Discourse.net

More Dan Links

Columbia Journalism Review (!), L’Affaire Froomkin, as Told by Froomkin

Marcy Wheeler’s great liveblog of Jay Rosen interview wit Dan at the PDF meeting in New York (best quote, “Not offending people is not a business model.”)

A Few More Dan Froomkin Links

Washington Post Ombudsman, part II: Froomkin Departs, Leaving Angry Loyalists And Questions (“Institutionally, The Post is now responding by circling the wagons … when I was able to start querying editors yesterday, a wall of silence was erected.”)

And don’t miss the readers’ comments….

Other voices:

• Brad DeLong, Washington Post Andy Alexander Says that It Is Dan Froomkin’s Fault that Fred Hiatt and Company Fired Him
• Chris Weigant, HuffPo, Friday Talking Points [83] — Dan Froomkin’s Final WashingtonPost.com Column
• Marcy Wheeler, Firedoglake, The WaPo’s Omerta on Froomkin
• Matthew Yglesias, Think Progress, Will The Washington Post Survive?
• Bob Somerby, The Daily Howler (scroll down)
• Kevin Jon Heller, Opinio Juris, Froomkin, Lord Carlile, and US Political Journalism

But I’m not supposed to say anything.

Dan Froomkin's Final WashPo Column

My brother has posted his final column at the Washington Post, White House Watched.

I’ll post information about his next gig when it’s official, probably no sooner than it appears at whitehousewatch.com. Meanwhile, there’s always the archive.

Dan is slated to speak next week at the Personal Democracy Conference in NY — a fun event that I probably would have gone to but for this vacation thing.

Jay Rosen on L'affaire Froomkin

This Glenn Grenwald interview with Jay Rosen is quite amazing..

Also piles of links chez DeLong.

Me? Still staying muzzled.

My Brother Told Me Not to Say Anything

If you’re coming here to read about that, see Glenn Greenwald, Wonkette, or Andrew Sullivan.

Update (6/19): Dan’s comments and the Post Ombudman’s account.

(Dan) Froomkin Watch

White House Watch - Dan Froomkin’s Blog on washingtonpost.com, Froomkin Watch:

I’m scheduled to be on NPR’s Talk of the Nation today between 3 and 4 p.m. ET. We’ll be talking about press coverage of the Obama White House. Call in — (800) 989-8255 — and say hi.

'A refresher on how the press failed the people'

My brother Dan has a good memory, and uses it to write A refresher on how the press failed the people (on Iraq) at Nieman Watchdog.

Of course, that’s not the only issue on which one could make that critique, but it’s certainly one of the biggest.

Update: Does this qualify as an answer to The Seth Leibsohn Challenge?

Not a Party Animal Anymore

My brother’s White House Watch column today, entitled Party of the Damned, is particularly mordant.

(revised for clarity)

What Do the GOP Candidates Think of Bush

This seems to be promote-Dan-day or something, but be sure to see the great questions at
Rating Bush, on a scale of 1 to 10:

Republican candidates avoid talking about President Bush, for obvious reasons. But journalists should press them to say what they think of Bush’s legacy, which elements of his presidency they would emulate, and which they would reject.

And then he has a little list…

What He Said (Congress AWOL Dept.)

My brother says:

Historians looking back on the Bush presidency may well wonder if Congress actually existed.

Exactly.

And the FISA vote is coming up in the next couple of days.

For the Record

Despite what Atrios seems to think we are Ashkenazi, not Sephardic.

Dan Froomkin Responds to Questions

My brother the famous columnist takes questions every so often over at washingtonpost.com. I think these are often even more fun then the columns — maybe he should do radio?

I especially liked this Q&A from yesterday:

Springfield, Va.: If called upon to say something positive about the president, what would you say?

Dan Froomkin: He is in really, really great shape.

And Here's A Picture

My Brother Will Be On 'Hardball'

I gather Dan will be on TV in a few minutes on, of all things, “Hardball”.

It’s things like this which will make me buy a TV some day.

Update: Then again, maybe not? One of my kids found the video out there on this Internet thingie.

Update2: And here’s some more.

And still more.

Dan's Widget

I’ve added a Washington Post “widget” to the right margin that promotes my brother’s column. I like the column; I don’t like the widget very much — it blinks too much. But I’m going to try it for at least a few days before I decide if it’s too distracting.

It’s probably time to re-design the entire site, but I just don’t have the time.

Journalism 101

My brother has an article up at Nieman Watchdog entitled How the press can prevent another Iraq. It’s nothing more than a reminder of basic journalism: don’t believe everything a government official tells you; ask for proof. Use common sense.

It’s absolutely amazing that any of this needs to be said to professionals. We knew this kind of stuff when we were high school journalists.

And yet, it does need to be said, because for some reason most reporters these days don’t do their jobs.

There's Gold in Them Thar Hills ...

My brother has a fun (and pugnacious) column up at Nieman Watchdog Blog bearing the gentle title of On Calling Bullshit:

Mainstream-media political journalism is in danger of becoming increasingly irrelevant, but not because of the Internet, or even Comedy Central. The threat comes from inside. It comes from journalists being afraid to do what journalists were put on this green earth to do.

What is it about Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert that makes them so refreshing and attractive to a wide variety of viewers (including those so-important younger ones)? I would argue that, more than anything else, it is that they enthusiastically call bullshit.

Calling bullshit, of course, used to be central to journalism as well as to comedy. And we happen to be in a period in our history in which the substance in question is running particularly deep.

…

But here’s the good news for you newsroom managers wringing your hands over new technologies and the loss of younger audiences: Because the Internet so values calling bullshit, you are sitting on an as-yet largely untapped gold mine. I still believe that no one is fundamentally more capable of first-rate bullshit-calling than a well-informed beat reporter - whatever their beat. We just need to get the editors, or the corporate culture, or the self-censorship – or whatever it is – out of the way.

Dan's Young Turk Appearance

My brother was interviewed on the Young Turks radio show yesterday. It's great radio, which doesn't make it the most exciting TV, but they do have a YouTube version. Here's part one:

I did a couple Young Turks segments when they were starting out (pre-YouTube), and it's a great group of people.

Dan Froomkin Has A Question

In addition to his column, my brother does occasional online Q&A sessions at Washingtonpost.com. I think they might even be better than his columns. Here's my favorite bit from the most recent one:

Va.: If you could ask Bush one question and he was forced to give a straight answer, what would it be?

Dan Froomkin: Precisely how do you define torture?

Dan at YearlyKos

My brother was at YearlyKos and you can see his panel on C-SPAN. His presentation starts at about the 21 minute mark. It's surprisingly blunt.

I thought of going, but couldn't quite face Las Vegas, which I've successfully avoided so far. And then when Caroline got the PUSH gig, it was easy to stay home and renew my appreciation for single parents.

Photo update:

Open Source Press Conferencing

My brother the famous columnist invites you to suggest questions for Tony Snow's first press conference.

Tony Snow, the new White House press secretary, is expected to hold his first full-fledged press briefing next Monday.

How he responds to the first questions put to him should be a pretty good indicator of whether President Bush is committed to greater transparency in the remaining years of his presidency -- or whether Snow is just a new face for the same old stone wall.

So the questions on Monday would ideally be tough, important ones that on the one hand put Snow to the test, but on the other hand give him a fair chance to show that he's serious about explaining White House actions more forthrightly than his predecessor.

And that's where you readers come in. What questions would you like to see the press corps ask Snow on Monday? E-mail me with your suggestions -- and please include your full, real name and hometown. I'll publish the results on Friday.

Here's the thing, though. I'm not so much interested in smart-aleck, gotcha questions. What I'm looking for is questions to which the average American would say: "Yeah, I'd like to know the answer to that."

Of course, since Dan doesn't actually attend White House press conferences, all he can promise is that he'll print the best ones and hope some reporter gets inspired.

My Brother's Cyberstalker

A blog named Rosetta complains that my brother takes too many vacations.

Look, he's here in Miami and showing off the baby, OK?

Libby Fingers Bush, Cheney as Ordering Plame Leak

Why do I have to read news like this in my brother's blog rather than major media? Read today's column -- scroll down to "Fitzgerald lets loose".

[The NY Sun's Josh] Gerstein writes that according to [special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald's latest] filing, Libby "testified to a grand jury that he gave information from a closely-guarded 'National Intelligence Estimate' on Iraq to a New York Times reporter in 2003 with the specific permission of President Bush."

...

That reporter, of course, was Judith Miller.

Here's an excerpt from Fitzgerald's filing: "Defendant testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller on that occasion because it was thought that the NIE was 'pretty definitive' against what Ambassador Wilson had said and that the vice president thought that it was 'very important' for the key judgments of the NIE to come out."

Gerstein writes: "Mr. Libby is said to have testified that 'at first' he rebuffed Mr. Cheney's suggestion to release the information because the estimate was classified. However, according to the vice presidential aide, Mr. Cheney subsequently said he got permission for the release directly from Mr. Bush. 'Defendant testified that the vice president later advised him that the president had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE,' the prosecution filing said."

That is, as my brother says "a shocker".

Yet, he writes, "In fact, as of this writing, none of the major news outlets has published a word on the subject."

(Although, I see that since he wrote that, at 12:35 the Associate Press has moved the story.)

Read 'White House Briefing'

My brother has an unusually good column today, Caught on Tape, capping a good week.

You read enough of this stuff, and you wonder just how much incompetence and lying we must endure before a handful of Republican patriots wake up to idea that war crimes is an impeachable offense.

And then of course reality sets in: the Democrats would have to go first. Seen even a baker's dozen of gutsy national-party Democrats recently?

Dan Froomkin Column Revives Today

My brother's paternity leave from the Post is over, and his column resumes later today, undoubtedly pleasing thousands of his rabid and Dan-deprived fans.

Maximum Hit Count

He's a week old, eight days if you round up, but little Max already has 26 hits on Google. OK, seven of them are from relatives, but still.

Max Fitzgerald Froomkin

My boys have their first male cousin: Max Fitzgerald Froomkin. Born last night, the large economy size.

Both Dan and Paige are doing well.

Dan Froomkin Watch

Dana Milbank, one of the Post's very best reporters, was pretty funny yesterday in his online chat. He started out with this comment,

Dana Milbank: Good morning. Many of you out there in what my colleague John F. Harris affectionately dubs "the crankosphere" are evidently of the impression that the Washington Post political staff is distracted by internal battles with washingtonpost.com. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have focused this week on the Iraqi elections, in which the Froomkin turnout was much higher than expected. We have closely monitored the White House's about face on the Froomkin torture amendment. And today, I write from the Senate press gallery, where Froomkins are attempting to filibuster the Patriot Act.

With that, I will be happy to take your Froomkins.

Then there was the commentator who asked,

Los Angeles, Calif.: Wow, did you see how many anti-Harris comments there were after his Froomkin comment?

Note to self: if you ever need a raise, just have the ombudsman plant a story that the higher uppers aren't happy with your stuff. then watch the fireworks fly!

Hmmm. Froomkin, Froomkin. Nope, name doesn't ring a bell.

Possibly "Froomkin" is a bastardization of our political editor's middle name. His pen name is John F. Harris, but he is known to all by his middle name, Furby.

At some point, it started getting a little silly:

Dallas, Tex.: No question. I just wanted to wish you a Merry Froomkin.

Dana Milbank: And a Furby New Year to you.

At any rate, they're having the cloture vote on the Patriot Act now. I've got to dash. It's been a pleasure and, indeed, a Froomkin.

After that, it's almost anticlimactic to report that today (Saturday being the lowest circulation day of the week), the print Post published two letters that were very critical of ombudsman Deborah Howell's swipe at Dan. I'm curious to see if there's anything in her next column about this amazing outpouring from the readers.

Brad DeLong Interviews John Harris

Brad DeLong Interviews John Harris. "It didn't go very well," he writes....

The Blogs Are Cooking With Dan

Got lots to do, and anyway I don't want to say anything more about Dan's current 15 minutes, lest someone think (wrongly, I assure you) that I'm acting as his mouthpiece. But I'm reading it all with great interest and not a little glee.

So here's some of the more recent choice commentary elsewhere on the 'new Post' / 'old Post' kerfuffle.

Don't miss: Jeff Jarvis, Splitting newsrooms and hairs and the twofer (content & linkfest) in Jay Rosen, Press Think John Harris and Jim Brady Get Into It About "White House Briefing." Dan Froomkin Replies. Almost all the links are really good.

Bonus tracks: Brad DeLong, The Future of the Washington Post and Marty Kaplan, Journalism's Slo-Mo Suicide.

And, despite the great attraction of the readers' suggestion that Dan's column be re-named "Dan Froomkin's 'Cooking with Walnuts'," it seems that White House Briefing is here to stay.

Update: Brad DeLong comes back for a second strafing run.

Dan Froomkin Briefing

The Washington Post's new ombudsperson took a gentle swipe at my brother on Sunday, suggesting that the name on his column "White House Briefing" was somehow misleading or confusing.

Dan wrote a brief reply. Then the readers chimed in: and they love him!. Advantage, Froomkin!

Update: Wow. There's even more pro-Dan-Froomkin outpourings after Post National Politics Editor John Harris replies.

Important News at WashingtonPost.Com

Big news at White House Talk, in which my brother writes:

I've been wrestling with how to break this to my regular readers, but ... my wife and I are expecting our first child within the next several weeks, and I will be taking a few weeks off when that happens.

(And yes, I had heard of this before I read it online.)

Groupies Next?

My brother doesn't just have fans, he has breathless excited fans who are just really really excited about their brush with greatness. See Meet the columnist, or how I (almost) fixed Dan Froomkin's laptop yesterday.

And why not? If you haven't read the latest White House Briefing, you really should: it has dynamite stuff about how Lawrence Wilkerson -- kinda Powell's Cheney -- says that there's a trail of memos that ties prisoner abuse right back to the Vice President's office.

Yes, that's the same Veep who spent today lobbying the Senate in a failed attempt to lessen its support for legislation blocking torture abusive treatment by the CIA.

My Brother Has Great Readers

My brother the columnist has great readers. Or at least one great reader:

White House Briefing | News on President George W Bush and the Bush Administration: White House Briefing reader J. Harley McIlrath of Grinnell, Iowa, e-mailed me yesterday some insightful questions about just one sentence of Bush's speech.

In fact, his questions about that one sentence alone were more penetrating and important than any of the coverage I read of Bush's whole speech this morning.

The sentence from Bush: "The only way the terrorists can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon the mission."

McIlrath wrote:

"1. Who are 'the terrorists?' He's talking about Iraq. Are 'the insurgents' also 'the terrorists?' Has Bush ever defined just who 'the terrorists' are?

"2. What would constitute a 'win' for the terrorists? What do they want? Do we know? Has Bush ever asked himself what 'the terrorists' want and whether or not it's reasonable? Tactics aside, what do they want? Don't tell me 'they hate freedom.'

"3. What constitutes 'losing our nerve?' Is it losing one's nerve to pull resources back from an ineffectual approach and apply them to an approach that is more promising? How many times in WWII did we pull resources off one front to reinforce another?

"4. What is 'the mission.' Can we abandon a 'mission' that has never been defined? To quote George Harrison: If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there.

"Imagine if the press corps took this one short sentence and forced Bush to define his terms."

Gullible Media

NiemanWatchdog.org — Dan Froomkin, Deputy Editor — has two new items that dare ask if the media is being too gullible when it comes to the Bush administration line on the war in Iraq.

Gen. William E. Odom, a former director of the National Security Agency, writes:

If I were a journalist, I would list all the arguments that you hear against pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, the horrible things that people say would happen, and then ask: Aren’t they happening already? Would a pullout really make things worse? Maybe it would make things better.

The wisest course for journalists might be to begin sustained investigations of why leading Democrats have failed so miserably to challenge the US occupation of Iraq.

Norman Solomon, media critic and author of the new book, “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death,” asks whether the administration’s sudden talk of partial withdrawals has any credibility or whether it’s just a feint aimed at the 2006 elections.

Like, you have to ask? Or worse, you need a foundation to get reporters to ask?

It’s surely a measure of the alternate reality we inhabit — or that the US is finally being punished for the sins of the early colonists against Native Americans — that the first appearance of questions like these in a outer-circle-of-the-mainstream site like NiemanWatchdog.org is a sign of progress. In any healthy democracy we’d all have been talking about whether and how to pull out of Iraq since the last Democratic convention. And no one would believe anything the administration says about foreign policy (or the environment).

For the record, though, I do believe Bush sometimes. For example, when he talks about wanting creationism (AKA “intelligent design”) to be taught in public schools.

My Brother's Really Brilliant Plamegate Idea

I break my vacation silence (soon to be enforced by a lack of web access when I decamp to a different hotel, in Chania) to cheer my brother’s brilliant idea on how reporters could advance the ball in the Plamegate inquiry, offered in his web column, Getting Worried at the White House:

But here’s what that makes me think: if reporters want to help get New York Times reporter Judith Miller out of jail, let’s contact every conceivable person who might have been her source, and ask them (or their lawyers): if for some reason Judy Miller were in jail thinking that she’s protecting you, would that be a mistake? Would you tell that to her lawyer?

Let’s start with Rove, Cheney Chief of Staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, deputy national security adviser Elliot Abrams, Cheney national security adviser John Hannah, counselor Dan Bartlett, press secretary Scott McClellan, former press secretary Ari Fleischer — and every other person’s name who has ever even remotely been attached to this story in the past.

What have we got to lose? Is anyone with me, or shall I get going myself.

I think Dan is going to be quite busy…

Bush Speech Scorecard

My brother offers what is in effect a scorecard for Bush’s speech this evening.

White House Briefing: Beware the cut-and-run straw man tonight, when President Bush delivers a prime-time speech about Iraq with troops from the nation’s largest army base as his backdrop.

To the extent that Bush acknowledges the growing public opposition to his leadership of the war at all tonight, it may well be to disparage those who would “cut and run” rather than “stay the course.”

…

According to the latest polls, Americans are not saying that U.S. troops should leave instantly. They’re saying they feel the country is bogged down in a war that was a mistake in the first place, they’re saying they feel misled by the president and have lost confidence in him, and they’re saying they want to know the way out.

They’re not saying abandon the troops; they’re saying support the troops. They’re not saying dishonor the dead, they’re saying stop the dying. They’re not saying let the terrorists win; they’re saying they don’t think that victory in Iraq will have a major impact on terrorism elsewhere.

…

[Press Secretary Scott] McClellan said Bush will not announce any change in course, but he did offer that the president would “talk in a very specific way about the way forward.”

Or, if you ask me, it could just be a media event, devoid of substance…

Of course, even if Bush does not engage the growing unease about the war and just rephrases his previous assertions, he will still come out ahead if the press coverage highlights the new sound bites — rather than explaining that he failed to address the mounting concerns of the American public.

Incidentally, tomorrow at 1pm you can chat with Dan about how it all went as he’ll be Live Online at the Washington Post site. His chats are fun to watch.

Buldge Redux

Remember all the stuff about whether Bush was wired for the debates?

My brother’s column yesterday, The Second Memo, closes with this little jem:

The folks over at isbushwired.com would like you to take a look at this clip from Bush’s April 28 press conference, when Bush looks down, pauses in the middle of a sentence, mutters, “in a minute,” then resumes his answer.

Just who is he talking to?

My Brother Tries Movie Criticism

The Empire Strikes Bush:

“This is how liberty dies — to thunderous applause.”

So observes Queen Amidala of Naboo as the galactic senate grants dictator-to-be Palpatine sweeping new powers in his crusade against the Jedi in the final “Star Wars” movie opening this week.

It’s just one of several lines in “Star Wars: Episode III — Revenge of the Sith,” that reveal the movie to be more than just a sci-fi blockbuster and gargantuan cultural phenomenon.

“Revenge of the Sith,” it turns out, can also be seen as a cautionary tale for our time — a blistering critique of the war in Iraq, a reminder of how democracies can give up their freedoms too easily, and an admonition about the seduction of good people by absolute power.

There’s lots more meta-criticism (what other journalists say) where that came from.

National Journal on Froomkinization

The National Journal takes on the metaphysical question of whether my brother’s column really qualifies as a blog.

Creeping Froomkinization

Kevin Hayden of The American Street reports in a somewhat dazed fashion that he has been Froomkinized.

Yes, a specter is haunting the Blogiverse—the specter of Froomkinization.

You know, that has a ring to it, somehow.

(Actually, the funny thing about this story is that I saw Hayden’s Questions a Real Press Would Ask , liked it, and thought the questions would be perfect for Dan’s Nieman Watchdog, and sent Dan the URL. So it really was a (somewhat unusual) team effort.)

Bush v. Facts

It was an amazing moment: After the introductory comments, Andrey Kolesnikov, a correspondent for the Russian business newspaper Kommersant, got up and said -- albeit not so succinctly, and not in English -- Hey, no wonder you guys see eye to eye! You're both authoritarians.

This prompted Bush to launch into a possibly unprecedented defense of himself as a democratic leader. He did it by describing his view of the country.

And while Putin didn't challenge what Bush said, there have been some news reports of late that suggest that things may not be as black and white as Bush said.

"I live in a transparent country.

• Cadre grows to rein in message; Ranks of federal public affairs officials have swelled under Bush to help tighten control on communiques to media, access to information, Newsday, Feb. 24, 2005; Administration Paid Commentator; Education Dept. Used Williams to Promote 'No Child' Law, Washington Post, Jan. 8, 2005; Groups raise concerns about increased classification of documents, GOVEXEC.com, Oct. 27, 2004.

"I live in a country where decisions made by government are wide open and people are able to call people to -- me to account, which many out here do on a regular basis.

• High Court Backs Vice President; Energy Documents Shielded for Now, Washington Post, June 25, 2004; Mr. President, will you answer the question?, NiemanWathchdog.org, Dec. 3, 2004; Bush Says Election Ratified Iraq Policy, Washington Post, Jan. 16, 2005 (in which Bush says: "We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections.")

"Our laws and the reasons why we have laws on the books are perfectly explained to people. Every decision we have made is within the Constitution of the United States. We have a constitution that we uphold.

• How U.S. rewrote terror law in secrecy; White House group devised new system in aftermath of 9/11, New York Times, Oct. 24, 2004; In Cheney's Shadow, Counsel Pushes the Conservative Cause, Washington Post, Oct. 11, 2004; Slim Legal Grounds for Torture Memos; Most Scholars Reject Broad View of Executive's Power, Washington Post, July 4, 2004.

"And if there's a question as to whether or not a law meets that constitution, we have an independent court system through which that law is reviewed.

• Recount 2000: Decision Sharpens the Justices' Divisions; Dissenters See Harm to Voting Rights and the Court's Own Legitimacy, Washington Post, Dec. 13, 2000; Scalia Won't Sit Out Case On Cheney; Justice's Memo Details Hunting Trip With VP, Washington Post, March 19, 2004.

"So I'm perfectly comfortable in telling you our country is one that safeguards human rights and human dignity, and we resolve our disputes in a peaceful way."

• Torture at Abu Ghraib, the New Yorker, May 10, 2004; Ground War Starts, Airstrikes Continue As U.S. Keeps Focus on Iraq's Leaders, Washington Post, March 21, 2003.

Must-Read (Other) Froomkin on Social Security

The first section of my brother’s column today for WashingtonPost.com is a must-read on Social Security.

And there I was thinking he was just into the ‘I am a camera’ thing. But no, this is hard-hitting stuff.

Why My Brother Will Never Be Part of the White House Press Corps

In his column today, my brother lists some questions he would have asked if he had been at the impromptu Bush press conference held yesterday:

Questions I Would Have Asked

Sir, there were two big developments yesterday about torture in Iraq. Newly released Army documents show that there have been many more alleged acts of brutality and abuse of Iraqis at the hands of military personnel than we knew of. And a new report from Human Rights Watch says some of Saddam’s torturers are back in business under new management and that torture is again routine in Iraq. Are you outraged?

Sir, in one of the new incidents made public yesterday, a 73-year-old Iraqi woman was captured by members of the Delta Force special unit and allegedly robbed and sexually abused. One of your special assistants, whose name was redacted, apparently took an interest in the case. But like all of these newly released cases, it was closed without a conclusion. Did you know about this — or any other of the incidents made public yesterday?

Sir, let me read you a question Sen. Ted Kennedy asked Alberto Gonzales: “The FBI e-mails produced in the ACLU lawsuit include reports that detainees in Iraq and Guantanamo have suffered from the following abuses: Detainees were bound hand and foot and left in urine and feces for 18-24 hours; cigarette burns were inflicted; detainees were exposed to extreme temperatures for prolonged periods; enemas were forced on detainees. Do you believe any of these practices were or are lawful interrogation techniques or lawful detainee management?” In his written reply, Mr. Gonzales refused to rule any of those out. Will you?

Sir, you spoke in your inaugural address about bringing liberty to every corner of the globe. Do you mean like in Iraq? Are you aware that some people who don’t share your world view don’t consider that a good example?

Sir, why do you continue to say that Social Security will go bankrupt in 2042 when in fact even in the worst-case scenario it could still pay out 73 percent of wage-adjusted benefits? That’s not bankrupt. In fact, your staffers are talking up a plan that would cut benefits even further than that. So why use the term bankrupt?

Sir, Social Security isn’t really a retirement plan, it’s more like an insurance plan, making sure that the elderly, the disabled, their dependents and survivors don’t go destitute. Some people get a lot more out than they put in; others get a lot less; it’s like insurance that way. Private accounts would be a huge change to the structure as established by FDR. What in your view is wrong with the way Social Security works now, other than the alleged financial shortfall, which private accounts don’t address anyway?

Sir, when you go out into the country to make your case on Social Security “directly to the American people” will you only be meeting with and speaking to pre-screened groups of people who already agree with you? Or will you be willing to hear dissenting voices?

This is why he’ll never be part of the White House Poodle Press Corps. And if by some accident he ever is there, he’ll get the Helen Thomas treatment:

this was the first press conference since July 2002 that Bush has held in the cramped basement briefing room, where the press secretary normally holds court. Intervening press conferences have been held in the East Room, the Rose Garden, and in other locations.

There are assigned seats in the briefing room, and Bush started, like press secretary Scott McClellan normally does, by working his way through the first few rows, Kumar said. With one exception: “He called on everyone in the front two rows except for Helen,” Kumar said, referring to firebrand Helen Thomas, doyenne of the White House press corps, now a columnist for Hearst, and a scourge to the Bush administration.

You can chat online with Dan via washingtonpost.com in their Live Online feature tomorrow, Friday, at 1 p.m. ET.

Mistaken Identity

Today someone came up to me and congratulated me on my column in the Washington Post, and wondered how I had the time to do it while teaching. Trouble is, that’s someone else.

Wonkette Does Froomkin (the other one)

Oooh. Now my famous brother — yes, that’s the one who got attacked on O’Reilly — is really famous: Wonkette lends her acid keyboard to a White House correspondent who doesn’t like whippersnappers snapping at his heels. WH Correspondents: Lame and Vain, Maybe. Stupid? Let’s See.

Wonkette’s item is of course scathingly funny—as long as you don’t think about it. When you do, it seems like a pity that the White House poodle on whom she relies thinks he’s doing such an optimum job that he doesn’t need to change. Lots of us out here in readerland kinda have a different view, you know? (Roll Over. Play Dead. Good doggie.)

How to Question Bush Better

If you are willing to endure the annoying ad required for a ‘Day Pass’, you can read my brother’s article at Salon, Mr. President, will you answer the question?. Here’s the start:

George W. Bush has held far fewer solo news conferences than any president in the modern era. And when he does meet with the press, he avoids direct answers so brazenly that there is scant little value in it anyway. It’s time the White House press corps did something about it.

How? In interviews, a half dozen of the best White House correspondents of the recent past have offered up some suggestions for the reporters who will be covering Bush’s second term. And one place they can start is by reminding the public of a number of important, outstanding questions left unanswered about Bush’s first term.

The article gives sober advice to White House journalists about how to try to shame the White House into less infrequent press conferences, and how to ask the sort of direct questions that are harder to fog out of.

I suspect, however, that the two things are in fact contradictory: if the press starts doing less of a lap-poodle act at press conferences, there are going to be fewer press conferences, not more.

But it’s a nice article.

Bulge Watch ('My What a Lot of Tinfoil Under Your Jacket Sir,' Edition)

My brother’s column today gets into the Bush bulge watch thing:

Salon is featuring a photo today that would appear to show Vanessa Kerry staring at Bush’s bulge last night.

The bulge in question is what — again — looks like a rectangular object on Bush’s back, under his suit. Here’s the original photo.

Mike Allen wrote in The Washington Post last weekend that Bush’s aides have “tried to laugh off the controversy.”

Dave Lindorff wrote in Salon yesterday that “speculation continues to run wild” about the bulge, and that the White House’s half-hearted explanations don’t seem to wash.

A new poll from the Economist finds that of those who had seen a picture of the bulge, 49 percent said they think it’s caused by “a radio receiver so that his team could communicate with him during the debate;” 18 percent think it’s a fold in the suit; 13 percent something else; 20 percent don’t know.

Tim Grieve writes in Salon that Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman was repeatedly asked about the bulge yesterday, and finally said: “The president is an alien. You heard it here first. The president is an alien. That’s your quote of the day. He has been getting information from Mars. The shock of the debate will be the president’s alien past will be exposed, which is why that box is there.”

The problem with this story, as preposterous as it may sound to some, is that it risks perpetuating an image of Bush as a puppet. I think a lot of us are waiting for a definitive answer.

Someone should really ask Vernon Jordan who suggested the prohibition on photographing candidates from behind during the pre-debate negotiations and what reason if any was given. Because it’s that condition, said to have been demanded by the Bush negotiators, that gives this story what legs it has. That and the consistent strangenss of the shape of the bulge. Oh yes, and the absence of a physical this year.

So, the three main things are the attempt to stop the photos, the consistent strangeness of the shape and Bush’s decision to forgoe a physical before the election. Oh yes, and Bush’s odd behavior during the debates.

So, the four main things that give this story its legs are the attempt to stop the photos, the consistent strangeness of the shape, the lack of a physical this Oh yes, and Bush’s odd behavior during the debates. Oh yes, and also the fact that tin foil can be fun.

But no one expected the aliens to admit complicity in rigging the election for their puppet until the planet was almost unsuitable for human life due to global warming—which, combined with increased carbon dioxide and radioactivity will make it a perfect breeding grounds for

Ack. help. im beighalew2332o5 2432`72 fcds

Jacques Derrida, RIP

Jacques Derrida is dead. I never got to meet him, but my brother once interviewed him, and produced what amounts to a journalist’s intro to Derrida and deconstruction.

Dan Tries Distributed Fact-Checking

My brother wants to harness blogs and their readers to do some distributed fact-checking of tonight’s debate.

Let the Fact Checking Begin! And here’s another way to make sure that the substance of Bush and Kerry’s comments are fully and quickly assessed.

Some key political bloggers, who have so effectively proven their ability to hold the press accountable, will tonight be posting their own debate fact-checks — and will be asking their readers to find and document substantively incorrect statements by the candidates, as well.

I’ve already talked to several bloggers on both sides of the political spectrum and they’re on board. I urge others in the blogging community to join in the experiment. Just make sure you e-mail me at froomkin@washingtonpost.com so I know you’re out there.

In tomorrow’s column, I’ll link to the bloggers who are actively fact-checking and I’ll try to highlight some of the best and best-documented posts.

Let’s help out! (Although I suspect it would need to be a really excellent gotcha! to get through the Post’s anti-nepotism firewall.)

Top 10 Tough Questions for Thursday's Debate

My brother’s other gig is as a collaborator at the Nieman Watchdog. Today they bring you 10 Tough Questions for Thursday’s Debate:

Who Else Gets to Start Pre-Emptive Wars?

For Bush: “We justify the War in Iraq as a preemptive war. Would we support other countries (like Indonesia, Russia or Israel) that feel the need for preemptive strikes to protect their homeland?” (Posted on NiemanWatchdog.org by Harry A. Thomas of Seattle)

Safer Without Who Else?

For Bush: “You have stated the world is safer without Saddam Hussein and that there is no difference between weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass destruction programs. Would the world be safer without Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro, and the other brutal dictators in the world who have intentions of possessing WMD and moving forward with WMD-related programs? If so, will you adopt a policy of regime change through military intervention for these countries? If not, what additional criteria must be met for your administration to intervene militarily, as you did with Iraq?” (Posted on NiemanWatchdog.org anonymously.)

The $87 Billion Question

For Kerry: “Please explain, once and for all, ‘I voted for [the $87 billion], before I voted against it.’ ” (Posted on NiemanWatchdog.org by Terri Kordella of Vienna, Va.)

Why Saddam Over Osama?

For Bush: “Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, there’s no doubt about that. However, Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda killed 3,000 people on our own soil. There are almost fifteen times as many troops in Iraq as in Afghanistan. Please explain to us why you felt it necessary to concentrate resources and funding on removing Saddam Hussein, who had not made any moves against the U.S., when Osama bin Laden had actually attacked. In other words, please explain why eliminating a potential threat took precedence over eliminating a proven one.” (Posted on NiemanWatchdog.org by Terri Kordella of Vienna, Va.)

Military Draft?

For both candidates: “Given that this war on terrorism has gone on for several years, and will continue into the future, do either of you expect to bring back the draft?” (Posted on NiemanWatchdog.org by Mike Juntunen)

Limit to Iraqi Self-Determination?

For both candidates: What would you do if an elected Iraqi government requests that all U.S. troops leave Iraq? (Posted on NiemanWatchdog.org by Jonah Thomas)

Learning From Mistakes?

For both candidates: “If you knew in March 2002, before troops landed in Iraq, everything you know now, in what ways would you have conducted the war differently?” (Posted on NiemanWatchdog.org by Allen Knutson, New York City)

Bring It On?

For Bush: “Mr. President, in July of 2003 you said if anyone wanted to attack our troops in Iraq, they should bring it on. In March of this year you appeared at a reporters’ dinner and showed a video in which you jokingly stumbled around your office looking for weapons of mass destruction. Can you explain this behavior to the families who have lost loved ones in Iraq?” (Posted on dailykos.com by “Republicansforkerry”)

Flip-Flopping?

For Bush: “Mr. President, by your count, John Kerry has flip-flopped at least 6 times on Iraq. By my count, you gave us 9 different reasons to go to Iraq and you have given us 5 different answers on what will happen next. So, which answer is it now?” (Posted on dailykos.com by “usmeagle69”)

So Much to Fear?

For Bush: “Mr. President after September 11th you could have repeated FDR’s famous statement. ‘The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.’ You choose not to calm the fear we were feeling as a society. As the leader of the nation don’t you think we would have been better served by you making such a statement?” (Posted on dailykos.com by user “Davinci”)

Yet more evidence that Dan will never get picked to moderate a Presidential debate!

PS. I bet at most two of these get asked — the draft question and something about Iraq strategy.

Wanted: Tough Questions for the Presidential Debates

My brother wears a second hat at NiemanWatchdog.org, besides his Washington Post gig. Here’s Nieman’s request for tough debate questions

The Internet can make the presidential debates better. NiemanWatchdog.org will make it happen. Starting this week, NiemanWatchdog.org is soliciting tough, incisive questions that President Bush and Senator Kerry should be asked at the upcoming presidential debates.

The Niemanwatchdog.org Web site is a project of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. The site’s primary mission is to encourage watchdog reporting by drawing on authorities in various fields to suggest questions the press should ask.

For its presidential debate project, NiemanWatchdog.org is accepting submissions from experts and amateurs alike. The editors of the site will also be scouring blogs and other Web sites, looking for questions being posed there.

“This is no time for softballs,” said NiemanWatchdog.org deputy editor Dan Froomkin. “We believe that the collective wisdom of the Internet community can generate some superbly pointed questions that will oblige the candidates to provide the kinds of answers the public deserves.”

Several days before each presidential debate, NiemanWatchdog.org will select what its editors think are the best questions for each candidate, and will announce the winners on the Web site — as well as in a press release to major media organizations.

Internet users are encouraged to post their questions, or questions they’ve seen elsewhere on the Web, directly onto the NiemanWatchdog.org Web site, at http://www.niemanwatchdog.org. They can also e-mail them to editor@niemanwatchdog.org, along with their names, hometown, and affiliation if relevant.

Pity there’s no way to have people vote on questions and then make the moderators ask the most popular ones. (Yes, yes, we’d have to prevent people voting more than once, and yes, yes, that’s a complex problem.)

Bush's Plan to Kill the White House Press Corps

My brother points to Dana Milbank’s column in which he reveals Bush’s plan to kill the White House press corps:

Do You Hear What I Hear?: Now for an update on the White House’s ongoing effort to kill the press corps. The White House travel office signed a contract last week with an airline called Primaris to fly the press corps to Bush events. The two-month-old company has only one airplane. True, media representatives gave their blessing to the deal. But that was before they learned that the company’s president twice had his pilot’s license revoked related to his flying of an “unairworthy” aircraft, that the chief executive flopped in his last attempt to start an airline and that the 15-year-old plane itself was damaged in a hailstorm a decade ago and spent most of the past two years mothballed in France.

My Brother Gets the CJR Water Cooler Treatment

CJR’s Campaign desk has a regular series of interviews with reporters and others covering the 2004 campaign. The latest interview is with my brother.

It Got His Attention

My brother, the bigtime columnist, sure knows how to write an arresting lede. Witness the start of an e-mail my brother sent to Dave Barry that wound up in Dave Barry’s blog:

Hi! You once came to a party of mine and peed in my bushes.

But that’s not why I’m writing.

Actually, Dan was promoting this both funny and serious contribution by Gene Weingarten to the Nieman Watchdog blog.

Distributed Bush Question Generation

My brother’s washingtonpost.com - Live Online discussion yesterday includes some interesting suggestions from readers about what questions they would like the press to ask GW Bush. Another good example of harnessing the power of the ‘net…except that I doubt somehow that many reporters have the guts to actually ask any of them.

Neiman Watchdog Says, "Ask This"

Nieman Watchdog is a new web-based project devoted to questions the press should ask. It’s run by Barry Susman, assisted by my brother (who will be doing this in addition to his White House Briefing gig). As you’d expect with anything supported by the Nieman Foundation, it boasts a star-studded (if Ivy-heavy) list of contributors …one of whom I’m happy to see is Brad DeLong.

Check out the list of questions the Neiman Watchdog thinks reporters should be asking.

All About the WMD Commission

Here’s a useful service, provided by WashingtonPost.com (Dan Froomkin dept.): All About the WMD Commission.

Unfortunate Metaphor

My brother’s White House Briefing today includes this zinger:

“I appreciate the grassroots people who are here. Listen, you’ve got to work hard to turn out the vote, and that’s what we call grassroots. I want to thank you. I’m here to fertilize the grassroots today. I’m here to ask you to grow. (Applause.)”

Another Chance to Bug My Brother

My increasingly famous brother—people keep stopping me to ask if we are related—will host another session of washingtonpost.com - Live Online this afternoon at 1 p.m.

My Brother Wants to "Own the White House"

The Washingtonian online writes up my brother and his column in its Washington BUZZ. Turns out by owning the White House he means ‘own the eyeballs looking for the White House’ not running for President or engaging in a dodgy leaseback scheme…

The AWOL Issue Is On the Agenda

My brother’s White House Briefing column today reports that Questions About Bush’s Guard Service have “become a mainstream issue.” If it wasn’t before, it is after this column, and the Post’s fairly tame article by Lois Romano (assisted by the notorious Ceci Connolly, traveling with Kerry—expect him to be Gore’d any day now!—and researchers Don Puhlman and Lucy Shackelford in Washington).

I think these five, count them five, Post staffers all left out one fairly central point: GW Bush could presumably clear up this entire controversy in one minute, simply by authorizing the full release of his military records—something every major party candidate who was a verteran has done for the last few decades. Every single one, except GW Bush.

Who of course has nothing to hide.

Incidentally, I’d also like to know who had access to the records over the years, in case any documents are, say, missing, or contain serial numbers suggesting they were inserted out of sequence, both of which are allegations that are floating around. I’m sure the Pentagon keeps that sort of access record.

My Brother Takes Your Questions--And Asks One

[#INCLUDE metaphysical question about status at other times]

P.S. Dan also has a question for you:

I asked you in yesterday's column to help me figure out what Vice President Cheney meant when he asked, rhetorically, if he was [a] "brown cloud." I'm still working on it. Even a call to his press secretary didn't clear things up. If you have any more ideas, e-mail froomkin@washingtonpost.com.

My Brother Wants to Hear From You

washingtonpost.com: White House Briefing. My brother writes,

The Sad Lot of the White House Correspondent

In a very long piece in this week’s New Yorker (not available on the Web at all), Ken Auletta assesses the miserable state of relations between the Bush White House and the press. White House officials think of the press as just another special interest. Reporters feel they are treated with contempt. (See the fifth item in yesterday’s White House Briefing and the second item in Howard Kurtz’s Media Notes from yesterday’s Washington Post.)

In a Q and A on newyorker.com today, Auletta says that the much-coveted position of White House correspondent just ain’t what it used to be. “This is partly because the news organizations are less interested in government,” Auletta says. “It is partly because ambitious reporters are turned off by the stenographic aspects of the White House beat. And it is partly the result of having fewer standout journalistic ‘stars’ covering the White House.”

Your thoughts? I’d love to hear them.

Personally, I can’t for the life of me see why white house beat reporters accept the ‘stenographic’ aspect of the job. It may serve the White House for them to be passive, but it serves no one else.

Take this story for example. Why haven’t reporters been collecting the questions the White House won’t answer? Or this story —how come we haven’t seen a single story about what happened during what might have been an overnight shredding party?

Of course, what I’d really like to see is adoption of my Modest Proposal For Improving White House Press Conferences. But I’m not holding my breath.

Dan Froomkin's White House Briefing

Update: In a case of a mechanistic metaphor running amok, Brad DeLong says that, “It is truly a wonderful world we live in, in which someone as smart and energetic as Dan Froomkin is functioning as my personal pre-processor for White House-related news…”