Politics As Usual

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Drudge is reporting that Ken Lay has been indicted.

OK, but he also said Hillary would be the Democratic VP nominee.

Now I'm not saying he's wrong, or full of shit, or a two-bit hack DC gossip reporter, but I am saying that most of his reporting requires a shelf-life of about 2-3 months to see if any of the above theories have heft to them.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Gattigap
OK, but he also said Hillary would be the Democratic VP nominee.

Now I'm not saying he's wrong, or full of shit, or a two-bit hack DC gossip reporter, but I am saying that most of his reporting requires a shelf-life of about 2-3 months to see if any of the above theories have heft to them.

The Houston Chronicle is saying the same thing.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...story2/2667266

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
OK, but he also said Hillary would be the Democratic VP nominee.

Now I'm not saying he's wrong, or full of shit, or a two-bit hack DC gossip reporter, but I am saying that most of his reporting requires a shelf-life of about 2-3 months to see if any of the above theories have heft to them.

bada bing bada boom:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...story2/2667266

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sgtclub
bada bing bada boom:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...story2/2667266

eta: Newman - scooped again.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Right, and I'm questioning the judgment that the author makes. This is me trying to engage you in a discussion, in part to counter the image of me as 100% nasty. In that vein, I will avoid references to "the sound of one hand clapping."

But the author isn't really making judgements. Rather, em is just setting out questions/assumptions that underly the arguments/conclusions on both sides of the issue. For example, IF you believed we needed 95% proof, you probably would have concluded . . .

I don't consider you nasty, but if I worked with you I would want to speak to Mrs Sidd and get her to loosen the rations a little.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
The Houston Chronicle is saying the same thing.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...story2/2667266

Sure. Entirely possible, even plausible.

I was just observing that Drudge's apparent error* has shaken my faith in our media, and I've adjusted my expectations accordingly. I've even told the NY Post circulation department that I'm wavering on renewal.

Gattigap

*Yes, Slave, I recognize that there's about 120 days left for him to be proven right, so until then, I'm reading Safire twice a week, and I've got my fingers crossed.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But the author isn't really making judgements. Rather, em is just setting out questions/assumptions that underly the arguments/conclusions on both sides of the issue. For example, IF you believed we needed 95% proof, you probably would have concluded . . .

I'd disagree with you on that. F'rinstance, this passage:

"Still, critics of the war argue that it has distracted American attention and resources from the real enemy, which is al Qaeda; that it has complicated diplomatic efforts with Arab governments (and Iran) to quit sponsoring terror and to aid the West in its efforts; and that it has inflamed anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. But these arguments don't seem convincing.

Part of the war on terror is chasing terrorists, but the main task is inducing Arab and Muslim governments to stop harboring and supporting terrorists. It isn't a shortage of troops that prevents us from getting al Qaeda leaders in Iran; it is the failure to convince the Iranian government that it is too dangerous to harbor terrorists. The test of whether Iraq advanced or hindered our war against terrorism is whether it increases or decreases actions against terrorism by Middle Eastern governments."

That sure looks like a judgment to me on a point that is certainly up for debate. The author apparently agrees with the admin that state sponsors of terror are the key enemy in this war, while many of us critical of the Iraq project see the terror groups themselves being the proper target. He later gets into the "if you think this....if you think that..." stuff, but the underlying idea on the other side of the argument has already been neatly dismissed.

The column is less strident than the usual article of this type, so maybe that's what you mean by objective. But in my view it reads less like an objective evaluation of the two sides of the argument and more of a David Brooks-style "Repubs are wholesome, Dems are different" piece, with the clear implication (or explicit statement, as above) that one side of this debate is just wrong.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
but if I worked with you I would want to speak to Mrs Sidd and get her to loosen the rations a little.

POTD.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
POTD.

Ya know, I wouldn't take Slave's comments regarding post counts and donations as quite so much of a threat next time.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Are you saying that police in wealthy white suburbs never abuse African-American suspects?

No. I'm surprised that you had to ask, but whatever. Can money cure police abuse? Surely not.

eta: My point was, if you want to do something to make things better for people in Oakland (for example) who get abused by cops, be prepared to spend some money to do it. Showing up at meetings of municipal government bodies and calling them fascists does not seem to me to be an effective strategy for social change, although of course I'm willing to entertain evidence to the contrary.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience

The column is less strident than the usual article of this type, so maybe that's what you mean by objective. But in my view it reads less like an objective evaluation of the two sides of the argument and more of a David Brooks-style "Repubs are wholesome, Dems are different" piece, with the clear implication (or explicit statement, as above) that one side of this debate is just wrong.

That is primarily what I meant. Of course the author has views, but gone is the hyper-partisan, "Bush lied"/ "Love it or Leave it" type rhetoric that clouds the debate. I found this far more sober.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That is primarily what I meant. Of course the author has views, but gone is the hyper-partisan, "Bush lied"/ "Love it or Leave it" type rhetoric that clouds the debate. I found this far more sober.

If it had been sober but tilted the other way, you would say it was a hyper-partisan "Bush lied" piece.

AON, I saw a "Lesbians Against Bush" bumper sticker the other day.

[Replaced_Texan]

From a Canadian blogger friend:

Following is the text of a letter of reprimand issued Tuesday by Lt.-Gen. Bruce Carlson of the United States 8th Air Force to fighter pilot Maj. Harry Schmidt, who dropped a bomb that killed four Canadian soldiers and injured eight others in April 2002 in Afghanistan:

• You are hereby reprimanded. You flagrantly disregarded a direct order from the controlling agency, exercised a total lack of basic flight discipline over your aircraft, and blatantly ignored the applicable rules of engagement and special instructions. Your wilful misconduct directly caused the most egregious consequences imaginable, the deaths of four coalition soldiers and injury to eight others. The victims of your callous misbehaviour were from one of our staunch allies in Operation Enduring Freedom and were your comrades-in-arms.
  
  You acted shamefully on 17 April 2002 over Tarnak Farms, Afghanistan, exhibiting arrogance and a lack of flight discipline. When your flight lead warned you to "make sure it's not friendlies" and the Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft controller directed you to "stand by" and later to "hold fire," you should have marked the location with your targeting pod. Thereafter, if you believed, as you stated, you and your leader were threatened, you should have taken a series of evasive actions and remained at a safe distance to await further instructions from AWACS. Instead, you closed on the target and blatantly disobeyed the direction to "hold fire." Your failure to follow that order is inexcusable. I do not believe you acted in defence of Maj. Umbach or yourself. Your actions indicate that you used your self-defence declaration as a pretext to strike a target, which you rashly decided was an enemy firing position, and about which you had exhausted your patience in waiting for clearance from the Combined Air Operations Center to engage. You used the inherent right of self-defence as an excuse to wage your own war.
  
  In your personal presentation before me on 1 July 2004, I was astounded that you portrayed yourself as a victim of the disciplinary process without expressing heartfelt remorse over the deaths and injuries you caused to the members of the Canadian Forces. In fact, you were obviously angry that the United States Air Force had dared to question your actions during the 17 April 2002 tragedy. Far from providing any defence for your actions, the written materials you presented to me at the hearing only served to illustrate the degree to which you lacked flight discipline as a wingman of COFFEE Flight on 17 April 2002.
  
  Through your arrogance, you undermined one of the most sophisticated weapons systems in the world, consisting of the Combined Air Operations Center, the Airborne Warning and Control System, and highly disciplined pilots, all of whom must work together in an integrated fashion to achieve combat goals. The United States Air Force is a major contributor to military victories over our nation's enemies because our pilots possess superior flight discipline. However, your actions on the night of 17 April 2002 demonstrate an astonishing lack of flight discipline. You were blessed with an aptitude for aviation, your nation provided you the best aviation training on the planet, and you acquired combat expertise in previous armed conflicts. However, by your gross poor judgment, you ignored your training and your duty to exercise flight discipline, and the result was tragic. I have no faith in your abilities to perform in a combat environment.
  
  I am concerned about more than your poor airmanship; I am also greatly concerned about your officership and judgment. Our Air Force core values stress "integrity first." Following the engagement in question, you lied about the reasons why you engaged the target after you were directed to hold fire and then you sought to blame others. You had the right to remain silent, but not the right to lie. In short, the final casualty of the engagement over Kandahar on 17 April 2002 was your integrity.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I'm posting this for club, who in the past has seemed to place great weight on what Clinton thought about Iraq. I'm worried that he was misinformed.

Originally posted by David Corn
When we were just on [the Diane Rehm Show], I said to [President] Clinton, [Grover] Norquist claimed that you supported Bush's invasion because you were concerned about Saddam Hussein's WMDs. Is that true?

The moment was reminiscent of that scene in Woody Allen's Annie Hall when Allen is standing on line inside a movie theater lobby and listening to some blowhard in front of him expounding on the theories of real-life media critic Marhsall McLuhan. Allen then produces McLuhan from behind a movie poster, and McLuhan tells the man on line, "You know nothing of my work." After that Allen says to the camera, "Boy, if life were only like this!"

With Norquist squeezed next to him, Clinton said that had not been his position. He acknowledged that he had endorsed the congressional resolution granting Bush the authority to wage war. But, he explained, that was because he had figured Hussein would not have permitted weapons inspectors to return to Iraq without the threat of force. "Hans Blix [the chief weapons inspector] was tough," Clinton said, adding that he had wanted to see inspections continue.

Clinton, who later told Diane Rehm that he had indeed been concerned about the possibility of unaccounted-for WMDs in Iraq after inspections ended in 1998, dismissed WMDs as a reason to go to war. "Paul Wolfowitz tried to get me to invade Iraq," he recalled. In the 1990s, he said, Wolfowitz considered Iraq to be "the biggest problem"--greater than terrorism or the absence of peace in the Middle East.

Being kind to an ideological foe, Clinton noted that Wolfowitz had developed a whole theory about how a US invasion of Iraq would lead to a democratic Iraq and that the existence of this new Iraq would remake the region. Clinton indicated he never accepted this point of view, but it was, he said, a theory worth debating. Referring to the Bush administration's rationale for war, he remarked, "They should have just said that, without the pretext [of WMDs]." It was a polite way of saying the Bushies had been untruthful. After all, who is Clinton to call another president a liar?

With radio station staffers and security people trying to coax Clinton into the studio, our brief interview was over. "Good to see ya," he said in his drawl, and he headed down the hallway.

"That was illuminating," I said in Norquist's direction. I don't recall if he responded. I was too busy writing in my notebook.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
From a Canadian blogger friend:

Is anything bad (besides having someone say mean things about him) going to happen to the pilot? Or do we not know yet?