What Bush Is Not: His Own Words

Negative Capability (Harpers.org)

The President of the United States is not a fact-checker.

I’m not a statistician.

I’m not a numbers-cruncher.

I’m not one of these bean counters.

I’m not very analytical.

I’m not a precision guy.

The President is not a micromanager.

I’m not a member of the legislative branch.

The President is not a rubber stamp for the Congress.

I’m not a censor-guy.

I’m not a lawyer.

I’m not a doctor.

The President is not an economist.

I’m not a stockbroker or a stock-picker.

I’m not a forecaster.

I’m not a predictor.

I’m not a pollster, a poll-reader guy.

I’m not a very good prognosticator of elections.

I’m not a committee chairman.

I’m not of the Washington scene.

I’m not a lonely person.

I’m not a poet.

I’m not a very good novelist.

I’m not a textbook player.

I’m not an emailer.

I’m not a very long-winded person.

I’m not a very formal guy.

I am not a revengeful person.

I’m not an Iraqi citizen.

I’m not a divider.

I am not a unilateralist.

I’m not a tree, I’m a Bush.
Some enterprising young blogger should locate all these video clips and build a great complilation.

I'm trying to lose some weight, and have set up a website to provide a little accountability. It's called Big Belly Burnoff. There's no need to go there unless you care to. Now on with the show...

Journalists' Death Make It Harder To Excuse Putin's Excesses

The New York Times

On Friday night, I got a call from Moscow: my friend Paul Klebnikov, the editor in chief of Forbes Russia, a Russian version of the American business magazine, had been fatally shot as he left work. Paul's wife, Musa, was in Italy with their three children and had just spoken to him on the phone before he was shot. She was heartbreakingly brave the next day. Please gather articles about her husband, she asked, for his boys.

Then the anger rose. I am among those former Moscow correspondents, and those people of Russian descent, who have tried to stay optimistic about today's Russia and President Vladimir Putin, even in the face of all the distressing reports about Chechnya, the Yukos oil company, the media clampdown and the swelling powers of the Kremlin. You have to remember where they were a scant 15 years ago, I would argue: Mr. Putin has to restore control over the government and economy, and the oligarchs have to be reined in.

It will be far harder to argue this, now that someone has pumped four bullets into a journalist who earnestly thought that he could help Russia make it by writing the truth about its dark underside. It's tough to continue pretending that Russia is just in transition, struggling to emerge from Communism's rubble. Twenty journalists have now been assassinated in Russia for their work; 14 since Mr. Putin became president. Not one of the murders has been solved.
Liberal Oasis points out that "Bush's curtailing of support for democracy is worsening the situation".

Juan Cole: Arguing With Bush Yet Again

America isn't safer as a result of Bush's military action

So, no, Americans are not safer, Mr. Bush. They face the threat of substantial narco-terrorism from Afghanistan. Iraq is a security nightmare that could well blow back on the American homeland. Pakistan remains a military dictatorship with a host of militant jihadi movements that had been fomented by the hardline Pakistani military intelligence. Saudi Arabia is witnessing increased al-Qaeda activity and attacks on Westerners. And the Israeli-Palestine dispute is being left to fester and poison the world.

These are not achievements to be proud of. This is a string of disasters. We are not safer. We face incredible danger because of the way the Bush administration has grossly mishandled the Middle East
The Republicans aren't fit to govern.

What If They Threw A Hatefest and Nobody Came?

Gay Marriage Issue Fails to Excite American Voters
U.S. Senate Votes Against Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage
With Messing Back, 'Will & Grace' Is Whole Again

Bush's Plamegate Lawyer Is A Part of Ken Lay's Lawyer Brigade

BeatBushBlog

Bush consults a criminal defense lawyer in the ongoing inquiry into the outing of Valerie Plame. It turns out that this same lawyer, Jim Sharp, is representing Ken Lay in the Enron debacle.

They don't even pretend anymore, you know?

The Guard Record Bush Doesn't Want You To See

Bush's Guard service has been a topic of controversy ever since he started running for public office. Controversy quickly centered on his fifth year of service (May 1972-73), because very few records exist to document him doing any service at all. And how can we evaluate his fitness to lead the American people without having the actual facts of his past service?

After much stalling, Bush yielded to public pressure and released many more documents to the press at the beginning of this year. Among them were payroll records for almost every quarter Bush was in the Guard. Two quarterly payroll records were missing, however, and one of those was the third quarter of 1972, a quarter in which Bush missed a required flight physical and was grounded from flying.

Now they tell us this payroll record was destroyed in a microfilm restoration project. The mainstream media is treating this destruction as the end of the story, as if we will never know the real story behind Bush's service during this period. However, the payroll information for this missing quarter has been preserved in other payroll records, and a complete picture of Bush's fifth year of service can easily be reconstructed, if you take a little time to put the records together.

Since larger media sources seem reluctant to do the legwork, I did it in about six hours Friday evening. And it's no wonder that Bush has been dragging his heels releasing this documentation, because the final picture isn't very flattering.

Bush's payroll records for that fifth year of service are not complete. We lack the third quarter (July-September) 1972 and always will, apparently. Further gaps include an incomplete record of the fourth quarter 1972 and a partial copy of the first quarter 1973 record.

Let's look at a complete payroll record to see what we are dealing with. This is Bush's 3rd quarter pay record from the year 1973:



That's a lot of information, right? But there's a calendar right in the middle that's easy to understand. When Bush showed up and performed some kind of service for the Guard, then a code denoting what service is entered into that date. Here's the above calendar in a closeup.



As you can see, the months of October, November, and December are still labeled 1972. That's because it's showing Bush's service from those three months in 1972, even though this is a 1973 document.

Redundancy.

The way that the Guard keeps records, you see, is by overwriting. The military likes redundancy, because real mistakes are made all the time. So on the pay records that are filed quarterly, the previous three quarters are printed on that record as a backup.

This third quarter 1973 payroll record is then official documentation to the previous three quarters. That's why the recent revelation of destroyed Bush documents doesn't mean anything. Unless you want to question how that particular microfilm set was selected for "restoration". That's fine.

But if you want the actual information about Bush's service during that period, that we have, from the redundant records.

To find our missing quarter, let's look at the next quarter's payroll record. Here's the calendar of Bush's fourth quarter pay record from 1972:



It was released as a negative image, so it's easier to read. All the months are labeled 72, so this is the fourth quarter's record.

However, there are no service dates listed for the last two quarters at all! In the 1973 calendar, the fourth quarter 1972 had some dates listed here, but not on the actual fourth quarter 1972 record. Why is this record incomplete?

Because, I believe, this is a record of Houston service only. Houston would have had no information on any service that Bush did in Alabama. Why would they? So they didn't record any service for those two quarters.

This means, by the way, that if the destroyed microfilm were available to us, we would learn nothing new. If this fourth quarter document didn't have anything in the third quarter, then why would we expect to find anything in the actual third quarter record? The media handwringing over this lost record is laughable: there wouldn't be anything on it anyway about Bush's service.

But this payroll record confirms that Bush did no service time whatsoever in Houston in the last two quarters of 1972.

Let's move on to the next quarter: the first quarter 1973. I'm reproducing this payroll record in full:



This document is oddly truncated. Though it's showing how Bush got paid for the first quarter, those months (Jan-Mar) aren't listed here! And from the complete pay record I reproduced above, there's a lot of header information that isn't on this document.

Let's go ahead and grant that it is a partial copy of the first quarter 1973, the second page of a two page report. It'd be nice to see that first page, though, wouldn't it?

On this record, the Oct-Dec 72 spaces now have some service time listed. This is consistent with Houston learning the extent of Bush's service in Alabama and putting it in their records. More redundancy.

But there's no service listed for the third quarter whatsoever.

I won't reproduce it here, but the second quarter 1973 record gives exactly the same information for the missing quarter as this record. Bush served a couple of days in late October, and a few days in November. This service was in Alabama.

This service was in Alabama. But he didn't serve in Alabama during the third quarter at all.

So, according to the actual records we have, Bush didn't serve in Houston or in Alabama during the third quarter of 1972, the time period that's been obscured by the "inadvertently destroyed" records.

Only in the 3rd quarter 1973 pay record (the complete record reproduced above) is the 3rd quarter 1972 information overwritten. So that gives us two documents that show conclusively that Lt. Bush skipped out on a quarter of his service.

But wait! There's more!

It bugged me that the first quarter 1973 record was so truncated. So I rebuilt the entire calendar for that period, as it would have appeared if the entire record was available to us. Since the second quarter 1973 pay record is available, I grabbed the calendar from that record and digitally replaced the second quarter 1973 with the second quarter information from 1972, which I got from the negative image up above. The reconstructed record has been checked for complete accuracy, and I ask you to show me where it's wrong

And here it is, Lt. Bush's entire year of service for April 1972 - March 1973.



We're getting close to the record Bush doesn't want you to see. This calendar would have appeared on the partial payroll record, if that payroll record had been complete. It's a clear picture of how George W. Bush blew off his National Guard duty, and how he's covering it up to this very day.

Now is this a fair way to evaluate Bush's service time? This isn't Bush's complete fifth year, after all. Bush entered the service on May 27, 1968, so a complete picture of his fifth year would be May 27, 1972 though May 26, 1973.

Okay, fine. Here's Bush's complete fifth year on a digitally reclaimed calendar:



How about that May 1973 record! Suddenly Bush jumps from strictly inactive duty (done mostly in Alabama) to 9 days of active duty training. It's a trend that continued into the next months; by looking at the complete third quarter 1973 record, Bush doesn't seem to have done anything in May, June, and July of 1973 but pull duty at the National Guard.

What a remarkable jumpstart! Someone lit a fire under that grounded pilot's posterior in late April 1973. And here's the reason why:



The above is Bush's record of service from May 1972 to April 1973. This is what his superiors were looking at in late April 1973 when it came time to evaluate Lt. Bush's Guard duty in his fifth year of service.

It's not the picture of someone who considers his sworn duty in the military a priority, is it?

So someone sat young George down for a little talk. A talk which resulted in a very hard summer indeed for Lt. Bush, a summer of extraordinary attendance to his Guard duties. A talk in which the words "showing up and doing the job" probably figured prominently.

A talk which appears nowhere in disciplinary records at all. Any paperwork related to this documentable jumpstart in Lt. Bush's Guard career has not yet been released.

And then there's the partial first quarter 1973 payroll record, and the missing Flight Inquiry records that would have been convened when Bush was grounded from flying, and the missing DD214 that would have been issued when Bush was discharged 6 years and 6 months after he enlisted (six months longer than his initial commitment).

Despite repeated requests for all of these documents, Bush doesn't want us to see them, claiming that everything has been released.

I wonder why that is.

NOTE: This is version 2.0. It's a major rewrite which incorporates the actual start time of Bush's Guard service, and corrects details in two of the payroll calendars (thanks, Susie Dow from Table Talk).

Bush Guard Records "Inadvertently" Destroyed

The New York Times

They're talking about payroll records from 1972-73, though. We have those! Bush has (finally) released that. It was in the document dump.

What we're after now are the Flight Inquiry Board records, which have never been located or even admitted to. Among other things - the Deserter article that I blogged about below is talking about his last year or so of service, when he was attending Harvard Business School. Nothing pertinent in that time period has ever been released as far as I know...

Bush is blowing smoke again about this. Or the New York Times is hopelessly confused about the issue...

...or both.

Bush Pressures Pakistan for "July Surprise"

The New Republic Online

Bush has recently been hammering the Pakistani government to deliver high level al-Qaeda officials. Why?

Because the Democratic Convention will soon be underway, and they want the capture of Bin Laden to knock the Democrats off the news networks.

A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed (The New Republic) that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of (High Value Targets) before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.
Well, now. Who's the real enemy here, Mr. Bush? Osama bin Laden? Or your political opponents?

When will we get some grownups in charge again?

Short Hiatus

I'm in rehearsals for Annie, Get Your Gun! at Chaffin's Barn Dinner Theater. We open July 13, so posting will be very infrequent until then.

Kerry/Edwards 2004

Reuters

It's official: John Edwards is John Kerry's running mate. He's an excellent choice, an excellent man, and kudos to Kerry for making the choice.

Kerry's Veep Search Using Polls?

ABCNEWS.com

Perhaps so. The winner, according to ABC, was John McCain. A Kerry-McCain ticket beat Bush-Cheney by 12-15 points, resulting in a Reaganesque electoral college landslide.

No wonder we've been hearing so much about McCain as a potential veep. A 12-15 point margin is worth floating a few baloons over...

Regardless, that's not going to happen. The only person that's said No more than McCain to being Kerry's veep is Hillary Clinton. So enough already.

(One thing more: The constant speculation has forced McCain to very publicly show his true colors. This is something that can only be a good thing. Anyone enamored of McCain as a Democratic running mate should check out his basic positions - he is not one of us.)

Two statements in this article got me to chuckling, though:

When told about the polling, Republicans said it indicated Kerry was inconsistent in what he says he's looking for in a running mate.

"If true, this is glaring example of Kerry being for and against picking the best person for the job," said one Bush adviser.
Ignore the flip-flop spin: that seems to be required of any Republican talking about Kerry these days. It's the idea that polling wouldn't pick the best running mate.

Kerry's criteria are a person "qualified to be President and someone (he) can get along with." Only Kerry knows with whom he can get along, but who better to establish a person's qualifications to be President than the consensus of the American people? That's what polling potential veep candidates would determine - who the public views as "qualified" to be President. The more qualified the candidate, the higher the approval rating of the ticket.

Republicans slamming Kerry for using polling in this situation are insulting the American public's ability to decide for themselves who's qualified to be president.

Also:
The adviser went on to contrast Kerry's selection process with Bush's decision to choose Dick Cheney as his running mate for the 2000 election. "President Bush picked the best man for the job with zero political calculation or polling," he said.
Zero political calculation?

**pause while bolo wipes spewed margarita off of his iMac screen**

Bush's process for choosing Cheney was to appoint Cheney the head of his veep selecting process, remember? In fine Halliburton style, Cheney conducted a few interviews and then hightailed it to Wyoming to register as a voter there and thus sidestep the Constitutional block of two people from the same state being President and Vice President.

A calculated political move, probably whispered into Bush's ear by Karl Rove himself. Are these guys fooling anyone but themselves on this?

Granny D is Running For the Senate

Think Positive About Our Future and Work Like Hell

In New Hampshire. Dang. I'd love to vote for this lady...

"George W. Bush Was Considered A Deserter By The United States Air Force"

HOW BUSH FAILED TO FULFILL HIS DUTY

The Democratic Veteran points us to this post that examines the military record of George W. Bush most thoroughly. All the documents released to us so far have been explained. All the relevent military law has been read and applied. And the picture doesn't seem to be a pretty one.

Who'd a-thunk it?

Here's One For Mattie Stepanek

baltimoresun.com

By his request, his coffin was covered with a United Nations flag. His mother said that though Mattie suffered much pain in his life, the hardest he ever cried was last year when we invaded Iraq.

Another man of peace passes too quickly into the night. Thank you for your life, Mattie. Thanks for raising the standard.

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

Guardian Unlimited

That's the title for the sixth Harry Potter book.

As well as confirming that Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince had at one point been a contender for the title of the fourth volume in the series (now Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets), Rowling further piqued readers' curiosity by admitting that the "half blood prince" of the title is neither Lord Voldemort or Harry himself. However, fans should not expect any further revelations; Rowling ended her message with "That's all I'm saying on THAT subject until the book's published."
Well, the Chamber of Secrets is the second book - Goblet of Fire is the fourth, the one they're filming now.

I'm not crazy about that title, though. And how could it have been the fourth book? The prince must be from one of the schools that participated in the contest.

I was about to say confidently that Neville must be the Half Blood Prince...except that Neville's parents are both wizards. Oh, well. Rowing will get these last two out eventually. Even if something happens to her, the last books will be written via her detailed outline...after all, they finally got a sequel to Gone With The Wind, didn't they?

Ralph Reed: Christian Activist, Bush Lieutenant...and Gambling Lobbyist

LiberalOasis

Shucks. He's just taking after his mentor, Pat Robertson, who never met a dollar he wouldn't chase.

Fahrenheit 9/11 #1 Movie in AmeIRAQ SOVEREIGNITY BESTOWED TWO DAYS EARLY

CNN.com

Now that couldn't have anything to do with the early transfer of power, could it? BushCo wouldn't have bumped the ceremony to knock Michael Moore off of the top story of the day...right?

Right?

(special thanks to GenTaggerd, who pointed this out over at SmirkingChimp.com)

Who's Paying for the Bush Tax Cuts?

Tax Policy Center

Check out this nice report from the Tax Policy Center: Distributional Effects of the 2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts and Their Financing.

It's not as wonkish as the title suggests. It considers two ways that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 could have been financed (besides the heavy borrowing of this Republican government, which will only delay and aggravate the effects of this analysis).

One is by assuming that every household pays an equal amount in lost benefits and/or other taxes to finance the tax cuts. The second assumes that all households pay an equal percentage of household income (2.6%) to finance the cuts.

The results? Far more households lose more than they gain from the Bush tax cuts. The "equal money" scenario is especially brutal to the poor and middle class households, but both clearly favor the richer households on the spectrum.

Bush's borrow-and-spend policies are masking the true effects of the ruinous effect of his tax cuts for America, but the piper will have to be paid one day. It's time to get some grownups back in charge in Washington.

Trickle-Down Democracy

U.S. Edicts Curb Power Of Iraq's Leadership (washingtonpost.com)

Details are emerging of how sovereign Iraq will be on June 30. Bremer is making the rules and appointing his favorites to five-year terms.

So the people we installed are going to do things the way we say to do it, and that's a sovereign nation. Didn't you just know this is the way it was going to happen?

UPDATE: Doonesbury has another tidbit to chew on today. I don't know how long the link will be good for, though...

The Complete Saudi Primer

Center for American Progress

One-stop shopping for information about Bush family ties to the House of Saud. Moore's film could only scratch the surface.

We Had a Meeting and You're Kicked Out Of The Party

Democrat to speak at GOP convention

It's Zell, of course.

Senator Daschle: your nuts are calling. They want you to kick this idiot to the curb.

Fahrenheit 9/11

The biggest impression I got was how refreshing it was to hear real people talk about these issues. And I'm not talking about Michael Moore, and in a real sense, neither is he.

I'm talking about Lilly Libscomb, the woman who lost a son in Iraq.

It's an effect Moore means to acheive, and it's done easily. Moore simply rolls tape. Yes, the first half is a slick presentation of facts that you will never hear any interviewer of Michael Moore try to dispute. I didn't learn anything I didn't already know, and that's what a dedicated examination of the news online will do for you.

But then he gets to the heart of the matter. Our children and the innocent civilians of Iraq are dying in this war. They have stepped up to defend America, and the least they deserve is that we only send them into harm's way when it's absolutely necessary.

It will take a most dedicated Fox News viewer to maintain the Iraq war to be absolutely necessary after viewing Fahrenheit 9/11.

One of the things Moore relies on most is what the viewer brings to his film. There are no shots of the Twin Towers being struck or falling. Only the sounds of the day play while the screen remains black. The viewer can bring his own pictures of those events, because we all have them already. Finally he fades in shots of people watching the towers burn and the victims fall.

He doesn't painstakingly lay out the case against al-Qaeda. He understands that to be settled and moves on to his point - how is it that the bin Laden got a quick ride out of this country on 9/13 and then in Afghanistan, how did Osama get a two month headstart when we invaded?

People can rail about Moore's technique all they want. Facts are facts.

Bush is on tape talking to who he calls the "haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite; I call you my base." The knowing headshake of the woman behind him shows just how true this is.

While young men and women are being gladhanded by Marine recruiters at a destitute mall, cooperations hold conferences on how they can carve out a nice thick slice of that Iraqi money that the government will be spending.

Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia puffs a cigar in the Rose Garden while he watches the smoke rising from the Pentagon.

The White House censors the name of the pilot suspended on the same page as 1 Lt. George W. Bush. It's James Bath, a Bush family friend, who was later hired to invest bin Laden family money in America. Bath funded Bush's Arbusto oil company, and bailed him out of failed business a couple of times.

James Baker is Bush's spokesman in Florida, during the failed attempt to recount the votes. Later, when the family members of 9/11 victims sue the Saudi royal family, Mr. Baker steps in as the Saudi's chief counsel.

The hits just keep on coming - though I knew all of this, I kept hearing startled gasps around the theater as each new revelation came to light. People knew it was bad, but they didn't know it was this bad.

And then Lilly started talking about the sacrifice of her son. Moore's narration fades completely away.

She reads the last letter he sent, a week before his Black Hawk went down. He shares his love, pleads as all soldiers do for the letters that break the monotony and the loneliness, and in one tragic paragraph, rails at the idiot Bush for the mess he has sent so many of our children into.

There's so much more to Lilly's story. But Michael Moore's argument in Fahrenheit 9/11 is simple.

We should only send our children to fight and kill and die when it's absolutely necessary.

The war in Iraq wasn't absolutely necessary.

So why the hell are we there?

Just got CNN...

...and my head may explode.

After three or four years of having "limited" basic cable (local channels, religious channels, and shopping networks), I've broken down and upgraded to regular basic cable. I wanted access to CNN et al. during the election season, especially C-SPAN. To be true, I could always go to C-SPAN's website and watch the different networks on streaming video, but my roommate wanted ESPN too, and she's paying half the bills. So the upgrade has occured.

So I'm watching CNN a hour or so ago, and Kyra Phillips is indignant that so far, no journalist has really taken Bill Clinton to task for his infidelity. Impeachment wasn't enough for this vulture? Did she miss the nineties, where every possible detail of Bill Clinton's sex life was displayed and analyzed and pondered on every news medium in existence? But Bill Clinton hasn't suffered enough for Kyra.

So I go get something to eat, grab some coffee, come back in to the tube, where Kyra is now talking to the Gallup Poll guy. And the Gallup Poll guy comes really close to busting the "Reagan is the most popular president ever" myth, but doesn't. He's showing Clinton's popularity rating over the eight years of his presidency. And he points out that "like Reagan" Clinton had a bad couple of years and then climbed out of the doldrums. Oddly enough to the Gallup guy, Clinton's popularity peaked and held strong around the time of the impeachment proceedings.

Why was this, Gallup Guy?

"We're still trying to figure that one out," says the Gallup Guy.

***insert sound of me striking my forehead with my hand***

Maybe the public saw the impeachment as the partisan witch hunt it was? Just a thought, Gallup Guy.

NIST Interim Report on World Trade Center Collapses

wtc.nist.gov

Sorry to have disappeared on you guys again - my ethernet cable bit the dust this time.

You may not be aware that I confound 9/11 conspiracy theorists with the truth over on Democratic Underground. I don't like to advertise that here much, because this is a different gig. But when something this big happens in this field, I'll let you know about it.

There are many crazy ideas floating around about the collapse of the Twin Towers, along with Building 7 that day. We're talking small-nukes-in-the-basement and substituted-Flight-175-with-missile-pod-installed-underneath-shooting-flamethrowing-missiles-one-third-of-a-second-before-impacting-the-South-Tower type of theories. The National Institute of Standards and Technology has almost completed a two year study on the collapses and released an interim report on Friday. It's very comprehensive and should help people with genuine questions.

Those members of the conspiracy-industrial complex, however, couldn't be more displeased with this scientific study of the collapses. For that reason alone, you should check it out. I'm certain that this study is going to get the highest honor that I personally can bestow on any human endeavor: the newly concieved Lawrence David Kusche Award for acheivement in human rationality. Kuschies for short.

The made-up-as-I-type award is named in honor of Lawrence David Kusche, who wrote an incredible book. It's called The Bermuda Triangle Mystery: Solved! I read this book as a kid, punch drunk on the amazing disappearances of boats and planes in the Bermuda Triangle. Kusche's methodical investigation into every story ever told about the Bermuda Triangle gave my brain an incredible jolt of reality. It seems that all those disappearences into broad daylight and calm seas? It turns out that 98% of them actually happened at night during storms!

The same human instinct that created all of those stories about the Bermuda Triangle is busy at work around the events of 9/11. The most famous revisionist take on that tragic day is a denial that Flight 77 actually hit the Pentagon. Though this NIST report doesn't approach the Washington crash at all, it does a lot in quelling the growing cloud of chattering about the New York events.

Not that this will stop the CTers from babbling about missile pods and controlled demolitions, not at all! There's too much money to be made from too many fools. But it's nice to have a sensible place to point when someone with real questions wants some answers. The NIST study is one such place.