Atrios in the L.A. Times
Duncan Black, aka Atrios, had a piece in the L.A. Times yesterday. It opens:
SOME TIME AFTER having lunch in Iraq with the junior senator from Connecticut, Time magazine Baghdad bureau chief Michael Ware told an interviewer, “Either Sen. Lieberman is so divorced from reality that he’s completely lost the plot, or he knows he’s spinning a line.”
and ends:
Lieberman’s problem isn’t bloggers, it’s the voters of Connecticut, who seem to be increasingly tired of his support for some very uncivil policies, including federal intervention into the Terri Schiavo case, the administration’s operations at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay and, yes, that disastrous invasion of Iraq.
And in the middle he says:
Jeebus. What the [expletive deleted]ing [expletive deleted] is going on with this [expletive deleted]ing country, with this [expletive deleted]ing Lieberman wanker?
Then he tries to open an open thread.
It took a lot of editing.
P.S. I’m told they had a debate about the expletives, after apparently publishing a four-letter word rhyming with “snit” today, because the President had said it. “He’s full of it, so we can have him say it,” a senior editor intoned.
I condemn that.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 7/19/2006 @ 2:58 amI’ll condemn Pablo just to be safe.
corvan (3fbd10) — 7/19/2006 @ 4:56 amBlack includes the accusation that Lieberman introduced the censure resolution against Clinton in his tirade. Al Gore might call it an inconvenient fact but Dianne Feinstein introduced the censure resolution. What else does Atrios get wrong ? Except his politics, of course.
Mike K (416363) — 7/19/2006 @ 6:41 amLove that objectivity.
sharon (03e82c) — 7/19/2006 @ 8:36 am[…] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. […]
Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Pugnacious Pontificator Patterico Powerfully Pummels Pusillanimous, Preening Progressive Pundit (1b383c) — 7/19/2006 @ 9:14 amUm, wow. I need to upgrade my secret decoder ring; that made no sense at all.
fishbane (3389fc) — 7/19/2006 @ 3:17 pmI guess that depends on what the definition of “introduced” is.
Black says, “Liebermann called for his censure.” He said nothing about introducing anything.
Spin and a miss… And I agree with you. His politics are not wrong, of course.
Steve M (a81640) — 7/19/2006 @ 3:42 pmI am just glad Bush stole the election and saved all these lefties from their own Vice Presidential candidate! / sarcasm off
topsecretk9 (e53383) — 7/19/2006 @ 5:26 pmFlashback to 1998:
n another development in the seventh-month-old scandal, sources have told CNN that the president testified under oath he tried twice to help Monica Lewinsky find a job, including one time after she had been subpoenaed to testify in Paula Jones’ sexual harassment lawsuit against him.
Clinton’s admission came during his Aug. 17 testimony at the White House, under questioning from Starr.
The job-related incidents occurred after the former White House intern had left the White House for a job at the Pentagon. Clinton testified that he acted on both occasions at the request of Lewinsky, and he did so because he was concerned she had been treated unfairly when she was transferred to the Pentagon, the sources told CNN.
Monica Lewinsky
Clinton testified that in the summer of 1997, he asked White House Deputy Personnel Director Marsha Scott to try to find Lewinsky a new position back in the White House. He said in January 1998 he asked aides to help Lewinsky obtain a good recommendation as she sought a job in New York City, the sources said.
Johnny Caspar:
Caspar
Dan Collins (74550b) — 7/19/2006 @ 5:45 pmIt’s a wrong situation. It’s gettin’ so a
businessman can’t expect no return from a fixed
fight. Now if you can’t trust a fix, what can
you trust? For a good return you gotta go
bettin’ on chance, and then you’re back with
anarchy. Right back inna jungle. On account of
the breakdown of ethics. That’s why ethics is
important. It’s the grease makes us get along,
what separates us from the animals, beasts a
burden, beasts a prey. Ethics. Whereas Bernie
Bernheim is a horse of a different color ethics-
wise. As in, he ain’t got any. He’s stealin’
from me plain and simple.
“Black says, “Liebermann called for his censure.” He said nothing about introducing anything.”
Nice hair you just split there. He could have said “supported” censure. Using “called for” suggests introducing to me but then you know how these people think, sorry, feel, than I do.
Mike K (416363) — 7/19/2006 @ 8:31 pmi don’t like joe lieberman, principally because he’s a whining moralist who sounds like a eunuch on tv. his positions don’t help either.
assistant devil's advocate (169955) — 7/20/2006 @ 9:38 amLieberman may have been critical of Clinton but it was Russel Feingold who defected from the Democratic caucus to oppose Sen. Byrd’s Motion to Dismiss. So if Monica is the basis for dissatisfaction with Lieberman, where was Rusty’s primary challenger?
Sean P (256007) — 7/20/2006 @ 11:00 amI split no hairs, I merely pointed out your inadvertant misrepresentation of Mr. Black’s quote in the article.
Words either mean what they say or they don’t. Period. What they “suggest” to you means nothing unless you have other facts to support your assertion.
In this case, I interpret “called for” to mean “PUBLICLY supported”. Someone can “support” a bill without speaking out on it on the record. But that’s just how I read it.
Its certainly a valid interpretation of the word you are parsing in Mr. Black’s article. Which means that your claim that he got something “wrong” isn’t proven without additional evidence.
I was once on a jury where one of the charges against the defendant was “posession of a firearm by a felon”. There were numerous other charges, including kidnapping, etc.
Nowhere in the testimony did the D.A. actually get a witness to say “he had a gun”. They said “he had a weapon”, but not “gun”.
Some members of the jury voted for conviction on that charge, some didn’t. Ultimately it became clear that “weapon” could mean “club” or “broken bottle” or “knife”, but didn’t necessarily mean “gun”. Even though every one in the room believed he DID have a gun, because the word was never said, we had no basis to convict him.
After we had returned “not guilty” on that charge (though we found him guilty of most of the other charges, including kidnapping), the judge stopped by and told us that if we HAD found him guilty of the possesion crime, the verdict would have been thrown out because there was no testimony to support it.
Words mean what they mean, not what you want them to mean.
And as for Lieberman… yes how horrible it was to have a member of the U.S. Senate who was not a shameless lackey to every whim of the White House. Even though it was ultimately proven to be a farcical chapter in American politics, I respect Lieberman for standing on principles in that case.
Just because his base in CT doesn’t seem to agree with his principles lately casts no shadow on his position at that time.
Since some can’t seem to let go of their “glory” moment when they “got” Slick Willie and his 65% approval rating, I guess it must be hard to have to try to concieve of other reasons why his consituency might be displeased with him.
And Russ Feingold – he has as much principle and integrity as any other member of the Congress, and much more than most.
Again – another Democrat who shows that they aren’t a lap-dog to the powers that be in their Party. Its refreshing. I’m sure it confuses those on the Right…. where defections from the party line and expressions of personal opinion are remedied with removal of chairmanships and lack of support in re-election bids.
Steve M (a81640) — 7/20/2006 @ 2:50 pmSteve M., I don’t know how you can say with a straight face that the GOP punishes its party’s dissidents with removal of chairmanships and re-election support, yet the Donkeys embrace their dissidents with loving arms and confetti parades.
John McCain—hardly the teacher’s pet—has been more or less crowned the front runner for the nomination in ’08.
And Senator Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island Republican in name only, is still receiving money from the RNC.
Another example is Senator Arlen Specter of PA, who not only got full backing from President Bush and junior Senator Rick Santorum in his most recent re-election campaign against a much more conservative GOP primary candidate, but Specter even retained his position as head of the judiciary committee, even as Supreme Court nominations loomed.
On the other hand, I don’t see how theoretically it would be wrong for either party to remove a member who is perceived to be obstructive to the best interest of the party.
If a veteran baseball player is hurting his team with sub-par performances, naturally the manager is going to yank him, and replace him with someone more conducive to attaining the team’s goals of…winning.
If you could please be specific rather than general in your accusations, I’d be interested to know whom specifically you are referring to among the GOP.
Thank you.
Desert Rat (d8da01) — 7/23/2006 @ 12:00 amTotal bullsh*t; Feingold is just another talking head for Israel and if you listen to him carefully he barfs the official party line of building up the troops in Afghanistan instead of Iraq. Feingold also lies about the real perps of 911 saying that he remembers they came from Afghanistan. Bullsh*t again; anyone with an IQ greater than a porch swing knows 911 was an inside job conducted by elements within the US military together with Mossad operatives.
Americans are taking the heat for Israel’s crimes while their destiny is being determined by Jewish banksters and their media wh*re counterparts. Do the research; Feingold is on the payoff list from AIPAC; his latest bribe from Israel lobby was $56,810. For readers interested in what’s really going on, get yourselves a copy of PNAC, Planks of the Communist Manifesto and Protocols of the Learned Zion Elders. It all fits into the Talmudists and Rothschild’s game plan.
Welcome to the New World Disorder; it’s a disease that must be stopped.
# # #
Fiengold is a liar (5e3384) — 1/18/2007 @ 2:05 am