So what's the deal? It must be pretty obvious to everyone that there's more going on here than the administration is fessing up to. Since there was no apparent reason to bypass the law, there must be an unapparent one. But what?" (link)
everyone is asking the 'but what?' question. (laura, for example)
* driftglass has a 2 part SundayMorningComedown. woohoo. here's the first. and in the second he says david brooks is "Like a factory foie gras duck, you’re professional nutrients are all pumped into you via that wingnut dick in your mouth"
* someone (howard ullman? (ph)) was on the beeb - again talking about "The I Word". the president is toast. long toast the president.
* yesterday i wondered how much time the egadmin had to prepare for the nyt's spying story. it seems that they knew at least a few weeks in advance:
snoopgate: "
on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting, but one can only imagine the president’s desperation."Bush himself was involved(!) by Dec 6 - so the administration must have known for weeks in advance. the interesting thing is that their response was so appalling - even though they had weeks to prepare. i guess they are all worried about being indicted on other charges...
No comments:
Post a Comment