I sense it as well.

From my post: (which beat yours by 3 minutes... you should have seen me running over to the computer like a madman) :-)

------------------
A lot of people are going to be saying “I told you so!” about this. It’s almost funny how easily Democrats fell into this trap. They started yelling about how the fact that she wouldn’t testify meant there was a big evil conspiracy, and the Bush administration let it get to a fever pitch before agreeing to let her testify. She’s going to come out squeaky clean and make them all look like flaming idiots.

I love it.
------------------

By the way, does Dean ever check his e-mail? The CSS for the comment preview and comment error templates is still broken.

Dean checks but he's really behind. He get like 500 emails/day that aren't spam...

Heh, I wouldn't even bother sending it to his (comments -AT- deanesmay.com) address. Or is it his personal account that's backed up like a fat man's arteries?

Both.

:)

He'll see it because I'll tell him to look.

Yay, the republic is sound and the system still works. Winners and losers will be announced in early November. All classified facts will be available in a decade or so. Dean gets to add another "shiny new nickle" to his collection. You da man, good call.

Of course, unless there is a major new revelation from Dr. Rice, or a grand jury is impaneled (snicker), this still was a Shakespearian comedy. "Much Ado About Nothing," or "Taming of the Shre." Take your pick.

er...
Shre=Shrew

RE-POST!!

Funny that no one has mentioned the obvious parallel..... Oliver North.

There was a big runup to his testimony, and everyone said (possibly correctly) that he was at the heart of Iran-Contra, and when it came time he'd be hung out to dry.

Then he shows up, square-jawed in that crisp Marine uniform, being attacked by a bunch of self-serving politicians.... the rest is history. Ollie came out ahead in that mess overall.

Now picture this poised, attractive, intellegent, passionate black women in single combat against a bunch of Democratic Senators out to crucify her.... Bring it on, baby!

And if Bush does "relent"... I agree. He set 'em up from the get-go, again.

Heh.

ADD-ON

Now someone pointed out that Anita Hill was a parallel, and it didn't help her. But I beg to differ, as the APPEARANCE of both North and now COndi was of honorable servants in delicate matters of National Security who were forced by circumstances to testify by politicians, while Anita Hill went in entirle on her own desire in an issue with nothing to do with NatSec. A semantic, maybe, but I think Americans do put NatSec people in an entirely different category.

Checkmate is right. It's a risk.... what if she's just not very good? A risk.... but the payoff could be huge, for her and the President.

Heh again.

Can't wait.

Hmmm. Well this is an interesting development. Far too early, though to talk about checkmates, or trapping Dems.

Many, many chicken are about to be calculated as part of the overall GDP, well before we find out if Condi lays an egg, all merely based on the level of clucking noises we hear from the hen-house.

Hey, the comment preview and error templates just magically got fixed! Imagine that!

...again proving that the best way to get in touch with Dean or the QOAE is to leave a comment.

Must ... put ... tarnished tin hat.... uhhgg... into closet. .. . Arrrgg. Dammit, can't resist.

As part of Counsel Gonzales' letter, Bush (finally) agrees that he and Cheney would be made available, one time only, to the full session, privately.

That glowing ember you thought you saw through the smoke screen is the bullet of POTUS and VPOTUS publically testifying. The smoke and bullet are from the same gun. Nicely dodged Wabbit.

But...correct me if I'm wrong, but Bush & Cheney still get to only 'meet' and 'discuss' --and not under oath, right? ('Under oath' being, of course, the operative phrase).

* Update from Dean *

"Wabbit Season!"

"Duck Season!"

"Wabbit Season!"

"Wabbit Season!"

http://www.comics.com/wash/genepool/archive/genepool-20040329.html

Hehe ;-)

I am reasonably sure President Bush and his national security advisor have some solid explanations up their sleeve. Otherwise, no such agreements to testify would ever be forthcoming.

It probably will not be something that would knock of Kerry totally. But I do notice that Bush has regained his strength in the national CNN/USA Today poll. Which means the bloom is off the lilly for John Kerry now that the Democrat party presidential primaries are more or less over and Kerry is the heir presumptive for the Democrat 2004 presidential nomination. There are still more than seven months to go before the November election day. But some clearer political pictures are starting to emerge.

Kerry and his supporters are not in position to define the issues to the extent that Bush can, because Bush has incumbency in the vast power of the US presidency.

In addition, Kerry repeatedly and routinely is being warned that unless he can change his totally liberal image, he will be defeated in the November 2004 general election. This he cannot do, because a senatorial candidate for the presidency, unlike a gubernatorial candidate, is totally defined by his voting record.

Bit by bit, the issues in this campaign will shift from George Bush's adequacy for the US presidency, to fears about John Kerry's Massachusetts liberalism. If Bush's campaign committee follow through on this track -- and there is no reason to imagine they will not follow through -- John Kerry will wind up in early November with exactly the same image that Bush Sr's campaign staff in 1988 successfully painted around then-Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis. And Dukakis, as a govrnor, had better means of evading the tar brush of a voting history than Kerry has after 20 years in the US Senate.

To no small extent, this campaign could well prove to be an inverse replay of the 1964 campaign that pitted US Senator Barry Goldwater against incumbent president Lyndon B Johnson. On that occasion, the Republicans mobilized their fundamentally right-wing base and it took over the campaign as well as much of the party machinery.

This year, the greater the degree to which the Democrats are able to mobilize their leftist base activists to run around the country beating their tom-toms in favor of Kerry, the more radical they will make Kerry look, and he will be as much a victim in November, in the ultimate contest, as Howard Dean was in January in the Iowa caucuses.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Arnold:

The daily tracking poll over at Rasmussen Reports has POTUS down again after a couple of "up" days. In that poll, Kerry is up 47%-45% -- a dead heat. Who'd have thunk it?

And POTUS' approval rating is teetering dangerously at 50%.

FYI.

As much as it's fun to believe in Rovian omnipotency, I would be very surprised if the top officials in the administration are "setting up" anyone with Condi testifying.

It is a matter of principle, and they believe firmly in protecting the independence of advisors to the President.

The only reason they caved, IMO, is to avoid the appearance of having something to hide in the 9/11 investigation.

Many liberals are already using the "brave" Clark to "prove" their contention that Bush Knew!

The whole thing makes me sick. Give me the microphone and the chance to testify and I'll spend an hour trying to shame the panel members and the press for their behavior.

Both sides. Remember that Republican members of the panel want Condi to testify to prove that Clarke is a liar.

It's just a bad precedent.

Like James, I don't think the administration is "setting up" Condi for anything, (except, perhaps, the chance for some more valuable, sworn testimony). This is a good thing, as Rumsfeld likes to say.

Has anyone noticed the pictures of Rice over the last few days? The major news outlets have shown pictures of her with a look that would kill. Now, today, she's beaming in that crisp little houndstooth suit. The difference in her (or her portrayal by the media) is quite striking.

Earlier in the week, I thought the media was going out of its way to make her look defensive and angry. Now, I'm not so sure. I think she's real happy about something and I can't wait to see what it is.

I advocate that we refuse to demonize either Condi or Clarke. I believe both, but that they had different viewpoints. The only way that the rest of the Bush Administration is superior to Clarke is that they support a grand strategy designed to drain the swamp by attacking root causes. Clarke does not appear to have a plan designed to reduce the number of people from whom the terrorists recruit, and regards the Bush plan as a wasteful distraction, which is often the way the guy wrestling the alligator feels. The Bush Administration sees grand strategy over decades. Clarke is inside the forest and sees only the really big fire in front of him. He's been so busy trying to get firefighters and helicopters to drop water that he doesn't see the fires all over the West and doesn't give any credit to the land management techniques designed to reduce the number of fires.

Too bad Clarke decided to play the blame game, rather than taking a more substantive position. Too bad the Bush team hasn't been able to praise Clarke's prior service while dismissing his claims as short sighted. But that would have been a real tightrope walk for both. I'm not sure you can walk a tightrope like that in this political climate.

Yours,
Wince

Just a Bugs Bunny purist's remark here. The rabbit-season-duck-season takes place between Daffy and Bugs. While Daffy does have a pretty spectacular speech impediment, it's not a W-R confusion, that Elmer J. Fudd. Daffy has a sibilant "s" problem (as in "yoouuu''rre dithhhpicable" with lots of spit).

So it's not "Wabbit Season", it's "Rabbit phhtheason."

Phhthu is abphtholutely correct!

Ara,

The campaigns in which an incumbent president was defeated for a second term big, from recent present to past, were George H W Bush, 1992; James Earl Carter, 1980; Gerald Ford, 1976; Herbert Hoover, 1932; William Howard Taft, 1912. That equals five overturned presidencies out of 18 presidential elections with incumbents since 1900.

Bush Sr lost largely because of Ross Perot's third party initiative. Carter lost because of the exceptionally severe combination of high unemployment with the highest levels of inflation in our history, plus a singularly inept reputation as a national leader. Ford was beaten to no small degree because of his pardon of Richard Nixon in the aftermath of the Watergate national crisis. Hoover fell victim to what Winston Churchill later labelled the "economic blizzard" that followed the Wall Street stock market crash of 1929. Taft was beaten by his own Republican predecessor, Theodore Roosevelt, starting a third party movement to deny him the presidency.

Kerry enjoys no known external advantage such as those outlined above, and numerous disadvantages based on his own record. The American economy is sound and more importantly, is seen as expanding again. Polls consisently show that a majority of the public supports Bush's Iraq pacification policy. Moreover, the use of centrally planned massive coast-to-coast 24/7 television advertising campaigns has been shown to boost the power of incumbency even more than it was in most of these earlier campaigns. So it is still Bush's campaign to lose, and Kerry's to win.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

"Phhthu is abphtholutely correct!"

Pththhank you, Mapthththtew.

Wince,
You offer some good balance, here. I personally don't demonize Rice or canonize Clarke. And it's funny, but I think too many people still aren't aware of Clarke's basic track record as a hawk, (which, of course for those who are aware, makes his criticisms of both Clinton and Bush that much more notable).
I'm holding on saying that Clarke has played a 'blame game,' --Amazon tells me my copy of his book will be here Friday.

ack, I meant to say "I'm holding off saying Clarke has played...." etc. I really want to read it for myself, especially since so much more attention has been given (rightly, but still) to his criticisms of this administration.
And, as others (like Billmon) have pointed out, the more important question that Clarke has raised is the conduct of this administration *on* and immediately after 9/11. That's really the debate we all need to be re-visiting.

I am not so sure I buy the line that Ford lost in 1976 because he pardoned Nixon. I think most Americans would have pardoned Nixon. The public had given Nixon a landslide victory in 1972 and most of us understood that Watergate was a technicality with which our leftist "enemies" could and did reverse that election. Why we allowed the election reversal process to continue with the election of Jimmy Carter in 1976 is a tribute to the power of the leftist media and the unbelievable stupidity and fickleness of the nihilistic American people (western people in general).

What people didn't like about Ford was that he seemed incompetent. Why Nixon chose Ford escapes me. If Nixon had chosen Reagan as his VP after Agnew resigned, things would have been different I think. There wouldn't have been any collapse of Indochina to communism, that's for sure.

Can anyone tell me why a guy like Reagan wasn't put in as VP when Agnew resigned in 1973? Why Gerald Ford? Why such a wimp?

Stu,
You’re cartoon characterizations are correct. However, not to put too fine a point on it, in the particular cartoon Dean is quoting it is in fact Elmer and Bugs who are arguing after Elmer goes “Wabbit hunting; hehehehehehe” and finds Bugs who, all too soon for Daffy, tricks Elmer into thinking it’s duck season. Ka-boom.

I can only assume that in Dean’s analogy, the voting public is represented by Elmer Fudd. That is “dithpicable!”

At least Fudd is exersizing his right to keep and bear arms and he hits what he's aiming at. I think it may even have been a Mossberg.

Yours,
Wince

Arnold,

I agree -- it's always the incumbent's election to lose. He is, in effect, subject to a referendum on his presidency.

Oddly enough, every sitting president in the 20th century who ran for (re)election and lost was beaten by a successor who went on to serve two terms, except for one. Can you name him? (see below)

============ answer to quiz ==================

Ford, alone, was the anomaly: he was a sitting President who lost the election to a man (Carter) who only served one term. Which, come to think of it, makes Carter the answer to an alternate trivia question: Who is the only man to defeat a sitting president and not get re-elected himself?

For the record, and strictly speaking, the incumbent presidents who ran for re-election were: Taft, Wilson, Hoover, Roosevelt (3x), Eisenhower, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton. The incumbent won 8 out of 12 times and the losers gave it up to a winner who won re-election to a second term.

Taft lost to Wilson (re-elected), Hoover lost to Roosevelt (re-elected 3x), Carter lost to Reagan (re-elected), Bush 41 lost to Clinton (re-elected).

Strictly speaking, Teddy Roosevelt did not run for "re-election," nor did Harry Truman, LBJ and Jerry Ford; they all took over as VPOTUS. As such, they were sitting presidents running for election, not re-election.

Nonetheless, three out of four of them won election in their own right. Only Ford lost. And that was to a man (Carter) who was not re-elected.

I agree that Condi testifying looks much better than Condi talking to talk show hosts, but it's a big stretch to think this is Sister Rabbit and the Briar Patch. They'll be prepping her hard for this appearance, and she starts with some big problems. For one thing, she has all the falsehoods from before to unsay (e.g., that there was no clue AQ was planning a hijacking).

Something obviously went wrong in order for 9/11 to happen. The question is: what? So we empanel a committee to look into it. It may not be the best way to do things, but it is the American way. And it keeps the process transparent...

Given that something went wrong, and as president, it is Bush’s job to ensure that we learn as much as possible about what that might be, it is imperative that he cooperate fully-- and have his staff do the same. Since he has been stonewalling since day one, we can conclude (with or without Rice’s testimony) that he doesn’t want to know what happened. Either he feels that he already knows, and that is good enough, or he is simply embarrassed by the whole thing. Or some other (probably not sinister) reason. Rice isn’t going to tell us anything useful...

Jim,
Ford was put in power because Nixon believed that he would never be impeached with such an unbearable incompetent to replace him...

Jim Peterson,

My memory of the US presidential events of late 1974-1976 are as clear as a bell.

Nobody thought of Gerald Ford as a "wimp" or as incompetent. He was appointed as vice president in place of the resigned Spiro Agnew because he had a long and distinguished record in the US congress, and the policies that guided him through his congressional years were quite identical to those he followed as president. Ronald Reagan, in the early 1970s, had nothing approaching the stature he acquired during the eight years of his presidency, and many Republicans, including Nixon, regarded him more or less as a loose cannon rattling about on the deck.

The polls immediately following Ford's lost election to Carter in November 1976 showed that his decision to clean Watergate from the national slate was the single main reason that the left-liberal end of the political spectrum came out in force in 1976 in favor of such a turkey as James Earl Carter.

The fact was, Ford faced a serious problem the day he was sworn in as president. In his White House office, approximately 25% or more of the documents he would have had to deal with, in a period of a national emergency, dealt with the purported guilt of his predecessor. Had he not given Nixon executive clemency, the country would have gone through the seriously debilitating spectacle of putting a former US president on trial, and probably imprisoning him. That was the national mood of the moment in 1974. Most people thought better of all this later, but jailing former presidents over such matters would have had a serious and permanently-damaging negative effect on the office of the presidency itself.

Moreover, not a day of Ford's short presidency would have been available for just about any other problem or policy issue, national or international.

Ford was smart enough to do the right thing, regardless of the almost-certain political consequences.

And I'm a rightwinger saying all this. A man for whom Ronald Reagan is an American hero. But I view politics based on its long-term results, rather than what makes us all feel good at a given moment.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

"However, not to put too fine a point on it, in the particular cartoon Dean is quoting it is in fact Elmer and Bugs who are arguing after Elmer goes “Wabbit hunting; hehehehehehe” and finds Bugs who, all too soon for Daffy, tricks Elmer into thinking it’s duck season."

Shep, normally I find you a reasonable and thoughful poster. However, you are out to lunch on this one. I have three kids at home, and the 4-DVD Looney Tunes Golden Collection (highly recommended), so I watch them pretty much eight hours a day. Plus there are TWO of these Rabbit Season/Duck Season cartoons in this collection. AND these episodes still make me snort milk through my nose, just like when I was 10 years old. So I'm afraid I'll have to claim authority on this one. Yes, Elmer is hunting "wabbits", but it's Daffy and Bugs with the bulk of the dialog. Rabbit ptheathon.

Andrew, good commentary. I hesitate to say that Rice will not 'tell us anything useful,' though.
Maybe I'm terminally Pollyanna-ish, but I have deep faith in publically sworn testimony...

Andrew and Peggy, I'd have to say that's a terribly unfair assesment.

The Democrats have been making it clear for some time now, but most especially since this commission has gotten off the ground, that they have only one agenda: to get Bush, embarass Bush, damage Bush no matter what it takes. They are less interested in the truth than they are in grandstanding and creating an embarassment, in as much of a witch-hunt style environment as possible.

This may work out for them, but my own suspicion, my own prediction from a couple of days ago, is that this is going to backfire on them. They look like bullies, they really do, and it just gets worse with time. I think it's a strategic mistake for them.

I think most people--those who don't start with a preconceived, visceral dislike for Bush--believe, correctly, that there are an infinite number of ways for terrorists to act and that until we were confronted with the reality of 9/11, almost no one really saw it happening. Even to say that "something went wrong" is kind of naive: by definition, there are more avenues of unexpected attack than expected attack. For everything we know now, if Gore had been Presidenet, nothing he ever proposed would have prevented 9/11--even Richard Clarke admits this quite openly.

Given that, what is the purpose of this grandstanding over Rice? Most administrations DO NOT allow people like Rice to testify--this is NORMAL, this is how they USUALLY operate. Not just the Bushes, but ALL White Houses. Exceptions have existed by they are rare.

So the White House is going to do it, and I repeat my prediction: all this is doing is making the Dems look like bullies. It is not going to help them, and nothing she says is going to illuminate anything in particular. Because while there were certainly things that could have been done in hindsight, most people understand that hindsight IS 20/20.

Well we'll see I guess.

Stu, so no "duck season, wabbit season"? That's what I get for defending Dean's (and my own) faulty memory. I defer to you and your (hard way) milk mustache

Actually, I'm pretty sure it is Bugs and Daffy both saying "wabbit" in a mild mockery of E.Fudd. On the commish, I have to go along with Dean. I think the Democrats have come off poorly but hey, it would take quite a cataclysm for it to be otherwise, in my view.

This is going to be sweet. A few weeks ago there was an article about Dubya's poker days as a Harvard MBA student.

This is NOT a man I'd want to play poker with. And with Condi having his back?

Dubya, OTOH, is DEFINITELY a man I'd love to WATCH playing poker.

Condi-Coulter 2008. Can you IMAGINE the debates against the best what's left of the Dems could put up then?

The Democrats have been making it clear for some time now, but most especially since this commission has gotten off the ground, that they have only one agenda: to get Bush, embarass Bush, damage Bush no matter what it takes.

You're serious, aren't you?

Which Democrats are you talking about? Anyone on the Commission? In Congress? Attached to the Kerry campaign?

Who are these people?

Regarding Gerald Ford, and Nixon's reasons for nominating him as Vice President after Agnew's resignation....

Over the past few weeks, my bedtime reading has been Richard Nixon's memoirs (I should finish Vol. 2 by the end of this week). I've found the perspective interesting, given that all of the events depicted occurred before I was born.

Anyway, according to Nixon, there were four candidates he seriously considered to replace Agnew--Ford, Reagan, Rockefeller, and Connally. From the research Nixon did, he believed that Connally would never be confirmed, and both Reagan (conservative) and Rockefeller (liberal) would have split the Republican Party. Nixon says that he liked and trusted Gerald Ford, but he emerged from the process essentially by default.

"Given that, what is the purpose of this grandstanding over Rice?"

Dean, I think the purpose of the Democrats was simply to rake Bush over the coals, under their firm assumption that he would order Rice to stonewall whatever commission has demanded that she testify.

Now, Bush has signaled that Dr Rice will in fact testify. That in itself may well collapse the Democrat anti-Rice witch-hunt. Will anybody get the better of Condi Rice on the witness stand? I think they chose the wrong victim. She is no less than this generation's best and brightest, a young version of Robert McNamara whom nobody and nothing rattles.

Moreover, since the president so readily assented to the demand that his national security advisor testify, one must assume that he has certifiably certain advance knowledge that whatever she is in position to say will boost his position.

As for Dr Rice in action, watch her at work sometime before the Sunday morning newshour folks. She allows nobody to interrupt her while she provides a complete, very bright, thought-out answer to questions about complex topics. Any attempt to treat her rudely will make the questioner look and sound like Joe McCarthy taking the wild swings that destroyed his career in the 1954 "Army-McCarthy" hearings.

My current expectation is that the Democrats will move onto another issue rather than allowing the flurry of misinformation over Clarke to push them into a box from which there is no easy exit.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Dean, I'm not sure how you can still say "them," when in fact the commission unanimously called for Rice's public testimony. I know you know that it is a bipartisan commission, so how about a bipartisan acceptance of the course of its mandate? Truth need not hurt, you know. It's one of those values we hold dear, after all.

Shep, Magapotomus.

Gentlemen, I have in front of me an open copy of "Bugs Bunny: 50 Years and Only One Grey Hair" (okay, so I'm obsessed, so what). The Rabbit-Season-Duck-Season episodes are "Rabbit Fire" from 1951, "Rabbit Seasoning" from 1952 ("Ah, there's the problem - pronoun trouble"), and the funniest, IMO, "Duck! Rabbit! Duck!" from 1953 ("Mongoose Season!"). And if that's not proof enough, I have a note here personally signed by Chuck Jones and Friz Freleng stating that I'm right and everyone else is wrong.

I hope this resolves the matter, and we can move on to the question "if Wiley E. Coyote can afford all that crap from Acme, why can't he just buy some food?"

Oops, sorry, MEGApotamus.

I'm surprised no one mentioned Carter's complete failure to handle the Iranian hostage crisis as the tipping point in his loss of the presidency. I'd put that on top of the economy, etc. They were released once Reagan won the white house.

C'mon Dean! Everyone knows it's fiddler crab season!

Bush is the master of rope-a-dope. In a couple weeks Clarke's stunning revelations will be in the big box of manufactured scandals next to the AWOL-oh-not-really scandal and the stolen election nonsense. With the Democrats in their current state of perpetually enraged confusion it's almost sad to watch them set themselves up like this.

Bryan: Agree that Iranian hostages had negative impact on Carter, but believe the economy was 75-80% of his loss.

Stu: Wile E. Coyote had open open credit line with Acme, due to the advertising value WEC gave. Unfortunately, Acme was not in the grocery business.

commission: As I recall (correct me if wrong) there was a battle to create the commission, resisted at first by Bush/Republicans and championed by the Dems, and finally Bush gave in. The way I interpreted Dean's words was that the Noisy Left was leading the clamor for a special commission. The fact that both sides of the commission are calling for Rice to testify, IMO, is an example of the integrity of the members and desire to get to the bottom of 9/11.

Wiley, my hero? Buy some food!?! That would be beneath the dignity of a Genius of that stature. Where is the sport, the thrill? Heck, even Elmer can simply buy food, no need for the hunt, and he can get a better job than any other critter in the woods because he has thumbs.

Wiley at the grocery store -- preposterous! That just goes against the grain of his never say die idiom. Now, why he hasn't hired a decent lawyer to sue that freaking products liability cess pool of treacherous tortfeasors.

Acme and their ilk is what is wrong with this country. :-)

Peggy wrote:

"Dean, I'm not sure how you can still say "them," when in fact the commission unanimously called for Rice's public testimony. I know you know that it is a bipartisan commission, so how about a bipartisan acceptance of the course of mandate? Truth need not hurt, you know. It's one of those values we hold dear after all."

Ut oh! Dean made a slip. He is a partisan Republican after all.

Oh Hooray! Marko's back!

Civil discourse here we come!!!

Glad to know you're excited, Evil Queen.

""Wabbit Season!"
"Duck Season, FIRE!"
"(Boom)""

What's with Republicans and shooting?

Something about cold dead hands.

I can't remember, I missed a couple of those secret midnight meetings.

Oh Mark-O They've been waiting for you. Duck! er I mean, Keep yer head down. er, oh hell: 3....2.....1 FIRE!

Arnold Harris:
"She is no less than this generation's best and brightest, a young version of Robert McNamara whom nobody and nothing rattles."

I hope so. I'm not sure about her hard policy expertise outside Russia, but her eats-nails demeanor is always reassuring. A week or so ago on CNN, though, she seemed uncertain for the first time that I've seen: talking quickly, moving up and down pitches like Edith Bunker, running sentences together breathlessly. There could be a variety of reasons for that, and it was only one appearance, but if people are saying she's regained her unflappableness in public, I'm relieved.

Sean,

Dr Rice probably didn't expect an ambush on CNN. But she knows long before she gets into a room to testify before an official investigative commission that there's at least one dry-gulch for every three feet she walks or every five minutes she talks. I'm certain she'll be well prepared. That too has to be the opinion of Bush, Cheney, Rove and the rest of the administration. Otherwise they never would have given the go-ahead for her to testify. I'm sure it's rope-a-dope time.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Mark:

No need to duck. Republicans will shoot at anything and anyone, but they don't aim well. :)

marko,

I aim OK at short range. I can put eight 9x18 in a ragged hole at 21 feet. With these eyes and my novice status I'm not so good at longer ranges.

I'm certain my aim would deteriorate rapidly if the paper targets started shooting back.

So it really depends how close Mark is and whether he's armed.

Yours,
Wince