Tuesday Thoughts
I'm late in getting this out, as life delayed it. And I don't have much to say anyway. The Sunday shows only inspired me to write about one thing, and it wasn't all that interesting.
A Senator Says What?
Robert C. Byrd, Democrat Senator from West Virginia, is out slamming Bush. This is nothing new, of course, but this time he has a book to back him up. On Meet the Press, Tim Russert read back a passage to him:
So the Senate did a bad thing, but Kerry and Edwards were merely misled. Gotcha. Could you be any more disingenous, Senator? Read that whole section of the interview, it's crazy.
Joe Wilson
Not for nothing, but when I slammed Joe Wilson last summer -- saying that his story was at best a minor footnote, and didn't really discount anything at all, and that far too much was being made of it -- I got slammed by various people for it. I am now accepting apologies. ;-)
Sandy Berger
I have made many requests of many on the left to wait and see, to not jump to conclusions, to use evidence and not innuendo, when thinks look bad for the administration. Recent examples include the various memos that vaguely hint at administration condoning of torture in Iraq, or a supposed coverup of supposed wrongdoing in the Valerie Plame incident, or the insinuation that Cheney was doing something sinister in his energy task force meetings.
And now I call on my right-minded brethren to extend the same courtesy to the left in regard to Sandy Berger. I realize my call is likely in vain, but maybe it will have more effect than my previously mentioned requests.
We know a lot about what Berger did, but we don't know why he did it, we don't know what was on the missing papers, we don't know why no action has yet been taken against Berger despite it being known about for many months.
The only defenses of Berger I've seen so far are that it was unintentional -- which as best I can tell, is plausible -- and the old redirection, "why is this being talked about now? Is this an intentionally timed pre-convention surprise?" As to the former, I have no answer, except that it warrants some investigation.
To the latter, I note that it is irrelevant to the fact of the wrongdoing, and that it doesn't seem all that strange for such an explosive fact from the impending 9/11 Commission report to be leaked a few days early. I am no expert, but heck, if it is me, I'd rather this waited a few days, so it would be new news when the convention started, when the report is actually released, so the Democratic convention is more overshadowed by it, and the timing can't be assaulted.
But again, even if the timing is intentional, that doesn't have anything to do with the fact of the wrongdoing. I didn't care about this objection to Richard Clarke's book (whether it had merit or not), and I don't care about it here.
A Senator Says What?
Robert C. Byrd, Democrat Senator from West Virginia, is out slamming Bush. This is nothing new, of course, but this time he has a book to back him up. On Meet the Press, Tim Russert read back a passage to him:
"In the end, only 22 other members voted to oppose this despicable grant of authority (for war). ...Never in my half century of congressional service had the United States Senate proved unworthy of its great name. What would the framers have thought?  In this terrible show of weakness, the Senate left an indelible stain upon its own escutcheon. Having revered the Senate during my service for more than forty years, I was never pained so much."So, what of Kerry and Edwards? Byrd replied, "They were misled. I'm confident of that. And I have a feeling that that is why they voted as they did."
So the Senate did a bad thing, but Kerry and Edwards were merely misled. Gotcha. Could you be any more disingenous, Senator? Read that whole section of the interview, it's crazy.
Joe Wilson
Not for nothing, but when I slammed Joe Wilson last summer -- saying that his story was at best a minor footnote, and didn't really discount anything at all, and that far too much was being made of it -- I got slammed by various people for it. I am now accepting apologies. ;-)
Sandy Berger
I have made many requests of many on the left to wait and see, to not jump to conclusions, to use evidence and not innuendo, when thinks look bad for the administration. Recent examples include the various memos that vaguely hint at administration condoning of torture in Iraq, or a supposed coverup of supposed wrongdoing in the Valerie Plame incident, or the insinuation that Cheney was doing something sinister in his energy task force meetings.
And now I call on my right-minded brethren to extend the same courtesy to the left in regard to Sandy Berger. I realize my call is likely in vain, but maybe it will have more effect than my previously mentioned requests.
We know a lot about what Berger did, but we don't know why he did it, we don't know what was on the missing papers, we don't know why no action has yet been taken against Berger despite it being known about for many months.
The only defenses of Berger I've seen so far are that it was unintentional -- which as best I can tell, is plausible -- and the old redirection, "why is this being talked about now? Is this an intentionally timed pre-convention surprise?" As to the former, I have no answer, except that it warrants some investigation.
To the latter, I note that it is irrelevant to the fact of the wrongdoing, and that it doesn't seem all that strange for such an explosive fact from the impending 9/11 Commission report to be leaked a few days early. I am no expert, but heck, if it is me, I'd rather this waited a few days, so it would be new news when the convention started, when the report is actually released, so the Democratic convention is more overshadowed by it, and the timing can't be assaulted.
But again, even if the timing is intentional, that doesn't have anything to do with the fact of the wrongdoing. I didn't care about this objection to Richard Clarke's book (whether it had merit or not), and I don't care about it here.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment