Go read Billmon. It's a good piece. (Even though he doesn't mention the BBA, we still love him.) ;-)
What the...?
Raw Story reports:
The Associated Press appears to have errantly revised a question asked by a Reuters reporter about the Downing Street minutes, RAW STORY has discovered.Okay, that’s complete bullshit. Intelligence and facts remain fixed around the policy of removing Saddam means that the intelligence and facts are focused on the policy; intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy of removing Saddam means that the intelligence and facts were being manipulated to fit the policy. Highly dodgy stuff, this. What the hell is going on?
[…]
According to AP, the transcript was taken by CQ transcripts.
The difference, while semantic, seems to have entirely changed the question the reporter asked. Neither the Associated Press or reporter Steve Holland were immediately available for comment.
The AP copy distributed to the papers was:
Q: Thank you, sir. On Iraq, the so-called "Downing Street Memo" from July 2002, says, "Intelligence and facts remain fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military actions." Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?
BLAIR: Well, I can respond to that very easily. No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all. And let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations.
The official White House / Washington Post account stated:
Q Thank you, sir. On Iraq, the so-called Downing Street memo from July 2002 says intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military action. Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Well, I can respond to that very easily. No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all. And let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations.
DSM Round-up
Okay, this is getting good.
Check out The Heretik's awesome round-up of Monday's and today's blogswarms (where you'll also find relevant Big Brass Alliance links and graphics info) and Freiheit und Wissen's superb aggregate of today's media coverage and blogswarm (where you'll also find links to previous blogswarm round-ups).
And if you're writing about this, make sure you let them know so they can add you to their lists!
En Guard
I have a question for conservatives who support both the Iraq War and banning gay marriage. Can you produce one instance of a gay marriage actually undermining the sanctity of a heterosexual marriage, or causing the divorce of a straight couple? And if I could produce evidence that the Iraq War is detrimental to marriage, would you support a Constitutional amendment immediately requiring the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq and banning future preemptive wars the same way you support a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? Because I can:
The number of active-duty soldiers getting divorced has been rising sharply with deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq.See, I know the whole “culture of life” thing is nonsense, because you refuse to support stem cell research, which could save lives, but do support a bloody and unnecessary conflict in Iraq which will inevitably continue to take lives, and the whole abortion thing isn’t about saving embryos nearly as much as it is about controlling women. And I’m fairly certain (ahem) that your whole “protecting the sanctity of marriage and defending the family” thing is nonsense, too—just another disingenuous attempt to mask bigotry with religion. But maybe you could convince me about the veracity of your claims that your primary concern is the protection of marriage and defense of families, if you immediately denounce the Iraq conflict, since it’s hurting families hell and gone more than gay marriage ever possibly could.
The trend is severest among officers. Last year, 3,325 Army officers' marriages ended in divorce — up 78% from 2003, the year of the Iraq invasion, and more than 3 1/2 times the number in 2000, before the Afghan operation, Army figures show. For enlisted personnel, the 7,152 divorces last year were 28% more than in 2003 and up 53% from 2000. During that time, the number of soldiers has changed little.
Iraqi families, too, by the way, in case you’d forgotten about them.
Downing Street Memo in the New York Times
Rolling, rolling, rolling…keep that story rolling…
The New York Times is on it, too, and with a slightly better story than the WaPo’s it’s-a-nonstory-story:
President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain presented a united front on Tuesday against a recently disclosed British government memorandum that said in July 2002 that American intelligence was being "fixed" around the policy of removing Saddam Hussein in Iraq.Pretty good, pretty good. Not too shabby at all. Come on media, keep it rolling…
"There's nothing farther from the truth," Mr. Bush said in his first public comments about the so-called Downing Street memo, which has created anger among the administration's critics who see it as evidence that the president was intent to go to war with Iraq earlier than the White House has said.
[…]
Mr. Blair, standing at Mr. Bush's side in a joint news conference in the East Room of the White House, said, "No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all."
The statements contradicted assertions in the memorandum, which was first disclosed by The Sunday Times of London on May 1 and which records the minutes of a meeting of Mr. Blair's senior policy advisers more than half a year before the war with Iraq began.
[…]
The two expressed common ground most emphatically on the Downing Street memo, which was written by Matthew Rycroft, a top aide to Mr. Blair.
In particular, it reports that Sir Richard Dearlove, the chief of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service, had been in talks in Washington and had told other senior British officials that Mr. Bush "wanted to remove" Mr. Hussein "through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and W.M.D.," or weapons of mass destruction.
[…]
The White House has always insisted that Mr. Bush did not make the decision to invade Iraq until after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented the administration's case to the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, which relied heavily on claims, now discredited, that Iraq had illicit weapons. But as early as Nov. 21, 2001, Mr. Bush directed Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to begin a review of what could be done to oust Mr. Hussein.
Keep that story rolling…trip em up, screw em good, screw em good, trip em up…THEY LIED!
Mr. Unpopular
Not only is Bush getting more and more unpopular by the day, but, according to his math, we’ve also now got a mandate that he ought to be kicked the heck out of office—because a higher percentage of people than voted for him disapprove of how he’s handling his job.
Overall, more than half -- 52 percent -- disapprove of how Bush is handling his job, the highest of his presidency.Again, I ask—what has become obvious to those who have changed their minds that somehow wasn’t obvious before the friggin’ election?! Argh. Anyway…in other bad news for the pres:
Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded. More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam.The Green Knight says we ought to get used to repeating “Bush Is Not a Popular President.” I agree. I’m going to say it as often as possible from now on—and with poll numbers like these, I think I’ll have lots of opportunity to do so.
Perhaps most ominous for President Bush, 52 percent said war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States, while 47 percent said it has. It was the first time a majority of Americans disagreed with the central notion Bush has offered to build support for war: that the fight there will make Americans safer from terrorists at home. In late 2003, 62 percent thought the Iraq war aided U.S. security, and three months ago 52 percent thought so.
“The Downing Street Memo Story Won’t Die”
So says the Washington Post. Of course, they’re not reporting on it, just mentioning how it won’t die, even though everyone keeps saying it’s not a story.
Blink. Blink.
John Howard of Upon Further Review… has a few thoughts on the subject:
Dear media fucknuts –And PSoTD, in the comments thread to John’s post, notes:
I'm seeing more and more stories about The Downing Street Memo, which is great. However, all of these stories just seem to be stories about how it's not getting any attention in the media. How about instead of writing these stories about how little attention it's getting, you just fucking give it a little attention, instead? Is it really that much easier to write a story about the lack of coverage than it is to actually cover it? This shouldn't be so difficult. How accurate is it? What are the implications of it? What do the parties involved have to say about it? Isn't this the kind of thing it's your job to find out? There didn't seem to be any shortage of coverage when Newsweek (slightly) misrepresented the facts. It should be a pretty fucking big story when the President misrepresents the facts and we go to war because of it.
[…]
Oh yeah, The President is having dinner with a porn star. You may want to mention that, too. Not that I care, but if it was Clinton, it would be on the front page.
All we ask is that it be investigated. If Congress has time to investigate steroids in pro sports, they have time for this.Good point. If only a lack of time were really the primary motivator behind their resistance to investigating the President.
BULLSHIT!
It just wasn't enough for motherfucking cockwanking scumsucking ratshit douchebag and Texas Governor Rick Perry to sign a resolution to amend the Texas Constitution by banning gay marriage (and all legal contracts that would assist in approximating the marriage contract) in a fucking church, he had to go and say this shit, too:
Texans have made a decision about marriage and if there is some other state that has a more lenient view than Texas then maybe that’s a better place for them to live.What a shitbag!
And what if they don’t want to go live in another state? (Although at this point, I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t.) Will you sign another bill in another church authorizing the expenditure of state funds to start a fucking boxcar train system to ship their asses out of the state? Load ’em up and move ’em out. Or would building a few concentration camps in Texas be cheaper than a bunch of one-way tickets to New York and Chicago and San Francisco?
Fuck it, just run for it, Texas queers, and let them build walls around the aforementioned cities. Just give me a chance to move there before it goes up. I’ll be happy to be kept in with you as long as it keeps the likes of Rick Perry and the millions of other assclowns just like him out.
100,000 and Counting
Shakespeare's Sister passed the 100,000 visitors mark sometime today. Woohoo!
My heartfelt thanks to everyone who's stopped by and made this, at least for me, a very cool place to spend my time.
Voting (Report) Irregularities
Good fucking night.
BradBlog's got the goods on a new report on election reform that was just released. It's unfuckingbelievable. Seriously, just when you think you can't be shocked and appalled by anything anymore, there's always something to make you want to put your fist through the damn wall.
I'll just offer this image for your consideration, then go read the rest at his place.
Talk about a picture being worth 1,000 words, eh?
The Useless Press (Part 9,832 in a Series)
Stephen of Orwell's Grave has been paying attention to how much interest the press has shown in the Downing Street Memo:
6 questions were asked about Saddam Hussein's underwear photo at the May 20, 2005 White House Press Briefing.Go read the rest.
109 questions were asked (at the May 11, 2005 White House press briefing) about the plane incident in which a Cessna came within 10 miles of the White House. One intrepid reporter wanted to know whether there was a bathroom in the secure place that White House spokesman Scott McClellan was taken.
[S]ince May 1, 2005, when this story was broken in the UK, the White House Press has asked a sum total of two (2) questions about this issue at White House Press Briefings and Press Gaggles. Yes, that's the actual word used by the White House to describe officially what are, presumably, a step down from a Briefing. A gaggle is defined as a flock of geese -- how fitting. Notice how when geese get together they all sound the same?
Book Meme
Aggh! I’ve been tagged again! This time by Pam, who’s nuts for books like I am—and we both have the ultra-geeky elementary school pictures, with our glasses and pigtails and plaid shirts and general goofy brainiac kidness, to prove it. (Seriously, you want unassailable evidence that race is an artificial construct and the time-space continuum is beyond our understanding? The proof is that Pam and I, though ostensibly split by 10 years and of different races, were clearly separated at birth. Those pictures ain’t lying!)
Anyway…
Off we go.
Number Of Books I Own: I have no idea! Several bookshelves full, several boxes in the office, more boxes in my parents’ attic…maybe a couple thousand?
Last Book I Bought: Freakanomics.
Last Book I Read: Worse Than Watergate.
Five Books That Mean A Lot To Me: Limited to only five again. Phew, okay. I’m just going to pick five of my earliest favorites…
#1—Beautiful Joe, by Marshall Saunders, actually Margaret Marshall Saunders, who entered (and won) a literary contest sponsored by the American Humane and Educational Society under her middle name because women authors weren’t getting published. Her winning submission, Beautiful Joe, a children’s novel narrated by an abused dog who finds a home with a caring family (based on a true story), was published in 1893. My tattered copy of the book belonged to my great-grandmother, who passed it on to my nana, who passed it on to my mom, who passed it on to me. It’s my first memory of really loving a book, and I remember my mom reading it to me each night before I fell asleep, with her fingernails drifting across my back.
#2—The Secret Garden, by Frances Hodgson Burnett (1909), which was another one my mom read to me, and I think the first novel I eventually read on my own. During that time (ages 5-10, maybe?), I also read—and adored—A Little Princess (1905) and Little Lord Fauntleroy (1886), also by Burnett, but The Secret Garden was my favorite, and I’ve re-read it probably 10 times, most recently just a few months ago.
#3—The Trumpet of the Swan, by E.B. White (1973). Also around this time, I got a book set of three E.B. White books which contained Trumpet, along with Stuart Little (1945), and Charlotte’s Web (1952). I have read all three of them countless times, but Trumpet, which is the story of a Trumpeter Swan in search of his voice, was my favorite; so fond am I of this story that I’m embarrassed to admit I’m getting a little teary just thinking about it, and now want to read it again.
#4—Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes, by Eleanor Coerr (1977). I was maybe 7 or 8. The book, inspired by a real person, tells the story of a Japanese girl, just a baby when the A-bomb was dropped in Hiroshima, who later develops leukemia as a result of her exposure to the radiation. She’s told of a myth that says if she can fold a thousand paper cranes, she’ll be cured, so she sets to work… I remember pulling this book off the shelf at the school library; I even remember the simple cover and the first time I opened it and started to read it. I only read it once, because I took it out from the library (and it’s only had a new printing in the last several years), but it stays with me so powerfully. It was largely responsible for awakening my curiosity about history and, perhaps more important, the realization that my country could do things that hurt other people.
#5—Bridge to Terabithia, by Katherine Peterson (1977), which is about two best friends, Jess and Leslie, from very different backgrounds but end up neighbors, who create a secret kingdom in the woods called Terabithia, which can only be accessed by swinging out over a gully on a magical rope. It’s a wonderful, tragic, beautiful book, and I remember it being the first book I recommended (I was about 9 or 10), telling all my friends they should ask their parents to buy it for them, because it was so good.
I feel obligated to mention The Chronicles of Narnia, the Oz series of books (which are infinitely more strange and interesting than the single film that was made, great though it was), Garbage Delight (which perhaps only Canadians might have read), Black Beauty, Encyclopedia Brown…okay, I’m stopping now.
Tag, you’re it: Misty, Charlie, and Mike. (If you’re already done it, I’m sorry – I can never remember where I’ve seen these done already!)
Teddy on the DSM
Ted Kennedy rocks (not blockquoted due to length):
“The contents of the Downing Street Minutes confirm that the Bush Administration was determined to go to war in Iraq, regardless of whether there was any credible justification for doing so. The Administration distorted and misrepresented the intelligence in its attempt to link Saddam Hussein with the terrorists of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden, and with weapons of mass destruction that Iraq did not have.
In addition, the Downing Street Minutes also confirm what has long been obvious – that the timing of the war was linked to the 2002 Congressional elections, and that the Administration’s planning for post-war Iraq was incompetent in all its aspects. The current continuing crisis is a direct result of that incompetence.
Many of you have worked hard for the American people, the media and those in government to speak out about the Downing Street Minutes and the Iraq war. You can join me in speaking out as well.
The policy of “shoot first, ask questions later” took us into an unjustified war, and without a clear concept of what “winning the war” actually means.
President Bush constantly talks about the “progress” that is being made in Iraq against the insurgency, but he’s looking for good news with a microscope. All anyone can see is “Mission Mis-accomplished” and the continuing losses of American lives, the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis, the torture scandal, and the ominous decline in our nation’s moral authority in the world community.
We know the Administration had been planning to invade Iraq for many months before the invasion actually began. We know the Administration twisted the intelligence to make the facts fit their plan. We know that the Administration never really intended to give the U.N. weapons inspectors a reasonable chance to succeed. The Downing Street Minutes demonstrate that the Administration knew their case for war was paper thin, and that in order to go into war with the support of our allies, we had to demonstrate some willingness to go along with the UN inspection process. But the Administration continued to misuse its intelligence, distort the facts and pay only lip-service to the UN’s role in disarming Iraq.
We never should have gone to war for ideological reasons driven by politics and based on manipulated intelligence. The Downing Street Minutes provide even more proof that this is exactly what happened on Iraq. The Administration’s dishonesty, lack of candor, and lack of planning have brought us to where we are today, with American soldiers dying, Iraqi civilians living in constant fear, and with no clearer picture of our strategy for victory in Iraq than when we started. ”
(Thanks to The Green Knight for the heads-up.)
Fractured
Via Feministe:
The women disgruntled with the dKos marginalization of liberal women have started their own sounding board free from the “frat boy” mentality that seems to rule the dKos site.Indeed, the complaints about the male-centric upper echelon of the lefty blogosphere almost perfectly mirror the complaints about the male-centric leadership of the 1960’s anti-war movement—namely, that women were excluded from positions of power and influence. (I would broaden the modern comparison, however, to include, in many cases, truly progressive smaller male bloggers who believe adamantly in the importance of gender politics, thereby necessarily aligning themselves more often with female bloggers than the big dogs whose gender they share. Sorry, guys—you’re just grouped in with the gals for the rest of this post.)
See this particularly interesting conversation on the parallels between the now-infamous dKos argument and the second wave as a splinter of disaffectation with the 1960s left.
Food for thought, invested Democrats.
In the mid-to-late sixties groups began to form, especially on college campuses, and the younger generation began to voice its opposition against the forceful techniques used by the United States government. Both women and men felt sentiments of disgust and betrayal when the government began to draft young men into the army and reports of civilian slaughter in Vietnam came home. Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) emerged as the most prevalent anti-war group of the 1960’s. It had chapters on most college campuses with the most powerful residing at Michigan State University, Pennsylvania State University, University of California at Berkeley, and at the Ivy League institutions. Each school had its own flavor and techniques within the common agenda, however, without exception, each chapter had a male dominator. Until 1965, the group at Pennsylvania State University banned women from leadership positions. Although no rules specifically prohibited it, the situation after 1965 remained the same. Women remained in subordinate positions as the backup forces instead of helping on the "frontlines."(Emphasis mine).
In other example of the more things change, the more they stay the same, women were expected to bear the blame for their own diminished role, paralleling current theories about how there “just aren’t as many women blogging,” “women don’t write about things that interest male bloggers,” or “women just can’t hack the political food fight.”
Women often caught the blame for hanging back and acting reserved even though this behavior often resulted from the influence of condescending, chauvinist men. For instance, "The feminists complained that influence was bought at the price of establishing sexual liaisons with male leaders." The thought of becoming involved with group leaders simply to achieve a more substantial status in the movement exemplifies the core problem; women had to do something extra besides simply being themselves to achieve the same rank as men.Similar indeed to the conundrum facing many female bloggers, particularly those who focus on issues that have been deemed “secondary” by the more influential male bloggers. And not to put too fine a point on it, but when the biggest female blogger—you know, the one who ends up on all the panels—is famous for anal sex jokes, it sort of starts to make one feel we’ve barely moved an inch in the right direction. Sex appeal is still the best way to get attention. If all a girl’s got to offer is brains, what’s the point? Dudes already have those.
The women who did get involved ended up with mostly mindless tasks such as handing out flyers, getting petitions signed, and doing "household chores" for the men. The men who did the planning and who drove the movement saw women as a "distraction in the workplace."Gosh, swatting away women’s concerns like an annoying gnat, like a distraction from the “important shit”…I know that sounds familiar…where did I just see someone doing that…?
Oh. Right.
And so it looks like a fracture is beginning again, for the same damn reasons. The “leaders” would tell us it’s our fault, for not listening to their dictates that our concerns are of secondary importance. Just do as we say and march in lockstep with us toward a common goal, and you’ll eventually get what you want.
You know something…? I just don’t believe them.
SCOTUS on Pot
Or, rather, their decision regarding medical marijuana. Perhaps if they smoked a blunt now and again, they might make better decisions, I don’t know.
Anyway, I’ve been meaning to write something about this, namely how fucking annoying it is, but Gordon over at Alternate Brain has got things covered pretty well. He’s done a couple of posts on the subject, but perhaps the most important one is this one, in which he discusses (ahem) the media coverage of the decision. It’s illustrative of (once again) how the conservative spin continually goes unchallenged, which means that the public remains woefully ill-informed. Go check it out, and think (once again) about how fucked up our media really is, and how that effects our country.
Question
Can anyone find anything indicating that John Kerry actually brought up the Downing Street Memo yesterday, like he said he was going to?
(BTW, The Fixer's asking the same question, and has Kerry's quote if you missed it.)
Downing Street Update
Action Alert:
Today’s media contacts as part of the Awaken the Mainstream Media campaign are:
(A) Washington Post Ombudsman, Michael Getler. email: ombudsman@washpost.com phone: 202-334-7582 fax: 202-334-5269
(B) USA Today Managing Editor of News, Carol Stevens. phone: 800-872-0001 or 703-854-3400 fax: 703-854-2165 email: editor@usatoday.com
(C) Toledo Blade Ombudsman, Jack Lessenberry. email: omblade@aol.com phone: 419-724-6200
Good News:
Congressman Conyers is up to 145,000 signatures on his letter to President Bush. If you still haven’t signed the letter, head on over—and encourage everyone you know to show their support by signing, too.
The Big Brass Alliance is now up to over 360 members! (A reminder to members—be sure to check in daily with the BBA Forum, where we’ll continue to post Media Contacts, Action Alerts, Blogswarming Information, etc. in the Alliance News thread. And be sure to contribute your own thoughts, ideas, news tips, etc. in the open threads, from which we cull the most imperative information into the Alliance News thread for one-stop shoppers.
GOP Counterspin:
The “there’s nothing new in the Downing Street Memo” refrain is getting a little thin, so the GOP faithful are trying out a new argument, namely that the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" [HR 4655] gave the President all the authorization he needed to invade Iraq. This is, of course, utter bullshit. To give you an idea of how resoundingly, laughably, far-fetched this assertion actually is, I’m going to reprint the entire resolution summary here so we can all take a look at for what it really provided:
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.So, it makes regime change our official policy, but instead of saying anything about an invasion, goes on to explicitly list all the ways in which the US Government might work with Iraqi dissidents (and the United Nations), while providing humanitarian assistance during the transition to democracy. No war authorization is explicit or implicit; claims to the contrary are patently false.
Authorizes the President, after notifying specified congressional committees, to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations: (1) grant assistance for radio and television broadcasting to Iraq; (2) Department of Defense (DOD) defense articles and services and military education and training (IMET); and (3) humanitarian assistance, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled from areas under the control of the Hussein regime. Prohibits assistance to any group or organization that is engaged in military cooperation with the Hussein regime. Authorizes appropriations.
Directs the President to designate: (1) one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that meet specified criteria as eligible to receive assistance under this Act; and (2) additional such organizations which satisfy the President's criteria.
Urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.
Expresses the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people and democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, including convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to the foreign debt incurred by the Hussein regime.
(Common sense, it should be pointed out, would also suggest that if the resolution had actually provided Bush with the authorization to invade Iraq, he wouldn’t have sought additional Congressional approval. Duh.)
So keep your eyes peeled for the spin machine doing its magic, and get yourself well-versed in what the resolution actually says, because we’re all going to need to know. (Also visit the Democratic Underground for a discussion of possible responses.)
BBA Update: New Nation "Online Only" article
There is a new online article by Nation writer Steve Cobble entitled "After Downing Street" that can be found here. It's really no new information, but it is a nice short article that's convenient for printing out and handing around, if you need something like that. (I posted it in the lunchroom at my office.)
Yet once again, "bloggers" apparently only means Kos, and no mention of the BBA. Le sigh. They also have a link to After Downing Street and to Downingstreetmemo.com. I thought it was odd that the email alerting me to this article had a link to the actual minutes from the meeting, but that was left out of the article. Que sera, sera.
There's also a link to a short article by Jeremy Scahill on the pre-war bombing/antagonizing of Iraq.
Together... they are... [announcer voice]Information... You Can Use!![/announcer voice]
(Don't you... cross-post about me...)
Downing Street Debate
Recently Kevin Baas, who authors Notes from the Real World, had a conversation with a conservative blogger about the relevance of the Downing Street Memo and the objectives of liberal who are seeking a formal inquiry in regard to its contents.
You’ve got to read this exchange. By the time Generic Conservative Blogger gets to “I refuse to go around and around with someone who refuses to factor in 9/11,” invoking The Tragedy That Justifies Everything to try to stop Kevin in his tracks, one realizes that every conversation with every ideologue conservative on every issue follows exactly the same pattern. It’s rather amusing in a pathetic sort of way.
Kevin does a good job of winding GCB up, too - simply by being reasonable (and right).
