September 17, 2008

Obama negotiations with Iraq.

Amir Taheri had an article in the NY Post on Monday:
WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence....
Today, Taheri writes:
[Obama's attempted rebuttal] confirms precisely what I suggested in my article: Obama preferred to have no agreement on US troop withdrawals until a new administration took office in Washington....

The real news I see in the Obama statement is that there may be an encouraging evolution in his position on Iraq: The "rebuttal" shows that the senator no longer shares his party leadership's belief that the United States has lost the war in Iraq....
You need to read the whole article to understand these conclusions.

93 comments:

AlphaLiberal said...

Taheri is a discredited louse who also pushed the story that Iran was making Jews wear stars.

And, this is an opinion piece, not a news report.

It's really shameful and irresponsible of you to push these sorts of falsehoods, Althouse. do you have any other substantiation for this outside the Murdoch media empire or other right wing venues?

AlphaLiberal said...

Taheri the bamboozler:
A 1989 review of Taheri's book, Nest of Spies: America's Journey to Disaster in Iran, written for The New Republic by noted Iranian scholar Shaul Bakhash and unearthed by TPMmuckraker in 2006, noted that Taheri "repeatedly refers us to books where the information cited does not exist," and is "capable of generalizations of breathtaking sweep and inaccuracy." According to Bakhash, "[Taheri's] interpretations of the documents are often egregiously inaccurate," and he "has trouble transcribing even the simplest information."

More here.

Why Althouse feels a need to promote a fraud is a curious thing. Ann, do you give a damn whether or not you're promoting falsehoods?

Truly shameful. I'm embarrassed you're associated with my state and university.

VariableSpin said...

AL,

Obama's response to his original article essentially corroborates it. Was the campaign lying too?

If you want to read his campaign's response you can check out Politico. They aren't owned by the "Murdoch Media Empire". Sheesh.

VariableSpin said...

"Ann, do you give a damn whether or not you're promoting falsehoods?"

Who's promoting falsehoods except you and your appeal to false reasoning?

Ann Althouse said...

Alpha, why not address the merits. This is a much-discussed story that I thought should be acknowledged here. If it's wrong, say way it's wrong. The fact that you don't makes it seem more likely to be true.

Roger J. said...

The Iraqi foreign minister seems to have a pretty good grasp of the geopolitical realities. I was impressed by his comments.

garage mahal said...

AND BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS A MOSLEM WHEW SWORE ON A KOREAN. WAKKE UP AMERICA. IT'S NOT TWO LATE!

AlphaLiberal said...

I won't address it on the merits because it is a bunch of bunk not worthy of my time. It's a right wing lie meant to tear down the Dem nominee as "unpatriotic."

Really, it's a stock Republican tactic.

And, Ann, again, can you back up this story you are pushing with a citation from anywhere but the Murdoch media empire and the right wing?

And you are promoting a fraud by promoting Taheri.

Roger J. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AlphaLiberal said...

Juan Cole, who was on expert on Iraq before the invasion made all these other instant experts:

Amir Taheri, the rightwing Iranian 'journalist' who is the least accurate reporter to feign practicing journalism since Gutenberg invented movable metal type accused Barack Obama of seeking "a deal to delay US troops' from Iraq when he was in Baghdad last summer.

That makes no sense. The Iraqis have published their negotiating points, and they have been saying that they want a US withdrawal by 2010. That is virtually the same as Obama's plan, so it is highly unlikely that he was urging them to extend that timetable to 2011 or beyond. Taheri has garbled what Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari told him.


Since when do Althouse and Republicans bother making sense?

and...

Taheri can't get his facts right. He alleged in his piece that Iraq would form a new government after elections late this year. False. What are being planned are only provincial elections. The al-Maliki government is safe until early 2010 when the next round of parliamentary elections is scheduled to be held. Since al-Maliki has a stable constituency in the Shite south, 60% of the population, it is a little unlikely that he will be unseated.

and...
Amir Taheri is the one who tried to get a false story started a couple of years ago that the Iranian government had passed a law requiring Iranian Jews to wear special clothing. The story was false and was denied by the Jewish member of the Iranian parliament. Taheri has a connection to the Neoconservative 'talent' agency, Benador Associates, whose clients helped get up the Iraq War.

If McCain trusts Taheri's account on this one, he is setting himself up for a fall.


Ugh. Ann Althouse, your embrace and promotion of such rank dishonesty is to your everlasting discredit.

VariableSpin said...

"I won't address it on the merits because it is a bunch of bunk not worthy of my time."

"Don't confuse me with the facts! My mind's made up!"

I think the problem is that the Obamatrons haven't constructed the talking points to address this little hiccup on the road to the coronation yet. When they do, I'm sure alphaliberal will be back.

Roger J. said...

Given Senator Obama's track record of saying one thing publicly; e.g., opposing NAFTA publicly in Michigan, but privately reassuring the Canadians he really didnt mean it, I am going with Taheri's account. (Now I do understand that Obama might wish his administration to negotiate a SOFA. Unfortunately it also tells me is he is willing to put short term gain in front of longer term strategic issues--rather like JFKs use of the "missile gap" in 1960 which in part led to the Cuban missile crisis two years later).

AlphaLiberal said...

OK, Althouse, you're the one promoting this false and ridiculous story. Back it up!

Again: Do you have any other substantiation for this outside the Murdoch media empire or other right wing venues?

George said...

I'll give Alpha the benefit one this, and some of y'all might want to, as well, before you go all buckwild crazy on his ass.

He refers to a scholar named Shaul Bakhash in his post above. Prof. Bakhash is the person who says that Taheri is unreliable and is prone to exaggeration.

Prof. Bakhash's wife, an Iranian-American professor, was imprisoned by the bums who rule Iran. She was held in solitary confinement for 110 days in 2007 on charges of being a spy.

On the other hand, however, just because Bakhash hates the Iranian government doesn't mean that he's right about Taheri. I love the line "has trouble transcribing even the simplest information." That's a classy professorial way of saying, "Taheri? He's a retard."

VariableSpin said...

Do you have any other substantiation for this outside the Murdoch media empire or other right wing venues?"

Here's the AFP

Do they count?

Paul Zrimsek said...

I won't address it on the merits

DeltaMinusLiberal is a man of his word.

Eric said...

Okay, anybody who uses Juan Cole as anything but the butt of jokes is dealing off the bottom of the intellectual deck.

Henry said...

the least accurate reporter to feign practicing journalism since Gutenberg invented movable metal type

That's an awesome insult. Folks, if you want to reuse it in other contexts, make sure to credit Juan Cole.

Bissage said...

THIS sounds like a job for
Nonsense Rhyme Cheerleader Man!!!
(a copyrighted feature of this broadcast):

Black cat, roof rack, pickles in a jar,
Whipped cream, primal scream, one more bridge too far.

Gooooooooooooo TEAM!!!

Michael_H said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Original Mike said...

AL said: ...you're associated with my state and university.

Categorize under "Stuff I wish I hadn't learned."

BetaLiberal said...

Mom's gone to work so me and Alpha can use the computer again.

Ann Althouse, you are a liar. You are a lying liar who lies all the time. Nah! Nah! Nah!

You are NOT objective! You are NOT subjective! You may be conjunctive, or maybe past imperfect. But you are NOT subjunctive!

You are not Ann Althouse. There is no such person as Ann Althouse because I say there isn't. You can't argue with what I say because I said so.

Two, Four, Six, Eight!
To whom do we masturbate?

Ba-ree! Ba-ree!!
Ba-ree!!!

Obama is the king of the universe. I hate George Bush because he won't stop all those things. Everyone who talks about Ba-ree is a liar, except me.

Shit. Mom's car is in the driveway. I better get back to Social Studies homework.

Roger J. said...

There is one conclusion of Taheri's that I take exception to and really isnt supported by anything in the articles and the transcript of the foreign ministers interview: That Obama has evolved his position on Iraq. I dont see where he has; even though the surge has been "wildly successful," the overall enterprise has been a failure. Taheri offers no evidence to support that assertion.

Josh said...

By his own campaign's admission, Obama urged an international partner in an ongoing military conflict to bypass our country's commander and chief on a major issue of war strategy. He isn't just conducting his own foreign policy, he's deliberately undermining that of the sitting president. I don't understand how anyone can see this as non-scandalous.

Jim said...

Since Obama's campaign has admitted that he did indeed try to convince the Iraqis to delay coming to an agreement (they only disagree as to which agreement - whether it was Status of Forces or Strategic Framework while the story says that Obama made no such distinction between the two), will alpha and his cohorts admit that they were wrong...wrong...wrong?

Should I hold my breath?

SteveR said...

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Stupid comments call for stupid cliches.

Ann Althouse said...

Beta Liberal... LOL.

Sloanasaurus said...

You can call Taheri a fraud as much as you want, except that Obama confirmed the story.

Face it. Obama knows the war is won and knows that the surge won he war. Obama won't admit it because Obama voted for defeat in 2006. But Obama wants troop withdrawls delayed so he can claim credit for it. Obama is risking the lives of American toops and Iraqis for his own political gain. Very sinister.

Peter V. Bella said...

Eric said...
Okay, anybody who uses Juan Cole as anything but the butt of jokes is dealing off the bottom of the intellectual deck.

Juan Cole walks into a bar…

Michael_H said...

I might be willing to discount the Taheri report; however, the behind-the-back negotiations with Canada by the Obama campaign during the primaries shoes a pattern of behavior on Obama's part that lends credibility to Taheri's report.

During February 2008, Obama spoke of ending NAFTA at campaign rallies in rust belt states. At the same time, an Obama representative was dispatched to tell Canadian Ambassador Michael Wilson "not be worried about what Obama says about NAFTA."

The Iraq story sounds true to form.

Michael_H said...

/shows, not shoes

Peter V. Bella said...

Truly shameful. I'm embarrassed you're associated with my state and university.

The truth comes out. Alpha is not concerned about the issues. His only issue is Ann teaches at his University.

A university is supposed to promote ideas- note the plural Alpha- not pre-canned, scripted, packaged propaganda and indoctination.

Of course if your ilk ever get in charge we will have the education and reeducation camps.

Peter V. Bella said...

Josh said...
He isn't just conducting his own foreign policy, he's deliberately undermining that of the sitting president. I don't understand how anyone can see this as non-scandalous.

You are blinded by the right. You do not understand. Obama can do no wrong. There is no scandal. He is the Messiah, sent to us from on high in Chicago to save us all. He is the One who the prophets have spoken of. A community organizer who came out of Hyde Park to provide salvation to us all. Messiahs do not make mistakes or cause scandals.

It is right there in the Good Book.

Rich B said...

Over at Just One Minute, Tom Maguire has a bit more analysis. One excerpt from the NY TImes has this statement:

"Mr. Zebari said that on his recent trip to the United States, in addition to President Bush, he had met with the presumptive presidential nominees, Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, and Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat.

He said that Mr. Obama had asked him: “ ‘Why is the Iraqi government in a rush, in a hurry? This administration has only a few more months in office.’ ”

Mr. Zebari said he told Mr. Obama that even a Democratic administration would be better off having something “concrete in front of them to take a hard look at.” "

Why rely on a "bamboozler" when you can go right to the source and ask the horse. The TPM attacks on Taheri are designed to muddy the waters. Sure looks like Obamuh was doing a little freelance diplomacy.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

But Obama wants troop withdrawls delayed so he can claim credit for it. Obama is risking the lives of American toops and Iraqis for his own political gain. Very sinister.


My first thought as well. He just wants to stack the deck for his first foreign policy "victory".

Kirby Olson said...

What is the legal status of Obama entering into agreements with foreign powers behind the president's back?

Isn't what OBama did against the law?

Is he entitled to act as the shadow president of a shadow government that hasn't yet been elected?

Roger J. said...

The Logan Act prohibits such negotiations, but I don't think it has much in the way of teeth. Perhaps one of our legal folks could tackle that one.

Alex said...

Alpha has become a sad caricature of himself. Almost a cartoon character.

miller said...

Let's suppose Bambi wins.

Let's suppose McCain goes to Russia to negotiate (in secret) with Putin and comes back with a plan for a cooperative agreement.

What will Bambi say?

a) It's great that McCain is working this issue out with this country. Even though this was in secret and was something I was trying to do as the legal head of state, it's great when members of the legislative branch conduct unauthorized negotiations.
b) McCain is undermining the executive authority of the United States & is possibly breaking the rules laid down by the Logan Act.

???

Chip Ahoy said...

LIES !1!11!!1one!!1!!¡1!1¡1!1¡1!¡!!!11
LIES !!!!1!!¡1! LIES !!1!!¡1!


THAT'S ALL WE EVER GET OUT OF THAT BHO CAMPAIGN !!1!!¡1!

* hangs self *

* unhangs self *

(squeaky damaged voice)
LIES !1!11!!1one!!1!!¡1!1¡1!1¡1!¡!!!11
LIES !!!!1!!¡1! LIES !!1!!¡1!


* injects arm with Prozac™ *

* sleeps *

VariableSpin said...

Here is NBC's contemporaneous account of his meeting with Zebari.

Here are some quotes:

"He said he told Zebari that negotiations for a Status of Forces agreement or strategic framework agreement between the two countries should be done in the open and with Congress's authorization and that it was important that that there be strong bipartisan support for any agreement so that it can be sustained through a future administration. He argued it would make sense to hold off on such negotiations until the next administration."

Obama:
"My concern is that the Bush administration--in a weakened state politically--ends up trying to rush an agreement that in some ways might be binding to the next administration..."

Roger J. said...

The other thing this story suggests is that Obama has no working concept of negotiating in the mid east. He offered no baksheesh, and without that, not much happens. (partially kidding).

Fen said...

My first thought as well. He just wants to stack the deck for his first foreign policy "victory".

Obama: I want our troops out of Iraq NOW... unless of course, I can trade on their blood to get credit for winning the war.

And yes, the Logan Act either needs to be applied or rewritten so that it has teeth.

AlphaLib? Just a Rove plant designed to make the Democrats look bad, as if they needed any more help.

miller said...

You know, I get the impression that Tina Fey doesn't like Sarah Palin, but her parody of her is spot on and funny.

I don't think AL likes Palin either, but his parody of a Democrat Party member is not funny. It's becoming tiresome.

Eric said...

The other thing this story suggests is that Obama has no working concept of negotiating in the mid east. He offered no baksheesh, and without that, not much happens. (partially kidding).

Oh, based on his dealings with Rezko and the rest of the Chicago machine, I'd say Obama is far, far beyond "working concept" in that department.

Fen said...

I wonder if Saddam bagman & Obama pal Nadhmi Auchi was part of this.

Masterasia said...

@AlphaLiberal:
"
I won't address it on the merits because it is a bunch of bunk not worthy of my time. It's a right wing lie meant to tear down the Dem nominee as "unpatriotic."
"

AlphaLiberal clearly you ought not to engage in this kind of discourse. When you hold a different view, join in with an intelligent counterpoint. PLEASE STOP WHINING!!! Take it from me, you are embarrassing people who support your ticket.

rhhardin said...

The general view is that treason is allowed for Democrats, in any case.

It's part of a perfectly legitimate effort to help the poor and middle class by taking power.

Michael_H said...

Peter V. said: It is right there in the Good Book.

I've read The Joy of Sex cover to cover, many, many times and not one time does it mention Barack Obama.

rightwingprof said...

Actually no, all you have to read is the Obama campaign's response, which is, "That's a lie, we didn't do it because we did it."

You have to admit, it's novel.

Masterasia said...

@Topic

This is a shocker for us. Surely Senator Obama, being a lawyer and a lecturer must do more to clear his name.

Fen said...

And lets not forget that Obama declared his campaign as evidence of his executive skills.

knox said...

Whether or not this story is true, Obama has no business insinuating that Bush wants to recklessly withdraw troops before he leaves office, ostensibly in order to gain some goodwill.

If there's one thing Bush has done consistently, it's to make decisions--especially security/foreign policy decisions--without regard to approval ratings or his Legacy.

He's been hated and maligned for this, by people on the left and the right, and has never given a rat's ass. For Obama, or any democrat, to suggest that he's chasing poll numbers now is bogus.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

As far as I can tell, Obama has confirmed the account of his action, he only disagreement is his motives and the long-term effect of his action.

I assume he is telling the truth, it is not that he want to keep the troops there longer, he wants to avoid Bush and the Iraqis reaching an agreement to keep the troops there longer than he want them there.

I don't think his motive was evil. That does not make it legal.

A question for anyone who might know: Are these agreements legally binding treaties, in which case they need to be ratified by the senate? Or are they some sort of non-binding understandings intended to allow each country to make future plans knowing what the other intends to do?

Hoosier Daddy said...

garage said AND BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS A MOSLEM WHEW SWORE ON A KOREAN.

Well that explains Kim Jong Il's disappearance from the public.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I won't address it on the merits because it is a bunch of bunk not worthy of my time. It's a right wing lie meant to tear down the Dem nominee as "unpatriotic."

Translation: Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?

Alex said...

So basically Barack broke the law. Why isn't he being brought before a jury?

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Obama: I want our troops out of Iraq NOW... unless of course, I can trade on their blood to get credit for winning the war.

I don't believe he wants to win. Nothing in his history shows otherwise. This is for his followers.

miller said...

Bambi loves his country so much he wants it to stay in a lost war until he gets to be Prezdent & then can proclaim "the time of healing has begun."

So, how many deaths will Bambi be responsible for until the troops come home? Which soldier does he want to die for his campaign purposes?

Freder Frederson said...

The Bush Administration was (and is) recklessly and dishonestly trying to get a SOFA in place before they left office without consulting Congress. Such agreements are usually considered treaties and ratified by Congress. It is perfectly understandable that Obama, as a member of Congress, would express his concerns to the Iraqis about the complications that such an agreement, which could bind the next administration yet be of questionable legality, could cause the new administration.

To claim that Obama was "negotiating" with the Iraqis over this seems to be overstating the case in the extreme.

Law professors should be more careful with their choice of words.

miller said...

Senators who are running for the presidency should be more careful about assuming the coronation.

They should also not lie about what they did. Does NAFTA ring a bell?

VariableSpin said...

The bottom line on this is that this story isn't going to go anywhere. The big media won't pursue it.

To find out what was actually said, all it would take is a reporter to get in contact with Zebari and do a follow up interview. Hmm... I wonder why that hasn't happened yet?

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

CNN was going to feature the story on Barry but they interrupted it with breaking news on Sarah Palin's menstrual cycle.

daredevil-66 said...

This is an interesting thought experiment. Say suppose g.w in 1999was "negotiating" with the EU regarding Kyoto before he was even elected. Would our friends from the left think it might be a bit cheeky on his part to presume he could fashion alterations to that treaty? I am more appalled at his cart before the horse mindset. Dude, you have to get elected first.

Peter V. Bella said...

miller said...
Bambi loves his country so much he wants it to stay in a lost war until he gets to be Prezdent & then can proclaim "the time of healing has begun."

He will replace the Armed Forces with heroic community organizers. They have experience in dealing with violent factions tearing apart countries.

Peter V. Bella said...

Such agreements are usually considered treaties and ratified by Congress.

Ratify does not imply or mean advise and consent of Congress. It means Congress accepts or rejects.

There is nothing that says that Congress must be consulted.

Arturius said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Arturius said...

The Bush Administration was (and is) recklessly and dishonestly trying to get a SOFA in place before they left office without consulting Congress. Such agreements are usually considered treaties and ratified by Congress.

Consult and ratify are two different things. The President doesn't have to consult Congress in his negotiations but he certainly needs the Senate to ratify the treaty.

The Drill SGT said...

pretty disgusting and presumptuous on Bambi's part.

Unfortunately it won't change my vote :)

knox said...

The Bush Administration was (and is) recklessly and dishonestly trying to get a SOFA in place before they left office without consulting Congress.

It's on record: FF is sincerely worried that we might get out of Iraq. Call Guiness

Such agreements are usually considered treaties and ratified by Congress.

Good use of "usually" as a get-out-of-jail-free card


It is perfectly understandable that Obama, as a member of Congress

Oh yes, purely as a member of Congress... certainly not as SOMEONE RUNNING FOR POTUS

his concerns to the Iraqis about the complications that such an agreement

He wanted us out in 60 days ago. Now he has "concerns" that everything is done slooooowly and methodically....

which could bind the next administration yet be of questionable legality, could cause the new administration.

I think what you're trying to say is that Obama wants the next administration-- his--to get the credit for getting us out of Iraq.

Bush never wanted the credit for getting us out. He wanted us to win. You're being completely disingenous here and it's utterly transparent.

Freder Frederson said...

Consult and ratify are two different things. The President doesn't have to consult Congress in his negotiations but he certainly needs the Senate to ratify the treaty.

Bush has already stated that he is not going to submit the agreement to Congress for ratification.

knox said...

**He wanted us out in 60 days not long ago.

Arturius said...

Bush has already stated that he is not going to submit the agreement to Congress for ratification.

Then it is questionable whether it meets the definition of a treaty that requires ratification. I believe SOFA's set forth the terms of stationing military forces in a host nation and are not necessarily agreements which bind the US to anything other than the conduct of forces within that nation. Therefore, SOFA's don't meet the same standard as a treaty such as say, those under NATO.

That said, I'm not certain your original post on this issue offers much substance other than a feeble critique of the Bush administration moving faster to reduce forces in Iraq than Obama desires. Ironic since it is counter to what he has been touting for the last two years.

Doyle said...

Shocking that dishonest warmonger Amir Taheri would appeal to war-loving fruitcake Ann Althouse.

Revenant said...

The general view is that treason is allowed for Democrats, in any case.

That's certainly how the press views things. Witness the Kerry campaign, for example; the man launched his political career through treason.

But even if Obama did try to undermine American diplomacy with Iraq, that wouldn't constitute treason, as Iraq isn't an enemy nation. It would (technically) be illegal, but nobody's ever been prosecuted under that law.

Pretty much the most that could be said is that it would show he's a self-centered yutz, and we knew THAT already.

Revenant said...

But Obama's national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri's article bore "as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial."

So the Obama campaign admits that while Taheri shaded the truth to make Obama look bad, the underlying accusation is true and accurate. :)

Revenant said...


Then it is questionable whether it meets the definition of a treaty that requires ratification.


It isn't even questionable; it doesn't.

The key difference between a treaty and an agreement is that the countries involved are obligated to abide by a treaty. In the absence of a signed and ratified treaty, neither Iraq nor the United States is obligated to stick to the SOFA in the future. In other words, even if Bush gets a Status of Forces Agreement in place before leaving office, if it isn't part of a ratified treaty (as, e.g., the NATO SOFAs are) the next President will be under no obligation to abide by it.

Freder's getting his panties in a wad over the belief that Bush is trying to force President Barack Hussein Jesus Gandhi Christ Obama to stick to some sort of Evil Rethuglican Plan that Obama won't want. This is because Freder is an idiot. If Obama doesn't like the deal Bush came up with, Obama can change it. The Iraqi government is aware of this.

bearbee said...

Added wrinkle. The USS Cole was attacked near Yemen's coast close to the end of Clinton's second term.

16 Are Killed in Attack on U.S. Embassy in Yemen

Michael The Magnificent said...

Alex: So basically Barack broke the law. Why isn't he being brought before a jury?

Nothing to see here, move along, comrade.

Now Troopergate, there's a story that both houses of Congress MUST investigate.

Michael The Magnificent said...

VariableSpin: To find out what was actually said, all it would take is a reporter to get in contact with Zebari and do a follow up interview. Hmm... I wonder why that hasn't happened yet?
and do a follow up interview. Hmm... I wonder why that hasn't happened yet?


Legions of blow-dried reporters are currently tasked with combing the landfills in Alaska.

Doyle said...

Now Troopergate, there's a story that both houses of Congress MUST investigate.

How 'bout if Miss Wasilla just cooperated with the Alaskan investigation that's already going on? You know, like she said she would.

Fen said...

Freder's getting his panties in a wad over the belief that Bush is trying to force President Barack Hussein Jesus Gandhi Christ Obama to stick to some sort of Evil Rethuglican Plan that Obama won't want.

Thats odd coming from Freder, who holds international treaties as sacrosanct. I guess his ethics are situational when a Democrat is involved.

Fen said...

Bushman: CNN was going to feature the story on Barry but they interrupted it with breaking news on Sarah Palin's menstrual cycle.

Actually thats not far off the mark. Yesterday, Obama apparently gave a killer speech that was drowned out by media-slime coverage of Sarah Palin's tanning bed.

McCain, you salty bastard. Pure Genius.

Doyle said...

If a Democrat had a tanning bed installed in their house it would make the cover of the Weekly Standard.

knox said...

If a Democrat had a tanning bed installed in their house it would make the cover of the Weekly Standard.

No, it wouldn't, because everybody knows democrats don't waste their time on such frivolities. They'd rather sit and fluff their hair for 3 minutes--but then, that's just the men.

Michael The Magnificent said...

Doyle: If a Democrat had a tanning bed installed in their house it would make the cover of the Weekly Standard.

If taxpayers footed the bill, it would and it should, yes. Otherwise, as in this case, no.

Al Gore said...

Most people won't see it as treasonous for him to recognize political reality when talking to the Iraqis. I think this will play well with the independents who need to be reassured that he's a pragmatist and not to be lumped in with his anti-war, anti-NAFTA base.

Revenant said...

he's a pragmatist and not to be lumped in with his anti-war, anti-NAFTA base.

"Base"? That's been his own rhetoric! NAFTA was a mistake, we need to yank all our troops out of Iraq ASAP, etc.

Granted, he was probably lying -- I certainly hope so, since he'll probably be the next President -- but it is a little bit silly to pretend that only "the base" has been talking about these things.

Michael McNeil said...

Re: criticism of the tanning bed.

Did anybody stop to think that there's very little light in Alaska for a good part of the year? Why should Palin have to be pasty-white as well as Vitamin D starved? Not to speak of the winter depression (solved by bright sun-quality light) that often strikes people during the time of the “noontime night.” Yes, there is sun at Anchorage's latitude (though not much beyond Fairbanks), but it doesn't shine for many hours a day even there. Alaska as an polar arctic land is different from the other states.

rhhardin said...

Ohio bike route poll adds one McCain/Palin yard sign pic

That's, let's see, 6 McCain and 1 Obama (with one other Obama present on September 8 but now removed after the lipstick pig incident).

In other news, thisinteresting gate seems to have been de-fented pic, which remains a mystery. A fent thief, or perhaps a fent damaged in Hurricane Ike.

Methadras said...

How did that negotiation go? Was it something like this, "dirka dirka jihad allah dirka?"

blake said...

Alpha has become a sad caricature of himself. Almost a cartoon character.

He's always been a cartoon character.

Now he's a caricature of a cartoon character.

AlphaLiberal is Farfur.

veni vidi vici said...

"It's really shameful and irresponsible of you to push these sorts of falsehoods"

so, the Obama campaign's essential confirmation of Taheri's earlier claims make them into falsehoods?

I used to enjoy alphaliberal's posts; for the most part he seemed pretty reasonable and I agreed with him a decent part of the time. Seems that right around the time the polls began showing that McCain was actually trying to win the election and not just stand in like Dole '96 (and I'm pretty sure he'd have been Dole '96'd had Hillary been the Dem nom), he turned into a pretty nasty guy. You know, one of those "you disagree with me? Well then, you're a LIAR!" types of douchebags. Dude, did your dog get run over or something? Surely you can't be this worked up solely on the basis of who's running for president, right? Were the words "get a pfackin' life" ever more fraught with meaning than now?