Thursday, March 02, 2006

"Bush is Woodward's source."

* "President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld and others continued to describe the insurgency as a containable threat, posed mainly by former supporters of Saddam Hussein, criminals and non-Iraqi terrorists - even as the U.S. intelligence community was warning otherwise." (link)

* damien and miguel continue their 911 discussion over here - with miguel's appropriate caution and damien's intricate knowledge dueling it out.

* i havent been keeping up with all the diebold stuff. but brad has.

* the bad news is that tradesports has repugs and dems even in the 2008 election. for the 2006 elections, they have GOP keeping control of senate at 85%, and control of the house at 72%. jeebus.

* a commentor over at emptywheel's says: "Bush is Woodward's source. Here's what happened. During the last week of October, 2005, Rove, in his last-minute attempt to avoid being indicted, ratted out Bush for leaking to Woodward. On the morning of October 28th, before handing down the Libby indictment, Fitzgerald went to Bush's lawyer and told him that Bush would have to come clean. By Nov. 3, 2005, Bush had confirmed the story and Fitzgerald contacted Woodward."
that seems to make sense - although larisa says it was hadley

* i just heard the most extraordinary thing on lehrer. they are doing a piece on Darwin, and they interviewed some guy, and they introduced him saying "... an evolutionary theorist himself..." fukking hell.

* earlier i pointed to abu gonzales' 'clarification' letter where he 'clarified' that he actually had been lying to congress about the fact that he was only talking about one particular spying program, as i'd repeattedly suggested. the other 'clarification' that abu gonzales made in the letter was that the AUMF 'justification' was a recent (2004), ex-poste, add-on justification (aka nonsense). as you'll remember, they tried to make two arguments, one is that the spying was legal under Article 2 of the constitution. We can therefore presume that they realised that the Article 2 claim was nonsense, otherwise they wouldnt have gone frantically looking for the other justification, which kinda kakes the AUMF argument look silly - even through their own screwed up logic. prior to the hearings, glenn was looking for ideas to flush out the inevitable bamboozapalooza, and i added a comment over at his place that was kinda designed to flush this nonsense out.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

re lehrer: ....and they interviewed some guy, and they introduced him saying "... an evolutionary theorist himself"

And the guy should have replied: "But mostly I'm a Copernican with a side interest in water-flowing-downhill."

Anonymous said...

lol - most funny by both of you.

oldshcool, i'm a little confused about the womb analogy. it seems more like the reverse of one of those siamese-twin-separation operations, you take an ordinary plain-speaking post-birth statute and then graft on different talking heads who say what you want them to say... (it sounds a bit like Fox News) (ed: i've just had a call from FrankLuntz, he begged me not to use the word 'graft')