I think most likely both accounts are accurate. This White House has lied itself up one street and down another. When you keep telling lies and leaking to the press the stories are bound to be screwed up.

Draper had direct access to Bush and some of the other characters in the WH. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle and I think both Toobin and Draper are correct in their accounts of events. It's the idiots behind the curtains that are lying.

Why would anyone be surprised by the naked politicization of the Supreme Court--that had to happen in order to ensure "the genius Rove's" permanent majority.

These clowns are wetting themselves for fear of being found out and prosecuted. They could do some very serious jail time.

I was in West Palm Beach FL during the recount. The counters had been given three days to recount. Miami quit because demonstrators were banging on the doors to the recount office. And then a full day before the deadline, the recount was stopped by the Secretary of State/ Bush campaign chair. At this point, the case went to the SCOUS. We all see the results of that non-decision.

Dawn of the Dead Certain?

You also lost me Rach baby. You need better writing skills.

BTW Tobin is a retard.

Rach, baby, you write like Dennis Miller speaks! Toooo many parentheticals. Too cutsey. Ya lost me babe.

I think the important thing to remember is how hot Rachel Sklar is. Once we all just accept that fact, we can begin to move past our national nightmare. In summary, these books are all pointless and Rachel Sklar is hot as balls.

Of the two accounts, from what little has been said about the books so far, and without seeing the books, I would tend to trust Toobin over Draper, especially because in the given accounts of the accounts Draper appears to me not to do much cross checking, just interviewing and accepting with this so-called very open access to "sources" in the White House. Why would they even give him truly open and honest access without trying to inject their own narrative?

He accepts what Bush says about the Roberts nomination. Who else does Draper ask about this? Did he not go to Roberts to confirm? Anyone Else. Roberts is denying this through the SC offices (not directly) but who in the SC would speak for Roberts without asking or being directed?

He accepts what Bush says about Bremer which Bremer disputes. Did Draper not go to Bremer and ask? This is a very important moment. In any case is it even plausible? And if it did come as a surprise it would not have been one for long. If it wasn't what was wanted, wouldn't a CIC have stopped or reversed the disbandment of the Iraqi army?

Neither of Draper's reported reportings seems to track from what little I have seen.

If we had only Draper's book and neither Toobin's book, the court's denial or Bremer's denial, we would probably all be hearing about the book in the same way Draper seems to have heard the accounts, without cross checking.

Luckily (why luckily, this should be routine) a few others in media bothered to do some basic cross-checking.

Recuse herself? Why didnt Scalia recuse himself when his son worked for Bush's lawfirm? No other judge in America would fail to recuse when a direct family member was representing a party. Unf#$@*ing unbelievable.

Regarding Sandra Day O'Connor. Thanks for your better decisions, SDO, but you were outed as having said at a public election night gathering, when you saw on TV that it seemed as if Gore was winning the election, that now you wouldn't be able to retire! Blatant partisanship! Not to mention terrible judgment! You should have recused yourself in Bush v. Gore! It is really creepy that you didn't. And yes you do bear a lot of responsibility for the disaster of these Bush junta years, the million dead for instance. You need to apologize to the country for your bad judgement and your dishonest approach to your duties, regarding your partisanship and lack of ethics thereby. You need to be your very own one-person Truth & Reconciliation Commission. It's not too late for you to help rescue your nation from the damage you personally inflicted on it. Are you moral enough to do so? Or are you just settling into your retirement with that giant bush-monkey on your back with nary a whimper, going into that good night with such a nightmare and heavy unspeakable burden?

Love,
News Nag

I remember reading back then that it WAS Democratic Senator Harry Reid who suggested Harriet Miers to Bush, probably seeding her name among others, and playing on Bush's ego to coax him into making a disastrous decision that would alienate Bush from his own base. Reid, a former boxer, executed a successful feint and a sharp jab that did more damage than it might have appeared at the time. In other words, Reid played Bush like the one-note pliable dull handsaw that he is. I do remember reading at the time that Reid was in the White House, as minority leader of the confirming body (the Senate), giving his advice about who could clear the Senate for the SCOTUS nomination. Give em hell, Harry. Then Bush's base gave their decider the old one-two.

I think Robert Draper's a decent writer but not the sharpest thinker in the thinkbox himself either. You have to realize that Draper, from Texas, got Bush's approval for the interview. Therefore, I see it as just one more case of Bush granting privilege (or power or position..­.) to someone whose acumen and skills are substandard for the position bestowed. Even though Draper's not a crony, he supplicated himself enough to get what he needed (kissed ass and implied that he would be, wink-wink, gentle with Bush's legacy) and ultimately exposed himself as being the somewhat less-than-stellar mind that he is. Not a lacky but not presidential historian or scholar either. A subpar performance with hope for improvement. A typical social climber, though.

Love,
News Nag

I have as much faith in Jeffery Toobin as I do in that other hack, Bob Woodward. These beltway "journalists" have zero credibility in my eyes. Check out mediamatters.org if you want some examples of Toobin's reliability.

For any one of the Bushies to have a "thought," seems like an oxymoron to me, especially George.

These people don't give a shit about governing. It's all a big joke to them.

Rachel, it's a great post. (Why? Partly, _whaaaa_ etc_.)

I don't totally get what the Supremes PR person is denying, other than possibly that Roberts made any sort of suggestion (especially a really dumb one) re the replacement for Justice O'Connor. What I get, mostly, is "disarray," "easily influenced," and, shockingly, given the way the administration has stacked the courts, no real clue about a suitable Justice-nominee once Roberts on the court.

Bush is beyond anything we have ever seen in the oval office. Trying to make sense out of his blathering sensless speech is a fools errand.

How can one write a reliable book about this administration let alone about Resident Bush. Most all the sources are well-known prevaricators!!!