The Next Hurrah

What's Next For Iraq?

By Mimikatz

The Times reviews the forthcoming Baker-Hamilton recommendations and they are pretty much as expected:  the centerpiece is a regional conference. 

As described by the people involved in the deliberations, the bulk of the report by the Baker-Hamilton group focused on a recommendation that the United States devise a far more aggressive diplomatic initiative in the Middle East than Mr. Bush has been willing to try so far, including direct engagement with Iran and Syria. Initially, those contacts might be part of a regional conference on Iraq or broader Middle East peace issues, like the Israeli-Palestinian situation, but they would ultimately involve direct, high-level talks with Tehran and Damascus.

Mr. Bush has rejected such contacts until now, and he has also rejected withdrawal, declaring in Riga, Latvia, on Tuesday that while he will show flexibility, “there’s one thing I’m not going to do: I’m not going to pull the troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete.”

While Bush's remarks would seem to bode ill for this recommendation, I believe that the key is in redefining the mission for Bush.  If it looks like a conference can reach some sort of settlement, Bush can declare the mission a success and begin the withdrawal.  The trick is to get him (and the Israelis) to accept the conference.  If a substantial number of Republicans in Congress join the Dems in accepting this recommendation, it can happen.  Meanwhile, Dems must resist efforts to step up the war and continue to push for withdrawal to keep the pressure on.

Another key according to the Times article is that Maliki must believe that the US means to withdraw or he will never get serious about finding a political solution.  On one level this is true.  The Shiites have no incentive to deal while we are willing to do their fighting.  However, it is unclear to say the least how Maliki, who owes his appointment to an Iraqi Parliament dominated by parties whose paramilitary arms are the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr and the Badr brigades of SCIRI, backed by Iran, could really move on the militias.  (See this dissection of the misconceptions in the Hadley memo and the box Maliki is in, h/t to Josh Marshall.)

Another piece of the puzzle is Cheney's mission to Saudi Arabia.  This op-ed, by an adviser to the Saudi government, states that the Saudis are ready to support and defend the Sunnis if the US pulls out, both militarily, on a sliding scale, and financially, again on a sliding scale ranging from monetary support to crashing the price of oil if Iran gives too much assistence to the Shiites.  While I question whether the Saudis at this point really have the means to flood the market with oil, they can certainly offer support to the Sunnis.  If that offer concentrates the minds of the negotiators, it is probably a good thing.  But Saudi troops in Iraq?  Good only in the sense of better them than us.

Which brings us to the other recommendation of the Baker-Hamilton group:  not withdrawal per se, not any timetables, but the gradual withdrawal of US forces from Baghdad and other cities to their bases, some presumably in Iraq but others certainly in bases in Kuwait and the Emirates, and some all the way home.   

Because it will take some time to present the recommendations and run them through the political gauntlet, the Pentagon will presumably have a month or two or three to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of putting 20,000 more troops in Baghdad, or perhaps events will overtake that initiative before it even gets implemented and force our hand.  in any event, it is not a solution, except in a PR sense.

The key function of the Baker-Hamilton Commission in my mind is to basically say to Bush, Congress and the American people that the war as such is unwinnable, that there is no solution that the US military can impose that this country is willing to support.  (Sure, we could nuke the country, as Limbaugh suggests, but to what end, and at what cost?)  Given that reality, we need to redefine the mission as simply greater stability in the region and get a sufficient number of people, governments and parties to take a realistic view of how that could be achieved so we can start on that path. 

I have no idea whether a sufficient number of those who dreamed of remaking the Middle East more to their liking (and there are a lot more of these than simply the neocons) are willing to give up those dreams for a measure of peace and stability.   But surely that is what the majority of actual people who actually live in the Middle East, probably the vast majority, really want--of that I am certain.

Bush is going to prove more flexible than many people now believe, because he is basically going to be given a great deal of support for that flexibility and very little if any for digging in his heels.  The Cheney mission is particularly significant in this respect.  There are many obstacles ahead and many powerful and even ruthless people who would rather have war than a peace that requires them to give something up.  Call me naive, but here's hoping Spring brings a real sense of hope and change.

The Saga of my new Stove

By Sara

Much is being made these days about the dirty old hippies.  I have a loyalty saga to tell.

About 29 years ago I remodeled my kitchen.  I bought what was then a very expensive stove, (micro on top, real oven below, and 30 inches wide cooking space. )  I've since done some cooking -- I helped found an AIDS home delivered meals project, and to that objective I calculate I cooked at least part of 90 thousand meals.  I remember the Thanksgiving when I did up 7 donated Turkeys, and much else that would be processed into servings to be delivered. 

Alas, last year my oven and broiler failed, the microwave ceased to deliver power you could count on, and two stove burners ceased to function.  Simply put, time for a new stove. The whole stove was pre digital, and 29 years later, no parts. 

I went to some appliance stores, and very discouraging.  Tap my 29  year old Tappen, and it was heavy steel.  Tap the new ones, much like a can of pop.  Finally I went to the place where they discount everything and bought a 5 Star -- a Commercial Stove, twice what I paid for the Tappen, but at least it could take a missed pan.  But because the micro was incorporated into the old stove, I had to buy a new micro.  (I think I have one that if I miss a step in programing will launch a rocket)

Aah but the problem of moving the 29 year old stove out, and moving the new one in.  To understand it all you have to appreciate how I got a kitchen with cabinets copied from Frank Lloyd Wright designs. 

Back in the dark days when the Feds were looking for draft evaders, and worse, moms who harbored draft evaders  put posters of J Edgar Hoover as Evil Man Number One, on their front door saying he was an enemy of the people, the guy who became my master cabinet maker (dresser, stereo cabinets, book cases, file cabinets, and yes, the kitchen)  refused the Draft.  It was difficult, he almost went to the Federal Pen, but I got him the right lawyer and in the end, the lawyer got him off.  I wish I could reconstruct the several hours I spent with his dad who was a submariner during World War II, and who was detailed to film Hirshoma.  Which he did.  What I had to do was take this dad to look at the Federal Pen in our area, Sandstone, and get him to comprehend his first born inside because he would not accept the draft for vietnam.   (You want a dad to stand up for CO Status for Son -- well let them look at the walls of a Fed Pen.)

Back to the saga of my stove.  The utility men pulled the old one out, and immediately the kitchen cabinets around it began to cave in.  And they caved and caved and caved.  Ten feet of cabinets up to the 10 food ceiling caved in.  You know what supermarket bags are made for -- pulling out everything in cabinets that are in total collapse. 

Of course I immediately asked if the stove pullers intended to repair, but then I realized they were going to call insurance and all that, and so I put in a call to my cabinet maker who had mounted the cupboards 29 years earlier, when he was actually still on the run from the FBI.  Voice mail.  But within a few hours he called me back.  Yea, he would remount, moreover he wants to do the other side of the kitchen too.  (Not many of us who have Frank Lloyd Wright copied Kitchens -- well at least mostly a copy),  Anyhow within two days I got the cabinets remounted and my grand new stove and micro installed. 

Now I told the installers and all why It was I could call a cabinet maker I had employed 29 years earlier, and he would come quickly and fix.  It was because of Vietnam, and how those of us who opposed, supported each other then when and how we could.  It was deeper than that.  It was about finding that old Norwegian Cabinetmaker up north who would take in a mad Catholic Irish war protester for about a year (who needed to disappear) and teach him the arts of cabinetmaking.   But it is also about the traverse of Bishop Shannon from where he started at the end of Vatican II to when he just left the church and priesthood. 

I look at my new stove and appreciate all this, and the teaching moment I was again granted with the 19 or 20 year installers to whom I could message it all.  My cabinet maker came, he brought appropriate jacks, he moved everything back into place, and we ran bolts through the wall to make everything super secure.  Then we remounted the Frank Lloyd Wright copy doors on the cabinets.   And I did explain to my commercial installers  that this was a war protester I helped stay out of the Federal Pen back in the 60's, but instead learned an arts  trade that could make him a living.  We've looked at it, and the other side of the kitchen needs a re-mount too -- so we'll be doing more. 

In the meantime, I have a fantastic new stove -- a super new stove -- where all the burners work, the oven works, the broiler works, and a new micro which is also combined with combination features such as convection cooking -- which I fear might launch a rocket.  (have not yet tried).  When the men came to take away the old one -- finally -- all I could think about were the 90 thousand AIDS home delivered meals I had helped to cook on the old one.   Peeping out the front room shutters I watched it  get wheeled up into the disposal truck, but I was thinking about the day the Department of Natural Resourse called and told me they had shot me ten deer.  I had to get busy pulling together my butchers and roasters.   My butchers were employees of a Catholic Hospital, (recruited by a nun), and my roasters were all gay men who had a huge argument about how to cook venison, but then did it well, after they reviewed all the possible recipes.  After my mother died, I taught my dad to cook with a microwave, on my old one of course, he has been dead for many years. -- but teaching him, and then installing one in his kitchen kept him out of nursing homes. (given the 8 Heart Attacks).   Watching my old stove trundle out meant moving out the memory of that critical teaching that saved both of us much pain. 

"Do you micro a cup of rice for 7 minutes or 17 minutes?  Daddy -- you micro it for 17 minutes if it is a full cup."   One wonders what the nippers listening in on the phone lines made of such.  My Dad had one of those Q clearances which was beyond Top Secret.  Yes, how do you ask the child who opposes war the proper time for cooking rice? 

   

   

 

 

Heading the Sheriff Off at the Pass

by emptywheel

Would I be stating the obvious if I said the IG investigation into the NSA domestic spying program is a transparent attempt to avoid a Democratic-led investigation into the program? If you don't believe me, see what you think after reading the secret first version of the letter sent to Congressional Democrats I found. You can read the version the IG actually sent to Congress at TPMM.

Dear Congressman Hinchey:

I am writing to inform you that the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has opened a review of the Department of Justice's (Department) involvement with a National Security Agency (NSA) program that has been called "the terrorist surveillance program" or the "warrantless surveillance program," or even, by some dirty hippies, "domestic spying program."

The OIG previous received clearances relating to the NSA program for myself and two other OIG supervisors but not the rest of the team we picked to investigate the program. After conducting initial inquiries into the program some time ago (though we won't tell you how long, because if we did, we'd have to admit the concerns we had in 2001 when the program started), we have decided to open a program review that will examine the Department's controls and use of information related to the program and the Department's compliance with legal requirements governing the program. That's the scope, all intentionally vague like. It's my secret, you see, whether we'll investigate whether DOJ lawyers gave bad advice to President Bush to allow him to start wiretapping your grandmother.

On October 20, 2006, when it became obvious that no amount of electoral hanky panky could help Republicans keep the House, I made a formal request to the Attorney General for additional clearances for OIG staff to conduct this program review. The Attorney General forwarded the request to the White House, which makes the decision on clearance requests relating to the program. Abu Gonzales made a compelling case to Bush that, even though he recommended against granting this clearance the first time we asked, this time it was a better alternative than allowing the Democrats to investigate. Last week, once Rove finally informed Bush that the Republicans had lost the election, I received word that the request for clearances for the OIG staff to conduct this review would be granted.

As a result, and not out of any partisan interference, the OIG has opened this program review, and I wanted to inform you of the review, so you could call off John Conyers and his backpack full of subpoenas.

To date, they have held off on any investigation of Dougie Feith's little intelligence factory by conducting an IG "investigation" that has so far lasted at least two years. Two years and BushCO will get out of Dodge without any impeachment.

But I'm sure the timing of the investigation is entirely coincidental.

An Uncivil War

By Mimikatz

The latest exercise in magical thinking on the part of the Bush Administration involves what we call the situation in Iraq.  NBC News decided to call it a civil war, but the Bush Administration evidently pushed back, and most other news outlets (though not NBC) are continuing to call it "sectarian violence."  Bush evidently thinks there must be set piece battles and competing capitals (as with our Civil War) to constitute a civil war.  And, of course, admitting that it is a civil war would constitute an admission that his grand mission has failed completely. 

Meanwhile, the facts on the ground continue to deteriorate.  If you haven't seen Michael Ware on CNN describing the situation in Baghdad, please take a look.  "A city that is almost totally paralyzed by fear."  Neighborhoods coming under mortar fire, as described in Iraqi blogs.  Ethnic cleansing. Kyra Phillips says," When exactly can you say this is a civil war?"   His response:  Anyone who says it isn't enjoys the "luxury of distance."

The incoming Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is said to have been appalled at how the situation had been allowed to deteriorate when he visited Iraq as part of the Baker-Hamilton Commission.  Will he tell Bush?  Bush, of course, can't go himself because of the security situation, and will meet Prime Minister Maliki in Jordan.  Will Maliki just tell him what he wants to hear, like everyone else? 

Both Baker and Gates are said to favor talks with Iran and Syria, and that is the option on which consensus is most likely among the Iraq Study  Group members.  So look for that as one recommendation even if Bush doesn't like it.  But what else can be done?  It is worse than civil war, because there are multiple warring factions.  The Kurds have for all intents and purposes seceded already.  Secular, tribal and fundamentalist Sunnis vie for control of territory, and many fight the US and the Iraqi government, whom they view as illegitimate.  Shia factions fight the Sunni and to a lesser extent each other, letting the mainly secular government continue in power as long as it doesn't attempt to disarm the militias.  If it did, they would fight the government as well.  With everyone fighting everyone, with increasing brutality and abandon, which side are we fighting on?  And why?  If we can't help the situation (and that looks to be the case) we must make it clear to the Iraqis that we are leaving, preferably as soon as practicable.

If Bush does not accept some face-saving way out, he must come to Congress this spring to request it to appropriate another $130-170 billion for the war.  At that point "To what end?" is the question Congress must make him answer.  That, and "which side are we supporting in this (un)civil war?"

Any Bets on Judy's Source?

by emptywheel

No, not her Plame source. Her Muslim charities source. SCOTUS has just ruled that the NYT has to turn over Judy's call data to Fitzgerald to see if the person who leaked word of impending raids on Muslim charities did so with criminal intent. (Thanks to Quicksilver for the heads up.)

I had to explain to someone last week WTF I thought this might be about. "No one could have leaked the information to Judy intentionally, could they have?" the person asked. "Actually," I responded, "I think it is possible." I gave my best guess. I suspect someone might have leaked the info to Judy so it would not be discovered that the Saudis were funding Hamas. I'd guess that someone either in Treasury, or cognizant of what Treasury was doing, laundered the tip through Judy to save our good friends the Saudis some serious embarrassment.

And btw, if you haven't already read Sibel Edmonds' piece on the influence industry in this country, I recommend you do so. She echoes a lot of ideas I raised in this piece, about how dangerous it is when foreign countries can basically bribe their way into influencing your legislative agenda. She highlights the Saudi's successful efforts at avoiding any embarrassment with the 9/11 Commission report. As the press wonders what Dick Cheney was doing in Saudi Arabia this week, they might want to consider Edmond's argument.

Anyway, back to Judy and Fitzgerald. I suspect we'll only learn who her source is if he ends up indicting that person. But he doesn't have much time. The statute of limitations on the first potential crime expires on December 5, the five year anniversary of Judy's first article tipping one of the charities off to the imminent raid.

Man that guy is busy.

The Lobby Matter

By Sara

By now we all understand that some Dem Hill folk are cashing out and moving to K-Street, and a few K-Street folk are returning to Dem offices on the hill, and Republicans who cashed out after the election probably lost 50K per year.    All this is cause for WaPo concern. 

I agree, but I also think the Blog-World potentially can make for some changes in this migration pattern particularly if numerous bloggers are determined to fly outside the normal migration routes, and make very clear they are unbound.

Our problem essentially is we are the new critter on the scene, and we really have not estimated our worth.  Essentially, a legislator usually is a person with highly general knowledge about things they are asked to decide in law.  They may know little about an issue, or have just general and perhaps wrong-headed knowledge.  But they have to vote, and then defend that vote.  The Lobbyists not only provides a source of reliability and dependability that will defend in the public arena their position, but they of course also can provide campaign contributions to Leadership PAC'S  and campaign committees that thank the member for this or that vote. 

Against this reality it is up to us to design and execute something quite different.  It will never be the cow that delivers campaign contributions, but it can be something that has to be considered -- namely a mechanism for sorting likely committee votes, and later floor votes, and matching them up with expert opinion that is unbought and unpaid that understands the nut issue of these votes.  To make this work, it has to be open -- voters in each district need to be aware of the materials and arguments that have been presented to members before votes are cast, establishing the reasonable knowledge of members as they vote.  This is really the only way a citizen's lobby as distinct from the K-Street Lobby can be effective.  It is the only way the matter of paid access can be broken up.  By making the standard, "I have really reviewed what the opposition on this vote has to say" that means such an opposition has to speak not only to congresscritters, but also to the wider public, which demands that congresspersons understand all sides of issues before they commit.  Most of the key votes that concern us really take place in committee -- and we need a means of following these carefully, knowing when they are likely, and moving whatever assets the blog world has at a time appropriate to decisions. 

I don't think Blogworld has yet understood that for at least the next two years most of the legislation will be written in Democratic dominated committees.  How do we change what has been, for the most part, a criticism of Republican efforts, and Democratic resistance, to pieces of legislation we can totally support?   How do we communicate the specifics of everything both to the proper congresspersons and to the public that has interest, and the public that is generally interested?  I don't think we have begun to consider the dimensions of both winning control and actually being in control. 

Example:  Next year "No Child Left Behind" has to be re-authorized.  We have tons of evidence that the program as it stands does not accomplish its goals, but we need clarity as to what to change.  In my mind, the most important evidence existant is that children who have little or no economic security in their family situation are always at the bottom of achievement in schools.  There are studies to this effect all over the place.  Economic Security of the family is, after multiple studies, the most critical variable in student achievement.  So how do we make this central to the debate about reauthorization -- or perhaps make it something John Edwards can take up as he campaigns on the two nations?  I am not for him exactly, but if one could push the relevance of his issue into the center of the debate -- where it should be -- it could be moved.  So how do we Progressive Bloggers move this issue to every Democratic Member and Senator -- and yes into 2008 -- but not letting anyone off the hook?  NCLB has to be renewed in 2007 -- so perhaps we could focus on making Bush accept a revision that accepts economic disparities and security as a cause of different educational outcomes?  The empirical evidence is all around in the peer reviewed literature.  We just have to advocate the results. 

Of course there are other reasons for disparities -- but "intensity of cause" is a great issue. 

On Science: Earlier I suggested that Emptypockets check out where Russ Holt was on re-establishing the Office of Technology Assessment -- an issue discussed in Chris Mooney's great book, "The Republican War on Science."  Now it looks as if Holt  may end up chairing the Intelligence Committee -- so maybe someone else will carry that bill, or something like it.  I can hardly imagine anything more appropriate to say that Democrats are back than doing this.  Bloggers need to debate and perhaps decide the best sort of science review committee and then help make it happen.  (Alternative forms of organization are in Mooney's book.)   

Obviously, one of the side issues in Technology Assesment is a matter of interest to us Internet folk.  We should not be bashful.  Yea, of course we went Net Neutrality.  But we should be asking for much much more.  We really need to be advocates for getting broadband out to the hinterlands, and into the inner city.  No matter what the technology, the point is a reasonable rate for everyone being connected, and dirt cheap costs for schools and library sites.  Beyond that I would like to see tax law that would allow Newspapers (and perhaps Network News) that are actually newsgathering organizations, to convert to Foundation or non-profit status essentially in the way the British Guardian and Observer are "Trusts."  I'd like to see US versions convert to News gathering and analysis outfits -- much less involved with Wall Street expectations of return of profit to investors.  I think this is the way to gradually convert from print to electronic media while still allowing for the costs of print on paper as a residual form.  I think it is also how we manage new newsgathering forms.   

 

   

 

It Really Can Get Much, Much Worse

By Mimikatz

The proponents of the stay-and-die "policy" in Iraq always say that things will be much worse, if not catastrophic, if we leave.  They seem to assume that if we stay, things will stay the same, if not improve.  But there is no basis for this belief.  In reality, if we stay things can get much, much worse, and they are heading rapidly in that direction.

The death toll from Thursday's Sunni on Shi'a violence has topped 200.  Retaliation has begun by the Shi'ite militias, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr most prominently, including lobbing of mortars into Sunni neighborhoods.  The US seems to be fighting the Shi'ite militia, and bombarded a mortar site.  Mosques are being set afire on both sides.  Juan Cole reports:

The US military went into Sadr City to contain the Shiite guerrillas. At one point a US aircraft took out a mortar emplacement that was hitting a nearby Sunni quarter. Al-Zaman says that they killed three persons.

Ed Wong of the NYT reports that at the same time, there were heavy sectarian clashes in the city of Baquba, northeast of Baghdad. The US military raided Sadr's offices in that city. Soon thereafter Sunni Arab guerrillas blew the offices up. The LA Times says that in response Shiite guerrillas blew up a Sunni mosque.

Bush is planning to meet with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki in Jordan because Baghdad is now too unsafe.  Disarming the militias may be a topic.  Moqtada al-Sadr threatens to pull his party members out of the government (some 30 in all), causing it to fall, if Bush meets with Maliki in Jordan.  Meanwhile, Cheney is in Saudi Arabia trying to get the Saudis to rein in the Sunnis and talk to the Shi'a.  Good luck.  Yesterday Juan Cole reported yesterday that the Sunnis are so well-organized and armed that it is only a matter of time until they stage an assault on the Green Zone.  A friend e-mailed Cole:

Another friend, a Sunni sheikh of the Shammar tribe noted to me that thousands of former officers are prepared to assault the G[reen] Z[one]. It is no longer a matter of can they do it, they are only mulling over the timing. The breach of the Green Zone security the other day was a test of their ability to get in, and not a real attempt at a coup, though it is reported as such. Every Iraqi I talk to says unambiguously that the resistance attached to the former regime would take out the Shiite militias with barely a fight, but that the resistance will not commit wholesale revenge against the Shiite population. They just want to get rid of the "carpet baggers" from Iran. '

Given the population disparity, "taking out the Shiite militias with barely a fight" seems optimistic, but these are trained former military officers.  At the same time, if we side to heavily with the Sunnis, the Shi'ites in the South can cut our supply lines (and escape route) to Kuwait.  So what is Cheney whispering in King Abdullah's ear and what will Bush tell Maliki?  The real question is whether our hand is forced before the Baker-Hamilton Commission reports and the Dems hold thair Iraq summit next week.

Meanwhile, the press that cheerled us into Iraq and fawned over the Bush Administration for six years is now impatient because the Democrats, who after all were elected just two and a half weeks ago and haven't taken power yet haven't put forth a brilliant plan to get us out of Iraq.  (That was Norah O'Donnell substituing for Matthews on hardball.)   What's your bright idea?

Left Wing, Right Wing, Or Just A Drumstick

by emptypockets

The Times yesterday gives some DOs and DON'Ts for Thanksgiving. Nostrums like:

DO help clean up, even if your host declines your offer.
DON'T talk politics at the table, tell off-color jokes or reignite old family feuds.

They follow up with more specifics:

...if someone is mouthing off about politics, it is acceptable to excuse yourself politely and take a little walk or see if you can help in the kitchen.

And they provide this advice from the keepers of Emily Post's etiquette legacy:

And while it is not necessarily impolite to discuss politics or religion, a host should be prepared to defend a guest who falls under attack or appears uncomfortable.

Mrs. Post suggests language like this: “I really feel like this discussion is going nowhere and I’m sure poor Harry didn’t expect this.”

Then follow a time-honored custom: change the subject.

"Poor Harry," indeed.

I'll Show You Mine If You Show Me Yours

by emptywheel

Alright, alright, I know there have been about 100 Plame-related things that have come up while I've been buried. Though technically, I'm still buried, for eight more days. So you're going to have to wait a bit.

But I did want to share this filing that Jeff kindly sent over. In it, Libby moves to require the

...government to provide to the defense all the information it expects to use to rebut the classified information that the government has found to be relevant and admissible under CIPA.

That basically means Libby is demanding to learn how the government will respond to his crappy memory defense. I find this interesting for two reasons.

The Continuing Woody Guthrification of Bob Dylan

by emptypockets

Doonesbury, circa 1985:

Mark Slackmeyer: "It's three o'clock in the morning, and do you know where the children of the sixties are? Do you care? Dr. Dan Asher does, and as the baby boom's Boswell, he's back to give us the latest on everyone's favorite generation!"[...]

Doctor Dan: "You see, Mark, a truly cohesive generation only comes along once or twice a century. That's why the boomers will be tracked for the rest of their lives. This generation is like a great comet, blazing through the firmament, carrying with it a dream as boundless as the universe itself!"

MS: "Whew... How will we know when it's over?"

DD: "'Esquire' will run a piece on the hot new funeral homes."

... and Bob Dylan will be turned into a Broadway musical.

That musical, "The Times They Are A Changin'," choreographed by Twyla Tharp who successfully turned out the oeuvre of Billy Joel onto the Great White Way, closed this week after just 28 performances and 35 previews. Unlike her Billy Joelography, the adaptation of Dylan to the conceits of modern dance -- conceits including a circus, a man dressed as a dog, and cardboard guitars -- just didn't work.

But was it a failure for Dylan? Since his teens he has followed in the footsteps of Woody Guthrie. But in the post-mortems of the Arts section, I have yet to see that connection made -- because, you know, Woody once did the music for a modern dance piece, too, and had some trouble.