UPDATE: Juan Non-Volokh:
Time will tell whether there is anything to the Able Danger story -- and whether or not the "wall" inhibited information [sharing] -- but it is clearer than ever that Jamie Gorelick should not have served on the 9/11 Commission. Whether or not she deserves credit or blame for the "wall" and other Clinton Administration policies, her presence on the commission undermines its credibility, and provides undo fodder for political partisans and conspiracy theorists.Exactly.
पोस्ट्स
१६ टिप्पण्या:
You see, Ann's not right wing; she just repeats right wing talking points.
- She voted for Gore
- She believes in gay rights and women's choice.
- She didn't trust Kerry and he looked and spoke strangely so that's why I voted for Bush.
- She voted for Feingold.
- She's afraid that Lefties are way too mean to be ever associated with them.
- She's criticized Rebublicans.
How could someone with all those defenses be a wingnut?
No one is sending me talking points. I mostly just read the news and then write up ideas I have that add something new (or are amusing). If I thought it was just someone else's talking point, I wouldn't post! But I'd be happy to receive talking points from both sides, which I would react to and blog about if I had something new to add. I don't think I've EVER been a blogger who just repeats someone else's points. If you think I am, Elliott, I'm going to say you're not really reading my blog. I do original work here, and if you don't give me credit for it, I'm going to think YOU're a hack. Did some "get Althouse" talking point go out?
I like the analogy of putting E. Howard Hunt on the Warren Commission.
The problem (as I pointed out in the cited article on VC) is the appearance of impropriety. Because it is possible that her role both at DoD and DoJ may have affected the ability of our government to put together the dots in preventing 9/11, I would suggest that the 9/11 Commmission lost credability in this matter. In particular, I think that the question of whether the "Wall" affected intelligence gathering and coordination was not really adequately answered, and there is the possibility that her presence on the Commission had some impact on that.
In other words, her participation on the 9/11 Commission, because of her role in those agency, and as a high level Clinton apointee, potentially reduced the credibility of the Commission's report.
I won't get into a long discussion. I didn't call Ann a wingnut; I suggested that Ann has numerous defenses to the charge that she is a wingnut. I apologize to her for thinking that she was just repeating the smears about Gorelick that have been circulating ever since Ashcroft misrepresented things in his testimony to the Commission. Obviously, her error was original and amusing; not just a repeat of the earlier smears circulated by others.
As to driving her into the right wing. Well, one of us is deluded about where she already is.
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
So why don't I just admit it?
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2004/12/so-why-dont-i-just-admit-it.html
her presence on the commission undermines its credibility, and provides undo fodder for political partisans and conspiracy theorists.
Uh, that's a pretty silly example of circular logic, as it was the partisans and wingnuts whining about it in the first (and only) place. They still are alone in this. Good luck with the new ridiculous blogswarm, though.
Thersites--
Your argument makes no sense... Imagine a judge sitting for a case in which one of the parties is represented by his former law partner. Now, in theory it is possible for him to remain neutral. But unlikely. Is it an appearance of impropriety for the judge to sit on the case, or is the appearance of impropriety caused by the local paper bringing attention to the matter?
Charles - what are you talking about and what’s your point?
A more general question is I can’t understand why people get so offended by an opposing opinion. Is it just human nature or have we been conditioned that argument only have two sides? Therefore, if someone isn’t on my side then they’re saying my position is wrong meaning I’m stupid SO they must be stupid for disagreeing with me! Die, scum die!
A decade or so ago, I was having a conversation with a friend who is generally more conservative than I am. I made some negative comment about Bush1 and he immediately shot back, “well, Clinton isn’t any better!” First of all, I wasn’t talking about Clinton and I didn’t have a high opinion of him either. So we then had to discuss that not liking A does not mean liking B. If I say chocolate sucks, that doesn’t mean I’ve sold my soul to the vanilla lobby; likewise, expressing concern that maybe Gorelick wasn’t the best person to serve on the committee doesn’t mean I’ve offered my firstborn to Bushitler and RoveCo, Inc.
Lileks covers much of this in his current Screedblog
Please get this straight: there are no marching orders. There is no RoveHive to which everyone buzzes in the morning for a scrap of Royal Jelly we carry off to our blogs. If there sometimes appears to be a unaniminity of subject matter, that’s because certain ideas appear, flower, bloom, take root, and spread. Like kudzu. But kudzu is not taking orders from some dark shrouded mastermind made entirely of cellulose and chlorophyll. If you honestly think that everyone to the right of Noam Chomsky is part of some dark soulless cabal dedicated to extirpating all photons and replacing them with negative matter that strips the flesh from the bones of the poor, I envy you; the world must make perfect sense.
...
That shorter email that called me a name in the second sentence? Read it. Rocked my world. Completely changed everything I believe. Had to curl up in bed with my George Bush handpuppet and have a dialogue for half an hour before I stopped whimpering.
the circular logic claim doesn't fly here because we're not saying "Gee, we were wrong--but the fact that we raised the issue proves that we should have raised the issue." That would be circular.
But that's exactly what you're doing. Oh, not you personally. More the collective "we" you yourself refer to, as well as the original silly post. The search to find any reason whatsoever to discredit the Commission began the instant Bush said he didn't want it. If Gorelick weren't on the commission you would have had to invent her. As indeed, you did.
Witness:
its like gorelick is judging a conspiracy trial, and everyone knew (or at least everyone who reads the wall street journal knew) she was part of the conspiracy.
Thanks for making my point about the ridiculous conspiracy-mongering.
But that is my point about the appearance of impropriety. Because she was on the Commission, we don't know that there wasn't a conspiracy of silence in regard to her role in both DoD and DoJ in erecting barriers to sharing of intelligence that might have prevented 9/11.
It is her presence on the Commission that really raises the possibility of a conspiracy, and, thus, is why she shouldn't have been on it in the first place.
Indeed, I would suggest that you are engaging in the circular logic, assuming that because the 9/11 Commission didn't find her Walls to be relevant, that they, indeed, weren't.
We are left with a Commission report that didn't really address this policy, from a Commission that had the architect of that policy sitting in review.
It is her presence on the Commission that really raises the possibility of a conspiracy, and, thus, is why she shouldn't have been on it in the first place.
No, it is the presence of the Commission that has raised the desire to taint it with a conspiracy.
Thersites--
You still haven't answered the relevant argument. Which causes an appearance of impropriety, a judge sitting for a case in which his former law partner is representing one of the sides, or the local newspaper bringing attention to the matter? I'm interested in your opinion (which means no namecalling please).
You still haven't answered the relevant argument. Which causes an appearance of impropriety, a judge sitting for a case in which his former law partner is representing one of the sides, or the local newspaper bringing attention to the matter? I'm interested in your opinion (which means no namecalling please).
It isn't a relevant argument, because the 9/11 Commission was not a "judge" arbitrating between "sides." The fact that you see it as such is pretty revealing.
I really honestly don't think very much of you. Your preposterous "arguments" about Media Matters prove pretty conclusively that you are committed far less to objective discussions of actual events than to partisan fairytales.
It isn't a relevant argument, because the 9/11 Commission was not a "judge" arbitrating between "sides."
Well it is a relevant argument if one of the points of the commission is to find out who was responsible for some of these problems. Besides, your argument is a generic argument about the apperance of impropriety only being the result of attention to the matter not the actual matter itself. Your argument would apply to the judge situation as well.
I really honestly don't think very much of you.
Well, consider the feeling mutual. Though unlike you, I do not resort to personal attacks. I guess this is your MO, and I think it reflects correspondingly on you. And by the way, if you still think that Media Matters does not spread talking points for the Democratic Party then you are the one in fantasy land.
if you still think that Media Matters does not spread talking points for the Democratic Party then you are the one in fantasy land.
Prove it.
If you can, they're out of business.
Besides, your argument is a generic argument about the apperance of impropriety only being the result of attention to the matter not the actual matter itself.
No it isn't.
My argument is that as soon as the 9/11 Commission was proposed and Bush opposed it, wingnuts started making up conspiracy theories to discredit it.
The silly Volokh post merely says that as long as you believe real hard and click your heels three times, you don't have to read the 9/11 report and think about what it says about Bush.
Charles - OK. I think it was your second clause that confused me. With “but should not have been” I thought you were arguing that someone who was incompetent or viciously anti-American *could* be on the commission and that made no sense to me. Or it was sarcasm that completely escaped me. Also, I’ve never lasted more than 5 minutes with Limbaugh; just don’t find him entertaining.
I also don’t think it’s likely that “Gorelick is either incompetent or viciously anti-American.” Well, she may have been incompetent, I just don’t know enough to say. My thinking is more in line with Instapundit in that only after the fact did we realize just how wrong our policies were. I do agree she should have been a witness and not a committee member.
Thersites,
Do you think that the Christian Coalition or the FRC spread Republican Party talking points?
I certainly think that they do.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा