I’m not really sure what, if anything, this story means yet. Thanks to Adam at Words Mean Things for the email pointer to David Corn’s piece in The Nation about it (Capital Games), but the MetaFilter post (and especially the discussion) about it is awesome: Payback?

It basically asks what Robert Novak was up to in a story he wrote about Joseph Wilson and his wife. But the comments go all over the place, including great stuff like this:

Sometimes, a lie starts off as a mistake. If you fail to acknowledge your mistake, and continue to defend it, it becomes a lie at some point. This happens to children sometimes, when one little “fib” ends up having to be stretched further than the kid intended. Determining the actual moment in which that transition occurs (a process which is ongoing as we speak, because–as someone pointed above–we don’t have all of the information yet) is just gamesmanship.

Joe Conason has a nice column on how Condoleeza Rice has been made to sacrifice her reputation in service to Bush: To show loyalty, Rice lies for Bush.

If the Democratic Leadership and the members of the liberal press and blogosphere ever got together to play in a dart tournament, it would never have an ending. They would be too obsessed with chasing all the numbers to ever pay attention to the bullseye.

This “Yellowcake” fiasco is just another smoking gun mirage that has Bush’s opposition more distracted than a dog in a mailman convention. Try as they might, their outrage regarding this “lie” is generally being met with a collective yawn by the moderate and Republican voting public, as well as the mainstream world press. This kind of “gotcha” game involving the mysterious world of intelligence-gathering is just too shadowy for most people to feel they are on solid ground in contradicting an Administration’s information. It won’t take much counter-evidence to firmly sway public opinion back into the “give him the benefit of the doubt” camp. The danger in this scandal-chase regarding the “was this one example in his speech truthful” angle, is that the voting public may smell a greater whiff of desperation than of outrage from Bush’s opponents.

So what’s the right answer? I and numerous other Conservatives have said several times that the issue which will resonate loudest with us (and, I would suggest, the bulk of public opinion) will still be the establishment of proof of a significant WMD program, either available for immediate use, or in a dormant, ready-to-activate form. That is the “bullseye” that the Liberals should be keeping a steady drumbeat on.

Why? Well, some spinmeisters have been basing their arguments against this Yellowcake Affair by stating that it was only part of many reasons Bush gave for attacking Iraq. True enough. But what is NOT being said is that the MAIN reason given for confronting Saddam IMMEDIATELY rather than on a UN-preferred elongated time frame was the imminent threat to both US and world security that Iraq’s cache of chemical and biological weapons posed. This is the basic “was there or wasn’t there” outcome that the public will remember and respond to.

But hey, don’t mind me. After all, a Conservative might just be trying to throw all the truth-seekers off the trail of that slam-dunk Uranium bombshell which will break the back of the evil Bush regime once and for all!

The Nation’s Katrina vanden Heuvel calls for the kind of cross-party-lines joining-of-forces that could actually work against Bush come election time: Coalition of the rational.

Not as much fun as crazed ranting, but worth a look.

Here’s another fun rant on the current state of the presidency. Maybe it’s just because I’ve been lulled into a false sense of complacency by all the mainstream media types with their measured responses to what’s going on, but SFGate columnist Mark Morford’s over-the-top-ness caught me by (grateful) surprise.

Bush supporters need not apply (since they won’t enjoy it anyway). Others, read on: Nothing left to lie about.

Just one more, please? From MediaWhoresOnline, a really amusing page that leads off with copies of publicity photos, including captions, from the official Whitehouse web site: Photos show Bush rewriting, revising speech (hm. and now that’s broken. you can try the current version of the White House page: Behind the Scenes: State of the Union Preparation).

See, it’s funny because of the way the White House spin machine at the time had an interest in playing up Bush’s personal involvement in crafting the speech, poring over every word to make sure it bore the stamp of his incisive intelllect and hands-on management style. Heh.

The page continues with lots more good, clean, partisan japery on the subject of the State of the Union address. Whee!

Let’s see; it’s been, what, 30 whole minutes since my last item on the State of the Union uranium allegation? Whoa; we’re overdue.

So here you go. From CalPundit, a really nice piece called Why the uranium matters. Because it does, you know.

(On the bright side, I can feel my obsession fading. It’s an odd feeling, subtle, but unmistakable. I had a similar reaction, a really powerful one, the day Winona Ryder was sentenced, and I couldn’t muster even a passing interest in what she was wearing. I guess the depth/length of the obsession is proportional to the intensity of the eventual reaction, or something. Anyway, it shouldn’t be long now. Hang in there.)

This is an interesting story, mainly because it serves to counter the contention by Bush’s people lately that the infamous “16 words” in the State of the Union address weren’t important, since the war was justified by lots of other evidence. Well, not really, says the article, at least if you’re talking about the Iraqi nuclear program in particular. Since in the days leading up to the speech pretty much every other piece of evidence purpotedly showing that Iraq was actively seeking to restart its nuclear weapons program had been discredited: Bush faced dwindling data on Iraq nuclear bid.

It helps to fill in the gaps on just why the administration would have fought so hard to include such shaky evidence: because they really, really wanted that mushroom cloud image in the State of the Union address. Without it, see, us silly little Americans might have balked at the idea of pre-emptively invading another country. We might have paused and said, hey, wait; this whole UN-inspection thing actually seems to be working.

That would have been a disaster, right? Thank God we avoided that.

The New York Times has this interesting, if depressing, story about the destruction of the space shuttle Columbia. I haven’t been following this story very closely for a while, so maybe this is old news, but apparently there is evidence that the crew cabin remained intact for up to a minute after the last radio transmission was received: Crew of Columbia survived a minute after last signal.

Aggravating Hiro, take 2: I know you don’t know who George Paine is, and you don’t want to, but you really should. Anyway, he’s got another great piece: The Constitution and justice. It covers the latest depressing developments in the Moussaoui trial, where the government is taking the position that no, it really doesn’t have to give him the right to confront and question the witnesses against him. And if, as seems likely, the judge tosses the government’s case on Sixth Amendment grounds, the government intends to just turn around and charge Moussaoui as an “enemy combatant,” and try him in a military tribunal, where they won’t be hampered by such “technicalities”.

I am so not going to miss John Ashcroft when he’s forcibly returned to private life. And please, may enough of my fellow citizens join me in my sense of outrage that that happens sooner rather than later.

Hm. Interesting question: Which news item disgusts me more with what is going on with my country today? This one, or the one I just posted? Hard to say, really. I could make a case for either one, for different reasons.

This one bugs me in its own, special way. From Daypop: Hunting for Bambi.

Partly to annoy Janus/onan and Hiro/Aaron, who agree that my webloggy name-dropping has gotten out of control, but also because it’s a really good piece, I wanted to link unto Christopher Allbritton (of Back in Iraq 2.0)’s comments today about Bush’s really strange ad-lib yesterday, where he (Bush) said that Saddam wasn’t letting weapons inspectors into his country, so that’s why we invaded his ass: There is no spoon.

Sigh. First day of the post-Ari era (yet another Janus/onan/Hiro/Aaron annoyance, via the unexpanded reference). I really wish I could have read Ari’s explanation of that. Even if it had been the exact same explanation given by newly arisen presidential press secretary Scott McClellan, it would have been more fun coming from Ari.

We can only hope that Mel Gibson’s upcoming work will keep in mind that Jesus had short hair! Who knows what sartorial sins today’s youngsters might go on to commit without appropriate guidance?

And in further… news [ahem]: a supposed recent bout of tornados in America is apparently Hashem’s idea of a communique that the US should not facilitate the creation of a Palestinian state. Maybe his email server is down.

Oops; late arrival. Courtesy of Adam at Words Mean Things, check out Michael Kinsley’s excellent observations on the head-scratching over who actually lied when Bush said untrue things in the State of the Union address: Who is buried in Bush’s speech?

Here’s today’s load of articles on Bush’s SOTU yellowcake lie. Where do you want it?

From the Boston Globe: Bush trusts CIA after uranium claim. From the New York Times’ David E. Sanger: A shifting spotlight on uranium sales. And from ABC News, this really handy timeline of what happened when: Timeline of the Iraq uranium allegations.

Supporters of Bush, understandably, are trying to minimize the significance of this. “It’s just 16 words, for cryin’ out loud. Give the guy a break.” Rush Limbaugh, for one: They never should’ve caved on Africa line. (Actually, Rush goes farther. In his view, the SOTU statement was “100% true.” Heh.)

But see, it’s not just 16 words. Those 16 words raise a number of additional questions. Follow the link below, or scroll down, for my take on what some of those additional questions are.
(more…)

In a story referred to earlier by John, Mel Gibson’s upcoming film project on the last hours of Jesus Christ’s life on earth has started to receive some advance screenings, and a few more details are coming out about it. Any kind of play or movie that has a central focus on Christ has always been a lightening rod for scrutiny and criticism among the Jewish and Christian faiths. It’s apparent already from this story and this one that some serious trepidation is surfacing, especially within some Jewish and Catholic groups. As a Christian, I certainly hope that Mel Gibson is true to his word of a faithful and authentic-feeling presentation of, what I feel, is the most important event in mankind’s history (although the dialogue will be entirely in Aramaic and Latin, it now appears that a limited amount of subtitles will be included). It’s an impossible job to fully pull off however, since Mel is relying on some Gospels that sometimes differ with each other in the details of those final hours. So what do you include or leave out in a biblically accurate retelling of the Passion Story? Hence, part of the inevitable disapproval. There is also an indication that some non-biblical sources (the writings of several centuries-old nuns) may find some influence within the story. The more problematic issue will be the reaction of the Jewish religious leaders and the Defamation League at any connection of the Jews of that time being involved in Christ’s arrest and death. Now, I certainly would be dismayed if the film painted the Jews in some ugly stereotypes and/or suggested that they were either wholly and collectively responsible for the death of Jesus. But I don’t believe that will be Mel’s intent. However, the fact that a number of the Jewish population and leadership of that time were threatened and angered by Christ’s presence, and had a hand in shaping the events of those final hours (along with the Romans) is undeniable.

Does this make all those of Jewish heritage permanently stained by the actions of some predecessors? Of course not. But the hatred and persecution endured by Jews over time has made many of them understandably hyper-sensitive (to a fault) to their depiction in this part of world history (an example of such thinking and a more moderate voice). I hope that the likely predictible uproar that some in both the Jewish and Christian communities will create will not distract people ( both believers and non-believers) from viewing the film without pre-judging its validity, sincerity, and its faithfulness to the scriptures. From all I have now heard about it, the film seems to deserve that chance.

George Paine at Warblogging.com has a really nice summary of the events in the Nigerian yellowcake scandal: What did Bush know, and when?

An important point that some Bush supporters are missing in their faux outrage over the ruckus being kicked up over a “mere 16 words” is that this isn’t the only lie the Bush administration has used in its efforts to build and maintain support for the war. Lying about the nature of the threat Saddam posed to the US has been continuous over the last year or more. This lie just happens to have been one that was particularly bald, with an obvious paper trail implicating the liars.

It’s not significant because it was some kind of radical departure. Just the opposite. It’s an example of the kind of thing that has become routine in the Bush administration. And it sucks.

Fun Doonesbury strip today, on a key difference between the liberal and conservative media.

Here’s a piece that really hit home with me. From George McGovern, writing in the LA Times Opinion section: Ignore pollsters — Just tell the truth.

Sometimes how you play the game really does matter more than whether you win or lose.

So, today’s headline, following logically on yesterday’s, is that Tenet, who wants to take the blame for having failed to tell Bush about the problems with the Nigerian yellowcake allegations in time to take those infamous “16 words” out of the State of the Union address, actually successfully intervened with the White House to get similar allegations removed from a speech Bush made three months earlier. Oops.

From the Boston Globe: CIA chief sought to block talk of Iraq arms, aides say.

Every day the story stays in the headlines Bush drops in the polls. Cool. Hm. Who’s scheduled to appear on Meet the Press today? Rumsfeld and Bob Graham? So that sounds like we’ll get quagmire and the 9/11 cover-up, rather than Nigergate, but that should still be good for another point or two on the “Do you support the president?” question.