Powered by TypePad

« Plame Misconceptions CCXL... | Main | Russert On Imus »

February 09, 2007


Dan S


You missed pope-worshiper.


Were you compelled to post something for rightwing street cred?

Do a post on Pelosi's plane!



Didn't you get the memo?

Right-wingers are being torn, I tell you, torn over which commands to follow. Tom wisely went with not challenging the CiC.

Of course, his fiscal prudence will at some point outweigh his fear of retribution over disloyalty and THEN, by G*d, you'll have a post.


FLIP-FLOP-He just lost my vote as I am catholic and I am very offended by these two tramps.

Bruce Hayden

What has to be remembed here is that Edwards is a very dark horse in this race. His chances of getting the Democratic nomination are fairly low right now. So, it is far more important for him right now to keep in good graces with the rabid bloggers on the left than it is to appeal to the swing Catholic voters in the center. And, if by some miracle he gets the nomination, maybe everyone will have forgotten about this, or at least all those swing Catholic voters in the center.

The more interesting question though is why this story had legs in the first place. And my suggestion is that it either came from indirectly, or was blessed by, the campaign of another candidate, the likely preferred candidate of the NYT to be exact. Likely the same campaign that had something to do with the rumor going around that Obama smokes occasionally.

I know that this sounds like conspiracy theory stuff, but this candidate does have a long time reputation for hiring the best PIs possible, and then using the information they dig up to discredit opponents (that is when the FBI and IRS are not available).

Why start after Edwards this early? My guess is money. The major candidates are talking running w/o federal funding, and that is expected to take $100 million or so. Edwards has the inside track on one of the biggest donor pools in Democratic politics - the contingency fee tort attorneys. It would be very nice to get him out of the race ASAP for that reason.

Also, if we are looking for pattern here, on one of the conservative talk shows yesterday, Edwards' house was discussed. All apparently 30,0000 square feet of it sitting on 100 acres to separate it from the nearby trailer park. Two Americas is right - the one America where people live in 30,000 square foot houses, and the other where they live in trailers.

I would say that the knives are out right now for Edwards.

Dan S


Also, don't forget he's much cuter than the NYT's favored candidate. That's got to hurt.

Be interesting if they use his lawyerly background against him, since their candidate is vulnerable too. I predict not.


Edwards also possesses very important hair and his looks better than Hil's. Still don't know why the Clintons had all those republican FBI files in the WH. Anyone?

Dan S


Isn't it obvious? In the interest of fairness they confiscated them so they could be destroyed.

Bruce Hayden

Dan S.

His Democratic opponents can't use his lawyerly background against him because that would potentially alienate one of the bigger donor pools in Democratic politics - contingency fee tort attorneys.

How can they condemn making millions arguing junk science before gullible juries when so much of the money that flows into Democratic coffers comes from just that?

Dan S


Right! Good point. I forgot about that "constituency." They don't count for all that many votes, in the greater scheme, but they do count for a lot of campaign donations!

I keep thinking it's votes that matter, but money is what buys those votes.

Appalled Moderate

Amanda Marcotte's blog comments -- which are easily found and I'm not repeating them -- manage to offend on so many levels that I think holding Edwards resposnible (in some way) for those comments is fair. I would have made sure she stayed fired.

I think the only thing the other blogger did was use the word Christanfascists to refer to some on the born again right. That strikes me as impolite, but hardly a deal-breaker.

What's somewhat stinkin about this is how both bloggers are getting nailed because of one of the bloggers grotesque anti-religious screedery.


Oh spare me the sanctimony Appalled Moderate-on this, the very day Doug "the stupidest fucking man alive*" Feith just comes out and says he never "endorse[d] the substance" of the very intelligence used to justify the war, you want to hold Edwards responsible for what was written on some measly blog!?!

Prioritize man!

*according to Gen. Franks


There is something so emasculating about Edwards not being able to fire low-level staff people because the torch and pitchfork crowd threated him.

He wants to be President, and he's powerless to fire his own bloggers? How embarassing.
It will be interesting to see if other candidates are willing to put themselves in a similar position, or if they will eschew the big name bloggers in the future.


story on the Feith story (now pulled everywhere)--Levin held a conference call, pawned off his own stuff as if it were the IG's report and they all ran with it. Could there big a bigger indictment of the press?

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/02/09/wapo-quasi-retracts-page-one-story-about-feith-iraqaq-intel/>Pretend a Levin statement is the IG's

WaPo quasi-retracts page-one story about Feith Iraq/AQ intel
posted at 6:49 pm on February 9, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly
Spruiell e-mails with the subject header, “Good Lord.” Indeed.
They’re calling it a “correction,” but is it really a correction if you’re quoting from an entirely different document than the one you thought you were? And your story kinda sorta hinges on which one it was?
This is a “correction” in the same way Crocodile Dundee’s knife was a knife:
Correction to This Article
A Feb. 9 front-page article about the Pentagon inspector general’s report regarding the office of former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith incorrectly attributed quotations to that report. References to Feith’s office producing “reporting of dubious quality or reliability” and that the office “was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda” were from a report issued by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) in Oct. 2004. Similarly, the quotes stating that Feith’s office drew on “both reliable and unreliable reporting” to produce a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq “that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC [Intelligence Community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration” were also from Levin’s report. The article also stated that the intelligence provided by Feith’s office supported the political views of senior administration officials, a conclusion that the inspector general’s report did not draw.The two reports employ similar language to characterize the activities of Feith’s office: Levin’s report refers to an “alternative intelligence assessment process” developed in that office, while the inspector general’s report states that the office “developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers.” The inspector general’s report further states that Feith’s briefing to the White House in 2002 “undercuts the Intelligence Community” and “did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence.”
Got that? The big scoop was that the Pentagon itself had concluded that Feith floated bogus intel on the links between Iraq and AQ and suggested that he’d done so at Bush/Cheney’s behest. Except the Pentagon didn’t conclude that. Anti-war Democrat Carl Levin did. The only damning quote from the IG report that doesn’t appear to have been retracted is this:
It stated that the office produced intelligence assessments “inconsistent” with the U.S. intelligence community consensus, calling those actions “inappropriate” because the assessments purported to be “intelligence products” but were far more conclusive than the consensus view…
The policy office, the summary stated, “was inappropriately performing Intelligence Activities . . . that should be performed by the Intelligence Community.”
And yet, per the Times: “According to Congressional officials [who’d read the report], Mr. Feith’s statement and the policy office’s rebuttal, the report concluded that none of the Pentagon’s activities were illegal and that they did not violate Defense Department directives.” In which case … whence the impropriety? He conducted his own investigation and came to a different conclusion than the CIA. Like Captain Ed says, I thought the left liked dissent.

So how’d they blow it so bigtime? Blame Levin. Says the Times:
Working under Douglas J. Feith, who at the time was under secretary of defense for policy, the group “developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and Al Qaeda relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers,” the report concluded. Excerpts were quoted by Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who has long been critical of Mr. Feith and other Pentagon officials.
He must have held a conference call and inadvertently read to them out of his own office’s report, not the IG’s. Sweet, sweet justice for the leakhive.
Spruiell says Chris Matthews was talking about the bogus WaPo article on “Hardball” as though it were accurate as late as 5 p.m. ET. Exit question: How vigorous should we expect news networks’ corrections to be once word gets out? Will they be a knife? Or a knife?


clarice- if they retract too vigorously, it may look like they are carrying water for the administration.

Barney Frank

Comment's Martin?
Lucid if possible.


Unbelievable--they didn't have the IG report when these "intel specialists" wrote their report..they just took Levin's lies about it and reported it as if it were the report they were quoting.

I'd fire them all. But they'll just soft pedal this.

Rick Ballard

Fire a propagandist for spouting the latest agitprop? Why?


Great start for Levin--His first big shot out of the box--burn all his journo friends.

Barney Frank

--burn all his journo friends.--

The problem clarice, seems to be there is never a price when the left burns their journo friends.
They're back the next day getting the hot foot again and seemingly loving it.


I think this comes in the category of reckless disregard and Feith might have something to say about it.They never even saw the IG report when they reported it as if they had seen it.



The story is pretty amazing. Someone on Ace's blog reminded how the Dem in congress wanted to revoke ABC's broadcaster's license over the docudrama series...man Levin is a snake - Pincus - bit again.


-I'd fire them all. But they'll just soft pedal this.-

Comment Jihad!

Seriously though. I read the comments the story drew BEFORE the correction...talk about some serious anti-semitism and foul language. They'd be better of pull the entire story down with a big "SORRY WE BLEW IT" screen instead.


You're right BarneyFrank, I had the quote wrong:

Gen. Tommy Franks actually called Feith "the dumbest fucking guy on the planet."




And Ace


on WAPO getting punked by Levin






Boldly we go

The comments to this entry are closed.