Re: These People Make Me Sick


Drum had a post recently asking about the lack of outrage, surprise, or even news coverage of the seemingly well-sourced memo that described Bush as privately committed to military action in January 03 while publically saying that he was working hard to avoid military action. I was going to post about it, but then thought, well, what's the use? It seemed to be pretty convincing evidence that Bush was lying, though in fairness I think many people saw it as a lie at the time.

Posted by: FL | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 9:17 AM
horizontal rule

Shows yet again the obviously restricted limits and irrelevance of the once-thought-important concept "completely discredited."

Posted by: I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 9:23 AM
horizontal rule

I normally haven't much time for Michael Kinsley, but this reminds me of one of his good ones:

Bush ... administration lies are often so laughably obvious that you wonder why they bother. Until you realize: They haven't bothered. If telling the truth was less bother, they'd try that too.... [I]f he can really juggle all these realities in his head without their bumping up against each other (in a condition known as "irony"), maybe it doesn't even count as dishonest.

Posted by: slolernr | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 9:24 AM
horizontal rule

Here is a non-NY-Sun source.

Posted by: Teh Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 9:28 AM
horizontal rule

It's all about parsing, baby. It depends on the meaning of the word classified. As you said, techinically it wasn't leaked classified information, it was information that was unilaterally declassified by Bush and then released to reporters. (Bush can declassify things like that because the President can do Whatever He Wants.) Therefore, the statement, "I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information" is entirely true- the information was declassified when it was released.

The way you put it, it sounds like Bush is playing a two minute mystery, and you need to ask the right question: "Did anyone leak classified info?" "No." "Did anyone leak info that they shouldn't have?" "No." "Did anyone leak information about Valerie Plame's identity to the NYT that was previously classified but was unilaterally declassified so that you could release it without having to admit to leaking classified information?" "Yes, I'm glad you asked."

Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 9:29 AM
horizontal rule

It demonstrates that the media at the time was a wholly owned subsidiary of the WH. And that a significant part of it remains so today.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 9:44 AM
horizontal rule

To 1: Yeah, this was a fairly pointless post. How did the transition from "How dare you call Bush a liar" to "Come on, how naive are you? Of course you can't expect a politician to tell you the truth, and anyway, people have been pointing out that he was lying for years now, it's not news," happen so smoothly?

Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 10:35 AM
horizontal rule

Re: something said in another thread about shorter threads- political threads like these tend to die quickly. More politcal posts = shorter threads. Also, these are the ones where I tend to comment, therefore my presence could be said to kill threads as well (except for the puzzle threads.)

I predict this will be the last comment in this thread.

Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 10:41 AM
horizontal rule

Well, and there's just not that much to say about it, beyond "Yup. Figures."

And the thread is competing with sex and international relations in the posts above and below.

Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 10:43 AM
horizontal rule

8 got pwn'd by 9.

Posted by: Teh Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 10:44 AM
horizontal rule

I predict this will be the last comment in this thread.

I predict that I am a good target for reverse psychology.

Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 10:45 AM
horizontal rule

I predict that the dwindling number of comments is due to having more than one post every 1.5 days.

On the topic, I just think no one cares. People who believe Bush is dishonest aren't surprised by the language parsing. People who don't get to stand proudly by the Clinton-esque parsing of 'classifed' and 'leak' and mutter 'terrorists might win!'

Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 11:29 AM
horizontal rule

"Is there anyone out there still standing by the theory that Bush is, in any way, personally honest?"

It depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Posted by: Shae | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 12:07 PM
horizontal rule

there: politics AND sex. done my part to revive the thread.

Posted by: Shae | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 12:08 PM
horizontal rule

Bush thinks he's the king, so he is free to disregard the fact that something is classified, just as he disregards the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, FISA, Supreme Court decisions he doesn't like, etc., etc. In 2000, he said, IIRC, "It would be easier having a dictatorship, so long as I'm the dictator." Since then, he has done everything possible to bring that about.

Posted by: Frederick | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 12:13 PM
horizontal rule

7--that transition is one of the few things this lot is really, really good it. Stuff goes directly from hotly disputed to old news without ever getting taken seriously.

Posted by: DaveL | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 2:45 PM
horizontal rule

In other political news: I'd love for a Democrat to take Tom DeLay's seat in Congress, but I'd feel better if the one running weren't supported by a bunch of teabaggers.

Posted by: JL | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 6:36 PM
horizontal rule

Better link courtesy of Gary Farber.

Hey what am I, chopped liver?

Posted by: The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 8:08 PM
horizontal rule