And I mean just that. WOW. (via BlackFive)
Alternately terrifying and amazing.
by John Cole| 15 Comments
This post is in: Military
And I mean just that. WOW. (via BlackFive)
Alternately terrifying and amazing.
by John Cole| 23 Comments
This post is in: Excellent Links
You know it has been a rough week for Juan Cole (who is in no way related to me) if diaries at the Daily Kos are raking you over the coals.
This post is in: Politics
Joseph Wilson is not helping his credibility nor his claims of non-partisanship by appearing at press conferences with Chuck Schumer, with Schumer calling for Rove to be fired/have his security clearance revoked.
*** Update ***
Oh, good grief. Three dimensions of source credibility are competence, trustworthiness, and goodwill. Competence speaks to the expertise an individual is perceived to possess. Trustworthiness gets to the appearance of character. Goodwill gets to the appearance that the subject has my or your best interests at heart. All of these are subjective evaluations that viewers formulate when viewing the communication behaviors of a particular subject
When Joseph Wilson appears at a podium with a known political operative, in this case Charles Schumer, it strikes directly at the dimension of character/trustworthiness. Meaning, it hampers his credibility. It makes it much more difficult to refute charges by some in the GOP that Wilson is a political hack and a fierce partisan. In other words, Joseph Wilson is not helping his credibility nor his claims of non-partisanship by appearing at press conferences with Chuck Schumer…
It doesn’t change the fact that Wilson may or may not have been telling the truth about any specific event, but it damn sure does affect his overall credibility.
In fact, maybe some of you reality-based community members should ask yourself this question:
“Does Joseph Wilson appearing on stage with Charles Schumer make it EASIER or more DIFFICULT to persuade people that Wilson is non-partisan?”
Then, when you are done, you can ask yourself a whole series of questions, like, “Why might an attorney warn his/her client not to say ANYTHING in public before a trial or while under investigation?” Or, “Why would an attorney tell their client not to appear publicly with a known criminal?” Could it be that it might be used to impeach their credibility in trial?
Really, guys. Get a grip. I didn’t say Joseph Wilson is the root of all evil or that Rove is a saint, or anything of the sorts. I made a non-controversial statement that, if you would put your passions and your complete convictions that Rove is Satan and Wilson is the Savior on hold, you would see is not a smear or an attack but the simple truth.
*** Update ***
And, as if on cue, Rush Limbaugh:
“Rush’s final words at the end of the show (referring to the Press Conference scheduled by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) to happen shortly): “Chuck Shumer is Joe Wilson’s ‘handler’ in this agency plot to bring down the President.”
If you want to fight the narrative that Wilson is partisan and you want to keep insisting that partisanship is not an issue, then Wilson should not be appearing in news conferences that will be painted as nothing more than partisan exercises.
Schumer wrote the talking points himself on this one…
by John Cole| 48 Comments
This post is in: Politics
A quick note on the purpose of this. This is not, as some think, an attempt to assign guilt or to determine whether or not Rove should be alternately hanged from neck until dead or given the Presidential Medal of Freedom. It is an attempt to collaboratively agree on a certain baseline of facts, and to determine where our partisan inclinations create a breakdown in a discussion of the topic. As such, I have no real storyline I am trying to advance, I am just trying to provide steps that we all agree on. Therefore, rewrites are going to occur, and you are encouraged to aid in the process in the comments if you disagree with the current statement.
There will be times that one or two people disagree with a certain point- and that is fine. When the vast majority agree, we will have to just move on, as there will always be some imprecision in the language and something to offend someone. We are searching for an overall narrative, and there are things already that I personally disagree with (even though I am writing this).
Next, one small modification to the previous version of step #8:
8.)
It was within the context of renewed media scrutiny of pre-war WMD intelligence and administration claims that Joseph Wilson’s op-ed piece appearedJoseph Wilson’s Op-ed piece appeared in the NY Times on 6 July 2003, and this led to an effort by Republican partisans, including some in the administration, to discredit Wilson personally, as well as efforts by the administration and others to refute Wilson’s charges.
And onward, with step 9:
9.) After the Wilson op-ed appeared, there was a renewed focus on the pre-war WMD intelligence, and within the media at large, a heavy focus on the ‘sixteen words’ that appeared in the President’s State of the Union address.
A little over a week after Wilson’s NY Times op-ed, Robert Novak’s 14 July 2003 column appeared, containing the following paragraph:
Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. “I will not answer any question about my wife,” Wilson told me.
Wilson himself muddied the waters and provided more fuel for the fire by stating that his wife had nothing to do with his selection to go to Niger, and by penning several op-ed pieces (most notably on 21 July 2003 in the LA Times) and appearing frequently on news shows attempting to rebut those seeking to discredit him.
This will be a contentious one, but that is ok. If you have a problem with the language, offer an alternative. Also, don’t forget to vote on the new version of Step #8.
I should also note I am unsure where to go from here- if you have a suggestion for Step #10, email it to me.
by John Cole| 41 Comments
This post is in: Excellent Links
Smijer offers his final words on Terri Schiavo.
This post is in: Excellent Links
The always readable Obsidian Wings is much more so today, as Hilzoy and Von both have pretty decent posts on the Plame/Rove nastiness.
by John Cole| 29 Comments
This post is in: Republican Stupidity
Rick Santorum is picking out a thermos for you, and not an ordinary thermos, for you. Why? Because Rick Santorum is “The Jerk“:
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) led a phalanx of Massachusetts politicians yesterday in demanding that the third-ranking Republican in the Senate, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, apologize for blaming the Catholic Church’s sex abuse scandal on “liberalism” in Boston.
In an indignant, unusually personal speech on the Senate floor, Kennedy said that “Boston-bashing might be in vogue with some Republicans, but Rick Santorum’s statements are beyond the pale.”
Other Massachusetts Democrats quickly piled on. Rep. Edward J. Markey said Santorum should apologize for maligning “the courageous Boston parishioners who finally stood up to decades of an international Catholic Church coverup.”
Sen. John F. Kerry said the families of Massachusetts soldiers who have died in Iraq “know more about the mainstream American values of Massachusetts than Rick Santorum ever will.”
Rep. Barney Frank called Santorum a “jerk.”
I wrote about this over two weeks ago– it seems the MSM has finally caught up. Kudos to the Captain for playing this one straight:
Normally I would rather eat raw squid with mushrooms and beets than agree with Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. Neither of these men conducted themselves with much honor during their political careers. Both owe so many apologies to so many people that hearing them call for someone else to apologize almost makes me spit out my beverage over my laptop screen.
In this case, however, they’re right…
It is unfair in the extreme of Santorum to blame the scandals on the community of Boston, a community that indeed was victimized by the pedophiliacs and those who hid their crimes. Santorum’s remarks attempt to turn the blame away from the criminals and onto the victims. Those remarks were wrong three years ago, and he should have known better than to repeat them now. His spokesman, Robert Traynham, should also have known better than to keep digging the hole by blaming Harvard University for the sins of the Catholic priests and other clergy.
I wonder if Santorum’s continued block-headedness has anything to do with this:
Incumbent Republican U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum has gained slightly on State Treasurer Robert Casey, Jr., but still trails the Democratic challenger 50