From a reader:

Considering Dan's rampaging bull elephant of an ego, if he truly was duped, he'll uproot every tree in the jungle to get at the parties responsible for causing him this public humiliation. If he takes this lying down... you'll know he was a willing participant.

The New York Times reports on California's $3 billion bond initiative for research that kills human embryos. John Broder and Andrew Pollack write, "This promising but ethically controversial field of biomedical research is now severely limited by the Bush administration's policy restricting public money for research on embryonic stem cells." Especially in the context of a state-funding initiative, that should be "restricting federal money." But "severely limited" is a controverted statement and shouldn't be presented as though it weren't.

But that statement isn't the biggest problem with the article. It's that it accepts the claim that embryonic stem-cell research shows great promise in generating cures for Alzheimer's--have these guys bothered to read Rick Weiss's reporting in the Washington Post, which debunked that claim months ago?--and that the research could benefit "[h]alf of California families." I assume that the bond-initiative advocates get that number the same way the Democrats generate the figure of 100 million Americans who could benefit from expanded federal funding for the research: by assuming that the research might lead to cures for cancer, heart disease, and the like, no matter how little evidence there is for these conclusions. (The Times ups this national figure to 125 million. At the present rate of growth, the number of Americans who will be said to gain substantial benefits from subsidizing the research will soon exceed the actual population of the country.) If the Times wants to quote someone making these laughable assertions, it should at least indicate that there are people who disagree (and have good reasons for disagreeing).

For the record, I think it would be disastrous to leave for leaving's sake. Sure, if there's some way that we could leave and keep Iraq on course to stability and democracy, that'd be great. But I know of no technology nor of any replacement troops -- Iraqi or allied -- that could manage that. I see absolutely nothing wrong with pulling American troops out of South Korea, for example, if we can provide the same deterrent without them being there. I'd love to pull troops from just about everywhere if their missions wouldn't be compromised in the process.

And while I cannot muster the Kremlinology required to figure out what's going on with Novak's column, I would like to make one general point. Pulling out would be a perfectly principled thing to do according to a certain straign of conservatism. A good realist could say "Right or wrong, we did what we thought was necessary to protect ourselves. Now we're getting out." Now I think this would be a mistake. But the principle of smashing and leaving others to pick up the pieces is intellectually -- if not always morally -- sound. I think we have to stay there for the long haul, as long as the long haul is necessary.

However, there is no principled reason for a liberal to want to bug out. Unless, that is, he or she honestly believes the Iraqi people would be better off by an American bug-out and civil war. But that's a hard case to make. Liberals have had a total of one idea about foreign policy in the last two decades: nation-building. That's their thing. All of the arguments for nation-building which applied to Somalia, Haiti, Yugoslavia etc apply even more to Iraq. Moreover, there's the additional issue of our national interest. Indeed, if you believe any of the "root-causes" rhetoric of liberal foreign -- and domestic -- policy then you should believe that rebuilding Iraq is a vital national and global interest.

That's what's so repugnant about John Kerry's basic position and the Democrats' support of it. Kerry shouldn't be complaining about how much we're spending he's should be complaining about how little we're spending. Some honest liberals -- like the editors of the New Republic (see their latest editorial if you have access) -- acknowledge this. But most are perfectly fine with any line of criticism against Bush's Iraq policy so long as it comes from a Democrat or is likely to help John Kerry. That's one reason why John Kerry and John Edwards sound so much like Pat Buchanan on foreign policy these days.

MAN WHO GAVE CBS NEWS DISPUTED DOCUMENTS DESCRIBES HOW HE OBTAINED THEM; IN TELEVISION INTERVIEW, HE ADMITS HE DELIBERATELY MISLED CBS NEWS PRODUCER

CBS NEWS ACKNOWLEDGES THAT, BASED ON SUBSEQUENT REPORTING ON QUESTIONS ABOUT DOCUMENTS, IT CANNOT PROVE THEY ARE AUTHENTIC AND, THEREFORE, THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED IN THE "60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY" REPORT.

CBS NEWS AND CBS MANAGEMENT ARE COMMISSIONING AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Bill Burkett, in a weekend interview with CBS News Anchor and Correspondent Dan Rather, has acknowledged that he provided the now-disputed documents used in the Sept. 8 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY report on President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. Burkett, a retired National Guard lieutenant colonel, also admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents' origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source. Burkett originally said he obtained the documents from another former Guardsman. Now he says he got them from a different source whose connection to the documents and identity CBS News has been unable to verify to this point. Burkett's interview will be featured in a full report on tonight's CBS EVENING NEWS WITH DAN RATHER (6:30-7:00 PM, ET/PT).

In light of this and other developments reported by CBS News and other news organizations, CBS News President Andrew Heyward issued the following statement: "60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY had full confidence in the original report or it would not have aired. However, in the wake of serious and disturbing questions that came up after the broadcast, CBS News has done extensive additional reporting in an effort to confirm the documents' authenticity. That included an interview featured on last week's edition of 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY (15) with Marian Carr Knox, secretary to the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, the officer named as the author of the documents; the interview with Bill Burkett to be seen tonight (20); and a further review of the forensic evidence on both sides of the debate. Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret. Nothing is more important to us than our credibility and keeping faith with the millions of people who count on us for fair, accurate, reliable, and independent reporting. We will continue to work tirelessly to be worthy of that trust."

CBS News and CBS management are commissioning an independent review of the process by which the report was prepared and broadcast to help determine what actions need to be taken. The names of the people conducting the review will be announced shortly, and their findings will be made public.

From a reader:

He gave the documents to CBS, and lied to their producer about them (implying that he knew they were fake, but told her they were not fake, if you believe what he says or what CBS says, which I really don't at this point) in order to *protect the actual source of the documents* which he, logically, was not. Somebody gave them to him, and he gave them to CBS. He said that it was "another Guardsman," and has now admitted it was not another Guardsman, but has not said who it was. We therefore still don't know.

Burkett was the conduit between the source and CBS. Who was the source?
That's the entire question, and always has been. Whoever it was has
committed at least one federal felony, perhaps two. And if the
"unimpeachable," as yet unidentified source has a return address at Kerry's
campaign or the DNC, Kerry's finished, and this scandal will make everything
up to this point look like a paper cut.

This scandal is just beginning, and Rather and his boss won't survive it.
But even that is small stuff compared to what I think will unfold.

From MSNBC.com:

CBS said Burkett, a retired National Guard lieutenant colonel, had provided the documents. In a press release accompanying Heyward's statement, CBS said that Burkett "also admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents' origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source."

What an unbelievable journalistic scandal. Is it even imagineable that "60 Minutes" would have taken documents from a "Clinton hater" with a similar background and then, in a rush to smear him, short-circuit all of the normal rules to get to air?

Basically this story was based on the words of Ben Barnes and Burkett, two known partisans with a Big League gripes against Bush and -- in Barnes' case -- monumental ties to the Kerry campaign. CBS not only served as a transmission belt for this stuff but they willfully cut journalistic corners in the process. Then, when caught, they stonewalled. Rather said his source was "unimpeachable." Unimpeachable!!!! If Burkett is unimpeachable in Dan Rather's eyes. Someone needs to re-open his stories from the very first hurricane.

This is flatly outrageous. Rather should be fired. Mapes should be fired. Period.

Grrrr. Many nice folks are writing in to tell me that all I need to do is hit Command "F" and then type in the words etc. I know how to do that folks. My problem is that when I use the find-function on my computer(s) it doesn't work when searching for content. Searching for names of files works just fine. But when I try to search for documents containing the word foombalakachoomba -- for example -- it just doesn't work. Either it searches and searches forever and comes up with nothing or it just comes up with nothing really fast. Also, most of the time when I try to "index" my hard drive it never completes the task. Meanwhile, back in OS9 this function -- in "sherlock" -- worked pretty well. I'm sorry to waste everyones time with this sort of thing but, hey, I'm selfish.

A reader writes:

Jonah, love your columns and all that you and the crew do o'er yonder, but I think Novak and the rest of the media are being played. I saw a front-page story on the LA Times (while in line at Starbucks) that cited criticism from "prominent Republican" senators like Hagel and McCain concerning the administration's handling of the situation in Iraq and calling for "reassessment" of what and how we're doing over there. Then we get the Novak line about possible withdrawal shortly after the elections.

Here's the thing: Allawi is coming to visit with Bush and co. this week in
DC. Therefore, isn't it very possible, indeed likely, that a group of
Republican senators and Novak's "administration sources", i.e. those who
undoubtedly want to see our policy over there succeed and the President
reelected may be trying here to orchestrate the news cycle leading up to the
visit to increase the administration's bargaining position and pressure on
Allawi concerning whatever is to be discussed/negotiated on his visit?
Isn't it possible that all this carping and raising possible early-exit
strategy fears is meant for the Iraqis' ears and the press is yet again
playing the fool by going into palpitations over the renewed fear of
"quagmire"/failure?

Perhaps it's too soon to tell, by a few days anyway. Nonetheless, I'm
surprised no one's raised this idea yet; is it that obvious or easily
dismissable?

Lot's of email along these lines:

Jonah, Lots of talk around the virtual water cooler about Novak's column. I'm confused, though: I thought President Bush was a puppet of the neoconservatives?! And how does this jibe with Kerry/Edwards' unsubstantiated attack-of-the-week, re: Bush's supposed secret plan to call up and deploy more National Guard troops? I suspect this is yet another example of infighting spill-over. I'd be very surprised (and angry) if after all we've been through, President Bush suddenly decided to throw up his hands in defeat.

I doubt Robert Novak's column is the final word on this, but he says that the administration is planning for a post election (US and Iraqi) withdrawal from Iraq.

The TNR cover story is definitely worth reading. Yossi Klein Halevi & Michael Oren lay out how Sharon succeeded in beating back the worst terrorist campaign in modern history. There are a few subtle asides which seem to be aimed at Bush -- winning the war on terror requires being more bipartisan and such -- but even those points are fair and the whole thing offers a very useful overview.

Thanks to all the advice from readers. Lots of folks said I could do what I wanted with Adobe Reader 6.0. I can't. I don't know why. But I did go to the Mac store and buy Readiris 9.0 and it seems to do everything I wanted and more. Though I have to read the instructions a bit more because some graphics and column heavy docs are a bit problematic.

Anyway, thanks to everyone for the help. Now if someone could explain why searching my harddrive by content (i.e. trying to find docs with specific words in them) just doesn't work on OSX....

Several folks have emailed to ask how Coz's dewclaw is doing. He cracked it last week. We took him to the vet and they cut off the dangly end. They said this was necessary because of the high rate of infection. Anyway, he's doing fine, on antibiotics etc. But he's very sensitive about it. He won't chase balls yet and if he bangs it he runs back to you to make sure it's okay. But he'll be fine.

It really was a grand time. Thanks to everyone who came. The O'Beirnes were, as always, generous hosts. I'm still coping with the fact I actually saw Derb sing a Chinese Revolutionary song. Everyone was very sweet to lil' Lucy who liked to give people NR buttons and then take then back. There were a great many requests for Cosmo, but he doesn't do parties like that -- too much close-in foot traffic and drunken lunging stangers who think that Cosmo will tolerate sudden movements from people who are "good with dogs" that he doesn't know. Maybe one day we'll have a giant outdoor NRO picnic where everyone can bring dogs and kids. He'd like that.

One other thing that was great about the get-together was that we NROniks got to see our "colleagues." We never get to meet/see each other. Kathryn and I see each other at most a half-dozen times a year. I'd never met Mac Owens before (Guess what? He looks like a military guy and how I'd like to appear when the first boys come a'courtin' my daughter). Andrew Stuttaford's an extremely decent dude and fun to hang around with (even though, I've learned, he eats whale). And, while I could do without seeing Ponnuru as much as I do -- obviously -- his bride April is always the life of the party as far as I'm concerned.

HAMM: Let us pray to God [ . . .] Off we go. [ . . . ] Well?

CLOV: (abandoning his attitude). What a hope! And you?

HAMM: Sweet damn all! (To Nagg.) And you?

NAGG: Wait! (Pause. Abandoning his attitude.) Nothing doing!

HAMM: The bastard! He doesn't exist!

CLOV: Not yet.

[from Beckett's ENDGAME (1958)]

Subject: Did you all take a holiday?

Don't you realize that once you get us hooked on The Corner we have a difficult time going without? It's been some 12 hours since the last post, and I'm getting jittery. Do something, for God's sake - do something!

Every problem looks like a nail.

For weeks, perhaps months, the kibbitzers in the Democratic Party have been insisting that Kerry "go on the offensive" more, attack more, criticize more, etc. Where is John Edwards? Why isn't he attacking? When will Kerry respond more fiercely? Etc etc. A lot of these messages have been transmitted via the New York Times which now seems to see be John Kerry's corner man. If he gets knocked down, they snap some salts under his nose, give him some water and then instruct the man to deliver some body blows.

What I don't get is, well, how should I put this, What the Hell They Are Talking About. All Kerry does is attack, attack, attack. That's ok in the sense that I like rough elections. But, what I don't understand is how the likes of Begala et al can think Kerry's been doing something else. Moreover, what does it say about the candidate and his party that the answer to any shortcoming is to offer more insults, more below-the-belt punches, and distortions?