Could there actually be a national dialog, a public debate ensuing?

Nah. That would be a miracle. Even for Easter, that's too unlikely.

but what is the joke behind the frequent pairing here at ol' DU of right-wingers and Kool Aid? At first, I assumed it was a Jim Jones reference, but I think I'm off base there. Your wisdom will be much appreciated....

Wondering in Watkinsville

"The phrase can also be used in the opposite sense to indicate that one has blindly embraced a particular philosophy or perspective (a "Kool-Aid drinker"). This usage is generally limited to those in or commenting on United States politics, but also appears in discussions on computer technology, where someone who is a staunch advocate for a particular technology is described as having "drunk the Kool-Aid". This is also frequently used in discussions about sports; when a fan makes an overly-optimistic prediction or hopeful statement, usually about a traditionally woeful team or franchise, others may comment that he is "drinking the Kool-Aid"'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kool-Aid

edit to add - you're right though, it all originally came from the Jim Jones/Jonestown Massacre.

'"Drinking the Kool-Aid"

Contrary to popular belief, Kool-Aid was not used in the infamous punch at Jonestown. The idiomatic expression drinking the Kool-Aid is a reference to the 1978 cult mass-suicide in Jonestown, Guyana. Jim Jones, the leader of the group, convinced his followers to move to Jonestown. Late in the year he then ordered his flock to commit suicide by drinking grape-flavored Flavor Aid laced with potassium cyanide. In what is now commonly called "the Jonestown Massacre", 913 of the 1100 Jonestown residents drank the brew and died. (The discrepancy between the idiom and the actual occurrence is likely due to Flavor Aid's relative obscurity versus the easily recognizable Kool-Aid.)

One lasting legacy of the Jonestown tragedy is the saying, “Don’t drink the Kool-Aid.” This has come to mean, "Don’t trust any group you find to be a little on the kooky side," or "Whatever they tell you, don't believe it too strongly."

The phrase can also be used in the opposite sense to indicate that one has blindly embraced a particular philosophy or perspective (a "Kool-Aid drinker"). This usage is generally limited to those in or commenting on United States politics, but also appears in discussions on computer technology, where someone who is a staunch advocate for a particular technology is described as having "drunk the Kool-Aid". This is also frequently used in discussions about sports; when a fan makes an overly-optimistic prediction or hopeful statement, usually about a traditionally woeful team or franchise, others may comment that he is "drinking the Kool-Aid"'

Doesn't he look like he's been raised from the dead?

Was Indian Joe ever apprehended in TOM SAWYER?

O R D I D H E L I V E O N !?!?

My theory is he lived on in that cave and then re-emerged into society as Charles Krauthammer.

That would explain the out-of-touch politics and the hideous, corpse-like look.

LOL. :rofl:

Congrats to the NY Times. There is real passion in this editorial, and it's time for it. Great stuff.

And I DON'T like the way the General is looking at Dim-son. :evilgrin:

were fully assimilated into the BushBotBorg well before the invasion and occupation of Iraq. This is not the WP of the Watergate Era. :(

peace and low stress

and de-classify information.

<snip>
Of course, the inaccurate report saying that the trailers were bioweapons labs was made public, immediately, while the accurate one was kept secret until a reporter found out about it.

Since Mr. Bush regularly denounces leakers, the White House has made much of the notion that he did not leak classified information, he declassified it. This explanation strains credulity. Even a president cannot wave a wand and announce that an intelligence report is declassified.

To declassify an intelligence document, officials have to decide whether disclosing the information would jeopardize the sources that provided it or the methods used to gather it. To answer that question, they closely study the origins of the intelligence to be disclosed. Had Mr. Bush done that, he should have seen that the most credible information made it clear that the Niger story was wrong. (In any case, Iraq's supposed attempt to buy uranium from Niger happened four years before the invasion, and failed. The idea that this amounted to a current, aggressive and continuing campaign to build nuclear weapons in 2002 — as Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney called it — is laughable.)

This messy episode leaves more questions than answers, so it is imperative that two things happen soon. First, the federal prosecutor in the Libby case should release the transcripts of what Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney said when he questioned them. And the Senate Intelligence Committee must report publicly on how Mr. Bush and his team used the flawed intelligence on Iraq. Senator Pat Roberts, the committee chairman, says the panel will meet this month to discuss three of the report's five sections. That's a step. And it has taken only two years to get this far.

coordination to eat a pretzel.

And being the leader of the free world is WAY beyond his limits.

So this is where the tide comes to turn.

:)

Quit all the BS and release the transcripts of their "interview".

the transcripts of what Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney said when he questioned them.

Oh to dream.....

...put their name to the Editorials they write anymore!?!

And second, "...Senator Pat Roberts, the committee chairman, says the panel will meet this month to discuss three of the report's five sections. That's a step...???

Why is them talking about

"...3 of the report's 5 sections"

"...A STEP!?!? WHAT"S IN THE TWO (2) SECTIONS they are NOT going to discuss???!!!???

That's not "...a Step!" That's B*llSh*t!

get some insight into this report (at least 3 sections of them), but not until Bush has left office, if his performance in providing the report on the intelligence that led up to the Iraq invasion is any indicator. Has anyone heard when that report is coming out? It's been 5 months now since Senator Reid shut down the Senate to force the issue on that one and it's not out yet.

Thanks for posting it!

K&R

Is nice to see a rebuttal from the NY Times to that ATROCITY that the WaPo published.

Good going, NYT.

THIS is how is done. Take note!

And I like Colby King's writing, but what the hell is he doing publically making fun of how ridiculous WaPo editorials are? Why is he not explaining how it happened and how many of the Ed board agreed with it? Ok, he's making his feelings known now, but what about at the bloody time it was published?

_________________________________


But more importantly, the Times editorial says - and I think this is the key bit:

"the federal prosecutor in the Libby case should release the transcripts of what Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney said when he questioned them."

Wow. Is Fitz within his rights to do such a thing? MIGHT it happen? I suppose that if the Times is calling for it it must be possible.

And if it IS possible/legal then the clamour for these documents to be released will only grow. (IMO these conversations will prove obstruction of justice by *).

in junior high school around 1960 my social studies teacher told us an educated person reads the new york times every day. they had a program so that for like a nickel a day or so you got the times delivered to you at your homeroom. my parents, who were looking for me to cure cancer, said "sure" and so i became an addict. i kept this jones thru high school, college a couple of marriages, some sort of half assed public service career right up to retirement. but lately i had begun to stop getting the thing chipping instead the internets and of course one big reason was the lack of critical evaluation of the iraq adventure and of course having morons like david brooks use up valuable ink. but this editorial and a few others lately as well as some good investigative reporting have brought me back to the fold...or is it to the above the fold? and so i am gonna head out and "pickup" again by buying that four dollar or so sunday fattie...

I'm a little puzzled by this:



I don't think it's wise that Fitzgerald release testimony right now. He's being very careful not to let leaks out that the judge might rule prejudicial. The judge has already cautioned against evidence or testimony being released. The NYT should know better.

Let's do this right and we can see jail time for the actors involved.

The question is: is Fitz (legally) allowed to release these trascripts?

If not, then why is the NYT calling for such a move? I can only conclude that the NYT has decided that it IS legal or they wouldn't waste their time calling for their release.

I think that if those transcrpits show that Bush/Cheney lied to Fitz, then that's a priori proof of obstruction of justice. (Unless of course Bush/Cheney simply deny authorising Libby to leak anything, which I don't think is any longer a credible position).

And I don't think that the transcripts being in the public domain would be prejudicial. And besides, the politics of the whole thing might overtake the legalities of it, as happened with Nixon.

Wow - they really stuck it to the Washington Post - and with a great editorial. I wonder why, though, they
didn't call for Bush and Cheney to release the transcripts of their interviews with Fitzgerald as well as asking Fitzgerald to release those same transcripts???

This morning's editorial in The New York Times debunks the unified executive theory (at least the Nixonian version on which the Bushies are falling back):

Since Mr. Bush regularly denounces leakers, the White House has made much of the notion that he did not leak classified information, he declassified it. This explanation strains credulity. Even a president cannot wave a wand and announce that an intelligence report is declassified.

To declassify an intelligence document, officials have to decide whether disclosing the information would jeopardize the sources that provided it or the methods used to gather it. To answer that question, they closely study the origins of the intelligence to be disclosed. Had Mr. Bush done that, he should have seen that the most credible information made it clear that the Niger story was wrong. (In any case, Iraq's supposed attempt to buy uranium from Niger happened four years before the invasion, and failed. The idea that this amounted to a current, aggressive and continuing campaign to build nuclear weapons in 2002 — as Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney called it — is laughable.)

That last sentence also pretty much sums up the junta's case for war. It was (and still is) laughable in a grotesque sort of way. Tens of thousands of people have died as a result of this invasion and a nation has been plunged into civil war.

The editorial also lays out, at least in part, the junta's MO:

The White House says Mr. Bush was not aware of that report, and was relying on an assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. This is hardly the first time we've been told that intelligence reports contradicting administration doctrine somehow did not make it to Mr. Bush's desk. But it does not explain why he and Mr. Cheney went on talking about the trailers for weeks, during which the State Department's intelligence division — about the only agency that got it right about Iraq — debunked the mobile-labs theory.

Of course, the inaccurate report saying that the trailers were bioweapons labs was made public, immediately, while the accurate one was kept secret until a reporter found out about it.

What The Times omits is that intelligence had been cooked by visits to Langley by Cheney and Libby and in the Pentagon under the watchful eyes of Douglas Feith.

What we mustn't forget is that the NIE was a piece of crap in the first place. That was no accident. The intelligence was bad because they wanted it bad. They had good information and chose to hide it. It's purpose was to provide a justification for war and set up the CIA and DIA as the fall guys for any part of pre-war assertions against Saddam that fell apart later. In fact, every pre-war assertion about Iraq's military programs and ties to terrorism turned out to have been wrong.

Given that, the only thing that can save Mr. Bush personally now would destroy everybody around him: Bush must convince the American people that he was lied by his aides, who didn't let him see all the facts. That would mean throwing Cheney, Libby and Rumsfeld to the wolves. However, in Bob Woodward's book, we learn that Bush did see a CIA presentation of the case against Saddam and was unimpressed; Mr. Tenet, who was present, then gave his now infamous "slam dunk" remark. Also, we learn from the latest leaked memo from London that Bush was indeed aware that the case against Saddam was weak and talked to Prime Minister Blair about going into Iraq without an authorizing resolution from the UN Security Council and even some bizarre ways that only a real idiot could imagine to provoke an by from Saddam, providing a pretext for action.

In short, there can be no doubt that Bush was a central figure in the conspiracy to cook intelligence in order to persuade the American people that what was in fact a tawdry colonial invasion of a sovereign state was related to the war on terrorism and national security. He may have achieved regime change in Iraq, but his behavior and the behavior of his subordinates also justify regime change in America.

They don't lead. They lie and spin.

If Bush were actually 'declassifying" information: why not have a press conference and tell the American people? Why leak it?

Why? Because the declassification spin is a LIE. And the fact that people in our press and government actually say it with a straight face continues to astound me.

the Whorington Post's right wing anti-American crap.

WaPo is no longer the Wash Post of Katherine Graham/Nixon days. Even Katherine Graham was leaning closer to the Repubs in her later years, with friends like George Wills. Her daughter, Lally Weymouth, is a serious neocon and son Donald Graham, the owner-in-chief is cozy with the current occupants, plus the WaPo $benefit$ greatly from this association.

As far as I am concerned, they are both right wing war mongering rags that would sell would mother's souls to the Devil for scoops for Pulizter Prizes.

"Bad leak" is way too subdued a rebuttal. The WaPo needs to be carted out of town on a rail for what it wrote. As I mentioned in Salon, "Good leak" is akin to one of those crazy Red Army slogans that gets disavowed after 5 years and its authors get paraded through the streets with placards around their necks--which is why the WaPo probably ran the editorial as an anonymous piece of dog filth. No one wants to go down in history has having authored this drivel. Hell, for all we know it came straight from the desk of Karl Rove himself. Remember, he is getting us softened up for morality fatigue.

http://www.grandtheftelectionohio.com/051108.htm