June 13, 2004

From the front page of the LA Times
posted by squidranch 20 years ago
  • Username: nopass Password: nopass For those that don't want to register
  • Wow. I take it these are people that fall into the Joe Wilson/Richard Clarke group of conservative government officials. Note: Wilson was a Republican until the Bush administration outed his wife. Clarke still is a registered GOP.
  • The article has a point though about why this will probably not have a big impact. You don't have a lot of well-known people. Just some past officials that used to carry a little clout and now don't. Plus, the timing is off. How can one now argue that the US is using a "go it alone" policy when they are going to the UN and jointly creating resolutions with countries that have been against them all along. A year ago the argument would have made more sense than now. I want Bush out of office as much as the next person, but I don't think this is going to have very much impact. Then again, I could be wrong.
  • To me, this is not something in and of itself that will change the minds of voters, it's just yet another credible argument for voting the man out of office. The cumulative effect of this and things like it are what is going to make a difference to swing voters come November. BTW, should Bush lose, I will host a small celebration at my place for my MoFi friends in the LA area. Bananas and drinks will be on the house. Any takers?
  • Did anyone else notice the needless preponderance of anonymous sources?
    One senior Republican strategist familiar with White House thinking said he did not think the group was sufficiently well-known to create significant political problems for the president. The strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, also said the signatories were making an argument growing increasingly obsolete as Bush leans more on the international community for help in Iraq.
    A Republican strategist familiar with White House thinking: how is that person any different from an armchair politician? And why is he requesting anonymity? What incindiary, career-threatening thing is contained in that utterance? The New York Times ombudsman has a long column about anonymous sources in today's issue (red. req'd.). The New York Times is very bad about its anonymous sources, but the LA Times seems even worse.
  • For those who are not interested in registering for NYTimes.com, here is another way to access the link (courtesy of New York Times Link Generator, courtesy of Nostrildamus)
  • Um, that would be for Mm's link, of course. Curses! Mmmm preview
  • LA Times front page page. Hey, it's half of the story at least!
  • Jesse Taylor at Pandagon has the answer.
    Unfortunately, since every single one of these guys is a partisan Democratic plant secretly working for Kerry, we can't trust them. Where's Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, now that we're on that topic...?
    That takes care of that.
  • I guess these were guys who just don't want to go on collecting their government pensions.
  • should Bush lose, I will host a small celebration at my place Let's hook up a videolink from the fuck-off big-ass party at my house, squid.
  • I'd love to, Zippy Zuppy Zoo the Wankstain Cornflake!
  • Hey, thanks Infra! You make news accessible to everyone!
  • don't forget the cock punch, squid. at the party, that is.