Charmed, I'm sure

Obama sat down with the charming Lara Logan of CBS to discuss the war fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which he considers very critical. Watch the whole thing, otherwise you'll miss the highlights edited out of the short version:

• He said we need to take a "regional approach" and not be myopic about Iraq, meaning we have to engage Pakistan (as if we haven't yet). Apparently this is some kind of reverse regional approach that eliminates Iraq from the region, which is located in the source region for most of the "Afghan Arab" Mujihadeen who are now flowing into the region.
  
• He suggested we could have captured the leaders of al Qaeda and the Taliban had we not "taken our eyes off the ball". Obama supporters might argue this doesn't mean at Tora Bora but inclusive from the time they got away. OK, but the last time they were known to be in Afghanistan was at Tora Bora and we haven't had a fix since in Pakistan, so he seems to be saying we 'took our eye off the ball' BEFORE we went into Iraq. How?
• An Obama regime would be less unilateral and more involved in the interests of other countries. This despite his re-iterated policy from last year wherein he'd go after high value targets wherever they are, even if the host country said no, perhaps an even more draconian Bush doctrine than the real one.

Wonder if someone could pose this hypothetical to Obama--since Zarqawi and one of the WTC 1 bombers were in Iraq before the invasion; and since Saddam wasn't about to turn over anybody without significant concessions the west would surely consider to be deal-breakers that could undermine the UN sanction process; would Obama have veered from that policy with Saddam, even knowing he didn't have nukes?

At any rate, Logan seemed fully charmed.

Gore Nation

Al Gore's latest attempt to win friends and influence people occurred at the Netroots Nation conference:

“The defenders of the status quo are the ones who have dug us into this hole,” he said, commenting that Americans have been “so often fooled into finding a remedy for a problem" that has nothing to do with the problem at hand — pointing to the invasion of Iraq when America was attacked by terrorists in Afghanistan as an example.

Rational people could conclude Gore helped shovel that 'hole' as VP for eight years, which included the WARMEST YEAR in the past century, 1998, without changing the way we lived. Guess we had more than a decade back then, but a decade later we suddenly only have a decade left. Unless Obama is elected.

But change is indeed here with 4 buck a gallon gas, ironically close to the target goal in "Earth in the Balance". Gore's solution seems to be to punish the little man for driving his evil car instead of using our own resources because it punishes Gaia (that's where the climate thing really comes in handy). It's a castor oil approach to government except for those with enough get out of climate jail free offset cards to weather any disturbances on the way to energy Valhalla.

Strange, his always friendly audiences never seem curious about such punishment (are there any Gore hecklers?), often including the media (whenever they're not too busy hinting that Bush needlessly fearmongers over terror and takes away civil liberties--as we know, fearmongering over climate is patriotic and acceptable).

Pointing out the obvious, it wouldn't be a Netroots speech without the oft-repeated drivel about Iraq being a mistake because AQ was in Afghanistan, even used completely out of context as Gore did. It's like pablum. Disregard Gore's own State Department list of terrorist-sponsoring nations and his own 1992 speech--all now 'settled' and 'inconvenient', debate over.

But hey, the rhetoric works or he wouldn't use it. Some folks want to believe, like in aliens, unicorns and winning the lottery. It's better than believing in a world where religious extremists unafraid to die pursue hobbies like decapitation with steak knives, forcing airline passengers into unscheduled stops in buildings, or to exit such structures through the windows. To believe Bush and the Joooos are the culprits requires only a new president to fix things, backed by the occasional and justified Katyusha rocket attack from the keffiyah resistance, of course.

There's your change. Obama is running on it, and he's just Gore with a slicker delivery.

Shark Attack!

Good Lord, is that 53 year old Greg Norman leading the British Open after three rounds? Yep. Thank you Tiger for blowing out your knee while nipping 82 year old Rocco Mediate in the US Open so we could get one final Sunday with Greg in contention in a major.

I'll stay away from all that stuff about his divorce and remarriage to tennis great Chrissy Evert, I'm just enjoying the 70s flashback. Maybe the Little River Band will show up and play "Help is on the Way" with an appearance by Bjorn and Martina.

Anyway, if Norman melts down during the final round it won't matter (unlike the 1996 Masters) because he's clearly performing way above expectations at this point. Who knows, it's an advantage he never had before. And while he may be known more for not getting it done at clutch time I'll certainly remember the showman who won the 1997 Memphis Fed Ex tournament by sinking a long curling putt on the final hole. Good luck, Shark.

MORE 7/20/08

To be clear, the above wasn't meant to be gleeful about Tiger's injury. His performance against Mediate in the US Open was almost other worldly considering the nature of his at the time, hidden injuries. Almost certainly, if he were healthy then Norman's performance wouldn't be the main headline going into today.

JOLLY GOOD 7/20/08

If it were any other 53 year old golfer Norman's weekend story would be miraculous (well, perhaps until Tiger reaches his 50s). But it was Greg Norman, who had one more chance to exorcise the demons and change a legacy marred not only by his own failures but by several miracles pulled off by his competitors at the last minute. Alas, the story remains the same. Consolation prize--another return to Augusta.

As to the winner, a good-natured, unassuming Irishman named Paddy, he now has as many Claret Jugs as the Shark. Indeed it's a good day for the Irish, especially after a certain Englishman in the field bragged so much. Aye.

Side tracks

In light of McCain's recent funny on Conan..



Here's a song about the long struggle to get to the top..



Oddly enough, the words seem pertinent to politicians as well, especially those with the battle scars to prove it.

The Neverending Story

MSNewsweek recently reported on Attorney General Mukasey's denial of a subpoena requesting the FBI 302 interview form from Cheney's 2004 sit-down about the Plame matter, expressing frustration and disappointment for Henry Waxman and for all the wasted champagne and party hats.

If noting else the story drew Tom Maguire out of his self-imposed Plame moratorium, postulating correctly that due to the nature of this claim the champagne and party hats could return during an Obama administration if the man of consensus so desires. As to Darth Cheney:

And Fitzgerald introduced a copy of the Wilson op-ed marked up in Cheney's handwriting with a mention of Wilson's wife.

Which leaves me a question. If Cheney was focusing on Wilson's wife from early June and was supposedly the first one to tell Libby why did he mark up a newspaper column from July 6 as if it was something new? Did he forget? After all, he's old and kinda sickly (consistency is a virtue).

Team Newsweek was full of questions, such as why the White House allowed Rove's 302 to be given to the committee but not Cheney's. Their hired expert said it was nearly unprecedented. Well, I'm neither an expert, lawyer, or hired, but it seems possible that Cheney's FBI interview might have focused on his White House conversations with close advisors, the very core of any executive privilege claim. If Rove's 302 focused mainly on what he told reporters, or what others in the administration below level of prez had told him, then it makes some sense.

Yes, both Cheney and Bush submitted themselves to interviews yet after hearing those interviews Fitzgerald didn't go after either, suggesting there wasn't much there of an incriminating nature. That leaves a standard privilege argument.

And while Newsweek seemed to delight in leaving the sinister impression this was virgin territory it's not everyday Congress has access to a vice-presidential 302. Waxman was essentially attempting to make an end run around the White House, which is likely why Mukasey characterized it as such, and why he got the buzzer sound.

But back to Maguire's question--will Obama carry the torch if elected? He'll get pressure from some of the hardest nutrooters, like some rapid Republicans pressured Bush vis a vis the Clintons in 2001. But Bush wouldn't even go after Hillary for stealing the furniture or messing up the W keys. History and 50 bucks says Obama will take the same path.

Ashcroft on the Hill

The Congress finally found John Ashcroft. The former Attorney General came out of semi-hiding and testified before the full House Judiciary Committee Thursday about his role in the detainee interrogations memos, pretty much another collective yawn for the media despite some moments of candor and verve.

Mr. Ashcroft unsurprisingly declined to call waterboarding torture but he did say he wished he'd paid more attention to terrorism before 9/11, something the left has repeatedly bashed him about. They were also atwitter over this, but at the same time couldn't have been thrilled with one of the witnesses brought in to help the Congressmen nail Ashcroft.

Former Solicitor General Dellinger (Clinton 93-96) testified that presidents have a duty to sometimes ignore laws if they believe them to be unconstitutional but if faced with a ticking bomb scenario they should order the action then resign immediately if laws were broken.

Republicans countered by asking him if FDR should have resigned when he ordered mustard gas carried in Navy ships during WWII (in case the Germans used theirs) to which he generally said no, but was forced to accede that FDR was protecting America from the Axis while Bush was protecting America from AQ. Whoops.

But the only thing approaching a sound bite came from our illustrious Rep Steve Cohen, who after tossing out some boilerplate about blaming Bush for 9/11 managed to get a response from the former AG about that infamous hospital drama (towards the end of the clip):



All in all, John Ashcroft handled the questions well and wasn't prone to much squirming, meaning we basically learned nothing. Just another day in DC for the accomplish-nothing Dems. Ironically, while they were dickering around about the meaning of torture some real torture was proven across the other side of the world. That's the same place another lawyer, Barack Obama, will soon be heading. Wonder if he'll mention it?

Speaking ill of the dead

Did Jesse Jackson's recent hot mic slip on Fox count as speaking ill of the dead?

On Monday, July 9, 2007, during its 98th Annual National Convention in Detroit, Michigan, the NAACP will conduct a mock funeral to bury the N-Word.

Perhaps Jesse just buried himself, figuratively speaking. Al doesn't seem to mind very much. Not sure, does this mean Whoopi hates the NAACP or just loves free speech more? Or is speech only free for those who've paid their dues? All very confusing.

TWA 800, case closed?

Today is the 12th anniversary of the downing of TWA flight 800. In conjunction the FAA had a special announcement to "close the door on fuel tank explosions":

We’ve worked with Boeing to further develop the technology so that it will now be mandatory. Older aircraft will be required to retrofit their systems. New aircraft will have the technology built in.

Long time readers know I've got my own opinions on 800. Let's just say I'm surprised the 9/11 truthers aren't interested since 9/11 pales in comparison on the weirdness scale. Unlike twoofers I'm perfectly willing to admit a sparked wire caused the crash just as soon as the NTSB finds evidence of a spark. All they found was a fray. Actually, it was the way the authorities handled the investigation that caused some people to become skeptics.

The FAA appeared proud of themselves for finally issuing directives on the dangerous problem of exploding fuel tanks after all these years. The airlines weren't impressed, preferring to continue believing such events are so rare as to not be worth the cost of retrofit. Statistics would back them up--800 was the first in the modern jet age to blow up in midair and has been the last.

Don't get me wrong, this is a good thing. It will definitely make these rare explosions even more rare, regardless of the possible ignition sources. Matter of fact, the FAA was very careful to stipulate that retrofitting would only apply to airliners with Center Wing Tanks (under the fuselage), or about 2730 Airbus and Boeings (not nearly the entire fleet). According to the Washington Post the retrofit would not apply to cargo jets because as we all know, cargo jets never explode.

Interestingly, the FAA's union NATCA was first to ask the obvious question--why just retrofit CWTs and not wing tanks as well? After all, they're close to the jet engines. Part of the explanation comes from a so-called "warm days" provision relating to the center wing tanks' proximity to the tarmac, which was cited as a possible contributing factor in 800 even though the temperature at JFK that day only reached the upper 80s. All I can say is if 87 degree days are enough to cause explosions then Memphis and Phoenix have been unbelievably lucky all these years.

Nuances of that nature will keep the conspiracists going on this one for awhile longer. The bottom line is we still don't know what caused the spark, whether a missile, bomb or spark in a wire. But weird behavior by the authorities, including the CIA, doesn't automatically prove a terrorist attack or Navy shootdown. Matter of fact, a fear of rampant litigation against the airlines or aerospace industry can easily explain some of the weirdness all by itself. Lawyers sue, and we've got lots of 'em.

But amidst all the apparent closure perhaps it was fitting this story popped out yesterday. Kinda speaks for itself.

Feith on the Hill

Douglas Feith, commonly known to the left as the evil progenitor of torture and various myths tying Saddam and bin Laden, was in front of the House Judiciary Subcommittee yesterday. Who knew?

Apparently not too many. There is almost nothing in the news about this testimony, nor can much be found on You Tube. When David Addington and John Yoo testified before the subcommittee last month there was considerable interest, especially after Congressman Delahunt suggested that al Qaeda might be happy to see the guests on TV.

But no such frivolity took place with the Feith hearing, mainly because Feith didn't allow it. The testimony can be found on CSPAN with a warning, it's pretty long (2+ hours). Much of it stays close to his opening statement in tone, which was adamant about the care taken to remain within a humane framework in trying to glean critical information out of those who wanted to kill American civilians in the worst ways imaginable.

Highlights--

• Feith said he was subpoenaed but it wasn't necessary--he wanted to testify.
• Feith said General Hill of Southcom came to the administration looking for more latitude for interrogating the toughest nuts because the Field Manual wasn't working.
• Issa asked that Reps Harmon and Pelosi be brought before the committee because they were briefed on tactics (by Feith among others) in 2002.
• Under Geneva, category 2 methods were approved by Rummy but only one Category 3 method, "light shoving or poking with a finger" was approved.

The irony here is palpable--the Democrats are today operating in the sanguine climate of a 2008 devoid of attacks, made possible in part by the very same witnesses they continue to grill and allow others to characterize as torturting murderers. It's no surprise the President didn't want these bozos to have too much knowledge of the sensitive national security initiatives involved in fighting this war, which itself is a crying shame.

Post-mortems should be possible without creating a climate of condemnation and guilt strictly for political gain, something to should be remembered by the Republicans should Obama win and we see another attack.

Bush really did lie!

Addressing the assembled jackals of the press on Tuesday:

Bush expanded on this riff, however, with a strange movement vaguely reminiscent of a genie granting a wish: "You can't just say, 'low gas!'"

But apparently you can! Since Monday crude oil has cratered:

Light, sweet crude for August delivery fell $4.14 to settle at $134.60 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, after earlier sinking as low as $132. The drop follows a $6.44 sell-off Tuesday, crude's biggest since the Gulf War.

Maybe the magic words were not "low gas" but "executive order rescinded".

Of course, Pelosi holds the same magic wand and can wave it by simply acting to rescind the Congressional ban on drilling. But do they really want to lose a political talking point?

Hitchens versus Obama

Christopher Hitchens appears to be on a quest--make everyone in the world hate him before he takes leave.

First he supported the Iraq war, angering his lefty friends but gaining a strange new alliance of pro-war Bush-loving conservatives, most of whom probably weren't aware of his overall politics. Then he attacked God, leaving most of those new-found friends in a frenzied lerch, unsure how to take their new ally. Next he declared waterboarding to be "torture", which warmed him further to his former pals on the port side, who'd previously declared him a bigger Judas figure than Lieberman.

But his recent column should dispel any notion he's on anyone's side:

If there is one element of moral and political certainty that cements the liberal consensus more than any other, it is the complacent view that while Iraq is "a war of choice," it is really and only Afghanistan that is a war of necessity. The ritualistic solidity of this view is impressive. It survives all arguments and all evidence.

Indeed he's right, there are two exercises that can accompany any attempt to convince anti-war liberals of their failed logic in this arena, one is bashing one's head against a brick wall and the other is falling into a catatonic trance. All three seem to produce equal results. The anti-Bush crowd is so deeply invested in Iraq's failure that letting go might be a fate worse than 20 years of continual Reagan movies.

In reality, those folks should have collectively apologized to America when the WMDs weren't found. It was Bill Clinton who "fearmongered" about Saddam to justify his Mesopotamian bombing raids (and the one over Khartoum) in the name of stopping the maniac Butcher from one day raining terror across the world. Instead, most lefties decided the best defense was a good offensive and blamed everything on Heir Bush, and with selective help from some in the media they've largely succeeded.

Ah, but all roads now lead to the ultimate point of that offensive, regaining the White House. Hitchens' main focus was their presumptive candidate and his near scatological approach to the conflicts we face, made clear again today by the latest flop, which McCain jumped on like a cat on a crippled rat:

"Senator Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan," McCain said in prepared remarks.

"And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq, and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time. In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: First you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy."

This dovetails well with Hitchens' reminder of this now almost forgotten golden moment, quite appropriate as Obama begins his mystery tour of the war zone:



For awhile those comments created a mini firestorm in the primary season, which translated into this classic exchange on an MSNBC debate:



Hitch also noticed something else Obama's rivals didn't at the time:

Did he mean to say that, come to think of it, we had enough troops to occupy three countries instead of the stipulated and solitary one? Or would he just exchange Iraq for Pakistan? At least we do know for sure that Pakistan has nuclear weapons acquired mainly by piracy and is the host and patron of the Taliban and al-Qaida.

Case in point, Obama calls the fight in Iraq a "war" while calling the war in Afghanistan a "fight". That's clearly designed to differentiate one from the other to appeal to those incapable of following the above logic.

But he can't even get Iraq right. Tom Maguire pointed out yesterday that simply saying he'll "stop the war" in Iraq won't act as some kind of magic wand if indeed there is really a civil war there now; if anything it'll be a worse civil war upon our departure. So the "war" will only be stopped as far as the US is concerned, despite the regional chaos we might leave behind.

Behold, the problem with politicizing a war. The more Obama tries to contort his views to anything but Bush, the more convoluted and illogical and inconsistent he becomes.

Bush's oil gambit

It might not help, but it sounds like a brilliant political move with only months to go before an election:

Putting pressure on congressional Democrats to back more exploration for oil, President Bush on Monday lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling that has stood since his father was president. But the move, by itself, will do nothing unless Congress acts as well.

No Karl Rove needed to figure this one out--Congress has some pesky options ahead.

They can try to shelve this issue while cloaking it with idiotic and childish rhetoric ("once again, the oilman in the White House is echoing the demands of Big Oil,"-- said the Speaker of the US House) something not likely to sit well with those paying 50+ bucks a fill-up, especially if oil continues to rise. Even with a friendly MSM at their sides to explain things such a course resembles a rowboat nearing the edge of Niagara Falls.

Or, they can vote against easing the ban and maintain their environmental stand, despite recent polls showing a 2-1 margin in favor of more domestic drilling. Again, not very popular, especially if oil prices continue to rise. It'll be particularly ticklish for the Reps and Senators going back to their districts and holding town hall meetings. There's only so far they can take "Bush is a mean oil man" before people start yelling "yeah? what are you morons doing to fix it?"

Forcing a vote also forces Senator Obama to take a stand. He will not be able to run away and hide when votes are cast on such a major issue knowing McCain will be there will bells on. But what to do? If he votes against the environmentalists and the party base he'll invite even more wrath from a faithful already mad as fire about FISA and the lack of an impeachment. Not only that, it will be a colossal flip-flop and something repeated like Groundhog Day in every GOP commercial down the stretch.

But, if he stays with principle and party he'll risk appearing an ineffectual elitist puffer, someone more concerned about Seagulls than the common man. Barack doesn't need any more setbacks with the Joe Sixpack crowd. Those very same people hold the key to his victory.

He may try to appear sympathetic while at the same time retreating into boilerplate, ie, having it both ways. This quote seems to suggest it:

"If offshore drilling would provide short-term relief at the pump or a long-term strategy for energy independence, it would be worthy of our consideration, regardless of the risks," spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. "But most experts, even within the Bush administration, concede it would do neither. It would merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for thirty years."

In other words, opening up more land for drilling is a "failed policy" with oil at 150 dollars per barrel because the results won't come in for a few years, but counting on the technology fairy to deliver cheaper and cleaner technology overnight is brilliantly superior. Good luck with that before an election. But dang, if anyone can pull it off it might be Obama.

We're forgetting one wild card--the woman yet to release her delegates. The woman whose rapid supporters are calling for a floor vote at the Convention. The one who could step up and appear decisive here. That woman. Hmm, maybe it's time for team Obama to manufacture another diversion. Reverend Sharpton, you're up!

About that New Yorker cover...

Mike Allen of Politico doesn't quite have all the outrages down:

The Obama campaign is condemning as “tasteless and offensive” a New Yorker magazine cover that depicts Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in a turban, fist-bumping his gun-slinging wife. An American flag burns in their fireplace.

First of all, it's not their fireplace, it appears to be the Oval Office fireplace (assuming there is one). And he missed the picture of Osama bin Laden on the wall.

But the outrage potential is understandable. In reading the very long New Yorker piece (click on pic for link) it's obvious Obama has long longed for high office and therefore long understood the value of making friends outside his own constituencies. That means the white community, absolutely necessary if a black man is to win the presidency.

Arguably his worst gaffe of the campaign so far was to mention the "bitter clingers" because of the damage that could inflict on the traditional white voters. No doubt his "fight the smears" website was set up to reassure white voters that 1) he wasn't a Muslim, or 2) didn't sympathize with terrorists. The drawing works against that effort, even if satire.

But at the same time, not everything in it was satire. Obama is shown wearing the same garb he wore during a trip to Africa some years ago, something he generally shouldn't desire to toss under the bus, unless he thinks Africa will fit.

As to the burning flag, their friend the former domestic terrorist did a tap dance on Old Glory in 2001. It's interesting the piece hardly mentioned Ayers (something sure to amuse Tom Maguire) other than to say he's been accepted back into polite Chicago society, suggesting his flag dance was perhaps acceptable to those folks, too.

So perhaps the cover could actually work in Obama's favor as yet another way to suggest that asking questions about his past associations actually represents a smear, with those doing so worthy of nothing but ridicule. Time will tell as the complaints come in and the general consensus is formed.

Perhaps the most interesting reaction might come from camp Clinton. Bill just got through speaking out against the troubling divisions in America so a comment seems in order. And perhaps we'll even get one from Hillary if she can manage to remove the duct tape.

Cash for access

Follow the money, that's the old saying. In this case the money was being dangled by an undercover reporter acting alongside a representative for the former president of Kyrgyzstan:

A lobbyist with close ties to the White House is offering access to key figures in George W Bush’s administration in return for six-figure donations to the private library being set up to commemorate Bush’s presidency.

Worldwide Strategic Partners is just one of many security companies specializing in well, getting stuff done. Access, media, recommendations, referrals, the stereo back scratch and so forth.

This tape mentions cash for access to several Bush officials with the intent on helping America improve it's image in Kyrgyzstan, a country recently in turmoil due to upheavals in its democratic process. According to the CIA factbook the former president is Askar Akayev. The blurred out guy in the video was apparently acting in his stead. Why, though? What's the motive for the former president to participate in a sting on the Bush administration?

Perhaps his daughter, interviewed in 2007 two years after her father's ouster, can shine some light on the matter:

EurasiaNet: Does Iran have any influence in Kyrgyzstan?
Akayeva: Iran is very popular here. It is the leading Islamic country in the world, I think. They are popular here because of their stance with the United States. Iranians are very clever people. There is a huge and clear division between the Shiite and Sunni, but not here. This is a bit strange. The Saudis don’t have any influence at all. They’re just financing things. Even the Kuwaitis have more influence than the Saudis. Nobody really cares (about the Saudis).

EurasiaNet: How is the United States viewed in Kyrgyzstan?
Akayeva: Screwed up (laughs). In the ’90s, there were such high hopes for the West in general and the United States in particular. People were very much pro-American. Maybe because America is seen as a stick, or whip. Also, because we see America though Russian eyes. Also, of course, there is Iraq, which is the major cause (of anti-American feeling). People don’t see any help from the United States. And they are not happy with all of the political meddling, through NGOs and the shooting (of a Kyrgyz national by an American serviceman in 2005). [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. I really doubt that [US President George W.] Bush or anyone in the Republican administration even knows where Kyrgyzstan is.

Her last statement might explain some things. It's evident the US, through the NGOs she mentioned, was instrumental in helping overturn her father's reign:

The arrangement highlights the delicate balance Washington must strike as democratic movements begin stirring across the former Soviet Union. To avoid provoking Russia and violating diplomatic norms, the U.S. can't directly back opposition political parties. But it underwrites a web of influential NGOs whose support of press freedom, the rule of law and clean elections almost inevitably pits them against the entrenched interests of the old autocratic regimes.

The stakes for the region are high. In 2003, peaceful demonstrators, some carrying roses, ousted Georgia's longtime president, former Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevarnadze, in what became known as the "Rose Revolution." Two months ago, thousands of Ukrainians wearing orange seized control of Kiev's main square to protest voting fraud, setting the stage for opposition candidate Viktor Yuschenko to win the presidency. Now, opposition figures hope to go three-for-three -- this time using yellow as their color -- in a bid to push Mr. Akayev from power.

So why would the Bush crew desire face time with the former president? Are they beginning to see the value of realpolitik on the way out the door or was Payne simply trying to scam these guys into giving Bush some library loot as a final in-your-face? Does radical Islam or oil have any bearing? Questions remain.

What is apparent is the smell--it doesn't smell good. Bush's library fund is now tainted from the get-go. Just add this to the GOP hit parade of late--it's rare to see such a total implosion with folks shooting off their feet with howitzers all over the place. Obviously some of this could rub off on McCain, who at last check still has an R by his name and who the left have busily been trying to paint as the lobbyists' best friend. Where have you gone, Newt Gingrich?

But.....in the midst of the inevitable Bushco bashing will anyone notice that Payne mentioned the name Joe Biden, along with "some Democrats"? Why did he specifically drop Biden's name? We know Joe has occasionally been mentioned as a possible running mate for Obama. It'll be interesting to see which way this goes. Maybe Pelosi has started to play around with Kucinich's impeachment resolution for a reason.

MORE 7/13/08

Hot Air is covering this story, but surprisingly few sites/blogs are making it a top story, including the left sites. Could that be because Joe Biden was mentioned on the tape or is it just scandal fatigue? Or the weekend?

Anyway, after more thought here's a few more questions.

1. The stated goal of the undercover ops were to get Bush officials to say some good things about the ex-prez, presumably because he might be interested in getting back into power. Yet, the comments from the ex-prez's own daughter suggest that anything coming from the Bush administration wouldn't be worth much anyway.

2. Bush (and perhaps Rice) needs to step forward and speak to this immediately, otherwise his library will be tainted before the first rock is turned. W was supposed to represent a return to responsible government, not a Texas version of Clinton. He owes it to those of us who've supported him on that vision through the years.

3. Unless some alternative explanations come soon this video certainly appears to be stark proof of the selling of American foreign policy. Unlike the liberal canard that our reputation was trashed for taking out Saddam Hussein, this kind of impression is much more harmful to the United States of America.

Side tracks

The passing of Tony Snow was the first story I read upon waking up this morning. He seemed like a good man, one with broad interests and possessing an open but principled mind. He was also a comforting voice to those about to undergo a colonoscopy--at one time including myself. He fought a good fight. May he rest in peace.

His musical hobby was no secret. Michelle Malkin included a compliation of some of his performances on her post, including a rendition of the song "Bouree" made famous by Ian Anderson. Looks like a lot of fun. With that, here's Mr. Anderson and friends..

Abort

According to CNN, reporting on a near-hit at JFK:

Delta Flight 123, a Boeing 757, missed a landing approach and had to "go around," the path of Comair Flight 1520, which was taking off on a perpendicular runway, according to Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman Laura Brown.

Seems to be some confusion here. The term "go around" does not mean 'go around another aircraft', it means 'abort the landing, go around and get back in line for landing again'.

It's likely the cause of this go-around was the plane taking off on a perpendicular runway, but such things aren't entirely unheard of. Sometimes it's done to avoid a taxiing aircraft that botched ATC instructions or even a maintenance vehicle that hasn't quite cleared the runway. Go-arounds are specified in FAA regulations as to which way the aircraft should climb and turn after aborting, etc.

Not sure if CNN screwed up the wording or doesn't understand the concept, just wanted to chime in here. That doesn't mean this wasn't a scary event. Runway 'incursions' are a hot topic in safety talks these days. Here are some examples:



And here is video of an actual "go-around":

Here come da bus

Two stories this morning, one a rather devastating piece from the New York Post and a kinder, gentler version from their crosstown rival the Times, point to the big upside from Jesse Jackson's Obamaballs moment. The Post speculates he was aware the mic was hot. That seems correct.

It's simply hard to believe Jackson would make such a mistake in of all places, Fox News HQ. Since the news broke Wednesday the initial instinct was to think it was a tactical play to save Obama from having to explain his flip-around on FISA, but the comment was made on Sunday, making it more of a strategic move, if any.

The only rational explanation seems to be that Jackson threw himself under the bus.

But why? Discounting his fiasco with the Duke rape case and his involvement with the Jena Six, Jackson hasn't been on the radar much of late. It's a stretch to say he was perceived by whites as being attached enough to Obama (like a barnacle?) to warrant a castration (sorry). By throwing himself under the bus he also threw himself back into the spotlight.

Both the Times and Post mention how this might help Obama's image with the bitter, white gun-toting hillbilly autoworker Dems, which would make more sense if Obama were seen as tight with the Rev Jesse. He wasn't. The whole thing seems a tad unnecessary as a strategic move, other than for the benefit of Jesse.