From today's Weather Report page in the New York Times:

"Friday/Saturday...Some of the time will be dry."

The Times doesn't give an author credit for its forecasts, but it rarely disappoints with its breathless accounts of the wonders of weather and the apparent attempt to never use a weather report cliche. Here's the full forecast for the weekend:

"Risk of showers, storms. Showers and storms are expected on each day as a dip in the jet stream interacts with humid air over the Eastern States. Some of the time will be dry."

I have a feeling it's a sports writer moonlighting (or a news reporter who secretly wants to cover sports). In fact, the reports remind me of Salena Robers, who used to cover the Knicks. She never described Patrick Ewing lumbering down court on transition in the same way twice. No easy feat. Now, of course, she's the scold of the sports page.

Alan Murray's "Political Capital" column in today's Wall St. Journal focuses not on Bush's "16 little words," but rather Wolfowitz's 15. "In testimony about Iraq to the House Appropriates Committee, Wolfowitz said: 'We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.'

"Really? Perhaps it depends on the meaning of the words 'relatively soon.' But if he was talking about the current decade, Mr. Wolfowitz's statement, echoed by others in the administration at the time, was then and is still simply untrue."

Paul Bremer in Iraq has been far more forthcoming (and therefore will probably soon join Larry Lindsey -- who said that the costs of the war would total $200 billion -- as a candid, but ex-Bush admin employee), saying that costs would be as high as $100 billion to fix the battered Iraqi infrastructure, well beyond the capacity of the oil revenue.

According to Murray, who says he doesn't believe the administration willfully lied about Iraq's weapons capabilities, "But I do think members of the administration have willfully deceived the public and Congress about the costs of the Iraqi war and its aftermath. And they continue to do so."

It's a calculated tactic. The Bushies know the public's -- and Congress's -- appetite for foreign aid is pretty limited. Knowing that we're spending $20 billion a year to help rebuild a country where at least one of our troops gets ambushed and killed pretty much every day is not going to engender continued support for our efforts in Iraq. This is particularly true of Bush's base.

But such calculations and resulting secrecy are what is turning this administration into a truly imperial one, where only the President's Men can handle the truth.

Murray concludes, "Having initiated the effort to topple Mr. Hussein, the U.S. has an interest in turning Iraq into a showcase for democracy and capitalism -- and has pointedly committed to doing so.

"It's an effort that's worth the cost. But the nation that preaches democracy abroad shouldn't be so reluctant to practice it at home. Congress and the public deserve to know -- upfront -- the burden they are going to be asked to bear."

Mark Kleiman on another Bush coverup -- the Saudis involvement with the 9-11 attacks.

"The official who read the 28 pages tells The New Republic, 'If the people in the administration trying to link Iraq to Al Qaeda had one-one-thousandth of the stuff that the 28 pages has linking a foreign government to Al Qaeda, they would have been in good shape.' He adds: 'If the 28 pages were to be made public, I have no question that the entire relationship with Saudi Arabia would change overnight.'

"There's been a virtual news blackout on the letter, which may explain why Glenn Reynolds still thinks (*) that the Democrats aren't pushing the issue. (Why he imagines that the Bush Administration is eventually going to do the right thing about its friends in Riyadh is a different question.) The good news is that Senate procedures give the proponents of declassification many ways of forcing a vote on the question."

The coziness with the Kingdom is weird, and goes way beyond our country's dependence on Saudi oil. Thanks to Intel Dump for introducing me to this great blog.

The truth is that the annoying fact that it was Saudis piloting those planes has always been uncomfortable for Bush. It's the reason the Saudi family were allowed to leave the U.S. on Sept. 12, 2001. It's the reason Saudis were until recently left off the security profiling lists. Once "Victory over the Taliban" was achieved, anything that took the focus off of Iraq was simply not in the administration's playbook.

If Democratic leadership had any foresight, they would be ensuring that this stays of the front page for months, and I'd be creating TV spots right now featuring as much footage as possible of Bush strolling through his Crawford ranch with Prince Bandar bin Sultan in his flowing robes. That should play really well in the heartland.

Thanks to an alert reader for this link. A futures market that links the White House's actions to the security of the rest of the world.