Interesting

Dan Rather's lawsuit might provide him with something even more satisfying than personal vindication:

One of the more interesting possibilities is that Bush himself could be drawn into the legal battle. Paddy at Cliff Schechter's blog reports that Rather is considering calling Bush himself as a witness at the trial. No doubt Bush would fight this tooth and nail -- but as it so happens, there's a recent Supreme Court precedent called Clinton v. Jones which stipulates that a sitting president can be called before a court in a civil case ... No small irony there, is there?

I think that would offer some vindication, or something, for many of us, including the president's predecessor.

And, just for the record, I've always believed the fake document CBS got caught using was a forged composite of existing documents, and the source of the fake tipped off those bloggers who exposed the fake using arcane typesetting minutiae. I've seen some good guesses to where the fake originated.

The Grand Illusion

I was watching a video clip this morning on CNN of the president's meeting with Hamid Karzai at the Waldorf-Astoria, and I struggled to hear what the Afghan president was saying over the incessant snapping of photographers' shutters. (Having read some excerpts, I didn't miss much.) Then I noticed, as Karzai droned on about Afghan progress in meeting American benchmarks, President Bush fidgeting in his chair, grinning and mugging for the photographers and occasionally smirking at his counterpart when he remembered he was supposed to be listening to him.

Now, these staged events carry little real importance and are more symbolic than substantial -- in this case, a demonstration of Afghanistan's fealty to our power -- but I can't imagine any viewer who needs to be reminded of that relationship being all that impressed. In fact, quite the opposite.

'Vindication'

I just heard Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz on the news, offering his take on Dan Rather's $70 million suit against his former employer. "It's hard to understand why he's doing this," Kurtz said, "except maybe that he's seeking vindication."

Uh, wouldn't that be a reason to sue someone?

I'm Watching The Speech

The president says he's agreed to draw down the surge to troop numbers that once sustained the previous status quo, as if that's proof of a foreign military success. Ha! It's not even a domestic political success.

I heard some commentator on CNN say that Democrats dangled themselves in a precarious political position if they opposed the president's plan to maintain the status quo. What risk? I assure you, there is no chance that things will suddenly start getting better. And why should they? The point of this war was to start it, and then to stay. Any alleged policy changes are rhetorical window dressing with real-life consequences for other people. The president has made it clear he intends to keep our troops in Iraq not just through the end of his presidency -- which CNN's analysts somehow seemed genuinely surprised by -- but for decades. Of course we will; that's been the plan all along, and a stable Iraq is less desirable to the war's planners than a perpetual power vacuum:

Shia and Sunni leaders believe the Kurds are opting for a sort of oil secession that puts them outside the whole concept of a law to share the country's oil resources. And the Hunt deal is apparently the straw that broke the camel's back, shall we say [...]

H.L. Hunt, is also a pal of the president's. Indeed, President Bush has twice appointed Hunt to his Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. So while the president is striving to get the Iraqis to meet these benchmarks one of his own pals -- and more importantly, political appointees -- is busy helping to tear the whole thing apart.

It's become acceptable over the past few years to question our rationale for going to war in the first place and to criticize the way it's been waged. Our elected officials and the media who have access to them are just now beginning to join the rest of us in questioning our continued presence in Iraq, but they haven't yet started to question the rationale behind the president's desire to stay. Hint: It's not his "legacy" (and, my gosh, they talk about that possibility as if it's even a remotely acceptable proposition) and it's not democracy.

We were ushered into this conflict with lies and we're being asked to remain there based on another set of lies, but the real intent behind this war has always been the same: As long as we maintain a permanent military presence in the center of the Middle East, the war in Iraq will continue to be the success the administration believes it to be.

It's long past time to openly question why we stay, for the same reason it's acceptable to question why we're there at all. There's really no difference between the two.

Do you hear that?

It's that Bengal growling.

I think what I liked best about this game was how hard the Bengals defense hit. The turnovers were nice to see, but not entirely unexpected and possibly won't be replicated, but I loved seeing a bunch of tackles made – and with authority.

And He's Tall, Too!

Shorter Kathleen Parker: Fred Thompson really seems as genuine and down-to-earth as the characters he plays on TV, and he also displays a cheeky willingness to hold himself above conventional rules. In those ways, he differs greatly from the current president.

No Excuse

An Enquirer reader weighs in:

I found the comments by Whoopi Goldberg to be extremely ignorant and disturbing ("Goldberg defends Vick in 'View' debut," Sept. 5). There is no excuse for defending Michael Vick's actions by claiming his animal torture was not that unusual "from where he comes from" in the South. If I recall, slavery was not unusual in the South either.

J-- R------
Mason

As a voracious reader of the Internet's reactionary fringes, I'll admit to a tendency to focus on what's written between the lines. But I'll ask if you agree that this writer sounds as if he's holding the possible reintroduction of slavery over the heads of black people who step out of line? Like, as if the absence of institutional slavery has all along been a burdensome favor we've granted?

I honestly can't tell what some people mean anymore.

Update: Reading it again this morning, I don't see what I'd previously seen at all. In fact, nearly the opposite. My apologies to the author, whose name I've removed.

Ladies and Gentlemen...

...your president of these United States:

When President Bush made a surprise visit to Iraq last weekend, he made clear he was pleased with what he saw.

"The security situation is changing," Bush told reporters during the visit. "There's more work to be done. But reconciliation is taking place."

But according to the Sydney Morning Herald of Australia, the president gave a more-to-the-point assessment to Australia Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile.

"We're kicking ass," Bush said to Vaile Tuesday, according the Herald, after the deputy prime minister inquired about his trip to Iraq.

I mean ... my gosh ... even if we were.

Party On, Garth

Shorter Kathleen Parker: What if we started suggesting that Republicans were free-spirited party animals and Democrats were moral scolds? I mean, no one likes a square ... right?