* ron takes on A-list bloggers - again. this time because people have lined in support of HeckuvaJob after his performance in front of coleman in the Katrina hearings this week (link)
* there's a guest-post by Thumb over at Digby's place. i suggest you expel any liquids in your mouth and then go read it.
* go read porter goss' absurd piece again. it's really quite remarkable
* " Dems gave up on being advocates for law enforcement when they voted with the Republicans, for the authorization of "all necessary and appropriate force", rather than for "all necessary and appropriate investigation"." (link)
indeed. i can't stand it when dems say 'i supported the afghan war, but not the iraq war' as if they need to prove that they aren't scared to go to war.
* btw - the other day Blinky said "September 11th" - you probably aren't surprised by that, but what he normally says is "September 11th, 2001" - the "2001" part is obviously in the Luntz style-manual - but i havent got a clue why. any thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
September 11th happened over four years ago. Maybe it's better not to underline the fact that it's been safe for long - after all, you cant defend wiretaps etc. with ancient history.
hiya teemu - thanks for dropping by.
you are right - it makes sense to drop "2001" but my guess is that we'll still keep hearing the '2001' thing.
my question wasnt so much about why he dropped "2001" in this particular example - but rather why they insist on saying "2001" at all. the rest of us simply say '911' but for some reason, the whitehouse speechwriters *insist* (and always have) on including "2001" - and we know they choose their words very carefully - there's (presumably) some reason for it... i just dont know what it is.
Post a Comment