The Future is Here

...at IKEA, anyway. I was surfing around on Lileks and stumbled across this link to an interesting advertising microsite for IKEA. The download takes a bit of time but is worthwhile. Once it is complete, navigate around within the image by rolling over it and clicking.

The microsite is an advertising unit which demonstrates not only IKEA's design sensibilities, but a clever use of technology which hints at the long-term potential of the Internet as an e-commerce channel. I agree with Jim that while visually stunning, the microsite doesn't necessarily do much to make you want to buy. It certainly presents IKEA products in an attractive manner and within a context. The use of music and the integration of people and "scenes" intensifies brand image. But from a pure sales standpoint, the "call-to-action" is weak. Simply showing products and listing prices remains "old economy." However, one can see where this revolutionary technology can be not only visually arresting but also a closer of sales.

When married with other IKEA standards like the ability to put in room dimensions and include existing furniture, one might have the ability to see their own kitchen with the new products in place. Or with a greater use of rollover, one might be able to glean more information about products and product dimensions. Or to open a drawer and survey its interior. Or when enough data is input by (or appended to) customers, that personalized offers or installation information might be generated. In other words, if the technology is empowered to anticipate and address customer concerns as they arise, the skids can be greased to close the sale.

Nonetheless, quite something to see.

"Station 51..."

Santa Barbara County Fire Department Station 51 is getting some new digs. New to the tune of 9500 sq. ft., adjacent to a new sheriff's sub-station at 5500 sq. ft:

A replacement for the county's aging fire and sheriff's stations is under way, as officials begin plans for the construction of a new building three times the size of the Lompoc Valley's existing facility.

The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors recently purchased 15 acres at the northeast corner of Burton Mesa Boulevard and Harris Grade Road in Vandenberg Village from Caltrans for $120,000. The below-market price reflects the county's guarantee that the land will be used for a public-service building.

The county plans to build a shared sheriff's substation and fire station approximately 15,000 square feet on a couple acres, said John Green, capitol projects coordinator.
An adjacent five acres is home to a joint 5,000-square-foot building considered inadequate to serve the growing Lompoc Valley communities.

“That building was built in the 1960s, and is literally falling apart,” said Tom Franklin, deputy fire chief.

Plans for the new building are still being finalized, but initial estimates call for a 9,500-square-foot fire station and a 5,500-square-foot sheriff substation at the new location.

Boring local news you say? Well, not to me.

That's my fire protection we're talking about. Build on!

Obligatory Sports Post

Somebody in Dodgertown has grown a brain. John DePodesta is gone:

Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt fired general manager Paul DePodesta on Saturday.

No GM, no manager and no chemistry. Looking forward to a sizzling '06. For other Dodger-watcher takes on this, go here.

More Plame

Even long-time chronicler of the CIA Bob Woodward disputes the assertions by Joe Wilson that his wife (or anyone else for that matter) was endangered by the still-just-alledged-but-increasingly-likely outing:

WOODWARD: ... They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that Joe Wilson's wife was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage. They did not have to pull anyone out undercover abroad. They didn't have to resettle anyone. There was no physical danger to anyone and there was just some embarrassment. So people have kind of compared -- somebody was saying this was Aldridge James or Bob Hanson, big spies. This didn't cause damage.

Tom Maguire discusses this aspect of the case more here.

When Will This End?

When will Joseph Wilson and his wife go away? That's what I want to know. I've really had quite enough of these ego-maniacal, dissembling, faux-patriots and media exploiters. Today, I ran across a preview of Wilson's upcoming appearance on 60 Minutes. Wilson is now playing the injured, put-upon do-gooder in claiming that his wife Valerie has been threatened due to the leaking of her identity as a CIA agent.

“There have been specific threats [against Plame]. Beyond that I just can’t go,” Wilson tells [Ed]Bradley. Wilson says he and his wife have discussed security for her with “several agencies”... Upon finding out about the leak of her name, “she felt like she'd been hit in the stomach. It took her breath away,” said Wilson. Then she methodically went to work, he says, “making lists of what she had to do to ensure that her assets, her projects, her programs and her operations were protected.” Wilson tells Bradley, contrary to reports that many knew Plame was in the CIA, that only he and three other people knew. “Well, very few people outside the intelligence community [knew she was CIA]. Her parents and her brother, essentially,” says Wilson.

Stomach-turning.

Yes, I suppose that if I had been an exposed CIA operative, one of the first things I would put on my list of to-dos to "ensure that my assets, projects, programs and operations were protected" is to be profiled in Vanity Fair magazine replete with a splashy photospread.

Next I would make an appearance at "the National Press Club in downtown Washington, D.C.," where I would appear "wearing a sharp cream pantsuit" at a "lunch given by The Nation magazine's foundation and the Fertel Foundation to present the first Ron Ridenhour Award for Truth-Telling to [my] husband, Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV." During the luncheon, Joe as I call him, would weep "openly on the podium as he looked [ me] straight in the eye and declare, "If I could give you back your anonymity ... " He would swallow, unable to speak for a few seconds. He would then continue by saying "You are the most wonderful person I know. And I'm sorry this has been brought on you." I would also tear up. And the the room would be electrified. Moments later Joe would recover. He would conclude his remarks with the climax everyone had been waiting for. "Let me introduce you to my wife, [Sim]," he'd say. And then the crowd would roar and Joe and I would stand together at the podium, basking in the glow of its approval. This is what we'd always secretly wanted but never thought was possible. I'd whisper to Joe that he ought to write a book to exploit the pecuniary bonanza that surely awaits. Yes, I think that would be one of the best ways to protect national security, myself, my family and the intelligence assets I had been cultivating while at the Agency.

But let me be a little more specific. In the Vanity Fair article, I'd be sure to mention my three-year-old twins, Trevor and Samantha. I'd say that my father, Samuel, lives with my mother in a suburb of Philly. I'd mention friends like Janet Angstadt and Todd Sesler. I would also be sure to invite the reporter over for dinner and she would observe that my "kitchen was undergoing renovation, but, like the rest of [my] house, it was immaculate. A plate of Brie, French bread, and grapes [would be] left to nibble from while [I] prepared pasta and salad in the kitchen." I'd allow the reporter to reveal that I "live in the Palisades, an affluent neighborhood of Washington, D.C., on the fringe of Georgetown." And if that kind of information weren't enough to really ensure my security, I would point out for the benefit of would-be evildoers that "the back of [my] house has a stunning view of the Washington Monument." Additionally, I would reveal something that might surprise some of VF's readers in light of the scandal surrounding the exposure of my identity. Yes, I would explain, when Joe and I were on our third or fourth date and involved in a "heavy make-out session," I stopped and said that I had something to tell him. I was very conflicted and very nervous, thinking of everything that had gone into getting me to that point, such as money and training. But I was, I explained, undercover in the C.I.A. Indeed. So I blew my own cover on a third or fourth date in the heat of passion. Is there a way we can simultaneously schedule the ceremony for my Medal of Freedom and the awarding of my settlement check from Scooter Libby and Official A? I'm just worried that I won't have time to get home to set the Brie out and bring it to room temperature before everyone arrives for the soiree. So if we could combine the two, that would be really convenient.

If Scooter Libby or anyone else knowingly worked to blow Plame's cover or misled or impeded the investigation of such an act, he (and/or they) should be punished and condemned in the harshest possible terms. I have no problem with the the application of justice in such matters. But spare me the "wife's been threatened" faux victim crap. The Wilsons don't come out smelling much better in all of this. Going the high-profile route would seem antithetical to serious concerns about the security of Plame, her family and intelligence assets. But it's not just that red-herring. The Wilsons have exploited the situation at every turn, passing themselves off as patriots when in reality they are media whores who have become a version of Cindy Sheehan re-packaged for a different target audience. They're better dressed and more intellectual, but their antics aren't any less transparent or cheap than Sheehan's or Tanya Harding's.

If Libby and others have broken the law or acted unethically, then let the chips fall where they may. But could we please stop the nauseating hero-worship of these frauds?

Building (or Re-Building) the MyDogs Community

Google and Google-offshoots are continually coming out with cool new applications. Blogger, Google Blog Search, Google Earth and Google Scholar are some of my favorites. Here's a new one that we can use to map our reader base.

Of course, this might have been more exciting / interesting when we were getting 3K hits a month, but in light of all of the disruptions around here over the last month, maybe a link to Frappr! will drive traffic and rekindle that long-forgotten MyDogs feeling? Anyway, click here and locate yourself on the global map. You can remain anonymous, include a picture, write a brief message, etc. In short, you can raise your hand and say..."Hey, I wear it loud and I say it proud! I'm a MyDogs fan!"

Maybe this will be sad. Perhaps it will be inspiring.

Please keep us appraised of any love connections or civil unions, and we'll be sure to give you a mention deeply embedded in a post about the Padres, Oklahoma, why we hate fantasy baseball or Paul's canine friends.

Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them

OK, Libby's indicted. But Paul Begala's stretching things just a tad, here, dontcha think?

And third, because the ultimate result of the alleged criminal conduct was to march 2,000 young heroes off to die in an unjust, unwise, unprovoked and unwarranted war.

The alleged criminal conduct was in outing a CIA agent. The actual current criminal charge is repeatedly lying to a grand jury, admittedly a serious crime. But thus far, I've heard no allegations by the special prosecutor that the criminal conduct at issue is the administration's case for war. In fact in today's press conference, Fitzgerald thankfully said that that subject was not under his purview. But Begala just glosses over that like so many in the MSM who gloss over the meme that the yellowcake from Niger claims have been "disproven."

The plain fact is that after a seven year non-stop investigato-rama, no senior Clinton White House official was ever even charged with wrongdoing. Much less indicted. Much less convicted. In fact, the highest-ranking Clinton official to be convicted of wrongdoing in connection with his public duties was the chief of staff to the Agriculture Secretary. Betcha five bucks you can't even name the Clinton Agriculture Secretary in question, much less his chief of staff. Unlike Nixon (whose Watergate crimes were manifest), unlike Reagan (whose White House was corrupted by the Iran-Contra crimes), unlike Bush 41 (who pardoned White House aides and Cabinet officers before they could testify against him), Bill Clinton presided over the most ethical White House staff in decades.

Since I doubt he's on crack, this is a pack of lies. Clinton was a fairly senior Clinton WH official, wasn't he? Oh but we're just talking about the White House staff. Gotcha. He was impeached although he deserved to be indicted since he was guilty of the same crimes of which Libby is accused plus civil contempt of court. I can name the Agriculture Secretary, Mike Espy, where's my five bucks?

On August 27, 1997, Espy was indicted on charges of granting favors in exchange for thousands of dollars in gifts such as sports tickets, lodging, and airfare.

So Espy himself was indicted, Mr. Begala. Just like Scooter Libby. Espy was ultimately cleared of all wrongdoing in his trial. Just as Libby theoretically could be. And you're really proclaiming the "most ethical Administration in decades" line? First of all, we've dramatically reduced expectations from Clinton's first Executive Order declaration of the "most ethical administration in history," haven't we? But I can understand why. In addition to Mike Espy's indictment, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros was indicted on 18 counts conspiracy, giving false statements and obstruction of justice. Cisneros was later pardoned by Clinton. But the "most ethical WH staff in decades" was also involved in questionable dealings with Chinese influence peddling and illegal campaign contributions, the pardon of Mark Rich, Whitewater, the Lincoln Bedroom scandal, etc. And this doesn't even include Clinton's high crimes. How can he even say this with a straight face?

Then Begala goes on to lie and smear with no support, though he rightly points out that this is the first investigation of wrongdoing in five years of this Administration. But what's the upshot? For Begala it's downplaying and lying about the ethical failures of the Clinton Administration and whining about how "Innocent people were impoverished, reputations were damaged, careers derailed" at the same time that he hypocritically engages in the same kind of behavior he decries. That Begala would even attempt to draw such a baseless comparison is laughable. Definition of a hack.

Watergate Moment

Sitting here watching MSNBC as Andrea Mitchell and Chris Matthews discuss the CIA leak case. Wild speculation about the case for war and expansion of the investigation. Andrea and Chris in a small window. Most of the screen devoted to a live shot of Marine One taking off from Andrews AFB and heading off into the distance as it makes its way back to the White House. Eerily reminiscent of watching Nixon fly off on the presidential helicopter into the sunset after resigning the presidency in 1974.

They're so giddy. I think I am gonna hurl.

Not so much of an upgrade

Rumor has it the NFL is considering moving the Saints from New Orleans to Los Angeles. As a longtime advocate now of an NFL-free Los Angeles, let me explain why that's a bad idea.

Inevitably the city will run to dust off one of it's already inadequate 15+ year-old plans to 'renovate' the LA Coliseum, calling it the 'key' to any deal to bring the Saints to Southern California. The city council is married to this idea, and frankly it has been and always will be in this matter, their un-doing.

What's wrong with the Coliseum you ask? Ask the Rams, who left it in 1980 or the Raiders who left it a decade ago even after a partial remodeling of the venue. It is 70+ years old and if the worn facade and huge-capacity that will never be sold out isn't enough of an issue, consider it's incredible lack of parking.

It shares parking with the Sports Arena, an area woefully inadequate for either venue. If you are planning on attending an event at either you can count on having to park on the streets or an improvised spot on someone's lawn. Though perhaps that's part of the attraction for the city council--$10 bucks a pop for every home-owner within a mile radius of the Coliseum for every car they put on their lawn adds a considerable punch to the underground-economy of South Central LA, an area that needs it badly.

But the Coliseum is worn, it is old, it is ugly and it cannot be re-made into something competitive in today's world of new stadiums. Right now the only upside I would see over the Superdome is that the roof doesn't leak. And thats because it has none.

If Tom Benson- who has talked about leaving New Orleans for years- signs on to this deal, I firmly believe he will come to regret it just as the Raiders did. He will find himself and his team trapped in a bad stadium in a city that doesn't support championship football teams, much less the mediocre.

He will long for the days that he played in the beautiful confines of the Alamo dome.

Blood in the Water

The CIA leak case has gone from the ridiculous to the sublime.

With the predicted indictment of Scooter Libby not yet announced, the Looney Left smells blood in the water and the feeding frenzy has begun. An obvious place to go for an inspection of the Looney Left's thinking is the blog of my favorite hysteric, Katrina Vanden Heuvel. And what does dearest Katrina have to say about the matter? Well, in her opinion, now is the time to expand the investigation to include...*drumroll please*...the Administration's rationale for war.

But of course.

Katrina writes of the Democratic Congressional caucus' discussions of such an expansion and supports it.

"The CIA leak issue is only the tip of the iceberg," Congressman Jerry Nadler told me when I ran into him on the street near our offices on Friday afternoon. He was quick to tell me of a call--led by Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and Nadler, along with 39 of their House colleagues--for Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation to be expanded to examine whether the White House--President, Vice-President, and members of the WH's Iraq War Group--conspired to deliberately deceive Congress into authorizing the war. And, as Nadler reminded me, lying to Congress is a crime under several federal statutes.

The MSM has now picked up on the thread and it appears this is where things are heading. On what legal basis could Patrick Fitzgerald move from a specific investigation regarding an asserted attempt to smear Joseph Wilson for the yellowcake story to an overall questioning of the case for war? In my opinion, none. If such an expansion does take place, I believe that this will be yet another special prosecutor run amok. The question before Fitzgerald was whether there was a coordinated attempt to reveal a CIA agent's identity, not whether the president lied about Saddam's weapons programs. However, for critics the Wilson case has always been a proxy fight about the the administration's WMD case. In recent weeks, Bush opponents have begun a parallel effort to re-examine the forged documents which formed the basis for the administration's Niger-yellowcake claims. If Fitzgerald really does move in this direction, I believe it will be in response to the masturbatory fantasies of the unhinged Lefties who perpetually over-shoot the mark. In this case, we are talking about ONE pre-war claim..one which the President has already suggested should not have made it into his 2003 State of the Union address. He's already taken the heat for that. Moreover, according to the Butler Report, the claim was not wholly based on the forgeries which emerged in Italy. Are we just going to continue to ignore this point as reported last year in the Financial Times?

The claim that the illicit export of uranium was under discussion was widely dismissed when letters referring to the sales - apparently sent by a Nigerien official to a senior official in Saddam Hussein's regime - were proved by the International Atomic Energy Agency to be forgeries. This embarrassed the US and led the administration to reverse its earlier claim.But European intelligence officials have for the first time confirmed that information provided by human intelligence sources during an operation mounted in Europe and Africa produced sufficient evidence for them to believe that Niger was the centre of a clandestine international trade in uranium.Officials said the fake documents, which emerged in October 2002 and have been traced to an Italian with a record for extortion and deception, added little to the picture gathered from human intelligence and were only given weight by the Bush administration.

That said, why should Fitzgerald even embark on such a course? As Christopher Hitchens wrote in July, this is a non-storm in an un-teacup. The Butler inquiry addressed these issues in Britain and although it focused on the Blair government's case for war and the "sexed up dossier" it did result in examinations of American intelligence and coalition claims. The 9-11 Commission concluded that elements of Joe Wilson's original NYT op/ed were suspect at best. The Commission on Pre-War Intelligence further addressed the efforts of the American intelligence community in the run-up to the war. And Congress has agreed that a second inquiry, dubbed "Phase II," would address the use of intelligence by the Administration in building the case for war. It's fair to say that that process has not gotten off the ground, but it is in the works. Thus it seems to me that there have been significant investigations of the WMD claims and that Phase II will address the issue in greater detail in the future. So why is Fitzgerald's expansion either justified or necessary?

In my opinion, if the reported extension of the grand jury does take place, such an expansion is very possible. And in my mind, provides yet another example of why these special prosecutors are inherently bad. Should this be the course of action, America will be dragged through another Clintonian year of speculation, talking heads, divisiveness and a weakened, paralyzed presidency. Under a special prosecutor and the secrecy of a grand jury chamber the American people get none of the transparency and all of the speculative, witch-hunt atmoshere which to me seems deeply anti-democratic and actually conterproductive. It's nothing short of unhealthy. In these cases, does the investigation drive the media frenzy? Does the frenzy influence the investigation? Or is there some twisted symbiotic relationship? I vote for the latter.

If we really want to investigate the administration's pre-war claims--and I have long though that would be a worthwhile endeavor--then don't the American people deserve full transparency? Shouldn't Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, George Tenet, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld be in front of the cameras along with Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Judy Miller, David Kay, Richard Butler, Ken Pollack, Scott Ritter and others? If we want accountability shouldn't it be full accountability? Or is this just a way to extract a pound of political flesh and a way to drive advertising revenue? Buckle up. This is going to suck.

How Flat is the World?

In his best-selling book, The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century , author Thomas Friedman argues that globalization and demographics are conspiring to doom the United States to eventual surrender of its economic lead to burgeoning economies in India and China. I won't get into his implicit argument for a neo-con-like American economic hegemony, but one of Friedman's key arguments in support of his thesis revolves around the explosion in the numbers of highly educated Indians and Chinese in the science and engineering fields compared to stagnant numbers in the US. Friedman's book has become either emblematic of the conventional wisdom that we're "losing our edge" or has contributed mightily to it. Reminds me of Robert Reich's 1992 contribution The Work of Nations : Preparing Ourselves for 21st Century Capitalism, when we were told that we needed to be more like Germany and Japan. Remember that? Right on the brink of the 90's economic miracle? Ahhhh, the good old days.

Anyway, Daniel Drezner once again helps to disabuse us of the weaknesses in the conventional wisdom's argumentation in citing some deeper research.

But others told me that the 600,000 figure for China in 2003 included engineering graduates who had received less training than their U.S. counterparts. Richard Freeman, a professor of economics at Harvard University who has studied the issue, told me in an email that the Chinese numbers include graduates of two-to-three-year programs who would be comparable to engineering technicians in the U.S. (recipients of an associate's degree). "The number getting full course degrees is around 350,000, which is what we would compare to U.S. graduates in a year," Dr. Freeman said.

His editor's note from McKinsey Quarterly is also interesting.

Despite this apparently vast supply, multinational companies are finding that few graduates have the necessary skills for service occupations. According to interviews with 83 human-resources professionals involved with hiring local graduates in low-wage countries, fewer than 10 percent of Chinese job candidates, on average, would be suitable for work in a foreign company in the nine occupations we studied: engineers, finance workers, accountants, quantitative analysts, generalists, life science researchers, doctors, nurses, and support staff.
Consider engineers. China has 1.6 million young ones, more than any other country we examined. Indeed, 33 percent of the university students in China study engineering, compared with 20 percent in Germany and just 4 percent in India. But the main drawback of Chinese applicants for engineering jobs, our interviewees said, is the educational system's bias toward theory. Compared with engineering graduates in Europe and North America, who work in teams to achieve practical solutions, Chinese students get little practical experience in projects or teamwork. The result of these differences is that China's pool of young engineers considered suitable for work in multinationals is just 160,000—no larger than the United Kingdom's. Hence the paradox of shortages amid plenty.

So maybe we shouldn't get too far ahead of ourselves in declaring ourselves screwed. Certainly, we need to do a better job in math and the sciences. We need to incent teachers in those fields, revitalize curriculums and to encourage more of our young people in those directions. In time, the current trends are problematic for retaining our lead as an industrial power, and consequently our standard of living. All true. All worthy of serious consideration and action. But China's enormous population and growth trends are not the sole determinants of economic success.

Death by a Thousand Cuts

According to the New York Times, Scooter Libby will be indicted today in the CIA leak case. But the bad news for George Bush doesn't stop there. Additionally, the Times reports, Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will move to extend the grand jury to continue information gathering relative to Karl Rove and perhaps Vice-President Cheney.

The Libby indictment would be very damaging to an already weakened presidency. But even more damaging to Bush politically is the extension of the grand jury and continued negative headlines. With an uncertain exit strategy in Iraq, expensive and challenging recovery from this year's hurricanes, misplaced blame for rising gas prices, the aftermath of the Harriet Miers snafu and possible nomination dogfight, a continued scandal--no matter how overblown, mischaracterized and just plain unfair--threatens to crater Bush's second term.

If the Times report is accurate, I believe Bush has to proactively cut ties with Libby and that Karl Rove has to tender his resignation. The scandal's attachment to the Oval Office has to be severed for political reasons. Moreover, it will take all of the energies of senior staffers and possible replacements to get this presidency--and the nation--out of the ditch. Otherwise, George W. Bush is a lame duck a year into his second term and the nation will be drifting at a time in which it simply cannot afford to be drifting.

Follow the Money

Perplexed by what to believe about Iraq?

Bamboozled by the Bush Administration's pre-war hype and spin about WMD? Bewildered by the Left's exploitation of the CIA leak case as a proof of Bush's lies? Baffled by the opposition of allies like France, Russia and Germany? Bewildered by the positions of people like Scott Ritter, David Albright, Wes Clarke and others who have to-and-fro'd about the presence of Saddam's stockpiles? Befuddled by the Downing Street Memos, Ahmed Chalabi, Halliburton, Operation Desert Fox, yellowcake, David Kelley, the Dodgy Dossier, aluminum tubes, Mohammad Atta in Prague, the Sarindar Plan, Iraqi-held Russian night vision goggles and jamming equipment?

Well, your discombobulation might soon experience at least a tinge of relief. Since the beginning, I have argued that the story of Iraq is far more complex and multilateral than the ossified "oil war" and "neo-con" memes we've come to know and love. And I've also argued that many answers to our questions will emerge through a deep analysis of the UN Oil-for-Food program. In short, I've urged that interested parties follow the money.

The New York Times previews today's release of the Volcker Commission's fifth and final report which further underscores the way in which Iraq had become a pawn in a geopolitical struggle involving many more parties than the Bush Administration, neo-conservatives and Halliburton.

More than 4,500 companies took part in the United Nations oil-for-food program and more than half of them paid illegal surcharges and kickbacks to Saddam Hussein, according to the independent committee investigating the program. The country with the most companies involved in the program was Russia, followed by France, the committee says in a report to be released Thursday.

Yes, the report will also feature corrupt American companies who engaged in illicit dealings with the Baathist regime. However, the report will also likely show how some countries and the UN engaged in dealings which didn't just involve lining their own and Saddam's pockets, but also with the weakening of the inspections and sanctions regimes that had been put in place.

The investigators said Thursday's report would detail how Mr. Hussein first steered the program to gain political advantage with political allies and countries in a position to ease the United Nations sanctions. Both Russia and France are veto-bearing members of the Security Council. "Then it got corrupted with a capital C when Saddam figured out how to make money off of it by putting on the surcharges and kickbacks," one investigator said. At first, he said, companies balked at paying the extra fees, and the oil sales slowed. At that point, "less orthodox companies" came forward and accepted the terms, opening the way for the program's full scale exploitation and allowing legitimate companies to buy oil from illegitimate ones.

It will be interesting to see if there are any direct mentions of Tariq Azziz's attempt to bribe former UNSCOM chief inspector Rolf Ekeus to the tune of $2M as well as the reported bribes paid to Russian Foreign Ministers Primakov and Ivanov. We already know that Friend of Saddam George Galloway and former French envoy to the UN Jean-Bernard Merimee are in hot water over their dealings with Saddam. And we also have strong evidence linking French positions on sanctions, inspections and the war to potential petroleum spoils.

Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi deputy prime minister, told the ISG that the "primary motive for French co-operation" was to secure lucrative oil deals when UN sanctions were lifted. Total, the French oil giant, had been promised exploration rights.

It is important to note yet again, that the economic ties are being documented via the Volcker Report as well as those of Norm Coleman's Senate sub-committee and the work of the Iraq Survey Group. The documentation of those facts is important. But they must be viewed within the context of the positions taken by France and Russia (as well as China) in the UN Security Council. While each of those nations worked to weaken the sanctions regime, none of those nations voted to extend UNSCOM's inspections mission after it was forced to leave Iraq in 1998. None of them voted to create UNMOVIC and re-deploy inspectors to Iraq in 1999. Yet they were all nations who strongly urged that Hans Blix's UNMOVIC team be given more time to conduct inspections in 2003.

A coincidence? Not likely. In time, even stronger evidence will link the economic benefits to the policy positions. And the world, including those who suggest that the United States acted out of pure economic self-interest, while their opponents acted out of concern for peace, will experience a major re-orientation in their understanding of the facts. That is, if they bother to read stories on page D26.

Revising Revisionist History

Robert Kagan takes the initiative to remind us that former-patriot-turned-Rovian-shill Judith Miller, much less the Bush Administration itself, was solely responsible for the "bogus" WMD case in Iraq.

Many critics outside the Times suggest that Miller's eagerness to publish the Bush administration's line was the primary reason Americans went to war. The Times itself is edging closer to this version of events. There is a big problem with this simple narrative. It is that the Times, along with The Post and other news organizations, ran many alarming stories about Iraq's weapons programs before the election of George W. Bush. A quick search through the Times archives before 2001 produces such headlines as "Iraq Has Network of Outside Help on Arms, Experts Say"(November 1998), "U.S. Says Iraq Aided Production of Chemical Weapons in Sudan"(August 1998), "Iraq Suspected of Secret Germ War Effort" (February 2000), "Signs of Iraqi Arms Buildup Bedevil U.S. Administration" (February 2000), "Flight Tests Show Iraq Has Resumed a Missile Program" (July 2000). (A somewhat shorter list can be compiled from The Post's archives, including a September 1998 headline: "Iraqi Work Toward A-Bomb Reported.") The Times stories were written by Barbara Crossette, Tim Weiner and Steven Lee Myers; Miller shared a byline on one...As we wage what the Times now calls "the continuing battle over the Bush administration's justification for the war in Iraq," we will have to grapple with the stubborn fact that the underlying rationale for the war was already in place when this administration arrived.

The Void That is Boxer

California Senator Barbara Boxer speaking of the Miers withdrawal just now on MSNBC:

"I think this is happening because this President is arrogant. He didn't follow the Constitution in terms of utilizing the advise and consent role of the Senate."

The arrogant President who is withdrawing the nomination. The President who chose Miers at the behest of Democrat Harry Reid. Could she be less credible?

"We have a war in Iraq with no end in sight with 2000 dead and thousands more wounded. We have spiraling gas prices. We have thousands of displaced citizens as a result of the hurricanes. Now is not the time for another war on the home front. Slow it down. Talk to us. And let's march forward together with a nominee we can all support."

Spoken like a true non-partisan.

Oh, please!

Joe Wilson in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer had the audacity to say:

...it was "a sad day for our country."

Wilson said Wednesday he took little comfort that the men he believes have engaged in a campaign of character assassination against him for the past two years -- Karl Rove, President Bush's deputy chief of staff, and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the vice president's chief of staff -- may soon be facing charges and possible jail time.

Two words for you, Joe: Frog march.

Sleazy opportunist. And that's the nicest thing I can think of to say about the man.

Short and to the point

One man's opinion on the Miers withdrawal:

She and the president deserved much better from his allies.

That didn't take too long

Say it here and it happens there.

I knew they wouldn't let me down. I'm stunned, though I shouldn't be, at the lefty pre-occupation with only one side of this equation:

The only democratic landmark that really matters to them--the only one capable of reversing the spiral into more chaos and war, the only one that would create the conditions for real compromise--is an end to the occupation. Yet this is the one step the Bush Administration is unwilling to consider.

No attempt to address the vacuum we'd instantly create by leaving the new government to fend for itself. Are they that blind, dumb or just oblivious?

The Longest Day?

With the spectre of possible indictments hanging over President Bush's top advisors, now Harriet Miers mercifully "withdraws" her nomination to the US Supreme Court. Today promises to be a very long day at the White House.

I wonder where she / they came up with the face-saving rationale for this development? Because Miers' withdrawal letter sounds an awful lot like this.

Finally, a way out: irreconcilable differences over documents. For a nominee who, unlike John Roberts, has practically no record on constitutional issues, such documentation is essential for the Senate to judge her thinking and legal acumen. But there is no way that any president would release this kind of information -- "policy documents" and "legal analysis" -- from such a close confidante. It would forever undermine the ability of any president to get unguarded advice. That creates a classic conflict, not of personality, not of competence, not of ideology, but of simple constitutional prerogatives: The Senate cannot confirm her unless it has this information. And the White House cannot allow release of this information lest it jeopardize executive privilege. Hence the perfectly honorable way to solve the conundrum: Miers withdraws out of respect for both the Senate and the executive's prerogatives, the Senate expresses appreciation for this gracious acknowledgment of its needs and responsibilities, and the White House accepts her decision with the deepest regret and with gratitude for Miers's putting preservation of executive prerogative above personal ambition. Faces saved. And we start again.

Early chatter is suggesting that Solicitor General Ted Olsen may be under consideration. Olsen might make some sense. He's a heavyweight who will light up the hearings just like Roberts. Olsen also passes the "Friend of Bush" test in the sense that he lead the Bush legal team in the 2000 Florida recount. While he would certainly come under scrutiny for his role in the 2000 Florida case and would still be a polarizing figure in some circles, Republicans would unanimously be in his camp and his skills and qualifications would be largely self-evident and unquestionable.

It seems to me that Bush cannot afford another snafu on a SC nomination. He really can't allow himself to get hung up on gender and race quotas. He has to pick someone that even critics will be forced to defer on. So, W, do yourself a favor. Unlike Iraq, hurricanes and the CIA leak case, you have complete control over who you nominate. Start vetting candidates, ignore their gender and race, don't listen to Harry Reid, and pick the best conservative available. In short, send us another John Roberts.

A second voice

Cliff Kincaid serves as a second voice telling us of the CIA effort aimed at undermining the Bush Administration is the big story of the Wilson-Plame affair. Much like the other-Victoria Toensing for Human Events-has pointed out, the CIA was incompetent at worst and just sloppy at best on Iraq's WMD's and so the choice of a Joe Wilson for a sensitive investigation appears to lead to only one conclusion: They were covering their collective ass at the expense of the WH.

From Toensing: Savvy Washington journalists scratched their collective heads, questioning, “Why Wilson?” Why would the Vice President send a person to Niger on a mission about WMD who was not an expert in that subject, had never served in a senior capacity in Niger, had not worked for the CIA, and was known to oppose the White House Iraq policy? Wilson, in addition to all that, was known around town as a grandstander and a bit of a flake.

The “Why Wilson” question was being asked by the Washington Post, New York Times, Time Magazine, and columnists such as Novak. Reporters were not the only ones asking. Cheney was surprised that Wilson had claimed the mission was at his request since it was not true. It probably was not a pleasant call that went from Cheney’s office to then CIA Director George Tenet.

Perhaps Tenet was also asked why a person sent on such a sensitive mission, unlike the rest of us, did not have to sign a confidentiality agreement and was permitted to publish an account of that mission. Was the CIA trying to put the blame on the White House for the State of the Union misstep?

From Kincaid: We are still left with the mystery of why Miller didn't write anything based on what Libby told her. She says she proposed a story. Miller and/or her editors may have been persuaded to drop it by other sources, who may have been in the CIA. It makes perfect sense. The CIA had been behind the Wilson trip from the beginning and, as Libby told Miller, had been trying to undercut the administration's Iraq policy and divert attention from the agency's poor performance on Iraqi WMD. The CIA did not want the full extent of its role uncovered and decided that the best way to divert attention from its own shabby performance was to accuse Bush officials of violating the law against identifying covert agents. This was one covert operation by the CIA on top of another. Miller watched the whole thing play out and refused to tell her own paper and the public what was really happening.