My gut tells me Rove believed the hearings would be over by the time the book actually hit the market, and even if the timing was off they could crush him like O'Neil. I don't they counted on how compelling Clarke is as an interview or a witness. Finally, the apology at Clarke's public testimony was unexpected and very powerful. The Bushies could not possibly contemplate an apology, let alone the power of one. That gave him instant credibility.

Moveon just asked for contributions to run a full page ad supporting Clark. Should be interesting to see what happens.

Moveon just asked for contributions to run a full page ad supporting Clark. Should be interesting to see what happens.

Excellent Star Ledger Editorial today

"Rice should not be permitted to function as a mere heckler of those who do not agree with those who employ her. She doubtless knows what went on in the nine months before Sept. 11 and in all the time since. She knows the rationales and the priorities that have brought us to where we are today. If there are answers to Clarke's charges, she has them

She should give them under the same circumstances he faced.

In public."

http://www.nj.com/opinion/ledger/editorials/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1080285112118230.xml

WORTH A READ - AND A VIEWING?

Don Hazen of Alternet has a review of Tim Robbins' new play, "Embedded," now on stage at New York City's Public Theater

Apparently, Robbins' play is a funny, sad, enraging satire of the invasion of a Middle Eastern country named "Gomorrah." (How Saddam is that?).

Some excerpts from the review, presented in a semi-random order:

"The play's opening scene is of a group of embedded reporters marching, marking time, shouting in unison, to the overbearing Broadway show-tune singing Colonel Hardchannel: "Sir, I am a maggot journalist, sir.

* * *
"There appears to be a small role for NY Times reporter Judith Miller, who presented as truth the lies and distortions fed to her by Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress.

* * *

"The most frightening element of "Embedded" is its cabal of "chickenhawks," the men and one woman who have never been to war, yet send soldiers to invade an oil-rich Middle East country called Gomorrah. This collection of warmongers – Woof, Pearly White, Dick, Rum-Rum and Gondola - are presented in eerie masks, and pay homage to Leo Strauss, the infamous conservative political philosopher who serves as the godfather of the neocons.

"Known for rationalizing the "noble lie for the greater good," Strauss reportedly exerts broad influence over those still firmly in control of the Bush war apparatus. (As Arianna Huffington describes in her new book "Fanatics and Fools" (Miramax), "Strauss had a profound antipathy for liberalism and democracy and a deep mistrust of the people.")

* * *

"In the meantime, the viewer experiences a sinking feeling of déjà vu, because based on what we now know about the rationale for invading Iraq, some of the outlandish lunacies articulated by these characters ring true."

A satire? Of our president? Outrageous!

Just why did Robbins choose to produce this play now, eh? Tell me that!

Politics. That's why. He must be angling for some job in the Kerry administration. Or maybe he needs the box office income? Could it be Robbins is a godless liberal? Or, maybe he's jealous that Condi Rice didn't hire him for the NSC. Yeah, that's probably it. Jealousy.

Hey, I seem to remember that same guy wrote another play a few years back and I don't remember him saying anything about Gommorah at that time! See? He's inconsistent! He must be lying.

I haven't read the play, of course, or the earlier one, either. In fact, I'm talking entirely out of my ass. I have no idea what the facts are.

But I'm almost certain this Tim Robbins person must have committed perjury. Why, I'll bet there isn't even a country named Gommorah. At least, not anymore. I think they might have changed the name to the Republic of Southeast Cheddar.

Anyway, the Senate should drag that playwright's sorry ass into a hearing, put him under oath, and slap him with a long prison term for ... well.... for First Degree Unpatriotic Satire. Yeah, that's right. Unpatriotic Satire.

And if that isn't a felony, we can pass a law, real quick, to make it one. I'll ask Scalia to write it up right after we get back from our next duck hunting trip with Cheney.

Why are the people outraged over Clarke writing a book about 9/11 & profiting from it, not outraged over people like Guiliani & Karen Hughes doing the same?

Rove is too much used to being reinforced by his own vision. Too much incestuous amplification. He is really a poor judge of how things/people appear to other people. He couldn't know that Clarke would appear credible to the average person or that the he/she might be offended by the jokes about WMD or the ad with the WTC casket.

The Note, who has totally bought into the BC04 campaign team are genius meme, thinks that the Bushies were somehow able to convince people in battleground states how evil Kerry was this week despite the fact that Richard Clarke Superstar was playing all over the news everywhere 24/7.

I think that if it was at all possible for Bushco to destroy Clarke, they would have had to have done it this week, which they didn't do. Its too late now. They are only sounding more shrill & desperate as they lob silly attacks at him under the cover of secrecy & classification. Condi can heckle Clarke all she wants, but unless she is under oath & in public, there is no equivalency. Even voters in battleground states who have seen crappy Bush ads on television can figure that out.

I think the The Note is living in an alternate universe wherein the whole 9/11-Iraq incompetency gate & the Richard Clark Superstar road show is noteworthy but ultimately unimportant in face the Bush money & genius strategizing. I think that universe is wrong.

Speaking of alternate universes: I have heard various members of the media (including Russert & the CNN chicks) exonerate Bush from shame for joking about the missing of WMD because the DC insiders & the superstar members of the press laughed while he did it. "Its okay because we laughed & then he showed us a picture of some soldiers & said nice things about David Bloom." Instead of chiding the public for being outraged at what Bush did, why don't they examine what their laughing says about them?

I am truly not surprised that the media representatives disgracefully laughed at the imbecile-like WMD joke made by Bush. They have totally reduced all standards of decorum and lowered the bar on intellectual discourse for Bush and his ideologue cronies. The media to a large extent are responsible for allowing this government to get away with the deceit, misrepresentations, manipulation and deception they have meted-out to the public on nearly every issue—.

I hate to say; the laziness and journalistic ineptness of some of the pundits have been more revealing with this government. The media/pundits have failed to challenge Bush’s lack of intellect to engage in critical thinking, and Carl Rove’s inability to conceptualize human sensitivity. They whole-heartedly have welcomed the weaknesses of this government for the mere fact that there are no challenges for them to thoroughly research, analyze and follow-up on issues. The media failed to see that the government manipulated them when it allowed journalists to mingle with our soldiers at the onset of the Iraqi war. How could they give objective reporting when the government was their host? Diane Sawyer while in Iraq or Kuwait or somewhere there was reporting on the war as if she was reporting on the making of a Hollywood war movie. There was no challenging the government; there was no public discourse. None of the media stations had the courage to differ---they were all a large example of sameness

I watched as the media/pundits struggled to catch up with President Clinton, who on many occasions was way ahead on the analyses of the issues at hand or those that were yet to be unraveled. Clinton kept them all on their toes and for all his eight years in office, not one of these pundits could match his intellect. I believe that was why Monica Lewinsky was such a welcoming distraction for them. It was much more easy for them to discourse scandal than talk about foreign or domestic issues. Further more, I think this was also part of the reasons why the public was not made aware of the moves that the Clinton government made to improve our counter terrorism capabilities and quelled Iraq and Iran terrorism attacks on America. Labeling his intentions, wagging dog syndrome was an easier spin.

Though posing tough questions at him, I watched Ted Kennedy make a mince meet out of Tim Russert last Sunday. Compared with his recent interview with Bush, I recalled that Russet could not get Bush to answer his questions, but allowed Bush to ramble and crumple his way out of the questions that he asked him. It looked to me that Russert was intimidated by the moronic looking Bush and allowed him to go on and on, repeating the same answers to different questions. As for the CNN, I wonder if the chicks are the best in the market that the organization could find?

I am truly not surprised that the media representatives disgracefully laughed at the imbecile-like WMD joke made by Bush. They have totally reduced all standards of decorum and lowered the bar on intellectual discourse for Bush and his ideologue cronies. The media to a large extent are responsible for allowing this government to get away with the deceit, misrepresentations, manipulation and deception they have meted-out to the public on nearly every issue—.

I hate to say; the laziness and journalistic ineptness of some of the pundits have been more revealing with this government. The media/pundits have failed to challenge Bush’s lack of intellect to engage in critical thinking, and Carl Rove’s inability to conceptualize human sensitivity. They whole-heartedly have welcomed the weaknesses of this government for the mere fact that there are no challenges for them to thoroughly research, analyze and follow-up on issues. The media failed to see that the government manipulated them when it allowed journalists to mingle with our soldiers at the onset of the Iraqi war. How could they give objective reporting when the government was their host? Diane Sawyer while in Iraq or Kuwait or somewhere there was reporting on the war as if she was reporting on the making of a Hollywood war movie. There was no challenging the government; there was no public discourse. None of the media stations had the courage to differ---they were all a large example of sameness

I watched as the media/pundits struggled to catch up with President Clinton, who on many occasions was way ahead on the analyses of the issues at hand or those that were yet to be unraveled. Clinton kept them all on their toes and for all his eight years in office, not one of these pundits could match his intellect. I believe that was why Monica Lewinsky was such a welcoming distraction for them. It was much more easy for them to discourse scandal than talk about foreign or domestic issues. Further more, I think this was also part of the reasons why the public was not made aware of the moves that the Clinton government made to improve our counter terrorism capabilities and quelled Iraq and Iran terrorism attacks on America. Labeling his intentions, wagging dog syndrome was an easier spin.

Though posing tough questions at him, I watched Ted Kennedy make a mince meet out of Tim Russert last Sunday. Compared with his recent interview with Bush, I recalled that Russet could not get Bush to answer his questions, but allowed Bush to ramble and crumple his way out of the questions that he asked him. It looked to me that Russert was intimidated by the moronic looking Bush and allowed him to go on and on, repeating the same answers to different questions. As for the CNN, I wonder if the chicks are the best in the market that the organization could find?

I am truly not surprised that the media representatives disgracefully laughed at the imbecile-like WMD joke made by Bush. They have totally reduced all standards of decorum and lowered the bar on intellectual discourse for Bush and his ideologue cronies. The media to a large extent are responsible for allowing this government to get away with the deceit, misrepresentations, manipulation and deception they have meted-out to the public on nearly every issue—.

I hate to say; the laziness and journalistic ineptness of some of the pundits have been more revealing with this government. The media/pundits have failed to challenge Bush’s lack of intellect to engage in critical thinking, and Carl Rove’s inability to conceptualize human sensitivity. They whole-heartedly have welcomed the weaknesses of this government for the mere fact that there are no challenges for them to thoroughly research, analyze and follow-up on issues. The media failed to see that the government manipulated them when it allowed journalists to mingle with our soldiers at the onset of the Iraqi war. How could they give objective reporting when the government was their host? Diane Sawyer while in Iraq or Kuwait or somewhere there was reporting on the war as if she was reporting on the making of a Hollywood war movie. There was no challenging the government; there was no public discourse. None of the media stations had the courage to differ---they were all a large example of sameness

I watched as the media/pundits struggled to catch up with President Clinton, who on many occasions was way ahead on the analyses of the issues at hand or those that were yet to be unraveled. Clinton kept them all on their toes and for all his eight years in office, not one of these pundits could match his intellect. I believe that was why Monica Lewinsky was such a welcoming distraction for them. It was much more easy for them to discourse scandal than talk about foreign or domestic issues. Further more, I think this was also part of the reasons why the public was not made aware of the moves that the Clinton government made to improve our counter terrorism capabilities and quelled Iraq and Iran terrorism attacks on America. Labeling his intentions, wagging dog syndrome was an easier spin.

Though posing tough questions at him, I watched Ted Kennedy make a mince meet out of Tim Russert last Sunday. Compared with his recent interview with Bush, I recalled that Russet could not get Bush to answer his questions, but allowed Bush to ramble and crumple his way out of the questions that he asked him. It looked to me that Russert was intimidated by the moronic looking Bush and allowed him to go on and on, repeating the same answers to different questions. As for the CNN, I wonder if the chicks are the best in the market that the organization could find?

I am truly not surprised that the media representatives disgracefully laughed at the imbecile-like WMD joke made by Bush. They have totally reduced all standards of decorum and lowered the bar on intellectual discourse for Bush and his ideologue cronies. The media to a large extent are responsible for allowing this government to get away with the deceit, misrepresentations, manipulation and deception they have meted-out to the public on nearly every issue—.

I hate to say; the laziness and journalistic ineptness of some of the pundits have been more revealing with this government. The media/pundits have failed to challenge Bush’s lack of intellect to engage in critical thinking, and Carl Rove’s inability to conceptualize human sensitivity. They whole-heartedly have welcomed the weaknesses of this government for the mere fact that there are no challenges for them to thoroughly research, analyze and follow-up on issues. The media failed to see that the government manipulated them when it allowed journalists to mingle with our soldiers at the onset of the Iraqi war. How could they give objective reporting when the government was their host? Diane Sawyer while in Iraq or Kuwait or somewhere there was reporting on the war as if she was reporting on the making of a Hollywood war movie. There was no challenging the government; there was no public discourse. None of the media stations had the courage to differ---they were all a large example of sameness

I watched as the media/pundits struggled to catch up with President Clinton, who on many occasions was way ahead on the analyses of the issues at hand or those that were yet to be unraveled. Clinton kept them all on their toes and for all his eight years in office, not one of these pundits could match his intellect. I believe that was why Monica Lewinsky was such a welcoming distraction for them. It was much more easy for them to discourse scandal than talk about foreign or domestic issues. Further more, I think this was also part of the reasons why the public was not made aware of the moves that the Clinton government made to improve our counter terrorism capabilities and quelled Iraq and Iran terrorism attacks on America. Labeling his intentions, wagging dog syndrome was an easier spin.

Though posing tough questions at him, I watched Ted Kennedy make a mince meet out of Tim Russert last Sunday. Compared with his recent interview with Bush, I recalled that Russet could not get Bush to answer his questions, but allowed Bush to ramble and crumple his way out of the questions that he asked him. It looked to me that Russert was intimidated by the moronic looking Bush and allowed him to go on and on, repeating the same answers to different questions. As for the CNN, I wonder if the chicks are the best in the market that the organization could find?