Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
But will he? If Russert's decided that his ethical obligations stop at the jailhouse door, I wonder if they'll ever get around to writing out that subpoena for Novak (though he deserves it more than these two).

Some people have been pretty hard on Russert, but isn't it possible that they want to know what he told Scooter Libby, not vice versa? E.g., Libby tells the prosecutors he learned something from Russert, and so then they want to question Russert to see whether it's true. This would explain Russert's deal: According to the Washington Post, "NBC lawyers reached an accommodation with the prosecutor in which Russert "was not required to appear before the grand jury and was not asked questions that would have required him to disclose information provided to him in confidence."

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The role of Congress and the President are fundamentally different. Kerry was a senator, but you guys are treating his vote on the resolution authorizing the president to go to war as if it were something different -- the decision to go to war itself. As Kerry was defending how he voted: "Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq...."

I understand the differing roles of Congress and the President, thanks very much. I was awake most days during that class.

I am saying that Congress, including Kerry, should not have voted to authorize Bush to go to war if they knew there were no WMD and no al Qaeda connection. Because there was no reason to go to war, and therefore no reason to authorize it.

You seem to be treating the vote to authorize war as a mere formality, or a non-issue. Under your analysis, Congress could might as well authorize going to war against every country in the world tomorrow -- after all, it's the President's decision, right?

Beyond that, you know that if Kerry says (and I don't know if he is saying this) "the war was wrong, but my vote to authorize the war was okay," then he looks bad. And yes, he can explain that, but every time you explain you lose a little, y'know? While I fully understand the subtleties -- though I disagree with the ultimate conclusion, because I still believe that the vote to authorize war was wrong -- I don't think most voters do.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Some people have been pretty hard on Russert, but isn't it possible that they want to know what he told Scooter Libby, not vice versa? E.g., Libby tells the prosecutors he learned something from Russert, and so then they want to question Russert to see whether it's true. This would explain Russert's deal: According to the Washington Post, "NBC lawyers reached an accommodation with the prosecutor in which Russert "was not required to appear before the grand jury and was not asked questions that would have required him to disclose information provided to him in confidence."

[Additional emphasis added. Not the original emphasis, of course. Ed.]

Entirely possible. I'm just hitting the tops of the waves here. Thanks for the additional detail.

Though, weren't you the one who posted the Russert-as-Satan pic? Glass houses, and all that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I understand the differing roles of Congress and the President, thanks very much. I was awake most days during that class.

I recall that we both stayed awake for that class, but there was so much less constitutional law back then. But the analogy to what Clinton did has more to do with Bush's decision to seek a vote than with Kerry's vote on it.

I am saying that Congress, including Kerry, should not have voted to authorize Bush to go to war if they knew there were no WMD and no al Qaeda connection. Because there was no reason to go to war, and therefore no reason to authorize it.

You seem to be treating the vote to authorize war as a mere formality, or a non-issue. Under your analysis, Congress could might as well authorize going to war against every country in the world tomorrow -- after all, it's the President's decision, right?

Given that we had been in a low-grade shooting war with Iraq for years, this situation was a little different. Once the President asks Congress for that authority, it's very hard for Congress to say now. That was part of Bush's reason for seeking the authority so far in advance of the war. He was saying, trust me. Given the circumstances, I find it tough to be too critical of Kerry.

That said, I agree that he is taking a political position, and I don't understand why he thought the vote would have been a good one had we known there were no WMD. In the end, though, it's a fairly stupid hypothetical question, and I'm just happy to see Kerry countering Bush's attack and turning the tables with more questions for Bush.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Though, weren't you the one who posted the Russert-as-Satan pic? Glass houses, and all that.

Weirdly enough, that picture came straight off of the AP, or CNN, or some such source.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I understand the differing roles of Congress and the President, thanks very much. I was awake most days during that class.

I am saying that Congress, including Kerry, should not have voted to authorize Bush to go to war if they knew there were no WMD and no al Qaeda connection. Because there was no reason to go to war, and therefore no reason to authorize it.

You seem to be treating the vote to authorize war as a mere formality, or a non-issue. Under your analysis, Congress could might as well authorize going to war against every country in the world tomorrow -- after all, it's the President's decision, right?

Beyond that, you know that if Kerry says (and I don't know if he is saying this) "the war was wrong, but my vote to authorize the war was okay," then he looks bad. And yes, he can explain that, but every time you explain you lose a little, y'know? While I fully understand the subtleties -- though I disagree with the ultimate conclusion, because I still believe that the vote to authorize war was wrong -- I don't think most voters do.

It makes my tummy feel weird when you and Ty disagree. Can't you guys do this in your break room?

[Gattigap]

For shame. The attempt to hide your identity by saying you're in DC is a nice attempt, almost quaint.

But still. It's just wrong. Back, back to Kim Possible!

(spree: may make your tummy feel weird, and not in a good way -- t.s.)

ETA: OK, Ty, fair point. And, no pictures (other than the unexpected searing mental image that the craig's list post engenders).

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This would explain Russert's deal: According to the Washington Post, "NBC lawyers reached an accommodation with the prosecutor in which Russert "was not required to appear before the grand jury and was not asked questions that would have required him to disclose information provided to him in confidence."

And according to the NY Times article:

• In a statement, NBC said Mr. Russert was interviewed under oath by prosecutors on Saturday. NBC said Mr. Russert had not been a recipient of a leak and was not asked questions that would have required him to disclose a confidential source.
  
  "The questioning focused on what Russert said when Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, phoned him last summer," NBC reported Saturday. "Russert told the special prosecutor that at the time of the conversation he didn't know Plame's name or that she was a C.I.A. operative and did not provide that information to Libby."
  

Seems like Russert's role was to testify as to whether the name was already public. Since it's a grand jury at this point, Libby (or whoever) won't have the opportunity to provide that defense just yet. So getting Russert to make the statement (and, presumably, agree to cooperate at any trial) is probably enough.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
For shame. The attempt to hide your identity by saying you're in DC is a nice attempt, almost quaint.

But still. It's just wrong. Back, back to Kim Possible!

(spree: may make your tummy feel weird, and not in a good way -- t.s.)

You know, sometimes the tougher questions go to how one happens upon something like this G. no offense.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You know, sometimes the tougher questions go to how one happens upon something like this G. no offense.

You think Wonkette is beneath posting an obvious plea for her attention?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You think Wonkette is beneath posting an obvious plea for her attention?

No doy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

From Rick Brookhiser at The Corner:

• Alan Keyes's opinion of himself and the universe's opinion of him have fatally parted company.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Since club professes to have an open mind about this stuff: Debunking of the swift vets' crap here.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Since club professes to have an open mind about this stuff: Debunking of the swift vets' crap here.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth would make Santa Claus himself vomit with rage.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Since club professes to have an open mind about this stuff: Debunking of the swift vets' crap here.

That really should take care of it -- and these facts probably explain why Fox News isn't saying much.

Memories fade after 30+ years, and these guys might not all be liars, but the most favorable interpretation is that they're letting their distaste for Kerry's activities after he returned from VN and his current politics influence their judgment.

Honest to God, and I'd think that even the GOPers who haven't served should be able to understand this -- the fact that five of the six guys who actually served on Kerry's boat back his candidacy (the 6th is dead), as well as the Army SF guy who's life he saved (Rasmussen) ["Rassmann," I believe -- T.S.], should tell you all you need to know about the quality of his service.

The sad thing is that this false ad will hurt Kerry with some voters who see it -- and direct counter-advertising or speaking against it will only make matters worse.

S_A_M