WB: NewsBusters … – Moon of Alabama

November 10, 2006

WB: NewsBusters …

Billmon:

In any case, the truth — an unknown quantity to the shrill liberal harpies at the Washington Post — is that most true conservatives actually hated the Republican Congress, and are overjoyed the GOP lost because it will allow them to focus all their energy on attacking the Democrats and their phony promises of bipartisanship.

NewsBusters
Hysterically Denouncing Liberal Media Bias

Media Traitors Rejoice in Democrat "Success"

Posted by b on November 10, 2006 at 20:22 UTC | Permalink

Comments

WaPo “journalism”:
1st version:

Bush indicated that he had made the decision to replace Rumsfeld before the elections, … He appeared to acknowledge having misled reporters, saying, “And so the only way to answer that question and to get you onto another question was to give you that answer.”

2nd version:

He said that he had begun to contemplate Rumsfeld’s exit before the election

Posted by: b | Nov 10 2006 20:26 utc | 1

Howard Dean Says No Impeachment Of Bush
Pardon me? (pun intended)

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Nov 10 2006 21:49 utc | 2

This probably isn’t really news:
Friday (yesterday for me) was/is Veterans Day in the US. I put up a post at “Today In Iraq” It’s quite a long post. You’ll have to scroll a bit to get to the end. You might find this upsetting.

Posted by: markfromireland | Nov 11 2006 1:56 utc | 3

News and Information
In other news, a communique from OKW reports that as our forces have made strategic withdrawls into the city, it will create shorter lines of supply and communication, allowing our heroic soldiers to more easily focus on defeating the Bolshivek forces attempting to destroy our nation.
—Berlin Volks-Zeitung April 30, 1945

Posted by: Austin Cooper | Nov 11 2006 2:40 utc | 4

after a week from hell that did have some highlights – i take advantage of the cable tv on offer at a friends home & what do i see –
-mock heroic reminiscences of a embedded scribbler about her relation with live & dead american soldiers on cnn
-on bbc pumped up plots from scenic garages in sussex of islamist conspirators
-general concern that fuckface bolton will not get a fair shake
& other assorted assertions that have worn themselves out long before the 6th army as surrounded in stalingrad
the only light was mr waxman & his demonic eyes telling us he will be on halliburton’s ass amongst a great choice of enquirees to pursue
as mr dylan sd – it aint dark yet but its getting there

Posted by: r’giap | Nov 11 2006 3:00 utc | 5

Yes, we may not get to impeach Bush. But Billmon has been so happy and upbeat since the election. It’s a good thing.

Posted by: Martha Stewart | Nov 11 2006 5:02 utc | 6

It’s not just Billmon, Martha. After all, it’s morning in America again.

Posted by: Sausaletus Rex | Nov 11 2006 5:41 utc | 7

too bad its not morning in iraq

Azzaman has been able to come up with a little more, in its Saturday edition by combining Washington with Baghdad reporting, and focusing on any likely immediate effects in Baghdad. Their story goes like this: Peter Pace, head of the joint chiefs of staff, said a group of generals is preparing a package of recommendations for Bush on changes to Iraq strategy following the Rumsfeld departure. The rest of what Pace said was argle-bargle, … Talking to Iraqi politicians, they found that the Iraqi parties, particularly those with militias, have been meeting secretly for two days straight, trying to figure out what the Rumsfeld departure might mean for them…… an all-points order to the various militias to hide their weapons, limit the locations at which they appear publicly, and generally prepare for the possibility of surprise attacks. …. US sources as saying the changes could include “more pressure on the Iraqi government to disarm the militias”, and that in exchange for that, there could be agreement on a “timetable for withdrawal”. “And the sources didn’t rule out that the withdrawal could begin within 18 months, or in other words prior to the end of the Bush administration. But the sources added that this issue could still be unresolved at the time of the next presidential election…” In other words, there is talk of a promise to start the withdrawal within 18 months, but that wouldnt necessarily mean that Bush’s successor won’t face issues respecting this. And it seems that at least part of the quid pro quo would be disarming the militias (or launching a US attack on them).

Posted by: annie | Nov 11 2006 6:10 utc | 8

this sounds about right.
tin foil time

Everything we watched Bush do since Wednesday morning seems to be geared in one direction: Bringing Democrats to the table on Iraq. The problem for the Democrats is this: They came to office without a plan for Iraq. Bush doesn’t seem to have one either. Nobody does, although James Baker and his friends are said to be working on one. But now whatever emerges from the coming discussions will not longer be the GOP plan. It will be the Bush/Democrats’ plan.
And we’re afraid that the war planners are expecting things to get worse over there in 2007. Good politicians are able to ensure that when bad fallout is inevitable, that the blame can be shared. A GOP majority in Capitol Hill would have guaranteed that “the Republican war in Iraq” would dominate the 2008 presidential race, and that equation would hand the keys to the White House to the Democrats for sure. And Bush’s patrons — oilmen and the defense contractors — need the White House a lot more than Congress, especially after the recent expansion of presidential powers. And now both parties will have a stake in Iraq, and the mostly likely in the coming fiasco there.
So, does that make sense, or is it the most ridiculous theory ever? There are certainly holes. The GOP did spend millions on dirty tricks like robo-calls, although the impetus seemed to come from the individual campaigns more than the White House. There was the November surprise of the Saddam Hussein death sentence, although that carried much less of a wallop than when the scheme was first cooked up. It wasn’t that long agp that Rove and others were talking of a “permanent Republican majority.”
Is Karl Rove not the evil genius we all thought he was, or is he brilliant beyond the reckoning power of us mere mortals? Whatever the strategery, the more we look at it, the more we think that Bush’s difficult next two years may work out slightly better for him with a Democratic Congress.

Posted by: annie | Nov 11 2006 9:11 utc | 9

Am I the only person who heard Rahm Emmanuel on NPR a couple days after the election, enumerate a Democratic agenda for the next two years, which included “enactment of the recommendations of the Baker Study group”? I did a doubletake, not because it surprised me that this would be his position, but because I did not expect him to express it yet.
I have seen no written reference to this statement since, so maybe my fevered, fearful ears imagined it.??
If he did say it, it suggests that he already knows the Study recommendations. Does anyone expect that it will include any meaningful withdrawal?
I’ll echo John Francis Lee’s recommendation of this article on Emmanuel’s career. Cockburn may or may not be overreacting, but he provides more information that any other media sources have offered. And it looks like Emmanuel has just won a very influential position in the Dem party.

Posted by: small coke | Nov 11 2006 21:32 utc | 10

Back to Main