McMorris’ Iraq trip parallels Nethercutt’s

When Rep. Cathy McMorris talked about her trip to Iraq last week, there was a moment that seemed eerily similar to another talk, by another Congress member, of another trip to Iraq.

Her predecessor, George Nethercutt, went to Iraq with a congressional delegation earlier in the war.

Both visited the troops, both left the war zone to spend the night in a nearby country – not, presumably, because all the hotels in Baghdad were full with a Shriners convention, but because it was safer.

But the most amazing similarity was the descriptions of leaving Baghdad by military helicopter to get to another stop on the trip. Both reps told of taking off and flying low over residential areas where the occupants of houses – adults and children – came out and waved to the helicopter.

The optimistic among us might conclude that the Iraqis are always happy to see a flying American gunship.

The practical might conclude that the Army flies over friendly areas because it would be dangerous to fly over enemy areas where people wave surface-to-air missiles.

The cynical might wonder whether the Army brass sends choppers full of dignitaries over areas where it knows people will come out and wave, to paint a rosy picture for visiting Congress members.

About that chant

Not to be Mr. Know-it-All or anything, but where did the marchers in Thursday’s immigration law demonstration study Protest 101?

They mangled one of the oldest marching phrases known, into “The people, united, will never be divided.”

First, the traditional chant ends “… will never be defeated.”

Second, “never be divided” is pretty circular, because if you are united, you are de facto not divided.

Third, didn’t anyone notice that the Spanish version they were using – “El pueblo, unido, jamas sera vencido” - was being mistranslated?

Speaking of bad translations

Democrats have been chortling ever since Vice President Dick Cheney announced Monday’s campaign trip to Spokane and could hardly contain themselves last week when they discovered the reception would be held in the Marie Antoinette Ballroom of the Davenport Hotel.

Folks in Spokane, of course, have long gotten used to the fact that one of the hotel’s primo gathering spaces is named for someone who lost her head. After all, it’s a party room, and she gave good parties.

But state Democratic spokesman Viet Shelton was incredulous that Republicans would be gathering there, and started talking about “poetic justice” for an administration the Democrats like to paint as favoring the fat cats over the poor and middle class.

“Just the ‘Let them eat cake’ references alone … ” he said.

Sacre bleu, that’s one step too far. Whatever faults Marie A. may have had, uttering that phrase to starving peasants in France isn’t one of them.

First of all, it was ascribed to an unnamed “young princess” in a book written by Rousseau several years before Marie even came to France, so it couldn’t have been her. And the word Rousseau used isn’t “gateaux,” which is what we think of cake; it’s “brioche,” which is a sweet bread, or roll.

The scene Rousseau described had someone reporting to the monarchy that the people in the countryside were starving because they had no large loaves of bread to eat, and the princess suggesting that they eat rolls or small loaves, which bakers were required by law to sell cheaply if they ran out of large loaves.

So if Monday’s protesters are looking for a Marie Antoinette image to highlight, they might be better off to stick with the guillotine.

DéjÀ vu all over

During the immigration demonstration, longtime congressional aide and reliable political source Tom Keefe passed along something he’d found while cleaning out a stack of papers. It was a Kiplinger Washington Letter, one of those newsletters that predicts what’s happening in Congress in the coming months.

“Partisan politics will dominate Congress in the upcoming session … Immigration legislation will probably make it this session … The problem of big deficits will be put off for another year …” are among the paragraph headings.

So what’s so unusual? Nothing, except the date on the newsletter is Jan. 6, 1984.