*
emptywheel:
"(Rove's silence) suggests that Rove is still under some threat. If Rove could spin this himself, he would, so there must be some compelling reason he can't. Perhaps he is the star witness in the Dick Cheney IIPA trial. Perhaps he is, himself, at risk for some other indictment. But you can be sure Rove wouldn't be silent unless Fitzgerald had some kind of sway over him."
* there's a Plame
troll over at EW's place ranting incoherently as they do:
" Plame's old boss is handing the CIA analysts move over to DIA, probably the goal from the beginning. CIA is where the spies are and they all don't work for us, so DIA would be the end goal of anything foreign intelligencne agency wanting our true intelliegence capabiltiy. Plame's dad was Air Force and the new Director from DIA/NSA to CIA is also Airforce.
Plame a spy. Probably. As far as for who; it makes more sense that she worked with NSA and DIA on her domestic political groups and we had the wiretap issue to go through as a country because she actually worked for DIA"
no - it doesnt make much sense to me either - but I often see this rightwing talking point about moving the spies from CIA to DIA and somehow this is relevant to the Plame case and apparently exonerates everyone. or something. Can anyone explain to me what this actually means, and what point they are trying to make?
9 comments:
This is an exceptional blog. How I wish everyone in the country was reading it! I can explain how this works, but it makes little more sense than the statement you quoted. The writer pretends to be privy to information not generally known, and takes the position anyone who doesn't know this information is ignorant; furthermore, this "special" information implies a process which has some extraordinary privilege or purpose. In other words, they know something you don't because, unlike you, their thinking isn't totally backwards, or you'd know it, too.
The truth is, what they've told you is utter hogwash they pulled out of their ass. The best of these trolls are pathological liars with a lifetime of experience telling stupid stories they use the main bulk of their time and brainpower fabricating. Some of them are quite brilliant and may have demonstrated exceptional talent in some area, such as art, music or investment. But all of the best of them are borderline personalities at best and psychopaths at worst. Most trolls I see are paid shills whose job it is to post a certain number of times per hour, so their posts just take up space and don't make sense. Or, they argue with someone and call them names and post over and over so as to make their quota.
The post here at least has a premise, but it's an invalid premise. The radical right wants to achieve total discussion domination/saturation, and doesn't let the fact it has absolutely nothing to say slow things down.
I wish the explanation was better than that. Unfortunately, it isn't.
thanks for your kind words, uranus.
actually, i think that you are correct in most cases - but as far as i can tell, this 'argument' is repeated elsewhere, and i PRESUME that it is a truncated form of an actual argument (however misguided) - and i presume that there is some logic to it, but it appears to have been contracted into a couple of talking points and i cant even discern what the actual argument is.
thnx for commenting.
lukery
thanks, Uranus, for your cogent explanation.
Lukery: this 'argument' is repeated elsewhere, and i PRESUME that it is a truncated form of an actual argument (however misguided)...
those daily talking points sent outta karl rove's office or wherever won't post themselves y'know.
Hi Uranus,
Glad to see you back. I remember the first comment I noticed of yours raised the Kelo case. I live around the corner from Kelo and know the case intimately.
On trolls though, I find your observation that they are paid interesting. Some are more sophistcated, but the end game is always diverting readers attention from the main point and getting off on irrelevant tangents, splitting all the wrong hairs, so people overload on minutia and stop reading it, altogether. They obscure the truth that way and keep readers from learning from each other. The really good ones are adept and egging readers into saying things that get them banned. Mission Accomplished.
A while back, I thought WakeUp was a troll on my ass because I would not stop saying I thought Rove was indicted and possibly had immunity imposed on him for his testimony in Libby's case. This drove WakeUp nuts, but now EW thinks something's still up with Rove, too.
Uranus, have you heard of the DOJ lawyer, a troll who is called Anonymous Army? Somehow, I think "army" means more than one troll under the bridge to nowhere.
Here's a blog entry which got passed around a few months ago about the paid shill business. It's kind of interesting. I'll bet these people get terrible verbal abuse and minimum wage, most of them, and that it's worse than a telemarketing job. No, I haven't heard about the DoJ lawyer, but nothing would surprise me these days. I've learned not to get in a battle of personalities in chat rooms or message boards--nor engage in a battle of wits with unarmed individuals! I thought about taking the entry apart, sentence by sentence, but you'll notice there's a sentence fragment near the bottom, and rewriting it treads in dangerous territory. These characters cut and paste a lot, which is why you see their junk in different locations under different names. This one seems to suggest agents commute freely from one federal agency to another, and maybe some of that happens, but the preponderance of my reading and understanding is that agencies still don't communicate well with one another and such things happen rarely if ever. If you want to study the work of trolls, read the comments at Americablog. They get lots of them.
Kathleen - interesting about Anonymous Army. How do you know he's a DoJ lawyer?
Uranus - thanks for the link - i remember reading that way back when. which sentence frag are you referring to? is it the 'multiple online personalities' one?
re the agents moving freely - this particular argument (from what i've seen) appears to suggest that there was some sort of institutional shift going on (for one reason or other) - but i still have no clue how that exonerates anyone.
more confusion.
LeeB told me about anonymous Army. There was a small piece somewhere, earlier this summer, right around the time when everyone was debating the Rove indictment or not.
Uranus, I'll check that link.
The more I read it, the less it means. Ha ha! Traditional rules aside, no rules apply now?? Who knows. There is of course more than one sentence fragment, but the one I liked was "CIA is where the spies are and they all don't work for us, so DIA would be the end goal of anything foreign intelligencne agency wanting our true intelliegence capabiltiy." What?? Notice also all the spelling errors. This isn't the work of a private individual with a legitimate argument based on real facts. It's something else, and what that is, I'm not sure. The arrogant framework of I-know-something-you-don't-know substitutes for factual accuracy, making me dismiss it straight away. And your point about how an institutional shift exonerates anyone is well made; you're right, it doesn't. Does Richard Armitage's dubious admission of guilt exonerate those already under investigation? Of course not. I wonder then why he did it. Probably some really good reasoning there as well: (1) confession is good for the soul, and (2) now I'm very popular among my fellow churchgoers. That, or someone lined his pockets.
What a mess. Which brings us back to your original question of how this statement works. When faced with a mess, spoon on more slop, and feed the little piglets. I'm comfortable with that. It's dinnertime: let's eat!
Hee!
Rimone, pssst . . .
. . . copy? . . . paste?? ;-)
After Luke's sincere sympathy for Kathleen the other day, I couldn't resist . . . but you're quite right. F/P the post and write it a nifty headline!
Post a Comment