Shinseki
 

I don't know what the blogs have to say, but I think all I did was note the remarkable conincidence between the timing of the unprecedented relief of Shinseki early (forcing him into retirement) and the public statements re the amount of troops needed.

I may haev got the sequence wrong, but that wasn't my point (I think). A few weeks before or after -- the bottom line is the same. Do you think his statement in Congress was the first time he ever gave those estimates? Or, do you think he was telling the same things privately beforehand to his Boss (SecDef) and the other civilian morons Bush put in place at DOD?

Lots of professionals said things that Rumsfeld and/or Bush did not want to hear, which contradicted the new orthodoxy of the SecDef. If Rummy got tired of tuning them out, he weeded them out and put other people in place. I guess that's his prerogative, but the problem arises when the original folks were right and you just didn't want to listen.

This adminitration (particularly civilian DOD) has made a habit of pising on us and telling us its raining. I'm amazed at the number of people who seem to like it just fine.

S_A_M

Speaking of MENSA
 

Ignoring successful business models. I like that. Bold.

For now on, I'm calling you Delorean.

If there had been any doubt that Robert Novak deserves his own circle of Hell, this confirms it. Novak outed a CIA officer as the probably leaker of the National Intelligence Estimate. Burning sources is apparently OK if you're doing a Republican administration's dirty work, but not otherwise.

you know Andy's changed sides when I stop quoting him... and Ty picks him up.

Douchebag of Liberty
 

Novak's an idiot. He should have died years ago - his mind hasn't been there since 1999, but for some reason, he keeps breathing and speaking.

Jon Stewart nailed Novak perfectly in his recurring bit "Robert Novak: Douchebag of Liberty."

Somebody put the senile fuck out of his misery.

things proven today
 

That wouldn't explain a shrinking tax base. In order for that to be the cause, one would have to assume that previously higher value housing was torn down and replaced with dilapidated housing.

things proven today
 

I'm not sure about progress. The very first thing I posted on section 8 was that I felt it should be spread across an entire urban and suburban area.

I believe I first advocated that position in a high school history class. But maybe you were referring to Sebby when you spoke of progress.

things proven today
 

Different theory. Declining property values and fleeing businesses.

Food for Thought
 

Penske goes on hiatus, and all of a sudden, Not Me disappears.

Coincidence?

Food for Thought
 

Penske has a hoo-ha?

Food for Thought
 

If he did, it damn sure wouldn't take 3 months to work your way into it.

Food for Thought
 

Ask him on tomorrow's conference.

I don't get it. He didn't burn his own source, right? So what's the problem?

If you think there's no greater principle involved than keeping your own word to a particular person, there's no problem. If, on the other hand, you have some notion that journalism is a profession serving the public interest, then there's a problem.*

* The view is that "[t]he purpose of protecting the identity of leakers is to encourage future leaks. Leaks to journalists, and the fear of leaks, can be an important restraint on misbehavior by powerful institutions and people. This serves the public interest." Michael Kinsley in Slate.

\

This sounds awfully close to what Safire was saying in yesterday's op/ed. They are both wrong, no contractual obligation between a reporter and a source can trump an illegal act that harms national security. If someone interprets their argument as agreeing and yet saying something different, I'm all ears. Til then, just reading the words from the 4th estate leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.

Hello

Shit -- it's already over.
 

Trying again:

AP shows us the template article that will be used in a few hours.

Damn. I thought TDS last night was just making a joke.

That is ridiculous. If Novak leaked his own source that's one thing. But he leaked someone else's source, with whom I'm sure Novak had no relationship. That is called reporting and it is in the pubic interest.

eta: The market check here is that no one should speak to Novak in the future.

Puhleeze.

If that's true, then I guess you're of the opinion that any of the other reporters to whom Novak's source shopped the Plame story should've revealed the government source.

After all, the source tried several times, with different reporters, to sell the story before h/she reached Novak at the bottom of the barrel. According to you, not only is it permissible, it's in the public interest for any of those other reporters to come forward, do some "reporting" and burn Novak's source.

Right?

Novak's pissing on the umbrella that otherwise protects him. That's what the problem is.

Your "market check" seems to suggest that you agree that it's a stupid fucking thing for Novak to do. It's corrosive to him, but in an immediate sense it's corrosive to the rest of the community, and that's what's unacceptable.

Look, I don't have a particular liking for Novak. But if he wants to report something that 's up to him and he'll have to deal with the consequences of it. I think it was stupid of him, but he's probably retiring soon or something and doesn't give a rats ass.

What damage do you think has been done? Do you really think people are going to stop leaking or speaking to the press over this? Of course not. This is not a one way street. People get something out of speaking to the press, and the press gets something out of it by reporting it. They need each other. Now it may make people more discriminating as to who they speak with, but that is a good thing in my mind.

Dissent. No one should read Novak in the future.

For a minute there, I thought you were talking about Dan Rather.

a new must-Read
 

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/03...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

From Amazon

Americans were shocked when French president Jacques Chirac played a leading role in opposing America’s position during the Iraq crisis. In OUR OLDEST ENEMY, the authors demonstrate that France has never been our friend, has always been our rival, and has often been our enemy.

Miller and Molesky return to America’s earliest history, relating the little-known story of the Deerfield Massacre of 1704, when a group of French and Indians massacred settlers in northern Massachusetts. They show that the French came to America’s aid only at the end of the Revolution and then with the interest of harming the British; during the Civil War, they supported the Confederacy. In the twentieth century, French demands at the Versailles Peace Conference paved the way for the rise of fascism in Germany and eventually required America to rescue France during World War II. The postwar period was also rife with disastrous actions on the part of the French, including Charles de Gaulle’s decision to pull out of NATO and his obstruction of American efforts to turn back Soviet expansion. French imperialism left troubling legacies as well: America’s involvement in Vietnam followed decades of conflict between the French and the Vietnamese; the genocidal Cambodian dictator Pol Pot was a product of French higher education; even the Baathist regimes in Syria and Iraq can be traced to French influences.

Candid and absorbing, OUR OLDEST ENEMY provides an authoritative explanation for the explosive anger toward France that has swept across America and continues to shape debates about our foreign policy and role in the world

There are a number of responses to this, but quickly:


1. In the instant case, how do you think that he would do that and still say anything? Seems that Novak wasn't in the room. How would the source know who to trust? Seems to me like he'd just clam up.

2. Why do you think that less leaking to the press is a good thing?

a new must-Read
 

Oh my God, they're right! Sure, average Americans remembered well the gall of deGaulle's withdrawal of NATO, but Pol Pot went to lycee??

Now we're really pissed.

The stuff I quoted from Kinsley wasn't his argument -- it was his caricature or summary of one side of the debate. In the piece I quoted -- which I would link to if I still had it up on my screen -- he was discussing exactly the problem you describe.

My point is that Novak is posing as principled, but isn't. I take it you agree. eta: Club seems to feel that Novak isn't principled. NTTAWWT.

My Girl Ann
 

"Recent polls show Bush ahead of Kerry by 9 points (CBS-NYT), 6 points (Gallup) or 3 points (Zogby)."

Which is why I continue to like Kerry to win at 2-1 odds. Unless Zogby goes over 9 points, Kerry is the likely winner. Zogby is the only pollster who got 2000 right and is basing its figures on higher voter turnout than the others (which I agree with) and which favors Democrats. Although Zogby is increasingly hedging its bets and as the race gets closer, it has the Electoral College numbers at 297-241 for Kerry as of 9/20 - http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...04-an0920.html . I am not increasing my bet on Kerry, though, until after the debates.

a new must-Read
 

Of course, I'm still bitter about Deerfield, but is France really our oldest enemy? I mean, Deerfield was years after we kicked those Dutch assholes out of New York, and Bilmore was just telling me the other day about back when he was a kid and the Spanish Armada ruled the seas - they were real bastards toward some of our privateers, uh, ships. And, let's not forget, the damn Indians were just waiting to scalp some of our ancestors as they came over.

And then I was talking to Hank and he said that back when he was a kid (this is years before Poiters and Agincourt, where he ran around the battlefield hacking Knights in two and yelling "Canned Frogs Legs, Anyone?") the real enemy wasn't the French but those bastards from up north (no, not the Canadians, the Vikings, you fools).

(Edited to add, look, just so no one thinks I'm soft on the snail-eaters, let me say that if we could drop a bomb on France that would drown anyone who ever disagreed with us -- and by us I mean George W. Bush, his Momma, and me -- in cream sauce I would, and I've even add garlic first)

1. Someone told Novak.

2. I don't. You misunderstand me.

You bet your bippy I agree with you then. Loose lips sink ships and all that. I'm sure its not hard to believe, but I think Novak is another good candidate for execution. The guy is a fucking traitor, and even if there was no immediate harm in his immediate conduct, there would be great long-term harm in excusing him.

The thing is, I'm pretty sure my boy from Illinois is gonna hang him. Safire made it sound like the prosecutor is on a witch hunt.

Debates
 

Anybody listening or watching?

Debates
 

I'm watching, although I'm not a regular so maybe you don't give a rat's ass. Given your political viewpoint, I'm interested in how you think it's going. It seems to me like Kerry is debating Will Ferrell, but I'm so partisan that I question my judgment.

Debates
 

I'm listening on the radio and it sounds pretty even, but I've talked to GOPers who are watcing on TV and they think Bush is getting beat.

Debates
 

Me, but I am working, too, so can't give it my full attention.

I think they are both saying the right things for their bases, but I don't think this will have any effect on the undecideds. Neither has made a fool out of themselves.

Debates
 

Hmm, not my take on it, but I am thinking about how this appeals to the undecideds who are the only people who matter in this election. I think this is a wash with them. They are both just saying the same things that they always say. There is nothing new here.

Debates
 

I've seen bits. Bush could be doing much better. Last time I thought he honestly answered questions. On Iraq at least, this time, he seems to be defensively mouthing talking points. See Gore 2000. He is doing better away from Iraq, and there are 2 more to go so.........

Debates
 

I'm worried that if the major media believes Kerry won big, it could cause a shift in momentum.

Debates
 

Good thing that Fox News is around to tell the truth.

BTW - I think that the manicure and the spray-on tan did more damage to JFKs credibility than the Dems realize.

Debates
 

NRO seems to think Bush is angry and kicking it up.

Debates
 

Big time.

Eta: Citing Charles de Galle in an anecdote is not going to win Kerry any votes he wasn’t going to get already.

Debates
 

I'm thinking so far Kerry is handing Bush his ass. It was like he laid a trap. Bush just keeps saying over and over, Iraq was the right thing to do, it was the right thing to do, Kerry can say he would have done something else but it was the right thing to do, then BAM! Kerry comes out with outsourcing capturing Bin Laden to a couple of Afgan warlords while the US shifts focus and goes to Iraq. I'm not sure it was fair, but it was a strong move.