April 22, 2004:

Welcome the Queen, who has just arrived. The Queen Mary 2, that is: she's here.
Link 12:27 PM

Clarke vindicated from White House lies. Over at Salon, David Sirota notes that Woodward's book confirms Richard Clarke's claims that Iraq was an early focus of the White House, but notes that this confirmation was already out there in other sources. Chiefly, it's a wonderful read because it highlights the fallacious efforts to discredit Clarke.
Link 12:06 PM

Los Angeles' "Acres of Books" vs. New York's "Strand." Comparing these two huge bookstores might seem pointless in the sense that you'll never have to choose between them, really, since you can't be on two coasts at once. But it might have value in setting expectations and helping you choose whether to visit one vs. doing something completely different. So someone needs to do this, and if I find a better discussion, I'll point you to it.

There is one big caveat: I've only been to Acres of Books once, and while I attempted to obtain a broad view, I can't have. So you'll find that on two very important aspects (selection and price) I have far too little to say.

• Selection: I don't know Acres well enough to say much, but the Strand also sells new books and has a lot of barely used reviewers' copies at half price. I think the Strand's art section is also better, as well as my focus (Samuel Johnson). But Acres has a broader used fiction section (highly praised by Ray Bradbury and others), and in its Children's section we found some books which date from the 1940's (never seen that at the Strand).
• Prices: can't really compare, but we bought a couple children's books over 40 years old for the princely sum of $5 total.
• Ease of getting there: This depends on your frame of mind. Acres of Books is in Long Beach, and for us that meant a 45 minute drive from where we were (West Hollywood). For people who live in California, that may be meaningless. The Strand is two blocks from a major Manhattan subway stop (Union Square) which is serviced by seven different lines.
• What else in the neighborhood: I have to give the advantage here to the Strand, although there is some negative impact, addressed next. Being in Manhattan, there are more bookstores nearby (both used and new), a wide variety of shops and restaurants, as well as a movie theater in the next block (and an art house a couple blocks west). The neighborhood around Acres of Books offers a liquor store and a mall with some clearance outlets, and some restaurants.
• Crowds: Acres of Books is far less crowded than the Strand, no doubt thanks to its non-central location. This means that it's a far more pleasant shopping experience once you're there. The Strand can be an absolute bee's hive of activity, with frequent "excuse me's" in the aisles.
• Lay out: Acres of Books is easier to get around in, thanks to its adherence to a grid. This is especially true with regard to fiction sections: the Strand's fiction section is a series of short cul-de-sacs, each of which will barely allow more than two people at a time (hopefully not aiming for the same author). On the other hand, the Strand is closer to a square (vs. Acres' long rectangle) meaning it's a shorter walk within the store from one point to another.
• Store Organization: Comments here are tentative, because the Strand is doing some remodeling, and I only have the one visit to Acres. But for what I was interested in Acres was overly discrete in its categories. Biographies were separated from autobiographies, memoirs and letters (the former being written in the 3rd person, the latter in the 1st person). This meant that for me, with my interest in Samuel Johnson, I had to visit two different sets of shelves. At the Strand they group all the Johnson together.
• Web Site: the Strand's is superior to Acres of Books (which only has an email link), but unless you're trying to find out in advance if a title is in stock, this is pretty irrelevant, since I want to concentrate on physical aspects.

Again, if you find other discussions on the web, I'll happily link to them here.
Link 11:56 AM

Clean air is of course an issue for us all, and we might as well acknowledge Earth Day by pointing out that the Bush administration is doing what it can to gut existing environmental regulations. As Al Franken mentioned repeatedly on his program this week, the government's "Clear Skies" initiative seems intent on clearing the skies of birds. Hack hack... (There's an excellent chapter on this in Alterman and Greene's The Book on Bush, by the way.) The EPA is a shadow of what it once was, with several of its leaders abandoning the department in disgust. I found encouragement this morning, though, when I heard that New Jersey Transit will be combating ozone by offering mass transit discounts on ozone alert days. (If you checked your environmental impact and compared it with your friends', you might have noticed the influence of your transportation method.) They may not care about pollution in Washington, but they seem to in New Jersey (a thought which might provoke some to compare New Jersey to the Netherlands).
Link 10:37 AM

The flattery of being listened to by Bob Woodward. As Johnson put it, "Every man has some favourite topic of conversation, on which, by a feigned seriousness of attention, he may be drawn to expatiate without end." Woodward wasn't feigning interest when he interviewed administration figures for his book, but his attention clearly caused some of his subjects to forget themselves. You may have heard that Rumsfeld talked too much, and in one interview said that the transcript would have to be edited before release — after keeping his trap open too long. (The Washington Post reported that the Department of Defense struck some key passages from what they posted on their web site.) I have only started the book and have seen some instances of where people are losing their heads and not thinking about what they were saying to Woodward:

• On p. 26, we read of Wolfowitz, "He estimated that there was a 10 to 50 percent chance Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks—an odd conclusion that reflected deep suspicion but no real evidence." Who said this to Woodward? Because, not only does the conclusion reflect a lack of evidence, it reflects a lack of confidence: that is, in a range of probabilities running from 10 to 50 percent, most of the probabilities indicate that Saddam Hussein was most likely not involved. Whoever provided Wolfowitz' probabilities to Woodward wasn't thinking.
• On p. 27, the President (Woodward's only attributed source in the book) said to Woodward, "September the 11th obviously changed my thinking a lot about my responsibility as president. Because September the 11th made the security of the American people the priority ... a sacred duty for the president. It is the most necessary duty for the president, because if the president doesn't take on that duty, who else is going to?" In other words, prior to September 11, national security wasn't "the priority." This from a man whose re-election campaign is based on national security. (The campaign had settled on that theme long ago, too.)

Perhaps also the loose lips phenomenon was at work regarding book claims now facing White House counterclaims? Either Woodward's original sources didn't know as mush as they originally supposed (and spoke on unconfirmed rumors), or they spoke so long about truths which have made the administration uncomfortable. Of course, I'm in no position to judge "truth" here.

But you can see a similar phenomenon at work in Woodward himself. On CBS' "60 Minutes," Woodward alleged more than what he'd written regarding Saudi plans to flood the oil market in order to reduce prices, improve the US economy, and help Bush's re-election. I've heard that Woodward has back-pedaled somewhat from what he said in this regard on 60 Minutes, so maybe he got a little full of himself when being interviewed?
Link 9:52 AM

The Literals? One of my daughter's shows had a recurring skit about "The Literals," a family which took everything literally, and the ensuing chaos which arose from idioms. Here's a bit from last night's PBS interview with Bob Woodward:

GWEN IFILL: Up until literally weeks before the first bombs fell, the president used a certain formulation with foreign leaders, with members of Congress, with members of the press. He said, "I have no war plans on my desk." Was that literally true?

BOB WOODWARD: I've seen his desk a number of times and there's nothing on it, so I guess literally that's true. But, as I write in the book, it was not full disclosure, and he had used some formulations earlier when he said, "I'm going to keep my options close to my vest."

If that was the distinction being made — whether or not they were actually on his desk — I think we can end all the quibbling about Clinton's "that depends on what 'is' is." Fortunately, though, Woodward recognizes that reality is important, for he goes on to say:

And that probably would have been the proper response. At the same time, there were leaks about the war plans. There was this kind of war fever, march to war, building in the country, particularly in the summer of 2002. And I think it was his way of calming things down.

If you're not going to buy the book, you might want to read more from the interview, because there are details in it which were not discussed in the 60 Minutes piece, such as maneuvers to avoid eventual declassification of plans, WMDs, and so on.
Link 9:13 AM

Ted Kennedy had it wrong: Iraq is not like Vietnam, its like college. Seriously. Iraq is like the college where you send your kid, but you underbudgeted so severely, and you can't tell your kid "no you can't go to college." Truly, the gap between what was expected and what we're seeing is just so incredibly huge, and yet, it would be foolish to abort the mission. OK, so the college metaphor snaps when stretched a little — you'd probably tell your kid to get a part-time job (which many do anyway) or switch schools, but parents can't really borrow against their grandchildren's bank accounts, which is what we're doing with our federal deficits. But based on today's White House briefing, it looks like we're going to be asked to spend more. I'm well and good with supporting our troops, whose vehicles aren't even adequately armored, we should spend more, but why does it take this team so long to get it right? Am I wrong to think that this couldn't have been planned better?
Link 9:17 PM

---

I could not believe my ears... I passed through the living room just now, where American Idol was on, and judge Randy Jackson expressed dismay at the viewers' choices from last night; it was the way he expressed it, kind of an appeal to patriotism thing that went sort of like "America has to remember that who they choose is going to represent us" deal. Gag me with a spoon.
Link 9:01 PM

---

The good news is the office was "pretty clean," I guess. A man in West Palm Beach was arrested for running an unlicensed dentistry office out of his garage. I assure you this will have no impact on my visits to the dentist.
Link 4:29 PM

---

An Introduction to the Political State of Great Britain: I just finished putting this 1756 Samuel Johnson piece up on the site. It's a great retelling of the events leading up to the Seven Years War, and deals with how the French arrived at a position in the colonies which threatened Great Britain's. Johnson doesn't see it as a simple case of French deviousness. Although it reads like a history and is not chock full of aphorisms (as is the case with Rasselas) it's still worth a read. It also contains some gems:

• No people can be great who have ceased to be virtuous.
• It is unpleasing to represent our affairs to our own disadvantage; yet it is necessary to shew the evils which we desire to be removed.
• Where no man thinks himself under any obligation to submit to another, and, instead of co-operating in one great scheme, every one hastens through by-paths to private profit, no great change can suddenly be made; nor is superior knowledge of much effect, where every man resolves to use his own eyes and his own judgment, and every one applauds his own dexterity and diligence, in proportion as he becomes rich sooner than his neighbour.

Make a note to check it out.
Link 3:43 PM

---

Ecological footprints? In a 1997 issue of the Harvard Business Review, I read an article that showed the relative size of the environmental footprints of Americans, compared to a Dutch person and an Indian. Ours were about eight times the size of people from the Netherlands, and 64 times the size of someone from India, if I recall correctly. You can score yourself here. I'm sure others will do better than I will, but I was glad to see that I'm about a third below the average for the United States. The bad news, of course is that the average for the US is still high: the output reports that if everyone in the world lived like me, we'd need 3.6 planets — and again, I'm well below the US average.
Link 10:33 AM

April 20, 2004:

That re-directed $700 million which Woodward claimed had been earmarked for Afghanistan? In a briefing yesterday, the Pentagon said it didn't come out of Afghanistan-only appropriations.

Unfortunately I'm no accounting wizard, and have trouble following the dialog. I'd like to hear more from Woodward, also.
UPDATE: If you want to follow the details — and you just might, seeing as how some are calling it an impeachable offense — The Center for American Progress's David Sirota examines the details on his blog and he finds the defense weak. (Scroll down to "Primer: Why Bush Secretly Moving $700 Million Violates The Law.")
Link 9:45 PM

---

How far we have fallen. I love America. I think this is the greatest country on the planet, and I am proud to be an American. I think that the values that are enshrined in our Constitution and which have been expressed by presidents such as Lincoln and FDR are among the finest in the world. Ever.

But I love America in spite of its flaws, and am willing to work with its flaws. I think invading Iraq under the pretense of WMDs was a huge mistake, and even though our soldiers and marines are losing their lives daily, I think it would be a mistake to overreact to that mistake and pull out irrationally. I support our troops 100%.

I have no information with which to disagree with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, that anti-US feelings in the Arab world are at an all-time high. Between the invasion of Iraq (which Mubarak mentions) and our recent reversal on West Bank settlements, it's no wonder. The New York Times also reported that Sharon considered canceling his meeting with Bush as a ploy to obtain agreement. And our international standing is now such a soft target that the King of Jordan canceled a Washington trip to send a message over the West Bank agreement.

That's right, Bush was almost spanked by Sharon (until he came around and gave in to Sharon on the West Bank) and has now been spanked by Jordan's king.
Link 2:39 PM

---

Recommended reading? Last night on CNN NewsNight with Aaron Brown I heard something which Al Franken is having a lot of fun with on his show today, which is, that the Republican response to Bob Woodward's book which you should buy is to designate it as recommended reading.

Perhaps the White House learned from its experience with the Richard Clarke book, that by reacting so vociferously they made it more newsworthy? Anyway, here's how Brown opened his program last night:

That Bob Woodward is something, isn't he? The guy gets access. The guy gets material. The guy writes a book that everyone is talking about. And to make things even more perfect, everyone sees in it exactly what they want to see in it. Critics of the president see it as proof the president decided on war long before he said he had. That he was -- that he was never even briefed on the possible post-war security problems in Iraq; he wasn't even curious about it. And that all of this was driven by an almost obsessive vice president.

The president's supporters see in it a man who is an idealist, a man who answers to a higher power than conventional political calculation. They see in the book a president who is thoughtful and careful and torn by the prospects of war, tears in his eyes, the moment he made the decision to launch war with Iraq.

They like the book so much, it is on the campaign's Web site as selected reading. Mr. Woodward's book will be news all week long and maybe longer.

It's not shown prominently on the Bush-Cheney web site homepage, but it's just one click down. (I can't guarantee they will always feel gracious about this book, so you might want to click the link sooner rather than later. But don't buy it through their link, by it through this one.

I will have to read it at some point, but I cannot imagine how they could be insensitive to the book's claims (the Saudis will manipulate the economy on Bush's behalf, classified information on the war plan was shared with the Saudi ambassador even though it was marked "no foreigners," — you know, little stuff like that).
Link 2:04 PM

---

I can't say for sure, but I think the image on the right is a first for the New York Times web site. It's a small thing, really, but I think it's a first: when cropping the photo, they didn't cut the umbrella on a straight line, and left its curved top. How modern.
Link 1:42 PM

---

A point from Bob Woodward's book that I forgot to mention was that the Saudi prince who got the advance briefing on the Iraq war is alleged to have promised Bush that he will make sure the price of oil comes down before the presidential election, thus manipulating the economy to make Bush look better. Josh Marshall has more...
Link 10:20 AM

April 19, 2004:

Ideas for naming your dog.

• "He Doesn't Have A Name."

  Q: What's your dog's name?
  A: "He Doesn't Have A Name."
  Q: Why don't you give him a name?
  A: He has a name.
  Q: What's his name?
  A: "He Doesn't Have A Name."
  Q: You just said he has a name!
  A: He does.
  Q: OK, what's his name?
  A: "He Doesn't Have A Name."
  

• "Ask My Wife" (for singles)

  Q: What's your dog's name?
  A: "Ask my wife."
  Q: You're not married.
  A: That's right.
  Q: So who should I ask?
  A: About what?
  Q: Your dog.
  A: What do you want to know about my dog?
  Q: What's his name?
  A: "Ask my wife."
  

• "Ask My Wife" (for marrieds)

  Q: What's your dog's name?
  A: "Ask my wife."
  Q: Why?
  A: Why what?
  Q: Why ask your wife?
  A: No, "Ask My Wife."
  Q: That's what I said.
  A: No, you didn't.
  Q: Did too. Why should I ask your wife: don't you know your dog's name?
  A: Of course I know my dog's name.
  Q: OK, so what's your dog's name?
  A: "Ask my wife."
  

• "I Don't Have A Dog"

  Q: What's your dog's name?
  A: "I Don't Have A Dog."
  Q: Whose dog is this?
  A: Mine...
  

• "What Dog"

  Q: What's your dog's name?
  A: "What Dog"
  Q: That one.
  A: Yes.
  Q: What's his name?
  A: "What Dog."

• "Will You Go Out With Me"

  Q: What's your dog's name?
  A: "Will You Go Out With Me"
  Q: Goodbye.

Link 10:45 AM

---

A quick rundown, and my commentary, on CBS' "60 Minutes" interview with Bob Woodward. Woodward has a new book, Plan of Attack, which you can order by clicking the picture on the right. The interview sounded like the book is devastating to any argument that Bush goes through proper reasoning when making major decisions. Here are some highlights:

• Planning for the invasion of Iraq began in November, 2001 (note, though, that Josh Marshall has sources who tell him it actually began in September)
• Preparations for the war were in violation of the Constitution of the United States, because they required diverting money from the war in Afghanistan to building landing strips in Kuwait, without the knowledge of Congress — some $700 million. It is Congress that has the authority to appropriate money, not the President. This is, of course, altogether different from lying about fellatio.
• Classified war plans — clearly marked to indicate that they shouldn't be shared with any foreigners — were shared with the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the US. (This, of course, is a breach of national security, and is another case of the capriciousness with which national security has been treated by the White House; other examples are the outing of covert CIA operator Valerie Plame and the efforts to declassify classified information which might help their political case.) The briefing was given by Cheney and Rumsfeld; President Bush later assured the Saudi prince that Cheney and Rumsfeld were speaking for him when they said Saddam Hussein would be toppled.
• The Saudi prince was briefed on preparations for war before Secretary of State Colin Powell was (this was denied by Rice, by the way).
• Rather than seek advice on the idea of going to war from Colin Powell, Bush went to Rice and his political advisor Karen Hughes.
• After hearing WMD evidence he might use to persuade the American people on the necessity of war with Iraq, and finding it shaky, Bush turned to CIA Director George Tenet and asked, "This is the best we've got?" Tenet assured Bush he need not be concerned with the flimsiness of the evidence, saying "It's a slam dunk." (Tenet's certainty here stands in stark contrast to what he said in his Georgetown speech regarding the need to use judgement regarding uncertain intelligence. Early on, he offered three early bullet points, the last being "In the intelligence business, you are almost never completely wrong or completely right." Some slam dunk.)
• Bush is against intellectuality: "He chastised me at one point because I said people were concerned about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction. And he said, 'Well you travel in elite circles.' I think he feels there is an intellectual world and he's indicated he's not a part of it the fancy pants intellectual world. What he calls the elite."
• Bush sees himself as on a mission from God.

Now, I make no secret of my dislike of President Bush, but I think I can honestly say it's because of his poor performance and his policies rather than anything else. I disagree with how he became the President, but I do not foam at the mouth. I am still able to see partisan politics at play by the Democrats (for instance, would the Dems have voted against the Medicare bill had they known its true cost? there were plenty of reasons to vote against it otherwise!)

But for the life of me — as tolerant as I try to be, to accept that people who support Bush do so with good faith on their part — I cannot imagine how details like these argue for keeping Bush in office. Surely the fund diversions alone deserve Congressional investigation, if not an impeachment inquiry. When you remember that Bush was elected on an absurdly narrow margin (more Americans voted for Gore, actually), you see that Bush, rather than recognizing that he had no mandate, he acted by fiat, skirting past key cabinet members (confirmed under the advice of Congress).

Bush was lazy in relying on Tenet's assessment that the case for WMDs was a slam dunk: we all know that the case, as hard as Powell tried to sell it in the UN, didn't stand up to close scrutiny. To sell the country (as well as other nations) a war on ethereal evidence is effectively the same as lying. I don't see how you can pursue a war with a country based on gut feel; is there any more significant decision which a country can make?
Link 10:00 AM

Tough to imagine this, but right now it's 49 degrees, but supposed to go up to 86 later. I can't remember such a dramatic change.
Link 8:12 AM

---

I can't comment on EVERYTHING that comes across my desk. I really can't, but you should click through just the same, because if I link it, it counts.
Link 12:01 AM

April 18, 2004:

What would you challenge yourself to fake being for four weeks? TLC has a show on just this topic: a professor tries to pass himself off as a Chippendale dancer, a minister tries to sell used cars, and so on. In each case the novice has a mentor from the industry as a coach. Ab asked me what I would try... I recognized there had to be a challenge: Camp Counselor or Chef would be ridiculously easy.

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, I said. Could I be President? "Think about it," she warned: "George Bush would be your mentor."

UGH, I replied: "More likely Dick Cheney." After all, who is W's mentor?
Link 11:12 PM

---

Atrios missed the "60 Minutes" segment where Bob Woodward was interviewed, talking about his new book and the run up to war against Iraq. "What did I miss?" he asked. Not a lot, said one reply: "the decline of western civilization. But don't sweat it. With W in charge, there will more tomorrow."
Link 10:17 PM

---

I was writing a rather lengthy post on the limited imagination and curiosity being evinced by our President and beloved National Security Advisor, but I decided it was better off in the broader Samuel Johnson site, connected to the Quote of the Week. Feel free to read it there.
Link 2:31 PM

---

Cosby, Clinton, and Gates. Very funny!
Link 1:04 PM

April 17, 2004:

It's not just that he went golfing after hearing the August 6 PDB (referring to warnings of an Al Qaeda strike within US boundaries and the need for 70 separate FBI field investigations) but that he took so much time off in August, spending his time on little more than photo ops such as this one with school kids in Crawford TX. (The photo comes from the White House web site.) "Too high to count," the President told the kids, when asked about his golf score. You can get a sense of what he was doing that month by looking at the photos in the White House collection for the period. You won't see anyone with their hair on fire during August, trust me.
Link 4:45 PM

---

Cicadas are not on tonight's menu. But perhaps later when they're in season?
Link 10:33 AM

---

Hoorray! Yesterday's firewall problem corrected itself this morning when I rebooted. Maybe I can get some blogging in today, in between dinner party preparation. The entree is going to be baked salmon in Dijon mustard, accompanied by guacamole. It's a combination I hit on last month, it works really well, and it's easy.
Link 10:16 AM

Back to top.