ouch
 

That's an awfully passive tense to use when describing plagiarism.

And didn't people think he had a shot at being Kerry's Secretary of State? Not that the Sec'y of State is a "national player" anymore.

ouch
 

Lord knows people have overcome worse obstacles, yes, but that's the reason people proffer when asked why Biden doesn't run (including this last time). Do you anticipate a "listening tour" rehabilitation program or something?

Heh.

As a related matter, NPR ran a story about SecState yesterday with some expert opining that the strongest SecStates over the last few decades, in terms of strengthening the institution of the foreign service and State Dept generally (instead of just measurement by the degree of influence on foreign policy emanating from the WH) was George Schultz and Colin Powell. Apparently Powell had much to do wth improving the funding of the department and the caliber and training of people in the field.

That's entirely possible, though I found this declaration somewhat surprising, given the number of hi-profile resignations from State in the months leading up to the Iraq invasion. Sure, those were just State pussies who deserved to leave anyway, but I got the impression that this constitutes some kind of brain-drain within State. Has anyone heard more about this?

ouch
 

I think Biden likes talking too much to stop to listen to people. That's the great thing about being a senator. Lots of people listen to you.

WaPo writer Dana Priest has a book called The Mission which apparently goes into all of the ways that the military is now doing things the State Department used to do:

• Since the end of the Cold War, writes Dana Priest in The Mission, "U.S. leaders have been turning more and more to the military to solve problems that are often, at their root, political and economic." Priest contends that "long before September 11, the U.S. government had grown increasingly dependent on its military to carry out its foreign affairs. The shift was incremental, little noticed, de facto.... The military simply filled a vacuum left by an indecisive White House, an atrophied State Department, and a distracted Congress." In this important book, Priest describes how and why the military has recently been called upon to combat drug trafficking, deal with terrorism, oversee humanitarian disaster relief, and even carry out disarmament programs--a major increase in responsibility that has not always been welcomed by military leaders. Indeed, in what seems like role reversal, civilian political appointees, particularly in the Bush administration, have repeatedly called upon the military to deal with nation building, while most military leaders have pushed for overwhelming use of political and economic force instead. As Priest points out, this shift in responsibility comes at a time when both the American public and decision-makers "understand less and less about their military." Part of this ignorance stems from the fact that U.S. special forces (from all branches of the military) often carry out critical policy missions in secret and without clear objectives from Congress or the president.
  Priest spent considerable time in the field with top military brass and foot soldiers alike in such hot spots as Colombia, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Indonesia, and the Balkans, where she got the inside scoop on how operations are carried out and what those in the military think of their expanded roles. Priest's description of the culture of the various special forces units and their leaders is particularly fascinating. The Mission is a revealing look at the consequences of substituting warriors for diplomats on the frontline of U.S. foreign policy.

I say "apparently" because I've been meaning to read this book forever, but haven't yet. That's from Amazon's review. Someone buy it (through the Lawtalkers link) and tell me whether it's all that.

Mainstream Media is aMedia of Providing All Sides
 

Okay- you guys don't contest NYT and WP are biased, you really can't argue CBS is fair anymore- and now?

ABC proves itself.....

http://expressnewswatch.blogspot.com...sgraceful.html

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/...iles/story.htm

This is Sweet
 

ouch
 

I personally like Biden, but the DEMs embarassed themselves in those hearings, and delaying the vote was just tacky. Can you not see that?

ouch
 

I don't agree on embarassing themselves in the hearings. I thought Condi and Bush had more reason to be embarassed, as with the quote you were responding to. Condi's testimony is just chock full of neo-con wish-think, and it is useful to make the point that this really limits her credibility.

But I agree on the delay in the vote. It comes across as petty. My suspicion is that they're just marking a bit of turf in DC and sending Bush the message that even with control of both houses he has to play ball, but from a PR stance, it is not good.

ouch
 

Boxer was atrocious. Biden was arrogant and patronizing.

ouch
 

Was it all free?

ouch
 

off topic question: Is it true that once you go Timmy, you can never go back?

ouch
 

Compared to ... Condi? Bush?

The woman was just completely misstating key facts. He called her on it. Unfortunately, this needs to be done a lot with this administration.

(Yeh, Boxer wasn't so hot).

ouch
 

Are you dim?

ouch
 

I didn't see anything embarrassing, but then I saw very little of the hearings. Meanwhile, Rice should be embarrassed by the answer that she gave Biden there. 120,000 trained Iraqi troops that Allawi can rely on? Was she on crack?

And I thought they delayed the vote on Gonzalez, not Rice, which makes sense since he was ducking questions.

ouch
 

They delayed on Condi too, so she wouldn't be confirmed as of the inauguration.

ouch
 

Your priorities baffle me.