Schmitt: "The fact that Saddam did everything the inspectors and the U.S. asked, even to the point of destroying the missiles whose specifications exceeded an agreement..."

I've never understood why this fact hasn't gotten more play, both at the time it was occurring and now that we are finally exposing the lies and manipulations of this administration. It’s among the most damaging of all facts, perhaps the most damaging, to counter the BS about the invasion being a 'last resort'.

Posted at November 17, 2005 8:16 PM in response to Ideology of Information

Would any American commander-in-chief send troops to battle against an enemy commanded by a man thought to be a madman and who had WMDs ready to launch in retaliation?

Posted at November 11, 2005 10:14 PM in response to About That NIE

LaFollette Progressive - Thanks, that's one of the best concise descriptions of the neocon/RW propaganda m.o. I've read. Good work!

Posted at November 9, 2005 6:54 PM in response to Page 108

and the latest count from the CA sec of state. 81.9% counted.

Posted at November 9, 2005 12:27 AM in response to What Do You Think?

As others have said, a lot of Californian's who voted -- and the turnout was unusually high for an off-year election -- did so just to send a message to Arnold, probably even to Bush too in some cases. Besides, everybody here in CA is at least a bit overwhelmed if not downright sick of endless initiatives. How can we possibly be well informed about all these topics, especially in the face of the propaganda onslaught? And besides, isn't that what we pay our elected representatvies to do?

And, fwiw, I watched Arnold's speech tonite, and he was very contrite, even seemingly genuinely humbled (though he conceded no defeats formally at this 'good-night' speech), promising several times to work with Democrats, etc. We'll see. Even if Schwarzenegger's newfound humility is a just an act, it would still qualify as a sure sign of a serious blow being absorbed by the Accidental Governor.

Posted at November 9, 2005 12:24 AM in response to What Do You Think?

Some random observations:

When Novak said 'just let it go', I think he was referring to the previous topic, about doctored photographs, which he had just taken up an answer to when he stopped himself to hear the rest of Carville's WSJ baiting.

He may well have been a bit tipsy, and of course the pressure on him is/has been enormous.

They were all kidding about the make-up story, including Novak. But it was nervous banter, knowing full well they were just doing a softball warmup story while they sweated bullets about the upcoming CNN breakthru interview when they were  finally going to ask Novak a leak question.

Carville and the host both ribbed him about "not naming sources" in their joke about Novak's make-up problems. (Great catch by the commenter above.) So nerves were frayed.

Carville's WSJ dig, whether supercharged with an insider dig or just a lucky blow by Carville that, as somebody else said, hit a little too close to home, is what caused Novak to go over the edge in his brittle condition.

Listen to the way Novak says "and I hate that!". Almost like a whiny kid, like he was subconsciously apologizing/explaining why he blurted out the 'bullshit' a moment before.

Novak tried to regain composure, asking the host to let go of this topic, which in Novak's muddled mind at the moment he'd fused with this whole disastrous conversation. He wanted to move on quickly. A quick moment later he realized what a huge hole he was in, panicked and semi-stumbled out.

And I disagree with the poster above who says Carville and the host carried on without missing a beat. They missed a lot of beats, doing their best in an embarrassing situation that surprised them. 

All very good theater, and I join the chorus of 'good riddance' wishes to Mr. Novak.

Posted at August 5, 2005 4:01 AM in response to Novak

"Smearing real patriots for political advantage."

"Politics über alles."

And if the WH really does adopt the Wilson-is-a-bad-apple  strategy, we could say ...

"They smeared our nation's patriots then, and they are smearing them now."

Which reminds me of something I see as central to this whole story, but that I don't know the skinny on: Is there any concensus view among nonpartisans (if such exist) about the genesis and approval of Wilson's Niger trip? I know the Roberts committee could not reach a conclusion on that issue that the Dems would sign on to, but I'm still unclear about what the facts are, and whether or not the2003 WH contentions regarding Plame's role in Wilson's trip -- this being Rove's stated reason, his very defense for mentioning Wilson's wife to Cooper --  have been effectively repudiated. Anybody know?

Posted at July 12, 2005 1:50 AM in response to The Short and Sweet of It