Monday, June 05, 2006

i hate the AP.

* i dont normally point to stupid things and say "this is really funny - ya gotta watch it" - so i'll just note that driftglass pointed to this

* chris floyd was banned at kos. his repsonse is here

* wapo has the 'official back story' to the iran discussions. it doesnt read as badly as sanger's piece in the nyt. this is cute: "Bush made it clear he did not want the United States to be seen as weak in making this move, officials added."

* americablog:
"AP spinning for GOP?
What other conclusion could be drawn from this headline: "Prospective Democratic Chairs All Liberal"? Here we go. Scare tactics with the L-word. Straight from the mouths of the GOP."
say it with me. i hate the AP.

16 comments:

Don said...

* i dont normally point to stupid things and say "this is really funny - ya gotta watch it" - so i'll just note that driftglass pointed to this

"In further developments in the CA-50 race on Tuesday, the Bilbray campaign continues to deteriorate..."

Don said...

* wapo has the 'official back story' to the iran discussions. it doesnt read as badly as sanger's piece in the nyt. this is cute: "Bush made it clear he did not want the United States to be seen as weak in making this move, officials added."

Stupid or myopic, he can apparently handle, but not weak.

Other interesting quotes (emphases mine):

Though Bush administration officials had publicly always dismissed that possibility, officials at the highest levels -- including Cheney, frequently but inaccurately portrayed as an adamant foe of joining the talks -- realized that soon the administration would be forced to grapple with the question...

So the administration had to be dragged kicking and screaming in to it. Noting a Cheney exception is odd though, especially in the wording. Strangely it seems to mirror a later paragraph:

Officials said there was essentially no dissent among Bush's top advisers on joining the talks. The Pentagon raised no objections, and the only cautionary tone came from Cheney, who said that the shift should not lead the administration down a "slippery slope"...

Hmmm....

During the week of May 13, under strict secrecy, Rice assembled a small group of her closest aides to figure out how to structure and package the announcement. The group included Burns... Joseph... Zelikow... Wilkinson... Gunderson and spokesman Sean McCormack. They were told to inform none of their aides and make no photocopies of documents. Meetings of the group in Rice's office were obscured on Rice's calendar by listing it under "security issues."

Look, ma, no leaks! Hey, where'd this WaPo story come from...?

Nice to see the usual suspects get a shout-out, though...

And my favorite part:

On Tuesday, the day before the announcement, Rice let U.N. Ambassador John R. Bolton -- long a skeptic about dealing with Iran -- in on the secret. Bolton... was asked to call conservative commentators the next day to explain the decision.

Hey, Bolton, suck it!

I think I'm starting to like Linzer. And two anonymous officials quoted, too. Actual anon sources or official leakers?

lukery said...

don - good points all. the article was indeed weird agian - but nothing like the nyt piece.

"Cheney, frequently but inaccurately..." was a piece of work. im not sure the 2nd cheney quote mirrored the other - when i read it i thought that they were somewhat at odds

"Look, ma, no leaks!" - lol - that's why its so funny that there is an 'official back story'. DEFINITELY official leakers - sent out to both the NYT and WAPO.

i also loved the bit about condi's multi-colored pens

i'm VERY wary of the apparent bolton shiv. in fact, it makes me very nervous. they seem desperate to paint this story as 'the grownups, not the whackos, are in charge' - which seems designed to portray the ensuing disaster as 'the best our brightest could do'

Don said...

"Cheney, frequently but inaccurately..." was a piece of work. im not sure the 2nd cheney quote mirrored the other - when i read it i thought that they were somewhat at odds

1st para: everybody's against talks, Cheney "inaccurately portrayed as an adamant foe of joining the talks" (i.e. for or at least open to idea)

2nd para: No dissent on joining talks, anti-talk caveat from Shooter

By "mirrored", I was thinking opposite reflections, so I agree with you that there's oddity there.

Desi said...

Chris Floyd: "I assumed that Daily Kos was a community devoted to dissent against the status quo"

Silly man. Kos is the community that deems itself the deciders of the status quo.

lukery said...

hiya desi

is dkos really that bad these days? (i dont hang out over there) how the mighty have fallen

rimone said...

Bush made it clear he did not want the United States to be seen as weak in making this move, officials added.

the preznit doth bluster too much and the entire world suffers from his tiny dick syndrome.

lukery said...

im sure condi suffers too

Don said...

is dkos really that bad these days? (i dont hang out over there) how the mighty have fallen

In fighting the establishment, they have become the new establishment.

lukery said...

don - thats the worst of crimes!

Don said...

Re: the WaPo piece, Daou did a quick post on it that higlighted the Bolton angle and briefly dismissed the whole thing as "a brazen attempt to spin the administration's loss of credibility" and "a farce".

Got me thinking, on one thing though:

On Tuesday, the day before the announcement, Rice let U.N. Ambassador John R. Bolton -- long a skeptic about dealing with Iran -- in on the secret. Bolton then joined Rice, Hadley and Joseph over dinner -- and was asked to call conservative commentators the next day to explain the decision.

Ummm... WTF?! So what's weirder here? Using the UN Ambassador as an errand boy, or the fact that the State Department has him relaying talking points to right-wing talking heads?

lukery said...

don - that was indeed weird.
of course, bolton then went out and was belligerent on tv - threatening iran with their 'last chance'

bolton's behaviour & involvement is a key indicator to the true motivations...

Don said...

Maybe I haven't been around long enough, maybe it's a vain hope that the WH is still playing the coy, wink-wink, RNC/gaggle/pseudo-leak message game and not balls-out blatantly propagandizing!

I mean, "conservative commentators" getting their marching orders directly from the administration?!

I'm sure it's been joked about at least half-seriously (especially with SnowJob in Scotty's old job) but have I missed that it's now taken as an all out fact?

Side note: do you know if there's a time frame that brackets the events Sibel's gagged on?

lukery said...

don: "have I missed that it's now taken as an all out fact?"
sheesh! read the nyt piece (and the WaPo piece). what they dont mention is the division of labour. bolton got the 'conservative commentator' gig - Rice and others got the NYT/WaPo gig.

re sibel - specifically 96-thru 2001.

Don said...

bolton got the 'conservative commentator' gig - Rice and others got the NYT/WaPo gig

Bolton makes a direct call, Condi gets to speak through 'official sources'. I still find it odd, but that's probably the last of my innocence dying.

It does make for an interesting mental picture of the Admin bigwigs drawing straws around the Preznit's desk for who gets to play with the Fox attack dogs, though.

re sibel - specifically 96-thru 2001.

Thanks, that jibes with some stuff I'm pulling together. More on that later.

lukery said...

intrigued...

i'm not saying that the stuff began then - but that is what sibel has first hand knowledge of...