LawTalkers - Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=681)

Quote:

Replaced_Texan
Well, Plame did turn out to work for the CIA....

The position of the NYT editorial page was that no law was broken.

Who's to argue with the NYT Editorial Page?

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The position of the NYT editorial page was that no law was broken.

Who's to argue with the NYT Editorial Page?

Careful what you wish for. They're protecting your G. Gordon Liddy.

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Current headline on Drudge is:

BUSH GETS TWO: REPORT: REHNQUIST RETIRES; TO BE ANNOUNCED TONIGHT

Touché.

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Current headline on Drudge is:

BUSH GETS TWO: REPORT: REHNQUIST RETIRES; TO BE ANNOUNCED TONIGHT

Marty Lederman at the SCOTUS Nomination blog is saying that he's NOT retiring today, despite Drudge.

Also, Stevens has hired his clerks for next year, so it doesn't look like he's going anywhere either.

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Marty Lederman at the SCOTUS Nomination blog is saying that he's NOT retiring today, despite Drudge.

Also, Stevens has hired his clerks for next year, so it doesn't look like he's going anywhere either.

If you read further down, you can get the link to tehe story of how alex kozinski was hired by Douglas the day before he retired. So don't bother reading those tea leaves.

Has drudge done anything journalistically since Lewinski? All he's doing today is repeating Novak's assertion. No independent sourcing.

Quote:

Replaced_Texan
Marty Lederman at the SCOTUS Nomination blog is saying that he's NOT retiring today, despite Drudge.

They appreared to modify their headline as a hedge against a Monday announcement.

Which would give the White House 48 hours to put the O'Connor replacement in play.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Touché.

I think he's just channeling Novak.

(STP)

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
They appreared to modify their headline as a hedge against a Monday announcement.

apparently Air Force 1 is, late though, since the story of an announcement upon landing at 4:50p is still "developing".

Drudge changes stuff to drive page hits. He's got to keep the advertisers happy.

It's over. Bush has two. We win!

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
It's over. Bush has two. We win!

Hold on there, bubbaloey. I'm pushing for three.

Food for thought:

PBS's take on the London bombings:

"A new wave of bombings across London this week has some asking new questions about those detained in the war on terror. NOW takes a look at the latest on the controversy surrounding the government’s hard line on the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Amnesty International has called the camp “the gulag of our times,” and a growing number of critics – including some key conservatives -- say the detention of more than 500 terror suspects there may be doing America more harm than good. "

Right. Koran abuse. And we finance this crap.

Quote:

bilmore
Hold on there, bubbaloey. I'm pushing for three.

Why limit to 3.

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Food for thought:

PBS's take on the London bombings:

"A new wave of bombings across London this week has some asking new questions about those detained in the war on terror. NOW takes a look at the latest on the controversy surrounding the government’s hard line on the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Amnesty International has called the camp “the gulag of our times,” and a growing number of critics – including some key conservatives -- say the detention of more than 500 terror suspects there may be doing America more harm than good. "

Right. Koran abuse. And we finance this crap.

Maybe someone found out about my Koran toilet paper.

Have I mentioned lately how much I love reading Lileks:

Quote:

Some believe that the bombings in London, like the ones in Madrid, can be blamed on Bush and Blair for the Iraq campaign. It’s always interesting to see how people who pride themselves on sophisticated analyses and exquisitely tuned cultural sensibilities cannot see the plain home truths. The foe sneers: you are infidels; you die now. The moderns pull a face, steeple their fingers, and wonder what they really mean. Surely this is a result of invading Iraq and forcing them to have elections. Surely one of the bombers was an ordinary Iraqi who lived a peaceable life – well, aside from the time that Qusay’s men came by, took his daughter, returned her the next day as a broken heap who died from a vaginal hemorrage, and aside from the time when his brother was thrown off a roof because someone said he had turned his portrait of Saddam to the wall - surely it was the invasion that made this ordinary man take the understandable step of moving to London to kill commuters.

I know the 90s don’t matter at all; I know that nothing we believed in the 90s has any relevance, but you might want to heed a fellow named Osama who declared war on the West, and cited the sanctions against Iraq as one of his causus belli. Let us assume then that the Iraq campaign had never taken place. By now either the sanctions that so inflamed Osama’s sensibilities would still be in place, or they would have been removed due to international pressure. Saddam would still be in power, free to spend the Oil-for-Food money as he pleased, lavishing stipends on Palestinian suicide bombers, building up his own weapons programs without fear of international interference, having weekly meetings with Zarkawi. (Who would have been something other than a terrorist, of course. A chiropractor, perhaps. Or a botanist.) The situation in Lebanon would be unchanged; Libya would be happily pursuing its own agenda. And we would be safer?

Yes! Because the Arab world would not be enraged by our removal of Saddam and imposition of representational government, and we could get back to the real work of combating terrorism by addressing the root causes. You know, tyranny and lack of representational government. But this assumes that Newsweek et al wouldn’t have run with the Gitmo detainee stories. This assumes that Osama would be mollified by the lifting of the sanctions, an assumption so naive it makes the statue in the Lincoln Memorial weep on your behalf. This assumes that the London bombers’ mention of Afghanistan was just a rhetorical device, and they really have no fellow-feeling for the Taliban and their recent troubles. This assumes that all that stuff about the tragedy of Andalusia was just boilerplate, and they really aren’t animated by the loss of Muslim Spain.

One of the curious facts about the enemy: they may time their bombings down to the second, but their clocks count off the centuries.

They did not bomb London because there is insufficient transparency in Congress about the Gitmo detainees; they bombed London because it is part of the Zionist-Crusader Conspiracy run by the sons of monkeys and pigs, who must submit or die.

Any questions?