It’s well known that the Bush family has had a close relationship with many Arab leaders. Saudi Prince Bandar practically had a room at the first Bush White House. That (and Jim Baker’s policies and pronoucements) led many of us to criticize that administration’s largely anti-Israel policy (they effectively engineered the downfall of Likud when in power). But Phillips seems to go way too far, into the land of the nutty. Maybe he’s angling to join the Clark or Dean campaigns. And if this is to explain so much about the Bush Administration, then how do we reconcile it with this President’s extremely pro-Israel stance? No answer from Phillips.

Peter, I find it remarkable that you consider yourself intellectually equipped to comment (not to mention, denounce it as "poop") on a book that you haven’t yet read. Surely, you wouldn’t offer a subjective analysis of a film or a play without first seeing it. So why are you content to let somebody else do your thinking for you when it comes to books, Peter?

Since you’ve apparently not read the book, one can only assume that your contempt for it sprouts from the fact that it paints an unflattering picture of our Conservative president. And how can you know that none of what Phillips writes is true? Are you omniscient? Or are you so blinded by your partisan politics that you are prepared to disregard anything you see as being anti-Bush, even as you applaud authors who bash Clinton - as you did less than three months ago in your review of Rich Lowry and his book "Legacy" when you stated that his thoughts were "Fascinating" and awarded it two cups of coffee, all without reading so much as a page of the book.

One of the great joys of NoLeftTurns is putting the caffeine in Starbuck’s coffee. Starbuck--dude!! (as my surfer friends in California salute me when I’m in full Bush-worship mode), look again at Peter’s syntax. It’s even worse than you think! The "poop" he is referring to is not Phillips book, but Phillips himself!! (The antecdent mention of the LA Times--where Phillips appears almost every week, world without end, amen--should have given it away.) Like Peter, as a southern Californian (though no longer) I had my fill of Phillips’ banalities every Sunday for more than 15 years. It made me into a reader of the Sunday New York Times. Ha!

Oh Stevie, you are so funny! First, let me correct you on my choice of name. It has nothing to do with coffee. Try to think in more literary terms, assuming that you have access to something more than comic books.

Now, as for Peter’s use of the term "poop," you are absolutely correct that he used it to describe the writer and not the book (which apparently makes the insult justified in your eyes). Buy surely even you can see that Peter did criticize the book without reading it. And regardless of how many times one has read a book’s author, he is still in no position to judge a book - by its cover, if you will - without reading it.

Thanks for playing.