corrente

In the Letters column (which is becoming the only real "must read" in the paper) readers nail that toothless old whore Safire on his "smoking gun" column. In the Arts section, Edward Rothstein writes a smarmy and tendentious story on a conference about the political uses of fear (you think?), where the conference-goers give the "on the one hand" and Rothstein himself gives the "on the other"—instead of doing, say, actual work by getting quotes. Meanwhile, ombudsman Dan Okrent interviews himself: he's going to publish brief, temperate letters from readers. Humor note: some reporters feel that the "hovering presence" of an ombudsman might hinder "aggressive reporting." But since the Times is so big, it can't be all bad, even in its state of decay: David Barstow gives a reasonably balanced take on the Bush AWOL story (though it does leave out the Bush records in the trashcan thread), concluding that (among?) the unanswered questions are: (1) "why Mr. Bush, who said he wanted to make flying `a lifetime pursuit' when he joined up, failed to take a required annual flight physical in 1972" (see Orcinus nail Bartlet here), and (2) "precisely how Mr. Bushobtained an honorable discharge from the Guard on Oct. 1, 1973, eight months before his six-year commitment ended." The cakewalk continues: Jeffrey Gettleman writes of an impending public health crisis in Iraq. Sarah Burkett writes in the Magazine of our wounded soldiers. And the editorial board writes on the secret purging of likely Democratic voters from the roles. They don't ask the hard question though: Since the voter roles have been purged of Democrats, why should the country accept any Republican President who wins in a very close race as legitimate?

Manuel Roig-Franzia and Lois Romano add to the drip-drip-drip on the Bush AWOL story: who pimped Emily Blount to AP (Blount); who wired up Bush's move to Alabama (Bush loyalist Jimmy Allison). And they also give some reasons to think that the Calhoun was an eyewitness defense is falling apart: "Calhoun remembers seeing Bush at Dannelly at times in mid-1972 when the White House acknowledges Bush was not pulling Guard duty in Alabama yet; his first drills were in October, according to the White House. White House press secretary Scott McClellan on Friday was at a loss to reconcile the discrepancy." I guess the Bush AWOL story might have legs after all. And the Roig-Franzia/Romano story has an interesting sting in its tail: On the famous night when the drunken future 43 offered to go "mano a mano" with 41, he'd been out carousing with brother Marvin, then 16. Sounds like illegal underage drinking to me; I guess Jenna and Nicole come by their sense of impunity honestly. Meanwhile, some Democrats are cautious about exploiting the situation. Maybe so: which is why the more organized and strategically insightful Republicans have surrogates to handle these matters. Letters to the editor, however, argue that the issue is important: Character matters. No coverage in WaPo either of the Bush records in the trashcan thread. Meanwhile, overly hard-working WaPo ombudsman Michael Getler has a curiously muted and slightly dispirited column on Kay's statement that "We were almost all wrong." (What does he mean, "we"?) Getler cites some stories questioning Bush on WMDs, complains about how hard to newspaper business is, and sums up this way: "Make sure you read Page A17, or wherever the next piece of the puzzle appears." Hmm: Isn't part of the press's duty to put the puzzle together? That being one of the reasons they have first amendment protection? In fact, there was an utterly coherent critique of WMDs and the War (back: Liberals were right): It just wasn't to be found in the SCLM. There's also an interesting story on truckers: the hook is the ricin found in Bill "Hello Kitty" Frist's office (see back for why this hook is a non-starter), but the real story is here: "The FBI also has turned to radio talk show hosts popular among truckers for help tracking down callers who have complained about the new regulations." Hmmm... Wonder if they'll call the new liberal station, if it ever makes it onto the air, before the call Limbaugh's? And Nooners opines that it's time for Republicans to stop playing 'Mr. Nice Guy'.

On Bush AWOL, the LA Times takes the easy, lazy coverage route, writing "no illegalities" (but see here) and remarking on what we already know: "His name didn't hurt, obviously." There's one little discrepancy on the medical exam: "The records do not state why Bush did not accomplish the exams. In 1999, campaign officials said Bush wanted to wait and take his medical exam with a doctor he knew [hmmm...] in Houston. On Friday, White House communications director Dan Bartlett said Bush did not take the physical because he knew he was transferring to Alabama and would be in a nonflying status there." No coverage on Bush records in the trashcan here either. In other news, Ron Brownstein writes on competing forms of populism in the 2004 election: economic vs. cultural. HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson cherry picked health numbers on racial disparities in health outcomes (you know, "outcomes" like life and death). Interviewed in his room at the Four Seasons hotel, Mel Gibson informs us that he's a victim of "religious persecution". And oddly, there's no coverage of the gay marriages in San Francisco at all.


Meanwhile, the WhiteWash Commission (back) seems to have dropped completely from sight. We already know from the WWC's charter that it won't be looking into the cherrypicking (back) of intelligence before the war; and we know that, since it has no subpoena powers, it won't be able to do anything useful anyhow—except shield Bush's record as a "war preznit" from public scrutiny. Mission accomplished! Oh yeah, and Bush named the other two members: one from—you guessed it—the PNAC! The Plame Affair gets no coverage ... And an inquiry into the theft of Democratic files gets no coverage ...