This latest "gotcha" on Rudy is fun, but a joke:
Asked by a reporter in Alabama about the price of “basic staples,” Rudy Giuliani seriously low-balled: “A gallon of milk is probably about $1.50, a loaf of bread — about $1.25, $1.30.”
Had he checked stores down the street, he would’ve found a gallon of whole milk at about $3.39 and bread for about $2. And those prices pale to what grocers charge in Manhattan.
At least he nailed pump prices. “Gas, I think, is $2.89.”
OK, it just happens that I am in a supermarket buying milk, eggs, and bread once or twice a week (OK, partial disclosure - I am Mr. Breakfast; my wife, less of as morning person, is Ms. Dinner). Had a reporter asked me what a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk costs I would have looked him in the eye, shown him my Shaw's frequent shopper discount card, and said "I have no idea".
And that would have been a lie! Well, sort of - sometimes I make a desperation run to the local gas station and buy milk in their convenience section for $4.99. But whether that is for a half gallon or a gallon, I can not recall.
And why can't I recall? Because I don't comparison shop or price shop for milk - I pick up a gallon of our brand and toss it in the cart. Same for eggs, same for bread (Arnold Country Classic White, since you ask, and I assume it is a few bucks a loaf.)
Thank heaven for efficient markets - my shopping strategy is to free-ride on the diligent efforts of other price and comparison shoppers. Ignorance is bliss and saves time, too.
Gas, BTW, I would have pegged at $2.90 per gallon, only because I stand in shock and awe at the self-serve pump on a regular basis. Why Rudy knew that I can't guess - please don't tell me that a man of his lofty status is pumping his own gas.
Don't mind these questions, just as long as they ask John Edwards or Obama the same ones and report them. (If you asked Hillary -- someone would likely tell you that's sexist.) Then the reporter can be properly mocked on Leno and Letterman, and this sort of stuff can go the way of prior drug use or marriages as yardsticks in judging candidates.
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | April 12, 2007 at 09:02 AM
I do all the shopping here, and I couldn't tell you the price of a gallon of milk - I can't remember the last time I bought a gallon of milk, frankly. But I do think based on what you said, I'm paying too much for bread.
Posted by: Jane | April 12, 2007 at 09:08 AM
And why can't I recall? Because I don't comparison shop or price shop for milk
OK, any surprise at the thought that I comparison shop/price shop for beer? 'Cause I do.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | April 12, 2007 at 09:16 AM
What was the point of this dumbass asking a question like that? Are reporters getting stupider every day? This guy probably thinks the president controls grocery prices.
Posted by: BarbaraS | April 12, 2007 at 09:26 AM
Ahaaaaaa, I think it was Romney's peeps that put the reporter up to this.
Yesterday, Dean Barnett had a blog entry, ostensibly about Giuliani, by way of commentary on a JPod article.
He then turned his gaze more generally at the idea of candidates trying to sell themselves in ways that just aren't true......Rudy as tender loving husband....Romney as hunter...etc.
But in that entry, he links to an old blog post of his...about....drum roll....running into Romney in the grocery store.
Bam!
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | April 12, 2007 at 09:38 AM
If you people were environmentally conscious, you'd know what environmental catastrophes dairy farms are. You should be ashamed for buying milk at all. You should join h&r in his environmentally consciousness beverage choices. Just think beautiful fields of barley and hops.
Posted by: Lew Clark | April 12, 2007 at 09:39 AM
OK, any surprise at the thought that I comparison shop/price shop for beer? 'Cause I do.
Sometimes I pick up a six pack and boggle a the price (I will guess, over $7). I used to comparison shop when I was younger and I am quite sure I was paying $1.50 or $2.00 in the day. Well, I can't remember. I was drunk most of the time.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | April 12, 2007 at 09:42 AM
You pick up a package of anything my Dad bought months ago and he can tell you not only what he paid, but the sale price and the coupon he used.
On a good day, I just look at the total and ask myself if it's in the ballpark.
Posted by: The Scrutinator | April 12, 2007 at 09:50 AM
Lew:
You should join h&r in his environmentally consciousness beverage choices.
ooooh, I like it.
Save the World. Drink Beer.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | April 12, 2007 at 09:51 AM
Tom:
I was drunk most of the time.
Some day, I will grow up and mature too.
I just wouldn't advise anyone to hold their breath.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | April 12, 2007 at 09:53 AM
I buy all of the groceries in our house. I have no idea what I pay for milk or bread.
Posted by: Sue | April 12, 2007 at 10:06 AM
A Bridge Too Far
BAGHDAD -- A bomb rocked Iraq's parliament building in the heavily fortified Green Zone Thursday, killing at least two lawmakers in a stunning security breach in the third month of a U.S.-Iraqi crackdown on violence in the capital, officials said.
At least four other people were wounded in the blast, which shook a cafeteria while several lawmakers were eating lunch, initial media reports said.
...
The attack came hours after a suicide truck bomb exploded on a major bridge in Baghdad, collapsing the steel structure and sending cars tumbling into the Tigris River below, police and witnesses said. At least 10 people were killed.
Posted by: DEMO | April 12, 2007 at 10:08 AM
Don't mind these questions, just as long as they ask John Edwards or Obama the same ones and report them.
Ironically, Imus did just that, the last time Edwards ran. And it's interesting that, though Imus asked for a gallon price, Edwards quoted the half-gallon. If Rudy'd meant that, he hit both fairly close. Can't say I got a lot out of it, but neither does it appear unfair.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | April 12, 2007 at 10:18 AM
Cecil:
The problem I have with these kind of questions is that they are essentially a function of bs populism. (How can x relate to the common people? He doesn't even know the price of milk!!) Politicians don't do their own shopping. If they are presidential, the store would not appreciate the secret service/photographer disruption. If they are congressional/senatorial, they are working 18 hour days begging for money, blabbing on c-span, or occasionally doing the people's business.
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | April 12, 2007 at 10:25 AM
AM:
Politicians don't do their own shopping.
Except for Romney!!!! As guv of MA..........
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | April 12, 2007 at 10:31 AM
I think this is the variant of the first President Bush and the supermarket scanner--an effort to show the candidate as out of touch with ordinary people's concerns. When I read it I thought as you did--I have no idea. I shop for quality and price generally not item by item. As I'm mostly shopping for 2 oldsters I haven't any notion of what milk costs and my husband generally gets our bread at a bakery.
I do know I make a big run once a month at Costco because the neighborhood markets cannot compare in quality and price for the items we do buy there--produce, cheese , beef,coffee cream and coffee. And as I've lots of refrigerator and freezer space I buy in considerable quantity.
But as to individual price items--no idea.
Posted by: clarice | April 12, 2007 at 10:35 AM
Spent 99cents / half-gallon this morning on 2% and 1%. Usually it's about $2.50/gallon here. I spend about $2.50/loaf, $2 on sale for bread.
Frighteningly enough, I'm one of these people. I hear they have medications that treat this.(And I'm really depressed to report that in my case it's more like I go through the fridge throwing away all the food which I bought and then we didn't eat because we spend too much money eating out, and I think about how much I spent on each item that I'm pitching out and how much I spent buying the stuff we did eat. *sigh*)
Posted by: cathyf | April 12, 2007 at 10:37 AM
Clarice:
I do know I make a big run once a month at Costco
You know, I filled up my car at Costco two days ago. 20 cent difference in the price per gallon compared to where I usually go.
Amazing.
Yeah, we just joined Costco a few weeks ago. To buy a treadmill.
You think, drinking as much beer as I do, that I am going to head into the approaching mid life crisis not being in shape? I'm not sure yet whether it will be a motorcycle a sports car or something else, but by goodness I'm gonna look
goodridiculous doing it.Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | April 12, 2007 at 10:44 AM
They also have great prices on wine and beer, h & r..think ahead.
Posted by: clarice | April 12, 2007 at 10:46 AM
cathyf:
And I'm really depressed to report that in my case it's more like I go through the fridge throwing away all the food which I bought and then we didn't eat
Yeah, mrs hit and run tries to do this. But I'm such a
tightwadhumanitarian I'll make it a point to eat whatever's there just so it doesn't get thrown away. Hey, I'm saving starving kids in Africa by doing that.Another point of the treadmill I suppose.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | April 12, 2007 at 10:48 AM
A 750ml bottle of Stoli goes $20.99 at the closest liquor store. I can get the same jug for $18.49 by going an extra half mile, but I usually go to the closer one. The Glenlivet is $23.99. There's only one place in town that handles Glenmorangie, and it's up near fifty bucks a bottle. I'll grab some Glenmorangie only when some Democrat suffers a major humiliation and I need a little more exquisite lubricant for the gloatfest.
Sorry, no info on bread or milk.
Posted by: Other Tom | April 12, 2007 at 11:02 AM
My budget beer of choice back in my salad days was Goebel, $1.49 a six pack. Big splurge was for a case of Rolling Rock ponies for $3.99. Good times, good times.
Posted by: prtymbl | April 12, 2007 at 11:05 AM
When I was in high school you could get a six-pack of ABC beer for 99 cents. It was ambrosia to us.
Posted by: Other Tom | April 12, 2007 at 11:48 AM
Hey, I'm saving starving kids in Africa by doing that.
My best friend in college was a chinese woman from Hong Kong. One day I told her that my mother used to tell me to "clean my plate because of all the starving kids in China".
My friend told me her mother used to tell her to "Clean your plate because of all the starving kids in America".
Posted by: Jane | April 12, 2007 at 11:54 AM
Off topic:
Novak details how Heyden told him Plame was undercover not covert; how a lawyer for the CIA changed that to covert in Waxman's talking points and how the CIA still cannot answer if she was covert w.in the IIPA meaning. Azaghal thinks they were just playing around to screw the Administration for political advantage. I think the name should be changed to the Central Dumbass Agency. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/04/how_stupid_is_this.html
And here is a great piece by Peter Martin on how bad our CI efforts are.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/shoplifting_secrets.html
Posted by: clarice | April 12, 2007 at 11:56 AM
That Novak article is astounding.
Holy crap.
Dumbass is probably too mild.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | April 12, 2007 at 12:12 PM
I think there are more important things our elected leaders should know than the price of milk.
For example if a person doesn’t know al Qaeda is a Sunni terrorist organization or that Hezbollah is Shia, what kind of an understanding does he (or she) have of the Middle East and the conflicts that have gone on there for hundreds of years?
What about someone who doesn’t know Okinawa is 5000 miles from Iraq, or someone who thinks Congress should have different foreign policies than the POTUS?
How about people, who think a (bribed and coerced) bare majority in Congress, or the results of some opinion poll, should trump the Presidents right to veto.
Posted by: MikeS | April 12, 2007 at 12:21 PM
The problem I have with these kind of questions is that they are essentially a function of bs populism.
Concur, though that's perhaps more a function of the coverage than the questions themselves. In any event, they're not terribly illuminating.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | April 12, 2007 at 12:22 PM
Novak details how Heyden told him Plame was undercover not covert;
I think part of the silliness is a simple terminology issue. The standard usage of "covert" in CIA-speak is simply the opposite of "open source." The IIPA assigns a much more exclusive definition, but that's peculiar to the law. In standard CIA terminology, "covert" when applied to an officer simply means part (i) of the legal definition is met. There isn't any obvious reason the CIA would need to use the legal definition in their normal work, nor that they would be an authority for "ruling" on whether an employee was legally covert under the IIPA. So Hayden's view, that an employee was either covert or overt, is perfectly reasonable . . . it just has nothing to do with the law.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | April 12, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Cecil, People more attuned to the agency's workings than I have been emailing me all morning, indicating the CIA lawyer changed the Heyden statement to Waxman from undercover to covert to curry favor with him at the expense, again, of the Administration. Of course, the agency is struggling to answer Toensing's question, because even if she by some means came w/in the definition of "covert" in the Statute, we all know the agency fell short of doing everything it could to prevent disclosure of her identity and so she would not be covered.
Posted by: clarice | April 12, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Well, I still go back to my earlier comment, where the CIA made the "too cute by half" parsing that said that Valerie Plame "was" classified "under" the Executive Order which was in effect between April 17, 1995 and March 25, 2003. One completely literal reading of the text is that she was classified for some period of time between April 17, 1995 and March 25, 2003, but stopped being classified before March 25, 2003.
Of course, I maintain that Plame's CIA affiliation was unclassified as of Feb 19, 2002. If her affiliation had been classified on Feb 19, 2002, then she would not have disclosed it to the motley collection of WMD analysts from various agencies assembled at the meeting to meet Joe Wilson that day. They had absolutely no need to know that the "former ambassador" that the CIA was sending to Niger was married to the "CIA managerial type" who brought him to the meeting. Because the information was never flagged as "classified" and because they had no need to know the information about Plame's job, the trained employees with security clearances at this meeting could know with confidence that Plame's CIA affiliation was not classified information. (Note this conclusion is the same whether we use the INR guy's version of the meeting or any of Joe's or Valerie's stories.)
I'm still flogging the theory that the CIA-supplied answer to the question about Plame is an example of "malicious compliance" -- they gave a carefully-parsed answer which is literally true. It is literally true that "Ms. Plame's CIA affiliation was classified under Executive Order 12958" if it was classified for even one day between April 17, 1995 and March 25, 2003. If Ms. Plame's CIA affiliation had been classified at any time after March 25, 2003, then she would have been classified under Executive Order 13292. So, was Valerie Plame's CIA affiliation classified in May, June or July of 2003? Note very carefully that the CIA has (very carefully) not answered that question.
Posted by: cathyf | April 12, 2007 at 01:34 PM
This overt/covert battle seems to be yet another in an ongoing string of battles that our side has lost by default. The Left has the thunder-machine of Henry Waxman and the three major networks; the Right counters with Rep. Tom Davis, who appeared to be about as well-informed on the matter as Rosie O'Donnell on metallurgy. Bush lied; global warming is a grave problem caused by mankind; Val was covert; on and on. It's in the public consciousness, and it's there to stay. Robert Novak and Clarice Feldman do more to defend the Bush administration than the administration itself, and the Republican party, are doing.
Posted by: Other Tom | April 12, 2007 at 01:36 PM
With a poorly planned, poorly communicated war in Iraq thoroughly demolishing Bush's credibility, what really CAN he say on anything of substance that won't dig the hole deeper? More and more, Bush sounds like an ill-prepared 5th grader when he speaks on an issue, and devolves to third grader when he takes questions from the press.
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | April 12, 2007 at 01:46 PM
The war in Iraq was extremely well conducted,the pacification campaign,what is occuring now does not remotely qualify as war,is very much on the same lines as all such campaigns,a long hard slog.
This pacification might have been more rapid if it did not also encompass a proxy conflict with al Qaeda,Iran and the liberals.
Posted by: PeterUK. | April 12, 2007 at 01:55 PM
The pacification would be complete by now if the DoD Garner plan, not the Powell-Bremer pro consul notion had been put in place. Rice caved to that back stabber Powell at great cost.
Posted by: clarice | April 12, 2007 at 01:58 PM
TM,
Personally I am a fan of the 12 year Balvenie Doublewood single malt. In Anchorage its 60 dollars (ouch) for 750 ml, but in Taipei at the Duty Free it's only 30 bucks (whoo hoo!) for a full litre. And at the Dubai Duty Free, a Litre of Bombay Sapphire Gin goes for 11 bucks US, (which is 4 bucks less than you pay in Bombay), but hunting up decent tonic can prove a chore. We have a very nice brewery "Moose's Tooth" here in Anchorage, and they just fill up a half gallon jug from the keg, screw on a cap, and you're out the door, so speaking for all Alaskan's, may I say that we pity you lower 48'ers having to survive on 6 packs. Go Rudy, and go to hell Duke.
Posted by: Daddy | April 12, 2007 at 02:00 PM
Part of the Bush legacy will be that he appointed a number of people to important positions that have done him and his administration more harm than good.
Is Hayden angling to be a part of that list?
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | April 12, 2007 at 02:02 PM
I think Bush, like his equally hapless father, really believed that if he was nice to the Democrats they'd be nice to him. It's analogous to the way Pelosi and Kerry feel about Syria and Iran. Bush has lost the confidence of the public at large, and his only saving grace is that he has a clarity of purpose about this war, even if he is woefully ill-equipped to communicate it, and he will stick to it till the end of his presidency. There seems to be a chance that the Sunnis and the Shiites will exhaust themselves by then, and that something close to order will prevail. But with an emboldened Iran committing acts of war with impunity, I'm not very optimistic. Iran is likely to inherit Iraq.
Posted by: Other Tom | April 12, 2007 at 02:05 PM
Daddy:
speaking for all Alaskan's, may I say that we pity you lower 48'ers having to survive on 6 packs.
I did have some authentic NC moonshine a few weekends ago. Goooooood stuff.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | April 12, 2007 at 02:07 PM
This pacification might have been more rapid if it did not also encompass a proxy conflict with al Qaeda,Iran and the liberals.
This is absolutely the most accurate description of the conflict in Iraq that I have read.
Too bad it doesn't lend itself to some snappy sound bite characterization.
Posted by: MikeS | April 12, 2007 at 02:08 PM
Other Tom:
I think Bush, like his equally hapless father, really believed that if he was nice to the Democrats they'd be nice to him.
Your point is probably a little stronger than I would put it, but generally I agree.
Here's a question. Bush campaigned as a uniter not a divider.....etc.
Had the 2000 election not devolved into Bush v Gore, would his make nice thing have worked? Or at least not been so self-destructive?
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | April 12, 2007 at 02:11 PM
PUK and Mike S:
All those proxy conflicts were predictable. That's like saying "I would have run if that other guy hadn't got in the race..."
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | April 12, 2007 at 02:15 PM
All those proxy conflicts were predictable
Of course. I happen to agree with General Casey that we have been making progress in the pacification of Iraq. I disagree with the media and the liberals that we have lost in Iraq.
Posted by: MikeS | April 12, 2007 at 02:22 PM
All those proxy conflicts were predictable.
Not sure what that says about the liberals, but it can't be flattering. (I believe "treasonous" is the usual term . . . not that I'm questioning anyone's patriotism!)
Posted by: Cecil Turner | April 12, 2007 at 02:26 PM
I think Bush, like his equally hapless father, really believed that if he was nice to the Democrats they'd be nice to him. It's analogous to the way Pelosi and Kerry feel about Syria and Iran.
That's just sad. It provides a pretty clear picture of who the enemy is.
Posted by: Jane | April 12, 2007 at 02:30 PM
Like TM and others, I don't comparison shop for groceries. I bake my own bread so I never buy bread and I throw away more soured milk than we drink around here. For years, the only comparison shopping I did was by ingredients, looking for foods with the lowest per gram of sugar because I had a diabetic in the house. Besides, I have more important things to keep in the forefront of my memory. I don't need to remember the prices on bread or milk because when I go to the store, the prices are clearly marked and I can compare as I stand in front of the shelf to make my selection. Some products I buy by price, selecting the cheapest, some I buy by brand just because I like the taste better and even if there is a cheaper brand, I pass it buy.
Back in the early days of my marriage when we were living on the poverty wages of the U.S. Navy, I had three major commissaries available to me -- North Island, 32nd Street and Miramar. It was always cheaper to shop at 32nd Street because their average shopper was lower paid enlisted personnel. North Island with its Admirals and senior officer corps had the highest prices and Miramar in the middle with its higher paid flyers and aviation types. In the Navy Exchanges, North Island always carried top-of-the-line, so if you were looking for something where quality was the biggest issue, it was worth the drive over the Coronado Bridge. That's about as far as my comparison shopping goes. Now when it comes to electronics, it is a whole different ball game.
Posted by: Sara | April 12, 2007 at 02:32 PM
Appalled: "All those proxy conflicts were predictable. That's like saying "I would have run if that other guy hadn't got in the race..."
And if I knew then what I know now, I would have predicted it...
Appalled, your hind-sight is excellent!
Posted by: Joe Gloor | April 12, 2007 at 02:34 PM
Cecil:
not that I'm questioning anyone's patriotism
See Cliff May's article today.
He goes on to describe his experience with the "dissent is the highest form of patriotism" crowd....
He didn't say it, but one can imagine him asking if it's ok for him to question their patriotism, since they are engaging in the attempted suppression of the highest form of it.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | April 12, 2007 at 02:37 PM
Various:
*sigh* (eyes rolling)
1. We fought in Iraq, allegedly, because there were contacts between Saddam and Al Qaeda. If Bush & Co believed that when they said it, then one would think a fight with Al qaeda in Iraq would be predictable.
2. If any nation-state is our enemy in a battle against fundamentalist Islam, it is Iran -- charter member of Axis of Evil. Iraq is next door to them. You think they's want us to have a secure spot there? Again, problems from Iran are predictable.
3. The vote on the Iraq war was far from unanimous, and the skepticism about are claims was certainly circulating on the left. Opposition from the anti-war left -- again -- was to be expected.
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | April 12, 2007 at 02:48 PM
All those proxy conflicts were predictable.
But there were no al Qaeda in Iraq remember,an absolute article of liberal faith.Isn't there something rather reprehensible about the liberal wing of the Loyal Opposition knowing it was going to try and undermine any military intervention in Iraq?
One thing being anti-war and another trying to end the war by deliberately losing it.
The same liberals throughout the West have given encouragement to Iran.The option isn't kite flying Iraqis,but a nuclear Greater Iran.
Posted by: PeterUK. | April 12, 2007 at 03:06 PM
1) So that is settled,there were al Qaeda connections to Iraq.
2)So,the best solution to Uraq is to neutralise Iran.
3)There is opposition and there is sedition.Why cannot liberals want to stop the campaign in Iraq by winning it?
Posted by: PeterUK. | April 12, 2007 at 03:16 PM
Yes. Not sure what happened to the "loyal opposition" . . . but they haven't been very visible of late.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | April 12, 2007 at 03:37 PM
More and more, Bush sounds like an ill-prepared 5th grader when he speaks on an issue, and devolves to third grader when he takes questions from the press.
A friend of mine (A Bush *supporter*) said back in 2000 that whenever he saw Bush at a live event he felt exactly the way he does when he saw his third-grader in a school play - proud, excited, and very very nervous about the possibility of imminent disaster.
As of this writing he is long past "proud" and "excited".
Posted by: Tom Maguire | April 12, 2007 at 03:42 PM
*sigh* (eyes rolling)
Yes,yes,yes. Please accept yes for an answer. Though I do admit to a slightly more tenacious resistance than expected on the pacification, the war was somewhat less difficult than expected.
All were generally expected yet the authorization got 73 votes in the Senate and the votes of more than 2/3 of the House.
Posted by: MikeS | April 12, 2007 at 03:46 PM
I'm tempted to grab rosary beads myself when he speaks. Still--like Reagan--he was right about the one big thing that came up on his watch. And for that and his courage I still love him, despite his failings and the 24/7 media campaign against him.
Posted by: clarice | April 12, 2007 at 03:47 PM
Pelosi Blinks - Dems Will Meet With Bush On Iraq
Posted by: Sara | April 12, 2007 at 03:56 PM
Sara:
Pelosi Blinks - Dems Will Meet With Bush On Iraq
Well yeah. Did you see her during the State of the Union???? I think someone clocked her at 312 blinks a minute or something.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | April 12, 2007 at 04:06 PM
Jeez man a few days away and now I gotta sign in to the JOM frequent commenters system with my frequent commenter card.
Things sure are expensive in New York TM.
In Houston, gas is right at $2.65 now. I rarely if ever pay more than $2.50 for a loaf of high end designer bread (I am a bread-O-phile). Eggs are $1.19-1.40 per dozen. Milk just under $3 per gallon for 2%.
I know all this pretty precisely because I am a genetic cheapwad and carefully check everything I buy.
Posted by: Dwilkers | April 12, 2007 at 04:17 PM
DW
Prices here are similar, I only know from checking my receipts after the fact, because I don't price shop, I get what I want.
As to gas, I would have to check to see.
I haven't put gas in my cars in months, I am driving a high end all electric car and it seems to serve 90% of my needs.
A couple of times I took the gas vehicles to the store for more trunk space while shopping.
In fact, the first time I will probably buy gas is when I have to top of my gas can for my lawn mower.
Posted by: SlimGuy | April 12, 2007 at 05:21 PM
I'm sick of Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson and the whole Plame affair. It only serves to point out the paucity of thought and issues on the left that their two big items are Valerie Plame and ruining Don Imus, who is now fired from CBS radio as well as MSNBC. Yet, they don't give a damn about the damage they do by embracing the terrorists and jihadists. Stinks! Stinks! Stinks!
Posted by: Sara | April 12, 2007 at 05:24 PM
"We fought in Iraq, allegedly, because there were contacts between Saddam and Al Qaeda. If Bush & Co believed that when they said it..."
I'm not sure that's an accurate characterization of the reasons we went to war in Iraq. I think those reasons are articulated in the congressional AUMF, and at some point I'll gather the energy to go look them up again. While the vote for the AUMF was, indeed, "far from unanimous," it was in fact approved by about 75% of the members of congress, including the Democrat nominee for president in 2004 and the front-runner for 2008.
And I'm not sure what to make of the rhetorical inquiry into whether the administration believed "that" when they said it. Certainly the most fundamental belief that they held--that Saddam had WMD, and was actively seeking more--was shared throughout the previous administration, the CIA, and all of the intelligence agencies of the western world.
Hey Sara--we live about 1/2 mile from the North Island commissary. We go out there sometimes, but more often we go to Von's because getting on the base is a pretty significant hassle since 9/11, with all the concrete barriers you have to zig-zag through. But it's still pretty close to paradise here on this island.
Posted by: Other Tom | April 12, 2007 at 07:41 PM
Just for the record, here's the Wikipedia summary of the AUMF's stated reasons for going to war:
"The resolution cited many factors to justify action:
"Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region";
"Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population";
"Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"'
"Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War;
"Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq"'
"Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations;
"Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States;
"The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them;
"The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism;
"Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement."
Posted by: Other Tom | April 12, 2007 at 07:46 PM
Everything seems predictable in hindsight. It's a form of blindness. In hindsight Victoria Secret Flame is about as "forgettable" as Marilyn Monroe. In hindsight small teams with boxcutters on airplanes could kill thousands.
"The Plan" is always the first casualty of war.
Taking Iraq was easy. Once it's was ours to hold we were on defense. That means the enemy in the global war calls the shots. Guess they didn't want to comply with "the plan".
Just to illustrate the point in a simple way ... would banning boxcutters have prevented 911? Of course !!! (not) Whatever other weapon a small team could use to intimidate pre 911 passengers would have worked just as well. Now no small weapon will work in that situation because after 911 people know better.
So no, without 911 or something like it happening there was no reasonable preventitive measure that would have stopped it. Cockpit locks? Assumes too much knowledge of the 911 type threat. Before 911 pilots would have opened the doors to save a flight attendants life. Armed flight crews? Yeah right. Pre 911 ??? GMAFB.
Hindsight is not useful when the "obvious" after is assumed to be just as obvious before.
Regarding Iraq, a successful defense requires tenacity and resolve more than "the perfect plan". Anything more than planning to win is hindsight blindness.
Posted by: boris | April 12, 2007 at 07:49 PM
Actually, I am not even sure that boxcutters were used, Boris. Check out edwardjayepstein who at one point, at least, seemed to believe they were not--and that whatever the hijackers used they also had something used to immobilize the crew if not the passengers on the first two planes.
Posted by: clarice | April 12, 2007 at 08:18 PM
UPDATE: Just checked and a case of Coors Light bought today would run me $13.99.
FURTHER: I'm now considering having a bourbon weekend. Can't check those prices online - but 750ml should be around $23-$25
OH BOTHER: Was just given a reminder by mrs hit and run of this afternoon/evening duties...What kind of youth soccer association schedules practice on Friday evenings? I have to wait a loooong time.
LAST CALL: Holy schnikes. Is it really only 11am?
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | April 13, 2007 at 11:09 AM
ERRATA: Make no mistake, I would RATHER be at a soccer practice with my son than anything in the world. If only he would try and kick the ball, rather than chase butterflies, though.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | April 13, 2007 at 11:14 AM
You really out to discourage the kids from engaging in team sports. You know where that can lead...sexist , racist "hooligans"..get them to attend demos against plastic bags, turn in smokers not confininh themselves to the increasingly small paramaters in which they can indulge their vices. Seesh.
Posted by: clarice | April 13, 2007 at 11:15 AM
Speaking of team sports (assuming we are): I just got off the phone with my niece who played college basketball.
I expressed my dismay at the reaction of the Rutger's women. My niece said that their reaction was pretty much a joke. If they are playing NCAA basketball at that level they get called a lot worse than "nappy-haired ho's" at every basketball game, on the court by the opposing team, during the game. They didn't get this far by whining about it.
She shared my concern at their reaction to the controversy, and the milking of the incident. Apparently last nite in the meeting with Imus, one said the incident had "ruined her life forever".
(And for the record, I judge their reaction separately from the Imus incident. Imus has been saying stuff like this for years. CBS is spineless to take a position now, after condoning it for so long. And where the hell is the firing of Rosie is this is now the standard?)
At any rate, given their handling of this matter I don't expect great acts of courage from the Rutger's women at any time in the future.
Posted by: Jane | April 13, 2007 at 11:28 AM
That's not the worst part. princess hit and run has a soccer game on Sunday....and I'm the coach!!!
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | April 13, 2007 at 11:30 AM
Funny you should mention Rosie, Jane. On "the View" the racist, sexist game is still aboil.
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/12/rose-mcgowan-on-duke-kids-eh-they-were-probably-guilty-of-something/>Dumb Borads Actually, I think we should initiate a class action suit that this show and the Ladies Mags represent a concerted effort to suck womens' brains out.
Posted by: clarice | April 13, 2007 at 11:31 AM
I'm still not coming h & r...Why not get a book on accessorizing and talk the girls into working on that instead of soccer? It's critical information, and it just takes some cookies, milk, old Vogues and some scarves and belts from Mrs H & R's stash.
Posted by: clarice | April 13, 2007 at 11:34 AM