Two Quotes

48 Comments

1. 

   Tien Le on December 3, 2017 at 12:07 pm

   I have an OT question: Do you think the tax bill will really go to reconciliation, or will Ryan convince the Rs to vote for it as is? I am inclined to believe Ryan will prevail and avoid the messy reconciliation process.

   • 

     Don Durito on December 3, 2017 at 2:33 pm

     Essentially they’d be voting on something sight unseen. Wouldn’t put it past them. But there are apparently just enough differences between the two bills, and the three factions Ryan has to deal with inside his own party are just fractured enough to where that might be a harder sell than trying to sell them some flood damaged river-front houses above market value sight unseen. Could play out that way, but color me skeptical for the moment. Does a successful reconciliation happen? Odds seem to be in its favor. However, things can go sideways. There’s plenty to anger just enough factions of potential voters outside of the hardcore Trumpsters (who are simply hopeless at this juncture), that House members could feel some real heat. They’re much more exposed to a potential wave election than the Senators. Regardless, it will be an interesting and stressful next few weeks.

     • 

       TarheelDem on December 3, 2017 at 2:48 pm

       There are 12 House Republicans unhappy with the ANWR drilling that Murkowski slammed through for her vote.  It takes another 12 more Nos from Republicans to with Pelosi’s solid opposition of Democrats defeat the bill.

       The list of the ANWR environmental supporters includes a strange bunch, like Mark (Appalachian Trail) Sandford of SC.  This might turn out just to be a bribe pool for the last minute voting.

       • 

         priscianus jr on December 3, 2017 at 3:26 pm

         And that’s not the only issue for potential holdouts.What about the state and local tax deduction? What about the deficit? This is not exactly a populist bill.

         Also, remember that Ryan does not exactly have the  delegation wrapped around his little finger.

         • 

           Tien Le on December 3, 2017 at 3:49 pm

           He managed to get them to accept the new budget reconciliation from the Senate (the hollowed out budget) after they’d worked so hard on their own budget. Even the freedom caucus, who BooMan assured us would never accept another empty budget bill stepped aside. I think Ryan is a better salesman than we give him credit for. They want and need a win and are just desperate enough to swallow their objections to get it.

         • 

           Anonymous on December 3, 2017 at 3:55 pm

           This is the only thing I’ve read that’s given me a glimmer of hope: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/12/rd-tax-credit-falls-victim-to-republican-vote-payoff-o
           rama/

           Wall Street Journal. Ohio.

         • 

           Tien Le on December 3, 2017 at 6:18 pm

           Oh my goodness. That is a find. Think that guy called his representative to complain?

         • 

           Anonymous on December 4, 2017 at 12:49 am

           He sounds in a position make his concerns heard!

     • 

       Jonf on December 3, 2017 at 5:47 pm

       I hope you are right, but don’t discount the burning need to obey their money masters. They could face a wave election made worse by no help from the money gods and a primary challenger to boot.

       .

       • 

         Don Durito on December 3, 2017 at 11:04 pm

         I’m hardly sanguine at this juncture. Just not ready to lose hope. The reason this clusterf*ck of a bill got this far was because GOP Senators’ and Reps’ demanded it. Some of those on Capitol Hill were pretty out in the open about it. They’re essentially in “damned if they do, damned if they don’t” territory. In the meantime, keeping up the pressure never hurts. At least we can say we tried.

2. 

   centerfielddj on December 3, 2017 at 2:22 pm

   A question I have is “will we ever hear again from the community members who have condescendingly lectured us that there was no proof of Russia Federation meedling in the election?”

   My favorite part of this weekend is John Dowd attempting to claim that he typed the Tweet on President Trump’s account which revealed that the President knowingly obstructed justice. First, Dowd’s claim doesn’t appear to solve the problem for the President. Second, who the hell does Dowd think he’s fooling? Third, now Dowd has made himself a material witness.

   To quote Robert Plant, “Does anyone remember laughter?”

   • 

     Don Durito on December 3, 2017 at 2:39 pm

     There’s a little something in my field called Maier’s Law: “If the facts don’t conform to the theory, ignore the facts.” That’s more paraphrase than quote, but you get the idea. I suspect our faction of denialists will continue to find ways of conveniently ignoring what is in front of them. Wish I could be more optimistic, but have learned long ago not to count on that.

   • 

     TarheelDem on December 3, 2017 at 2:42 pm

     You are too antsy about the election meddling charge. The solid evidence has been walked back to December and to June agreements.

     If nobody actually did anything between June and December that was perceivable to actual voters at best they get intent to meddle.  And the totals still look legit, which for other reasons I think they are not.  This is the most difficult part of the case that Mueller has to build if he is going to be complete about his investigation.  My patience so far has been rewarded.

     All of the swirl of information about Cambridge Analytica, outsourced social media operations in the Balkans and other central European shops, and the hacks against state and local election boards (which did happen) will generate a new cast of characters for the narrative whether they can be subpoenaed or reported on by Trump campaign people already being worked by Mueller’s team.

     When you were last slowed down in your rush to judgement, there was meddling but besides GOP meddling (still not adequately incorporated into this story) there was no definite attribution that it was from the Russian Federation.  The leaks from the Mueller investigation and hard legwork by BooMan, emptywheel, and lots of others have filled in the details that allow solid attribution that the Russian Federation was behind the meddling.  I don’t think we are to the point that there is a smoking gun that Putin himself had any involvement; of course that’s what heads of state try to do–ensure plausible denial.  And for US political purposes, we might not ultimately need it.  But for sake of the truth and historical record, I hope that the Mueller investigation ferrets out even this.

     • 

       n1cholas on December 3, 2017 at 6:14 pm

       It’s not about vote totals.

       It’s about whether Strongman Trump communicated via his family/friends/advisors/campaign staff with Strongman Putin, in order to increase the chance of his winning the election.

       Never f-ing mind that multiple jurisdictions were hit by hackers attempting to gain access to voting machines. A US politician getting help from a foreign leader to influence, aka social media bots/trolls, public discourse and ideas, isn’t just unethical. It’s illegal.

       Never. Mind. The. Vote. Totals.

       Clinton lost the Electoral College vote.

       Did Strongman Trump, for example, ask Strongman Putin to help him win the election by influencing the electorate. Is there, perhaps, any audio where Strongman Trump directly or indirectly asks a foreign actor to help him win the election? Are there other links? Money? Quid pro quo agreements? Etc.

       The goalposts keep getting moved by everyone who wants to change the narrative. This isn’t about whether Strongman Trump and Strongman Putin were personally hacking into state election boards and manually inputting numbers.

       • 

         TarheelDem on December 3, 2017 at 7:57 pm

         This is about somebody’s self being put in the slammer like Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Dean were.

         If you are going to claim “meddled in the election”, I might believe you but few outside committed Democrats would.  And that doesn’ get beyond wasting time.  At least Watergate did bring down Nixon and set up Ford for defeat.

         • 

           n1cholas on December 4, 2017 at 12:19 am

           So, you know that none of this is going to lead to Strongman Trump and Friends not winning in 2018/2020/beyond…right now, because…

   • 

     Jonf on December 3, 2017 at 5:31 pm

     There is no doubt about Russian interference. The worst part is they want to harm us and our allies. And they seem to have found a willing partner in Trump and co. Maybe the Flynn guilty plea will open the floodgates and I hope soon. But I still have doubts whether they can impeach or indict him and beyond that whether it makes a tinkers damn  to the GOP or his base. Perhaps, now that it appears he will get his and his friends tax cut and screwed the rest of us, he will resign or they will push him out. I’ll take it, this ugly hateful man must go.

   • 

     marduk on December 3, 2017 at 8:42 pm

     A question I have is “will we ever hear again from the community members who have condescendingly lectured us that there was no proof of Russia Federation meddling in the election?”

     Let’s play match the deflections!

     These are difficult times for people who are defending the Nixon administration. No matter where they go they are attacked by pseudo-liberals, McGovern lovers, heterosexual constitutionalists and paranoid John Dean believers.

     As a public service, I am printing instant responses for loyal Nixonites when they are attacked at a party. Please cut it out and carry it in your pocket.

     1. Everyone does it.
     2. What about Chappaquiddick?
     3. A President can’t keep track of everything his staff does.
     4. The press is blowing the whole thing up.
     5. Whatever Nixon did was for national security.
     6. The Democrats are sore because they lost the election.
     7. Are you going to believe a rat like John Dean or the president of the United States?
     8. Wait till all the facts come out.
     9. What about Chappaquiddick?
     10. If you impeach Nixon, you get Agnew.
     11. The only thing wrong with Watergate is they got caught.
     12. What about Daniel Ellsberg stealing the Pentagon Papers?
     13. It happens in Europe all the time.
     14. People would be against Nixon no matter what he did.
     15. I’d rather have a crook in the White House than a fool.
     16. LBJ used to read FBI reports every night.
     17. What’s the big deal about finding out what your opposition is up to?
     18. The president was too busy running the country to know what was going on.
     19. What about Chappaquiddick?
     20. People that live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
     21. McGovern would have lost anyway.
     22. Maybe the Committee for the Re-Election of the President when a little too far, but they were just a bunch of eager kids.
     23. I’m not for breaking the law, but sometimes you have to do it to save the country.
     24. Nixon made a mistake. He’s only human.
     25. Do you realize what Watergate is doing to the dollar abroad?
     26. What about Harry Truman and the deep freeze scandal?
     27. Franklin D. Roosevelt did a lot of worse things.
     28. I’m sick and tired of hearing about Watergate and so is everyone else.
     29. This thing should be tried in the courts and not on TV.
     30. When Nixon gives his explanation of what happened there are going to be a lot of people in this country with egg on their faces.
     31. My country right or wrong.
     32. What about Chappaquiddick?
     33. I think the people who make all this fuss about Watergate should be shot.
     34. If the Democrats had the money they would have done the same thing.
     35. I never did trust Haldeman and Ehrlichman.
     36. If you say one more word about Watergate I’ll punch you in the nose.

     A. If the person is bigger than you: “If you say one more word about Watergate I’m leaving this house.”

     B. If it’s your own house and the person is bigger than you: “What about Chappaquiddick?”

     Maybe needs more “deep state” derpery but otherwise it’s goddamn eerie.

     h/t LGM

     • 

       centerfielddj on December 3, 2017 at 9:07 pm

       Yep, I saw this earlier today as well. It is remarkably, disgustingly familiar.

       Gee, I hadn’t thought about Art Buchwald for years and years.

     • 

       Jonf on December 3, 2017 at 10:19 pm

       you mean they didn’t have e mails? or Hillary to lock up? what about  Obama and his phony birth certificate? What about Bill? Besides it was Flynn who lied?

       Nice list.

   • 

     JoelDanWalls on December 3, 2017 at 10:58 pm

     Read Oui’s diaries.

     • 

       janicket on December 4, 2017 at 10:18 am

       Those collections of massive quotes that routinely violate the fair use doctrine, interspersed with naked links lacking any analysis or discussion?

       Naaaaaaahhhhhh…….

3. 

   n1cholas on December 3, 2017 at 2:30 pm

   My one and only question is: Cui bono in changing the story regarding how Strongman Trump and Friends have attempted to get support from a foreign power, by any means necessary by the way, to win an election here in the United States?

   Any answer that whataboutism’s about how the US engineered a coup in Iran, or a coup in the Ukraine, are either not US citizens, or perhaps should think about moving to another country that they actually give a shit about.

   Our government meddling in other countries elections and governments is not the same as a right-wing authoritarian US politician getting help from a foreign right-wing politician to win an election in the United States.

   You know how you have to put on the O2 mask in an airplane before you put one on your infant, because that infant can’t help itself if you pass out? It’s the same concept here. We can’t do a god damn thing about meta problems such as US Empire, if our government has been captured by a right-wing authoritarian in league with other right-wing authoritarians around the world.

   • 

     Don Durito on December 3, 2017 at 2:36 pm

     You know how you have to put on the O2 mask in an airplane before you put one on your infant, because that infant can’t help itself if you pass out? It’s the same concept here. We can’t do a god damn thing about meta problems such as US Empire, if our government has been captured by a right-wing authoritarian in league with other right-wing authoritarians around the world.

     You’ve captured a main concern of mine to a t. Right now the focus should be on neutralizing the authoritarians in our own government first. Get that done and then a good set of sit downs about how the US should use its power (to the extent any is left) going forward is in order. But first things first.

4. 

   Arthur Gilroy on December 3, 2017 at 2:43 pm

   As Reported in the NY Times, 2003-2004 by Judith Miller, undoubtedly with the full consent and cooperation of her editors, publisher and whomever else (read “Spooks”) oversaw the Times’s reporting of affairs in Iraq during the beginning of the buildup to Bush II and Cheney’s Iraq war:

   At The New York Times, Miller wrote on security issues, particularly about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Many of these stories later turned out to have been based upon faulty information.

   On September 7, 2002, Miller and fellow Times reporter Michael R. Gordon reported the interception of “metal tubes” bound for Iraq. Her front-page story quoted unnamed “American officials” and “American intelligence experts” who said the tubes were intended to be used to enrich nuclear material, and cited unnamed “Bush administration officials” who claimed that, in recent months, Iraq had “stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and [had] embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb”.[20] Miller added that

   Mr. Hussein’s dogged insistence on pursuing his nuclear ambitions, along with what defectors described in interviews as Iraq’s push to improve and expand Baghdad’s chemical and biological arsenals, have brought Iraq and the United States to the brink of war.[20]

   Shortly after Miller’s article was published, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and Donald Rumsfeld appeared on television and pointed to Miller’s story in support of their position.[21] As summarized by the New York Review of Books, “in the following months, the tubes would become a key prop in the administration’s case for war, and the Times played a critical part in legitimizing it.”[21] Miller later said of the controversy

   [M]y job isn’t to assess the government’s information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself. My job is to tell readers of The New York Times what the government thought about Iraq’s arsenal.[21]

   In an April 2003 article, Miller, ostensibly on the basis of statements from the military unit in which she was embedded, reported claims allegedly made by an Iraqi scientist that Iraq had kept biological and chemical weapons until “right before the invasion.”[22] This report was widely repeated in the press. Miller went on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and stated:

   Well, I think they found something more than a smoking gun. What they’ve found is a silver bullet in the form of a person, an Iraqi individual, a scientist, as we’ve called him, who really worked on the programs, who knows them firsthand, and who has led MET Alpha people[23] to some pretty startling conclusions.[24]

   On May 26, 2004, a week after the U.S. government apparently severed ties with Ahmed Chalabi, a Times editorial acknowledged that some of the paper’s coverage in the run-up to the war had relied too heavily on Chalabi and other Iraqi exiles, who were bent on regime change. The editorial also expressed “regret” that “information that was controversial [was] allowed to stand unchallenged.” However, the editorial explicitly rejected “blame on individual reporters.”[25]

   On May 27, 2004, the day after the Times’ mea culpa, James C. Moore quoted Miller in an article in Salon:

   “You know what … I was proved fucking right. That’s what happened. People who disagreed with me were saying, ‘There she goes again.’ But I was proved fucking right.”[26]

   The statement about being “proved…right” was in relation to another Miller story, wherein she’d claimed that trailers found in Iraq had been shown to be mobile weapons labs. However, that claim too was subsequently refuted as false.[27]

   It was alleged later in Editor and Publisher that, while Miller’s reporting “frequently [did] not meet published Times standards”, she was not sanctioned and was given a relatively free rein, because she consistently delivered frequent front-page scoops for the paper by “cultivating top-ranking sources.”[28]

   In October 2005, The New York Times Public Editor Byron Calame wrote:

   Ms. Miller may still be best known for her role in a series of Times articles in 2002 and 2003 that strongly suggested Saddam Hussein already had or was acquiring an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction … Many of those articles turned out to be inaccurate … [T]he problems facing her inside and outside the newsroom will make it difficult for her to return to the paper as a reporter.[29]

   Two weeks later, Miller negotiated a private severance package with Times’ publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. She contested Calame’s claims about her reporting and gave no ground in defending her work. She cited “difficulty” in performing her job effectively after having become “an integral part of the stories [she] was sent to cover.”[30]

   Disinformation on an industrial level.

   In the NY Times.

   Her rewards for services rendered? A well-paid place in the neocentrist revolving door system.

   On September 7, 2007, she was hired as an adjunct fellow of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a neo-conservative free-market think tank. Her duties included being a contributing editor for the organization’s publication, City Journal. On October 20, 2008, Fox News announced that it had hired Miller.[45]

   As of 2016, she is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.[46]

   Nice.

   And you still use the Times as a trusted source!!!???

   Booman… I know that you know better.

   Still impaled upon the prongs of the lesser of two evils choices, aren’t you.

   Sorry…I can’t join you.

   So it goes.

   AG

   • 

     Heart of the Rockies on December 3, 2017 at 3:14 pm

     The Judith Miller episode 13-15 years ago doesn’t make everyone at the NYT today untrustworthy.

     • 

       priscianus jr on December 3, 2017 at 3:31 pm

       Not today and not even then.

     • 

       Arthur Gilroy on December 3, 2017 at 3:55 pm

       You write:

       The Judith Miller episode 13-15 years ago doesn’t make everyone at the NYT today untrustworthy.

       Why not?

       Do you know about the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird? Look it up. Or go to Wikipedia if you want the watered down version. It started in the early ’50s…essentially an effort to control the media when deemed necessary using totally covert means. This is no “secret”…it has been widely known for decades. Understand this approach and even a cursory look at the concerted actions of U.S. mass media…from the assassination years right on through to the current effort to get rid of Trump…will correctly inform any inquiring mind.

       The only real question is the following:

       Can the anonymous controllers (unelected and basically unsupervised by any and all elected officials) be trusted to act in the best interests of the citizens of the U.S., or have they so outgrown their bounds that…again, only when deemed necessary to their own interests and to those of their allies…they wll act in ways that have no basis whatsoever in the true common interests of U.S. citizenry.

       “Trusting” them to “act in our best interest” essentially ends any pretense whatsoever of an elected democracy in this country, which at least partially explains why about 40% of the eligible voters in this country decline to vote for anyone, especially in national elections.

       I only trust the NY Times for cooking advice, and even there I need to prove it out in my own kitchen.

       You?

       AG

       • 

         BooMan on December 3, 2017 at 5:57 pm

         these are fucking emails, jackass.  

         • 

           JoelDanWalls on December 3, 2017 at 10:34 pm

           No they are not, Booman. That’s bullshit. These so-called e-mails were faked by Judith Miller with the connivance of the entire editorial staff of the New York Times.

           I suspect AG’s hangup about the Times has more to do with his class obsessions. You know, affluent twits read the Times, but real working class New Yorkers, the only New Yorkers whom AG believes are worth a damn, read the Daily News.

         • 

           Arthur Gilroy on December 4, 2017 at 12:50 am

           You write:

           I suspect AG’s hangup about the Times has more to do with his class obsessions. You know, affluent twits read the Times, but real working class New Yorkers, the only New Yorkers whom AG believes are worth a damn, read the Daily News.

           More two-dimensional thinking, JDL.

           Those who do not at least reflexively “believe” anything that is promulgated by the thoroughly-proven-to-be-totally-lying-since-at least-the-assassination-years mass media are the the only ones that I trust.

           This has nothing to do with class or affluence; it has only to do with native intelligence.

           ASG

         • 

           oaguabonita on December 4, 2017 at 2:17 pm

            . . . imagine (or pretend to?) they do:

           thoroughly

           proven

           totally

           native

           intelligence

       • 

         centerfielddj on December 3, 2017 at 9:00 pm

         Arthur has some Indo-American followers:

   • 

     Anonymous on December 3, 2017 at 3:36 pm

     Weirdly, you trust the Times more than anyone. You think they are infallibly incorrect–when you disagree with them.

     My dog once peed on the bed. Hence, my dog only pees on the bed.

     • 

       Arthur Gilroy on December 3, 2017 at 4:00 pm

       When almost every dog allowed in my house pisses on my bed…especially the bigger, more popular breeds and alpha dogs in general…my own choice is to simply not let them into my house.

       NEWSTRIKE!!!

       MEDIASTRIKE!!!

       CULTURE STRIKE!!!

       VAYA!!!

       Lie down with dogs and fleas aren’t the only thing you get.

       In this case., you get fleeced as well.

       Bet on it.

       AG

       • 

         Anonymous on December 3, 2017 at 4:29 pm

         That’s exactly what the Deep States wants you to do. Lock your doors against the labradors, and embrace the post-truth world.

         Bet on it.

         S

         • 

           Arthur Gilroy on December 3, 2017 at 6:10 pm

           No. You cannot have it both ways, Steggie.

           Sorry.

           There are dogs that do not piss on the bed. I welcome them in.

           And…I do not “embrace the post-truth world.”

           I reject it.

           AG

           P.S. The Deep State[s?] plainly do not want us to reject their dogs. If they wanted that, they wouldn’t invest billions of dollars in media control. They want us to embrace them as “comfort dogs.”

           Companion dogs.

           Guard dogs.

                                           ROWF!!!

           

           Wake the fuck up.

           ASG

         • 

           Anonymous on December 3, 2017 at 10:48 pm

           But I think you’re the one having it both ways, A.

           Do you honestly believe that Judith Miller is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations?

         • 

           Arthur Gilroy on December 4, 2017 at 12:37 am

           Betcha she collects a check, one way or another.

           Payola for loyalty and silence.

           AG

         • 

           Anonymous on December 4, 2017 at 12:48 am

           I hope she’s getting paid, after the NYT put her name on all those articles she didn’t write.

         • 

           Anonymous on December 4, 2017 at 12:50 am

           And I’m wondering how much these two got: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html

     • 

       Davis X Machina on December 3, 2017 at 8:22 pm

       Only your dog pees on the bed, I think you mean.

   • 

     oaguabonita on December 3, 2017 at 9:07 pm

      . . . anything ever printed in NYT must therefore be false.

     Never mind sourcing, credibility, concordance with known Reality, etc., etc. etc.

     You know, the sorts of considerations anyone capable of critical thinking/reading automatically takes into account.

     That makes it a very convenient pretense, though, for espousing (yet again, ad nauseum [literally!]) ag’s idiotic, knee-jerk pet theories!

     So there’s that.

     • 

       JoelDanWalls on December 3, 2017 at 10:36 pm

       How dare you repeat such mean-spirited crypto-neo-centrist accusations?

       • 

         oaguabonita on December 4, 2017 at 2:13 pm

          . . . neo-centrists each have to do our part, amirite?

         How else will the Mean-Spirited Crypto-Neo-Centrist Movement sustain itself, much less conquer?

5. 

   jsrtheta on December 3, 2017 at 7:13 pm

   “It is not clear whether Ms. McFarland was saying she believed that the election had in fact been thrown.”

   Really? Seems pretty frickin’ clear to me.

   • 

     shan on December 3, 2017 at 8:40 pm

     What she wrote and whatever she said while at the WH is why they want to send her to Singapore.

6. 

   Jonf on December 3, 2017 at 10:29 pm

   Here Are 6 Of The Most Radical Aspects Of The GOP Tax Bill.

   And here is a quote caught my notice.

   “You also have to bring spending under control. And not discretionary spending. That isn’t the driver of our debt,” Rubio said last week. “The driver of our debt is the structure of Social Security and Medicare for future beneficiaries.”

   They are past the victory lap and now wanting to take a little more. Nice bullshit excuse but the rubes will buy it. Oh woe is me. Don’t fall for it. Debt is meaningless, they know it but want to tell us it is absolutely terrible.