Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Aloha Mr. Learned Hand
Not to mention that the memos purportedly came from a file other than Bush's, which would not be governed by Bush's request to release records nor included in a search for such records.

Only if you think that the people doing the legwork for Bush on this issue are not particularly competent.

Assuming they were pretty thorough in gathering what's out there, it would have been pretty easy to conclude that (1) they hadn't seen these documents, and (2) these documents didn't look like any others in the files, assuming that that's the case.

Then it's a simple matter to contact the Freeper.

I didn't buy it at first, but it makes more and more sense to me.

[Aloha Mr. Learned Hand]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Assuming they were pretty thorough in gathering what's out there, it would have been pretty easy to conclude that (1) they hadn't seen these documents, and (2) these documents didn't look like any others in the files, assuming that that's the case.

Yeah, but...

You're in the White House press office. A major news organization approaches you with documents purportedly about the President which you have never seen and gives you 3 hours to comment before they air them. In that short amount of time you can't conclusively determine whether they are fraudulent or not, since you've never seen them and they purportedly come from a source you haven't had searched. If you come out at that point and say they are fake, don't you look horribly foolish if you say that and later are proven wrong?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Aloha Mr. Learned Hand
Yeah, but...

You're in the White House press office. A major news organization approaches you with documents purportedly about the President which you have never seen and gives you 3 hours to comment before they air them. In that short amount of time you can't conclusively determine whether they are fraudulent or not, since you've never seen them and they purportedly come from a source you haven't had searched. If you come out at that point and say they are fake, don't you look horribly foolish if you say that and later are proven wrong?

It's all part of their illness. As I posted conclusively last week, if Rove had any hand in this he's nuts.

This little conspiracy requires Rove to rely on the bloggers to somehow catch the national media to prove the things fakes. That had never happened before, but Rove decides to risk the election on it happening? Ummm no.

Not to mention just last week our resident conspiracy theorist thought the Ga. blogger had to have been involved because no way anyone could pick up on the fakes in 4 hours. Now, this week, the WH should have? Geez.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
It's all part of their illness. As I posted conclusively last week, if Rove had any hand in this he's nuts.

This little conspiracy requires Rove to rely on the bloggers to somehow catch the national media to prove the things fakes. That had never happened before, but Rove decides to risk the election on it happening? Ummm no.

Not to mention just last week our resident conspiracy theorist thought the Ga. blogger had to have been involve because no way anyone could pick up on the fakes in 4 hours. Now, this week, the WH should have? Geez.

(1) The White House didn't say they weren't fake. They said they weren't challenging their authenticity. (WaPo article above: WH told CBS that "Bartlett was not challenging the authenticity of the documents.") Then, as Rathergate mounted, they still kept quiet about it.

(2) Relying on conservative bloggers to go after Dan Rather is one of the safer bets out there, especially if you give them the whiff of raw meat. And there's no downside. If the bloggers don't make the case, the White House can say the documents are fake the next day ('upon further review, we ....') or plant the story with someone else.

Not sure why you guys are fighting this one. If the WH did this, it's just masterful tactics. It's not like they were lying to anyone. They saw that CBS was about to step in it, and they figured out how to work the story.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

(2) Relying on conservative bloggers to go after Dan Rather is one of the safer bets out there,

sure. That part is predictable. Anyone listening was the long shot. Do you ever read lgf? If the guy could control policy, we'd have a slightly more aggressive approach in the ME, as an example. We're not talking people that have proven to have much influence in the past.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Not sure why you guys are fighting this one. If the WH did this, it's just masterful tactics. It's not like they were lying to anyone. They saw that CBS was about to step in it, and they figured out how to work the story.

Given the alternative explanation--They were consistent with other documents the WH (but not others) have seen and therefore not objected to by the WH--it seems like this is the better view to have.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
It's all part of their illness. As I posted conclusively last week, if Rove had any hand in this he's nuts.

This little conspiracy requires Rove to rely on the bloggers to somehow catch the national media to prove the things fakes. That had never happened before, but Rove decides to risk the election on it happening? Ummm no.

Not to mention just last week our resident conspiracy theorist thought the Ga. blogger had to have been involved because no way anyone could pick up on the fakes in 4 hours. Now, this week, the WH should have? Geez.

Ahem.

Not saying Rove had a hand in it. Am saying that Rove would have been nuts to suggest to CBS that the docs were not authentic on only 3 hours notice, particularly if he isn't entirely sure they weren't. He couldn't be sure, and they didn't dispute. They didn't even suggest the possibility of a dispute. Clearly the right thing for the WH to do, more obvious than brilliant.

But what's your point on the GA blogger. Conspiracy theory? The guy is one of our own activist lawyers fer crissakes. Us Rs are supposed to be cynical Hank; there ain't no such thing as coincidence and all that. OTOH, as you indicate, there is no way the WH should have picked this up in 3 hours either.

Its not to say that the GA lawyer did this, its rather to say that the possibility cannot be discounted with certainty that someone played a masterful trick on Rather. And the trickster's point would be no less valid.

Hello

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Ahem.

Not saying Rove had a hand in it. Am saying that Rove would have been nuts to suggest to CBS that the docs were not authentic on only 3 hours notice, particularly if he isn't entirely sure they weren't. He couldn't be sure, and they didn't dispute. They didn't even suggest the possibility of a dispute. Clearly the right thing for the WH to do, more obvious than brilliant.

But what's your point on the GA blogger. Conspiracy theory? The guy is one of our own activist lawyers fer crissakes. Us Rs are supposed to be cynical Hank; there ain't no such thing as coincidence and all that. OTOH, as you indicate, there is no way the WH should have picked this up in 3 hours either.

Its not to say that the GA lawyer did this, its rather to say that the possibility cannot be discounted with certainty that someone played a masterful trick on Rather. And the trickster's point would be no less valid.

Hello

I don't have a political affiliation. i am a centrist. my favorite part of the whole thing though is from Danny's statement today:

But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.

Ty, you at least admit the w/o favoritism part is BS, don't you?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Not sure how I feel about legalization, but I'm sick of election topics and this Kleiman post is discouraging:

• Drug enforcement, drug prices, and drug abuse
  I just finished a four-day seminar with a group of federal judges at which we discussed drug abuse control policy....
  
  As part of my preparation, I had Kenna Ackley, my research assistant, pull together some numbers. Between 1980 and 2004, the number of drug dealers in state and federal prison is up more than twelvefold, from 24,000 to 325,000. Most of that increase is cocaine dealers.
  
  Over that same period. the retail price of cocaine is down about 80% in constant dollars, from $535 a gram equivalent in 1980 to $105 today.
  
  Those numbers convince me of something I wouldn't have believed: that, under U.S. conditions, no practicable level of drug law enforcement can raise the prices of mass-market drugs. (Prohibition itself, along with enough enforcement to avoid having the law become a dead letter, does influence drug prices: pharmaceutical-grade cocaine costs your dentist between $5 and $10 a gram.)
  
  If that's right, then the right measure of the effectiveness of drug law enforcement isn't the costs it imposes on the illicit markets, but its effect on the side-effects that result from the operation of those markets: violence, corruption, neighborhood disruption, seduction of minors into illicit activity, and (if significant) financial contribution to terrorist operations against the U.S.
  
  The current structure of sentences for drug offenses, which is based largely on the drug involved and the quantity dealt, is more or less appropriate to a supply-reduction enforcement strategy. It makes no sense in a world where we're trying to reduce market side-effects instead.

[SlaveNoMore]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Given the alternative explanation--They were consistent with other documents the WH (but not others) have seen and therefore not objected to by the WH--it seems like this is the better view to have.

Nice to see that I've been gone nearly 2 weeks and we're still discussing these forgeries.

Let me guess: Kerry is still behind?


PS - You would think that United Airlines would alter its programming and not show "The Day After Tomorrow" when flying into Hurricane Ivan.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Those numbers convince me of something I wouldn't have believed: that, under U.S. conditions, no practicable level of drug law enforcement can raise the prices of mass-market drugs. (Prohibition itself, along with enough enforcement to avoid having the law become a dead letter, does influence drug prices: pharmaceutical-grade cocaine costs your dentist between $5 and $10 a gram.)

I do know how I feel, but using the price to reach his conclusion tells us almost nothing, without an analysis of changes in demand and supply. At a minimum, one would have to determine what portion of the $500 price resulted from product costs and what from delivery costs (which is the thing principally affected by the criminal-enforcement regime) in order to make a semi-coherent conclusion.

That said, it's quite clear the war on drugs is less a morass than Iraq principally because it's been a complete and utter failure, rather than only of ambiguous benefits.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I do know how I feel, but using the price to reach his conclusion tells us almost nothing, without an analysis of changes in demand and supply. At a minimum, one would have to determine what portion of the $500 price resulted from product costs and what from delivery costs (which is the thing principally affected by the criminal-enforcement regime) in order to make a semi-coherent conclusion.

That said, it's quite clear the war on drugs is less a morass than Iraq principally because it's been a complete and utter failure, rather than only of ambiguous benefits.

The Chicago Suntimes has an article today indicating that the Chicago police department is looking at making possession of up to 30 grams of marijuana an administrative matter (by fines). The only thing that makes me madder than throwing 300K black kids (actually, kids of any color) in jail for selling dope to junkies is knowing that 92% of the junkies (actually, 92% of all buyers and holders) holding less than 5 or 10 grams have their cases dismissed. The whole war is a hypocritical disaster.

Hello

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
This little conspiracy requires Rove to rely on the bloggers to somehow catch the national media to prove the things fakes. That had never happened before, but Rove decides to risk the election on it happening? Ummm no.

Not to mention just last week our resident conspiracy theorist thought the Ga. blogger had to have been involved because no way anyone could pick up on the fakes in 4 hours. Now, this week, the WH should have? Geez.

Hank, you are never going to unconvince someone there is no conspiracy when that is what they want to believe. No amount of facts or sound reasoning will cause them to give up their conspiracy theory.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
The Chicago Suntimes has an article today indicating that the Chicago police department is looking at making possession of up to 30 grams of marijuana an administrative matter (by fines). The only thing that makes me madder than throwing 300K black kids (actually, kids of any color) in jail for selling dope to junkies is knowing that 92% of the junkies (actually, 92% of all buyers and holders) holding less than 5 or 10 grams have their cases dismissed. The whole war is a hypocritical disaster.

Hello

2. Except aren't most MJ dealers white?

You might want to check the newswires about what is going in Springfield right now.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

(or Lugar, or Hagel, or Graham) I suppose we'd have to question their patriotism. Bastards slander the effort like that, and all . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ors/index.html

The core:

"Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona said Bush was not being "as straight as maybe we'd like to see" with the American people about Iraq.

"McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said on 'Fox News Sunday' that it was 'a serious mistake' not to have had enough troops in place 'after the initial successes' and that the mistake had led to 'very, very significant' difficulties.

* * *

"McCain, who has campaigned for Bush's re-election, acknowledged that the incumbent's rosy view of Iraq as 'on the path of stability and democracy' may not be accurate, 'although I've been with him when he has told audiences that this is a very tough struggle that we're in.'

"Bush said in an interview Saturday that Iraq is 'defying the dire predictions of a lot of people by moving toward democracy.'

"McCain, who spent five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam after his Navy plane was shot down, hinted that Bush might be avoiding the specter of putting more American lives at risk.

* * *

"I think the president is being clear. I would like to see him more clear, because I believe the American people, the majority of them, know what's at stake and will support this effort.

"McCain called for an increase in the Army of about 70,000 soldiers and for 20,000 to 25,000 more Marines.

"'The reality,' he said, '[is] that we're going to be there for a long time -- which, by the way, is not terrible if you keep the casualties down.'

* * *

"Appearing on the same program {FTN}, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a fellow Republican, disagreed with Kyl that the United States was anywhere near victory.

"'I don't think we're winning. In all due respect to my friend Jon Kyl, the term "hand-wringing" is a little misplaced here," Hagel said.

"'The fact is, a crisp, sharp analysis of our policies are required. We didn't do that in Vietnam, and we saw 11 years of casualties mount to the point where we finally lost.

"'The fact is, we're in trouble. We're in deep trouble in Iraq,' said Hagel, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees.

"Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has traveled to Iraq twice and is a member of the Armed Services Committee, said he doesn't 'buy that' when told enough troops are in Iraq to do the job.

"'There's a rhyme or reason to what's happening here,' he said on CNN's 'Late Edition.' 'They're attacking police stations. They're attacking people who want to join the army. They're trying to kill people who want to be part of a democratic government.'"

"On ABC's 'This Week,' Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana and Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware both had critical words for the administration's handling of Iraq.

* * *

"Lugar, who is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said 'the incompetence in the administration' led to only $1 billion spent out of $18 billion appropriated last year for reconstruction efforts."

Whatsamatter -- don't these guys read the blogs? On what in the heck are these GOP Congresspeople basing their twisted views?

S_A_M

[eta: Everyone after McCain]