Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

http://www.wonkette.com/images/neith...nor%20left.jpg

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2004-07/13588742.jpg

eta Slave's picture as well

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

Just to keep it lively:

--------------------------------

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX TUE OCT 26 2004 11:02:38 ET XXXXX

60 MINS PLANNED BUSH MISSING EXPLOSIVES STORY FOR ELECTION EVE

News of missing explosives in Iraq -- first reported in April 2003 -- was being resurrected for a 60 MINUTES election eve broadcast designed to knock the Bush administration into a crises mode.

Jeff Fager, executive producer of the Sunday edition of 60 MINUTES, said in a statement that "our plan was to run the story on October 31, but it became clear that it wouldn't hold..."

Elizabeth Jensen at the LOS ANGELES TIMES details on Tuesday how CBS NEWS and 60 MINUTES lost the story [which repackaged previously reported information on a large cache of explosives missing in Iraq, first published and broadcast in 2003].

The story instead debuted in the NYT. The paper slugged the story about missing explosives from April 2003 as "exclusive."

An NBCNEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq.

According to NBCNEWS, the explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived.

It is not clear who exactly shopped an election eve repackaging of the missing explosives story.

The LA TIMES claims: The source on the story first went to 60 MINUTES but also expressed interest in working with the NY TIMES... "The tip was received last Wednesday."

CBSNEWS' plan to unleash the story just 24 hours before election day had one senior Bush official outraged.

"Darn, I wanted to see the forged documents to show how this was somehow covered up," the Bush source, who asked not to be named, mocked, recalling last months CBS airing of fraudulent Bush national guard letters.

Developing...

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

We're just holding ourselves to the lofty standards set by the National Review:

Not Okay
Posted by James Wolcott
"John Kerry is a sphincter. Okay, that's a bit juvenile."
--Jonah Goldberg, NRO.


"I suppose in John Kerry's world good diplomacy lets the boys in the bar finish raping the girl for fear of causing a fuss. Okay, that was unfair."
--Jonah Goldberg, NRO.

This slimeball rhetorical device should become known as the Jonah Goldberg Limited Takeback, in which you assert something vulgar and provocative, then acknowledge you stepped over the line without withdrawing the original slur. Sort of like spitting at someone, then saying, "Gee, I guess my saliva went a little too far."

Someday I hope to visit the ruins of William Buckley and ask him how it came to this at National Review, from Evelyn Waugh, Joan Didion, and Arlene Croce to Jonah Goldberg wallowing in himself.

http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2004/10/index.php

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

If you read Wolcott regularly, you might see the irony in quoting from his complaints about slurring.

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

Fun, fun.

Meantime, 2 to what Ty said. It sounds like we're still sorting out BC'04's Monday strategy of "it was gone when we got there."

I understand that this is now part of GOP Lore, what with IAEA deciding to piss away its credibility by telling brazen lies to fuck with the Administration, but if someone could post links to "news sources" that explains why they would do this, that would be great.

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

Ah. Bush lied.

If this grows as another "CBS lied to take down Bush, and NYT helped" story, stick a fork in Kerry.

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

But this is what the producer who was there said.

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

I want to counter with a silly photo of Kerry arriving at the Democratic Convention by Boat, but my google-fu is apparently weak today.

So I leave with you instead with this photo op:

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2004-07/13588742.jpg

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

Aren't you one of the cheerleaders for Jon "You are a Dick" Stewart?

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

FWIW, this just as easily could have been written by Dowd, Krugman, Atrios or Dan Rather.

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

At least his slurs are clever:

"Ann Coulter may be a travesty of humanity, as unacceptable a hank of flesh draped on a hanger ever to be foisted upon an ignorant populace hungry for more ignorance."

". . . Pat Buchanan flapping his musty batwings . . ."

"Is there a household use for George Stephanopoulos? Tidy and portable, he might make a handy kitchen appliance, a bottle-opener, say, or a brush-mop."

"Fineman will never obtain a lasting clue about anything. His translucent shell of professional narcissism is impregnable. "


Style counts in the land of punditry.

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

How can you not find 380 tons? How can someone steal 380 tons? Seriously, no bone to pick, but you'd have to have one big fucking convoy to transport 380 tons, wouldn't you? How would that not be noticed, especially in the first weeks after we went in. How would that not be seen as military movement? Do you guys ever even think about reality? If you can create some imagined affront from Bush, does it slow you down at all if it is impossible that it be true? RT, can you ask Oscar how much a truck can carry?

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

No, goddammit.

I show up today, and what I read on this board is:

* NRO says IAEA lied for the purpose of fucking with Bush
* El Baradei failed the Global Test
* You fucking Dems! Running with a false story to concoct an October Surprise!

I ask for a "cite please" when you tell us to "read some news sources" and your response is "Bush Lied?"

Perhaps if I rephrase my request to remove all skepticism it'll work better. How about:

"bilmore, I understand that you've read somewhere that the IAEA is comprised of a bunch of damned Kerry sycophants and that they lied through their fucking teeth to stick it to Bush. Fantastic! I'm inclined to agree. Do we have any other sources that demonstrate why this is so?"

If I couple this with some appropriate genuflections, perhaps you won't reach the immediate conclusion that I'm that street protester last week who was screaming at you when you exited the Starbucks.

Maybe.

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

No argument. I read him every day. But, for him to complain that mild-mannered Jonah is uncivil is funneee.

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

Dan Rather? His columns are calculated tedium, a weekly News of the Blah. I don't even know why he bothers with a column.

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

Alot of us haven't read the column. Could you put it in terms we can understand? From your description it sounds like the column is equivalent to Taxwonk posts. Is that fair?

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

Listen, you motherfucking jackass. I don't recall being a big cheerleader for this, but I did enjoy it. Though it may not have been civil, that was probably the most insightful exchange on Crossfire since the Kinsley/Buchanon era. I think it is telling that you hold the conservative standard bearer to the same standards as a basic cable comedian.

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

More feel-good, though if you eliminate the tw/fringey exchanges, it's a little closer.

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

A. I don't go to Starbucks. I buy my coffee direct from poor Columbian farmers. "Fair trade", and all that, you know.

B. Let me sum up, for context. (Maybe this all just makes me too mad. Well, okay, not "maybe".)

Old story about missing material. NYT, one of many "news" outlets which have expended way too much of their credibility capital actively pushing the Democrat viewpoint to risk a Bush win, trumpets this "Bush failed!" story six days pre-election, knowing that the critical "undecided" voter is, basically, a moron who will vote based on the last bad thing heard about a candidate. They do it without research. CBS is trying to do the same thing, but wants it done on election eve. They're not even bothering to try and hide their whoredom at this point - polls aren't looking good for Kerry, and they'll do anything.

But, wait, says NBC, we were there, and the stuff was gone. Then, The Corner posts an e-mail they say is from a government employee (unsourced, I know, but they've been fairly good in the past about integrity of sources) giving the IAEA explanation.

Now, all of the lefty blogdom is saying, we need to wait until this new allegation is proved. Integrity and all that.

Gee, why would they say that? Maybe they would like to see it remain "unproven" until next Wednesday? Ya think?

So, cites on the IAEA explanation? None yet. But that didn't seem to inhibit the NYT, or CBS, right? They felt just fine running the "Bush fucked up!" story right away.

Rather wasn't the exception.

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

It was a really, really big facility. And you're right about the convoy (I heard or read somewhere that it would have taken something like a 40 truck convoy about a week running 24 hours a day). It would have been noticed leaving the compound before the war certainly, and during (formal) hostilities most probably. After the mission was declared accomplished, it looks like we weren't looking at the facility at all, except as a rest break on the way to Baghdad.

We know the explosives were there before the war started, and we know that the explosives are missing now, so they would have been removed sometime between then and now. Before and during the war, we were monitoring (and bombing) the facility and afterwards we ignored it. So when are the explosives most likely to have disappeared?

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

I thought all their credibility was expended buying the admin line prior to the war.

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

So far, best guess is after the inspectors pulled out, and then we spent months trying to talk France into helping us before we went in.

Global tests aren't cheap.

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

We completely dominated their airspace and were intensely scrutinizing the country via satellite (remember those cool photos Powell showed to the UN?). We would have seen them trying to move this material. Unless they hid it on one of those stealth mobile WMD trucks that are so cleverly disguised that we still haven't been able to find one.

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

This is the issue that I was responding to. The allegation is absurd, and that's all I was trying to say, in a reasoned manner. I find the reasoning of those who think otherwise remarkable, to say the least.

I have no idea exactly when the 350 tons of explosves disappeared. I'm sure the IAEA report has nothing to say about that either. The IAEA can only say "sometime after our last visit", and the Iraqi government apparently said that the explosives were lost due to the chaos of the invasion and its aftermath.

That may or may not be true -- but its the Iraqi government what said whatever was said. You liked them well enough when Allawi was over here thanking us. What's the beef now?

Hank's initial approach was the best, and most honest: "Mistakes happen. But look at all the explosives we have secured or destroyed." Does anyone here really think that weapons and explosives from Iraqi military stores have NOT been used against our troops? Does anyone here want to argue that the U.S. DID secure all the WMD and important weapons dumps in the month after we invaded and that there has been no theft or looting since?

S_A_M

P.S. I was going back after lunch to edit out my incivilities, when I found that the thread had changed. To Hello: You have no idea how much I usually edit my posts before I post them. To Bilmore: My beef is that I don't think the folks you're quoting care what "the real news" might be -- and are just saying: "Lie, lie, lie" to attempt to drown out any tactical advantage Kerry might get from this story. I am also offended (as I have been in the past) by the repeated slurs against the IAEA for (as near as I can tell) the sin of not reading from the GOP playbook.

I repeat, let's see what the Iraqis and the Admin have to say, on the record. Oh, wait, there is not time for that! Well, just keep yelling, then.

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

but SS, a convoy of that many trucks running that much time, and the military doesn't notice after we take over? Do you think we're not doing surveillance now? Part of Powell's pitch was that things were being moved, we had photos of convoys moving things.

And while I accept the insurgancy is large and built into the countryside, you think they have that many trucks? For this theory to be true, the military- not Bush et al- would have to be as adept as the Germans at Stalag 13.

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

You are persuading me that the instant mythmaking is more important to you than gettting to the bottom of what different Pentagon officials are telling the press.

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

You have just laid out the NYT's Board Motto.

Because, six days before the election, they know it's true.

I would have no quibble with a "let's take a reasoned approach to this" outlook had the NYT, CBS, ABC, Kerry, et all, not tried to score so many points with this tripe yesterday. Just don't tell me that you get to make the initial scream, garner the idiot votes from it, and then benefit from a measured examination of what was said right before we vote.

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

By the powers invested in me by Slave, leagl, RT, MR, and the Commonwealth of Virginia, and as constrained by the United States Constitution, the World Trade Organization, and the United Nations, I hereby declare in all moderation that the phrase "motherfucking jackass" shall henceforth be a jocular term of affection on this board. That is all.

looks like its a bad week for kerry to give up sniffing glue
 

http://www.clubforgrowth.net/

watch it.......

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

I keep reading your posts, and not responding, mostly out of confusion over where you're drawing the link between what El Baradei reported, and pronouncements by the Iraqis. Are you saying he's just someone's conduit?

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

Hungover?

I enjoyed it too, but probably for different reasons than you.

Insightful? No. Noteworthy? Yes, I'll grant you that.

Stewart ceased becoming a mere comedian when (1) upon learning that 25% of our misinformed youth use his show as their primary news source, he (2) decided to use it as a bully pulpit.

That being said, I thought he was an arrogant dick when I met him back in '96, so my opinion hasn't changing much.

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

So it's down to codpiece vs. condom?

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

If you are going to pretend that all of the major media are house organs of the Democratic Party, there's really no point in conversing at all. We could just go to our respective branches and grunt at each other. I see that you've omitted NBC from your list of sinners, presumably because they've run with the story you like this time. Meanwhile, the NYT ran Judith Miller stories about WMD for months which swallowed govt leaks hook, line and sinker, and yet they're going to Hell.

Kerry picked up on news headlines that fit his campaign message. Big surprise. I cannot believe that you think Kerry should be giving a "let's take a reasoned approach to this," whatever the hell that means, one week before an election. (If he did, you would be calling him nuanced and French and unfit to lead.) Since Bush's campaign is increasingly based on lying about Kerry's position (see, e.g., Kerry's plan for a government takeover of health care, and his willingness to let the UN veto our foreign policy), we can all agree that you are not exactly articulating a neutral code of behavior that you think all candidates should abide by.

The real question is what to make of the various stories about the missing explosives. I asked you, several posts ago, what was wrong or missing from Marshall's account. You have yet to respond. I do not understand why you think the NYT story is an old one, since you are also complaining that they just scooped CBS, and since it appears the White House did not know about all this until recently. I also do not understand why you think the NBC trumps what (e.g.) the NYT and AP have reported.

eta:

Since I don't have time to read all the coverage, here's what Sullivan says:

• Many of you have demanded I retract my criticisms of the Bush administration's handling of the explosives cache at al Qa Qaaa. If the facts really do emerge that these materials were removed before or during the invasion, I will. But the evidence is far murkier than that and points predominantly in the direction of U.S. negligence. Marshall has the best summary. Two things stand out for me: David Kay believes the stuff was looted after the invasion; no news crew, like NBC's, would have had the capacity to check the inventory of a plant hundreds of buildings big. But if the facts change, I'll respond.

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

Board Motto!

(Between now and Election Day)

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

I love Stewart. You won't find a bigger fan of the way he smears the dishonesty of both parties. But his bit on Crossfire was preachy and annoying. Carlson and Begala are morons hired to spit the views of morons at one another. They're composites of all the worst stereotypes of rabid Republicans and Dems. Yelling at them for being what they're paid to be is silly. Stewart wasted his breath. He should stick to just showing the lies from both sides of the aisles. Thats miles more effective and memorable than preaching.

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

Gee Ty, you sure are one motherfucking jackass.

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

Because he's been senile since 1998.

"This election is hotter than a wet platypus in the Waco sun, people."

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

She wasn't going to fuck you anyway.

Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways
 

I posted them yesterday.

Meaningless predictors
 

Amazingly, it looks like the Dallas Morning News editorial staff is going to have to root for the Redskins over the Packers on Halloween. Green Bay had a rough start, but it looks like they're coming together now. Washington hasn't exactly been a powerhouse this year though.

The good news for Bush, though, is that the Weekly Reader poll results are in, and they've never been wrong. "Since 1956, Weekly Reader students in grades 1-12 have correctly picked the president, making the Weekly Reader poll one of the most accurate predictors of presidential outcomes in history."