Patterico's Pontifications


Patterico: Tipster to Brit Hume?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:24 pm

Last night, Brit Hume’s “Political Grapevine” segment featured the following observation:

Chris Wallace’s “FOX News Sunday” interview with Bill Clinton was one of six TV appearances the former president made last week. But despite Mr. Clinton’s highly publicized objections to the recent ABC docudrama about 9/11, no one other than Wallace asked him about the aggressiveness of his pursuit of Usama bin Laden.

As for Mr. Clinton’s assertion that Wallace did not challenge the Bush administration’s pre-9/11 record on terrorism? In 2004, Wallace asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to answer the charge that “the Bush Administration largely ignored the threat from Al Qaeda,” before 9/11, adding, “Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority.”

Now where might Brit have picked up that bit?

The other day Allah said, regarding the Arizona 9/11 memorial story:

From blogs to Drudge to FNC. Tinker to Evers to Chance, baby.

We need to work DR out of the equation, though. Open up an info pipeline directly to Fox HQ.

We appear to have bypassed Drudge with the story about Wallace’s interview with Rumsfeld. Does this mean we have achieved the direct pipeline that Allah spoke of? Maybe not quite. I did have some high-powered middlemen (and middlewomen), like Insty, Power Line, Malkin, and Kaus. And Allah! But working through them is an easier trick than relying on the Fella in the Fedora.

L.A. Times: Attack Ads Almost Entirely a GOP Phenomenon — Except for When Dems Must Fight Back

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 6:51 am

Those damn Republicans are up to their old tricks again, with their awful negative ads. Luckily, the L.A. Times is there to tell us about it, at length — and to emphasize that attack ads are almost entirely a Republican phenomenon . . . except, of course, when beleaguered Democrats have no choice but to fight back.

The story is titled Negative Ads a Positive in GOP Strategy, with a deck headline that reads “Hoping to deflect attention from Iraq, candidates unleash personal attacks. They get voters’ attention, consultants say.” It opens:

WASHINGTON — Sinister characters are scheming in a smoke-filled room, in a television ad that depicts big campaign contributors to Bob Casey, a Democrat running for Senate in Pennsylvania.

After detailing the legal troubles that each donor faces — including an FBI investigation and jail time — the somber narrator asks, “Where does Casey hold his campaign meetings?”

The camera pulls back to show the cigar-smoking “campaign team” — behind bars.

That graphic, personal attack on the candidate challenging Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) is a particularly sharp-edged example of a key strategy in the Republican political arsenal as the party fights to keep control of Congress: going negative and personal, early and often.

My goodness.

Those damn Republicans.

And now the infamous “some critics” have their say:


Maguire Demolishes Greenwald

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:02 am

Tom Maguire takes a virtual two-by-four to the skull of Glenn Greenwald, whom Maguire terms a “lefty fabulist extraordinaire.” Maguire then backs up the charge without breaking a sweat.

Maguire notes Greenwald’s claim that it is “neoconservative mythology” to assert that Clinton’s withdrawal from Somalia emboldened bin Laden. Then Maguire provides this quote:

After a few blows, [the United States] forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim….

The speaker? You guessed it! Why, that would be Osama bin Laden!

Of course, Greenwald blames the withdrawal on Republicans. And here is where it gets even better. Maguire shows how Greenwald’s links cannot be trusted, as they end up representing the opposite of what Greenwald claims they assert.

Who would have ever thunk it? Besides Xrlq, that is . . .

iowahawk Nails the Arizona 9/11 Memorial

Filed under: Humor,Terrorism — Patterico @ 6:01 am

iowahawk has the first draft of that Arizona 9/11 memorial — you know, the one with those crazy slogans in ALL CAPS. My favorite:


Read it all.


Allen: Give It Up (UPDATE: Or Not?)

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:49 pm

George Allen is hosed.

UPDATE: Hmmmm. Sabato seems to be backing off his statements. This is murkier than it appeared yesterday.

From the “Sounds like an Onion Story But Really Isn’t” Files

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:03 pm

Amazing. Some Jewish doctors in New York State don’t work on Saturdays — because it’s their Sabbath. And the local NAACP is suing them, claiming that closing on Saturdays “stifle[s the NAACP’s] efforts towards the equality, diversity, and religious freedom to encourage tolerance in our society.” (See the 16th paragraph of the complaint.)

Eugene Volokh has the jaw-dropping details.

Ace to Meet Bush

Filed under: Blogging Matters,General — Patterico @ 6:56 pm

As incredible as it may seem, the guy appearing in this video is being asked to the White House, where he will meet President George W. Bush.

I join Ace’s readers in expressing this heartfelt statement: Get a haircut, hippie!

Vote for Osama!

Filed under: General,Terrorism — Patterico @ 6:46 pm

If Al Qaeda can get its leaders elected somewhere, it may become legal to finance them, if a jury believes the financiers are supporting Al Qaeda’s political activities. After all, this is a defense available to financiers of Hamas, now that Hamas has won a majority in the Palestinian Arab parliament.

Kurtz Falsely Implies that Chris Wallace Never Put the Same Questions to a Bush Official that He Put to Clinton

Filed under: General,Media Bias — Patterico @ 6:17 pm

Howard Kurtz implies that Clinton was right when he accused Chris Wallace of one-sided questioning:

“It set me off on such a tear because you didn’t formulate it in an honest way and you people ask me questions you don’t ask the other side,” Clinton said.

“Sir, that is not true,” Wallace replied.

Asked about Clinton’s complaint, a Fox spokeswoman pointed to Wallace’s interview two weeks ago with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Wallace pressed her about the lack of prewar ties between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, but he did not ask about U.S. efforts against bin Laden before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Kurtz’s clear implication is that Clinton was right — Wallace never put the tough questions to Bush’s aides about Bush’s pre-9/11 failures.

But, as I noted yesterday, Chris Wallace has put the same tough questions to Donald Rumsfeld that he put to President Clinton. Wallace asked Donald Rumsfeld on the March 28, 2004 episode of Fox News Sunday:

I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it’s more than an individual manhunt. I mean — what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived. . . . pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?

. . . .

What do you make of his [Richard Clarke’s] basic charge that pre-9/11 that this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda?

. . . .

Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority.

This is remarkably similar to what Wallace asked Clinton in yesterday’s interview:

[H]indsight is 20 20 . . . but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?

I realize that Kurtz didn’t get this spoon-fed to him by the Fox spokeswoman. But he could have seen it on Instapundit, Power Line, Michelle Malkin, Kausfiles, Hot Air, or any number of other blogs.

I have written Kurtz about this.

How about it, Howie? Will you correct your false implication?

Slate Error on Benedict’s Speech Corrected

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:51 pm

I mentioned to you the other day that Slate‘s Timothy Noah had incorrectly accused Pope Benedict of altering his speech after the fact to include language distancing himself from a controversial viewpoint on Islam. I noted that Stuart Buck had proven conclusively that the distancing language was in Benedict’s original, and encouraged you to write Slate/Noah to seek a correction. I don’t know if any of you did, but someone apparently did. The correction has been issued (see here and here). Thanks again to Stuart Buck for noting this.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2392 secs.