Our President was criticized for his possibly precipitate withdrawal from Iraq. However, in evaluating the mechanics of a hypothetical Israeli attack on Iran the NY Times notes an unheralded subtlety:
Iran Raid Seen as a Huge Task for Israeli Jets
WASHINGTON — Should Israel decide to launch a strike on Iran, its pilots would have to fly more than 1,000 miles across unfriendly airspace, refuel in the air en route, fight off Iran’s air defenses, attack multiple underground sites simultaneously — and use at least 100 planes.
...
Given that Israel would want to strike Iran’s four major nuclear sites — the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordo, the heavy-water reactor at Arak and the yellowcake-conversion plant at Isfahan — military analysts say the first problem is how to get there. There are three potential routes: to the north over Turkey, to the south over Saudi Arabia or taking a central route across Jordan and Iraq.
The route over Iraq would be the most direct and likely, defense analysts say, because Iraq effectively has no air defenses and the United States, after its December withdrawal, no longer has the obligation to defend Iraqi skies. “That was a concern of the Israelis a year ago, that we would come up and intercept their aircraft if the Israelis chose to take a path across Iraq,” said a former defense official who asked for anonymity to discuss secret intelligence.
I assume the US would not have scrambled jets to tangle with the Israeli Air Force, but failing to do so might have antagonized Iraqis unhappy with our taking Israel's side, and putting Iraq on Israel's side, in the effort against Iran. So now the US can keep its hands clean diplomatically. That contradicts what John McCain said last November:
And McCain said the withdrawal will hurt Iraq and benefit its long-time regional rival. "It is hard to see the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq as anything but a win for Iran," he said.
Well, it increases the challenge faced by Iran's diplomats and air defense planners. Who suspected Obama the Peacemaker was actually laying the groundwork for a bit of warmogering? USA Today noted this airspace argument a few days ago, but I have not seen it widely discussed. (OK, we aren't going to start blogging about my areas of ignorance, there being only 24 hours in the day...)
There has been too much 'these are not the droids, you're looking for, since the 2007
NIE, a lot of this with David Sanger, who told
us the 'rest of the story' conveniently after
the election,
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2012 at 10:56 AM
Of course, Wikileaks showed us that most of the Gulf was as equally verklempt as the Knesset, but not apparently King Saul Boulevard.as much, stewardship of the Caesarea teams apparently doesn't have much impact.
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2012 at 11:00 AM
That was a concern of the Israelis a year ago
I bet it wasn't a concern of theirs between three and eight years ago.
Posted by: bgates | February 20, 2012 at 11:18 AM
Tom means "precipitate" withdrawal.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 20, 2012 at 11:19 AM
Well yes, bgates, but 'look squirrel' wait a tick, wasn't Iran such a small country that didn't pose us much of a threat, Herr Doktor
Walt, is pondering that notion,
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2012 at 11:25 AM
I welcome anything that McCain gets wrong, even if his initial instinct was correct.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 20, 2012 at 11:29 AM
Paul Ryan yesterday. This guy should be our nominee:
“What we’re getting from the White House on this conscience issue, it’s not an issue about contraception, it’s an issue that reveals a political philosophy the president is showing that basically treats our constitutional rights as if they were revocable privileges from our government, not inalienable rights from our creator,”
Posted by: GMAX | February 20, 2012 at 11:46 AM
Clarice's Pieces is a Lucianne Must Read today.
Well deserved!
Posted by: caro | February 20, 2012 at 11:49 AM
Recall that this was under discussion in the last few months of Bush's administration as well and Iran has simply gone farther down its path towards nuclear weaponry.
Nothing at all to worry about. One more unstable country in the ME in Syria; Afghanistan going to hell, inklings of more civil unrest in the Levant. The MB rising in Egypt.
Problem is, the American people don't give a damn and Obama knows it. He'll peddle his snake oil and perhaps 51% will believe his BS come November.
Posted by: matt | February 20, 2012 at 11:50 AM
Yes, that Van Dieppen and Fingar's handiwork,
the former was promoted to the upper lengths of state, where Wikileaks showed he was surprised by China's missile proliferation,
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2012 at 12:01 PM
Paul Ryan yesterday. This guy should be our nominee...
Posted by: GMAX | February 20, 2012 at 11:46 AM
------
Well, sure, if you are the kind of person who likes intelligent, passionate, attractive, quick, humorous candidates.
I'll take Romney instead, thank you very much. ;)
Posted by: mockmook | February 20, 2012 at 12:01 PM
He can't become the nominee unless he runs.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 20, 2012 at 12:16 PM
Yes, of course, Obama the genius foresaw all of this. Just as in 1990 I foretold that this year a Russian oligarch would own a US baseball team and run for President of Russia. (I just wish I were able to locate my prediction.)
Posted by: Clarice | February 20, 2012 at 12:21 PM
I'm sure you misplaced it, in your files,
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2012 at 12:27 PM
I'm not sure we deserve another four years of this strategic genius. After all, yesterday I saw Spike Lee rocking the jersey of a Taiwanese American. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 20, 2012 at 12:31 PM
Well, sure, if you are the kind of person who likes intelligent, passionate, attractive, quick, humorous candidates.
Both Romney and Santorum are intelligent, passionate, attractive and quick. Newt is three of the four. I don't think a campaign for POTUS is the place to judge humor, since anything said with a twinkly eye is brought back to defame you.
We have to quit pretending that just over the horizon is the perfect candidate, if only we could capture him. It's nonsense and ensures our loss next November.
Posted by: (Another) Barbara | February 20, 2012 at 12:32 PM
Clarice,
Its a basketball team. The NJ Nets (IIRC).
narciso, isn't the detail of the Israeli battleplan in Rosenberg's "The Tehran Initiative"?
Posted by: Jack is Back! | February 20, 2012 at 12:33 PM
Well I won't hold that against Lin, OT, Jason Whitlock is really turning out to be a fool
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2012 at 12:36 PM
GMAX:
I would have happily supported Ryan and Daniels, and some others. They did not run. I would love to know why.
The fact that they did not run has become a problem for the GOP, because the Presidential campaign, thus far, has not been about the economy. It has been about the gaffes by selected Republicans, and the way everyone has a hate on for one candidate or another.
Posted by: Appalled | February 20, 2012 at 12:41 PM
When they finally correct the error and put me in charge, he will be the nominee.
Posted by: GMAX | February 20, 2012 at 12:42 PM
No, and you're not going to get such a resolution, because that is not the point of
the process, how the heck did we end up with
McCain,
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2012 at 12:44 PM
I'm glad Whitlock is revealing himself to everybody as an unoriginal and unfunny sports pundit.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 20, 2012 at 12:44 PM
"I would love to know why."
Take a hard look at the Florida primary. Pyrrhus couldn't have done any better.
The 'smart' money read the pitch book, looked at the war chest, noted the success in the early undercutting of opposition and is now watching quietly from the sidelines.
It's just a shame that the product doesn't match the marketing.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 20, 2012 at 12:51 PM
"... doling out generous subsidies—totaling more than $130 billion, according to research from Germany’s Ruhr University—to citizens to invest in solar energy ... solar power accounts for only about 0.3 percent of Germany’s total energy"
And yet, Germany still is talking about taking down their nuclear power using wind instead.
To think, for only $43 trillion, Germany will be 100% solar.
Posted by: Neo | February 20, 2012 at 12:52 PM
I bet it wasn't a concern of theirs between three and eight years ago.
It's almost unbelievable that we have an administration that would raise that concern. That an American administration would intercept Israeli planes trying to take out Iranian nuclear weapons facilities--it's like some kind of bizarro nightmare world.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 20, 2012 at 12:55 PM
There are times I thinking they are sending their missives from Barsoom, it can't be Earth
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_19983680
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2012 at 12:58 PM
How often does the sun shine in Germany? Its certainly not Phoenix and the Valley of the Sun with 270 or more sunny days a year. I dont think you can build a solar system without total redundancy, so double the $43B to $86B and see if it takes the smug off the mug...
Posted by: GMAX | February 20, 2012 at 12:58 PM
Not to worry. Ron Paul will buy off Iran's defense capabilities.
Posted by: jorod | February 20, 2012 at 12:58 PM
""possibly precipitous withdrawal""
Another free birth countrol method offered by the insurance companies.
Posted by: Pops | February 20, 2012 at 01:03 PM
It's just a shame that the product doesn't match the marketing.
Many primary voters seem to have figured that out, Rick, despite the TV Ad assaults.
Posted by: centralcal | February 20, 2012 at 01:06 PM
Perhaps the REpublicans would fid more love from the lefties if rather then say they will repeal Obamacare, or get rid of the Education department, they said they woud commit to them being 100% solar and wind power in their first term.
That is no work, in fact no employees, will be driven by anyhting but alternative energy and if the energy isn't there, then the work doesn't get done.
So simple.
Posted by: Pops | February 20, 2012 at 01:06 PM
Off topic but I just read the Daily Caller piece on all these foundations that are kicking in millions to kill Keystone and other fossil-fuel development. It's past time that these entities were exposed and the businesses that made the money for the benefactors of these foundations get boycotted by the right. Google, HP, Intel, etc. The bigwigs of those outfits form foundations that contribute huge money to entities that would just as soon see the end of the free market. I don't get it.
Posted by: Mad Jack | February 20, 2012 at 01:10 PM
Maybe Harvard will solve Obama's problem.
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/02/20/harvard-to-host-conference-promoting-israels-destruction/
Posted by: pagar | February 20, 2012 at 01:12 PM
From Pagar's 1:12
A number of student groups and others associated with Harvard are sponsoring “One State Conference: Israel/Palestine and the One State Solution.”
Perhaps Israel should host a conference on merging Harvard with Northeastern U. and UMass-Boston and call it the "One University Solution."
Posted by: jimmyk | February 20, 2012 at 01:19 PM
"it's like some kind of bizarro nightmare world"
jimmyk,
Isn't it more bizarre to think that Iraq and the KSA would object to Israel hammering the Iranian nuclear capacity into dust? Iraq is on the verge of being able to replace Iranian production with hardly a ripple and the Russian/OPEC cartel is cutting production due to falling demand. Taking Iran offline poses a minimal risk at the moment and punching the Persians senseless has been an Arab sport for quite some time.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear that Israel gassed up in Iraq and the KSA prior to taking care of the problem in Iran.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 20, 2012 at 01:24 PM
Rick,
Yes, but they probably need plausible deniability--that seems to be the protocol in the Arab world. So refueling might be too much. Overflying is ok--"Sorry, we don't have the air defenses."
Posted by: jimmyk | February 20, 2012 at 01:42 PM
You know it's not hard to be cynical some times, I'm sure the notion will come to them;
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/pakistan-cant-seem-to-figure-out-why-bin-laden-was-hiding-there/253313/
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2012 at 01:42 PM
With friends like this: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2012/02/20/wapos-conservative-blogger-scolds-santorum-stop-whining-about-media-doub
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 20, 2012 at 01:47 PM
It's like bringing up the Pegster, for fishbarrelling, not worth the bother, Captain.
Mind you, I do have some concerns about Rick's approach, but it does no good to go screaming into the night,
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2012 at 01:55 PM
Or this person, of course accusing a whole party of accessory to murder, just peachy;
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/02/19/2647459/civility-is-golden.html
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2012 at 02:00 PM
Corrected; my confidence just fell off a cliff.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | February 20, 2012 at 02:00 PM
jimmy k that is so good you ought to blog it. Try AT if you're interested.
Posted by: Clarice | February 20, 2012 at 02:20 PM
Israel will [not] attempt to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities via air strikes, which would be suicidal from a variety of perspectives, and the chances of success are dubious at best in view of the ways that those sites are constructed.
But if they were to attempt to destroy those facilities, hypothetically, it would be via quick in-and-out, 4-prong, surgical, commando-type ground raids like the raid on Entebbe, infiltrating Iran months in advance - an extremely risky, but not undoable undertaking, the logistics of which, alone, would be mind-boggling if Israelis are up to the task.
Posted by: Brian | February 20, 2012 at 02:23 PM
Mad Jack, the usual pattern is the rich capitalist dies, leaving his money to a foundation with his feckless, retarded children at the helm. They die in time or are too busy with other endeavors--lie testing crack or courting showgirls-- and it gets put into the hands of a gormless class of foundation administrators who are invariably leftwing. No one on the toothless boards oversees or stops them from their anti-capitalist grant making, and Congress is too chicken to tighten the rules..
Posted by: Clarice | February 20, 2012 at 02:23 PM
Thanks, JiB, I do know that and don't know why I said "baseball"
Posted by: Clarice | February 20, 2012 at 02:25 PM
Take the Pews, the Sun Oil supporters of the John Birch Society, ans in fairly short order
turned into yet another agitprop provider,
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2012 at 02:27 PM
I mean there current behavior would run counter to their charter, Sunoco bythe way
Although today the Pew Charitable Trusts is rigorously non-partisan and non-ideological, Joseph Pew and his heirs were themselves politically conservative. The mission of the J. Howard Pew Freedom Trust was to "acquaint the American people with the evils of bureaucracy and the values of a free market and to inform our people of the struggle, persecution, hardship, sacrifice and death by which freedom of the individual was won." Joseph N. Pew, Jr. called Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal "a gigantic scheme to raze U.S. businesses to a dead level and debase the citizenry into a mass of ballot-casting serfs."[2]
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2012 at 02:29 PM
Clarice at 2:20, not playing dumb, but you mean the "One University" conference? Thanks, I'll see if I can do something with it.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 20, 2012 at 02:34 PM
Ah Jeez, Tom.
Look, the Yanks just offloaded A.J. Burnett. Will that restore your confidence a bit?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 20, 2012 at 02:40 PM
Yes, jimmy.
Posted by: Clarice | February 20, 2012 at 02:44 PM
Clarice: I'm afraid I know the sad progression you describe but I note in the Daily Caller piece that a number of these original benefactors are still alive so they have no excuse. I'm not sure what if anything can be done but it is beyond frustrating to see people who made it big in the tech world because government kept hands off turn around and do everything they can to get government to sabotage another legitimate industry.
Posted by: Mad Jack | February 20, 2012 at 02:57 PM
This is no big deal.
I heard LEON PANETTA yesterday!! He said that a NUCLEAR IRAN was not acceptable!!
So there you have it!! No problemo!!
Posted by: Gus | February 20, 2012 at 03:03 PM
Gus, it's GREAT seeing you posting!!
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 20, 2012 at 03:06 PM
We've already heard this, and may have seen other graphics:
OMG~ABO,
Sandy
Posted by: Sandy Daze | February 20, 2012 at 03:17 PM
A pundit on Squawkbox Europe this AM said Libyan oil production was almost up to pre-war levels.
Don't know how they're doing it with all the chaos going on.
Posted by: glasater | February 20, 2012 at 03:21 PM
BTW, Israelis are [not] up to the task. In fact, the only organization in the region capable of pulling off such raids with any expections of success is France's elite DGSE in coordination with close air support and recoveries, and I don't see what incentives they would have to undertake such an operation at the present time, in view of current circumstances. So alas, unless those circumstances change, any destruction of those nuclear facilities is a fantasy,
Posted by: Brian | February 20, 2012 at 03:22 PM
Mad Jack, Except for foundations designed to assist a specific charitable institution--a hospital, school, church, etc--make them pay out everything in 10-15 years.Set limits on administrators' salaries. Around here all the universities have presidents earning at least a million p/a/ plus generous benefits. And that's not unusual. All it takes is some guts in Congress.
We are talking trillions of dollars. Put it to use on real charitable purposes and not sponsoring anti-American Congresses around the world or hamstringing American development.
Everyone in Congress is too afraid to take them on.
Posted by: Clarice | February 20, 2012 at 03:25 PM
Clarice: Hard not to throw the baby out with the bathwater when coming up with fixes but better minds than mine can come up with reasonable starting points. Your suggestions are a good starting point. I'll have to do some research and see if some enterprising right thinking academics have made any suggestions to address this issue.
Posted by: Mad Jack | February 20, 2012 at 03:59 PM
Max Baucus proposed some changes a few years ago and they are worth re-visiting.http://www2.guidestar.org/rxa/news/articles/2004/congress-looks-at-charity-reform.aspx?articleId=810
Posted by: Clarice | February 20, 2012 at 04:10 PM
Thanks, Clarice.
Posted by: Mad Jack | February 20, 2012 at 04:17 PM
Brian,
Do you have any particular expertise in the areas you are pronouncing on or are you just C&Ping from sources like the ones who told us Saddam's army and air defenses would be an extremely tough nut to crack prior to Desert Storm and how all of our high tech weapons would come a cropper in the difficult desert environment when faced with relatively modern Soviet defenses?
Posted by: Ignatz | February 20, 2012 at 04:19 PM
Every cave has an entrance and exit, and it seems to me if you could block those you might render the entire underground operation useless. But I didn't think Saddam's forces would be a tough nut to crack.
Posted by: Clarice | February 20, 2012 at 04:33 PM
BTW remember before the war the elaborate Bin Ladin cave-tunnel system the London Times published? Heh.
Posted by: Clarice | February 20, 2012 at 04:34 PM
http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/2002image/netherpopup.gif
Here it is to refresh your recollection.
Posted by: Clarice | February 20, 2012 at 04:35 PM
And then there were the reports of our getting bogged down when in the fastest invasion imaginable we stopped for a bit because of sandstorms. Double Heh
Posted by: Clarice | February 20, 2012 at 04:37 PM
I went to the Ohio Lincoln Day Dinner and Romney was the speaker. Over 1200 Republicans present liked his presentation. I was impressed. In person Mitt comes across as our really electable answer to Barack Hussein Obama. Just my opinion.
Posted by: maryrose | February 20, 2012 at 04:39 PM
This makes my heart sing!
Oh My: Dem Pollster Finds George W. Bush With Better Favorable Numbers Than Obama…
Posted by: Jane | February 20, 2012 at 05:00 PM
actually the Israelis are the only Class A game in the region these days, including the United States.
They have the operational security, means, and motivation. However, going up against the USAF or Navy is not an option.
Carrier groups are very good at projecting force, but in this case the targets are hardened and there is a strong political defense in place courtesy of the Russians and Chinese.Obama has already spoken clearly on where we stand.
The Turks have also been vocal about sharing intelligence through NATO. Now why do you think they would say that now? The Turkish - Israeli alliance is at the moment inoperative.
While the Gulf States may covertly support an Israeli mission, the street would go berserk in the countries with large Shiite populations. Not a lot of political-diplomatic cover on this one.
And why would the Saudis, as Drudge seems to be indicating, turn the tap on oil exports when Iran is going off line?
Posted by: matt | February 20, 2012 at 05:06 PM
What choice does Israel have?
Israel WILL DO THIS.
They have to.
Posted by: Gus | February 20, 2012 at 05:15 PM
I think Israel is getting ready to do whatever it is they are going to do. I'll be surprised if Netanyahu and Obama meet on 3/5. Obama won't want to be seen with Netanyahu by that time.
Posted by: Sue | February 20, 2012 at 05:27 PM
I think Israel still has to wait for a clear casus belli.
The nuke inspectors are in Teheran now for their double final we really mean it and if you don't stop we will write a very strong report visit.
And after that wonderful nuke inspector/Egyptian presidential candidate screwed up in Iraq with his child molester sidekick, I think they're going to have to be very careful.
Something like this will require a smoking gun to keep the lid on.
Posted by: matt | February 20, 2012 at 05:37 PM
glasater,
Libya is basically an upstream operation - production and export pipeline. They have refining capabillity but not like the Euros (their market). Easier to get pumping and pipelining and loading up to par than if you have to do all the mechanical and electrical to fix a refinery with serious damage.
With the size of the IAF fleet of F-15E's and F-15i's (Sufa) plus the F-16i (Ra'am) capability partnered with their refuelers, gunships, advanced avionics and EWAC C4I capability, they are the superior air power in the region. They have a plan and it will be something we don't expect, nor Iran, nor its neighbors. You can take that to the bank.
And part of it could be what Brian suggested but his plan is only for FAC and not to do the deed - only air power can do that. Now, if only Israel had a carrier:)
Posted by: Jack is Back! | February 20, 2012 at 05:42 PM
OT,
Rocket blasts through aurora over Alaska for GPS research.
Cool photos at the link.
I knew we had a Rocket launching site on Kodiak, but had no idea we also had one near Fairbanks.
Posted by: daddy | February 20, 2012 at 05:46 PM
daddy,
Are they part of JBER?
Posted by: Jack is Back! | February 20, 2012 at 05:54 PM
€130 Billion to €170 Billion to €215 Billion; the Greek crisis seems to morph every time they meet. LUN
Posted by: matt | February 20, 2012 at 05:59 PM
JiB,
Here's the Poker Flats Research Range Rocket Launch website. Looks like it has NASA ties but no ties with the Military, and has this description:
"Poker Flat Research Range is the world's only scientific rocket launching facility owned by a university. Poker Flat is located approximately 30 miles north of Fairbanks, Alaska and is operated by the University of Alaska's Geophysical Institute..."
Posted by: daddy | February 20, 2012 at 06:10 PM
Lets not forget that Israel has a submarine fleet. [I know, vulnerable when passing around in the US patrolled Gulf]. And they have tomahawk capability. Just another peg in the old guessing board.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | February 20, 2012 at 06:13 PM
Great:
"Rick Santorum’s spokeswoman Alice Stewart said in a TV interview on Monday that Santorum was referring to President Barack Obama’s “radical Islamic policies” when he said the president’s agenda was driven by “phony theology” — but then quickly called up MSNBC after the segment aired to say she misspoke.
“'There is a type of theological secularism when it comes to the global warmists in this country. That’s what he was referring to. He was referring to the president’s policies in terms of the radical Islamic policies the president has,' Stewart said on 'Andrea Mitchell Reports.'"
She said later that she meant to say "environmental."
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 20, 2012 at 06:33 PM
Completely O/T and just for chuckles, MOTUS comments about the
Big FootFLOTUS ski vacay includes a side by side comparison of the angled AP photo which makes it appear Moochelle is skiing down a real hill (note the leaning trees), but when corrected so that the trees are erect, we see she is barely on an incline! Ha ha ha ha - how the media tries so hard to make her look good!Another commenter, whose daughter lives in Aspen, says her daughter was told - while playing pool with a lift operator - that Moochelle fell off the lift like an idiot.
My link above takes you to the comment section and if you scroll down about midway you will see the original photo as published by AP and the corrected photo.
Posted by: centralcal | February 20, 2012 at 06:41 PM
addy;
I picked this up from the Geophysical Institute web site, but I'm sure you're already aware:
"In Fairbanks the average temperature was minus 26.9 degrees Fahrenheit, a very substantial minus 19 degrees below the long-term mean for January. "
Posted by: matt | February 20, 2012 at 06:41 PM
d
Posted by: matt | February 20, 2012 at 06:41 PM
That was a clarification?
Posted by: MarkO | February 20, 2012 at 06:42 PM
--That was a clarification?--
Certainly. His previous comment was addressed to addyd.
Posted by: Ignatz | February 20, 2012 at 06:44 PM
Unfortunately, Stewart was Bachmann's former press spokesman, as I recall, but the transcript more or less bears him out.
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2012 at 06:47 PM
Certainly. His previous comment was addressed to addyd.
lol!
Posted by: centralcal | February 20, 2012 at 06:48 PM
Of course she did.
Posted by: Barbara | February 20, 2012 at 06:48 PM
Radical Islamic agenda? To bad Stephanopolous wasn't there to correct her.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | February 20, 2012 at 06:50 PM
Text it's the thing above the subtext;
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/02/20/media-cherry-pick-41-minute-santorum-speech-misrepresent-obamas-phony
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2012 at 06:51 PM
DoT, it's clear from the context that the spokesperson misspoke.
Posted by: mockmook | February 20, 2012 at 06:54 PM
Now. in retrospect he should have used template, mindset, paradigm, but this is what he meant, and as with Cain' nuclear episode, even moi was fooled for a bit,
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2012 at 07:01 PM
Now whatever you do, don 't be a Frum,
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/20/opinion/frum-gop-nomination/index.html
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2012 at 07:19 PM
Sorry. I like Ike.
Posted by: MarkO | February 20, 2012 at 07:27 PM
Some details about the Standard Oil twostep against the Canadian Menace;
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/20/who-was-behind-the-money-to-stop-keystone-xl/
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2012 at 07:27 PM
a very substantial minus 19 degrees below the long-term mean for January
That would actually be 19 degrees above the mean, as our subractors of negative numbers would gladly attest to.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 20, 2012 at 07:27 PM
Oh no, I killed the thread.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 20, 2012 at 08:00 PM
I think it should read "a very substantial 19 degrees below..."
I have no doubt Santorum's spokesman misspoke.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 20, 2012 at 08:04 PM
--Now whatever you do, don 't be a Frum--
Those are some words to live by.
Especially don't be a Fnork Frum which sounds either like a particularly depraved sexual act or some type of evil, small, furry footed denizen of a Tolkien book.
Posted by: Ignatz | February 20, 2012 at 08:09 PM
Yes, no doubt, then again consider where she came from;
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/santorum-campaign-hires-former-bachmann-press-secretary-alice-stewart/
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2012 at 08:10 PM
<< I have no doubt Santorum's spokesman misspoke.>>
Some word combinations just seem to go together.
Posted by: Caro | February 20, 2012 at 08:15 PM
Well to be fair, that tiny excerpt from the Ohio Tea Party was unrepresentative, but there should have been more rapid response
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2012 at 08:32 PM