Friday’s Mini-Report

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* The latest on Florida’s delegates: “Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) is floating a new compromise idea for seating delegates from Florida: That the result of the January rogue primary be accepted as is, but that the overall delegate allotment be cut in half, as the Republican National Committee originally did to their unauthorized primaries. If such an idea were accepted — a big ‘if’ — then Hillary Clinton’s hypothetical delegate margin from Florida would be reduced form +38 to +19. In exchange, the candidates would haven’t to go to the trouble of running in a whole new primary contest or being in the position of throwing out Florida entirely.”

* Probably the first of several major bailouts: “Bear Stearns, one of the nation’s biggest and most prominent investment banks, stunned Wall Street Friday by announcing it had turned to a rival bank and the federal government for an emergency bailout. The surprise, last-ditch rescue effort, announced just before the stock market opened, is the latest troubling sign of how a cascading credit crisis is threatening the liquidity of even Wall Street’s most established firms.”

* I’m waiting to see the fine print on this deal: “Senate Democrats and the White House reached a deal early Friday morning on moving a host of President Bush’s nominees, according to Democratic and White House officials. In exchange for Bush’s help in moving five Democratic nominees to federal agencies and boards, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) agreed to act on 40 Republican nominees, a Democratic leadership aide said…. Despite the agreement, Democrats did not win assurances that Bush would not install some controversial nominees during the Senate’s recess, including Steven Bradbury to head the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department.”

* I had no idea the guy who started the Weather Channel was so far out there: “The founder of the Weather Channel wants to sue Al Gore for fraud, hoping a legal debate will settle the global-warming debate once and for all. John Coleman, who founded the cable network in 1982, suggests suing for fraud proponents of global warming, including Al Gore, and companies that sell carbon credits. ‘Is he committing financial fraud? That is the question,’ Coleman said.”

* That’s trillion, with a “t”: “The government’s debt limit would be raised to $10.2 trillion under a budget plan for next year approved by the U.S. House of Representatives. The House’s fiscal 2009 budget, which passed on Thursday, would increase U.S. borrowing authority by $385 billion from the current limit of $9.815 trillion, according to the House Budget Committee.”

* What do you know, the Spitzer scandal can get worse: “Federal prosecutors are investigating whether Gov. Eliot Spitzer used campaign funds in connection with his meetings with prostitutes, including payments for hotels or ground transportation, three people with knowledge of the investigation said…. The governor’s lawyers have begun consulting with a campaign finance expert who has long worked for Mr. Spitzer’s political organization to see whether campaign money was spent on the trips, including some as recently as last month, a person briefed on the investigation said.”

* For some reason, the McCain campaign really doesn’t want to talk about “spiritual guide” Rod Parsley. Go figure.

* The White House’s arguments for bypassing Congress on a treaty with Iraq — in violation of Article II of the Constitution — are getting sillier all the time.

* Hans von Spakovsky sure is shameless. He’s teamed up with the Heritage Foundation to write a book called “Stolen Identities, Stolen Votes: A Case Study in Voter Impersonation.” Paul Kiel noted, “In it, Spakovsky takes on those liberal critics who claim that there’s no voter fraud by unearthing a 1984 grand jury investigation in Brooklyn, NY during which, he says, numerous episodes of voter fraud dating back to 1968 were uncovered. Just because the case was 24 years ago and no indictments were issued shouldn’t give us pause.” No, of course not.

* This guy was doomed: “It never did look very good for Richard “Dickie” Scruggs, the well-known plaintiffs attorney, Dem fundraiser, and brother-in-law to ex-Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS). If you got associates rattling on about knowing where the bodies are buried on a wiretapped conversation, then it’s generally safe to say that you’ve got problems. And so Scruggs, who was indicted last November, has gone down easy for his ‘boneheaded bribery scam’ to bribe a judge.”

* Speaking of dumb: “One of the country’s top federal judges has been linked to an investigation of a Denver-based prostitution ring, according to federal officials. Edward Nottingham, the chief federal judge in Denver, Colo., was “implicated as a customer” in an ongoing IRS and Denver police investigation of an alleged prostitution operation called Denver Sugar/Denver Players, according to officials.”

* And finally, this weekend is the fifth anniversary of this Dick Cheney classic: “I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.” Is this a bad time to note that McCain agreed with him?

Anything to add? Consider this an end-of-the-day open thread.

“Senate Democrats and the White House reached a deal early Friday morning on moving a host of President Bush’s nominees.

I can’t wait to see if Hans von Spakovsky or the other three FEC nominees are included.

Federal prosecutors are investigating whether Gov. Eliot Spitzer used campaign funds in connection with his meetings with prostitutes.

Yesterday morning NBC suggested that Spitzer used testimony before a congressional committee as a pretext for coming to DC for a hooker. I’m not so sure congressmen are that accomodating.

  • “we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators”

    Yes, I really think the Iraqis would enjoy greeting you. Please, Mr Cheney, make an announced trip to Iraq, and let us know how it works out. I hear the markets in Baghdad are lovely this time of year.

  • Bill Nelson has the right idea. It’s still not ‘fair,’ because a true contest was never had, but it’s better than a redo or not seating them at all. Good compromise, I say.

  • Coleman did help found the Weather Channel, but he was squeezed out during the first year of operation. He does the weather for KUSI (San Diego) He’s probably after the attention. Kinda sad, really.

  • The White House’s arguments for bypassing Congress on a treaty with Iraq — in violation of Article II of the Constitution — are getting sillier all the time.

    Lord Bush has already bypassed any appearance of propriety or Congress or constitutionality with the unratified treaty called the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.” What makes you think an unratified treaty with the U.S. prefecture of Iraq will be any different?

  • ***Has anybody decided to read the actual Pentagon report yet?***

    You mean the one that’s about 40% of what it was before the WH broke out the redacting scissors? Yes—although I outgrew comic books several decades ago. The finished product was a new low in military revisionist documentation—a hybrid blend of Daffy Duck, a used condom, and a couple of Dick Cheney’s truck-sized shredders.

    ***You know; the one that shows links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda?***

    Enlighten me, troll-child. What “links” might you be referring to? If you’re looking at the repeated use of the word “Quds,” it’s the regional term for “Jerusalem.” Suicide bombers and IEDs are merely the urban equivalent of the Kamikaze pilots employed in WW2 by the Japanese, which was itself an offshoot of an earlier tactic employed by the Chinese during the Boxer rebellion years to cut off American gunboats—which can be traced back to the Last Stand at Thermopylae in 480 BC.

  • Strange how all day coverage about Rev Wright has not had any words written on CB that I can find

  • Steve (#11): The finished product was a new low in military revisionist documentation—a hybrid blend of Daffy Duck, a used condom, and a couple of Dick Cheney’s truck-sized shredders.

    Ah, ok. You didn’t like its appearance.

    Enlighten me, troll-child. What “links” might you be referring to? If you’re looking at the repeated use of the word “Quds,” it’s the regional term for “Jerusalem.” Suicide bombers and IEDs are merely the urban equivalent of the Kamikaze pilots employed in WW2 by the Japanese, which was itself an offshoot of an earlier tactic employed by the Chinese during the Boxer rebellion years to cut off American gunboats—which can be traced back to the Last Stand at Thermopylae in 480 BC.

    Then…you didn’t actually, you know, read it, did you?

  • Having read the comments on various Carpetbagger threads over the last few days…
    And having read Steven Benen’s own two posts on the math:

    March 14th: What Michigan and Florida re-votes would mean to the Clinton campaign
    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14899.html

    March 13th: The debate over the Democratic popular vote
    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14886.html

    I’ve a few points to make regarding the hot and sour memes developing:

    1) Steven Benen is the first major Dem blog player to see the inevitable truth of the numbers and call attention to it. He has got it right. Better, he’s developed it in an honest but pointed way. But hey… that’s his style and why we love his work and call these threads “home base.”

    2) Beneath the surface this churns and cell divides to the point of demanding birth: If Barack wasn’t black would this still be a viable political contest? I don’t think so. I think the bar is set differently for black people. I’ve seen it. I’ve felt it. I know this is true. Our culture, despite the overt facts of Barack’s brazen decency and audacious brilliance, is still playing a game of dream deferred. Yes, that really is rather sad. But… nevertheless… every Friday demands we must find some good cheer. I am not one much for slogans. Still I think this one is happening, ever so slowly and reluctantly:

    3) Yes we can.

    Keep your eyes on the prize everyone.
    Bottoms up.

  • ***Then…you didn’t actually, you know, read it, did you?***

    Actually, I did—but I’m leaving it to you to defend the indefensible piece of fiction-writing that, for some odd reason, had to be 60% redacted by a bunch of sycophantic civilians. Chapter-and-verse, from the beginning, if you please. Consider this your written thesis-defense. The “Ashes of Problem Students” jar awaits….

  • Buzz Mon honey, because Rev Wright is teh angry black man and that is teh scary./snark

  • Let’s also add this little tidbit that even a Pakistani cave-dweller would be able to read—a direct quote from your so-important “report:”

    (PDF, p. 41/94, last full paragraph):

    “Whether attempting to overthrow the Egyptian Government or the Kuwait[i} royal family, the vision was always about the centrality of Saddam and his pan-Arab vision—and never about the glory of Islam or some modern-day caliphate.”

    A troll who pushes a false perception, based on a report, should at least read what the report says. It’s pretty obvious that these “thousands of papers” were a fairy tale of magnificently-swollen proportions. Try reading through the thing, and explain why Saddam would establish a training camp with 20,000 rifles, 10,000 pistols, and just one copy machine—for less than one hundred “fighters.” this entire thing reads like the WMD “biological trucks” that turned out to be helium transports for weather balloons.

    Now, go back and recall the rusted out remains of Saddam’s “army” when we rolled into Baghdad. Are you really trying to prop up the notion that he had a global terrorism program when he couldn’t even manage to keep his infantry transport-trucks in running order? Saddam’s “secret terrorist links” are nothing more than an obscenely-over-rated “paper tiger….”

  • Steve (#17): Actually, I did—but I’m leaving it to you to defend the indefensible piece of fiction-writing that, for some odd reason, had to be 60% redacted by a bunch of sycophantic civilians. No, no, no. I asked first. You, somehow, believe it’s fiction. How did you come to that conclusion? Don’t tell me because the report was “60% redacted”? I went through every page (all 94 pages of the PDF file). Page 23 (page 43 of the PDF file) has 6 lines redacted. Page 33 (page 53 of the PDF file) has one line redacted. Page B-1 (page 91 of the PDF file) has 8 lines redacted. Page B-2 (page 92 of the PDF file) has 2 lines redacted. 6 + 1 + 8 + 2 = 17. 17 lines redacted out of a 46-page report (44 if you take out the pages in the report marked “This page is intentionally blank.”), a 3-page Executive Summary, and all of the other pages of a 94-page PDF file (minus the nine pages marked “This page is intentionally blank.”) 17 lines out of 85 pages are redacted, and this is 60% redacted?

    Look, if you don’t want to read it because it might say something that goes against what your believe, just say so.

  • Well, you got your answer out before I did. Allow me to reply. Try reading through the thing, and explain why Saddam would establish a training camp with 20,000 rifles, 10,000 pistols, and just one copy machine—for less than one hundred “fighters.” I don’t know; I don’t think training on copying machines will teach someone how to kill, so 1 was probably all that was needed. Besides, there would be less than 100 at a time training, but new terrorists would go in and out. Don’t you think that’s why they had the extra guns there?

    Did you read page 54 of the PDF file? How about page 62?

    Now, go back and recall the rusted out remains of Saddam’s “army” when we rolled into Baghdad. Are you really trying to prop up the notion that he had a global terrorism program when he couldn’t even manage to keep his infantry transport-trucks in running order? Saddam’s “secret terrorist links” are nothing more than an obscenely-over-rated “paper tiger….” Do you actually know how a group of networked organized criminals actually works? Ever study the Mafia? I don’t mean The Godfather, but the real Mafia.

  • The Spitzer campaign funds investigation looks like a plain old fishing expedition. A key sentence in the NYT story: “Mr. Spitzer, a Democrat, has championed a campaign finance reform proposal for much of his tenure and often excoriated Republicans, saying their fund-raising practices were responsible for the ‘haze and smog surrounding the capital.'” I believe the expression is “payback’s a bitch.”

    I’m assuming in Bill Nelson’s scenario with Florida that Obama will get the other delegates not pledged to Hillary? Didn’t see it specified anywhere.

  • More holes in HRC’s “35 years of experience” from the Boston Globe, by way of AmericaBlog:

    [T]he Clinton White House, while supportive of the idea of expanding children’s health, fought the first SCHIP effort, spearheaded by Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, because of fears that it would derail a bigger budget bill. And several current and former lawmakers and staff said Hillary Clinton had no role in helping to write the congressional legislation, which grew out of a similar program approved in Massachusetts in 1996….

    privately, some lawmakers and staff members are fuming over what they see as Clinton’s exaggeration of her role in developing SCHIP, including her campaign ads claiming she “helped create” the program. The irritation has grown since Nov. 1, when Clinton – along with fellow senators and presidential candidates Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, and John McCain – missed a Senate vote to extend the SCHIP program, which was approved without the votes of those lawmakers.

    Republicans created Gore, the serial exaggerator out of manipulated quotes. Just imagine what they’d do the SCHIP leadership that wasn’t. Or her health care “experience” that failed. Or the foreign policy experience that wasn’t.

  • SteveIL,

    You mean the report that says, on page 1 of the executive summary, that “This report found no “smoking gun” (i. e., direct connection) between Saddam’s Iraq and Al Qaeda.”?

    Sure, it goes on to weasel around and try to make the WH happy (they paid for it, after all) — listing all the evidence (of whatever provenance) for support of terrorists by Saddam Hussein, but the bottom line is very clear.

  • “The founder of the Weather Channel wants to sue Al Gore for fraud”

    Funny. Sen. James Inhofe has been saying all along that global warming is a fraud perpetrated for the benefit of… The Weather Channel.

    Another item:
    *Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) drew a primary challenge from Alaska’s Lt. Governor Sean Parnell. If that’s not enough, Parnell is receiving the full endorsement of Gov. Sarah Palin — the Republican governor is backing a challenge to the Republican Congressman. That’s pretty heavy.

    Trivia note: Young has been around so long that he’s now running against the children of people he’s defeated before, namelyParnell’s father in 1980 (who ran as a Democrat).

  • Ah. So if it says something that would be bad for President Bush, it’s the truth; if it in any way might be something that is in the President’s favor, it’s a lie. I get it. Well, who can argue with logic like that?

    Dude, you might as well start brining my mom into this if you’re going to defend your position like that.

  • What we saw with Bear Stearns was not a bail out. Bear Stearns is a walking dead man. What we saw was the Fed throwing money down a rat hole. It will keep Bear Stearns alive just long enough for most of the big investors to get their money out.

    So, when the rich capitalists are hurting bad suddenly it’s OK for the Federal government to get all socialist and BAIL THEM OUT.

    You people that vote Repub and are not rich – and I mean Lear jet rich not some poor slob with a McMansion and an upside down mortgage – I do not understand how you continue to support a party that bends you over and $rews you every time you turn around.

  • Beep52 and others:

    “As a part of the fallout from the failed 1993 Clinton health care plan, both Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy and the Clinton administration were looking for smaller health care initiatives that could gain bipartisan support.[9] In December 1996 First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton examined several possible such initiatives and decided expanding health care insurance to children who had none was the one to advance. (Indeed, a different variant of this approach, dubbed “Kids First”, had been envisioned as a backup plan during original 1993 Task Force on National Health Care Reform meetings, as a way of gradually implementing universal health care.[10])”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Children's_Health_Insurance_Program

  • RIP Barack Obama’s Presidential hopes.

    I didn’t realize how hateful and disgusting Rev. Wright’s comments were until I actually heard them.

    You cannot have sat through 20 years of sermons from this man, and never heard him speak like this. This man was not just some Joe Schmoe, he was a very close advisor.

    If ever there was a justification for guilt by association, this is it!

    He won’t make a very good VP now either, I hope Clinton chooses Al Gore.

  • SteveIL,

    When a study is done by a protagonist (or by a research-for-hire organization hired by a protagonist) that does not come out positive for the protagonist, it generally means the negative result can be trusted. If, for example, a study commissioned by a drug company doesn’t unequivocally show a benefit for a drug from that company, you can bank on it.

    We can, therefore, trust this report when it says “no evidence”, but we should take any positive claims with a grain of salt.

    This may be hard to understand for someone like yourself, whose intellect apparently never progressed beyond the 5th grade, but it’s a pretty well-understood principle among those with some maturity. Come to think of it, perhaps your mother could explain it to you. Good suggestion. Go ask her.

  • @7: That’s why they were investigating him in the first place. The whoring was a secondary discovery. Why it’s new news today that they’re investigating the accounting is beyond me, since that was the original reason for the investigation.

    @31: Another fair-weather friend.

    Toldja guys.

  • Open thread. Got this from Jim Webb today:

    On Saturday morning, Senator Webb will join host Scott Simon on NPR’s Weekend Edition to discuss the five year anniversary of the war in Iraq. The Senator was an early warning voice against the administration’s decision to invade Iraq, and he has repeatedly called for a robust diplomatic strategy in order to reduce the United States’ military presence in the region.

    Like many people with strong national security backgrounds, Senator Webb believed invading Iraq following 9/11 ran counter to our nation’s long-term security interests and the stability of the region. And, as he wrote in the Washington Post in 2002: “Is there an absolutely vital national interest that should lead us from containment to unilateral war and a long-term occupation of Iraq? And would such a war and its aftermath actually increase our ability to win the war against international terrorism?”

    Tune in Saturday to hear Senator Webb reflect on the past five years of the United States’ occupation of Iraq and how we should move forward.
    • Visit NPR’s “Weekend Edition Saturday” site to find airtimes or a station near you at: http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=7
    • To read Senator Webb’s 2002 Washington Post article, entitled “Heading for Trouble: Do we really want to occupy Iraq for the next 30 years?” please visit: http://webb.senate.gov/newsroom/record_article.cfm?id=294834&&
    • To read Senator Webb’s 2003 New York Times Week in Review article, entitled “The War in Iraq Turns Ugly. That’s What Wars Do,” please visit: http://webb.senate.gov/newsroom/record_article.cfm?id=294847&&

  • Greg @ 31: “You cannot have sat through 20 years of sermons from this man, and never heard him speak like this.”

    Ah, but at least it confirms he sat in a Christian church all those years!

  • After seeing the video of Barack’s minister & Barack’s response to it he is now a non-viable presidential candidate. I am to believe after 20 years of his following with this church & ministry that he happen not to attend those particular church sessions that are being viewed & even IF that were true you can’t explain away 20 years of WHATEVER that minister had been preaching. Unbelievable & very scary to vote for this man as president, Worries me to death as an American. Hope people think before they vote.

  • Charles (#33): Excuse me, but the Democrat media and every “liberal” says there were “no links”. That means none, zero, nada. The report doesn’t say “no evidence”. It does define “smoking gun” as a “direct connection”. That’s the only negative; one sentence. But criminals don’t need to be directly connected to commit their acts with someone else; one may bankroll an operation, while the other does the dirty work. Happens all the time.

    If you look at this with the two Senate reports regarding prewar intelligence and postwar evidence, the intelligence showed there were connections between Saddam and bin Laden, but the intelligence wouldn’t go so far as to say there was a formal relationship. So far, that jives with what the Pentagon report says.

    Now, the Senate postwar evidence report stated that Saddam would never provide operational or material support, which is somewhat confirmed here. However, it doesn’t go into anything about financial support, and gets its conclusions from debriefings of former Baathists, known liars. So, that can be taken with a grain of salt. The next conclusion says there was one meeting and two attempts at meetings between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda. At least here, they used documents. But this report came out over a year and a half ago; who knows how many documents were actually gone through; maybe 300,000, perhaps 400,000, and who knows how many were translated. Now there are over 600,000 that have been gone through. I would say the Senate Intelligence Committee tried to make political hay (as the Democrat media is doing now) instead of working with all the information.

    Come to think of it, perhaps your mother could explain it to you. Good suggestion. Go ask her. I would, but she passed away a few years ago. Now, if you want to actually act mature, maybe you can stop bringing up someone’s mother during an argument. See, that’s something I did learn.

  • A powerful storm hit Atlanta tonight that is suspected of having been a tornado. Reading the AP report several quotes stuck out:
    “I thought it was a tornado or a terrorist attack,” and “I thought the building was falling like a terrorist attack.”

    If this had occurred on the West Coast, people might have compared the rumbling sound and the shaking to an earthquake, something they know well and have experience with. But it’s a sign of just how screwed-up this nation’s psyche is when folks immediately start jumping to the conclusion that anytime something bad happens it’s a terrorist attack. It’s just like when a gunman goes on a rampage the first thought in everybody’s head is “It’s some Middle Eastern terrorist, right?”

    This nation needs to chill out. We’ve had as many big terrorist bombings (not counting the abortion clinics) as we’ve had scares about large spacecraft falling out of the sky and landing on our heads, yet if something hits a building it’s got to be terrorists. When acts of God get regularly compared to acts of people who worship another God, we’ve got problems.

  • SteveIL,

    I was going to read up on the Pentagon report until I read your last post (#39). Basically, your whole argument rests on information that was reported in the news even before the war. That is, Saddam’s reps met with Al Qaeda reps over ten years ago. As reported then and as you repeat now, no evidence of any cooperation in any manner resulted from those meetings. The rest of your argument is basically a variation of the illogical “lack of evidence to support argument X only indicates undiscovered evidence to support argument X.”

    First, you agree there’s no direct connection but that there could be indirect connections. Sure, but there’s no evidence of that either. You seem to suggest that all the intel agencies would neglect to mention evidence of such indirect connections because they wouldn’t be classified under the smoking gun category, and dang, nobody thought to include a nonsmoking gun section in the report.

    Then you argue that since all Baathists are known liars, except apparently to the intel people who ate it all up, this suggests there must be financial support. Because as everyone knows, the only way to investigate Saddam’s financial dealings is interviewing those lying Baathists.

    Looks like this Pentagon report just re-affirms earlier reports. Sorry, but your argument is based more on your imagination than the strength of the actual evidence.

    And of course, the Bush admin tried to bury this report. I think that pretty much clarifies the Saddam-Al Qaeda link.

  • Actually, Saddam’s reps’ “reps” (read: glory-seeking ‘bots of a henchman’s underlings) reported about a particular “group” (read: one of fourteen gangs of penny-ante thugs calling themselves “Army of Muhammad” at the time) that unilaterally aligned themselves with bin Laden. That makes about as much sense as my seeing my next-door neighbor at a car-lot, looking in the window at a used Jeep, being a major stockholder in Chrysler.

    SteveIL—go back to triangulating school and learn how to do your spoofy scary-thing routine with some better depth.
    And while you’re at it, try studying up on the folks who wrote that ABC “paper.” They’re a bunch of private think-tank hacks—and are in no way a part of DoD. They get paid to “game out” given scenariae in a given theater with predetermined factors, provided by the Bu$h administration. Welch (USAF, ret.) being their president is a dead giveaway on that one….

  • in other news:

    China sets deadline for Tibet rioters to surrender

    An announcement on Tibet television urged residents to denounce the “malicious intent” of the Dalai Lama, “protect national sovereignty” and “reject lawless monks and nuns.”

    those damn terrorist buddhist monks, trying to reclaim what is no longer theirs. once bush/cheney are finished with amerika, china can contract them to take care of their ‘tibetan problem’.

  • Ah. So if it says something that would be bad for President Bush, it’s the truth; if it in any way might be something that is in the President’s favor, it’s a lie. I get it. Well, who can argue with logic like that?

    Yes, SteveIL, that report so vindicated the administration’s position that the administration decided to cancel the press conference announcing it and have a web release instead, and then decided to cancel the web release and mail it out only to those people who asked for copies.

    WTF? The news is so good for them, they just want to keep it all for themselves?

  • Foxxy from Indiana @ 38. Yeah, when you hear those kind of things coming from a black preacher, as opposed to, say Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, it sure is scary.

  • This is their usual fear game, folks, and we have to be able to see this for what it really is– they’re trying to get (white) people to FEAR BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA and to paint both Obamas as secret America-haters based on a few selected controversial quotes by SOMEONE ELSE.

    Wright is being used by the Right to instruct white Americans that Obama is a SCARY BLACK MAN and that they are justified in distrusting him, even hating him because he has a SECRET BLACK AGENDA that he will unleash on all white people if he gets into the White House. What is truly instructive is that the people who can’t stop talking about this are Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and all of the other Democrat-hating talking heads.

    If we can’t see through this for what it really is, especially after Obama has clearly denounced/repudiated what Wright said, then we don’t even deserve to be in the game.

    I’ll say one thing for McCain at this time– he’s not jumping on board with this attack. It might have something to do with him having his own controversial preacher problems. As long as HIllary stays away from this it will fade into oblivion.

  • Also, Wright has NOTHING on the insanity that folks like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have been spewing on TV for the past 30+ years.

    Once again, we are reminded why religion and politics really don’t mix.

  • “Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It’s no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history.”

    –Pat Robertson

  • DaveC (#41): First, you agree there’s no direct connection but that there could be indirect connections. Sure, but there’s no evidence of that either. Yes, there is. It either is information that was not available to the Senate in 2006 when they issued the postwar evidence report, or the evidence was and the Senate ignored it, at least certain members anyway.

    And of course, the Bush admin tried to bury this report. I think that pretty much clarifies the Saddam-Al Qaeda link. Actually, the Pentagon buried this report, but nobody knows exactly who wanted it buried. Many say the Bush administration because the Pentagon reports to the White House. When one reads it, however, it doesn’t make sense for the Bush administration to do this, which would leave somebody else. Considering Congress has plenty of say in the doings of all Executive Departments and agencies, it would seem likely that somebody high-up in Congress would have wanted it buried. I gather that to be either one or more of the following: Obama, Pelosi, Hoyer, Skelton, Reyes, Conyers, Murtha, Reid, Durbin, Leahy, or Levin (yes, I left Clinton off on purpose), and/or possibly others. How about that?

  • Steve (#42): Actually, Saddam’s reps’ “reps” (read: glory-seeking ‘bots of a henchman’s underlings) reported about a particular “group” (read: one of fourteen gangs of penny-ante thugs calling themselves “Army of Muhammad” at the time) that unilaterally aligned themselves with bin Laden. That makes about as much sense as my seeing my next-door neighbor at a car-lot, looking in the window at a used Jeep, being a major stockholder in Chrysler. Look, I realize understanding organized crime and terror groups is beyond the capabilities of those who call themselves “liberals”, so I won’t even bother distinguishing that with anything further.

    In addition, the other part of that comment is the same load of crap that “liberals” use for everything; except when that argument is reversed on them (and it can), the “liberals” dismiss it out of hand. Therefore, your argument is hereby dismissed as pointless.

  • Back to DaveC (#41): Then you argue that since all Baathists are known liars, except apparently to the intel people who ate it all up, this suggests there must be financial support.

    I don’t only think that the Baathist leaders interviewed by our intel people are known liars. They had 12 years to get Iraq and the Iraqi people out of the grip of Saddam Hussein and his rotten family, and didn’t, mostly because they were complicit in wrecking Iraq. That makes them cowards, yellow through and through. And I wouldn’t doubt that these cowards would say anything to save their own worthless hides. For our intel people, and those in the Senate who made comments on those debriefings, to remotely consider what these cowards had to say, and believe it to be in any way legitimate, is ridiculous.

  • And, for unintentional humor in blog comments, I give you:

    1. “the Pentagon buried this report, but nobody knows exactly who wanted it buried”

    — that is, nobody with an IQ in single digits.

    2. “Considering Congress has plenty of say in the doings of all Executive Departments and agencies”

    — yes, that must be why all those subpoenas are flying.

    3. “when that argument is reversed on them (and it can)”

    — As Stephen Colbert has shown, spectacularly bad grammar can be funny, especially since there’s no clue that the person who wrote those words has even the faintest understanding of the argument.

    4. And finally, apparently to nail down the assertion that the report is ironclad, “to remotely consider what these cowards had to say, and believe it to be in any way legitimate, is ridiculous.”

    — Umm, doesn’t that, like kind of … undercut your argument, since the basis of the report was largely taken from interviews with the people you just dissed?

    And now, back to SteveIL, for more humor. Open thread, indeed.

  • Charles (#52): I’m glad to keep you humored. Allow me to continue. And I’ll start with this humorous statement from you:

    4. And finally, apparently to nail down the assertion that the report is ironclad, “to remotely consider what these cowards had to say, and believe it to be in any way legitimate, is ridiculous.”

    – Umm, doesn’t that, like kind of … undercut your argument, since the basis of the report was largely taken from interviews with the people you just dissed?

    Tearing you guys apart is so easy. Here’s what I actually said, to provide, you know, context:

    For our intel people, and those in the Senate who made comments on those debriefings, to remotely consider what these cowards had to say, and believe it to be in any way legitimate, is ridiculous.

    Now, this relates to the second Senate report that came out in 2006, not the one released this week. The data used for the IDA report wasn’t taken from those debriefings, but captured Iraqi documentation from the 12 to 13 years prior to the invasion. That isn’t the same using data from captured cowards eager to save their own skins, now is it? Therefore, I didn’t undercut my own arguments.

    Ball’s in your court Charles. Have at it. Make me laugh some more.

  • SteveIL,

    From the IDA paper: “interviewing captured prisoners, and reviewing translations of enemy documents and media archives”

    It’s understandable you’d miss that, though. It wasn’t buried on page 54, it was in the first paragraph of the Forward, page v.

    Yes, it’s laughable when you ask everybody if they’ve read the document, yet claim something contradicted at the very beginning of the document.

  • SteveIL,

    Good night! Seriously?!

    First, you agree there’s no direct connection but that there could be indirect connections. Sure, but there’s no evidence of that either.

    Yes, there is. It either is information that was not available to the Senate in 2006 when they issued the postwar evidence report, or the evidence was and the Senate ignored it, at least certain members anyway.

    So where’s this evidence then? If not available for the Senate report, then why isn’t it in this Pentagon report. As for certain Senators ignoring it, you do remember Republicans were still in control during the Senate reports, yes? So if you’re implying the Democratic Senators ignored such evidence, are you also suggesting the Republican Senators (most of whom also perpetuated the Al Qaeda angle) just decided to go along?

    And of course, the Bush admin tried to bury this report. I think that pretty much clarifies the Saddam-Al Qaeda link.

    Actually, the Pentagon buried this report, but nobody knows exactly who wanted it buried. Many say the Bush administration because the Pentagon reports to the White House. When one reads it, however, it doesn’t make sense for the Bush administration to do this, which would leave somebody else. Considering Congress has plenty of say in the doings of all Executive Departments and agencies, it would seem likely that somebody high-up in Congress would have wanted it buried. I gather that to be either one or more of the following: Obama, Pelosi, Hoyer, Skelton, Reyes, Conyers, Murtha, Reid, Durbin, Leahy, or Levin (yes, I left Clinton off on purpose), and/or possibly others. How about that?

    Come on! Fine, I’ll humor you. So say some powerful Democrat ordered the Pentagon to suppress the report. And what? The White House decided to keep quiet? Dick Cheney lost his nerve? Because we all know this White House is, if anything, consistently cowed by all those powerful Democrats, right?

    Then you argue that since all Baathists are known liars, except apparently to the intel people who ate it all up, this suggests there must be financial support.

    I don’t only think that the Baathist leaders interviewed by our intel people are known liars. They had 12 years to get Iraq and the Iraqi people out of the grip of Saddam Hussein and his rotten family, and didn’t, mostly because they were complicit in wrecking Iraq. That makes them cowards, yellow through and through. And I wouldn’t doubt that these cowards would say anything to save their own worthless hides. For our intel people, and those in the Senate who made comments on those debriefings, to remotely consider what these cowards had to say, and believe it to be in any way legitimate, is ridiculous.

    Hm, a little irony impairment. I’m sure they were interested in self-preservation, but why you seem to think only lying guarantees them that is a bit of a mystery. A big part of good intel work is getting your sources to cooperate, to tell the truth instead of lying. You’ve mocked other commentators by saying they don’t get how the mob works. Well, you do realize a lot of mob prosecutions were successful because the cops/prosecutors were able to get some mobsters to turn against each other? To make a general statement that all Baathists are liars and would never cooperate with our intel people, that’s ridiculous.

  • Comments are closed.