NY Post (of all newspapers):

Condoleezza Rice’s office gave final approval to the infamous Environmental Protection Agency press releases days after 9/11 claiming the air around Ground Zero was “safe to breathe,” internal documents show.
Now Secretary of State, Rice was then head of the National Security Council – “the final decision maker” on EPA statements about lower Manhattan air quality, the documents say.
. . .
Early tests known to the EPA at the time had already found high asbestos levels, the notes say. But those results were omitted from the press releases because of “competing priorities” such as national security and “opening Wall Street,” according to a report by the EPA’s inspector general.

Of course we now know that the air around Ground Zero was anything but safe after the towers collapsed. And hundreds of rescuers are now paying the price with long-term respiratory ailments.
The obvious question here is why the NSC director, with a background in Russian studies, had the “final” call on whether or not air was “safe”? At any rate, where there’s a conflict between business and environmental concerns, it’s no mystery which side is going to win in this White House. I hope the people we were rushing back to lower Manhattan didn’t have to breathe very often.

A free tip for would-be criminals: if you are carrying around marijuana, it’s best not to attempt to hitch a ride with a police officer.

There’s been a lot of brouhaha the last couple days regarding President Clinton’s interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Channel. A couple takes on it:
(1) As a general matter, I think the issue was fair game for Wallace to raise. However, if reports were true that FNC agreed that half the interview was supposed to deal with Clinton’s Global Initiative, and then Wallace hit him right at the start with this, it’s pretty poor interviewing form.
(2) Although the substance of Clinton’s response seemed to be on point (it’s hard to get to verify some of the facts), he emotion did cause him to go a little over the top. He could have done without the “smirk” remark and comments about the “right-wing” people going after him. At times it sounded as if he is as bothered by the messengers as the message. He should have just stuck to the facts in refuting the attacks.
I assume this is a short-lived story, and a nice media distraction from Iraq for Rove, Inc. However, if there is a longer-term implication, I hope it’s one William Kristol identified:

In this interview, Clinton rallied Democrats. He reminded them of their talking points on Bush’s alleged passivity in his first eight months in office (remember Richard Clarke!), and on the alleged distraction posed by Iraq from the more worthwhile war in Afghanistan.
. . .
If the Bush-Rove war-on-terror offensive stalls out this week (and much of the media is committed to making this happen), and Democrats do well in November, Bill Clinton can take credit, at a crucial moment, for discrediting the terror issue as a mere political ploy, and showing Democrats how “to fight back” and how “to stand up to the right-wing propaganda machine” (in the words of Howard Dean).

That would be a nice fallout from this—-the Democrats apparently need some sort of spark.
Interesting aside: FNC reportedly scrubbed copies of the interview on YouTube, but now I see that at least some of them are back. Not sure how that has worked out.

President Bush’s view of the bloodshed in Iraq (video):

BLITZER: We see these horrible bodies showing up …
BUSH: Of course you do.
BLITZER: …tortured, mutilation. The Shia and the Sunni, the Iranians apparently having a negative role. Of course, Al-Qaida in Iraq’s still operating.
BUSH: Yes, you see — you see it on TV, and that’s the power of an enemy that is willing to kill innocent people. But there’s also an unbelievable will and resiliency by the Iraqi people. Twelve million people voted last December.
Admittedly, it seems like a decade ago. I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it will look like just a comma because there is — my point is, there’s a strong will for democracy.

(Emphasis added).
It’s an interesting perspective:

• 2,700 Americans killed on September 11 = a day that changed everything
• 2,700 Americans killed + 20,000 Americans wounded + tens of thousands of Iraqis killed and wounded = a comma in history

I wonder how well it would go over if a leading Democrat referred to the attack on September 11 as a “comma” (or semicolon) in the grand scheme of history. I suspect it wouldn’t go over well.
[Incidentally, I majored in history, and in four years I never did learn when the “final history” regarding an event is written. Perhaps Tony Snow can clear that point up on a slow news day.]
If that wasn’t enough, Mr. Bush added this:

These people want a unity government. The unity government is functioning. I’m impressed by President Maliki.
I’ve talked to him. I’ve seen the decision-making process that he’s put in place. The Iraqi army is still recruiting and training.

Unity government? Funny, I just read this:

After yielding to several demands from Sunni Arab parties, Iraqi political leaders agreed on Sunday to start debate on a bill that could eventually allow the country to be broken into autonomous states.

I guess it all depends on what your definition of a “unity government” is.
UPDATE: Jack Cafferty weighs in on the “comma.”

An American graduate student offers a short video on electric bicycles in China.

Seems to me that a motor takes the fun out of it. But I suppose it’s a helpful upgrade for the elderly. And the “fun” probably wears off after a few years if that’s your only mode of transportation.
Without elaborating on the topic, the graduate student says that Chinese cities are deemphasizing bicycle transportation in favor of cars. Supposedly the latter makes for a more “modern” city. To the contrary, I think the opposite is true; a city upgrades itself by becoming more cyclist friendly.
David Herron has a few more thoughts on the video.