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.