John Dean case for War in Iraq

July 18, 2003 1:42 AM

John Dean's analysis of the administrations case for War."What I found, in critically examining Bush's evidence, is not pretty. The African uranium matter is merely indicative of larger problems, and troubling questions of potential and widespread criminality when taking the nation to war. It appears that not only the Niger uranium hoax, but most everything else that Bush said about Saddam Hussein's weapons was false, fabricated, exaggerated, or phony."
posted by thedailygrowl (73 comments total)

I mean, really. Has there ever been a stronger case for the impeachment of a president in the entire course of U.S. history?

Bush has blatantly lied, not about personal sexual issues, but about evidence for war. It's becoming increasingly clear that Sadaam never posed a mortal threat to Americans (and if you're in the camp that makes the case for war on humanitarian grounds alone, you'll find yourself without the administration.)

It's shocking to me the depths to which our standards of offical accountability have fallen since the days of Watergate.
posted by jonz at 4:18 AM on July 18, 2003

In yet another case of pre-war exaggeration, the Iraqi nuclear scientist Mahdi Shukur Obeidi who recently offered up centrifuge parts that were buried in his backyard disputes Bush assertions that the nuclear weapons plan had been reactivate and says that the tubes weren't for nuclear bombs.

The tubes were one of two key evidence points Bush pointed to in his SOTU speech, the other being the discredited African uranium claim. At he time, the IAEA disputed that the tubes could be used for such a program.

According to this article:
The White House said last month Obeidi's account was evidence of the ousted Baghdad regime's bomb ambitions. But U.S. officials did not, at the same time, report that the scientist had contradicted assertions that the program had already been revived and the tubes were part of it.
posted by madamjujujive at 4:31 AM on July 18, 2003

In related news, the man believed by some to have been the source of the leak to the BBC about the UK Govt's bogus dossiers (and gave evidence to a House of Commons Select Committee investigation into those dossiers) has gone missing and a body (unidentified as I type this) has been found during the search.

Let's face it: Blair is a fucking liar and Bush is a fucking liar.
posted by jackiemcghee at 5:00 AM on July 18, 2003

I mean, really. Has there ever been a stronger case for the impeachment of a president in the entire course of U.S. history?

I certainly can't wait 'til he is so y'all will finally shut up about it. Crimeny.
posted by Witty at 5:06 AM on July 18, 2003

I suspect the democratric process of people discussing politics and ideas will continue after Bush. Unlucky Witty.
posted by vbfg at 5:09 AM on July 18, 2003

The Guardian reports: Missing MoD Mole: Body Found.
posted by madamjujujive at 5:24 AM on July 18, 2003

mjujujive: 'Mole' is not necessarily right. The Select Committee seemed fairly convinced that he was not the source of Gilligan's accusations against BlairCo, which will make it all the more outrageous if it turns out to be his body, since the Ministry of Defence (or somebody) has set him up for a fall...

But before we get conspiratorial, the poor guy may, for all we know have had a heart attack while walking. He was pretty stressed giving evidence. One more death on the conscience of those who seem to have none...
posted by klaatu at 5:30 AM on July 18, 2003

I cannot get to that article, mjjj, although the rest of the Guardian site works fine. Odd.

Anyone got it in their cache, just in case?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:30 AM on July 18, 2003

I can conclude from the lack of vociferous attacks on the assertions in this thread that all bush apologists sleep in late.
posted by crunchland at 5:36 AM on July 18, 2003

The BBC on Dr Kelly.
posted by vbfg at 5:36 AM on July 18, 2003

I don't believe that there has been any "foul play" here. Probably a heart-attack brought on by stress.
posted by BigCalm at 5:41 AM on July 18, 2003

"Tony Blair last night used the rare opportunity of a historic address to the US Congress to declare that history would 'forgive' him even if no weapons of mass destruction are uncovered in Iraq."
posted by crunchland at 5:43 AM on July 18, 2003

History may, but I cannot.
posted by walrus at 5:46 AM on July 18, 2003

Why couldn't Mr. Dean or anyone else say, or get decent coverage for saying, "Gee, this sounds fishy" BEFORE the war? (sigh)
posted by rainbaby at 5:49 AM on July 18, 2003

Many did. They were "unpatriotic".
posted by walrus at 5:51 AM on July 18, 2003

How about the French, who (quite reasonably) suggested that rather than go to war now and banjax the UN in the process, they should let the weapons inspectors finish their work. But of course, a torrent of abuse followed from the US media about those who dared to doubt the veracity of US claims. History will forgive the French, but Tony and George may be in a bit more hot water at the moment.
posted by BigCalm at 5:57 AM on July 18, 2003

Also, sorry to pick on you rainbaby, but how did you manage to miss one of the biggest public and political protests ever witnessed (self link)? Two members of the UK Cabinet even resigned over it. I'm sure I remember at least one or two Americans being broadly against the idea too ...
posted by walrus at 6:06 AM on July 18, 2003

Time to go back to calling 'em "French fries" again, then?

Perhaps as a gesture of contrition, we should go further, renaming the all-American hot dog to "chaud chien."
posted by rushmc at 6:14 AM on July 18, 2003

Well, chien chaud. Good thought, though.

[/pedant]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:16 AM on July 18, 2003

I mean, really. Has there ever been a stronger case for the impeachment of a president in the entire course of U.S. history?

Looks at $20 bill.

Looks at the result of the SCOTUS decision In the case Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Cherokee Nation was sovereign, making the removal laws invalid.

Thinks about how the Cherokee nation was removed...

And you have this alledged quote: "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."

Violation of a decision of SCOTUS, yet no impeachment.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:33 AM on July 18, 2003

Well, chien chaud. Good thought, though.

I suspected as much, but I don't speak French. Thanks for the correction. Either way, it sounds more Chinese than French to my ear.
posted by rushmc at 6:47 AM on July 18, 2003

Well, chien chaud. Good thought, though.

The package in my fridge says 'saucisses fumees.' I believe that translates as 'ground, smoked, Republican administration, stuffed into pig entrails.'
posted by stonerose at 6:53 AM on July 18, 2003

The Guardian story that I posted has been changed since my posting and replaced with a different version. Klaatu, the term "mole" was not my term - the original story headline read exactly as I posted it.
posted by madamjujujive at 6:57 AM on July 18, 2003

The most important part of the article is:

"President Polk lied the nation into war with Mexico so he could acquire California as part of his Manifest Destiny. It was young Illinois Congressman Abraham Lincoln who called for a Congressional investigation of Polk's warmongering."

This, it should be noted, marked the collapse of the Whig party and the end of Lincoln's political career.

Rather than sinking into a bile filled swamp of Polk-hate, Lincoln got on with his life and eventually found a new and positive ideology that, combined the tumultuous events of the day, compelled him to return to politics.

And you'll notice that when he was president he didn't try to give California back to Mexicans.

The war is over. Try coming up with something positive to move the nation forward, not look back in anger. If you can do that, you'll win.

Lincoln understood that. If you don't, you'll keep loosing.
posted by Jos Bleau at 7:15 AM on July 18, 2003

And you'll notice that when he was president he didn't try to give California back to Mexicans.

The war is over. Try coming up with something positive to move the nation forward, not look back in anger. If you can do that, you'll win.

Lincoln understood that. If you don't, you'll keep loosing.


How about if we just have the president give us a straight answer to some very serious charges? If he lied in the State of the Union address, even believing that he was telling the truth, then he's guilty of lying to Congress. Which is a felony, and grounds for impeachment.
posted by bshort at 7:18 AM on July 18, 2003

Well, Jos Bleau, that's inspiring. An inaccuracy (The war is over) an Oasis lyric ([don't] look back in anger) and a misspelled word (loosing) in support of a totally inappropriate historical analogy. Thanks a bunch for that steaming pile of crap.
posted by stonerose at 7:20 AM on July 18, 2003

An Oasis lyric? Jesus God! Have you no shame sir, have you no shame?
posted by y2karl at 7:26 AM on July 18, 2003

I was talking about the Democrats, esp. those running, I know it was unclear.
posted by rainbaby at 7:27 AM on July 18, 2003

Hey, Jos Bleau, how bout we don't talk about the taxes I owe the IRS, or my student loan debt that's 10 years old - I can just tell the government to "find something positive and move forward."

See, there's this thing called "accountability." It is something most 10 year old kids understand pretty well.
posted by yesster at 7:29 AM on July 18, 2003

Metafilter: Handbags at 100,000 paces.
posted by BigCalm at 7:35 AM on July 18, 2003

bshort, if lying to congress was a felony, a lot of its members would be in jail. Lying under oath to congress is a felony, but the the SOTU is not delivered under oath.

And stonerose, the war IS over. Now we are in reconstruction. US soldiers were being killed in Germany as late as 1947 after the end of the war in Europe. And perhaps over a thousand were killed in the US post-Civil War reconstruction that lasted for 12 years - mostly blacks trying to assert their rights, but quite a number of soldiers too.

Sheesh - some of you sound like the kids in the back of the classroom who tells everyone else what's wrong with them and why they suck - and then wonders why they never get what want.
posted by Jos Bleau at 7:40 AM on July 18, 2003

Yeesh. Lay off Jos Bleau. Even if you detest Bush, there's a decent amount of sense in what JB said. Melville wrote a book about single-minded pursuits....
posted by weston at 7:42 AM on July 18, 2003

Don't take my word for it, Jos Bleau: U.S. Commander in Iraq Says Yearlong Tours Are Option to Combat 'Guerrilla' War.
posted by stonerose at 7:43 AM on July 18, 2003

Lay off? What JB says is basically "Hey, that's all in the past, forget it and move on." That's a pretty asinine approach to accountability in government.

The Bush administration lied us into a war, and they're continuing to lie and point fingers. This isn't something in the past, it is happening right now.
posted by yesster at 7:51 AM on July 18, 2003

What yesster said. I would also add that 'letting it go' is basically what the 'left' did after Bush was handed the election. Gore conceded, and we all went away prepared to let Bush follow through on his promises to be a 'compassionate conservative...' a 'uniter, not a divider...' an opponent of 'arrogance' in U.S. foreign policy and a proponent of 'honor' in the Oval Office. We expected moderate, humble governance, with compromise and concession where appropriate, as would befit a government that didn't win the popular vote. Instead, we got a radical, right-wing, secretive pack of warmongering liars. Therein lies our reluctance to let it go.
posted by stonerose at 8:00 AM on July 18, 2003

Try coming up with something positive to move the nation forward

Forward! On to Syria, Iran, Korea and any old fucker who gets in our way. After all, you can lie to the American public, and then they'll forget. Move the nation forward, my ass.
posted by acrobat at 8:06 AM on July 18, 2003

bshort, if lying to congress was a felony, a lot of its members would be in jail. Lying under oath to congress is a felony, but the the SOTU is not delivered under oath.

Actually, lying to Congress is a felony. And no, you don't have to be under oath to be in breach.

Please review U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 1001 which, in brief states: "...whoever, in any matter...knowingly and willfully...makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

and then they could be up for conspiracy charges under U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 371 which, in brief states: "If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
posted by bshort at 8:07 AM on July 18, 2003

an Oasis lyric

Philistines.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:08 AM on July 18, 2003

If lying to congress was a crime Bob Dornan would have been hung, drawn & quartered 10 yeasr ago.

bshort, did you read your own citation?

It only applies to claims for payment of expenses or other employment/contracting matters, and investigations of same. It has nothing to do with general statements to congress.

So - a false accusation of criminality - you better hope you are not held to the same standard you want for Bush!

I'm am starting to loose hope that we'll see a principled, forward looking opposition to Bush ...
posted by Jos Bleau at 8:23 AM on July 18, 2003

LOSE! LOSE! LOSE! ARGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:28 AM on July 18, 2003

Jos Bleau, I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that the limitation you're referring to applies to accusations against the legislative branch, not the executive branch:

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the
legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to...
posted by stonerose at 8:30 AM on July 18, 2003

lose lips sink ships
posted by crunchland at 8:30 AM on July 18, 2003

bshort, did you read your own citation?

It only applies to claims for payment of expenses or other employment/contracting matters, and investigations of same. It has nothing to do with general statements to congress.


Did you actually read the full section?

Ok, here's the full citation:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
    matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
    judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly
    and willfully -
        (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or
      device a material fact;
        (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
      statement or representation; or
        (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the
      same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
      statement or entry;
    shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5
    years, or both.
      (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial
    proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements,
    representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or
    counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
      (c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the
    legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to -
        (1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a
      matter related to the procurement of property or services,
      personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a
      document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to
      the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative
      branch; or
        (2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the
      authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of
      the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or
      Senate."

The State of the Union is arguably a document required by rule, law or regulation (in fact, its required by the Constitution). In fact, it was this law that was used to convict John Poindexter and Oliver North.

It would help if you would actually read things rather than just skimming the first 4 or 5 words of sentence.

So - a false accusation of criminality - you better hope you are not held to the same standard you want for Bush!

Well, since I'm just testifying to you and not to Congress, I think I'm pretty safe.
posted by bshort at 8:32 AM on July 18, 2003

From Mr. Dean's article:

In making this observation, I realize that some Republicans will pound the patriotism drum, claiming that anyone who questions Bush's call to arms is politicizing the Iraqi war. But I have no interest in partisan politics, only good government - which is in serious trouble when we stop debating these issues, or absurdly accuse those who do of treason.

I agree.
posted by whatever at 8:35 AM on July 18, 2003

OrthographyFilter: Oh God! Now I'm loost!
posted by acrobat at 8:39 AM on July 18, 2003

Armitage - EEk, sorry about that! Good thing my mom is out of the country!

In the SOTU the POTUS doesn't submit a bill for payment and he's not there as part of an investigation or review, so the statute doesn't apply.

And in any case, you don't just need to prove that the person is wrong, but that he lied. You & Dean aren't even close to doing that, whatever you wish to believe.

Another opportunity sqaundered. You've reached all the folks you can with Bush-hate - instead of misconstruing legal texts in a snipe hunt to destroy Bush, why not come up with a positve and better way forward?

And I stand by my oeing statement: If lying to congress was a crime Bob Dornan would have been hung, drawn & quartered 10 years ago.
posted by Jos Bleau at 8:46 AM on July 18, 2003

you don't just need to prove that the person is wrong, but that he lied

A good point, and one that those in power are well aware of. If they can keep the intelligence that their decisions were based on a secret, there is no possible way for anybody to prove that Bush knowingly and willing attempted to deceive the house.
posted by BigCalm at 8:56 AM on July 18, 2003

Another opportunity sqaundered. You've reached all the folks you can with Bush-hate - instead of misconstruing legal texts in a snipe hunt to destroy Bush, why not come up with a positve and better way forward?

Yeah, fuck it. Who cares if a bunch of American kids were sent overseas and died to further Bush's political agenda, and that of his oil industry buddies. It's all in the past.

Scumbag...
posted by SweetJesus at 9:00 AM on July 18, 2003

A "better way forward" is to prosecute anyone and everyone in the Bush administration for their roles in this grand deception. Failure to do so will only ensure that it happens again in the future, by other administrations, regardless of political party.

A "better way forward" is to improve accountability in government.

A "better way forward" is to increase the transparency of political motivations and machinations.

A "better way forward" is to encourage rational discussion and critique of government.
posted by yesster at 9:05 AM on July 18, 2003

In the SOTU the POTUS doesn't submit a bill for payment and he's not there as part of an investigation or review, so the statute doesn't apply.

Exactly how stupid are you?

The original text says:
"administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; "

It says "or" a document required by law. What don't you understand about that?

It says "including a claim for payment" not "only a claim for payment.
posted by bshort at 9:08 AM on July 18, 2003

Aside from the other points in this thread, is that the John Dean of Watergate infamy? Looks like it. And if he is, nothing he says carries any weight, even if it happens to be true. It's as if Nixon or Kissenger said it. Any of these three could tell me the sky is blue and bears shit in the woods and it would still need independent corroboration. Dean calling Bush (or anyone) a liar is a case of the bass calling the catfish wet.
posted by jfuller at 9:09 AM on July 18, 2003

What yesster said.
If those who don't remember history are forced to repeat it, I wonder if we are paying the penance for not paying attention to Regan's duplicity in Central America?
posted by ahimsakid at 9:10 AM on July 18, 2003

The Democrats and their candidates for Presidency smell blood

...and I see no reason to tell them it is their own.
posted by Mick at 9:12 AM on July 18, 2003

Yes it's that John Dean
and yes a cancer is growing on the presidency
and I'd take his legal legal expertise over JB's.
And oh, from the post:"It does not require a specific intent to deceive the Congress. It does not require that statements be written, or that they be sworn. Congress is aware of the law's breadth and has chosen not to change it"
posted by ahimsakid at 9:13 AM on July 18, 2003

It was John Dean's honesty before Congress that busted Watergate open. He was indeed the only person left in the Nixon admin. with any credibility.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 9:22 AM on July 18, 2003

> It was John Dean's honesty before Congress that busted
> Watergate open.

Like Joe Valachi he sang and sang pretty well. I still wouldn't turn my back on Joe in a dark alley, and I can't forget the reams of utter merde Dean emitted with that sincere little-boy look while he was still White House counsel. Rats remain rats even after they've deserted the sinking shit, I mean ship.
posted by jfuller at 9:37 AM on July 18, 2003

Can any of you even articulate a positive agenda that doesn't require demonzation or telling me how bad I am or someone else is? That actually has positive things you want to achieve, and isn't about things or people you'd like destroy?
posted by Jos Bleau at 9:44 AM on July 18, 2003

JB - I did, above.
posted by yesster at 9:46 AM on July 18, 2003

Jos Bleau, here (AGAIN!) is your positive agenda: We want to re-establish and strengthen accountability in government. We want to ensure that future foreign policy decisions are based on truthful evidence. We want a government that is fiscally responsible, and that is responsive to the wishes of the majority of Americans, rather than one that is driven by a small minority.

I don't think you're bad, Jos Bleau. I think you're a little worked up, and frankly not quite up to the task of defending the Bush administration. But that's okay: it's increasingly clear that they aren't up to it, either.
posted by stonerose at 9:50 AM on July 18, 2003

Even if you detest Bush, there's a decent amount of sense in what JB said. Melville wrote a book about single-minded pursuits....

So did Ken Starr.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:51 AM on July 18, 2003

JB - so your tactic is to just change the subject, eh? If you can't address the points the other party is making, then just attack how they're saying it?

I'm with yesster and stonerose, I think we need more accountability in government, and I think that appointing a special prosecutor and not allowing anyone to get away with anything in this matter is the proper course of action.

That's a pretty positive statement.
posted by bshort at 9:53 AM on July 18, 2003

and I can't forget the reams of utter merde Dean emitted with that sincere little-boy look

God, did this make anyone besides me think of Ollie North?
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:03 AM on July 18, 2003

yesster and stonerose have it exactly right...why is it that the people (the administration) who are supposed to work for us, aren't accountable at all?
posted by amberglow at 10:03 AM on July 18, 2003

"Mr. Jos Bleau , you have been accused of robbery, homicide, use of a deadly weapon in the course of a crime. How do you plead?"

"Look - the robbery is over - the dead people are dead. Try coming up with something positive to move the nation forward, not look back in anger. If you can do that, you'll win. That actually has positive things you want to achieve, and isn't about things or people you'd like destroy?"
posted by Perigee at 10:13 AM on July 18, 2003

So egregious and serious are Bush's misrepresentations that they appear to be a deliberate effort to mislead Congress and the public. So arrogant and secretive is the Bush White House that only a special prosecutor can effectively answer and address these troubling matters. Since the Independent Counsel statute has expired, the burden is on President Bush to appoint a special prosecutor - and if he fails to do so, he should be held accountable by Congress and the public.

Bwahahaha. haI am not holding my breath. President Bush could be found with a bloody knife in his hand standing over a dead body and a note saying why he did it, and the fricking congress STILL wouldn't do anything to him. They love Bush so much, they love their power so much, and they are in control. Republicans will NEVER investigate ANY of this EVER. Until we get a Democratic majority, Bush will continue to do what he's doing and lie, cheat, and steal again and again and again. And he will never call in an investigator to investigate himself. Please.

God, but i feel powerless in this country. I just want to cry. This man is a lying bastard, but there's simply nothing I can do about it. I live in California and we already vote for Democrats so I can't make a change that matters in my own state. And America is full of morons who eat this stuff up and don't get angry and believe the President because he's a "good guy" and he is "one of them." Buch of blinded stupid people. And he will be elected again, as he spends half a million a day to do it. *crawls under desk and sobs*
posted by aacheson at 10:14 AM on July 18, 2003

I loved this rhetorical point:

From Bush's SOTU - "Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."
posted by soyjoy at 10:33 AM on July 18, 2003

Charlie Chaplin said it once, in the guise of "The Great Dictator." He stepped out of character, spoke to the people from his heart directly from the screen.

It was the start of the accusations of him being a communist which led to him being thrown out of the country. These words, and those that followed as the silent film star opened his mouth and let his opinions out, destroyed his career. But not his life, and not his soul.

A little melodramatic, as many of us are when we see so plainly the peril of something we love dearly, the words still have resonance, especially in times like these. If you haven't seen them, perhaps you'd like to.

Such a thing to say, to be labeled a traitor, and a communist. Such a thing to believe, to be un-American.
posted by Perigee at 10:35 AM on July 18, 2003

Thank you for the Chaplin link, Perigee.
posted by walrus at 10:52 AM on July 18, 2003

It's as if Nixon or Kissenger said it. Any of these three could tell me the sky is blue and bears shit in the woods and it would still need independent corroboration.

Would that be the same Kissinger that the Bush Administration tried to appoint as chair of the 9/11 investigation, jfuller?

Should have thrown Dean in with Nixon and, say, Liddy, then you could have gotten away with that. But you have to be careful about waving around those discreditations by association with this administration, since so many of the politically undead are wandering around in it's hallways.
posted by dglynn at 10:58 AM on July 18, 2003

All right. I take it back. Lynch 'em all.

Seriously, I don't mind holding our friends in the white house accountable. That's fine. What I took out of Jos Bleau's post is that there's a point where this stops being strategic or a priority, and what should be a priority is getting better people *in* the whitehouse. Venom against the current administration isn't going to do it alone. Impeachment.... well, impeaching Bush would make who president? Would that make you feel any better?

It'll be interesting to see the platform that dems run on this time. Will it be compelling enough to the masses to attract people?
posted by weston at 12:34 PM on July 18, 2003

Try coming up with something positive to move the nation forward

I can think of nothing better or more appropriate to move the nation forward than to see Bush exposed, impeached, booted out, convicted, fined into poverty, and thrown into federal prison to rot.

Sic Semper Tyrannis...
posted by rushmc at 12:35 PM on July 18, 2003

Impeachment.... well, impeaching Bush would make who president? Would that make you feel any better?

One step at a time. You don't leave a mobster in power because you fear his lieutenant.
posted by rushmc at 12:38 PM on July 18, 2003

It'll be interesting to see the platform that dems run on this time. Will it be compelling enough to the masses to attract people?

More to the point, will the press actually cover it, and do so with a shred of journalistic integrity? A Salon article by Eric Boehlert pretty much sums it up. For nonsubscribers who don't want to deal with Salon's day pass, a particularly infuriating excerpt:

During the 2000 presidential campaign, the press couldn't stop writing, investigating and carrying about Al Gore's alleged exaggerations regarding old movies, canoe trips, and classroom seating inside a Sarasota school.

posted by George_Spiggott at 1:22 PM on July 18, 2003