Who says? The polls say!

You know how much I enjoy polling. It's political crack, definitely, and it's also a bit like storm tracking--you know where it's been, when it changed and possibly even why, and you have a couple of good guesses as to where it's going...but you're always reading yesterday's charts.

But at least let the charts be halfway decent and drawn up by somebody reputable. Two of the more major (although somewhat Bush-friendly) polls out in the last week show a bit of a hop for Bush, despite the defensive mode he's been in the last month and historic lows in his job ratings, both overall and specific to Iraq and terrorism. And so that has shifted the lowing of the media cattle from "Buuuuush is taaaaaaaaaanking" to "Buuuuuuuuush is kiiiiiiiiilling," resulting in shameful work like Nancy Benac's for AP today.

As I read through it somewhat nonchalantly, I began coming across state polling quotes that did not match up with other, relatively fresh numbers for the same state. That's not unusual, so I mentally shrugged off the first couple, then I began to think, "Who is running these numbers? Jersey a dead heat? Rassmussen called it a romp for Kerry just this week! Slight edge for Bush in New Hampshire? Again, not according to Rasmussen just today. So I started to look for the polling organization descriptions in the article. Who's doing this polling? Why, it's "independent Maryland pollster Patrick Gonzalez!" It's "independent pollster Ed Sarpolus!" It's Rider poly sci professor David Rebovich! Giants of the field, all. I'm sure they do honest, reputable work, but how would we know? There are no links, there are no actual numbers for most of them, and the only polling service of any repute (and they're near the bottom after the California recall election) used as a source was the Los Angeles Times.

As Robert Redford said to Dustin Hoffman in All the President's Men, "If you're gonna hype it, hype it with the facts. I don't mind what you did, I mind the way that you did it."

The Kerry rope-a-dope?

Ryan Lizza's new piece in TNR is a strategy evaluation of Kerry's decision to lay low the last month or so, relatively speaking, opting to bank cash and take the Bush blows in true rope-a-dope style: absorb the heat and hope the other guy blows himself out.

No one suggests Bush has blown his wad, given his best shot--but the yawning gulf between the pair's financial capabilities has since closed to functional nothingness. This is especially true if a) Kerry keeps raising like he has been, in historical campaign-record amounts totaling nearly $60 million last quarter, and b) Bush keeps spending like he has been, $50 million in two months.
And that doesn't count the sidemoney coming from the 527s who largely support Kerry (shhhh...don't tell the FEC). Why is the GOP so slow on starting up these ad farms, I wonder? On the internet and with the independent organizations, the Republicans are getting killed in fundraising.

The most interesting observations:

*Lizza's "educated estimate" is that Bush will finish April with around 75 mil banked; Kerry with about 60.
*While the Democrats enjoy the bump from late July's convention and ramp up for the general, the BC04 will face significantly higher ad rates due to August's Olympics in Athens.

I think it's very possible that when all is said and done, Kerry plus his PAC-rats will have raised more than Bush and his. Kerry needs to make sure he spends enough on organization to make the ad money actually work for him. Bush will always have the more expensive campaign--the campaign spends money going to the bathroom--but he needs to cut back some. Campaign folks said they intended to do just that, citing the natural "ebb and flow"...!, but now it appears they're going to get another full buy in, to try to counter Kerry's ramp-up.

Nothing political

There's certainly no shortage of stories on Iraq, Israel, the campaigns, Congress, Earth Day, Alan Greenspan, jobs and train explosions today. I have virtually no plan towards what I place into the blog, although certainly since opening the World I have focused on the current Presidency and the choices made during it. When I said at first "occassionally about sports," I think I envisioned more commentary in that direction, especially once the baseball season started. I've had a baseball thread I've wanted to put together for a few days now, but politics and whatnot have kept me bumping it to another day.

So none of that today. Here are some stories no less worthy of our lives and times:

ST. LOUIS (AP) - St. Louis Blues forward Mike Danton and a woman were indicted Thursday in Illinois on federal charges they schemed to kill an acquaintance of the hockey player.

The counts mirror those of a criminal complaint filed in East St. Louis, Ill., against Danton and Katie Wolfmeyer, accusing the two of conspiring to hire a hit man and of using a telephone across state lines to set it up.

Danton, 23, was arrested last Friday in California, a day after the Blues were eliminated from the playoffs.

Federal authorities say Danton tried to pay $10,000...what? What was that?

I said, Danton, 23, was arrested last Friday in California, a day after the Blues were eliminated from the playoffs.

That's what I thought you said. I sure hope they knew the pair wouldn't suddenly decide to ramp up the timing on tht hit, before the Blues were knocked out. What if they'd made the Finals? Would they have let him keep playing, sitting on the indictment until his team lost? What the hell is that?

Let's imagine a sheetmetal worker is involved in a murder for hire plot. The FBI goes to his boss and says "We've got a warrant for his arrest." The boss says, "OK, sure. But you have to wait until we get this big order for 2,000 sheetmetal-type things finished. We can't do it without him." Or what if it was a rap star and he just needed time to finish the follow up to his recording breaking debut? Or a chessmaster on a national tournament? If you answered, "the cops would sit on the indictment," let's talk about getting you into some prime investment options through my franchise of fine Franklin Mint products.

Back to the alleged nutbag--hey, way to reach out and touch your new fans!

I find this story fascinating--schools that discouraged soda drinking saw obestiy rates decline. That sounds like a fairly obvious conclusion, but it seems rare that cutting back on just one product could have such an effect on a problem with so many factors and choices. As the article notes, many other things have been tried to little effect. I don't see any reason why the US would be any different than the UK in that respect, and while it's not definitive it's definitely enouraging.

I joined googlemail (well, they call it gmail) at the friendly behest of Blogger.com. That led me to google news, a serious challenger to MyWay supremacy in Torrid's World. Not to be outdone by Prince, who reduced his real name--Prince Rogers Nelson--to a symbol that no one could pronounce or understand and then changed it back a few years later, the McAffee Software people decided their choice to become NETWORK ASSOCIATES wasn't all that great of an idea. Let's hope they saved the letterhead and the business cards.

This story piqued my interest due to the reported jarring of the jaded New York existence--the arrival of the Queen Mary II to New York Harbor. Check out the slide show in the right frame. It certainly is a stunning piece of enginerring achievement, and it's certainly justified that people held viewing parties and stood on rooftops to herald its arrival. But the people that were calling it--excuse me, she--beautiful...I mean, it's a welding of metal about as large as you can make it and have it float. It's impressive, it's daunting, it's awestriking, and it may even fill you with a sense of pride for the power and ingenuity of the human mind. But steel hull 233 feet tall isn't beautiful, it's just behemoth. Still in all, a welcome and lovely (how's lovely?) sight.

Finally, across the river in delightful South Orange, NJ, we have a 6th grader turning a pack of Nutter Butters into a threatening object. The child, 12 year old Jules Gabriel, showed just what kind of Jersey badass he is by holding the dangerous peanut-spread substance aloft, and proclaiming that the tasty snack would inure him from teacher punishment. Why? Because the teacher is peanut-allergic. Jules got ratted out by a classmate, apparently without known relations suffering from peanut allergy, and he hasn't been back to school since. The family figured it would be 10 days, but that day has passed and the youth is in Guantanamo-like limbo.

Sure--a peanut allergy is no joke. And this kid really could use some counseling on the idea that his teacher needs to become violently ill for imposing detention upon him. But the teacher wasn't in the room, and the Nutter Butters never left the package. What he did sure sounds like a threat, but boy it isn't a very proximate one. The whole "no tolerance" movement in schools is just bunk to me. It continually spawns wire stories like this one, that show how inflexible and ultimately inattentive the schools are to what's a problem and what's not. They're freaking about being the next Columbine, which is a little sad. We do too much out of fear these days. Way too much.

The leading indicator of favorability

A lot of talk the last couple days about the WaPo and CNN polls that show Bush with a little surge, despite how bad things have been the last couple weeks. Over at Eschaton people are starting to freak a little bit, while others like Marshall theorize that war news is always good news for Bush, even when it's bad. I did see that Keith Olbermann took the time tonight to mention Zogby and Newsweek as countervailing polls while talking with Howard Fineman (who seems to have jumped off Bush's wagon for good), but otherwise it seems like the GOP is breathing easier tonight.

Perhaps they shouldn't. Check out the trend lines on all of the most recent Bush favorability ratings as listed by Polling Report:

Gallup: 56 (t2nd lowest ever; 52)
Zobgy: 53 (lowest ever)
Newsweek: 48 (lowest of available)
Fox: 49 (lowest ever)
CBS: 39 (2nd lowest ever; 37)

Now look at the UNfavorables:

Gallup: 42 (t2nd highest ever; 47)
Zobgy: 45 (tied highest ever)
Newsweek: 46 (2nd highest of available; 47)
Fox: 44 (highest ever)
CBS: 42 (highest ever)

At the moment Kerry appears content to let the news cycles roll, taking the free media on Iraq and all the book tours as negative advertising he doesn't need to buy. And while some pundits are taking the horse race results as a sign Kerry needs to get on the stick and start campaigning, I think he's best served for the moment doing what he's been doing: hanging back and letting Bush get softened up. Kerry's negatives seem to have stabilized; but Bush's may have some room for further degradation if the pressure continues.

Bearden halts SSM in Multnomah, predicts ultimate victory

from AP:

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) -- A judge on Tuesday ordered a halt to same-sex marriage in an Oregon county that for weeks has been the only place in the nation where gays can get married.

Judge Frank Bearden said he believes the Oregon constitution would allow either civil unions or gay marriage, but he said a state Supreme Court ruling is needed first. He also said "public debate and legislative action may be required to carry out the court's mandate."

Very interesting. Despite an agreement not to rule on issues of process, this seems like a ruling on process. The issue was ostensibly whether same-sex marriage was constitutional, and his apparent decision is 'probably, yes,' although he includes civil unions in the mix as well.

I will be curious to see how the MC4 react to the ruling. My guess is the Defense of Marriage Coalition will be happy as well, particularly by the part of Bearden's ruling that recognizes the input of "public debate and legislative action."

Question: will this skip an appeal and move directly to the OSC? And if so, how quickly will they take it up? Will they wait to see if an amendment initiative makes the next ballot? My guess would be yes on both.

Update: WWPablo has some additional links and information, and I see he posted about an hour before I did, so I respectfully took the "scoop!" off my title. One big bombshell from his summary is that Bearden ordered the already licensed marriages to be recorded, which means they would be officially state sanctioned, and as far as anyone knows, the first to be so sanctioned in the United States. Wow. That's an awful lot of inertia to overcome if you want to ban same-sex marriages in the future. Bearden's decision is linked from WWP as well, so dive in and check it out for yourself.

Wishful headline writings, Vol 1

Just trolling the news before going to bed, scanning what appears to be the top story: the negotiations between Coalition forces and Fallujah tribal leaders has resulted in an appeal to insurgents to hand over their weapons. Everybody has it, and everyone agrees that its success depends largely on whether, well, they hand over the weapons or not. Fair enough--a worthy idea, a ratcheting down of the violence and the punitive tactics in reprisal.

So what's the lie?

Read the headline from Fox's version of the story:

Fallujah Insurgents Begin Turning Over Weapons.

That perked up my eyes of course--the first signs from Tuesday morning that they've begun turning them in! But read the article. It doesn't actually say a thing about anyone turning any weapons in, and in fact it's almost exactly the same story that everyone else had; we're all waiting to see what the insurgents do next.

Maybe they're updating the story and just got to the headline, and by morning I'll look foolish. Won't be the first time, so I'm willing to take the chance. As of 1241 AM, they've got a headline that is provacatively false, 0% supported by the text of the article.


Update: well, perhaps I look foolish for linking to a headline that got changed. Trust me, the above is what it USED to say.

Woodward's incredulous controversy

Whatever you may think of Larry King, the guy's got legendary star power. Oprah might have Bob Woodward on (although I bet not), but you can bet your ass Saudi prince Bandar isn't going to call in apparently on his own initiative, like he did for Larry tonight. And then Woodward fact checked with him on air and then called the Royal Highness the Hall of Fame winner for "dodges and fishy explanations."

The Bush attack machine has stunned even Bob Woodward, it appears. Watching his interview with King tonight, I repeatedly got the impression from Bob that all this media denial going on was rather curious, considering that Prince Bandar confirmed some of the stuff that the White House denied, and the White House confirmed some of the stuff Bandar denied. And everyone in the White House seems to want really hard to disagree about notifying Bandar before Powell when the decision was made, but Woodward claims he has direct confirmation from the President that it happened as he indicated. And it's not like this is some rag sheet the White House is trying to smear with the well oiled precision of something that's really precise and runs on oil; it's Bob--whose very book is on the BC04 "suggested readings" list, along with such leftist Bush-bashing luminaries like Karen Hughes, Lynne Cheney, John Podhoretz and Sean Hannity.

Clearly Woodward was not present at all, most or even many of the meetings he describes. But he did have extraordinary access to all the players, made tapes and took notes, and had them verified by 60 Minutes before their airing of their feature on him last night. Here's how he describes it:

KING: And back to the original question. Two people having a conversation. You write about it. Does that mean one of them told you about the conversation?

WOODWARD: That's right, or there might have been records or notes, or somebody who was in the conversation went to their deputy immediately afterwards and said, You won't believe the meeting I just had.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: If the deputy told you, is that second-hand?

WOODWARD: It is second-hand, and then I would go to the two people in the conversation and say, Did this happen, and try get confirmation. In all of these issues about when the president decided and what was going on -- I went through with the president on this meeting with Powell, for instance, and now the White House is kind of saying, Well, the president really didn't decide to go to war. The president told me, and if the White House would let me play the tapes of the interview, you would hear the president say, as we go over this meeting for 10 minutes, he'd say, You got it about right. And the president would say, I said to Colin Powell, time to put your war uniform on. It was a decision meeting.

So, to the "denials raised." Of the three main reports that the mass media have taken interest in, the most petty is the one I mentioned yesterday: Mr. Zero (Bandar) knew before Powell did, that we were a go. Rice offered a weak non-denial, and here's Powell's:

KING: Now, we also have Powell on tape, disputing the suggestion about Bandar being informed of the war before him. Let's show that to you now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: The question that has arisen seems to be that Prince Bandar received a briefing on the plan, and there's some suggestion that I hadn't. Of course, I had. I was intimately familiar with the plan, and I was aware that Prince Bandar was being briefed on the plan.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WOODWARD: But see, the book repeatedly says -- and Powell, in one of his interviews said Woodward's book says he was briefed on the plan. The issue is not the plan. The issue is the decision.

KING: To go.

WOODWARD: To go. And when Don Rumsfeld says -- looks Bandar in the eye and says, You can take this to the bank, this is going to happen, and they have the top secret war plan, and then the president confirms all of this, and Cheney says, When we go -- I don't know. I mean, if you laid it all out, you would see how carefully it's done and that this is a serious account of what happened.

Now, we're in a political season and there's a lot of crossfire, a lot of people worried about their own hides, a lot of people worried about their future or the impact of the truth, and so people run for ambiguous cover, and you know, welcome to Washington.

The oil thing is probably the one that will get the most play, but it's the flimsiest. The White House is clearly a bit spooked by the whole idea, because Bandar repeated on King tonight that Woodward was essentially correct--the Saudis wanted to keep prices down in the runup to the election. Woodward nearly dismisses it himself, saying it was only two lines in the book, and he never said it was a secret decision or a collaboration, just that the Saudis intended to try to make that happen.

The biggest issue to me, and probably the least mentioned for now, is the diversion of funds from Afghanistan to Iraq in the runup to war. Money excerpt:

KING: Help me with this $700 million spent without the Congress knowing, and today, the Pentagon, I think, admitted $200 million was spent. How did they do this without our elected officials knowing?

WOODWARD: There's a lot of money they were given...

KING: For Afghanistan.

WOODWARD: For Afghanistan, but Tommy Franks is the commander, central commander...

KING: And he can move it around?

WOODWARD: Well, he had the war in Afghanistan and the planning in Iraq. And I went through this with White House people in some detail, and the president again confirmed that they -- he approved this $700 million and that it was from the Afghan appropriation. And there were people in the White House who felt, you know, Let's not disturb Congress with this.

KING: But some in Congress today are calling for an investigation of that.

WOODWARD: Well...

KING: Should they?

WOODWARD: It's always better to know. And the issue of spending money in preparing for a war, under the Constitution, they shouldn't spend money unless Congress appropriates it. It's that simple.

Because of the author, because of the access and confirmations from inside the White House, and because it comes at a crucial time in the post-Iraq lifespan, I think Woodward's book will be the biggest of the series that comes out in 2004 on the president.

The coalition

Zap offers via email a remarkably thorough sleuthing job on who is in Iraq, where they're from, and how they got there...thanks for the work.

****

Knowing there's a less than dignified debate regarding the nature of Bush's coalition, I decided to research it myself. It was educational. I hope you see it the same way.

I started from these two links:

GlobalSecurity.org
The Globalist

Noticing the differences in those breakdowns, I decided to corroborate and update by googling each coalition country a couple different ways. While I'm certain the compilation below is less than perfect, I think this is a reasonably accurate assessment of the current state of the coalition. Any errors are accidental. Actual numbers change on a daily basis.

I felt the necessity to include the contracted mercenaries in some numbers but not as a representative "country." They are now the second largest force in Iraq and growing while others are dwindling. Any coalition breakdown not including the mercenary presence is not telling the whole story and ignoring a key issue regarding this occupation.

I refer to them as mercenaries. If you prefer "contracted security," that's fine. I understand there's a legal issue pertaining to mercenaries, so it's best to call them security, but I'm tired of mendacity. They're heavily armed. They've been asked to tone it down. Some say they're looking for trouble. They even protect our troops. They've played vital roles in combat. By any
honest definition-- mercenaries. I'm not judging, just defining.

Total Coalition Countries: 35
Total Coalition Troops in Iraq: 162,785
Coalition + Contracted Mercenaries: 178,000 (estimated)
Non-US Troops: 27,785
Non-US and UK Troops: 16,785

While googling the coalition members, I picked up the point of interest tidbits provided in parantheses. Most of these countries are in very fluid situations.

Tier 1

United States Troops: 135,000

Tier 2

Contracted Mercenaries: 15,000+ (estimated and growing)
United Kingdom Troops: 11,000

Subtotal: 26,000 (estimated)

Tier 3

Italy 2,700 (Huge protests)
Poland 2,400 (Threatened to pull out, feels duped)
Ukraine 1,600 (already pulled out 20%, voting soon for complete withdrawal,
fought fierce battle at Kut and retreated)
Spain 1,300 (Huge protests, pulling out, offering Afghan matching)
Netherlands 1,100 (Huge protests)
Japan 1000 (Only in theatre since this Feb.)

Subtotal: 10100

Tier 4

Australia 850 (May pull out depending on elections)
South Korea 700 (plans additional 3600)
Romania 700 (non-combat only, staying the course)
Denmark 500 (Staying the course)
Bulgaria 480 (Huge protests, promising to stay)
Thailand 443 (pulling out 9-30 or sooner)
Honduras 370 (announced pull-out this summer)
El Salvador 360 (staying the course, fought bravely losing 4 in Najaf)
Georgia 300 (Brisk troop rotation and promising 500 more)
Hungary 300 (staying the course thru 04, then evaluating)

Subtotal: 5003

Tier 5

Latvia 175 (enthusiastically rotating troops and supporting efforts)
Mongolia 173 (staying the course... li'l controversy)
Azerbaijan 151 (Muslims... staying the course)
Dominican Republic 150 (sent 150 home, others committed thru 04)
Norway 150 (huge protests, expected to pull out shortly after 6-30)
Portugal 128 (Vowing to stay course under huge protests)
Nicaragua 115 (recently announced could not afford to send more troops,
pulling out 08-04)
Lithuania 105 (Hanging in there but whining about the heat)
Slovakia 105 (Seem enthusiastic about this)

Subtotal: 1252

Tier 6

Philippines 96 (considering pulling out)
Czech Republic 80 (A very minor committment, but seemingly staying the
course)
Albania 70 (nobody knows where they are)
New Zealand 60 (they're in they're out, they're in they're out)
Estonia 55 (sticking it out for Nato)
Kazakhstan 29 (Pulling out 5-30)
Macedonia 28 (proving committment to Nato)
Moldova 12 (Cut down from 48)

Subtotal: 430

83% of the boots on the ground are US forces. The United Kingdom has provided more troops than the next seven largest contingents combined. That's UK 11,000. Italy, Poland, Ukraine, Spain, Netherlands, Australia, and Japan all combined for 10,950. One article noted that only the UK has provided support in proportianate strength equal to that which the US has provided.
Tier 2, mercenaries and the UK, is 65% greater than tiers 3 and 4 combined. That's the next 16 largest contingents amounting to less than 2/3rds of the combined mercenary and UK forces. In fact, mercenaries alone will soon surpass all 16 nations in tiers 3 and 4 (if they haven't already).

The following is provided to compare the two Bush's coalitions:

Gulf War
The Allied coalition consisted of 34 countries, including Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, The United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States.

The U.S. had more than 500,000 troops in the Persian Gulf War, while the non-U.S. coalition forces equaled roughly 160,000, or 24 percent, of all forces. Here are some details about the forces in the Gulf:

The U.S. Department of Defense has estimated the cost of the Gulf War at $61 billion; however, other sources say that number could be as high as $71 billion. The operation was financed by more than $53 billion pledged bycountries around the world, most of which came from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States ($36 billion) and Germany and Japan ($16 billion). Some of the money pledged by countries such as Saudi Arabia was delivered in the form of in-kind services to troops, such as transportation and food.

Kerry does MtP

He certainly did a better job than Bush, even if it was to complete sentences whole and without butchery. He was rarely flustered, even when he had to deftly spin his way out of some tight spots. He argued forcefully against Bush's record, which is fairly easy, but was also able to deflect some of the opposition research against him, accusing them of perniciousness or alternately admitting his error and saying he'd changed long ago. In other cases, he simply held his ground. In this snippet, it's as if Russert can't believe he's getting no wiggle from Kerry:

MR. RUSSERT: But the Republicans, Vice President Cheney included, have pointed out to a comment that you made during a Democratic debate which they think undercuts your support of the war on terrorism. "The war on terror is...occasionally military. ... But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."

SEN. KERRY: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: You do not believe the war on terror is primarily a military operation, not a law
enfor...

SEN. KERRY: No...

MR. RUSSERT: You don't.

SEN. KERRY: ...not primarily.

MR. RUSSERT: You don't.

SEN. KERRY: Not primarily.

MR. RUSSERT: You do not.

SEN. KERRY: Not primarily.

As if throwing out the contraction in "do not" will somehow change the answer.

I think the appearance will largely help him, although it will probably get less play overall than Bush's stint. However, he did pick one area where he completely supported Bush, and of all the areas he could have picked...

MR. RUSSERT: On Thursday, President Bush broke with the tradition and policy of six predecessors when he said that Israel can keep part of the land seized in the 1967 Middle East War and asserted the Palestinian refugees cannot go back to their particular homes. Do you support President Bush?

SEN. KERRY: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: Completely?

SEN. KERRY: Yes.

Well crap, if he's going to contravene decades of precedent and international law, and announce to the Arab world that they're fucked under his presidency as well, why doesn't he just carry over Wolfowitz and Perle? That was their goal anyway.

I'm sure I'm in the ideological minority on this, and obviously it won't change my vote in November, but ugh--why have we as a nation chosen to abandon all pretense of impartiality in our role as mediator of this conflict? Kerry promised to be much more hands on with the Palestinian question, but with a stance like that he needn't bother--what credibility will we have in negotiations to make that a useful prospect? I think ultimately Kerry is correct on the right of return, but I'm gathering that compensation is now off the table as well, and there has to be one or the other in my judgement. And he's just dead wrong on the illegal and pointless (not to mention highly dangerous) bifurcation of the PA territory. It's not a reflection of any new reality, it's a reflection of very old hatred and traditional power. And I'm sorry both parties' candidates have chosen this moment to completely upset the apple cart.

The subtle art of the non-denial denial

From today's Face the Nation, Condi Rice's job this morning was to spread the "it's not true" fertilizer over the sprouting of the latest book to show Bush's war plans and what passes for "thinking." She made several factual denials or alternately conceding the text while clarifying the context, but near the end of this article is the classic non-denial denial:

Woodward also wrote in "Plan of Attack" that Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to Washington, about the war plan on Jan. 11. That was two days before Bush told Powell, Woodward wrote.

"I just can't let this impression stand," Rice said. "The secretary of state was privy to all of the conversations with the president, all of the briefings for the president. They were in almost daily contact about what was going on at the United Nations."

She was asked: "So he knew that Bandar was being told?"

"I certainly knew, and I suspect that Colin would not have been surprised, going through the Gulf War experience, that one of the allies that you had to be certain understood what might happen if the president decided to go to war was the Saudis," Rice said.

"But it's just not the proper impression that somehow Prince Bandar was in the know in a way that Secretary Powell was not. It's just not right. Secretary Powell had been privy to all of this. He knew what the war plan was."

If one wouldn't have been surprised, one must have not had the chance to BE surprised, no?

As was said in the movie When Harry met Sally, about the t-shirted moving guy who had the dope on Billy Crystal's marital breakup before Billy Crystal did, "Mr. Zero knew."