Month: November 2005







  •  







    Today's Papers


    today's papers
    Woodward Exits From Woodwork
    By Eric Umansky
    Posted Wednesday, Nov. 16, 2005, at 4:24 AM ET


    In a near banner headline, the Washington Post leads with the Senate overwhelmingly passing a Republican-sponsored bill requiring the White House to give quarterly updates on Iraq. The bill also declares the hope that 2006 will be "a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty." A Democratic version of the bill, which included demands for "estimated dates" of departure, was defeated but did get 40 votes. The New York Times leads with GIs in Iraq discovering what the Times calls a "secret torture chamber" inside an Iraqi Interior Ministry building in Baghdad. About 170 malnourished prisoners were found, two of whom were paralyzed and others who had their skin peeled off. The discovery was first noted inside yesterday's Los Angeles Times, in a piece TP missed. The LAT leads with a few small barriers in the search for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. For one thing, he appears to have a better intel network than the U.S. or Iraq. "They are watching every time we recruit an Iraqi to come back and inform to us about where he has been and what he has seen," said one U.S. counterintel official. "And every time we have been able to do that, the person has ended up dead." USA Today leads with Major League Baseball and the players union agreeing on a tougher steroids policy, including a three-strikes rule. The agreement came after the Senate threatened to impose its own penalties.


    As an analysis in the WP emphasizes, Republican leadership could have simply defeated the Democratic bill on Iraq and "left it at that." The fact that they didn't means nothing good for the White House.


    Tossed into the larger coverage of the Iraq Senate bill are details about the Senate's passage of a "compromise" amendment on the treatment of Gitmo detainees. It essentially blesses the Gitmo tribunals, which have been heavily criticized by lawyer-types, and gives the detainees some access to U.S. courts. Detainees will be allowed to challenge their designations as enemy combatants. But TP doesn't see anybody ask an obvious question: What recourse, if any, would a detainee have if he's being held but hasn't yet been declared an enemy combatant?


    One of those who objected to the detainee bill: Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, who declared it "untenable and unthinkable," because, he argued, it would eliminate Supreme Court jurisdiction over detainees' legal cases.


    In any case, all these Iraq and detainee measures are amendments to the overall defense budget bill, as is the McCain amendment on the treatment of detainees. And now they'll face negotiators from the House.


    As the LAT emphasizes, Iraq's prime minister said there will be an investigation pronto into the Interior Ministry dungeon. But the head of the Interior Ministry, who is the former head of a Shiite militia, said the "allegations" were just Sunni propaganda.


    Most of those found were Sunni, while the forces at the building were apparently affiliated with a Shiite militia. As the LAT noted, a U.S. general promised to "hit every single" ministry building, looking for abused prisoners.


    There are "allegedly" bad headlines in the torture stories. For example, the Post: "TORTURE ALLEGED AFTER U.S.-LED RAID UNCOVERS IRAQI-RUN PRISON." As NYT notes, "An Interior Ministry statement said flatly that torture had occurred." So, what's it take to move something from an allegation to an apparent fact?


    One final point on the torture coverage: The papers mention that there have long been "rumors" about torture by the new Iraqi government. What there has also been is scant coverage of the torture that's been documented. Human Rights Watch released a report early this year titled "Torture and Ill-treatment of Detainees in Iraqi Custody." Judging from a quickie Nexis search, of the majors only the WP gave it more than wire copy. And then there was the time six months before that when GIs witnessed and photographed Iraqi police torturing prisoners. The Oregonian reported the story, and the national papers let it fly by. The guy the Oregonian suggested was behind the abuse: the then-head of the Interior Ministry.


    Though nobody seems to headline it, the military announced that six troops have been killed in Iraq in the last two days: Three Marines were killed in the offensive near the Syrian border, and three GIs were killed by a roadside bomb near Baghdad. The Post also mentions that 46 men were found bound and executed; a police official said all were Sunni.


    In today's most bizarre story, the WP says below-the-fold that nominal WP reporter Bob Woodward testified earlier this week that a "senior administration official"—not Karl or Scooter—told him about Valerie Plame a month before she was outed. Though Woodward said he was told "casually" and didn't know Plame was undercover, it now appears that, contrary to what the special prosecutor said in his press conference, Woodward was the first reporter to be told about Plame's identity.


    Woodward apparently didn't tell his bosses about the chat until recently. And he only testified after his source, who the WP won't name, talked to the special prosecutor. The fact that Woodward was involved and first obviously means ... who knows? In any case, Woodward was a bit of a talking head during the height of the leak-investigation speculation and didn't happen to mention his role.


    The WP goes Page One with documents showing that oil companies did indeed meet with Vice President Cheney's energy task force back in 2001. The White House has always refused to talk about any such meetings, and some oil execs said last week in congressional hearings that they sure didn't recall any such confabs.


    A front-page USAT piece previews a government report reminder that "nearly all" cargo on airlines goes unchecked for little things like, say, explosives.


    Bob-ing and Weaving ... The Post publishes a letter from Woodward about his role in the Plame saga. The WP's story adds this:



    Woodward declined to elaborate on the statement he released to The Post late yesterday afternoon and publicly last night. He would not answer any questions, including those not governed by his confidentiality agreement with sources.

    Eric Umansky (www.ericumansky.com) writes "Today's Papers" for Slate. He can be reached at todayspapers@slate.com.



     







    Today's Blogs


    today's blogs
    Woodward and the President's Men
    By Michael Weiss
    Posted Wednesday, Nov. 16, 2005, at 7:12 PM ET


    Bloggers are abuzz over Bob Woodward's late-breaking Plame scandal disclosures. They also generally applaud the United Nations' hands-off policy on regulating the Internet, but are of mixed feelings about President Bush's China trip.


    Woodward and the president's men: Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward has divulged that he was tipped off about Valerie Plame's identity by an anonymous White House official before Scooter Libby is said to have disclosed it to reporters. In a public statement released last night (read it in full here), Woodward said he knew Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA agent as early as mid-June 2003. Woodward, who was called to testify before investigator Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury, also said he relayed this skinny to WaPo journo Walter Pincus in October 2003. Pincus' much-bruited response: "Are you kidding? I certainly would have remembered that."


    Bloggers on either end of the spectrum are in a state of high pique. Conservative Tom Maguire at Just One Minute wonders: "With Bob Woodward as a potential witness, the defense can have fun with an updated version of the old Watergate question – 'What else did Fitzgerald not know, and when did he not know it?'" Lefty Political Animal and Washington Monthly regular Kevin Drum is flummoxed as to who this mysterious 11th-hour source might be: "Perhaps Mr. X is a cooperating witness, or perhaps he's someone who started to feel some heat and decided to come forward because he got scared. Who knows?" Resident D.C. snarktrix Wonkette suggests we follow the screen time: "We have another theory: Bob Woodward had not been on television in the last week or so." Brit Avedon Carol at The Sideshow shrugs aggressively, "So Bob Woodward turns out to be part of the story. … And he's part of Washington Post editorial management, which tells you something about why the paper has been such a disaster in reporting on this administration."


    As to the claims Woodward previously made on Larry King Live that the outing of Plame caused only "embarrassment" and "quite minimal damage" within the CIA, vehement Bush critic Atrios says, "If I were Booby's editors, and perhaps a wee bit peeved at not being previously informed of what he was up to, and perhaps a wee bit more likely that Pincus, the not celebrity journalist, is telling the truth than Booby is I'd start looking into where Booby got his information. …" But to what does all this translate in the perjury and false testimony indictment of Scooter Libby? A small shadow of doubt, according to Bulldogpundit at conservative AnkleBitingPundits: "Anytime a defense attorney can point to errors and omissions by a prosecutor, even if not directly related to the issue at hand, it calls into question the prosecutions credibility on every aspect of the case."


    ICANN and I will: Today's decision by the United Nations to allow the United States to retain (for now) its control of Internet domain names and IP addresses is good news for bloggers. The United Nations, which is hosting a World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis this week, has agreed to allow the California-based ICANN to continue to manage the technical aspects of assigning global Web portals and also to adjudicate on matters of intellectual copyright infringement. Both the United Nations and the European Union had expressed fears about total U.S. jurisdiction over the laws that govern cyberspace.


    Libertarian Julian Sanchez at libertarian Reason magazine's Hit and Run writes, "Opponents of international (and, more to the point, intergovernmental) Net oversight made much of the fact that the U.S. doesn't generally exercise that authority. Great. So cut the umbilical cord once and for all." Tech-market scribe Suitably Flip is also against the prospect of Net internationalization: "Set aside that it was predominantly American capital, information systems, and intellectual resources that gave rise to the internet (which of course is how U.S.-based organizations grew organically into the role of de facto overseers). From a strictly utilitarian, what's-best-for-the-future-of-the-internet perspective, it's senseless that there's such hue and cry to upturn a status quo that in fact serves phenomenally well." Ray Gifford at the Progress & Freedom Foundation blog agrees: "ICANN is far from a perfect creature, but handing the Internet over to a multi-lateral, international body is a sure way to dampen innovation, kill openness and slow progress. Then again, that is often what the EU seems to be about. ..."


    Shay at the classical liberal Dean's World is also happy. He's delimited the opposition thusly: "This was an attempt by socialists to tax us to death and limit our speech. And it was no surprise that dictator nations were the ones most supportive of the European Union's proposal." Even Canadian Jay Currie is equable about the short-term U.S. gain. "The silly threat of the Chinese and the more aggressive euros was that they would set up their own root servers and have their own internet … which no one would use because it would lack several billion of the 8 billion pages of content Google indexes and, potentially, lack Google itself," he writes. New Media maven Eripsa is slightly more cautious, suggesting that the simmering anti-Americanism behind U.N./EU attempts to change the status quo be confronted with non-American camouflage: "What we need to see now is the US backing off of any appearance of control over ICANN, and ICANN itself taking measures to distance itself from US policy."


    Mainlining democracy on the mainland: Bloggers are weighing in on President Bush's speech in China today, wherein he indicated Taiwan as a model for the democratic and human rights reforms needed in Beijing. The Shanghai-born Harry Chen thinks Bush's tough talk is cheap: "I wonder if he knows the true implication of asking the Chinese to suddenly switch to a democratic system. In a democratic system, people are expected to make decisions for the society. There are so many people in China didn't have good education, and probably won't be able to make sound decisions on their own." The pro-reform Doug at Rear View Mirror notes, "If Bush believes China does not meet certain international standards on how it treats its citizens then he should not have gone on the trip. He should have China's favorite nation trading status revoked by Congress and take other measures, such as stopping the import of Chinese goods until that country decides to adhere to copy write regulations." RightWingBob, however, sees a more positive tilt in the U.S. approach: "It's almost as if George W. Bush has decided to take Victor Davis Hanson's advice from a few weeks ago, now that he's taking on his domestic war critics and speaking aggressively about freedom - in this case to China, North Korea and Myanmar/Burma. Keep it up, Dubya."

    Michael Weiss, a writer in New York, is co-founder and managing editor of Snarksmith.com.

    Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2130567/ .. language=JavaScript1.1 type=text/JavaScript>var SA_ID="wpost;slate"; .. language=JavaScript1.1 src="http://stats.surfaid.ihost.com/sacdcg3p_wpost_slate.js" type=text/JavaScript> .. language=javascript> if (window.print) { window.print() } else alert('To print his page press Ctrl-P on your keyboard ..nor choose print from your browser or device after clicking OK');

  • Thomas Gray




    Thomas Gray’s output of poetry is small, but constitutes one of the most significant collections in English literary history. Varied in form and subject-matter, Gray’s work is always distinguished, and such poems as the Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard rank among the greatest in all English literature. He repeatedly takes forms and attitudes that have lent themselves to thoughtless repetition and transforms them into profound and moving poems.

    Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard.

    The curfew tolls the knell of parting day,
    The lowing herd wind slowly o'er the lea,
    The ploughman homeward plods his weary way,
    And leaves the world to darkness and to me.

    Now fades the glimmering landscape on the sight,
    And all the air a solemn stillness holds,
    Save where the beetle wheels his droning flight,
    And drowsy tinklings lull the distant folds;

    Save that from yonder ivy-mantled tower
    The moping owl does to the moon complain
    Of such as, wandering near her secret bower,
    Molest her ancient solitary reign.

    Beneath those rugged elms, that yew-tree's shade,
    Where heaves the turf in many a mould'ring heap,
    Each in his narrow cell for ever laid,
    The rude forefathers of the hamlet sleep.

    The breezy call of incense-breathing morn,
    The swallow twittering from the straw-built shed,
    The cock's shrill clarion, or the echoing horn,
    No more shall rouse them from their lowly bed.

    For them no more the blazing hearth shall burn,
    Or busy housewife ply her evening-care;
    No children run to lisp their sire's return,
    Or climb his knees the envied kiss to share.

    Oft did the harvest to their sickle yield,
    Their furrow oft the stubborn glebe has broke:
    How jocund did they drive their team afield!
    How bowed the woods beneath their sturdy stroke!


    Let not Ambition mock their useful toil,
    Their homely joys and destiny obscure;
    Nor Grandeur hear with a disdainful mile
    The short and simple annals of the poor.

    The boast of heraldry, the pomp of pow'r,
    And all that beauty, all that wealth e'er gave,
    Awaits alike th' inevitable hour.
    The paths of glory lead but to the grave.

    Nor you, ye proud, impute to these the fault,
    If Memory o'er their tomb no trophies raise,
    Where through the long-drawn aisle, and fretted vault,
    The pealing anthem swells the note of raise.

    Can storied urn, or animated bust,
    Back to its mansion call the fleeting breath?
    Can Honour's voice provoke the silent dust,
    Or Flattery soothe the dull cold ear of Death?

    Perhaps in this neglected spot is laid
    Some heart once pregnant with celestial fire;
    Hands, that the rod of empire might have swayed,
    Or waked to ecstasy the living lyre;

    But Knowledge to their eyes her ample page,
    Rich with the spoils of Time, did ne'er unroll;
    Chill Penury repressed their noble rage,
    And froze the genial current of the soul.

    Full many a gem of purest ray serene
    The dark unfathomed caves of ocean bear;
    Full many a flower is born to blush unseen,
    And waste its sweetness on the desert air.

    Some village-Hampden that with dauntless breast
    The little tyrant of his fields withstood,
    Some mute inglorious Milton here may rest,
    Some Cromwell, guiltless of his country's blood.

    Th’ applause of list'ning senates to command,
    The threats of pain and ruin to despise,
    To scatter plenty o'er a smiling land,
    And read their history in a nation's eyes,

    Their lot forbad: nor circumscribed alone
    Their growing virtues, but their crimes confined;
    Forbad to wade through slaughter to a throne,
    And shut the Gates of Mercy on mankind,

    The struggling pangs of conscious truth to hide,
    To quench the blushes of ingenuous shame,
    Or heap the shrine of Luxury and Pride
    With incense kindled at the Muse's flame.

    Far from the madding crowd's ignoble strife
    Their sober wishes never learned to stray;
    Along the cool sequestered vale of life
    They kept the noiseless tenor of their way.

    Yet ev'n these bones from insult to protect
    Some frail memorial still erected nigh,
    With uncouth rhymes and shapeless sculpture decked,
    Implores the passing tribute of a sigh.

    Their name, their years, spelt by th' unlettered Muse,
    The place of fame and elegy supply:
    And many a holy text around she strews,
    That teach the rustic moralist to die.

    For who, to dumb Forgetfulness a prey,
    This pleasing anxious being e'er resigned,
    Left the warm precincts of the cheerful day,
    Nor cast one longing ling'ring look behind?


    On some fond breast the parting soul relies,
    Some pious drops the closing eye requires;
    Ev'n from the tomb the voice of Nature cries,
    Ev'n in our ashes live their wonted fires.

    For thee, who, mindful of th’ unhonoured dead,
    Dost in these lines their artless tale relate;
    If chance, by lonely Contemplation led,
    Some kindred spirit shall enquire thy fate, -

    Haply some hoary-headed swain may say
    "Oft have we seen him at the peep of dawn
    Brushing with hasty steps the dews away
    To meet the sun upon the upland lawn;

    "There at the foot of yonder nodding beech,
    That wreathes its old fantastic roots so high,
    His listless length at noon-tide would he stretch,
    And pore upon the brook that babbles by.

    "Hard by yon wood, now smiling as in scorn,
    Mutt'ring his wayward fancies would he rove;
    Now drooping, woeful-wan, like one forlorn,
    Or crazed with care, or crossed in hopeless love.

    "One morn I missed him from the customed hill,
    Along the heath, and near his fav'rite tree;
    Another came; nor yet beside the rill,
    Nor up the lawn, nor at the wood was he:

    "The next, with dirges due in sad array
    Slow through the church-way path we saw him borne, -
    Approach and read, for thou can'st read, the lay
    Graved on the stone beneath yon aged thorn."

    THE EPITAPH

    Here rests his head upon the lap of earth
    A Youth, to Fortune and to Fame unknown:
    Fair Science frowned not on his humble birth,
    And Melancholy marked him for her own.

    Large was his bounty, and his soul sincere,
    Heaven did a recompense as largely send:
    He gave to Misery (all he had) a tear,
    He gained from Heaven ('twas all he wished) a friend.

    No farther seek his merits to disclose,
    Or draw his frailties from their dread abode,
    (There they alike in trembling hope repose,)
    The bosom of his Father and is God.






  • Bush Approval Rating at All Time Low




    The public's view of President Bush's trustworthiness has slipped







    Poll: Bush approval mark at all-time low





    (CNN) -- Beset with an unpopular war and an American public increasingly less trusting, President Bush faces the lowest approval rating of his presidency, according to a national poll released Monday.


    Bush also received his all-time worst marks in three other categories in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. The categories were terrorism, Bush's trustworthiness and whether the Iraq war was worthwhile.


    Bush's 37 percent overall approval rating was two percentage points below his ranking in an October survey. Both polls had a sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. (Watch: The last Bush Democrat? -- 2:02)


    Sixty percent of the 1,006 adult Americans interviewed by telephone Friday through Sunday said they disapprove of how Bush is handling his job as president.


    The White House has said it doesn't pay attention to poll numbers and the figures do not affect policy.


    "We have a proud record of accomplishment and a positive agenda for the future," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters Wednesday.


    "We look forward to continuing to talk about it. I mean, you can get caught up in polls; we don't. Polls are snapshots in time."


    Bush, who received high marks after the terrorist attacks of 2001, also rated poorly in the new poll for his policy on terrorism. For the first time, less than half -- 48 percent -- of those surveyed said they approved of how the president was handling the war on terror. Forty-nine percent said they disapprove.


    In November 2001, Bush had an 87 percent overall approval mark and an 86 percent rating on terrorism.


    Bush has been under fire from Democratic lawmakers for the way his administration made the case to invade Iraq in 2003 and how it has handled the conflict since then.


    The president fired back in a speech Monday, accusing Democrats of "playing politics." (Full story)


    In the new poll, 60 percent said it was not worth going to war in Iraq, while 38 percent said it was worthwhile. The question was asked of about half of those surveyed and had a margin of error of five percentage points. The results marked a decline in support of seven percentage points from two months earlier.


    Bush's lowest approval ratings came on two issues that divide his own Republican Party.


    On federal spending, 71 percent disapproved of his performance and 26 percent approved. The approval rating was the same on immigration issues, and the disapproval mark was 65 percent.


    Sixty-one percent of respondents disapproved of Bush's handling of the economy, and 37 percent approved.


    The country appears to be split on whether Bush is a strong president and whether or not Americans personally like him.


    When asked about his abilities, 49 percent of those surveyed said he was a strong president and 49 percent said he was a weak leader.


    About 50 percent of people polled said they disliked Bush, with 6 percent claiming to hate the president.


    Bush's overall approval mark matched the 37 percent rating of newly elected President Clinton in June 1993. (Interactive: Second-term slump)


    When asked if they trust Bush more than they had Clinton, 48 percent of respondents said they trusted Bush less, while 36 percent said they trusted him more and 15 percent said they trusted Bush the same as Clinton.


    For the first time, more than half of the public thinks Bush is not honest and trustworthy -- 52 percent to 46 percent.


    A week ago, President Bush campaigned for Virginia gubernatorial candidate Jerry Kilgore, who lost the election a day later to Democratic Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine. (Full story)


    In the poll, 56 percent of registered voters said they would be likely to vote against a local candidate supported by Bush, while 34 percent said the opposite.


    Only 9 percent said their first choice in next year's elections would be a Republican who supports Bush on almost every major issue.


    Forty-six percent said the country would be better off if Congress were controlled by Democrats, while 34 percent backed a GOP majority.


    A large majority of Republicans -- 80 percent -- approve of Bush's performance, compared with 28 percent of independents and 7 percent of Democrats. Those results had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.


    Vice President Dick Cheney's approval rating has dropped 14 points since the start of the year, down from 54 percent in January to 40 percent.


    His chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, resigned last month after he was indicted on charges including obstruction of justice and perjury. Libby is accused of lying to investigators and a grand jury investigating the disclosure of the identity of a CIA officer whose husband criticized the White House case for war. (Full story)












     
     







     
    Find this article at:
    http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/14/bush.poll