Reading the News

When you've worked inside the news machine, as I have all of my adult life, you develop something called "news sense." Today, as always, some stories moved that caught my attention. Late today (US time) the BBC reported the following semi-shocking news:


{An Iranian offer to help the United States stabilize Iraq and end its military support for Hezbollah and Hamas was rejected by Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003, a former top State Department official told the British Broadcasting Corp.

The U.S. State Department was open to the offer, which came in an unsigned letter sent shortly after the American invasion of Iraq, Lawrence Wilkerson, former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff, told BBC's Newsnight in a program broadcast Wednesday night. But, Wilkerson said, Cheney vetoed the deal.

"We thought it was a very propitious moment" to strike a deal, Wilkerson said. "But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the vice president's office, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil' ... reasserted itself."}

So, how to read this news? As with all such items, first we have to read it critically. Wilkerson, the BBC's source, is a prominent critic of the Bush administration and its Iraq strategy. On the other hand, neither he nor the BBC is likely to push a story out there without adequate proof, because to do so in the modern media environment is to squander the only resource any journalist or public figure has -- credibility.

There is a factor of unknown importance between the lines here. Cheney's former chief aide, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, goes on trial next week in the Valerie Plame/CIR leak scandal. Cheney has been called as a witness.

Inside the Beltway, this is called "piling on." Cheney's critics smell blood, especially after Rumsfeld's demise and the Democratic sweep last November. Bush has been in a defensive posture ever since, except in the one area where he holds the cards (war), where he promises to send 20,000+ more young people into harm's way very soon.

Watch the Libby trial closely for clues. In politics, nobody is sacred and nobody lives forever. Karl Rove, once thought vulnerable due to this scandal, appears to have escaped. But, like the sacrificial ceremonies in human cultures since time immemorial, somebody's head has to roll.

I am just guessing here, piecing together clues, but if Cheney ends up resigning due to this scandal, you read it here first! I think that perhaps the bell now tolls for Dick.

***

To switch topics entirely, the San Francisco Chronicle reported today that last year was one of the worst years on record in terms of the number of people known to have jumped to their death from the Golden Gate Bridge.

The verified number is 34, with at least four others likely. The all-time known record is 40. Last year, at least 70 others tried to kill themselves in this way, but bridge officials intervened in time to talk them down from jumping.

These numbers represent a dramatic increase from previous years, so the question is: Why? A bridge district spokesperson blamed media coverage. So, we must once again return to Plato's Cave. For thousands of years, society has blamed the messenger.

The journalist in me doth protest; I hope not too much.

After all, Shakespeare's plays were mediocre compared to his sonnets.

***

I always love seeing my ex-students. Today, a former Stanford graduate student stopped by. Her name is Jamie. She is considering moving back to the Bay Area from North Carolina, where she has been working for a small newspaper.

I encouraged her, as I almost always do when writers ask me whether to relocate here. Despite many problems, this remains Mecca for creative people. She will find a place for herself in our ever-changing creative community, I'm quite sure.

From her perch in Chapel Hill, she noticed something I'd overlooked, and that is that John Edwards, the stealth candidate for President in 2008, has been actively using Facebook and MySpace to energize his base. He also announced his candidacy in New Orleans, plus he has always consistently been the loudest voice for the poor and the underrepresented.

Think about all of that, and then remember he is from the South. The only Presidents the Democrats have elected since JFK were similarly Southerners -- Carter and Clinton. By contrast, Obama (who I fear is a modern Warren Harding) and Hillary (who is all northerner, as if Arkansas never happened) cannot really play across the lines that determine political outcomes in this country.

Don't get me wrong. I like Obama; he's easy to respond to on charismatic grounds alone. And Hillary is easily the most articulate politician in the race, much like her husband.

But I am betting on Edwards, because I think the true scandal of America this decade is that we have spent $1 Trillion on the misguided war in Iraq, while neglecting the needs of our own fellow citizens in New Orleans and Mississippi after the greatest natural calamity in our nation's history -- Hurricane Katrina.

He alone seems willing to speak out about that truth and to stand up as a representative of the poor and working classes. If that is not what a Democrat is, then maybe we would be better off with Republicans, eh?

After all, both Rudy Giuliani and John McCain have attractive qualities, not to mention when they (inevitably) will get paired with the attractive Condi Rice, who unfortunately is a monster.

Trust me, I would love to vote for a black lesbian.

Just not this one.

-30-