View current page
...more recent posts
The New York Times slips the Downing Street Memo into its back pages in the form of a Frank Rich column. I don't really like him--his way of massaging the week's news into a single jocular story line is clever but ultimately toothless. If the column had any meaning, the Times would fire Judith Miller, the reporter who printed the WMD lies from the Iraqi exiles, fire the editors who approved her stories, and go front-page aggressive with Downing Street and other hard evidence that Bush committed impeachable offenses. I mean, the President's not popular any more, his numbers are the 40s, so what's to lose? Anyway, here's an excerpt from Rich's "tough" column. Nice to read, but big whoop.
The attacks continue to be so successful that even now, long after many news organizations, including the Times, have been found guilty of failing to puncture the administration's prewar WMD hype [uh, how about "spoonfeeding its prewar hype to the public"?], new details on that same story are still being ignored or left uninvestigated. The July 2002 "Downing Street memo," the minutes of a meeting in which Tony Blair and his advisers learned of a White House effort to fix "the intelligence and facts" to justify the war in Iraq, was published by the London Sunday Times on May 1. Yet in the 19 daily Scott McClellan briefings that followed, the memo was the subject of only 2 out of the approximately 940 questions asked by the White House press corps, according to Eric Boehlert of Salon.Yeah, well, you ought to know. Actually Rich isn't a lapdog, more like a court jester. It should also be said that the MSB (mainstream bloggers like Atrios, Gilliard, and the ever-boring Kevin Drum) also passed on giving the Downing Street Memo big play. I think it's different from the Clarke revelations, et al, because no one has a bone to pick or a book to sell. It simply states the facts from that time period.
This is the kind of lapdog news media the Nixon White House cherished.
wormy animation - pencil test 2. still a few kinks to work out, but getting there. yes, it looks fuzzy in safari enlarged like this--the designers of that product never anticipated that a sharply pixelated look might be considered good.
Chris Ashley, GIF of excellent HTML piece removed from website in January 2005
Frank Q. Jones, Drawers, .GIF image
Frank Q. Jones, Mic, .GIF image
Paper Rad, image from Foxy Production online exhibition announcement last year.