens leave the United States. But while the film clearly suggests that the flights occurred at a time when all air traffic was grounded immediately after the attacks ("Even Ricky Martin couldn't fly," Mr. Moore says over video of the singer wandering in an airport lobby), the Sept. 11 commission said in a report this April that there was "no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace" and that the F.B.I. had concluded that no one aboard the flights was involved in Sept. 11.

St. Petersburg Times, 6/9/04:

TAMPA - Two days after the Sept. 11 attacks, with most of the nation's air traffic still grounded, a small jet landed at Tampa International Airport, picked up three young Saudi men and left.

The men, one of them thought to be a member of the Saudi royal family, were accompanied by a former FBI agent and a former Tampa police officer on the flight to Lexington, Ky.
The men, one of them thought to be a member of the Saudi royal family, were accompanied by a former FBI agent and a former Tampa police officer on the flight to Lexington, Ky.

The Saudis then took another flight out of the country. The two ex-officers returned to TIA a few hours later on the same plane.

For nearly three years, White House, aviation and law enforcement officials have insisted the flight never took place and have denied published reports and widespread Internet speculation about its purpose.

But now, at the request of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, TIA officials have confirmed that the flight did take place and have supplied details.

Update: Brendan from Spinsanity points out via email that the wording of the St. Petersburg Times article is vague enough that the out-of-country flight to which it refers could still have occurred after normal air travel resumed. That wasn't how I read the article, but it is at least a plausible interpretation, so I'm pulling my earlier suggestion that the NY Times needs to run a correction. (Not to imply that the Times gives a rat's ass what I think, of course...)

However: whatever the specifics are, it's pretty clear that a lot of people were lying about something.

Perez, the former FBI agent on the flight, could not be located this week, and Grossi declined to talk about the experience.

"I'm over it," he said in a telephone interview. "The White House, the FAA and the FBI all said the flight didn't happen. Those are three agencies that are way over my head, and that's why I'm done talking about it."

Various edits as I read through this. Now I have seriously got to get back to packing...

posted by Tom Tomorrow at 12:30 PM | link

...I'm pretty much out of here for a couple of weeks. Too much to do, too little time. I may pop in occasionally, but I'm mostly handing the site over to Bob for awhile. Send your story tips to him, I'm not going to be checking email very often. See you in a few.

posted by Tom Tomorrow at 05:58 PM | link

I'll be on Air America sometime in the 11:00 hour this morning.

posted by Tom Tomorrow at 09:40 AM | link

(Note: this entry posted by Bob Harris)

A source who prefers anonymity has sent Atrios a print-quality color photo of Bush at yesterday's cabinet meeting -- which clearly (if at a difficult angle) shows Bush's talking points in his own handwriting.

Yep, it's real -- you can see the notes in other photos of the same meeting, albeit not nearly as well. So for the first time, we get to see the little scratches Chimpy makes for himself so he doesn't need to call for Uncle Dick every five minutes.

There's something of an ongoing photoshop-decode-orama sweepstakes going on, trying to decipher the obliquely-shot bad handwriting done in a hurry by a stressed-out alcoholic who thinks he talks to God. Take a shot. See what you think.

Two pages are visible. To the best of my Photoshopping ability, it appears that the left page, torn from a legal pad, reads (keeping Bush's semi-literate capitalization and indenting intact):

Islam was A Threat -

SworN ENEMy of US Destabilizing Force in

Volatile part of world
weapons of mass d.

has [illegible, possible cross-out] - USED them

- Ties to terrorist orgs

- Contacts with Al Qaeda

over last DECADe

And with those 34 words, friends, repeating phrases he has already used a thousand times -- what, was he afraid he might forget them this time? -- Chimpy filled almost an entire page.

I say "almost" because the top of the page is obscured by a block of wood which seems to serve no other purpose. The word "Islam" is quite clear, although I originally assumed it said "Saddam," as almost everyone else seems to have assumed. I'll give Bush the benefit of the doubt and assume the note refers to Ansar Al-Islam, the Al-Qaeda connected group which set up shop in the hinterlands of northern Iraq.

(Incidentally, the large black blob isn't ink -- it's a binder clip.)

On Bush's right hand, a square page of notes has been shoved under the top of his legal pad. These are in ALL CAPS, and appear to be someone else's handwriting:

DEB REICHMANN (ap)
DAVID MORGAN (REUTERS)
ROGER RUNNIGEN (BLOOMBERG)
JOHN ROBERTS (CBS)
BOB HILLMAN [word crossed out] (DMN)
ANN COMPTON (ABC Radio)

You guessed it -- these were the handpicked reporters to be called on, in the order they were to be called on.

Also note that after three and a half years, and Bush still doesn't know the press corps by name.

After his prepared statement, Bush first called on "Deb," whose question went (surprise!) straight to the talking points on Bush's left hand.

Next, Bush called on "Morgan" -- perhaps thinking of Captain Morgan rum -- whose question went off the board and asked about Donald Rumsfeld admittedly violating international law by ordering secret detentions. Bush responded (swear to God -- read the transcript) that Rumsfeld is "fabulous" and ended the session abruptly.

Two small notes here: whoever wrote this page misspelled the name "Riechmann," and the word crossed out seems to start with a capital D. I'm assuming it's "Dallas," as in "Dallas Morning News," which is where Bob Hillman works, and there simply wasn't space -- demonstrating that the inability to plan any goddam thing at all doesn't end with Bush himself.

Finally, there's a third piece of paper, still attached to the legal pad, but obscured by the call-on list. Notes appear at the visible bottom portion of the page, and what seems to be a last-minute Bush note-to-self appears vertically along the very right edge of the page, scrawled half-overlapping onto the call-on list, one word per line.

These are hard as hell to make out. If you can figure it out, by all means, share with the class.

The best I can make of the note at the bottom -- about a dozen words filling a third of a page:

- Multiple report [?] of [?] support of

contacts [?] with [?] Al Q.
Iraqis to Share
[illegible]

This part is blurry enough that "contacts with" might also say "costume maker" or "customer murder," although these seem less likely. Although don't be surprised if we start bombing Edith Head's estate.

The words "multiple," "support," and "contacts [?] with [?] Al Q." are underlined. So whatever the exact phrasing of the new bullshit is, we'll know pretty soon, and we'll hear it for weeks.

(Incidentally -- true story -- growing up, I had "multiple contacts" with the kid who lived next door to me. Later on, he crushed our neighborhood minister to death with his car. Which means, according to the current logic, that not only do I kill priests -- I must be stopped before I do it again.)

Finally, there's Bush's vertical note-to-self. This is the hardest to decipher of all, written across page edges, as if very much in a last-minute hurry:

Al Q.

how [?]
(underlined twice)
you [?]
say:
[illegible; starts with a "C"]
with
SUDAN

I assumed this was "Saddam," too. But nope. And again, this was urgent enough for Bush to scrawl madly down the side of a page, like a kid afraid of forgetting a new vocabulary word and scribbling it on his hand just before a test.

So figure we'll be hearing some more about Al-Qaeda and Sudan in the coming days.

Possibly because they murder their customers.

posted by Bob Harris at 09:10 AM | link

(Note: this entry posted by Bob Harris)

The following are cherry-picked excerpts of today's fun with Scottie McClellan, White House spokesliar, in the wake of the 9/11 panel's conclusion that Saddam and Osama didn't really adopt a shaved chimp after all.

Note that I'm including questions only, because there's no way to properly transcribe the pathetic squeaking and squirming noises made in response:

Q ... I'm just wondering if you could explain how those two disparate thoughts are completely consistent.

Q But that's in direct contradiction to what the 9/11 Commission has found.

Q And not only that, this President has said that he thought that Saddam Hussein would like to use al Qaeda as a forward army, as one of his forward armies. The 9/11 Commission is saying, contacts a relationship don't make.

Q Scott, do you really think people buy this?

Q Between what the facts are and what the reality is.

Q No, I'm also talking about facts. The President said he thinks that al Qaeda would like to be a forward -- that Saddam wanted to use al Qaeda as a forward army -- his words from, I believe, October 2002 at a Michigan rally.

This commission has said after its own investigation, and you were the ones who set up the commission, that there was no collaborative relationship. So the conclusion -- the question and conclusion seems to be that administration overstated the evidence that exists.

Q The New York Times says the President should apologize to the American people. Also, are you saying that the 9/11 report is wrong? Is that what you're saying that you reject the findings?

Q What are people supposed to conclude, that they're having lunch with each other?

Q You talk about deep, long-standing ties. What is that supposed to mean?

Q Why don't you just say the commission is wrong?

Q Well, because the terms that you did use, "deep, long-standing ties -- sinister nexus," and the President himself saying, "By removing Saddam Hussein we have removed an ally of al Qaeda," that means they are working together. Did Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda work together, where and when?

Q Well, what does "ally" mean?

Q That's an argument. Those are not facts.

Q That's just an argument. The facts as determined do not bear out that argument.

Q But you didn't find any.

Q Who has repudiated his own testimony.

Q I'm looking for facts.

Q Where was the threat?

Q Did he ever threaten the United States?

Q Scott, the last poll on the subject found that most Americans, more than half, believe that Iraq had some hand in the planning and the execution of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Do you believe that the White House, the administration has done anything to contribute to that misimpression? Do you believe that you have, in any way, at any time, overstated the ties, the connections between al Qaeda and Iraq?

Q ... Do you believe -- you're saying that the White House believes that administration officials bear no responsibility for this misperception of Iraq's role in 9/11 that polls indicate a good half of the American people have. Are you concerned about that? Two questions.

Q And you're not concerned about the -- it doesn't trouble you that so many people have this misperception?

Q It is a fact that --

Q -- that a number of people had this misperception. I want to know if you're concerned about that. Does it trouble you that so many Americans believe Saddam had a role in 9/11?

Q Scott, how much of a political problem is it for the President leading into a reelection campaign that one rationale after another for going to war in Iraq seems to be vanishing in terms of credibility?

Q So you don't see any political difficulty in these latest revelations, the fact that there's no weapons of mass destruction?

Q That's not true.

Q And you don't see any political price to be paid for the erosion of one justification --

Q -- after another before the war?

Q Well, the fact is -- the fact is there's been no WMD found. We clearly haven't been welcomed as liberators.

Q What I'm trying to get you to address, Scott, is that the political atmosphere surrounding this whole enterprise in Iraq clearly has shifted if you read polls. More and more people doubt the rationales for going to war. More and more people question --

Q I'm not trying to be argumentative, but clearly --

Q Clearly, Scott, obviously... the President's reelection hinges in large part on whether enough people believe that he made the right decision to do that. And how does he go about -- given all this news and evidence to the contrary and all that, how does he go about continuing to make this case between now and the next four, four-and-a-half months that the decision was the right one?

Q As a follow-up on my colleagues over here, do you think that if this was March 1, 2003, and the 9/11 report had come out, and we knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction, do you think the American people would have supported us going to war?

Q Scott, you said there is a misperception of what the commission said on ties to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, let me ask you this, did this administration commit any mistakes? Are you -- in other words, are you considered a perfect government?

Q A perfect government. I mean you are not accepting any --

Q No, this government -- the government of President George W. Bush.

Q You're perfect.

The rising disdain of the press corps would be positively delightful -- except for knowing that it took an unnecessary war, widespread torture, probable war crimes, and several high-level acts approaching treason to get the press to finally show a little proper skepticism.

Picky, I realize.

posted by Bob Harris at 10:55 PM | link

And I don't mean to the handover in Iraq. I've got a big, complicated move bearing down like a freight train. I think posting will become very sporadic, very soon. Bob may be picking up some of the slack if he has time.

posted by Tom Tomorrow at 10:41 AM | link

Went to the premiere last night, along with Bill Clinton and Atrios. This, along with the F911 premiere Monday, is exactly two more glamorous film premieres than I have attended in seven years in New York City. Add to this a couple of relatively high-profile panels and an Air America interview on Friday, and my last few weeks in New York are turning into quite the whirlwind.

Joe Conason introduced me to Atrios at the after party. Spent awhile talking about the latter's dual career as a White House advisor-turned-gym-teacher. (I kid, of course. Or do I?)

Picture below of the three of us. That big blue circle makes Sid Atrios easy to spot in a crowd.

The movie opens Friday at the Angelika in New York. Full list of screenings available on the Hunting of the President website (click 'screenings' at the top).

One thought on this: don't make the mistake of thinking that, because it's about the Clinton impeachment, it's no longer relevant or timely. What this film is about, ultimately, is how the right wing works, behind the scenes--which makes it kind of a crash course in how we got into the mess we're in today. It's a good companion piece to a book I just finished, David Brock's Republican Noise Machine, which I also recommend.

(Editing.)

posted by Tom Tomorrow at 09:18 AM | link