Lori just e-mailed to ask if there were any more posts tonight? I'm working on a post that members are asking for and look for it tomorrow. Hopefully in the morning. I had to stop because, as most who've e-mailed will already know, it's on Daniel Okrent. It's an editorial. Dealing with the issue so many of you want addressed. It will go up tomorrow (and hopefully in the morning) but I share your frustrations with "revisionists" (Kara's term).
Let's note Luke of wotisitgood4 in the meantime. Luke wrote several times last week. As I noted here on Saturday, his e-mails were going to the junk folder. I do check that and usually several times a week but last week I didn't have time to check until Saturday.
He wanted to draw our attention to what Sanger's been writing for the Times.
Here's something he wanted to share with the community:
didja see this smackdown of Sanger at E&P re his nthkorea nonsense? http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000920622 there are two outstanding questions: a) why was this information leaked to him? b) why did it get front paged? i wish i had an outstanding answer...
At his site, he's written this:
NTH KOREA WAR?:* wow - after i smacked down that appalling Sanger A1 NYT article on nthkorea, and called it miller-esque, it seems that there has been quite a storm brewing.check out this E&P article - heres the lede:"No reporter of national stature has more often -- and with insufficient skepticism -- reported the White House view of the Iranian and North Korean nuclear threats than David Sanger, the New York Times White House correspondent. The intellectually nimble Sanger has been channeling onto the front pages of his newspaper a combination of leaked factoids and broadbrush depictions of the growing danger to the United States."hers the obvious question: why is such bollox reporting continually shovelled onto A1? surely not by accident - altho i dont really think that the ams are going to bomb nthkorea. why? why? why? 2 things happened - people fed sanger this bollox for a reason, and the nyt frontpaged it repeatedly. why?
An important issue. The administration knows they can't use Judith Miller again. Not and be believed by the public the way they were last time. (The credibility is very low to non-existant with regards to Miller.) Sanger's served on the Elite Fluff Patrol under Elisabeth Bumiller. From what Luke (and Editor & Publisher) noted, it appears Sanger's ready to leave the Fluff Patrol and fly solo where only Miller has before.
Seth e-mailed to ask that we note the roundtable at The Third Estate Sunday Review.
Seth wanted this part excerpted:
Ava: Agreed. Anyone else? Okay, let's move to Bolton. We've discussed the sexual allegations, what about his nomination being sent out of committee?
Jim: I'm really disgusted with the way the case has been argued to the media.
Ty: Right. The Republicans get to spin it as he's "authoritarian." Or "commanding."
Dona: Naomi Klein's written about how, by not addressing torture in the presidential campaign, John Kerry made it hard for Democrats to suddenly bring up the issue with the nomination of Alberto Gonzales. I think that's true. And I think something similar applies here.
Betty: That's the piece where she talks about the refusal to respond strongly to the "global test" nonsense, right?
Betty: And that's so much a part of this. Are we going to work with others or just be a bully. And the adminstration wants us to be a bully. I don't think we're in any position to be a bully.I don't think even my "husband" Thomas Friedman would argue we're in that position. Not with our economy, our trade record and our job losses.
C.I.: The issue of diplomacy isn't being addressed loudly. I want to note that with the mainstream media, if it's being brought up, it's probably going to be ignored. But in terms of the Sunday Chat & Chews, that's a live mike. Democrats could be making points there, strong points. And this does go to who we are and what we stand for. Do we live up to our self-concepts or toss them out? I don't think an overwhelming majority would say "Trash our beliefs!" But the issue hasn't been presented on those terms to most Americans.
Rebecca: Because God forbid the Democrats look weak! I think that's there worry.
C.I.: I agree with you. And anyone jump in at any time because I can off on this topic forever. But this fear of "weakness" led to support in Congress for the occupation/invasion. It prevents Congress from reflecting the mood of the people which thinks the occupation is a mistake. At some point, the decision was made to give some Republicans and the administration enough rope to hand themselves, my opinion. So instead of coming out strongly against certain issues, then and now, Democrats have basically, as a whole, shrugged their shoulders. What's going on is too important for them to continue shrugging their shoulders. When Condi Rice speaks of a fondness for the cold war, I'd argue it's because even she realizes the stability a bipolar system brought. Not a great system, mind you. If you weren't the United States or the Soviet Union, you were caught in the middle. But we're operating now as though we're in a unipolar system that will never end despite what history demonstrates. Despite the fact that, as Betty has pointed out, we don't hold all the cards. So, out of concern over future shifts, if nothing else, you'd think Democrats could speak out. While they remain silent, and I'm exempting the Barbara Lees and Ted Kennedys, I'm speaking of the party as a whole, who and what we are is changing. If we're going to change, we need an honest and open debate among the people and we're not getting that because the Democrats are running scared from the issues that go to the heart of our country.
Jim: Which is why I'm really enjoying Stop The Next War Now. And, I mean, thank goodness we've got CodePink but is that all we've got? They have to battle the FCC, the conventions of both major parties, the occupation and everything else? Where are our elected officials in all of this? And I do agree that they thought they'd hand the Republican Party enough rope to hang themselves. But for that to happen, the Democrats need to be addressing why you don't always resort to the stick, why you use the carrot, why your belief system goes beyond what happens today and is not something you toss aside one minute and think you can pick up later.
Dona: Because we are judged by our actions. And when our actions go, as they do now, in such an opposite direction of our beliefs, our beliefs are dismissed by others as merely words. I didn't vote for the Bully Boy, I know no one's shocked by that. But I think we can survive four more years --
Dona: I'm with you there. But I think we can survive four more years provided the Democratic Party doesn't just roll over but provides clear reasoning. I am not saying, "Where is your proposal!" That's such nonsense. The Republicans and the press are starting that shit, "Where's your Social Security proposal?" Well if Bully Boy comes up and says, "I think you'd be happier if we cut off your leg" and I say, "No, I want to keep this leg," I don't need to propose an alternative. I don't need to be forced into accomodation. I can simply say, "No, you're crazy, we're leaving it alone."
Betty: Amen to that. Cokie Roberts and her ilk want the Democrats to propose an alternative plan. It's like Bully announces he's dropping a bomb on your house and you say, "I don't want a bomb dropped on my house" and Cokie's on NPR screaming, "Where is the alternative plan!"It makes no sense. And the Democrats have got to get it together on the war. They need to stop trying to rush to a mike when things look better for a day or a two and copy Bully Boy's Operation Happy Talk. Besides ending up looking stupid when the truth comes out, they give the Republicans the ability to say, "Okay, people died and Bully Boy was wrong, but hey, Hillary Clinton was saying last February that we'd turned a corner so you're no better!"
Jess: Exactly. The Democratic Party needs to be "better." They need to explain in clear terms why things are wrong. They don't have to come up with a plan. Somethings just need a no. And with regard to the occupation, if they started saying what so many feel, that the occupation is wrong, you'd see the country insisting that the troops come home in such large numbers that even some Republicans in Congress would agree.
Ty: Good point. I went home over spring break and there wasn't one person in my family who didn't think the troops need to come home now. But like my uncle said, "So what, who's going to listen?" And a lot of the reaction, or lack of reaction, is the result of Democrats not even trying to fight in Congress on some issues during the last four years.
Rebecca: Jane Fonda went on David Letterman and said the war was wrong. It's shocking that the Democratic leadership in Congress can't do the same. And that they will ignore a Ted Kennedy when he says it's wrong. It's wrong and the longer we stay, the worse it will get.
Dona: Because we are part of the problem. We're there when we shouldn't be but I'll table that and just focus on today. We have not demonstrated good faith. Instead, we've made a lot of promises that never came to pass while we've made back alley deals and the Iraqis are quite aware of that, even if many in America aren't.
Betty: And where are the insurgents or the resistance in the press coverage? I'm so damn sick of hearing whispers about them.
Obviously, I'm part of the roundtable (and need to learn to shut up or be briefer in my responses). Ava, Ty, Jess, Jim and Dona are community members who now run The Third Estate Sunday Review. Rebecca does the wonderful Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude.
Betty does the hilarious Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man. (Rebecca and Betty are community members who, like The Third Estate Sunday Review, decided to start their own blogs and do a great job.)
Seth asked where Folding Star of A Winding Road was? Those things are usually tossed together at the last minute. If Kat, FS or anyone else is around at the time, then they're included. Seth asked if anything was edited out. There was a break (earlier, in a section not quoted) and that's not noted. Outside of the break, everything that's up there is what was said.
And I'm inviting Folding Star to participate in the next one tonight. It's a topic FS is interested in. FS had a Saturday night obligation/event last Saturday.
Jill has something she wants posted and we'll do it tomorrow. Writing about Okrent really tired me out.
The e-mail address for this site is firstname.lastname@example.org.