« behind the music: julie's 16th birthday | Main | feelin' groovy »

that memo

All I can think of is a few choice words: Repulsive, disgusting, sickening. How else can you describe the blatant misuse of intelligence data for partisan purposes.

That's all I have to say about that. Right now I have a (hypothetical) daughter to deal with.


Right. Like leaking a CIA operative's name to the press. Outrageous.

I've re-read it a few times, and I honestly cannot see what the fuss is over. It's not like they were planning to lie about anything. They were just planning on doing what everyone in DC does -- playing politics to the best of their ability. Like the majority on that committee don't have a plan for how to control the news about their findings to their best political advantage? Here's what the dems themselves say they are trying to do: "...we have an important role to play in the revealing the misleading -- if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives -- of the senior administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, preemptive war."

They sincerely believe all that, and they are trying to figure out how best to make that case, with the committees stacked against them (as they always are for the minority party).

Really, someone tell me: what's so awful here?

Really, someone tell me: what's so awful here?
Good point; a good train wreck can be very entertaining to watch, and the Dems appear to be veering off the rails way before the 2004 election arrives. Kinda like Ross Perot, but without the charm or coherence.

True, it was disgusting how the Coup mis-represented intelligence data to justify an invasion of a non-threatening country.

Yeah,coup after coup,from coast to coast those infernal Repubs keep bludgeoning their way into office despite the wishes of the people.

How else can you describe the blatant misuse of intelligence data for partisan purposes.

"Business as usual," sadly. The unusual part is that some moron wrote it down and then allowed it to get out.

Yes, Joseph, unlike the great Clinton who used the same intelligence data to bomb Iraq. And an aspirin factory. And "a camel in the butt".

Yes, Ken, and it was wrong then, and it's even worse now. The Clinton fixation when people criticize the Coup amuses me - just because he was a fine President doesn't mean I automatically think he's a saint or something.

And Mbruce, the Republicans won fair and square yesterday. They certainly didn't when they committed the widespread election fraud in 2000.

Gee, seems like only yesterday you were trying to avoid "the mud slinging between the left and the right".

Oh, yeah -- it was the day before yesterday. My bad.

Nothing new. Nothing at all.

Joseph, could you be a little more specific on "election fraud"? Do you mean it's fraud when the US Supreme Court refuses to allow state courts to break the law? Or to allow votes to be cherry-picked in certain counties while trying to throw out military votes?

I'll let the comment on "fine President" go, but "misrepresented intelligence data" is plain nonsense. All interested parties, including the UN, agreed for several years that Iraq had ongoing WMD programs. Hence the long string of impotent resolutions. It was not disputed until Bush decided that it was time to put US money where the UN's mouth was.

Let's keep parties out of it. I saw a professonal staffer doing their job, like they get paid to do.

That's my tax money there, and since the founders figured this was they game to play, I do like knowing it's being played professionally.

Frankly, I'm thrilled the Dems HAVE an issue; I think everyone has a lingering dazzle from Clinton stealing half the the platform out from under Dole.

But remember something - it's a game. If you think for a MOMENT that what happens inside the beltway has any obligatory relationship with reality, you've been keeping your eyes on the cheerleaders instead of the ball.

That's why the Fifth Estate - that would be us, raight chere - is an undocumented but critical component of the actual governance of this nation.

Lets us try to play by our rules and see if we can find who's trying a quarterback sneak on us.

Poynter Online: I meant to include this in the above comment; it's an excellent resource, particularly on journalistic ethics - and open to all. Blogroll it - their takes on breaking news can come from interestingly unexpected directions. It's kinda like getting to sneak backstage to watch the Stones grabbassing before the concert.

How else can you describe the blatant misuse of intelligence data for partisan purposes.
Liberal S.O.P.?

I don't see anything unethical there. They're just trying to figure out how to best make their case. I think they're barking up the wrong tree - what really matters to the American people is what we do from this point forward, not whining about the past. Still, if they want to talk about events preceding the war, that's their prerogative.

What comforts me beyond measure is the sure knowledge that Fox is out there assiduously tracking down Republican as well as Democratic memos...

Fox doesn't have to, Mike. CNN, AP, Reuters, NYTimes, WaPo, CBS, NBC, and ABC already do that.

I'll see your Democratic staffer and raise you a Republican pollster.

Both sides look for spin; the trick is to get past it.