More Eye Candy - Four Aces

Going through some old artifacts of my past to make more room for useless junk. Came across my dutch playing cards, so I'm putting up a scan of the four aces.



If you want to see the cards even bigger to appreciate the artwork and cross hatching (I don't know what that is, so it's possible that it doesn't exist on these cards), here's a bigger version.

Conservatives great Strength

I was reading Clyde Haberman's article on the new liberal Radio Network, referenced below, and he said something I've often thought and probably have commented on.

"Conservatives are particularly effective at complaining that - despite control of the White House, both houses of Congress, many statehouses, influential magazines and newspapers, Fox News and popular talk shows led by the likes of Mr. Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Joe Scarborough - they are practically voiceless."

He's not wrong.

The Library of Congress

I'm a big proponent of taking your money (in the form of taxes) and spending it on preserving our natural heritage. So naturally I'm a fan of the Library of Congress. But being the generous person I am, I'd also like to point out to you that there's this website, called The American Memory that is really cool, and is part of the Library of Congress. Well worth checking out.

And in that spirit, here's my little quiz for the day. Below are five pictures from the American Memory site, taken somewhere between 1880 and 1910, I think, from five well known American Cities. The cities are Los Angeles, El Paso, Boston, Atlantic City, and New York. Can you match up the city to the picture taken over a hundred years ago (maybe)? Answers will be in the comments section below. Enjoy!

For those Interested

I had 1,155 hits last month (March).

Of those hits, 24 were from parts unknown.

Of those counties who had posters, the USA came in first 1,069 hits.

Canada came in second with 20.

Great Britain came in third with 12.

Israel came in fourth with 6.

Australia and Germany tied for fifth with 3

France, Egypt, Netherlands, and Malaysia came in sixth with 2.

And coming in 7th we have Saint Kitts and Nevis, Russian Federation, Philippines, Japan, Libya, Finland, India, Sweden, Italy, and Singapore with one hit a piece.

I do find myself what someone from Malaysia or Egypt or India or Finland thinks of this page. So if you see this post and want to tell me, use the comment button down at the bottom.

Also, for those of you in, say the Russian Federation or Saint Kitts, it wouldn't take a lot of effort to move your nation up the list. Why by just looking at the website once a week, you cold have crushed Australia and Germany. This is a sport that all nations of the world can excel in. So look at my website, and make your country proud.

I Take My Stand

I am generally in favor of recycling. I don't do very much of it, but I think it's a good idea, and we should all get behind it. And buying recycled products is a good idea. But there are some recycled products that suck.

You know those bubble envelopes that protect cds and stuff you might want to send to one another? Well, they have a recycled version of it; which is filled with crumpled bits of paper to cushion whatever you might want to cushion. When you rip the envelope open, however, those little bits of paper go every where. Like, say, all over my car. So that's one area of recycling that I'm opposed to.

I am in favor of recycling lyrics to old songs, and on that note, here are the lyrics to the great Buffalo Springfield song "Nowadays Clancy Can't Even Sing."

Nowadays Clancy Can't Even Sing

Who's that stomping all over my face?
Where's that silhouette I'm trying to trace?
Who's putting sponge in the bells I once rung
And taking my gypsy before she's begun
To singing the meaning of what's in my mind
Before I can take home what's rightfully mine.
Joinin' and listenin' and talkin' in rhymes
Stoppin' the feeling to wait for the times.

Who's saying baby, that don't mean a thing,
'Cause nowadays Clancy can't even sing.

And who's all hung-up on that happiness thing?
Who's trying to tune all the bells that he rings?
And who's in the corner and down on the floor
With pencil and paper just counting the score?
And who's trying to act like he's just in between?
The line isn't black, if you know that it's green.
Don't bother looking, you're too blind to see
Who's coming on like he wanted to be.

Who's saying baby, that don't mean a thing,
'Cause nowadays Clancy can't even sing.

And who's coming home on the old nine-to-five?
Who's got the feeling that he came alive,
Though havin' it, sharin' it ain't quite the same
It ain't no gold nugget, you can't lay a claim
Who's seeing eyes through the crack in the floor
There it is baby, don't you worry no more
Who should be sleepin', but is writing this song
Wishin' and a-hopin' he weren't so damned wrong.

Who's saying baby, that don't mean a thing,
'Cause nowadays Clancy can't even sing.



Have a nice day.

Round the Horn

It's time for another trip around the horn

blogAmy has two things of note; Beatnik Rumsfeld and a truly bizarre quote from President Bush. The Bush Administration, changing perceptions since 2001.

Edward Pig has a report on what the Bush Administration was focused on before terrorism, and he also does a good job of putting it into perspective.

Dohiyi Mir broke a huge story this week, one that is doubtless going to be of great comfort to the White House.

Iddybud has a response to former President George H. W. Bush's comments on how it effects him emotionally to see his son criticized.

And Then . . . reminds us all of the Plame Scandal which some of us might have forgotten. He also has a really solid listing of scandals in the Bush Administration.

Archy comments on the condescension of the Bush Administration in letting Condaleeza Rice testify.

For those interested in information on the Jew, here's a website. This is what's called a Google Bomb, and I'm not sure about the origin of the term. But apparently the first website in Google that pops up if you type in the word "Jew" is an anti Semitic site, and it would be better if the first site were a more legitimate site. Anyway this story comes via Rubber Hose via Normblog.

Bloggg reveals that this month is National Autism month, and provides links so you can find more about this issue should you chose to.

Sooner Thought has an uplifting story about how John Kerry is confounding democratic fundraising expectations by raising a lot of money. I hope that translates into putting his ads refuting the Bush campaigns deceptive ads into more markets.

Enjoy.

Club America Salutes You

Listening to Air America right now, the Randi Rhodes show which so far is the pick of the litter in my mind. She's cool. But I also enjoyed the O'Franken Factor, or those bits that I heard. And Unfiltered is pretty good as well.

Here's the website.

Oh, I forgot about the Majority Report, staring Jeneane Garofalo and Sam Seder. They also have a weblog.

A Rational Irrationality

My text today is suggested by this phrase in Ross McKenzie's latest article. McKenzie is relating the conditions in the upcoming election, and among others he suggests the following:

"Among Democrats, a venomous hostility - a meanness - toward Bush rarely seen toward any president."

The sort of sentiment is widely asserted across the right wing; that our desire to remove President Bush from office is born of an irrational hatred and it is the sort of hatred never before seen in modern times.

You have to assume they don't remember the 1990s and they're hoping we don't remember them either.

For example, in the 1990s I remember President Clinton being accused of murdering Vince Foster and many others (the infamous Clinton Body Count). I remember the Right Wing press jumping all over that case and pushing it aggressively. I don't remember liberals accusing President Bush of rubbing anybody out.

I remember the Right Wing slamming into Chelsea Clinton a number of times. I particularly remember that funny bit Rush Limbaugh did on his lousy television show about the First Cat and the First Dog. I don't remember anybody on the liberal side who has played such crude shenanigans with President Bush's family.

Of course some of you might say, "Well, is Rush Limbaugh really representative of what Republicans / Conservatives are all about? Be fair Bryant." OK. Let's be fair.

The Republican party currently has four branches (Well it probably has more, but for simplicity's sake). Call them the Religious Right, the Libertarians, the Classical Conservatives, and the Limbaugh Conservatives/Neo-Conservatives. These categories aren't mutually exclusive, of course. In particular, there's a lot of the Religious Right who are also Limbaugh Conservatives.

I generally have no problem with Classical Conservatives or Libertarians; I don't often agree with their philosophies but I think they have a lot to say. More to the point, these sort of conservatives do not as often stoop to the same sort of tactics as the Limbaugh Conservatives/Neo-Conservatives. You can, in general, talk to them.

The Religious Right and the Limbaugh Conservatives, however, are another matter. A key point in understanding the Limbaugh Conservatives is that they not only believe that they are right (both in the moral sense and in the practical sense) the believe that they are obviously right. Anybody who takes the time to study the issues and try to understand what's going on will, barring some outside influence, come to the same conclusions that they do. Or to put it another way, if a person disagrees with their interpretation of events, there must be some reason for it beyond a simple disagreement. A liberal isn't just a guy or gal who sees things differently, but is someone who is willfully choosing the wrong answer. Maybe it's because the Liberal is crazy or a dupe or is a sophist hoping to gain some kind of power by promoting a wrong (again, both morally and practically) philosophy.

Because the Limbaugh Conservative's viewpoints are correct, and liberal viewpoints (or frankly any viewpoints that disagree with theirs) are so clearly wrong, there can be no real compromise. Witness Rush Limbaugh's jokes, back in the day, about how Liberals would become so rare we would need to keep one or two around in Zoos so we don't forget how bad liberalism really was. Note also Rush's constant beration of Centrist Republicans. He used to often say that there was little to no difference between a moderate and a far leftist (he's moved off this subject, it being an election year and all). Which makes sense, when you think about it. If there is only one correct answer, than all the other answers are wrong. It's just that some wrong answers are obviously wrong, and other wrong answers are more disguised.

To be fair there are plenty on the liberal side of the fence who feel this way as well (particularly, for example, academic liberals), but they haven't coalesced into a power within the party the way Limbaugh and his followers have.

So it's understandable why they see our dislike of President Bush's policies as irrational. They have to see it that way, because their own opinions on him are so self evidently correct. Any moral, rational person would have to come to the same conclusions they have (President Bush has done good by tax cuts and in protecting America, but hasn't done as well at shutting down liberal programs or closing our borders to immigration). If Liberals have come to a different conclusion it must be that we are irrational.

Incidentally, it's clear that the Limbaugh wing of the Republican party has a lot of influence in the White House. You need look no further than Vice President Cheney's willingness to give up a half hour of his valuable time to appear on Rush's show. They presumably know that they need to keep Limbaugh Republicans happy in order to win in November. Given the Administrations handling of Foreign Policy, however, I wouldn't be surprised if this way of thinking were not somewhat common in the Bush White House.

Which I suppose is another irrational reason to dislike President Bush.

I don't really know what to do with this

In Fallujah, Iraq, today, five soldiers and four civilians were killed. The Soldiers were killed when their vehicle ran over a bomb some 12 miles to the northwest of Fallujah. And the four civilians were killed in an attack on their SUV's. This sort of thing happens all the time in Iraq, so why does this get special treatment? Because the citizens of Fallujah, according to MSNBC, "After ambushing the vehicle carrying the civilian contractors in Fallujah, jubilant Iraqis burned and mutilated the dead, then dragged two corpses through the streets and hung them from a bridge spanning the Euphrates River.

That's going to provide plenty of footage and pictures for both sides to use.

The left gets to comment that these attacks wouldn't have happened if President Bush hadn't put us in Iraq. Some on the left will also comment that our sorrow over these three or four American civilians will be much much greater than our sorrow for Iraqi civilians dead.

The right gets to use this to demonize the Iraqi resistance (not too hard a feat considering) and, by extension, all those who oppose President Bush's programs.

The whole thing makes me sick to me sick to my stomach.

That they died is bad ; but, frankly those are the risks they take (speaking of the Civilian Contractors). Presumably they felt they'd be compensated for the risk they were incurring. From the MSNBC story - "Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said at a briefing in Baghdad that it was not known what the coalition contractors were doing in Fallujah - apparently without a military escort - when the attack occurred." So we don't know what they were doing, but one can assume they didn't go to Fallujah on a whim.

What's worse is the mutilation of the bodies, which is already being compared to what happened on Mogadishu. We all remember Mogadishu, when President Clinton cut and run, which the Right has always portrayed as proof to the Middle East that we are a weak nation. So this action makes it more likely that we will stay in Iraq; there will probably also be calls to pacify Fallujah.

And of course there were five American soldiers who died as well. Unlike the civilians they didn't have a choice about being there. And they don't have much hope of coming out of this situation with the kind of compensation that the civilian contractors would have presumably recieved. It's sad that such events have become unremarkable.

Anyway I wish those familes of the deceased well.

The People's Republic of Kathleen Parker

First of all, allow me to provide a little background. Kerry, skiing in Idaho, apparently fell down and cussed out his secret service agent (calling him a "son of a bitch") who he felt was to blame. It's hard to say more about this story because most of the references I find to it are from conservative bloggists and commentators (like Kathleen Parker), and I suspect their interpretation may be biased.

Here's how the New York Times Reported it (and, remember dear readers, I had to spend $2.95 to get access to this article so you'd better appreciate it!)

"His next trip down, a reporter and a camera crew were allowed to follow along on skis -- just in time to see Mr. Kerry taken out by one of the Secret Service men, who had inadvertently moved into his path, sending him into the snow.

When asked about the mishap a moment later, he said sharply, ''I don't fall down,'' then used an expletive to describe the agent who ''knocked me over.''

This is the defining moment of the Kerry Campaign, according to many right wing columnists (like Kathleen Parker). In her latest column, she compares Senator Kerry to a 7-year old. Of course she leaves out most of the context (even the little bit of context provided by the New York times). For example, she leaves out the bit where the secret service agent actually knocked him down. She also didn't spend a lot of time contemplating what it's like to fall down in the snow while skiing and have reporters immediately running over to ask for a comment.

She then goes on to fault his choice of leisure activity. "Then you catch Kerry, who shouldn't need to prove his manhood - he served in Vietnam, you know - engaging in preppy sports that require resorts and expensive equipment: skiing, snowboarding, windsurfing. Not exactly the populist sports of choice.

Can't the man shoot hoops? Or toss a football while, say, not skiing in Aspen? Catch much?"

There are a lot of skiers in America; all they all preppy wimps? Particularly in northern states like, say, Massachusetts, skiing is a popular activity. And the man was on vacation, wasn't he? After a grueling primary season, he was taking a couple of days off. President Bush, as we all know, understands the value of a vacation; why don't you, Ms. Parker?

Tony Blankely comments on this issue as well, but uses it to springboard into his request, nay, requirement, that Senator Kerry release his medical files.

"In the murky background, national tabloid papers speculate that he may be a victim of more embarrassing diseases. Such nasty rumors are commonplace in American politics (and inevitably have their effects), but they are fueled by candidates who refuse to release all their medical records -- as Mr. Kerry refuses. The limited, general, uncorroborated statements by his personal physician, Dr. Gerald J. Doyle of Boston, only keep the controversy on a slow simmer. The doctor said that "there was no evidence of metastic disease" and that Mr. Kerry's heart function "was above average for a man his age." Is that really the best his helpful doctor could offer up?"

Kind of a tricky technique there, isn't it? Without asserting anything specific, Blankley says a lot. In case you don't get it he's accusing President Kerry of having a Sexually Transmitted Disease while maintaining plausible deniability. Let me give you a parallel version.

"Well it's obviously unfortunate that tabloid papers could write speculative pieces on Mr. Blankley's continual private and ritualistic worship of Pan, the Goat God, despite his professed Christianity. Really the only way to put these rumors to rest is for Mr. Blankley to install security cameras and connect them to the web so that we can watch his house 24 hours a day."

See? Simple. And it works on anybody, because as we all know, tabloid papers will print anything.

Still slamming into Kerry on Health Issues may not earn Blankley any gold stars from the White House. David Talbot of Salon interviewed former Watergate Alumnus John Dean on the Bush Administration's need for secrecy. Among other things, Mr. Dean states, "I would add to the list Cheney's outrageous stonewalling about his health, which we know is bad, notwithstanding his effort to keep the details secret. The Congress lets Cheney do anything he wants because Republicans control it, and Cheney is their heavy in the White House for getting things done. Cheney, so long as Republicans control, will not have to answer, but should we return to divided government in 2004 or 2006 and Cheney is still in the White House, that will end.

There has never been a vice president -- ever (and even including Spiro Agnew who was Nixon's) -- who needed to be investigated more than Cheney. Nor has there ever been such a secretive vice president. Dick Cheney is the power behind the Bush throne. Frankly, I am baffled why the mainstream news media has given Cheney (not to mention Bush) a free ride. I don't know if it is generational, or corporate ownership, or political bias, but it is clear that Cheney has been given a pass by the major news organizations."

The interview is quite good, although you do need to watch an ad to read it.

CGEORC Strikes Back!

This time in an actual review of Mr. Clarke's book. Most people are focusing on his attacks on the administration (including your humble narrator), but there's more to "Against All Enemies" than just slamming the Bush Administration.

Christopher Dicky reviews the book and makes some interesting comments on President Bush's Neo-Conservative advisors and recent events in Isreal.

"Some of their common analysis is useful: the West must show more resolve, more unity, and less hesitation to act against clearly defined threats. Nothing to argue with there. But their absolutist approach refuses to consider the real grievances that help terrorists recruit. Even to raise the issue is portrayed as a lack of moral clarity. The only way to deal with people who are on the other side is to break their will, humiliate them, vilify them, even if that means subjecting whole societies to occupation and repression, first in the name of self-defense and then, curiously, in the name of freedom. This only makes sense over the long term if you think you can keep a lid on those societies indefinitely, or have the money and skills and manpower and blood to transform them completely. Or, if you believe as Netanyahu claims, that "in many regions of the world, especially the Middle East, anger precedes respect."

As a matter of obvious fact, anger begets more anger, more violence, more "inexorable, built-in escalation." Most Israelis understand that, which is why many have had second thoughts, and mounting concerns, since the Sharon government blew the spiritual leader of Hamas to smithereens last week. Will the killing of a septuagenarian paraplegic make anyone safer? Will it disrupt Hamas terrorism? Will it intimidate other Hamas leaders? Not likely. But the rage that followed made Gaza that much harder for any moderate force to govern."

For those of you who haven't acquired the book (like me), or are unable to purchase it, Dickey's article does give a pretty good overview. So go read it.

Krugman verses CGEORC!

Paul Krugman's latest editorial finds him swept up in the unholy power of CGEORC (Cant Get Enough Of Richard Clark)Syndrome. Let's see what happens.

"The truth is that among experts, what Mr. Clarke says about Mr. Bush's terrorism policy isn't controversial. The facts that terrorism was placed on the back burner before 9/11 and that Mr. Bush blamed Iraq despite the lack of evidence are confirmed by many sources — including "Bush at War," by Bob Woodward.

And new evidence keeps emerging for Mr. Clarke's main charge, that the Iraq obsession undermined the pursuit of Al Qaeda. From yesterday's USA Today: "In 2002, troops from the Fifth Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures."

That's why the administration responded to Mr. Clarke the way it responds to anyone who reveals inconvenient facts: with a campaign of character assassination.

Well, what can I add to that? Except that you should go read the entire article.

Incidently, I don't want anybody to mistake my enthusiasm for the acronym CGEORC for a lack of interest in the story or in Richard Clarke. On the contrary, I am just as enthralled by the buffoonishbehaviorr of the Bush White House in their attacks on Mr. Clarke as anybody.

Here Comes CGEORC!

The Bush administration and their allies in the Conservative Media have spent a week trying to tarnish Richard Clarke, but up until now haven't really put forward their version of events. So now we have Mr. Rich Lowry stepping forward to clear up the facts of the case.

Clarke assertion #1. The Bush administration paid little attention to warnings of al-Queada and took a long time to commit to a strategy

Rich Lowry's Response. "But policy-making takes time. The Clinton administration's Presidential Decision Directive 39 identified terrorism as a national security concern, and was "signed in June 1995 after at least a year of interagency consultation and coordination." At least a year."

My Response. So you accept the facts as stated, but complain that the placing of blame for a failure to act is wrongheaded. Interesting that you hold up the Clinton administration as a standard for the Bush administration to live up to.

Clarke Assertion #2. The Clinton Administration was more open to suggestions on how to fight Terrorism.

Rich Lowry's Response. "He [Clarke] circulated among Clinton officials an anti-al-Qaida plan in September 1998. "This strategy was not formally adopted, and Cabinet-level participants ... have little or no recollection of it, at least as a formal policy document."

My Response. Who cares? Clinton is out of the White House now, and if you want to go to war over his record on fighting Terrorism all over again, well, I guess you have more time than I do.

Clarke Assertion #6. The Bush administration did not take terrorism chatter seriously in the summer and fall of 2001.

Rich Lowry's Response. "Not quite. In the summer of 2001, "the CIA again went into what the DCI [George Tenet] described as 'Millennium threat mode,' engaging with foreign liaison and disrupting operations around the world. At least one planned terrorist attack in Europe may have been successfully disrupted during the summer of 2001."

My Response. Now to put on my hypocrite boots. After having just declared Clinton verbotem I'm going to bring him up. Clinton claimed to have foiled all sorts of schemes around January 1, 2000, and yet you and yours still claim he didn't do anything serious to fight terrorism.

What's also interesting about this particular article is that the way it sets as it's key theme a deliberate misinterpretation of Clarke's words. "In explaining the discrepancy between previous comments he made about President Bush's anti-terrorism policy and the harsh ones that he is making now, Richard Clarke has said the difference is a matter of "tenor and tone." Indeed."

So then Lowry goes on to talk about how Clarke's current tenor and tone are dishonest. But of course what Clarke must have meant was that his tenor and tone in the earlier interviews (when he was still on President Bush's payroll) was different from his tenor and tone now. Because being outside of the structures of power he is more free to say what he thinks, isn't he? He's less guarded. So the idea that his tenor and tone are today picked very carefully doesn't make a lot of sense.

Son of CGEORC

I have to admit that I might be suffering from CGEORC syndrome. But that's ok.

Anyway good article from Common Dreams, a site I haven't checked in with in months. The author is John Nichols and I guess the article originally appeared in the Nation.

One selection. "No matter what goes wrong, the ironclad rule of the Bush administration has been to find someone outside the administration -- preferably a Democrat or a foreigner -- to blame. And if there is no way to blame someone else, the policy has been to keep expressing an Orwellian faith in the prospect that the failure will become a success, or that the lie will be made true -- witness Cheney's refusal to back away from his pre-war "they'll greet us with flowers" fantasy about the Iraqi response to a U.S.-led invasion.

Supposedly, this refusal to bend in the face of reality is smart politics. But a constant pattern of avoiding responsibility tends, eventually, to catch up even with the smartest politicians."

We can only hope that Mr. Nichols is right.

CGEORC

That's my new acronym for people who "Can't Get Enough Of Richard Clark." For those of you who are going to try to pronounce it, please have a glass of water on hand to sooth your throat afterwards.

At any rate, for those of you who are CGEORC, go check out Speedkill's very solid run down of the charges leveled against Clark by Republicans and Conservatives.

Another Mildly Discomforting Aspect to Diane West's Piece

Ms. Diane West opens her piece with these sentences. "Richard Clarke has very thin skin -- literally. It's the kind of complexion that shows the ruddy glow of a circulation system at work. But when asked a really tough question while testifying before the 9/11 commission, I wondered if the former White House counterterrorism honcho would have the decency to blush. "

Is this a lot different than me saying, "You know Rush Limbaugh isn't that attractive a person. Why does anybody listen to him?"

Or in other words, do you really think the way to bring Clarke down is by taking him to task for his physical appearance?

Some collected bits from around the web

"What we'll never know is how Clarke could say this. He probably assumed his 2002 background briefing would never pop up again. . . .

I was watching this week's hearing very carefully, but while Clarke might have reddened a shade or two when finally asked to square his two different versions of events, I can't be sure. He should have. At the very least, he should not have maintained under oath that his indictment of the Bush administration in his book and recent interviews are "consistent" with his past statements." - Diana West, "Which Clarke should you believe?"

"MR. RUSSERT: Is there any inconsistency between your sworn testimony before the September 11 Commission last week and two years ago before the congressional committee?

MR. CLARKE: No, there isn't. And I would welcome it being declassified, but not just a little line here or there. Let's declassify all six hours of my testimony.

MR. RUSSERT: You would request this morning that it all be declassified?

MR. CLARKE: And I want more declassified."
Meet the Press, March 28, 2004.

"The White House acknowledged Sunday that on the day after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush asked his top counterterrorism adviser, Richard A. Clarke, to find out whether Iraq was involved.

Mr. Bush wanted to know "did Iraq have anything to do with this? Were they complicit in it?" Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, recounted in an interview on CBS' "60 Minutes."

Mr. Bush was not trying to intimidate anyone to "produce information," she said. Rather, given the United States' "actively hostile relationship" with Iraq at the time, he was asking Mr. Clarke "a perfectly logical question," Ms. Rice said.

The conversation — which the White House suggested last week had never taken place — centers on perhaps the most volatile charge Mr. Clarke has made public in recent days: that the Bush White House became fixated on Iraq and Saddam Hussein at the expense of focusing on Al Qaeda." Eric Lichtbrau, New York Times.

A couple of observations. First of all the White House and their allies in the Conservative Media need to eventually respond to the substance of Mr. Clarke's testimony, rather than simply trying to discredit him sight unseen. This current strategy of portraying him as an unscrupulous careerist just doesn't seem to be working for them. Suggesting that he's really a Democrat is also a meaningless accusation, unless the White House has a different set of stories to tell. But as the New York Times story suggests, they might not.

Second, Condoleezza Rice is really taking the bullet for President Bush in this story, as it's clear that the current "story" is Clark versus Rice. That picture of her angry face is showing up everywhere; and it doesn't compare favorably to Richard Clarke's more calm demeanor.

New Quote

Continuing my remembrence of things past, todays quote is from a song by the Psychedelic Furs after their career was kind of messed up.

For those who don't know much about the Furs they had kind a gritty cool style through their first four albums (their eponymously named debut, "Talk Talk Talk," "Forever Now," and "Mirror Moves."). Then they made "Midnight to Midnight," which produced a big single, but just sounded terribly poppy (even more so than "Mirror Moves") and bombastic. They turned back to earlier sounds immediately with the Brilliant single "All that Money Wants" from their first greatest hits collection ("All of this and nothing) and then made two further albums that dropped off the face of the planet "Book of Days" and "World Outside") Richard Butler went on to record albums under a new monicker Love Spit Love and had some success there. At any rate, if you are interested, check out "Talk Talk Talk" (recently rereleased) or Love Spit Love's "Tryone Eatsome." Both are really good.

Oh, and I updated the Quotes page.