Click for Main Weblog

   
The Weblog at The View from the Core - Saturday, April 03, 2004
   
   

Blogworthies IX

Because The Blog from the Core simply can't cover everything.

Noteworthy entries @ The Mudville Gazette, Fidelis, Dust in the Light, Cor ad cor loquitur, Mere Comments, The Curt Jester, Midwest Conservative Journal, Off the Record, Flos Carmeli, Discriminations, Power Line, The Mighty Barrister, and Envoy Encore.


Atrocities in Fallujah and Elsewhere @ The Mudville Gazette:

I warn you, what follows is in many regards more repulsive than the pictures and videos from Fallujah. Read at your own risk....


Liberal Logic 101: Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't @ Fidelis:

Ah, the consistency of the liberal mind, case in point, Robert Alan Kall, M.Ed., editor, OpEdNews.com, on National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleeza Rice....


But Rove's a Bad Guy @ Dust in the Light:

Philip Terzian reacts to coverage of the storming of Karl Rove's home, which most bloggers apparently thought too typical to note with much outrage. What's notable is that Terzian pointed his finger by means of a mainstream paper, the Providence Journal: ....


Another "Lousy Catholic" Convert to Protestantism @ Cor ad cor loquitur (emphasis in original):

We converts to Catholicism are often told that we didn't understand Protestantism before we left it (and that was, of course, why we left — we were dupes of Rome and her nefarious, deceitful apologists because we were so stupid in the first place). In most conversion stories to Catholicism that I have seen, this isn't the case at all.
In fact, the exact opposite is usually true: it was the commitment to Protestant Christianity and all that is good in it which made these inquirers study and ponder a further move into Catholicism, with its sacramentalism, Mariology, Tradition, papacy, etc. We saw the move as a simple progression upwards; not a reversal or revolution or rejection of what we had already learned. We were committed Protestants, "good" Protestants; who really believed in the system and tried to live it out....


Contraceptive Loopholes @ Mere Comments:

Christian LeBlanc writes two messages in response to Reformed contraception, which was a response to Contraceptive ignorance. In the first, he quoted a line from the Christian Reformed Church’s statement on the subject declaring the families should “produce as many children as is compatible with the physical, mental, and spiritual well-being of the mother and the children,” and commented:
I could fly a 747 full of Russian orphans through that loophole....


Clarke's new book @ The Curt Jester (quoted ellipsis in original):

Richard Clarke hot off the success of his new book, 60 Minutes interview, and testimony to the 9/11 commission has come out with an even newer book. Clarke has the amazing ability to know what people are really thinking by their facial expressions. He knew what the Presidents opinions were on possible Iraq involvement because he describes "It was a serious look." When talking to Condoleezza Rice he wrote in his book "As I briefed Rice on al-Qa'eda, her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard of the term before ..."
Since the first book has come out many people have asked him "Can I also learn how to read facial expressions of those I work for?" Realizing that not all people were able to do this he has decided to enlighten all of us through his new how-to book "Facial The Nation: Detecting Truth Through Facial Expressions." ....


Off We Go Into the Wild Blue Yonder @ Midwest Conservative Journal:

Get ready for the ride of your life as Frank Griswold desperately tries to explain himself and his church to the Lambeth Commission: ....


pink elephant in the pressroom? @ Off the Record (brackets in original):

Back when the New York Times still made a show of objectivity in its reportage, editor Abe Rosenthal famously declared to his stable of reporters, "Look, I don't care if you [violate ministerial boundaries with] elephants, but if you do, you don't cover the circus."
Yesterday, a gay Catholic journalist named Chuck Colbert "embedded" himself in a parish mass in the Archdiocese of Boston with the express purpose of disrupting it....


On Reading Spiritual Books @ Flos Carmeli:

Some books pose a real danger to one's complacency. For each person these books will be different, but they all threaten in the same way — they force one to think about God and how one is living life with respect to Him. This is not something I do readily. Often I go out of my way NOT to think about God because it will get in the way of what I really want to do. It's a whole lot easier to get along if God doesn't keep nosing in....


Red vs. Blue; Cavalier vs. Roundhead; PhillyMag vs. Brooks @ Discriminations (quoted ellipsis in original):

Joel Kotkin, now affiliated with a public policy institute at Pepperdine University, has long been a perceptive commentator on the geography of American culture, and he makes another interesting contribution today with an article in the “Outlook” section of today’s Washington Post.
In “Red, Blue and ... So 17th Century,” he argues that America’s current cultural divide is reminiscent of the English Civil War of the 1640s....


The Duplicitous Mr. Clarke @ Power Line:

Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics sent us this email on Richard Clarke's deceitful claim of political neutrality:
My ears nearly fell off when I heard Dick Clarke say he voted for Al Gore on Meet the Press today, since I thought I heard him say he voted for Bush on Thursday. Turns out I was wrong, Clarke only misled me (and probably many others including members of the 9/11 Commission) into believing that. Here are the quotes: ....


Enablers @ The Mighty Barrister:

You know what an enabler is — it's a person who makes possible and encourages the deviant or harmful behavior of another person. Most often, it's a close relative. It's the husband who buys the whiskey his alcoholic wife drinks. It's the mother who permits her teenaged son to surf for pr0n on the home computer.
The most egregious enablers, however, are our activist courts.
This country was founded upon a very simple but revolutionary concept of "separation of powers": presidents govern the nation, legislatures legislate the laws, and courts uphold the laws. With few exceptions, it used to work very well. Over the last 50 years, however, that concept has been twisted into a theoretical pretzel that Jacques Maritain would have trouble swallowing. Sure, presidents still govern and legislatures still legislate. However, the courts have effectively usurped the functions of the other two branches of government; the courts not only uphold the laws (actually, their primary focus now seems to be striking down laws), they have trumped the elected offices and are not only giving us court-ordered legislation, but they are also, in effect, governing the nation....


I've Been Thinking.... @ Envoy Encore (quoted ellipsis in original):

It’s happened four years running now. Wow, I can’t believe it’s been that long. The choirs start singing "Jerusalem, my destiny..." and I relive that precious Holy Week in 2001 when my daughter and I were received into Holy Mother Church. I stepped into the aisle to receive during a daily Mass last week and it hit me anew, that deep sense of gratitude that I am allowed to walk in this line of imperfect beings and receive the God of the universe on my tongue. I remember the 233 long days I counted down to that first Easter Vigil. I can still recall the intense hunger for the Eucharist that made it almost impossible to walk through the line, receive my blessing, and then walk away from my Lord in the Eucharist to return to my seat. There were times I literally had to tear myself away and force myself to keep walking. But now, I can add my “amen” to that of the cloud of witnesses that surrounds us and receive Him as they did....


See also Blogworthies VIII and Blogworthies X.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Sat. 04/03/04 08:15:28 PM
Categorized as Blogworthies.


   
   

"Screw Them"

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode CCLIII

It has since been changed, but here is the original version of a weblog entry at The Daily Kos by Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, a big-time Democrat blogger.

+ + + + +

Every death should be on the front page

Let the people see what war is like. This isn't an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush's folly.

That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.

by kos on Thu Apr 1st, 2004 at 15:08:56 GMT

+ + + + +

P.S. Zuniga has blogged an "apology"/"explanation" that would do even John Kerry mighty proud:

.... So not only was I wrong to say I felt nothing over their deaths, I was lying. I felt way too much. Nobody deserves to die. But in the greater scheme of things, there are a lot of greater tragedies going on in Iraq (51 last month, plus countless civilians and Iraqi police). That those tragedies are essentially ignored these days is, ultimately, the greatest tragedy of all.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Sat. 04/03/04 08:36:15 AM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode.


   
   

CNN Errs. Errs? ERRS?

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode CCLII

Why isn't this being called the malicious, politically motivated lie it really was?

Let's say you're a young man who loves his smart, pretty sister. Let's say your best friend can't stand the young man — lets' call him George — who lives down the street from you. One day, your best friend shows up and tells you, "George is telling everybody that your sister is ugly and stupid". You go off on George, only to find out that George had said no such thing. You confront your best friend, and he replies, "Oops. My mistake".

Mistake? Mistake? you would shout. Wouldn't you?

So, why does CNN get to pass this off as a "mistake"? (Ellipses in original.)

+ + + + +

What began on David Letterman's "Late Show" as a comedy bit needling President Bush turned into a comedy of errors when CNN incorrectly reported that the White House had cried foul.

Then Letterman — apparently not getting CNN's message that it had made the mistake until he was well into his Tuesday broadcast — only heightened the confusion.

The whole thing started during a collection of video clips Letterman showed Monday under the label "George W. Bush Invigorates America's Youth."

One showed Bush at a March rally in Orlando, Fla., standing at a lectern with several listeners behind him — among them, a boy in his early teens who could barely stay awake. While Bush spoke, the young man yawned, twisted his head, checked his watch and generally seemed dead on his feet.

Tuesday morning, CNN attempted to lighten its news mood by running the segment, credited to CBS' "Late Show with David Letterman," on its "CNN Live Today."

But then CNN host Daryn Kagan added: "We're being told by the White House that the kid, as funny as he was, was edited into that video, which would explain why the people around him weren't really reacting."

Later, during CNN's "Live From ...," anchor Kyra Phillips reran the tape but cautioned viewers: "We're told that the kid was there at that event, but not necessarily standing behind the president."

The truth was: The White House never complained, and the footage was real.

On Tuesday night, Letterman aired Kagan's and Phillips' skeptical remarks and ranted: "An out-and-out, 100 percent absolute lie. The kid absolutely was there and he absolutely was doing everything we pictured via the videotape....

"So when you cast your vote in November," he urged, "just remember that the White House was trying to make ME look like a DOPE."

By then, CNN had owned up to its mistake, and placed a call to Letterman's New York headquarters before the 5:30 p.m. taping began. But the tape was already rolling before Letterman got the word.

"According to this," he said during the show, referring to an index card in his grasp, "CNN has just phoned and ... the anchorwoman misspoke. They never got a comment from the White House. It was a CNN mistake."

So then he wailed: "Now I've called the White House liars, and you know what that means — they're going to start looking into my taxes!"

Though CNN spokeswoman Christa Robinson noted that "we frequently air late-night comedy show clips," on Thursday she confirmed the "misunderstanding among our staff" surrounding the yawning-boy video.

Meanwhile, Kagan made an on-air show of contrition.

"Dave, we apologize for the error," she said, offering to come on his show for a Stupid Human Trick.

+ + + + +

The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes.

An out-and-out, 100 percent absolute lie. You got that part right, Dave; but, at the time, you didn't realize who was doing the lying.

This is another time when the mask comes off momentarily. Another time we get a glimpse behind the curtain.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Sat. 04/03/04 08:17:06 AM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode & Media.


   
   

"Hollywood Comes Out for Kerry"

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode CCLI

I'm not sure why this is considered to be news.

+ + + + +

Dustin and Anjelica were there. And so was Sharon. Jennifer and Brad put in an appearance, as did Kevin, and if you looked really closely you might just see Leo. Oh, and of course, Barbra showed up.

The closer you got to the Beverly Hills house — the 1927 residence built for silent film star Harold Lloyd — the higher the star wattage. And at the very top was a tall, dour, career soldier-turned-career politician, John Kerry.

"We are coming together from all walks of life," the candidate told the assembled film stars, producers, directors, and waiters, "to set this great country of ours back on track. We are here to mark the beginning of the end of the Bush presidency."

The Hollywood fundraiser for the Democratic presidential hopeful earlier this week was the culmination of a remarkable three months for the John Kerry election machine.

Its candidate leapt from no-hoper to the Democratic nominee, wrapping up the nomination race in record time and uniting a party that seemed a just few months ago to be fractured beyond recognition, and raising record amounts of money to help defeat the incumbent president George Bush.

In a two-day sweep through California, including events in the state capital Sacramento and a lunch in San Diego, the Kerry campaign raised a figure approaching $6m (£3.2m).

The Hollywood reception alone attracted 1,500 people, twice the number originally expected. They each paid $1,000 for a ticket, and then made a donation, typically of $2,000.

The more they paid, the closer they got to the candidate at the party hosted by a local supermarket mogul, Ron Burkle.

"People who had raised a substantial amount had a private reception inside the home," said the political consultant Donna Bojarsky, who attended the event.

"The other attendees had a buffet outside the home. Most of the celebrities paid. Some were inside the house, but a few were outside."

Aside from time with the senator from Massachusetts, the guests heard singer-songwriter James Taylor perform.

Commentators have been surprised by the amount of money Mr Kerry has raised in the last three months. His total of $43m for the first three months of the year is dwarfed by George Bush's war chest of $182m, and the president is likely to double the $100m fundraising record he set in 2000. But Senator Kerry's performance has smashed Democratic finance records.

On one day in March the Kerry campaign raised $2.6m. And thanks in part to the trailblazing of the Vermont governor Howard Dean, who mobilised a formidable base of internet support, Kerry has raised $26m online.

That total dwarfs the $4m raised in online pledges by the Bush campaign.

"It's the easiest fundraising in a long time," says Ms Bojarsky. "People commented on how much enthusiasm there was. It's been a long time since we've had that sort of energy."

The California Democratic party strategist Bob Mulholland says that the political environment has greatly helped fundraising for the Democratic opposition.

"I have never seen a party that is so united so early," he says. "People think John Kerry will make a great president; they despise Bush- we're stuck in Iraq and we're stuck in the economic basement. People are saying America could do better.

"In 1992 [the first Bill Clinton campaign] it was hard to raise $80,000 here. It was difficult. Now he [Kerry] hardly had to make a call."

Clinton has taken part in some fundraising on Kerry's behalf in the last few weeks. "Clinton is still the star fundraiser," says Ms Bojarsky. But she warns that the traditional forms of fundraising - dinners, receptions and the like - could suffer from "donor fatigue".

Others believe the deep antipathy towards President Bush among the Democratic faithful will continue to drive up the Kerry fundraising total beyond even his aides' most optimistic predictions. The campaign initially expected $80m this year, but Kerry backers are now talking about the possibility of $100m or $120m.

With the help of allied liberal groups, the Kerry camp can at least hope to compete with the Bush campaign's spending, in contrast to recent presidential elections in which Republicans have typically spent double the Democratic total.

Senator Kerry has waived his rights to public matching funds to avoid a federally-imposed cap on spending before the July Democratic nomination.

However, the Republicans have mounted a legal challenge, claiming the party is breaking campaign finance rules by coordinating its operations with liberal organisations such as MoveOn.org and the Media Fund, which are raising money as independent groups and are therefore free to receive large single donations that are out of bounds to candidates.

Hollywood Democrats at the Kerry fundraiser

John Williams (film score composer)
Barbra Streisand
James Brolin
Ted Danson
Mary Steenburgen
Jason Alexander
Leonardo DiCaprio
Christina Applegate
Oliver Stone
Dustin Hoffman
Danny DeVito
Rhea Perlman
Larry David
Sharon Stone
Tom Ford (designer and film wannabe)
Anjelica Huston
Tobey Maguire
Quincy Jones
Brad Pitt
Jennifer Aniston
Kevin Costner

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

+ + + + +

The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Sat. 04/03/04 07:17:43 AM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode.


   
   

Major Test for Catholic Bishops in the USA

Wanna bet they fail miserably?

Sen. John Kerry (S-Pomo) publicly rejects — very publicly rejects — central Catholic moral teaching, and he "divorced" his wife to "marry" another (very wealthy) woman. Yet, he contumaciously claims to be a Catholic in good standing. Two current articles in mainstream publications address this issue: one at NYT, the other at Time. Here's a paragraph plucked from the former:

Bishop [John H.] Ricard [of Pensacola-Tallahassee] said in Rome: "Of course we were disappointed with Kerry's voting against it. We were disappointed with others who voted against it [Violence Against Unborn Victims Act], but as Catholic lawmakers we hold them to a higher standard."

You "hold them to a higher standard"? The hell you do, Bishop; the hell you do. You actually hold them to no standard at all.

In brief, here's my take on this: it's time — now! — for the Catholic bishops in the USA to stop slapping America's Catholic laity in the face, to stop stabbing Rome in the back, and to stop spitting on the face of the Lord Jesus Christ.

That is what they do every time a flaming (wealthy, important, influential) hypocrite like John Kerry presents himself for the Holy Eucharist and isn't denied the sacrament. Even thirty years ago, Kerry would have been excommunicate for pretending to divorce his wife and pretending to marry another (very wealthy) woman.

The notion that denying Holy Communion to a CINO like John Kerry might cause a political backlash is risible.

How the hell could the political situation get any worse?

Merely reflect upon the truth: much of Catholic teaching, especially concerning morals, that evokes the shrillest, angriest, unthinking denunciation these days was taken for granted by virtually all Christians — by virtually all Americans — only a century ago: the immorality of abortion, artificial contraception, divorce and remarriage, and homosexual activity. In these respects, the role of the Catholic Church in the USA in determining public policy over the past forty years has been, effectively, nil. (Wolves in Shepherd's Clothing: Perfidious Priests and What Must Be Done About Them)

It's time to reverse course. It's long past time to reverse course. We don't need committees. We don't need studies. We need Catholic bishops who will be Catholic bishops. Yesterday.

[Follow-up: Re: Major Test for Catholic Bishops in the USA.]

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Sat. 04/03/04 06:47:56 AM
Categorized as Religious.


   
   

This Isn't Sanity

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode CCL

Paul Krugman is one sick-in-the-head puppy.

+ + + + +

Last week an opinion piece in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz about the killing of Sheik Ahmed Yassin said, "This isn't America; the government did not invent intelligence material nor exaggerate the description of the threat to justify their attack."

So even in Israel, George Bush's America has become a byword for deception and abuse of power. And the administration's reaction to Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies" provides more evidence of something rotten in the state of our government.

The truth is that among experts, what Mr. Clarke says about Mr. Bush's terrorism policy isn't controversial. The facts that terrorism was placed on the back burner before 9/11 and that Mr. Bush blamed Iraq despite the lack of evidence are confirmed by many sources — including "Bush at War," by Bob Woodward.

And new evidence keeps emerging for Mr. Clarke's main charge, that the Iraq obsession undermined the pursuit of Al Qaeda. From yesterday's USA Today: "In 2002, troops from the Fifth Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures."

That's why the administration responded to Mr. Clarke the way it responds to anyone who reveals inconvenient facts: with a campaign of character assassination.

Some journalists seem, finally, to have caught on. Last week an Associated Press news analysis noted that such personal attacks were "standard operating procedure" for this administration and cited "a behind-the-scenes campaign to discredit Richard Foster," the Medicare actuary who revealed how the administration had deceived Congress about the cost of its prescription drug bill.

But other journalists apparently remain ready to be used. On CNN, Wolf Blitzer told his viewers that unnamed officials were saying that Mr. Clarke "wants to make a few bucks, and that [in] his own personal life, they're also suggesting that there are some weird aspects in his life as well."

This administration's reliance on smear tactics is unprecedented in modern U.S. politics — even compared with Nixon's. Even more disturbing is its readiness to abuse power — to use its control of the government to intimidate potential critics.

To be fair, Senator Bill Frist's suggestion that Mr. Clarke might be charged with perjury may have been his own idea. But his move reminded everyone of the White House's reaction to revelations by the former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill: an immediate investigation into whether he had revealed classified information. The alacrity with which this investigation was opened was, of course, in sharp contrast with the administration's evident lack of interest in finding out who leaked the identity of the C.I.A. operative Valerie Plame to Bob Novak.

And there are many other cases of apparent abuse of power by the administration and its Congressional allies. A few examples: according to The Hill, Republican lawmakers threatened to cut off funds for the General Accounting Office unless it dropped its lawsuit against Dick Cheney. The Washington Post says Representative Michael Oxley told lobbyists that "a Congressional probe might ease if it replaced its Democratic lobbyist with a Republican." Tom DeLay used the Homeland Security Department to track down Democrats trying to prevent redistricting in Texas. And Medicare is spending millions of dollars on misleading ads for the new drug benefit — ads that look like news reports and also serve as commercials for the Bush campaign.

On the terrorism front, here's one story that deserves special mention. One of the few successful post-9/11 terror prosecutions — a case in Detroit — seems to be unraveling. The government withheld information from the defense, and witnesses unfavorable to the prosecution were deported (by accident, the government says). After the former lead prosecutor complained about the Justice Department's handling of the case, he suddenly found himself facing an internal investigation — and someone leaked the fact that he was under investigation to the press.

Where will it end? In his new book, "Worse Than Watergate," John Dean, of Watergate fame, says, "I've been watching all the elements fall into place for two possible political catastrophes, one that will take the air out of the Bush-Cheney balloon and the other, far more disquieting, that will take the air out of democracy."

+ + + + +

The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes.

Rich Lowry has the scoop on Krugman's smear of Wolf Blitzer, at The Corner yesterday (brackets and emphasis in original):

As readers of NRO know, Paul Krugman has established himself as perhaps the single most partisan voice on the New York Times Op-Ed page, no mean accomplishment. Krugman the other day wrote a column criticizing Wolf Blitzer for allegedly passing along a White House smear of Richard Clarke. Krugman wrote, “On CNN, Wolf Blitzer told his viewers that unnamed officials were saying that Mr. Clarke ‘wants to make a few bucks, and that [in] his own personal life, they're also suggesting that there are some weird aspects in his life as well.'"
Blitzer on the air Tuesday corrected Krugman, pointing out that he said those words in the course of asking a question of White House correspondent John King. As Blitzer put it Tuesday, “Finally, this clarification. Last Wednesday, while I was debriefing our senior White House correspondent, John King, I asked him if White House officials were suggesting there were some weird aspects to Richard Clarke's life. Clarke, of course, is the former counterterrorism adviser who has sharply criticized the president's handling of the war on terror. I was not referring to anything charged by so-called unnamed White House officials as alleged today by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. I was simply seeking to flesh out what Bush National Security Council spokesman Jim Wilkinson had said on this program two days earlier” [when he pointed out what he thought was a weird passage in Clarke’s book].
Krugman today takes Blitzer to task for this clarification: “Silly me: I ‘alleged’ that Mr. Blitzer said something because he actually said it, and described ‘so-called unnamed’ officials as unnamed because he didn't name them.”
But Krugman clearly distorted the original Blitzer statement. Blitzer was asking John King a question, and right after the bit that Krugman quoted he said, “Is that the sense that you’re getting, speaking to a wide range of officials?” King responded, “None of the senior officials I have spoken to here talked about Mr. Clarke’s personal life in any way.” Let’s repeat: “None of the senior officials I have spoken to here talked about Mr. Clarke’s personal life in any way.” If Krugman really wanted to know the truth about whether the White House was smearing Clarke or not, he should have considered King’s reporting more important than a passage in Blitzer’s question to him. But since King’s definitive factual statement didn’t fit Krugman’s agenda, he left it out. Where’s Daniel Okrent when you need him?
Here is the Blitzer-King passage in its entirety:
BLITZER: Well, John, I get the sense not only what Dr. Rice just said to you and other reporters at the White House, but what administration officials have been saying since the weekend, basically that Richard Clarke from their vantage point was a disgruntled former government official, angry because he didn't get a certain promotion. He's got a hot new book out now that he wants to promote. He wants to make a few bucks, and that his own personal life, they're also suggesting that there are some weird aspects in his life as well, that they don't know what made this guy come forward and make these accusations against the president. Is that the sense that you're getting, speaking to a wide range of officials?
KING: None of the senior officials I have spoken to here talked about Mr. Clarke's personal life in any way. But they offer a very mixed picture. They say that he was a very dedicated, a very smart member of the senior White House staff, that he was held over because of his expertise in the Clinton administration on terrorism issues and the Bush administration, these officials say, wanted a smooth transition. They also say, and many top Clinton administration officials support this, that Richard Clarke could be irritable. He could sometimes get angry at those who did not agree with him. That is an opinion shared in both administrations. And, in the end, of course, he did not get the No. 2 job at the Department of Homeland Security and he decided to move on.

Wow. Paul Krugman thinks CNN's Wolf Blitzer is in with the White House. Wow.

I hope you realize, Faithful Reader, that Krugman's writings are an astonishingly open window into his sick mind, and, more importantly, they reveal the kind of machinations that bitter, frightened — frightened because they have lost power and know they're going to lose more power — white-hot-partisan Democrats actually engage in themselves.

P.S. CCL = 250.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Sat. 04/03/04 06:32:34 AM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode & Media.


   

The Blog from the Core © 2002-2008 E. L. Core. All rights reserved.