Wednesday, November 30, 2005
The articles, written by U.S. military 'information operations' troops, are translated into Arabic and placed in Baghdad newspapers with the help of a defense contractor, according to U.S. military officials and documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times. "
Just our way of spreading democracy.
An exit strategy? Finally. If only they'd have done this months ago they would have saved themselves from the Murtha effect. But wait? Is he talking about drawing down the troops? Didn't they say that would only embolden the enemy? And then later in the AP article Laura Bush is quoted as wanting the troops home as soon as possible. So, according to the administration she's calling for immediate withdrawal. Should we now say that Laura is following the Michael Moore wing?
Suddenly their arguments seem a little weak, as they turn around and do exactly what we've been asking of them.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
He did not explain in the interview why he believed Cheney advocated terror, though he also said that Cheney was 'very publicly lobbying the Congress of the United States advocating the use of terror.'"
It's a bad thing when someone who used to work in your Adminstration lays into you like Wilkerson does here. It begins to look like anyone with a conscience feels compelled to tell it like it is. If only more of the American people would listen to what's going wrong in the Bush Adminstration.
Members of Congress, lawyers and pollsters recognize that both events taken together could signal the start of a cyclical ritual in the nation's capital: the moment when lawmakers and outsiders are widely seen as getting too cozy with each other and face a public backlash -- and legal repercussions -- as a result."
Uh...no kidding. It becomes easier and easier with each guilty plea to identify the Republican Party with the party of Corruption. Democrats should be doing everything they can to raise awareness of these issues. Republicans already face that conception of being fat cats looking out for big business, but this proves that they are also looking out for themselves. Time to clear them out.
Monday, November 28, 2005
'The truth is I broke the law, concealed my conduct, and disgraced my office,' the 63-year-old Republican said at a news conference. 'I know that I will forfeit my freedom, my reputation, my worldly possessions, most importantly, the trust of my friends and family.'"
I think we knew this was coming for a while now, but let's add another one to the list of Republicans indicted or under investigation. They are really giving the Democrats something to run on in 2006. It's time to clear out the party of corruption and lies.
Should the President really use language like this? Who is this "we" he talks about? That's "we" as in those that believe in God, "we" true Americans, and not "you" heathens who would believe otherwise. That's the way he sees it.
I do not think that these sort of statements are the realm of the President who represents this country. He does not speak for me.
Friday, November 25, 2005
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Frontline had an excellent expose last night on everything that went wrong in New Orleans and spreads the blame pretty evenly. The show does reveal Michael Brown, no matter how hard he tries to defend himself, as the idiot he his. It also puts some fear into the viewer about the future of FEMA and their ability to offer any bit of service in the future. And of course no current Adminstration official was willing to be interviewed for the program--not Chertoff, no one from the White House.
The highly classified CIA assessment was distributed to President Bush, Vice
President Cheney, the president's national security adviser and deputy national
security adviser, the secretaries and undersecretaries of State and Defense, and
various other senior Bush administration policy makers, according to government
The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the White House for
the CIA assessment, the PDB of September 21, 2001, and dozens of other PDBs as
part of the committee's ongoing investigation into whether the Bush
administration misrepresented intelligence information in the run-up to war with
Iraq. The Bush administration has refused to turn over these documents.
All depends on your definition of "same." Or "lie."
KAFKA ON THE SHORE. By Haruki Murakami.
LUNAR PARK. By Bret Easton Ellis.
MEMORIES OF MY MELANCHOLY WHORES. By Gabriel García Márquez
ON BEAUTY. Zadie Smith.
PREP. By Curtis Sittenfeld.
SLOW MAN. By J. M. Coetzee.
Any other recommendations?
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
I'm not sure this guy should really be talking about corruption. I still find it so vulgar the way the adminstration attacks critics. And I think to talk about pullout as defeat sets us up to never pull out. How should we attempt to finish out this thing if the leaders of our country go around saying the terrorists win when we leave. So, how do you propose we win this thing, Mr. Cheney?
So, after Friday's stunt in Congress backfiring on the Republicans, this too should push things in the right direction. It should be hard for Bush to ignore this. Time to put together a plan to get out, buddy.
Friday, November 18, 2005
I have a very bad feeling about this GOP vote-force tonight. Listening to the emotional debate on the floor now...well, there was just some screaming, to give you an idea. Prediction: Dems vote no on a Republican resolution for immediate withdrawal. Dems easily frame the whole exercise as Republicans caricaturing sensible concerns about Iraq--and more specifically a mocking of Vietnam vet Marine Jack Murtha (witness John Kerry below). "
Maybe it wasn't a good idea.
We need a way out, though. We need to know that there is a plan to finish the job in Iraq and come home. It is a war that should not have been fought, that did not need to be fought.
Every democrat should vote against this stunt and reveal the Republican posturing for what it is.
This one is worth reading as they struggle to assert that the Amendment put forth and passed by Republicans is wrong without ever pointing fingers at their own party. Pretty amusing.
And to pushback on the pushback, TPM points to this Knight Ridder article that does the same as the WaPo article we saw earlier this week by looking at Bush's recents statements and exposing the untruths.
ASSERTION: In a Veterans Day speech last Friday, Bush said that Iraq war
"critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no
evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments
related to Iraq's weapons programs."
CONTEXT: Bush is correct in saying that
a commission he appointed, chaired by Judge Laurence Silberman and former Sen.
Charles Robb, D-Va., found no evidence of "politicization" of the intelligence
community's assessments concerning Iraq's reported weapons of mass destruction
ASSERTION: In his speech, Bush noted that "more than a hundred Democrats in
the House and the Senate - who had access to the same intelligence - voted to
support removing Saddam Hussein from power."
CONTEXT: This isn't true.
ASSERTION: In his Veterans Day address, Bush said that "intelligence
agencies around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein."
CONTEXT: Bush is correct in saying that many intelligence agencies,
particularly in Europe, believed that Saddam was hiding some weapons of mass
destruction capabilities - not necessarily weapons. But they didn't agree with
other U.S. assessments about Saddam. Few, with the exception of Great Britain,
argued that Iraq was an imminent threat, or that it had any link to Islamic
terrorism, much less the Sept. 11 attacks.
ASSERTION: Stephen Hadley, the president's national security adviser, told
reporters last Thursday that the Clinton administration and Congress perceived
Saddam as a threat based on some of the same intelligence used by the Bush
CONTEXT: Congress did pass the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which stated
U.S. support for regime change in Iraq and provided up to $97 million in overt
military and humanitarian aid to opposition groups in Iraq.
But it didn't
authorize the use of U.S. force against Iraq.
If they're willing to lie in defense of the war, it doesn't much help their case that they didn't lie to get us into it.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Jeanne Birdsall, The Penderwicks (Alfred A. Knopf Books for Young Readers)
W.S. Merwin, Migration: New and Selected Poems (Copper Canyon Press)
Joan Didion, The Year of Magical Thinking (Knopf)
William T. Vollmann, Europe Central (Viking)
I usually feel compelled to read the fiction winners of these yearly contests, but I don't often get around to it. Truthfully, Vollmann's book does not sound very compelling. But I might have to read now the Didion book, because of this and the NYT review of the book.
Woodward kept quiet for fear of being having to testify. Now, why would you if you know there is an ongoing investigation. Of course, the other part of this is that he didn't tell his boss because he claims that he was gathering information for a book, and not for the Washington Post. I think again we must look into oversight of journalists by their editors.
But let's be clear that this in no way should exonerate Libby. Libby clearly lied and should pay the price for that. What it does show is that others were involved and other indictments are likely.
Again, it seems clear that journalists are more concerned with keeping sources confidential than doing what is right. It should make us wonder if people like Woodward or Judy Miller are more loyal to their role as journalist or to the Bush Administration.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
I wonder if this begins to get a little harder for them as the Senate rebuke begins. So, we were wrong once, so we should just shut up? No. Chuck Hagel explained it yesterday:
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) strongly criticized yesterday the White House's newFunny that re-election concerns trumps blind allegience to a lame-duck President.
line of attack against critics of its Iraq policy, saying that "the Bush
administration must understand that each American has a right to question our
policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them."
"To question your government is not unpatriotic -- to not question
your government is unpatriotic," Hagel said, arguing that 58,000 troops died in
Vietnam because of silence by political leaders. "America owes its men and women
in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices."
Just so you can get more of a story that isn't getting enough attention. Yes, more illegal activity in the Bush Administration, David H. Safavian.
Just 38, he was administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy at the
president's Office of Management and Budget, with the authority to make the
rules governing $300 billion in annual expenditures, including those in response
to Hurricane Katrina.
But that was before federal agents appeared at his
home on Sept. 19 and arrested Safavian in connection with the investigation of
Jack Abramoff, charging that Safavian lied about his dealings with the onetime
powerhouse lobbyist and misled investigators from the General Services
Administration and the Senate.
And this only part of what he's done wrong. In the wake of Katrina, Safavian raised the maximum amount for no-bid contracts with the government from $2500 to $250,000. He did this on his own, without any approval. This was corrected after his removal.
I want to point out that this demonstrates more unethical and illegal activity by those on the right trying to impose their ideology on the entire nation. So let's look again at the list of Republicans indicted or under investigation for illegal activity:
And I'm sure I'm forgetting others. Imagine what we would find if the Democrats were in control of Congress and able to have their own investigation.
"These tales will tell the truth about The Life; the sex, guns and cash; the brutal highs and short lives of the players on the streets," the publisher said in a release over the weekend.
I am all for expanding readership. I think the more people we have reading fiction, the better. But I think someone needs to do a little market analysis here and tell us if there are enough people out there interested in reading this books. Are there readers in the target audience? And will the books be any good?
And we wonder why the oil execs weren't sworn in last week. The most dastardly things go on right under our noses. Sure, I think it is often necessary to consult with industry when forming policy, but to shut us out, keep the list secret when we already have reason to distrust you on the issue is not wise.
I have to agree completely. Alito is clearly giving his legal opinion here. He is not representing anyone but himself and how he is likely to rule. So, among his other lies about recusing himself, now he is lying to senators about his view on Roe. No wonder the far right is so pleased with this nomination.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
“Different problems call for different solutions,” he says. “And the same problem can be solved in different ways.”
Ferber will explain in a revised edition of his book that if you rock your baby to sleep, you don't have to stop cold turkey, that it isn't even appropriate to do so if your child has night terrors.
In other words, Ferber will echo the many pediatricians who tell parents there is no magic solution to getting a child to sleep.
“You have to feel that what you're doing works best for you,” says Dr. Herb Lazarus."
Oh, gee, thanks. I always thought he was a mean bastard. I've cursed his name many times as we tried to get our dear daughter to sleep before finally giving up on the freakin' Ferber method. And now he says we're on our own? Thanks.
Oh, but wait. Isn't this just about the same thing the Democrats have been demanding? And what does the President think about this? Wasn't he just trying to tell us that critiquing him was "sending the wrong message to the troops?" Not that asking for more from the President is the wrong thing to do, but I like how setting a vague timeline is okay when it's the Republicans that demand it.
"The bad faith of Bush's current argument is staggering. He wants to say that the 'more than a hundred Democrats in the House and Senate' who 'voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power' thereby gave up their right to question his use of intelligence forever after. But he does not want to acknowledge that he forced the war vote to take place under circumstances that guaranteed the minimum amount of reflection and debate, and that opened anyone who dared question his policies to charges, right before an election, that they were soft on Hussein.
By linking the war on terrorism to a partisan war against Democrats, Bush undercut his capacity to lead the nation in this fight. And by resorting to partisan attacks again last week, Bush only reminded us of the shameful circumstances in which the whole thing started."
In this great column, E.J. Dionne explains how what Bush did then was wrong, and his attacks now may be even worse.
Monday, November 14, 2005
Setting the Record Straight: The Washington Post On Pre-War Intelligence
Setting the Record Straight: Sen. Levin On Iraq
I have to wonder if we've ever seen this sort of thing direct from the White House before. Have they overextended their role? I'm sorry, but I would like to see them doing other things--things more involved with running the country--than trying to defame those that speak against them. But that would be a different Administration than the one we have now.
In case, like me, you weren't reading much on this over the weekend, Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus explain that we're being misled again. The two arguements being put forth from the White House, that the investigation has cleared them and that the Senate saw the same intelligence, are not "wholly accurate." I suppose it depends on your definition of "same."
At least two Internet-borne worms were discovered attempting to take advantage of the program, which the CD's transferred to computers that played them. And the company was facing lawsuits accusing it of fraud and computer tampering in its efforts at digital rights management, or D.R.M. "
There are so many things wrong with what Sony has done here. The Majors have created an adversarial marketplace, simply because they could not keep up with technological advances and the changing market. Some time soon, I'll have more to say on Intellectual Property, but for now I'll say that I'm not "buying" a Sony CD any time soon.
One was that the Senate intel report exonerated the administration of any effort
to mislead the American people over Iraq. Wrong. They specifically did not look
at that question.
He also said the Silbermann/Robb Commission concluded
the same thing. Wrong. They too were specifically not authorized to examine that
He said the British Butler Report said the same thing. First
of all, who cares what a Report written to cover Tony Blair said? Second of all,
it said no such thing.
He said the Duelfer Report said Saddam "was
trying to reconstitute his weapons programs." That is at best a highly, highly
misleading description of the report.
He said that Saddam "had supported
terrrorists, had terrorists operating out of his country." There are so many
different lies and canards potentially underlying this claim it's hard to know
where to start. But again, wrong. None of the purported evidence for this claim
has ever stood up.
And think this only captures a few of them. TPM has links to the detail behind each of these at the above link.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
This book came to me on a very strong recommendation from someone whose opinion I trust. Needless to say, I expected quite a bit from this book. Irving’s talent cannot be debated. His skill is apparent on every page, if not in every paragraph and every sentence. The novel suffers, in my mind, from a couple of flaws that prevent it from being a great novel. The first offense is personal. Irving seems to have great fun within the book. It is not that I am opposed to fun, but some of the novelty of characters and events does not charm me as it might others. The second issue I take with the book may come from the fact that might focus lately has been on the short story. Garp seems to wander extremely. If we were to pull out the skeleton of the novel, lay the whole think out in outline form, I think we’d find that it is a very uneven novel. From the time we spend before Garp’s birth, then his youth, to then the jump to his family and subsequent tragedy, another jump and new characters, and then more tragedy and death. The structure here does not pull us along with anything more than one central, albeit vibrant, character. I do not wish to limit the range of the novel, but to simply rein things in some might have helped this reader draw more from it.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Who do we think is rewriting history?
So, this is where we are, huh? Attacking the opposition directly from the White House website. Maybe this would be better done through surrogates? A straight-line attack on the White House news page: tacky.
No one yet as proven that the White House has not misused intelligence, as much as the Republican Talking Points try to tell us that's the case.
I don't know how many times I have to say this, but criticsm of the President, of the war, or the way in which we went to war, does not denigrate the troops. We cannot be held silent simply because we have entered into a never-ending war. Bush would have us blindly support him when he so soundly deserves criticism. In fact, he is being criticized because he may have abused his powers and put the troops in harm's way unneccessaily.
The resolution of which he speaks we were told was meant to be a bold threat, not a sign off on Bush's actions. This resolution essentially violates the constitution because it takes away the role of Congress to declare war and allows the President to enter into and conduct war any way he chooses. There's no doubt that those he criticize him now for going to war should seriously regret voting for the resolution, but it does not deny them the right to question the conduct of the war and the way intelligence was used to build the case for war.
As many times as we may hear that "everyone" though Hussein had WMD, there was one President who chose to put troops on the ground there to risk their lives for his cause. We must question and criticize because now over 2000 of those troops have now died. Who, really, is looking out for them?
Thursday, November 10, 2005
They hope to arm GOP officials with more quotes by Democrats making the same pre-war claims as Republicans did about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
So, here they go. But let us remember that the Senate Intelligence Committee does not see the same intelligence that the White House sees. In fact, the information given to the committee is filtered; they do not see information that may oppose the intelligence. Sure, all sorts of Democrats talked about Hussein's threat and wrongly supported the war. Even the previous administration talked of the threat, right? Yes. But did they launch a full-scale war and occupation of Iraq? No.
It was the White House that pushed for war from day one, and filtered the intelligence to gain support for it. It remains Bush's war.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
So, Republicans looking to somehow dull the effect of a leak investigation at the White House have succeeded in giving more importance to the criminality of leaking classified information and have now implicated themselves. Nice.
"The elections capped a season of political turmoil for the Republican governing
majority, which has been buffeted by Hurricane Katrina, the war in Iraq, soaring
energy prices, scandal on Capitol Hill and, most recently, the indictment of I.
Lewis Libby Jr., who was chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney."
I think it's important to note, as well, which candidates shied away from attention from the President. Bloomberg was only reelected by such a strong margin because he tried not to show himself as a Republican. Very telling.
The winds of change, I'd say.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Mr. Bush cannot fire Mr. Cheney, but he could do what other presidents have doneThree years to go and I think plenty of time to turn things around, but I don't think Bush is the guy to do it. He is too stubborn to change course. The only thing that would help is a victory in some other arena that would manage to distract us from all of his other failures.
to vice presidents: keep him too busy attending funerals and acting as the
chairman of studies to do more harm. Mr. Bush would still have to turn his
administration around, but it would at least send a signal to the nation and the
world that he was in charge, and the next three years might not be as dreadful
as they threaten to be right now.
Monday, November 07, 2005
Seems to me that maintaining this until next November could be very difficult. Though I don't expect we'll see much change in Iraq in the meantime. But a question for people who watch things much closer than I do: How many potentially vulnerable seats do the Republicans hold? I don't know if the numbers truly support the sort of revolution we would expect.
“These are young people who are generally resigned, they face discrimination everywhere, for housing and work, and their malaise gets expressed in violence,” said Ahmed Touabi, principal of an elementary school in the Paris suburb of Argenteuil. The troublemakers “feel rejected by France, and they want to spit on France.”"
This has become such a major crisis that I finally had to get around to commenting on it. There a couple of things that we need to understand. Civil unrest is the norm in France. Minor riots, strikes, pelting the police with rocks are regular activities. Disaffected youth, without a doubt--especially minority youth. These are the suburbs of Paris where people on government assistance are shoved in to high rises that are full of the same sorts of problems with see in the US.
What makes this worth noting is the escalating nature of the riots. Much as these youths are bored, they should also get bored with rioting. But what we're seeing is something more coordinated and organized. It should be particularly disturbing. Now you can put the problem off on standard French appeasement, or the socialist state, but I think this is too simple. The trouble there is a result of unemployment, lack of government assistance, and racism.
What also makes this thing troubling to me is the glee with which the Right Wing in this country talks about it. Rush Limbaugh had a particularly disturbing commentary on Friday, liking the riots to the Iraq insurgency. He was, of course, trying to show the left as sympathizers to the terrorists. The situation is no way comparable. What we have in France is civil unrest; what we have in Iraq is terrorism in the face of an occupying force. Neither should make anyone happy.
In a memo sent to all White House aides, the counsel's office said it will hold briefings next week on ethics, with a particular focus on the rules governing the handling of classified information. Attendance is mandatory for anyone holding any level of security clearance. "There will be no exceptions," the memo said.
I'm sure this will get us far. And who will attend? No exceptions? Does that mean cabinet members, senior staff, senior officials? Rove? Cheney?
So, the original torture memo and the leak both came from the Vice President's office, and now there's this. Those caricatures of Cheney are starting to make sense now.
Friday, November 04, 2005
So, he admits that it's a serious investigation and that Rove is not in the clear yet, but can he make any move to show the American people that he believes in being forthright, that he believes in national security or the law for that matter? He could always relieve Rove of his duties and remove his security clearance until the investigation is complete. That might at least make it look like he cares about what the American people think. Someone want to remind him of the recent poll numbers?
Without taking a stand on what the truth might be, the article points out:
"La Repubblica said General Pollari had held a meeting on Sept. 9, 2002, with Stephen J. Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser. Mr. Hadley, now the national security adviser, has said that he met General Pollari on that date, but that they did not discuss the Niger-Iraq issue."
Of course no documents, forged or otherwise, were traded, I'm sure.
Initially, I don't see a problem here. If this is material that is already in the public domain that they are certainly in their power to do it. Much of it is already on the internet anyway. I understand that publishers that republish these old titles are afraid that it will steal some revenue, but that's the way it works. I'll keep my Henry James titles on the shelf.
The link if you're interested: http://www.print.google.com.
39% approval. 58% question his integrity. More proof that the Republican loud mouths don't know what they're talking about.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
William F. Buckley on Patrick Fitzgerald's Investigation on National Review Online: "The importance of the law against revealing the true professional identity of an agent is advertised by the draconian punishment, under the federal code, for violating it. In the swirl of the Libby affair, one loses sight of the real offense, and it becomes almost inapprehensible what it is that Cheney/Libby/Rove got themselves into. But the sacredness of the law against betraying a clandestine soldier of the republic cannot be slighted."
Both Buckley and Fitzgerald, in his press conference last week, make it clear that the question of how covert Plame was is not an issue--identifying her in public as a CIA agent is a crime because that information is classified. And that this information would come from the White House should be particularly disturbing for all of us.
"What's behind the slide? Two thousand war dead in Iraq, an indictment in the CIA leak, the aborted nomination of Harriet Miers, and the disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina."
This means one of two things: either McClellan is lying or he was lied to. If he was lied to, then it further goes to show that Libby was aware that the leak was wrong and that he was trying to hide his guilt. If McClellan was lying, then he needs to go immediately.
We cannot have a Press Secretary lying outright to the American public. I understand that he may not give full information, and will often seek to dodge the tough questions, but a lie is a lie. So either he was forced to lie by being given false information, or he lied on his own. Either way, he can't be trusted and he must go.
--The administration's strongly worded pre-war statements on the Iraqi threat and whether they match up with the actual intelligence.
--The role of the pro-war Iraq National Congress, an exile group run by Ahmad Chalabi, in feeding information from defectors to the Pentagon and to Cheney's office.
-- The intelligence activities of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, which fed policy-makers uncorroborated prewar intelligence on Saddam Hussein's Iraq, particularly involving purported ties with the al-Qaida terror network.
--The pre-war intelligence assessment and its failure to predict the post-war insurgency."
It may have been easy for Intelligence Committee members to agree with Bush's assessment of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein if that intelligence was made up of lies and fabrications. Sure other admistrations and other governments saw Iraq as a threat, but only one chose to go to war.
But some top Republicans said yesterday that Rove's problems may not end there. Bush's top advisers are considering whether it is tenable for Rove to remain on the staff, given that Fitzgerald has already documented something that Rove and White House official spokesmen once emphatically denied -- that he played a central role in discussions with journalists about Plame's role at the CIA and her marriage to former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a critic of the Iraq war."
Sure we would love to see him go, love to see some accountability, but do we really think this is going to happen? They didn't even fire Libby as they should have, only letting him resign. Even we can't prove the underlying crime, heads should still roll for lying to the American public.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Mad About You: "Without counting to 10, as anger-management experts recommend when you are very, very mad, Frist exploded.
'About 10 minutes ago or so, the United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership!' he announced. Never, he said, have 'I been slapped in the face with such an affront to the leadership of this grand institution.' Epithets flew from his mouth: 'They have no conviction. They have no principles. They have no ideas. This is a pure stunt.'
Frist was now sputtering. 'This is an affront to me personally. It's an affront to our leadership. It's an affront to the United States of America!' Turning sorrowful, he vowed that 'for the next year and a half, I can't trust Senator Reid.'
'Mr. Leader,' one stunned journalist observed, 'I don't remember you being so exercised over something before.'
'You've never seen me in heart surgery,' the senator, a transplant specialist, replied."
When you get used to having your way, you get a little testy when the opposition weilds some power. Sounds like Senate Democrats are going to take it to the leader and all of the majority looking for some accountability. 'Bout time.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
That Lott--always tactful.
Bold move by Senate Dems. Maybe it will get some attention. Maybe not.