THIS MODERN WORLD

Hypocrisy in action:

For months, Mr. Bush and his top aides have campaigned against leaks of classified information as a danger to the nation and as criminal acts. A Washington Post report on secret overseas jails run by the C.I.A. and a New York Times report on domestic eavesdropping by the National Security Agency have led to criminal investigations, and scores of intelligence officers have been ordered to take polygraph tests.

In that context, the report that the president was himself approving a leak may do serious political damage, said Mr. Shenkman, who has a blog on presidential politics. “It does give the public such a powerful example of hypocrisy that I think it might linger for a while,” he said.

Scott McClellan, the president’s spokesman, disputed the charge of a double standard on leaks. “There is a difference between declassifying information in the national interest and the unauthorized disclosure” of national security information, Mr. McClellan said Friday. Of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, part of which Mr. Libby shared with Judith Miller, then a Times reporter, Mr. McClellan said, “There was nothing in there that would compromise national security.”

Mr. McClellan’s tone contrasted sharply with that of administration officials after the N.S.A. story broke in December. Mr. Bush told a news conference at the time: “My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we’re discussing this program is helping the enemy.”

WASHINGTON, April 7 — As factions in the Bush administration continue their bitter infighting over the reconstruction program in Iraq, the State Department has produced a draft planning document saying that after any future conflicts, the United States should not immediately begin a major rebuilding program.

Instead, it says, the first priorities should be to establish a secure, stable environment and begin political reconciliation. Otherwise, officials said, Washington and any local government that is formed are likely to suffer major political repercussions by making promises that cannot be kept.

In Iraq, “We set it up to fail,” said Andrew S. Natsios, who was director of the United States Agency for International Development until January. He and some White House and State Department officials say they argued early on that a large-scale reconstruction program could never succeed in a hostile environment.

“We certainly have not done as much as we originally had hoped for,” acknowledged James Jeffrey, who is the State Department’s senior coordinator for Iraq. Some senior officials say they fear that the failures of the reconstruction program will pose a serious threat for officials of the new Iraqi government, once it is formed. “They will be vulnerable to complaints and hostility for their inability to provide electricity or clean water,” one senior official said.

Story here.

It’s true that establishing a “secure, stable environment” was not the Bush administration’s first priority in Iraq. The flaw in the analysis is the suggestion that this was because the U.S. was so darned busy with its rebuilding efforts.

Had him suckered into blogging for awhile, but he’s one of those old fashioned writers who still imagines that he should be compensated for his labor with the coin of filthy lucre. Silly man — anyone who’s the least bit familiar with the new virtual economy understands how foolishly outmoded this concept of “money-based compensation” is. Exposure, Jack! That’s the coin of the realm these days!

Anyway, this is just a head’s up — he’s got a piece on abortion rights in the New York Times Sunday Magazine that’s going to be well worth your time. Brief preview here. It involves the phrase “forensic vagina specialist” which, trust me, is in no way meant to amuse.

One of the pleasant perks of a book tour is that you’ve barely got time to check your email, let alone keep up with the latest right wing blogosphere contratemps — which has the effect of putting the latter in perspective. Contrary to the napoleonic delusions of some of our friends on the right, most people in this country really don’t have the vaguest idea what bloggers are talking about at any given moment, or even at all, and neither do they care. Always important to keep that in mind, lest you find yourself spending too much time composing replies to arguments most people will never even hear.

So I was vaguely aware that there was some sort of controversy over the release of Jill Carroll, which I found puzzling. It seemed like good news to me. Western reporter, held hostage, released unharmed — what’s the problem in that? Were they disappointed that she hadn’t been beheaded, denying them fodder for yet another round of self-righteous posturing?

Anyway, Alterman brings me up to speed on the Fighting Keyboarders’ latest antics here:

To anyone watching Carroll’s videotaped statements both before she was released and directly after — taken in the office of a Sunni political group in Baghdad, far from the protective custody of the American military — it should have been obvious that she was hardly free to speak her mind, given that she was still being held hostage. Although she had been “freed,” she was smart enough to understand her surroundings and didn’t want to antagonize her new Sunni hosts, whom she didn’t know.

Yet a right-wing pundit named Debbie Schlussel appeared to take Carroll’s release rather personally and quickly became the most bloodthirsty of Carroll critics, complaining incessantly about Carroll’s every utterance, asking, “Why was Jill Carroll freed? Maybe it had something to do with the fact that she HATES AMERICA and our Mid-East policy. And, oh yeah, she HATES ISRAEL, too.” Her comments were picked up all over the Internet, and she continued to bash Carroll and her pre-capture writing, accusing her of being anti-war, anti-American and consorting with terrorists. Schlussel was even offended that “female Iraqi terrorists” had been released in exchange for “Princess Jill,” calling her a “spoiled brat America-hater from Ann Arbor.”

Gave several interviews over the course of the last week. You can stream or download my conversation with WNYC’s Brian Lehrer here (scroll down). In Seattle, I talked to Steve Scher at KUOW. Same choices here. You’ve got to skip ahead of the fundraising drive stuff on the latter, but you’ll be rewarded with these wonderful little dramatic radio recreations of a few of my cartoons that the staff there cooked up.

… one more here: KPFA (Berkeley) Morning Show. My bit starts about 3/4 of the way in.