In response to the revelation that the New York Times discounted 60% off of purchase price for the MoveOn ad that attacked General David Petraeus as a traitor, some have argued that the Times can do anything it wants with its paper. These commenters and bloggers have “moved on” from the argument that MoveOn didn’t get a discount at all to a contradictory position that the Times can discount whenever and to whomever they desire.
Normally, I would agree. The Times has a responsibility to its shareholders to make profitable decisions, but the shareholders need to demand accountability for leaving almost $80,000 on the table in this deal. The Times also has a First Amendment right to its political speech and to free association — although we certainly also have the First Amendment right to criticize their speech and their associations.
However, the Times has been particularly active in demanding campaign-finance reform, especially supporting the more egregious portions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Just this past July, the editorial board excoriated the Supreme Court for its rollback of limitations on issues ads:
First, campaign finance. Four years ago, a differently constituted court upheld sensible provisions of the McCain-Feingold Act designed to prevent corporations and labor unions from circumventing the ban on their spending in federal campaigns by bankrolling phony “issue ads.” These ads purport to just educate voters about a policy issue, but are really aimed at a particular candidate.
The 2003 ruling correctly found that the bogus issue ads were the functional equivalent of campaign ads and upheld the Congressional restrictions on corporate and union money. Yet the Roberts court shifted course in response to sham issue ads run on radio and TV by a group called Wisconsin Right to Life with major funding from corporations opposed to Senator Russell Feingold, the Democrat who co-authored the act.
It opened a big new loophole in time to do mischief in the 2008 elections. The exact extent of the damage is unclear. But the four dissenters were correct in warning that the court’s hazy new standard for assessing these ads is bound to invite evasion and fresh public cynicism about big money and politics.
It takes a particularly high level of chutzpah to write this, and two months later, attempt to hide behind the First Amendment while making what qualifies as an in-kind donation to MoveOn. The Times has consistently argued against the First Amendment in campaign finance reform, pushing for legislation that limits Americans from advertising their political beliefs within sight of an election. The Gray Lady screeches about how nefarious advocates hide behind “issues” to target politicians — and yet subsidizes an ad from an advocacy group that attacks the honor of a military commander as an indirect attack on the White House.
It’s at least a measure of integrity that the Times’ own public editor didn’t float this argument in his column today. However, anyone who believes that the Times showed no hypocrisy and bias in giving this in-kind donation to MoveOn — a definition provided by the BCRA that the Times supports — either indulges in hypocrisy or ignorance themselves.
If the Times wants to subsidize ads from political groups they support, then they should argue also for an end to the BCRA and the nonsense it engenders. When that happens, we will at least get a straight answer for their editorial and advertising practices, and we will still have our First Amendment rights to criticize those as well.
With all due respect, Captain, I believe that you continue to miss the point. Furthermore, you set up a strawman when you state that:
“These commenters and bloggers have “moved on” from the argument that MoveOn didn’t get a discount at all to a contradictory position that the Times can discount whenever and to whomever they desire.”
For the record, I have never denied that the NYT provided MoveOn with a discounted rate for their vile attack advertisment. Of course they did.
Yes, the NYT is blatently biased, hypocritical, and has a partisan agenda.
My point (and the reality of the situation) is that neither you nor I has anything to say about it, nor should we.
How many weeks will you go after this non-story? This is the sort of sanctimonious “scandal” only a wonk desperately trying to change the subject considers — your average American, I promise you, does not care *that much* about a political ad in the New York Times, especially one over a General that, face it, wasn’t considered an objective source of Iraq War information by the time those PowerPoint “hearings” began.
Peteraus didn’t get the MacArthur treatment — so what? Most people have, indeed, moved on, and the long-heralded September “hearings” didn’t really change public opinion. Continued moaning about a now two-week-old ad speaks ill of the “seriousness” of the so-called “center-right” blogs that can’t seem to get away from the story.
DU
No sane person is going to argue the NYT isn’t hypocritical, biased, and holding a partisan agenda. They began their swift descent from the national “paper of record” to a yellow rag the day Pinch Sulzberger was handed the reins. The retirement of Abe Rosenthal should have been a red flag to those who consider themselves serious journalists, without question.
However, it’s not a violation of BCFRA. No federal candidate is mentioned. It’s not even an election year. While the MoveOn ad might be a thinly veiled attack on the President and his policies, the President isn’t going to be a candidate for anything in the next election.
Now, if you want to use the discount as an example of the NYT’s bias and hypocrisy (their rate card mentions no available discounts for “political advocacy” ads, which this clearly was), fine. It is that, without question. But it’s not a matter which comes under federal jurisdiction under current law.
The Times sold MoveOn a standby ad and gave them the day and placement they asked for. There was never any possibility that the Times was going to run that ad two days later in the fashion section. They gave them a sweetheart deal and everyone knew it.
They have also been fierce advocates for BCRA and in particular supportive of the parts they just violated – in spirit if not in fact.
This make them hypocrites with a liberal bias. This is not news. This is something everyone has understood for a very long time. At the most it’s just a little more blatant.
This will have no impact on the Times, because it will not change anyone’s opinion about the paper.
My point (and the reality of the situation) is that neither you nor I has anything to say about it, nor should we.
Exactly. The obsessive/compulsive behavior of the right wing toward a single ad in a single newspaper, is kind of creepy. If your gonna have OCS, please direct it toward solving the Iraq nightmare you created.
Exactly what gives the New York Times immunity from criticism? I “shouldn’t” criticize the NYT? Why?
I guess they have plenty of followers in their efforts to curtail the First Amendment. Nice attempt at changing the subject, though, whippoorwill.
I think that it does matter that a major media player openly gives financial “in kind” support to one side of a political issue, while lobbying Congress to limit the free-speech rights of those with opposing views. This issue is not going to get much play in the rest of MSM, but thankfully the blogs will keep it disappear “down the memory hole” so easily.
The NYTimes and Sulzberger have found a way to suck cash from the EVIL Right… By offering discount ads to all who come, they will now sell many many more ads from the right and will sell more papers as we all buy the paper to read the ads alone… VERY Clever marketing… Bias indeed… It’s a way to increase revenues and readership, both of which have been falling for years. New Yorkers are so much smarter than the rest of us. Listen a few moments upon meeting one and they’ll tell you.
I’m puzzled as to this new lefty standard: One can’t, dare I say?, dissent against the policies or practices of the NY Times.
Judy Miller wants a piece of that.
SMG
Judy Miller wants a piece of that.
Not to mention Fox news.
Some news organizations are more equal than others, perhaps?
SMG
When McCain-Feingold was being debated, a lot of people (including me) thought that it would essentially leave the MSM free to endorse or oppose candidates and issues in the guise of “news” while the rest of us would be muzzled.
However, I don’t think any of us had any idea that the MSM would be quite so blatant.
It takes a particularly high level of chutzpah to write this, and two months later, attempt to hide behind the First Amendment while making what qualifies as an in-kind donation to MoveOn.
This is the same organization that was pushing for special prosecutors and subpoena’s for EVERYthing when the Democrats were attacking Bush’s administration on the Plame non-event, and trying to get everything out in the open and revealed so it could be more satisfactorily attacked. Then when their own reporter was jailed for not revealing sources, the Times not only did not stand by her, but immediately threw her under the bus.
The Times has taken the concept of “chutzpah” into a whole new stratosphere of hypocracy.
If the NYT had given the same kind of deal to an anti-Hillary group that showed a picture of her as Margaret Hamilton in “The Wizard of Oz”, I can guarantee you that the people here claiming this is “no big deal” would say exactly the same thing.
Not!
And I hope that Captain Ed is feeling the love that he’s perceived as so powerful and popular now that the first several posts are by the loony left repeating their mantra du jour in an attempt to bury Captain’s Quarters position.
Rats deserting the filthy ship at Daily Kos, MoveOn and Code Pink and flocking to the well-ventilated and lighed sanctity of Captains Quarters, trying to infect with their raging mental disease(s).
I think they’ll learn that it takes a little bit more than an attempted snooty dismissal and reinterpretation of Constitutional rights to make a point here.
Captain Ed
I never said you weren’t allowed to criticize the NYT’s. That’s what newspapers are for. What I’m saying is after 3 weeks of of the right beating this topic to a pulp it’s beginning to approach the surreal. In the end, the NYT’s is a private company who can print what they want and charge the price they want. They do have a center-left perspective and that’s allowed. It’s also allowed for you not to like them. I sometimes bitch about things Fox News puts out, but not for 3 weeks on the same subject.
“Yes, the NYT is blatently biased, hypocritical, and has a partisan agenda. My point (and the reality of the situation) is that neither you nor I has anything to say about it, nor should we.”
Why does the public not have anything to say about it and why shouldn’t the public have something to say about it?
The NY Times does not represent itself as “blatently (sic) biased, hypocritical, and has a partisan agenda.” And according to you it doesn’t have to represent itself in this fashion.
This is not the law in this country. The First Amendment rights granted the press in this country have never been construed to allow a newspaper to partner with a private political organization and yet still maintain its claim to constitutional protection.
The DNC, RNC, NOW, NRA and a whole host of other private partisan or ideological organizations all have the right to put out leaflets and newsletters and, to the extent those are regulated, their activities are governed by various campaign finance laws. If the NY Times wants to be such an organization, it is subject to the same rules. If it wants to be part of the “free press” then it needs to be very careful about colluding in the use of its advertising pages by a partisan organization.
And we the public have a right to say whatever we want about it.
As to “average” Americans not caring and this being a ginned-up scandal, I find it interesting that apparently even the naysayers enjoy commenting on it. So perhaps not such a non-story after all.
“… first several posts are by the loony left repeating their mantra du jour in an attempt to bury Captain’s Quarters position.”
I have the first post in this thread. Perhaps, NahnCee, you would be so kind as to point out just which words therein identify me as a member of the “loony left”.
The Mechanical Eye said:
1) How many weeks will you go after this non-story?
2) This is the sort of sanctimonious “scandal” only a wonk desperately trying to change the subject considers — your average American, I promise you, does not care *that much* about a political ad in the New York Times, especially one over a General that, face it, wasn’t considered an objective source of Iraq War information by the time those PowerPoint “hearings” began.
Eric says:
1) I hope that the Captain will continue this type of reporting as long as the media give him cause. It’s really in their court to make this sort of thing stop — by themselves stopping.
2) I’m average and I care a lot about this ad. I also care about the political leaning of my news sources.
Here’s an editorial I’d like to publish:
Fu&% The New York Times.
My point (and the reality of the situation) is that neither you nor I has anything to say about it, nor should we.
As far as your comments about being a member of the loonies goes, with a comment such as this, I’d be inclined to belive you are somewhat…unbalanced.
Do you honestly believe that we simply shouldn’t/aren’t allowed to talk about it as the other loons are noting all over this thread?
Alright, ECM, permit me to rephrase that sentence:
My point (and the reality of the situation) is that neither you nor I has any control or influence over the matter, nor should we.
OK?
“My point (and the reality of the situation) is that neither you nor I has any control or influence over the matter, nor should we.”
Repeating it doesn’t make it true. Unless you’re wearing ruby slippers.
So now not only am I unbalanced, but I reside in the wonderful world of Oz. (At least that’s how I interpret the “ruby slipers” remark. Or were you implying something else?)
Just what is the matter with you people? As you waste your time sniffing out “loony leftists”, the real enemy is hard at work on reinstituting the fairness doctrine, implementing immigration amnesty under another name (the DREAM Act), and other nefarious assults on our freedom.
No wonder the Left chews you up and spits you out with such ease.
Norseman says:
So now not only am I unbalanced, but I reside in the wonderful world of Oz. (At least that’s how I interpret the “ruby slipers” remark. Or were you implying something else?)
Just what is the matter with you people? As you waste your time sniffing out “loony leftists”, the real enemy is hard at work on reinstituting the fairness doctrine, implementing immigration amnesty under another name (the DREAM Act), and other nefarious assults on our freedom.
No wonder the Left chews you up and spits you out with such ease.
Eric says:
Norseman, just like you believe that Bush is dumb, we believe you (and people like you) to be crazy.
So there we have it. You think we’re dumb. We think you’re crazy.
As for chewing us up with ease – we’ll I’m going to call you on that. The truth is a conservative President (whom you find to be dumb) is raping Congress. The truth is, conservatives have held power and dominated American politics for the last 28 years (and today is no exception.) The truth is, Bush is doing what he wants to and needs to without any real interference. The more the left screams, the better it will go for us in 08 because the voice of the left is like fingernails on a chalkboard to Americans.
Gee. Let me see if I understand this, correctly?
The TIme’s butt’s-man got biten in the arse by McCain-Feingold?
Because they positioned one side’s ad (against General Petraeus), as less expensive than the price for republicans to advertise?
That’s just beautiful.
Let alone the “counter ad” that’s appeared on the Net. Where we are the referees.
The New Yuk Times didn’t accomplish a thing with its ad space.
Like those who advertised the EDSEL. There’s proof positive, that the EDSEL didn’t sell!
What’s the difference between wholesale and retail? PROFITS.
And, when you host “empty suits” … who are clueless; there comes a day (boring to most on the left, because math’s not “their” subject). That the accountant comes in. And, shows the bottom line in red ink.
I’m beginning to think there’s a color-blindness gene prevalent on the left as well. So red and blue aren’t very recognizable colors.
Not that I care.
But what a beautiful outcome!
More laws! More balloons. More popcorn. Seems we get our deliveries on time.
“Ruby slippers” was specific to your continued repetition of the same comment with nothing to support your point of view.
When Dorothy wanted to get back to Kansas, she was told to click her ruby slippers together and say three times “There’s no place like home”. And it worked.
But it doesn’t work with your point of view, simply repeating the same line with nothing more doesn’t get you anywhere, at least to the extent you wish to persuade someone else.
Key word in your post, Ed, “integrity” – the NYT doesn’t have any. Bias, yes; integrity, no.
To All,
Remember the 7 soldiers in Iraq who just happened to get their anti-Iraq war op-ed published in the NYT just before Patraeus got here? No problem for the NYT.
But, the NYT refused to publish the op-ed written by 7 combat vets who countered the first op-ed. Just a little bias, one-sided attitude.
Keep it alive, Ed.
This is the same organization that was pushing for special prosecutors and subpoena’s for EVERYthing when the Democrats were attacking Bush’s administration on the Plame non-event, and trying to get everything out in the open and revealed so it could be more satisfactorily attacked. Then when their own reporter was jailed for not revealing sources, the Times not only did not stand by her, but immediately threw her under the bus.
Also, this was the same organzition that along with the majority of it brethren argued taht Judith Miller shouldn’t have to reveal their sources because no crime had been comitted.It also states that Millers cover had already been blown twice in the mid 90’s.
So not only did they throw her under the bus, they first argue that there was no crime comitted at all (while publishing that in fact there was)
whippoorwill said:
What I’m saying is after 3 weeks of of the right beating this topic to a pulp it’s beginning to approach the surreal. In the end, the NYT’s is a private company who can print what they want and charge the price they want. I sometimes bitch about things Fox News puts out, but not for 3 weeks on the same subject.
Hello!? Didn’t the ad come out on 9/10? Today is 9/23…13 days does not 3 weeks make! We’ll talk about it for as looooooooooooooooooooooooong as we want.
and isn’t it the dems who refuse to even appear on a presidential debate aired by Fox news because of the so called bias there.
That situation has been occuring for far longer than 3 weeks.
Bingo! The BCRA was more about increasing the power of a declining MSM than about campaign finance per se. They sold it to Congress by including the provisions protecting incumbents from criticism.
As to why the Left wants to “move on” from this “overworked” story, it’s because this isn’t the first time the NYTimes has done this — so while the MoveOn ad may not violate the BCRA, they sure don’t want anyone looking too closely at their past practices for violations.
“Hello!? Didn’t the ad come out on 9/10? Today is 9/23…13 days does not 3 weeks make! We’ll talk about it for as looooooooooooooooooooooooong as we want.”
Dawn,
The intent of MoveOn to use “BetrayUs?” was posted on their website and reported out the week before.
And yes dear Dawn you are allowed without anyones permission to beat up on the NTY’s to your hearts delight. Meantime, the rest of us in the real world will be discussing how to fix the mess your side made in Iraq. You can keep talking about non-issues all you like. That ought to keep you busy right up ’till Hillary’s presidency begins in 2009. Have a nice day!
Moonbat L. Whippoorwill
Norseman, glad to oblige. Anyone who uses the term “strawman” is demonstrating his sophomore year jargon learned either in Debating 101 or Philosophy 102. If you use “strawman” then I’m sure that “ad hominem attack” and “imperial hegemony” can’t be far behind because you haven’t been in the real world for long enough to have learned any new phrases commonly used by adults and/or the business world.
End result: Moonbat Sighting (and Cited).
Dear whippoorwill,
Meantime, the rest of us in the real world will be discussing how to fix the mess your side made in Iraq. You can keep talking about non-issues all you like. That ought to keep you busy right up ’till Hillary’s presidency begins in 2009. Have a nice day!
Cute rant, but you conveniently neglect to mention that it was Al Qaeda’s decision to get involved in Iraq, in order to create its Once and Future Caliphate, not to mention an insurgency mounted by die-hard Sunni Baathists, eager to get their power back, that’s responsible for most of the so-called “mess” in Iraq. Hell, had those two not entered the Iraq equation, we’d be living in a very different world. Am I right or am I right?
The problem for you, of course, is that one can reasonably posit that we’ve been fighting four wars in Iraq. To wit:
1. The war against Saddam. We won that one back in 2003.
2. The war against the Sunni Baathists, et. al. We’ve pretty much won that one too (look at what’s happened in Al-Anbar if you don’t believe me).
3. The war against Al Qaeda. We’re winning that one too since Al Qaeda’s degree of freedom is shrinking on a daily basis thanks to better intel, more agressive tactics, and the fact that Al Qaeda’s charming brand of fanaticism and brutality is rapidly wearing out its welcome even among its nominal supporters. Case in point: Iraqis love to smoke and once Al Qaeda started amputating smokers’ fingers (they’re weren’t “observant enough,” y’know), that’s when many weed-puffing Sunnis decided enough was enough.
4. The war against Sadr. Things are turning around here too–secterian killings are down (though still too high), recent news reports indicate many Shiites are now tired of the militias and are beginning to form their own “Awakening” organizations. And, hey, when was the last time you heard anything out of Punky Sadr who, as far as I know, is still sitting on his fat ass in Tehran?
Final point: as for Hillary, I guess you were busy surfing Youtube when “Her Triangulating Majesty” announced that, hey, she might not be able to bring back the troops during the first term of the Clinton Restoration after all. Viz: Bloomberg.com, 23 September 2007:
[Hillary] Clinton said she couldn’t promise to bring all U.S. troops home in her first term if she is elected president.
“I don’t know what I’m going to inherit,” Clinton said on ABC. “I don’t know and neither do any of us know what will be the situation in the region.”
Dang, whippoorwill, being a Hillary supporter has got to be challenge: constantly turning on a dime, in order to faithfully adhere to Hillary’s Plan of the Day, must be hell on the back, hips, and knees.
I can’t figure out why the neo conservatives are angry about Move-on’s comment when they said little when Rove’s mercenaries called Max Clellan a defeatist in the run for the Senate in Georgia. All is fair in love, war and politics. Was Swift boating unfair, accusing Mc Cain of being a “manchurian candidate”, of really loosing his mind at the Hanoi Hilton. Hey what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Petraeus is to Bush what Westmoreland was to LBJ.WE got into this war under false pretenses and don’t know how to get out gracefully. If this adminstration remembered and experienced loss of their own brothers, fathers or had their own experiences in Vietnam they would have been more cautious.Ole George figured out how to stay at the Officer’s Club in Ellington AFB while my close friend, Karl Richter was killed on his 198th mission.The American people don’t deserve another Vietnam nor do I.
Bravo NahnCee!!!
Sophomoric indeed.. dont forget “illegal war” (what is a legal war?) and “quagmire”!
The Cap’n needs a few moonbat catchers like you to keep the moonbat guano from accumulating on his site, allowing him time to focus on keeping his lighthouse of sanity lit!
Whippoorwill said:
And yes dear Dawn you are allowed without anyones permission to beat up on the NTY’s to your hearts delight. Meantime, the rest of us in the real world will be discussing how to fix the mess your side made in Iraq. You can keep talking about non-issues all you like. That ought to keep you busy right up ’till Hillary’s presidency begins in 2009. Have a nice day!
Moonbat L. Whippoorwill
1. I never beat up on the NTY’s (NYT’s)
2. I’ve yet to hear an intelligent argument on how you or your party will fix anything regarding Iraq.
3. Why did you call yourself a moonbat?
What’s this? Whippoorwill is sure there are SOLUTIONS? Perhaps she thinks Gingrich has them?
Yeah, keep the faith. Or, as Tom DeLay says about Gingrich, HE’S THE GOVERNMENT. And, the House buddies don’t have SOLUTIONS.
They know where the pork is though.
By the way, when Bush’s record is reviewed, it will be noticed the most he did in Irak was SPEND TIME.
You could set up an hour glass; and just watch the sand running down. Flip it over. And, do it again, and again.
Because TIME has brought to the attention of the Iraqis what others thought was obvious.
Once free of the madman, Saddam; the Shi’a would get “spunkie.” They’d bet very heavily on syria and iran. And, Maliki chose to go against Bush’s better judgements. Which he is free to do.
While up ahead? It’s just a matter of time.
Bush could end up saving the world.
Bush can get credit, ahead, for starting something that ridded the world of Saddam. And, then kept the various choices on the table. Until the Iraqis, themselves, are happy to split up.
Maliki’s government seems to be tearing itself apart. Could happen. He reache altitude. And, his “craft” needs to return to earth.
Will he fall like those “fuel tanks” in the syrian desert? There have been posts “suggesting” that those fuel tanks, on the ground, looked like fuel tanks once attached to planes. BUT. With this big difference. Tumbling to ground tends to bang things up a bit.
And, those fuel tanks made “perfect landings.”
Or? There was more “Special Ops” sent in from Israel, seeding McGuffins on the trail. To confuse the syrians. And, the specialists that have to figure out how so many syrians, north koreans, and iranians, ended up in body bags.
You think the left is discussing this?
I don’t.
I think the elites in the media have constipated themselves, holding back so much news.
But the Internet shows all.
And, so it seems, we’re attracting those on the left, to come here, now. Which means that at their usual sites, such lunacy prevails, they need their time in the sun. To post where they get read. Not that they’re convincing anybody.
Just a store full of customers. Good for Captain Ed.
Mr. Valtos: I am not a neocon and I am angry about Moveons ad. I am sorry for the loss of your friend Karl Richter. You honor him and his memory for telling us of his service and sacrifice. But that same honor would hold that it was dishonorable for the Times to run the Betray Us ad at a discount and then lie about it. The Times and it’s staff get to enjoy the benefits of being in America and that benefit was secured by men like David Petraeus and Karl Richter.
Do we follow the path that says two wrongs makes a right? Because there have been previous injustices against veterans in the media, does it justify another disgusting attack on a man’s honor and integrity? I never knew your friend Karl Richter, but I doubt a man who flew 198 missions on behalf of his country would agree with that line of thought.
Folks, there’s a much better reason why the loony leftists (a.k.a. trolls) here and everywhere else want us to “MoveOn” from this story….eventually, we’re all gonna remember what the ad did in the first place….
They spit on a soldier….it really was that simple….they called him a liar before he ever spoke….eventually, someone (me, perhaps?) will point this out and the same leftists are gonna scream bloddy murder about having their “patriotism” questioned….
These exact same leftists were spitting on soldiers during the vietnam war and now they’re doing it again….the LAST thing they want is for someone to point it out!!!
I’d just like to point out that the Seattle P-I has found a way to mention Larry Craig in some context nearly every day since the story broke weeks ago.
Norman Hsu or “Cold cash” Jefferson? Well, if you got your news about them from the P-I, you would already be at the “Hey, whatever happened to…” stage with those stories, which is exactly where you ribes are supposed to be.
And you could freeze your ass off in hell if you waited for their ace cartoonist David Horsey to do a Hsu cartoon, even though the escapades of slippery Norman are high comedy. It just ain’t gonna happen.
Paul P. Valtos said:
“WE got into this war under false pretenses and don’t know how to get out gracefully”
Not really-subsequent investigations by the Intelligence Commitee concluded that the evidence wasn’t cherry-picked, and the intelligence people were never pressured to come to a pre-determined conclusion.
Hillary Clinton in fact said she relied on her husband’s intelligence people (not Bush’s), all of whom convinced her that Iraq had bad stuff. And thru the late 1990s, ALL of the Democrats were saying that Iraq had WMDs and was an imminent threat. Of course, we all know that in Moon-land, recorded history didn’t begin unti January of 2001…
In addition, we went to war with Iraq NOT just because of the WMDs, but for many other reasons. Here they are-all of these are in the resolution:
Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a “threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region.”
Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population.”
Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”.
Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda were “known to be in Iraq.”
Iraq’s “continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations,” including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
As for getting out, we can’t and we won’t. Even if a Democrat is elected President next year, we’ll be in Iraq for many years. But hey, we’re still in the countries we fought with 60 years ago. Bush from the beginning said the war would be long.
By the way, this MoveOn ad “non-story” has just been picked up by the Clinton News Network:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/23/nyt.moveon/
How long before the Public Editor is fired or starts looking for a new job? His column makes it very clear that there was an FEC violation which can result in major fines and makes it clear that the NY Times management lied repeatedly. Neither of those are good for long term career health.
The last NY Times Public Editor wrote some columns that the paper didn’t like and he was shown the door. I think the NY Times thought they picked more carefully this time and got a lap dog but this lap dog at least barked. We’ll see if they debark him or just put him to sleep by letting him go.
Dear Whippoorwill… name ONE solution for Iraq your folks have.
Do any of you people doubt that these events will occur during the first Hillary Clinton Administration:
o Reimposition of the fairness doctrine and the end of right-wing talk radio;
o Government “regulation” of the Internet, with de jure or de facto censorship of blogs like this one, including their comments threads;
o Passage of “hate speech” laws that will prohibit speech that is “hurtful” or “insulting” to, e.g., Muslims?
What do you plan to do about it?
MarkJ,
There was no Al Quaida in Iraq before we arrived.
They got a foothold due to Bush not using enough troops to secure the country and dis-banding the Iraqi army. And a thousand more screw-ups.
Al Quaida was given sanctuary by the Saddammites we’re now best buds with. These are the same folks who’ve been killing our GI’s by the hundreds the last few years. When they get the urge they’ll start killing our guys again, only with better knowledge of our tactics and better weapons.
There is only one war in Iraq presently and it’s between Shiites and Sunnis. It’s the same war they’ve been fighting for the past 1400 years. We just provided the spark to get it going again. Al Quaida is there because Sunni’s want them. Now it appears they don’t. We’ll see what happen.
Hillary and 90 percent of Dem lawmakers are not calling for all troops to completely leave Iraq. They want a number of troops to stay and fight Al Quaida in Sunni areas and to get out of the middle of a civil war primarily in Baghdad.
And BTW, I’m not a Hillary supporter at least for the primaries.
Dawn, so your not beating up on the NTY, Ok! whatever you say.
They are no good solutions for Iraq, only bad ones and worse ones, and it seems it will take a Dem president to make any changes from the Repub stay the course mindset.
“Why do you call yourself moonbat?”
For the same reason some call you wingnut.
Free speech is just freer for lefties at the New York Times.
whippoorwill said:
And yes dear Dawn you are allowed without anyones permission to beat up on the NTY’s to your hearts delight. Meantime, the rest of us in the real world will be discussing how to fix the mess your side made in Iraq. You can keep talking about non-issues all you like. That ought to keep you busy right up ’till Hillary’s presidency begins in 2009. Have a nice day!
Eric said:
Dearest Whippoorwill, thank you for wishing us all a nice day. Iraq is officially fixed despite your interest in helping. We would have sorely enjoyed and employed your help three years ago through present, but now it’s over.
Do us the kindest of favors though; please start talking to your real world friends about how we fix Iran after the upcoming destruction of their military and nuclear facilities.
“Do any of you people doubt that these events will occur during the first Hillary Clinton Administration?”
Yes.
1. She has to get elected first.
2. If elected, she serves as President not as Pope (doesn’t get to rule by decree).
3. To do any of what you suggested she would need a compliant Congress and Judiciary. She will have neither (the current Democratic majority in both houses is dependent on conservative Democrats).
As to your last question, vote against her.
You guys and gals should listen to Norseman. He’s the only of you who has a lick of sense but I fear he’s just banging his head against the wall in calling for your party to return to traditional conservative principles. I guess the politics of personal destruction is too much fun.
“Do us the kindest of favors though; please start talking to your real world friends about how we fix Iran after the upcoming destruction of their military and nuclear facilities”
MarkJ
War fever can often be cured by immediate enlistment and a one way ticket to the front.
Whippy:
I asked you to give me your commentary on what you’d do about Iraq. You come back saying, “There are no good solutions for Iraq but if the Dems come into power they’ll do a better job…”
Did you really mean that?
C’mon! You call that an answer?
What are “traditional conservative principles”?
Please enlighten us.
“War fever can often be cured by immediate enlistment and a one way ticket to the front.”
You know this, of course, from personal experience. And it certainly explains all those desertions, self-inflicted wounds and dropping reenlistment rates.
Did any of the right-leaning papers or bloggers pushing this story do the slightest amount of research to determine that the ‘special discount’ was in fact unusual or out the ordinary?
Most publications provide what’s called an ad rate sheet that lists ‘standard’ prices. However, if you’re a past customer who contacts a sales rep, you can typically negotiate a lower rate. Supply and demand are also a factor- if a newspaper has a shortage of ads to fill the pages, it offers more substantial discounts to sell out the ad inventory for each publication date.
This kind of discounting is standard practice in the publishing business. Is there a red phone in the NYT sales office connected to the editorial office to approve lower ad rates for ‘favored’ ads with political messages? Does the NYT maintain a list of ‘preferred’ customers who automatically receive a big discount, and evaulate each advertiser to determine if it meets some sort of political litmus test?
I really doubt it. When you get inside a big corporation, decision-making is driven by the goal of maxiizing profit. Yes, if Joe Anonymous calls the NYT and asks for a quote, he will get the public rate sheet price. An established customer who contacts a sales rep will have an entirely different experience.
Captain- you might want to avoid Dan Rathering this story. Because it smells like a complete red herring.
The real story here is that the NYT sales team is going to have to take all kinds of crap from established customers who call the paper expecting to negotiate similarly low prices. Typically, sales contracts include a clause that keeps the final price confidential.
Dawn,
Short version of what I’d do and most Dems–
from my earlier post.
‘Hillary and 90 percent of Dem lawmakers are not calling for all troops to completely leave Iraq. They want a number of troops to stay and fight Al Quaida in Sunni areas and to get out of the middle of a civil war primarily in Baghdad.”
Democrats can’t do a better job in Iraq by themselves. Repubs and Dems honestly working together, without Bush, will at least have a chance to do a better job.
Bennett,
Not my job to enlighten you on traditional conservative principles. The fact that you have to ask is kind of amazing. Ask Norseman, but then you already labelled him unbalanced. This all bodes well for our side.
“You know this, of course, from personal experience. And it certainly explains all those desertions, self-inflicted wounds and dropping reenlistment rates.”
I’m sorry but my jibberish decipherer is down right now so I don’t what the h#ll your talking about.
Eric,
So Iraq is now fixed. That’s just dandy. Now we can have the troops home by X-mas.
And you call us liberals moonbats.
[Comment deleted. I am not going to allow someone to suggest assassinating American politicians, even in jest. — CE]
Bennett sez: “You know this, of course, from personal experience. And it certainly explains all those desertions, self-inflicted wounds and dropping reenlistment rates.”
Prove your comments, pal. Just because you practice Joseph Goebbels Big Lie School of Journalism tactics doesn’t mean we are left wing koolaid drinkers that are going to believe your made up “facts”. Just like I dont buy into comments made by “highly placed administration officials who prefer to remain anonymous” as practiced by the paper that employed Jason Blair.
Why is the left inundated with bumper sticker philosophers?
“Now we can have the troops home by X-mas.”
What’s with the naval gazing, self absorption?
We need to get the troops now? So we can watch the slaughter of thousands more of those who trusted in us?
We broke Iraq (true, we broke a crue dictatorship)and it’s up to us to help fix it.
Jesus Christ, the minute we run from our responsibility in Iraq you’ll be screaming “On to Darfur”!
Bayam chooses to ignore the fact that the NY Times Public Editor has said that his paper violated its own rules in guaranteeing a date on a “standby ad”. Is that what you call standard practice? Violating your organizations rules may be standard to you, thereby explaining your political leaning. Bayam, please don’t lecture us on things you seem to know nothing about. At least read the post first before you open up with your nonsensical comments.
The Moveon advertisement was vile in attacking the messenger, a man of complete integrity. The N.Y. Times didn’t, and doesn’t, understand that to this day.
That said, the N.Y. Times has every right to be biased in its editorial opinions, and to accept advertising that expresses a similar bias. They SHOULD have the right to extend a discount to their political allies, or even to run such advertising for free. Instead, they editorially supported legislation that painted a giant bullseye on their backsides.
I believe Bayam accurately states what really happened at the N.Y. Times in his previous post. Basically, the right hand (the advertising department) had no idea what the left hand (the editorial department) had done (support campaign finance regulation that exposed the Times to these kinds of charges.)
In other words, these people at the N.Y. Times are foolish in the extreme. This situation exposes their folly. The N.Y. Times has egg on its collective face, not for violating campaign finance laws, but for editorially supporting them in the first place.
The Old Grey Lady? Pardon me, she’s nothing but an old whore. You’ve met them? They work for — you know — for m o n e y !
bayam you are in part correct but off a mile on how it works..
How do I know… I was in charge of contracting for advertising with all Ziff Davis publications(PC Mag and MacWorld)and others for six years.
The rates depended solely on GUARANTEED- frequency, ad size and pages per publication per issue.
If you failed to meet the guarantees you were back charged.
If as was the case with MoveOn you approached someone for a one off ad…. you got small sized discounts..
Simple logic would tell you this given GM, Ford, Macy’s etc do guarantees as stated. They deserve the discount..
If you think it’s just republicans howling you are sadly mistaken…
Every person worth their salt who’d ever been back charged or running frequent ads would be on the phone with the NYT howling..demanding further cuts…or some compensation
This story is far from over…
‘”Now we can have the troops home by X-mas.”
What’s with the naval gazing, self absorption?
We need to get the troops now? So we can watch the slaughter of thousands more of those who trusted in us?”
H Beaumont,
I do love the Beaver. What do you think Baghdad looks like right now. It’s been ethnically cleansed with walled off parts of the city in Sunni Shia strongholds. They have been and are storing up arms for the fight they know will come. I don’t agree that genocide will certainly occur. I think it will be more like The Lebanese civil war. Lots of fighting and killing probably for many years until they get tired of it. Then they’ll come to a reasonable settlement.
You just don’t get it, Iraq is not about us anymore. All we can do is have our soldiers stop bullets meant for one side or the other. This is about the Iraqi’s deciding their own fate and the Greenzone Government is totally irrelevant in the equation. Besides, like I said there should be 50 to 70 thousand US troops nearby to keep other countries out and intervene if genocide does break out.
Pubic Hair Hamilton
“Prove your comments, pal. Just because you practice Joseph Goebbels Big Lie School of Journalism tactics doesn’t mean we are left wing koolaid drinkers that are going to believe your made up “facts”.
I don’t have to prove anything to peabrain turds ,pal.
From the Irony Department:
FoxNews was willing to give the Democratic Candidates a platform to reach the public and especially a segment of the public they rarely reach but will need to reach in order to get the votes to win. The Candidates refused. In fact the far left encourages Democrats to avoid FoxNews.
From the Stay on Focus Department:
The Patraeus Ad was a particularly vile personal attack that NYT broke its rules, conduct as well as financial, to help bring to the public.
Conceding that the NYT is biased is insufficient to exculpate them and spare them from criticism.
Its a particularly sad argument when we all know 5 minutes into the future from now the same crowd will expect us to treat a NYT story or other similarly biased source as objective.
And the way essentially the same counter argument in a paraphrased style hits many of the major Conservative Blogs the second a NYT critical post goes up, I find interesting.
Since that wasn’t a campaign ad: it had nothing to do with an election or political parties or candidates, so what is your point? It seems like right wing nobodies spend half their time whining about the NY Times.
General Petraeus was voted unaminously as the leader of our armed forces in Iraq.
Moveon.org wanted to discredit his testimony and undermine his expertise based on their opinions and the Times allowed them to do this BEFORE THE MAN EVEN SPOKE.
This is wrong.
Whipperwill, you said “we” should return to “traditional conservative principles”.
What a meaningless exhortation if you can’t even explain what they are. Hopefully you will return to “traditional liberal principles” if you can figure out what THOSE are.
And you accused MarkJ of war fever and suggested he enlist and get himself a one way ticket to the front to cure it. How do you know that will cure it? Have you enlisted, have you been to the front?
Or is that too plebian for you? Are you just all about telling other people what to do? If you change your mind, you would definitely need to get that jibberish decipherer of yours fixed. They talk a lot in code, those military types.
P.S. Has there been some kind of mass banning over at the playground?
Breaking news…here’s part of a statement that MoveOn just put out (url at bottom)
“Now that the Times has revealed this mistake for the first time, and while we believe that the $142,083 figure is above the market rate paid by
most organizations, out of an abundance of caution we have decided to pay that rate for this ad. We will therefore wire the $77,083 difference to the Times tomorrow (Monday, September 24, 2007).
We call on Mayor Giuliani, who received exactly the same ad deal for the same price, to pay the corrected fee also.”
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-23-2007/0004668013&EDATE=
Yeah, this story is OVER, all right…
So THAT’S why the NY Times fessed up. I was wondering.
So the plan is, MoveOn uses $70,000 from Soros in unregulated money to force Giuliani to give up an equal amount of heavily regulated – and thus much much harder to accumulate – money. Well, harder to accumulate unless your campaign strolls on Blue Hsu-Aid Hsus.
None of it works unless the NY Times fesses up and calls the price a “mistake”. Something I don’t think they’d have done in a million years unless it somehow played to their advantage – and now we know how.
Damn clever, I gotta admit. It’ll probably work too.
Qwinn
[Comment deleted – not because of the commenter, but because I deleted the comment referenced here. — CE]
“Damn clever, I gotta admit. It’ll probably work too.”
No, it doesn’t. Guiliani doesn’t have to cough up more dollars just because some other customer does. He asked for the special rate and he was given it. Why should he now decide he has to pay more because Moveon.org decides it wants to?
I don’t see how Moveon.org capitalizes on this at all. It’s making a gift of the money to the NY Times since it has no legal obligation to pay more now that the ad has run. Guiliani doesn’t have to and shouldn’t do the same.
If anything, Moveon going back now and unilaterally deciding to pay more makes the whole thing look like even more of a stunt than even the original ad was.
Too cute by half and doesn’t change anything about the NY Times part of the story. As to the Times calling it a “mistake”, what else was it going to say? We did it on purpose? Either way it’s not on Guiliani.
That the NYTimes and MoveOn ganged up to slander a serving four star Genreal as a traitor to his country is not going to go away any time soon, it cut to the quick in its mendacity. Both the newspaper and the Soros front group will be beaten over the head with it for years to come, and deservingly so.
Your alright Captain Ed.
Captain Ed may be all right, whippoorwill, but you are not. I had to laugh at your childish response to my challenge regarding your “facts”. It merely proves my point. You have nothing to back up your claims and thereby must resort to name calling as all intellectually bankrupt people do.
[Comment deleted. I am not going to allow someone to suggest assassinating American politicians, even in jest. — CE]
Then perhaps you should also delete the word “assassinating”, since it’s suggestive in this context.
The NYT’s “error” is completely disingenuous, by the way.
The rate card specifies open rate for political advocacy ads. Typically – and unless they provide evidence of contrary practice – “standby” rates aren’t offered for such ads.
Even so, a “standby” ad does just that: it is submitted to take the first available page. The NYT’s own ombudsman admits it was accepted with a guaranteed position. “Error,” my foot.
For a discounted ad to get guaranteed placement in the “A” section, someone higher than an ad rep is going to be involved. At least the ad manager, and probably, in the case of a controversial political ad, someone much higher in rank.
This is not to say they violated any law, or didn’t have the “right” to do it, but only to observe they won’t even be honest in “admitting error” . . .
Violating your organizations rules may be standard to you, thereby explaining your political leaning. Bayam, please don’t lecture us on things you seem to know nothing about.
I don’t think that everyone is enough of a pinhead to miss the larger point I made. Advertisting sales reps will often ‘wave’ a rule to close a sale and earn a commission. It’s more than obvious that you know nothing about the publising or ad sales businesses. Published ad rates and policies are typically sidestepped during negotiations. That’s why the Times had to admit that the ‘regular’ price is above market rate. This is turning into a sales nightmare for the Times. Any customer who didn’t do a good job negotiating a low ad rate is going to be pissed.
To me, this still looks like standard business, not a conspiracy.
It takes a particularly high level of chutzpah to write this, and two months later, attempt to hide behind the First Amendment while making what qualifies as an in-kind donation to MoveOn.
Ed, I`m happy to see you pointing out the NYT`s self-serving hypocrisy, but far from “hiding behind” the First Amendment, don`t both the NYT`s editorials on McCain-Feingold and its decisions about what political ads to take (and what to charge for them) fall DIRECTLY within the speech that the First Amendment is intended to protect?
And, unlike rather anonymous the “issue ads” that McCain-Feingold addresses, is the NYT anonymous, or the Move-On ad sponsors? It seems rather clear who is talking, so the charge of hypocrisy doesn`t really stick. They just advocate positions you dislike, and which you have every right to disagree with, however vehemently.
Any newspaper that publishes OPINION or EDITORIAL content is a benficiary of the CONSTITUTION ‘ s First Amendment . For a newspaper the likes of the NEW YORK TIMES to denigrate the Freedom Of Speech of individuals or entities in ‘ hot ‘ media is brazen , stupid hypocrisy .
Recently ROBERT SAMUELSON stated : ” NEWSPAPERS JEALOUSLY GUARD THEIR OWN FREEDOM OF SPEECH . THEY ARE CASUAL WITH EVERYONE ELSE ‘ S . ”
The premise that underlies ‘ Campaign Finance Reform ‘ – – diminishing ‘ corruption ‘ and
‘ elevating the discourse ‘ of political speech – – is a joke and an unconvincing smoke – screen through which to enact censorship . The sorriest thing about this whole abysmal ‘ McCain – Feingold ‘ tyranny is the passivity of American
voters . It is up to us to recognize that Freedom – – in this instance our Freedom to criticize our legislators – – can only be secured by our vigilance .
Let ‘ s not forget the ‘ strange bedfellows ‘ that placed our Freedoms in the B . C . R . A . s
vise : FRED WERTHEIMER ( Democracy 2 1 ) and GEORGE SOROS ( Open Society ) actively backed passage of McCain – Feingold , doing their part to ‘ buy ‘ the enactment of this gag order and extra – Constitutional protection of incumbents
with some hefty infusions of cash from their tax – exempt foundations .
Nine Republican Senators and thirty – one
G . O . P . Congressmen very unwisely voted for the B . C . R . A . , a shameful instance of political appeasement . Republican voters need to keep this travesty in mind when choosing their
Presidential nominee : JOHN McCAIN , the co – sponsor , and FRED THOMPSON , one of McCain – Feingold ‘ s most artless apologists , deserve to be rejected on this basis alone .
P. Hamilton says
“Captain Ed may be all right, whippoorwill, but you are not. I had to laugh at your childish response to my challenge regarding your “facts”. It merely proves my point. You have nothing to back up your claims and thereby must resort to name calling as all intellectually bankrupt people do.”
Listen up knucklehead. You reference comparing me to a Nazi. Up until then we were having a civil debate. As to your broader point about proving my “facts” see if you can follow this. MarkJ was calling for war with Iran and I accused him of having war fever with my “remark” about a cure for that. There are no “facts” to prove as it is pure commentary. If you can’t see the difference then go back to school. Bennet’s remark does not make sense to me. He may be insinuating something. If that’s the case then he needs to make his accusation in clear terms.
Judging by the berserk reaction of the Kool-Aid Krowd folks like “whippoorwil” on this thread, it would seem that the Captain struck a nerve. Keep up the good work! The more the hard Left tries to shut down debate, the more the pressure needs to be applied.
whippoorwill wrote:
War fever can often be cured by immediate enlistment and a one way ticket to the front.
Ah the old chicken hawk argument. But its the dems meme that Iraq is a diversion from the “real war” on terror in afghanistan, and there are no calls to withdraw troops from there,despite the fact that the Talbian are making combeback. So when are the dems advocating fighting the real war going to enlist in bootcamp and join their comrades on the front lines.
What are they, chicken hawks?
jr565 says’Ah the old chicken hawk argument. But its the dems meme that Iraq is a diversion from the “real war” on terror in afghanistan, and there are no calls to withdraw troops from there,despite the fact that the Talbian are making combeback. So when are the dems advocating fighting the real war going to enlist in bootcamp and join their comrades on the front lines.”
Absolutely a fair point. I’d join myself but I’m too old and already did my time in service. It wouldn’t bother me a bit if you or your pals use this to counter Dems chicken hawk claims. Better yet, lets bring back the draft and Jefferson’s idea of the citizen/soldier.
However, war fever is different than supporting a just war/ And by that I mean fighting people who have attacked you like 9-11. But you still have a valid point.
from whippoorwills bag of wisdom:
Hillary and 90 percent of Dem lawmakers are not calling for all troops to completely leave Iraq. They want a number of troops to stay and fight Al Quaida in Sunni areas and to get out of the middle of a civil war primarily in Baghdad.”
This is what counts for strategy amongst the dems? I thought Bush was to blame for not having enough troops on the ground to allow Al Qaeda to gain a foothold (in fact you cite that as one of thousands of Bush mistakes). So then how is reducing the number of troops on the ground to fight al qaeda somehow suddenly some great strategy. Sounds like you’re trying to fight the war on the cheap. How many troops are going to be reduced, by what calculus are you determining the troop levels that will be needed to fight just al qaeda.
And how are you even differentiating betweent he various players. So we have a civil war raging according to you. If bombs are going off, but are not bombs from Al Qaeda do we ignore those, so as to not get involved in the civil war? Does Al Qaeda wear special unifomrs (like maybe with a big red A on their burkhas) so that we know that these are Al Qaeda and not your run of the mil militia. and what are the rules of engagement if for example some in al qaeda are also aligned with some members of various factions, be they sunni, shia or baathists. Can we not get involved with fights against them as it then involves us in the “civil war”. Also, if you’re saying that we will only fight Al Qaeda in Sunni areas, that does sound like you’re picking sides, since you’re only choosing Sunni areas.
But what if Al Qaeda move out of one area into another area? What if they move into an area that is also involved in the “civil war”?!? Is it your contention that Al Qaeda, doesn’t move to new areas or parks itself in one spot and sets up Al Qaeda headquarters?
Your “solution” is not a solution at all, Its simplistic pablum.
jr565
If you read my entire post I said not enough troops “initially” which would be before Al Quaida got a foothold and spread in Iraq. It’s too late for that now. If your arguing that it’s hard for GI’s to tell Sunni from Shia and foreign or Iraqi born AQ from non-AQ, then that problem will exist no matter what the strategic policy.
As for fighting AQ in places other than Sunni held areas, I doubt AQ is stupid enough to operate much in Shia territory. There life expectancy would be very short as Shia would kill them on sight. And apparently the Sunni are reaching that point also.
The overall point I was trying to make is Iraqi’s are more than capable of dealing with AQ and having their civil war and deciding their own fate without American GI’s standing in the crossfire. We should be around though to secure the border and hunt AQ as needed.
Both Bayam and Blacksheep have nailed this. The N.Y. Times has inadvertently exposed how arbitrary their “published” advertising rates are. Their regular advertisers are lined up around the block, demanding refunds and future discounts.
I don’t think this is a campaign financing violation, but given the context, I’d call the flack they’re now getting “rough justice. You gotta love it when the N.Y. Times missteps like this! LOL!
Thank you jr565!
I had similar arguments regarding Whippoorwhill’s comments.
He/She stated: They (There) are no good solutions for Iraq, only bad ones and worse ones, and it seems it will take a Dem president to make any changes from the Repub stay the course mindset.
Real constructive argument there!
So he/she is concluding without any reasonable doubt that Iraq can NEVER get better.
Iraq doesn’t have a snowballs chance of EVER improving yet even though it’s a lost cause it’d be better if a Dem was in charge.
That argument is beyond belief.
Dawn, are you aware of Ron Paul’s argument, using Vietnam as an example, that in many situations free trade can do much more for our security than our military?
As soon as the quotes of FEC regulations appeared on some of the blogs, it became obvious that this “arrangement” was illegal, and I predicted that MoveOn.org should have their checkbook handy as that was the only way out.
Now we see that it had about the same effect of the public as the Senate vote to show displeasure.
The only remaining question is … will the FEC do anything to show their displeasure with the “arrangement” ? Afterall, if not for the exposure of the “arrangement” to the sun, this bit of illegal campaign finance would have been swept under the proverbial rug.
Isn’t that sweet .. The New York Times shown the power of the press to investigate criminal activity.