Comments on: Defending The Indefensible http://informedspeculation.com/2006/11/27/defending-the-indefensible/ Refunds Cheerfully Given To All Who Disagree Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:53:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: PMain http://informedspeculation.com/2006/11/27/defending-the-indefensible/comment-page-1/#comment-147283 PMain Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:06:34 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/11/27/defending-the-indefensible/#comment-147283 My God, Greenwald asking for direct proof of anything or dismissing any point as speculation is almost laughable. This coming from the guy who blankets all conservatives or Republicans by citing a singular conservative blogger to make his point or has called all supporters of Bush, cultists, has taken speculation to the far extremes of unadulterated conjecture or pure fantasy. His arguments - or lack thereof - tend to be overly simplistic or drawn out & follow the simple pattern, employed by most ligitation attorneys who advertise on TV, build a carefully constructed straw man to destroy. My God, Greenwald asking for direct proof of anything or dismissing any point as speculation is almost laughable. This coming from the guy who blankets all conservatives or Republicans by citing a singular conservative blogger to make his point or has called all supporters of Bush, cultists, has taken speculation to the far extremes of unadulterated conjecture or pure fantasy. His arguments – or lack thereof – tend to be overly simplistic or drawn out & follow the simple pattern, employed by most ligitation attorneys who advertise on TV, build a carefully constructed straw man to destroy.

]]> By: Andy http://informedspeculation.com/2006/11/27/defending-the-indefensible/comment-page-1/#comment-147280 Andy Tue, 28 Nov 2006 23:59:22 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/11/27/defending-the-indefensible/#comment-147280 <b>Dennis</b>; don't you realize that the MSM is powerless against our evil VRWC? <b>Glenn</b>; ever feel like the protagonist in a dream where you're running as hard as you can, but going nowhere fast? I mean it's absolutely blood-curdling, bone-chilling and hair-raising horrifying that that Pelosi/Hastings just can't get any traction and make their escape from that there Black Lagoon Creature from Texas. bwhhahaha 8) With condolences to Winnie The Pooh And The Blustery Day Song: <b>Heffalumps And Woozles</b>. <blockquote> They're evil They're red They're up They're undead They're in They're out They're all about They're far They're near They're gone They're here They're quick and slick and insincere Beware Beware Be a very wary Speaker A HeffaGOP or FOXzle is very confusel The HeffaGOP or FOXzle is very sly - sly - sly - sly They come in ones and twoosels but if they so choosels before your eyes you'll see them multiply, - ply - ply - ply They're extra-ordinary so better be wary Because they come in every shape and size, - size - size - size If Steny isn't what you covet you'll find that they love it Because they nuk-lear the things you prize They're green They're blue They're pink They're white They're round They're square They're a terrible sight They'll tie you in horrible knots They paint you in stripes or yeller polka-dots Beware Beware Be a very wary dear (Nancy) (sKerry musical interlude minus punchline) They're extra-ordinary so better be wary Because they come in every shape and size - size - size - size If Janey isn't what you covet you'll find that they love it Because they nuk-lear the things you prize They're evil They're red They're up They're undead They're in They're out They're all about They're far They're near They're gone They're here They're quick and slick and insincere Beware Beware Beware Beware Beware .... </blockquote> Sorry Mark ;) Dennis; don’t you realize that the MSM is powerless against our evil VRWC?

Glenn; ever feel like the protagonist in a dream where you’re running as hard as you can, but going nowhere fast? I mean it’s absolutely blood-curdling, bone-chilling and hair-raising horrifying that that Pelosi/Hastings just can’t get any traction and make their escape from that there Black Lagoon Creature from Texas. bwhhahaha 8)

With condolences to Winnie The Pooh And The Blustery Day Song: Heffalumps And Woozles.

They’re evil
They’re red
They’re up
They’re undead
They’re in
They’re out
They’re all about
They’re far
They’re near
They’re gone
They’re here
They’re quick and slick and insincere
Beware
Beware
Be a very wary Speaker

A HeffaGOP or FOXzle is very confusel
The HeffaGOP or FOXzle is very sly
- sly – sly – sly
They come in ones and twoosels
but if they so choosels
before your eyes you’ll see them multiply, – ply – ply – ply

They’re extra-ordinary so better be wary
Because they come in every shape and size, – size – size – size

If Steny isn’t what you covet you’ll find that they love it
Because they nuk-lear the things you prize

They’re green
They’re blue
They’re pink
They’re white
They’re round
They’re square
They’re a terrible sight
They’ll tie you in horrible knots
They paint you in stripes or yeller polka-dots

Beware
Beware
Be a very wary dear (Nancy)

(sKerry musical interlude minus punchline)

They’re extra-ordinary so better be wary
Because they come in every shape and size
- size – size – size

If Janey isn’t what you covet you’ll find that they love it
Because they nuk-lear the things you prize

They’re evil
They’re red
They’re up
They’re undead
They’re in
They’re out
They’re all about
They’re far
They’re near
They’re gone
They’re here
They’re quick and slick and insincere
Beware
Beware
Beware
Beware
Beware ….

Sorry Mark ;)

]]> By: Dennis http://informedspeculation.com/2006/11/27/defending-the-indefensible/comment-page-1/#comment-147126 Dennis Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:10:45 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/11/27/defending-the-indefensible/#comment-147126 It seems to me that if all this stuff about Hastings was some evil conspiracy or bored blatherings ginned up by the VRWC/media cabal, wouldn't be fairly easy to defuse it? Couldn't Pelosi come out and say "i'm not appointing Hastings"? Couldn't Hastings come out and say, "I'm not interested in the job"? And yet instead of putting an end to all these apparently baseless accusations, they let the story continue to twist its way through political coverage, undermining the new Democratic majority every day that the refuse to quash it. Gosh, why is that? I guess those VWRC/media cabal conspiracies are especially tricky. It seems to me that if all this stuff about Hastings was some evil conspiracy or bored blatherings ginned up by the VRWC/media cabal, wouldn’t be fairly easy to defuse it? Couldn’t Pelosi come out and say “i’m not appointing Hastings”? Couldn’t Hastings come out and say, “I’m not interested in the job”?

And yet instead of putting an end to all these apparently baseless accusations, they let the story continue to twist its way through political coverage, undermining the new Democratic majority every day that the refuse to quash it. Gosh, why is that? I guess those VWRC/media cabal conspiracies are especially tricky.

]]> By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2006/11/27/defending-the-indefensible/comment-page-1/#comment-146968 Mark Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:29:56 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/11/27/defending-the-indefensible/#comment-146968 It's true, you did...so kudos to you. Actually, I do check 'em out from time to time...the quality level is pretty high, for the most part... It’s true, you did…so kudos to you.

Actually, I do check ‘em out from time to time…the quality level is pretty high, for the most part…

]]> By: Fargus http://informedspeculation.com/2006/11/27/defending-the-indefensible/comment-page-1/#comment-146965 Fargus Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:26:06 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/11/27/defending-the-indefensible/#comment-146965 I told you a while ago that TPM and TPMMuckraker were doing really good coverage of this stuff. Where's my love, Mark? I told you a while ago that TPM and TPMMuckraker were doing really good coverage of this stuff. Where’s my love, Mark?

]]> By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2006/11/27/defending-the-indefensible/comment-page-1/#comment-146701 Mark Tue, 28 Nov 2006 02:24:53 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/11/27/defending-the-indefensible/#comment-146701 Many thanks, sir...as always, I bow to the greater wisdom of the MinuteMan... Many thanks, sir…as always, I bow to the greater wisdom of the MinuteMan…

]]> By: Tom Maguire http://informedspeculation.com/2006/11/27/defending-the-indefensible/comment-page-1/#comment-146695 Tom Maguire Tue, 28 Nov 2006 01:59:25 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/11/27/defending-the-indefensible/#comment-146695 Back in Sept 2005 Charles Babington of <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/26/AR2005092601395.html" rel="nofollow">the WaPo</a> had this: <i>Harman May Get Boot in '07 The widely praised Sept. 11 commission recommended that members of the House and Senate intelligence committees stay for several terms to build expertise. But the top Democrat on the House committee may be booted in early 2007, and the reason has more to do with internal party politics than intelligence matters. Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.) has been the House intelligence panel's ranking Democrat for three years. She would like to hold the post several more years, and a January 2003 House rules change would seem to work in her favor. At the time, the GOP-controlled House exempted the intelligence committee's leadership from term limits in a bid to keep then-Chairman Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), now the CIA director. The rule change applied to the ranking minority member as well. Nonetheless, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has told colleagues she plans to replace Harman with Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (D-Fla.) when the 110th Congress convenes in January 2007, assuming all three members are reelected next year. Hastings, the committee's next-most-senior Democrat, is African American, and the Congressional Black Caucus strongly backs his claim on the post. The CBC is an influential player in Pelosi's 202-member Democratic caucus, and its members are sensitive on this issue. They remember that black lawmaker Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.) lost his January 2003 bid to be the intelligence committee's ranking Democrat when Pelosi gave the post to Harman. Bishop and his allies said he had greater seniority, noting that Harman had quit the House in 1998 to run unsuccessfully for governor. But Democratic leaders, in persuading Harman to reclaim her seat in 2000, had restored her committee seniority. Bishop was placated with a coveted spot on the Appropriations Committee, but black Democrats do not want to be passed over again. Hastings said in an interview that Pelosi has signaled he will be the intelligence committee's top Democrat after the 2006 elections. "If we follow the pecking order, I'll be the ranking member or the chairman," he said.</i> <a href="http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000978.php" rel="nofollow">Steve Clemons</a> wrote this at the time: <i>I learned -- in great detail -- about Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's intentions to unseat Representative Jane Harman as Ranking Member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence on Saturday, the 17th of September but sat on the story, both because I wanted to dig a bit deeper and also because I was being crushed by some other deadlines. All that said, the story is out, and the Washington Post's Charles Babington has the best run down at the moment. Here is a longish excerpt of yesterday's story...</i> I don't know if that is "proof" of anything - maybe we could invite Alcee in for a lie detector test - but Clemons is independently confirming a WaPo story which quotes Alcce as saying "If we follow the pecking order, I'll be the ranking member or the chairman". One of the many odd (yet oddly predictable) omissions from the Greenwald post was links to the notable and significant supporters of Jane Harman, to wit, the LA Times and the NY Times; can we agree that (no disrespect intended) they have more clout in Pelosi's world than MacRanger? Most of his other links were to Hastings-bashers, although I emerged as a Harman supporter for pointing out Greenwald's lies (or ignorance) about the status of the investigation into the Harman investigation. Other than that, I don't think I have ever attempted to argue that Harman was an objectively excellent candidate, although I prefer her to Hastings (I predicted Reyes would emerge, but who knows?) So, per Greenwald's post, neocons and Lieberman backers, like the Times, are supporting Harman. It seems unkind to note that the Times endorsed Lamont in both the primary and the general election. All part of their subtle conspiracy, no doubt. Back in Sept 2005 Charles Babington of the WaPo had this:

Harman May Get Boot in ’07

The widely praised Sept. 11 commission recommended that members of the House and Senate intelligence committees stay for several terms to build expertise. But the top Democrat on the House committee may be booted in early 2007, and the reason has more to do with internal party politics than intelligence matters.

Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.) has been the House intelligence panel’s ranking Democrat for three years. She would like to hold the post several more years, and a January 2003 House rules change would seem to work in her favor. At the time, the GOP-controlled House exempted the intelligence committee’s leadership from term limits in a bid to keep then-Chairman Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), now the CIA director. The rule change applied to the ranking minority member as well.

Nonetheless, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has told colleagues she plans to replace Harman with Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (D-Fla.) when the 110th Congress convenes in January 2007, assuming all three members are reelected next year. Hastings, the committee’s next-most-senior Democrat, is African American, and the Congressional Black Caucus strongly backs his claim on the post.

The CBC is an influential player in Pelosi’s 202-member Democratic caucus, and its members are sensitive on this issue. They remember that black lawmaker Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.) lost his January 2003 bid to be the intelligence committee’s ranking Democrat when Pelosi gave the post to Harman. Bishop and his allies said he had greater seniority, noting that Harman had quit the House in 1998 to run unsuccessfully for governor. But Democratic leaders, in persuading Harman to reclaim her seat in 2000, had restored her committee seniority.

Bishop was placated with a coveted spot on the Appropriations Committee, but black Democrats do not want to be passed over again. Hastings said in an interview that Pelosi has signaled he will be the intelligence committee’s top Democrat after the 2006 elections. “If we follow the pecking order, I’ll be the ranking member or the chairman,” he said.

Steve Clemons wrote this at the time:

I learned — in great detail — about Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi’s intentions to unseat Representative Jane Harman as Ranking Member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence on Saturday, the 17th of September but sat on the story, both because I wanted to dig a bit deeper and also because I was being crushed by some other deadlines.

All that said, the story is out, and the Washington Post’s Charles Babington has the best run down at the moment. Here is a longish excerpt of yesterday’s story…

I don’t know if that is “proof” of anything – maybe we could invite Alcee in for a lie detector test – but Clemons is independently confirming a WaPo story which quotes Alcce as saying “If we follow the pecking order, I’ll be the ranking member or the chairman”.

One of the many odd (yet oddly predictable) omissions from the Greenwald post was links to the notable and significant supporters of Jane Harman, to wit, the LA Times and the NY Times; can we agree that (no disrespect intended) they have more clout in Pelosi’s world than MacRanger? Most of his other links were to Hastings-bashers, although I emerged as a Harman supporter for pointing out Greenwald’s lies (or ignorance) about the status of the investigation into the Harman investigation. Other than that, I don’t think I have ever attempted to argue that Harman was an objectively excellent candidate, although I prefer her to Hastings (I predicted Reyes would emerge, but who knows?)

So, per Greenwald’s post, neocons and Lieberman backers, like the Times, are supporting Harman. It seems unkind to note that the Times endorsed Lamont in both the primary and the general election. All part of their subtle conspiracy, no doubt.

]]> By: Wake up America http://informedspeculation.com/2006/11/27/defending-the-indefensible/comment-page-1/#comment-146691 Wake up America Tue, 28 Nov 2006 01:47:33 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/11/27/defending-the-indefensible/#comment-146691 <strong>Nancy's Preference</strong> So, she among QUITE a few others, vote to impeach him for leaking sensitive information, and now she wants to give him a position to be privvy to even more sensitive information. Nancy’s Preference

So, she among QUITE a few others, vote to impeach him for leaking sensitive information, and now she wants to give him a position to be privvy to even more sensitive information.

]]> By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2006/11/27/defending-the-indefensible/comment-page-1/#comment-146678 Mark Tue, 28 Nov 2006 00:55:19 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/11/27/defending-the-indefensible/#comment-146678 As for the Kaus and Note citations, <a href="http://decision08.net/2006/10/24/it-isnt-a-surprise-if-you-expect-it/" rel="nofollow">this post of mine</a> contains both... As for the Kaus and Note citations, this post of mine contains both…

]]> By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2006/11/27/defending-the-indefensible/comment-page-1/#comment-146677 Mark Tue, 28 Nov 2006 00:53:16 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/11/27/defending-the-indefensible/#comment-146677 When I say agreement, I mean that she won't appoint Hastings...I think she WAS going to, but I think the uproar has probably derailed his chances... When I say agreement, I mean that she won’t appoint Hastings…I think she WAS going to, but I think the uproar has probably derailed his chances…

]]>