Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Yeh, OK. I thought your reference was to the companion, not necessarily to the degree of interest.

Take comfort. I only point out the whiffs of those who seldom miss. As an example, i have a continuing whiff wrt TW.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

People here have wondered why Hussein didn't make clear that he didn't have WMD. The Duelfer Report suggests an answer like the one I suggested, but that makes even more sense:

• Based on the interrogations, it appears that Hussein underestimated how seriously the United States took the weapons issue, and he believed it was vital to his own survival that the outside world — especially Iran — think he still had them.
  
  It was a strategy, Hussein has told his FBI interrogators during the last 10 months, that was aimed primarily at bluffing Iraq's neighbor to the east.
  
  "The Iranian threat was very, very, palpable to him, and he didn't want to be second to Iran, and he felt he had to deter them. So he wanted to create the impression that he had more than he did," Duelfer, the Iraq Survey Group head, told members of the Senate on Wednesday.

LA Times via Drum. I missed the Iran angle.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
People here have wondered why Hussein didn't make clear that he didn't have WMD. The Duelfer Report suggests an answer I like mine, but that makes even more sense:

• Based on the interrogations, it appears that Hussein underestimated how seriously the United States took the weapons issue, and he believed it was vital to his own survival that the outside world — especially Iran — think he still had them.
  
  It was a strategy, Hussein has told his FBI interrogators during the last 10 months, that was aimed primarily at bluffing Iraq's neighbor to the east.

Heck, that was my guess way back when. The M.E. is a bad place to seem disarmed.

etft -- t.s.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
My question is more, how did we get from hanging Novak to executing search warrants on the NYT and the WaPo? Is this where the trail goes cold? Well, I'll leave it there too, as I'm sure y'all see what I'm saying here. Nothing to do with protecting the sources. All to do with where the trail seems to have ended.

First, it's Judith Miller that is being served with a subpoena, not "the New York Times." Ms. Miller, as you may recall, wrote gobs of stories about WMD in Iraq. My personal favorite was the series of articles she wrote when she was embedded with the secret US military unit searching for WMD -- especially when they "let" her talk to an "Iraqi scientist." I kinda doubt her sources include James Carville.

Speaking of Judy, she's officially in contempt. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...rtner=homepage

Favorite quote: "I think it's really frightening when journalists can be put in jail for doing their job effectively,'' Miller told reporters outside the courthouse.

So, Ms. Miller, you should go because your WMD stories were full of misinformation that you -- and your editors -- didn't bother to vet? http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...ublic%20Editor

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Bitch, please. Recognize that you may have to use this word a lot more in a few months, and try to come to terms with the way normal people use the word.

Dems bringing down da House?

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I think that these guys were among the ones that the "source" tried to peddle the story to before s/he wandered into the alley and found a soiled, drunken Novak.

I don't know if the source also tried WaTimes or FNC or not, and I don't follow why Novak's never been served with a subpoena, either, so I agree there are gaps here that don't make much sense.

If you want to nail Novak to the wall, you've got to get the info from some other source. He's not testifying without getting immunity in exchange for waiving his 5th Amendment rights, even if you get past the 1st Amendment argument. If the prosecutor gets into an argument with a third party over a protection of sources privilege, the consequence of being overturned on appeal isn't that Novak walks free.

No idea why the media at issue don't include the Wash Times and FNC, although it could be because they find it cheaper to reprint RNC press releases than hire actual journalists.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Dems bringing down da House?

David Broder notwithstanding, there's no inherent virtue in bipartisanship. As fringey and bilmore agree, sometimes it means that legislators get together to dole out pork for everyone.

I believe, though, that when the country is at war, it falls to those in power to put the national interests ahead of party interests. I take it you and the GOP disagree, and care more about getting Republicans elected.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
I believe, though, that when the country is at war, it falls to those in power to put the national interests ahead of party interests.

Yes, the "pandering-to-the-Dean-base-by-voting-against-the-87-mil" was definitely in the national interest.

I take it you and the GOP disagree, and care more about getting Republicans elected.

My general belief is that Republicans get elected because we care more about the national interest.

Not sure I'm picking up the issue that we're purportedly "selling out" on.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In TAPPED today, Sam Rosenfeld predicts that Republicans are up to their '02 tricks again, this time abandoning bipartisan intelligence reform in favor of a process and bill designed to advance GOP fortunes in the election:



Nauseating. No. Shame.

But didn't you see Moore was at the Convention?

TM

[SlaveNoMore]

ThurgreedMarshall
But didn't you see Moore was at the Convention?

TM

Which one?

The one where he pretended to be a journalist?

Or the one where he got the VIP suite and got to sit with Fmr President Carter and P Diddy?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Yes, the "pandering-to-the-Dean-base-by-voting-against-the-87-mil" was definitely in the national interest.

As I recall, Biden is the guy conservatives quote to prove that Kerry was pandering to Dean voters, and Biden went on to point out that there was no question that the money would be appropriated. In contrast, Bush gladly delayed creating the Dept. of Homeland Security in order to have a political issue, and -- per the post I quoted above -- Republicans are about to forego compromise legislation (proposed, initially, by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission) in favor of a House bill that they can use as a political weapon. The point of the exercise is to try to get Democrats to vote against the bill just before the election. The House bill omits most of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I believe, though, that when the country is at war, it falls to those in power to put the national interests ahead of party interests.

Doesn't this work both ways? Does Kerry have an obligation to limit statements that encourage terrorist attacks on troops and Iraqis by indicating that difficulties will cause us to back down? Or, is his belief in the correctnes of his position sufficient cause for him to continue? If so, why doesn't the same hold true for Bush?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Which one?

The one where he pretended to be a journalist?

Or the one where he got the VIP suite and got to sit with Fmr President Carter and P Diddy?

Are you going to put this in your column of witty, biting comebacks? Because now you sound like a low-rent bilmore. And that ain't good.

TM

PS - P Diddy? Wtf does that have to do with anyfuckingthing?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
You're telling me I'm unclear. Take the crack pipe out of your mouth.

TM

No. I'm saying people don't agree because your arguments usually aren't very good.

Although you and I do share one trait - when beaten handily, we'll be revert to hyperbole. When that doesn't work, we'll get personal. When that fails, we'll argue past the opponent.

We have to get a drink sometime. We're almost soulmates in our shared self-righteous belief that we're always right.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by bilmore
Doesn't this work both ways? Does Kerry have an obligation to limit statements that encourage terrorist attacks on troops and Iraqis by indicating that difficulties will cause us to back down?

You're right. "Bring it on," would be the more responsible position.

TM