Login Here
-- Seems that George Tenet has a book coming out (if he ever finishes writing it). Wonder how he and Dick Cheney are getting along these days? Somehow, I suspect that the bloom will be off Condi's rose in Tenet's telling. Could be an interesting, if not self-serving, read.
-- Holden has some words of...erm...wisdom from your President.
-- Wolcott has some choice thoughts about 24. Might I suggest just playing with this acting simulator instead? It's low on the torture porn, but it does satisfy the wooden acting criteria completely. (Okay, I admit it. I've been waiting and waiting for a reason to link this up. It's laugh out loud funny.)
-- Why I adore Dan Froomkin: Reason #1 -- fact-based reporting. Would that all persons classifying themselves as "reporters" would adhere to the same fact-based standards instead of relying on spin and press releases and anonymously planted manipulations.
-- TBogg, the snide I want to be when I grow up. See here and here for why.
-- Jeralyn has further thoughts on the Libby trial and on the media's role within it.
-- Fini and TRex have a very exciting YearlyKos podcasting announcement.
-- Some thoughts on McCain and Romney in the WaPo and the LATimes, and how their respective efforts to court the far right elements in the GOP are dividing the primary participants -- but may be simply dividing up a limited pool of voters. Interesting tactical considerations.
-- Don't miss Bob Geiger's dissection of Tony Snow's arrogant performance at yesterday's briefing.
-- Jonathon Singer at MyDD has a great piece on the numbers. Hint: The majority of folks in America think that escalation is a craptastic idea.
-- Does anyone know if Denny Hastert's campaign war chest fundage is grandfathered in as something he gets to keep as an extra-padded retirement bonus fund if and when he retires from Congress? Because, if so, the sudden need to fundraise for a reelection bid that I am hearing is not likely to happen makes SO much more sense. And, gee, wouldn't it have been nice if Paul Kane had included that information in his press release article?
Share This 
Spotlight
J U R O R # ? !!!
FITZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
in your face ! there are rewards for hitting refresh only every 20 minutes as requested ; )
whither egregious ?
encouraging juror news.
Probably better to permalink the Froomkin for posterity’s sake — the above link just goes to whatever the current column is.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....00582.html
Further Adventures in Reading the New York Times. In 2 parts. Think of this as the final installment in a trilogy.
In the last two days, the Times has come out with two major articles trumpeting the incendiary case that Iran was supplying weapons that were killing Americans in Iraq, the first a stenographic effort by Michael Gordon and the second a more measured but still flawed piece by James Glanz. Today the Times has a shorter article entitled “Skeptics Doubt U.S. Evidence on Iran’s Actions in Iraq” by Helene Cooper and Mark Mazzetti that would seem to give the other side, enumerate the doubts, except it doesn’t.
First, my standard disclaimer that I am not a fan of the regime in Tehran.
The article starts out well enough “the Bush administration has laid out its evidence — and received in return a healthy dose of skepticism.” Unfortunately, the only caveat raised about the government’s case is one briefers themselves raised in their Sunday presentation: there is no hard evidence that the Iranian government is, in fact, involved. While this admission does essentially blow the government’s case out of the water, it has not stopped the Bush Administration and the New York Times from promoting the connection anyway and exaggerating the importance of explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) among the threats facing our troops in Iraq.
As I have laid out in my analyses of both the Gordon and Glanz articles, there are numerous weak points in the government’s case, questions about the casualty numbers they use, the number of EFPs involved, whether any of the EFPs (as opposed to mortar shells and RPGs) actually bore Iranian serial numbers, how these relate to total casualties in Iraq, how numbers of foreign Sunni fighters or jihadis relate to the Iranian presence in Iraq, the silence on the role of the Saudis and how many American deaths can be attributed to their activities, and the curiously selective and incomplete descriptions of American raids that netted a handful of Iranians.
This article addresses none of this. Instead we are treated to an uncritical and unconvincing regurgitation of the Administration’s line about how Sunday’s dog and pony show came together. It was apparently “carefully calibrated”, a trademark as we all know of this Administration’s actions. Their aim was “not to ignite a wider war” or raise “the rhetoric to major decibel levels.” Indeed in their wisdom, officials from State, Defense, and the intelligence community “anticipated resistance to their claims.”
Now in previous stories on this, it was reported that this presentation was going to be a major offering by Gates and Rice, of Defense and State which was, nevertheless, postponed twice because of concerns over the quality of the evidence. The New York Times now comes up with a mishmash that can, I think, be reconstructed into a fuller narrative although I am still not quite sure about the timing of the two delays.
Swirling down the drain.
[Joel] Surnow, [the creator of “24″] once appeared as a guest on Laura Ingraham’s show; she told him that, while she was undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer, “it was soothing to see Jack Bauer torture these terrorists, and I felt better.” Surnow joked, “We love to torture terrorists — it’s good for you!”
-GSD
Part 2
The Times story begins fuzzily so I will do some back filling. Bush in his January 10, 2007 escalation speech claimed, “Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops.” Iran’s ambassador to Iraq Hassan Kazemi Qumi apparently in reference to this demanded that we either put up or shut up. Our ambassador in Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad offered to “oblige him by having something done in the coming days.” Subsequently, a large presentation was put together in Baghdad and sent to Washington for review. There, National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley and Defense Secretary Robert Gates “concluded that there were aspects of the briefing that could not be supported by solid intelligence.” Given this Administration’s past commitment to having an airtight case before acting, this was perfectly understandable. So the dossier was sent back to be pared down and sharpened up. I’m guessing this is when one of the two delays occurred.
It was perhaps at this time that the decision was made for no senior officials, such as Khalilzad or Negroponte mentioned in the article (but also I would think Gates and Rice), to be involved in the presentation. It was such a strong case you see that no senior official wanted to get near it and invite “inevitable comparisons to the since-discredited presentation that Secretary of State Colin Powell made to the United Nations Security Council” before the start of the Second Gulf War. With the transfer back to Iraq and the principals out of the picture, I suppose this was also when the decision was made to keep the presentation in Iraq. On Sunday the “stripped-down version of the original presentation” was made to reporters. There were a lot of questions about why the presenters all demanded anonymity, especially since one of them it seems was Maj. Gen. William Caldwell the top military PR man in Iraq. Given how the principals all bailed on this though, I begin to see why no one else wanted their name attached to it either.
The Times article skates around all this and only comes up with something which sounds like business as usual: a presentation was put together, sent to Washington for review, sent back to Baghdad with recommendations, and finally given this Sunday. See they really meant to do it this way all along. It wasn’t that the evidence was weak. It was that it was “carefully calibrated”.
So here we have an article that is supposed to be about the skeptics of the Iran arming Shia militias in Iraq with EFPs and getting Americans killed story. However, not only does it not deal with the substance of the skepticism, it completely misses the point that the biggest skeptics of all weren’t Democrats or Iranians but the very principals, the Secretaries of Defense and State as well as Hadley, Negroponte and Khalilzad, who ordered it put together in the first place. Yet despite this, with the aid of an uncritical and compliant media, the Administration has strengthened its case for war with evidence that is reminiscent of that which it produced pre-war for WMD and al Qaeda connections in Iraq. As before, it is not about what is true but what must be true. Thank you, New York Times for being so willingly complicit in this, again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02.....r=homepage
EPU’d from prior thread:
Marcy, Christy et al:
Jeralyn Merritt is saying on HufPo that it appears pretty certain that Libby will not testify. I realize that this is the strong inference from everything that Libby’s lawyers are saying and doing. But has there been anything more definitive said to confirm that?
And will there be further legal arguments before Judge Walton as to whether Libby can invoke the bad memory defense without Libby’s testimony? I would think that after the defense rests, Fitz could move to exclude that defense from being submitted to the jury based on the failure to lay a sufficient evidentiary basis. Without Libby testifing, it seems like it is asking for pure speculation by the jury.
What kind of sick fuck derives relief from chemo by watching people get tortured?
Twisted Martini @ 10
Laura Ingraham
9/11 memories —
Then Joshua Bolten, after what he described in testimony as “a quiet moment,” spoke up. Bolten, the White House deputy chief of staff [now chief of staff], asked the veep to get back in touch with the president to “confirm the engage order.” Bolten was clearly subordinate to Cheney, but “he had not heard any prior conversation on the subject with the president,” the 9/11 report notes. Nor did the real-time notes taken by two others in the room, Cheney’s chief of staff, “Scooter” Libby—who is known for his meticulous record-keeping—or Cheney’s wife, Lynne, reflect that such a phone call between Bush and Cheney occurred or that such a major decision as shooting down a U.S. airliner was discussed. Bush and Cheney later testified the president gave the order. And national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice and a military aide said they remembered a call, but gave few specifics. The report concluded “there is no documentary evidence for this call.”
All this talk about “torture porn” for Repubes got me thinking about why I’m always checking in at FDL.
FDL is “Truth Porn.”
Been so desparate for truth in my news for so long, just can’t get enough nowadaze.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/.....alth-care/
This kind of sick f*ck.
Elliott @ 11
Norman Cousins she aint.
-GSD
Fine analysis, Hugh. Having read your two previous installments, when i read the 3rd NYT piece this AM (europe) the lack of skepticsm on the facts was immediately apparent. What i don’t get is NYT motive?
That’s right, balance the budget on the backs of our wounded troops, but make those tax cuts for the 1% who really need ‘em permanent. What a fuck.
am sheepishly confessing I have something closely approximating a blog crush on TBogg - am so very envious of all the Firedogs who got to meet him at YKos
Reality nibbles Foggo and Wilkes
Got my Anatomy of Deceit yesterday. It’s so shiny! My only complaint so far is there’s no author’s photo!
oooh Kirk Murphy, she purrs . . .thanks for that heads up
Christy made lunch! Thanks, Christy.Crazy Horse @
16
Consider it an infommercial
IMHO they are pandering to readers who don’t get how much weaker Israel is, as a result of our invading Iraq.
Diminutive, bald, warmongering Australian PM, John “Ratty” Howard invokes the name of what morally bankrupt former Democrat to bolster his outlandish allegations against Barack Obama and Democrats in general?
If you guessed Sleazy Joe Lieberman give yourself a hand.
Joe Lieberman, he’s got the word LIE right in his name.
-GSD
For all the commentary about TYOI in the Hannah live blogging this morning, this particular bit from the Froomkin article:
Cripes, even this trial and testimony under oath is nothing more to these warmongering universal fascists than another opportunity to push their propagands. I hope not a single corporate media outlet picks up a single utterance of the word “Iran” from Hannah when covering the trial; they’d getting used like tools all over again.
From WashPost, Bush dismisses House debate:
god f’in’ dammit !
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thebl.....e_ied.html
no valentine to Mr. Clarke, in fact STFU !!!
GSD @
24
Using Joe Lieberman as a “shield” is akin to using gasoline as a fire retardant.
Talk about tone deaf!
Biodun @ 25
Shorter Bush, to Congress: “Who cares what you think?”
_
Hannah’s tastimony was devastating in terms of Bush’s legacy as President. It appears to confirm that Cheney is Bush’s Regent.
Can anyone imagine an aide to Humphrey, Agnew……… claiming to carry such a weighty portfolio?
Crazy Horse @ 16
I would say look at Hillary. It has taken her 4 years to come to the conclusion that Iraq just might be a mistake, although, of course, not her mistake. Something similar I think is going on at the times. Bill Keller the Times executive editor wanted to show that liberals could be hawks too. Pinch Sulzberger the Times publisher and until recently close friend of Judith Miller felt much the same. The result is an Establishment position on Iraq that is not far off the view of some neocons, say like a Fancis Fukuyama that while the theory was good, the execution was bad.
Along with this is the broader issue of the corporatization of the media, which has led to the current situation of the journalist in the safe and uncontroversial role of stenographer. The point is not to rock the boat, not to question authority or speak truth to it, not to investigate or examine critically, not to threaten the bottomline. The result is what we see in how the Iran EFP story is reported.
John Casper @ 23
I would have thought they’d be very proactive trying to win some of the lost credibility back, especially since in five years they want to be “Blog of the Year” Could you flesh out your point, i don’t follow?
John Casper @
23
Have you read this? http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021307M.shtml
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
“[The New World Order] cannot happen without U.S. participation, as we are the most significant single component. Yes, there will be a New World Order, and it will force the United States to change it’s perceptions.” — Henry Kissenger, World Affairs Council Press Conference, Regent Beverly Wilshire Hotel , April 19th 1994
GSD @ 24
I loved Obamas come back: Why don’t you send the extra 20,000 troops then. I will not be visiting Australia until Howard is gone.
Danke, Hugh, very cogent.
Tenet’s book will definitely be self-serving, but it may give us some insight as to the scum in the White House. After this administration leaves, everyone will write a book and we’ll see how awful they really were.
And some words of wisdom from Karl Rove:
old gold @
30
That’s a great point. I just had coffee with a frequent commenter at Glenn Greenwald’s site. She was pessimistic about the trial. I pointed out that it doesn’t matter, really, whether Libby is convicted. What is important is that the way in which the administration operated under Cheney is being documented, and the way in which the press lay down is also being documented.
BobbyG @ 29
Nearly a year ago Jane Smiley observed this typical reaction of Bush to those who do not agree with him in detail at HuffPo.
He has demonstrated this behavior repeatedly since then, despite polls, speeches and a little dust-up last November. During all this Congress, *our* Congress, has not even been able to boot a non-binding “Oh dear” across his desk.
And it looks like BushCo and *our* Congress are prepared to play this little game indefinitely.
Now we have Scooter and Cheney playing peek-a-boo to keep us distracted. Even a two-year-old gets tired of peek-a-boo in a couple of hours.
=====================
HAVE YOU HAD ENOUGH?
=====================
One more note: in (dis)honor of John Hannah’s bellicose statements of late, I will not follow my normal practice of referring to witnesses by their initials. Instead, I will refer to him as “The Year of Iran.”
we are living in the Hanna Barb Era.
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 33
Israel? Weak?
They control all of their own nuclear weapons
AND all of ours. Israel is the most powerful country on earth.
When Iran is attacked offensively with nuclear weapons, it will NOT be tactical. It will be overwhelming. A true Holocaust.
The only outstanding question at this stage is which false flag tactic the Zealots will employ to “justify” it all.
The unintended consequences are incalculable.
Here’s Karl Rove’s theory of communication:
Yes, John Casper at 33, McGovern’s point is clear, but why would the NYT be encouraging Israel’s suicide? Even Hillary wouldn’t do that, would she?
Crazy Horse @ 16
I think it’s very easy for journalists who deal with national security and military matters to end up “in the tank,” even more so than the DC press corps, possibly because they’re even more dependent on official sources or they get no story at all. I was yelling at the radio just yesterday because the “National Security Correspondent” on the local news station (WTOP) was credulously parroting the “evidence” (which was nothing more than an accusation) that Iran was supplying weapons to al-Sadr (who I know is virulently anti-Iranian.) And this is far from the first time — virtually all of his reports just repeat the official story as fact. But looking at his bio, there’s no indication that he’s a closet partisan; I think he’s just in the tank.
GSD @
7
Hey, I live & work here in Hollyweird & this is a typical putz production exec attitude. All fun & games, we got a hit show, making $, who cares about content. ‘tude filters down from the top.
Redshift, i understand about NYT (and other military)MSM being in the tank, that’s why the blogosphere outperforms them. I’m trying to imagine who the readers are which the NYT is trying to woo?
BTW, somebody commented about the issue power of Cheney’s staff.
Fitz: My Hannah, do you in your experience believe that the POTUS also has a staff involved in these issues? Or was it all on the defendent?
jayackroyd @ 39
Yes, Scooter Libby was so consumed by the awesome responsibility of single-handedly doing the jobs of Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Tom Ridge, Jay Garner and Jerry Bremer, not to mention Dick Cheney, that he couldn’t possibly focus on something as unimportant as Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame.
EPU’d from last thread:
GSD @
24
‘But he’s so clean and well-spoken’
;>)
Atrios points to Amanda’s response to the, um, “Christians” who have taken down Pandagon.
It’s brilliant.
This link to Froomkin’s column includes the comments section.
P.S. CHS, we’ve got freezing rain now, going back to snow again tonight.
Will this February be the month the Wurlitzer melts down?
Edwards’ about face turns away swiftboaters..
“Madrassa” hoax unravels…
JCS Pace spikes Iran war pimps….
Kevin Drum’s expose reverberates:
Studies show Violent Television Weakens the Immune System
Will this February be the month the Wurlitzer melts down?
Edwards’ about face turns away swiftboaters..
“Madrassa” hoax unravels…
Hardly. Swiftboating is like a meth addiction. And when you have enablers like Howard Kurtz and the rest of the MSM, the Wurlitzer will continue churning out its sordid tunes.
the McGovern piece at truthout -
wow, wow, and even more wow !!
appropos to the kewl kidz finally figuring out that Cheney really is running everything -
Thank you Stephen Parrish,CPA !
everyone go read !
Ray McGovern
Crazy Horse @ 47
Well, keep in mind that most people hearing these things aren’t political junkies, and don’t instantly know it’s BS. At this point, a lot of people are (sensibly) suspicious of administration claims, but having the inside story and information that no one else has access to is still compelling news.
While the blogosphere outperforms them in analysis, in raw newsgathering, the blogosphere’s got nothin’. And ordinary readers, in addition to us, do want actual information; the problem is that the neocons are poisoning the well. If the NYT reporters would just follow their own rules about anonymous sources, and include “administration says” in the headlines, I’d have no major problems with it.
the face of SCIRI -
howdy podner !
Crazy Horse, 33 is not my comment or my link.
I haven’t had time to read it.
NYT’s is not encouraging Israel’s suicide. Hillary isn’t doing it either.
IMHO, there are neocons in the US and Israel who are ideologically related. Their ME policies begin with a fundamental disrespect for Islam and non-Western culture. Every day we stay in Iraq makes our armed forces and our economy weaker. That makes Iran and Russia more dominant in the ME. Iraq used to be the Sunni counterweight to Shia Iran. In a wide variety of scenarios the Shia Sunni conflict can make Israel more vulnerable. I don’t see our staying in Iraq enhancing Israeli security in any way.
[chuckle]
You know, this is so typical of how these people run things. NOW the issue is saving Libby. So we’ll effectively trash Bush in order to save Libby.
Or maybe this is what Cheney wants. Make the president the king–the guy who attends ceremonies blessing ships, driving farm machinery into gaggles of reporters, displaying a codpiece on an aircraft carrier–while the VP/Prime Minister runs the government.
No zigs here, rayne.
Sparkles the Iguana @ 54
For instance, Newsweek pushing the sordid and debunked Pelosi plane smear.
How about “this administration says, emulating the boy who cried wolf”.
From Democracy Now!, let’s not forget Josh Wolf:
litigatormom @
48
Also EPU’d:
It’s the Jayson Blair Defense: “I’m a really great writer! I almost won a Puitzer! just don’t ask me where the words came from.”
cbl,
I’m glad to hear that Michael Ware can confirm what our government can’t prove. As I was saying yesterday, I can and have inferred this kind of a thing for a while, but inference is not proof. If Ware has real evidence, he should produce it, but I doubt that he does. This is more likely I think another example of speculation masquerading as fact.
Greetings earthlings.
Christy and Pach, message received.
It was an absorbing experience to be in the courtroom and hear Fitzgerald in person. He kind of leans towards people when he is listening, very intense face and eyes.
I’ve got notes about both the substance and the feel of the courtroom but will probably write them up later. Those of you who know I am bipolar will not be surprised to hear I’m running pretty high right now and need to spend the next 30 minutes seriously calming down.
David Shuster came and sat next to me in court.
Twisted Martini @ 10
OBJECTION! Leading the witness.
Don’t forget the Washington insiders. I have a dear friend who’s a lobbyist in DC, and he quotes the NYT like it’s the bible (probably because he gives them interviews from time to time). He’s often shocked that I have better information than he does, though I live in the hinterlands. I tell him that he needs to get his head out of the NYT and the Post, and also to stop listening to DLC talking points.
Some courtrooms are closing for the snow. The sense of the media room is that this trial will continue today. It doesn’t feel like very much snow to me, but then I lived in Boston for a long time.
Re: and from the NYTimes, more woes for MSM:
egregious, can’t wait to hear your thoughts! Thanks for taking the time to do this.
Christy I got to meet Jeralyn at lunch. Re real people versus video, I thought briefly about waving hello to her and realized, she doesn’t know who the heck I am. Just because I know the other 2 people in the Politics TV video, Jane and Marcy…
egregious @ 68
I was just wondering about this, since I came from another website mentioning that the federal government has decided to close at 2:00 pm today.
Egregious, I’m looking forward to your comments later!
-S
The press in the courtroom were pretty sedate, for example, there wasn’t a big change wrt Fitz’s argument of the 1-2 hour meeting being important. I think because we kind of saw how his argument was developing and there wasn’t one moment of ‘gasp’. However there were some serious snorts of derision when it was asked of Jill Abramson whether the July 6 Joe Wilson op-ed was viewed as important/memorable.
Hugh,
that was not my quote, I was using to show the Chimp made nice with known Iranian Agent, and absolutely no one questioned his doing so -
and I agree with you about Ware’s probable speculation
fyi - Prof Cole has been posting plenty of sqiblets over at his place regarding weaponry making it’s way in to Iraq
egregious @ 68
Washington shuts down due to snow easily…I used to get out of school for just an inch or so. It looks like Columbus is getting up to 8, total, by tomorrow morning. So I guess at least some more is headed your way.
Let’s not forget that Scooter was very good at remembering “his own arguments” and “the points he wanted to make.”
Can I just point out that this isn’t “memory”? This is, um, “sanity.”
Imagine Donohue launching into a diatribe based on (h/t amanda) the parable of stoning the adultress, and then saying “Oh, shit, um, never mind. Forgot my own argument.”
We are not automatically closing. It is on a judge by judge basis. A person who works here is going to go up and find out what’s the story.
Hugh @ 64:
I’m surprised about and by Michael Ware. Usually he’s one of the sober MSM reporters (including John Burns) reporting the facts from the ground in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq.
egregious @ 65
I {{{love}}} when Fitz does this. I noticed that when he came out with Libby’s indictment and the sense I got was that he was really, really listening, so much so that it makes you feel that he is really considering you. IOW, he’s a very considerate and caring person. Ooh, what I would give for such a man!
Libby’s entire defense was laid out almost 30 years ago by comedian Steve Martin. For those too young to remember, a quick recap. As part of his stand-up act, Steve Martin did a bit on “How You Can Be A Millionaire And Not Pay Any Taxes”. It went something like this…
First, get a million dollars. Then when the IRS shows up and asks you why you didn’t pay any taxes on your million dollars, you respond with 2 simple words: I forgot.
It’s encouraging to hear that some of the jurors are showing signs of not falling for this charade.
duplicate
Redshift #45,
I agree with the in the tank idea. Martha Raddatz has become a little more skeptical of late but it used to drive me crazy to hear her recite whatever piffle the Pentagon had handed her that day. This is still true of Jim Miklaszewski.
Of course sometimes it is just a political bent. Last night the NewsHour had two foreign policy analysts on to discuss the Iran EFP story: Flynt Leverett of the “centrist” New America Foundation and Matthew Levitt of the AIPAC derived Washington Institute for Near East Policy. They were as uncritical and credulous in their analysis as any reporter at the Times. It was depressing to listen to two “experts” talk with so few facts or insight about the situation.
On the other hand, I hope that the members of Congress, particularly in the opposition party, understand the grave danger of Iran having a nuclear weapon.
Well be alarmed to learn that Australia has reason to believe Iran has purchased signifigant quantities of yellowcake from Africa…
Hubris.
ifthethunderdontgetya @ 60
Last Sunday on national television Howard Kurtz blamed Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the “Obama Madrassa swiftboat.” I heard him say, I googled it, I read about it. Kurtz blamed it on Hillary unequivocally, almost as an aside, while there are numerous reasons to believe it was not her campaign. Kurtz sucks. What kind of politics do assholes like Kurtz sell when his story is a story about a slime story?
Legislation passed in the early 1970’s prohibits a retiring member of Congress from retaining leftover campaign funds for personal use. As I recall, a fair number of Congresscritters with big warchests retired during the last term before the new law took effect.
It begins to look as if all the pundits were wrong, when they predicted that Speaker Hastert wouldn’t even complete this term, let alone run again.
Biodun @ 78
Maybe they’re, um, filling some recent vacancies in the Steno Pool?
John Casper, sorry, i conflated your post and Stephen Parrish’s link to the McGovern article, which does analyze Israel’s suicide. I was so busy i forgot it, but then learned it as if new.
What a synchronicity between TYOI’s testimony and the revelation about Cheney stealing shrub’s briefing book.
baberiffic ! mr cbl, the suit diva went off over shuster’s gorgeous outfit yesterday (yeah, I know, boyz don’t have ‘outfits’)
Christopher Walker @ 84
Hastert is no longer speaker. Madame Chairwoman Pelosi is.
From the Frontline program to be aired tonight:
My bold.
Christopher Walker @
85
I forgot to add that according to FEC figures filed in December, while Dennis Hastert raised quite a lot of money for the 2006 cycle, he spent it; so he’s not sitting on a big leftover warchest, anyhow. $18,000 and change, I think it said.
BREAKING: Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA) Dies at Age 65