I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Well, it's interesting, but it raises more questions than it answers. And it's certainly not the FULL scoop, especially since her final point is that Franklin is just bait for much bigger fish.
Also: first?
So this is story that "should shuffle the tectonic plates under that capital city"...
Hmmm....
Is this gonna be all over CNN? Mark Hacking who? Laci Peterson which? Kobe Bryant what now? From now on the name on everyone's lips is gonna be Larry Franklin! Mark my words!
"All the Iranian intelligence operatives who speak Arabic? But the Iranians *are* Arabs! Right?"
- future quote from any given network talking head and/or president of the US.
Is it possible that a cigar is just a cigar, and that Larry Franklin DID pass on info. he shouldn't have passed on?
The fact that Laura Rozen can't write for shit undermines her credibility in my mind. "A couple weeks ago, he got called..." Or is that just my liberal elitism showing?
Rick...the Iranians are not Arabs, but are not friends of Israel either, and that is what this whole Dubya-like affair is all about.
The unfolding story now exposes the neo-con sub structure for what it is, a form of international political wing of the Likud.
I feel truly sorry for the people who still trust the lives of their children and loved ones to Bush and his grisly, blood soaked gang. We are seeing America's might being used as tin mittens for another country and it is appalling.
Will the story gain legs? It depends. On the net it will spread like wildfire. Every "The Lone Gunmen" blog group will get on this. Will the mainstream press get on it...? Cautiously I think. the fear being that editors and TV talking heads will not want to be seen stoking the flames of what could become a severe anti-Jewish backlash. In all honesty, this is a possibility.
Yet, and I think this is important, Jewish Americans have been as completely betrayed by the Sharon/Likud/neo-con machinations as the rest of us.
This latest exercise in Dubya failure could become very, very ugly.
Yet another reson why Kerry will lose. This story, coming out as late as it did will ensure that only the die-hard read it. Kerry's strategist are off. Yet y'all still keep complaining about the media-as if that were going to change anything.
This smells of scapegoating. Can we trust the justice department to conduct unbiased investigations? It sounds like wishful thinking that Franklin is being set-up to nab bigger fish. It sounds like he's being set-up, period.
Conservative, what fish are you hoping to catch here?
The fact that Laura Rozen can't write for shit undermines her credibility in my mind. "A couple weeks ago, he got called..." Or is that just my liberal elitism showing?
No, Rozen is a very poor writer; the article is difficult to follow. I can live with the fact that she writes in vernacular, but her inability to connect the dots and drive the point home--to vernaculize--makes one wonder is she fully grasps the story. Let's hope the devil's in the details and that her investigative skills are superior to her writing ability.
Hell, why doesn't she just let Marshall write these things?
Elizabeth,
As I am a vegetarian, I don't consume fish.
Hmmmm--
Chalabi's home and office in Iraq were raided several months ago, he was arrested, but apparently not, for selling secrets to Iran, and he's still wandering free, obviously due to very powerful friends in the Administration.
Now the FBI is angling again, and Chalabi is involved. Directly? Indirectly?
Is someone in the FBI determined to do their job, in spite of Administration interference? Are we close to making the case that Bush'a administration is clearly corrupt? That it is interfereing with the course of justice? That it cares more about it's friends than about the rule of law?
Elizabeth<
I may be conservative, but that does not change the facts. One of the differences between liberals and conservatives in the United States is that liberals tend to see politics as a debate over issues and policies, whereas conservatives view politics as "the continuation of war by other means." This was taken from the Allternet guys, but it is true. Dems lose elections b/c they are wimps, scared to fight. it's pathetic
Conservative...I am puzzled. The Franklin business is spreading around Doug Feith and Wolfowitz. These men are Bush administration people. these ghoulish characters are responsible for the disaster unfolding in Iraq and the fiasco in Afghanistan.
How does this impact on Kerry?
That makes no sense at all.
TRUTH is irrelevant, SPIN is all-important. Prepare to be assimilated.
Okay, so a pro-Israel lobbying group has more influence with the NSC than does the DIA? An Iran analyst working for Feith can't get anyone to read his policy papers, so he has to send them through a foreign government first?
Conservative -
You're scared and you're trying to cloud up this thread.
Go somewhere's else with your bait and tackle.
Yet another reson--
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..
.
TRUTH is irrelevant, SPIN is all-important. Prepare to be assimilated.
Which is why Newt Gingrich and Ken Starr brought down Bill Clinton so quickly and decisively.
Come back when you have some substance. As Bluegill said: Troll your lures somewhere else.
This will not affect Kerry at all, which is precisley the problem. If roles were reversed. FOX news and the rest of them would have BREAKING NEWS. Eventually, CNN would have to pick it up, and then the print media. The story would continue to dominate and overshadow the convention, giving the candidate a negative bounce. But Dems are wussies so this will be a 1-2 day story tops. Dems are incapable of playing hardball
Just b/c I am conservative, does not mean I am voting for W. Don't assume.
This will not affect Kerry at all, which is precisley the problem. If roles were reversed. FOX news and the rest of them would have BREAKING NEWS. Eventually, CNN would have to pick it up, and then the print media.
Faulty analysis. Read Lewis Lapham's essay in the latest "Harpers" for a beginning. FoxNews is practially a mouthpiece for the GOP. Of course they'd be broadcasting this is "roles were reversed." That isn't a consequence of a Democractic failure to "play hardball." It's an historic consequence of a decision taken by several very wealthy men over four decades ago, in response to the election of LBJ (and defeat of Goldwater), and the anti-war protests of the '60's.
Learn some history.
NO that has nothing to do with it. Liberals never think strategiclly, just tactically and defencively. There are easy ways to neuter the opponent, but dems are to scared to employ them
Do we know for certain this particular investigation is not an offshoot of Patrick Fitzgerald's current Plame investigation? It's already been said that this Pentagon espionage is connected with the forged Niger documents.
And I almost forgot to mention: in recent reporting on Fitzgerald's grand jury, it's been said that in addition to charges of revealing an agent's identity (and possibly obstruction charges), further charges involving treason and/or espionage were being examined. This has not yet been WIDELY reported, but if it's true, I'm betting there's a connection.
And with Judith Fucking Miller getting subpoenaed, it almost seems there HAS to be a connection somehow. At least to Chalabi, and some of the neo-con stovepipers.
If a tree falls and nobody is around to hear............
honest conservatives know commander codpiece isn't their boy. neo & theo cons however are more than willing to sacrifice everyone to achieve their ends.
no hubris! work hard, dream well.
-J.T.
If a tree falls and nobody is around to hear............
Now lapsing into self-description in a desperate bid for attention.
No, Rozen is a very poor writer; the article is difficult to follow. I can live with the fact that she writes in vernacular
Amen. What a crap piece.
Robert,
The problem with you guys is that you cannot stand some honest constructive critisism. You want to hear that things are OK with the state of your party. Unlike other conservatives that I know, I did not start ad-hominem attacks, but simply exposed a fundamental weakness of your organization. I understand that you have no answer to my arguments, so you question my motives instead. TJ has it right; is he a troll too?
I can stand the honest, constructive criticism, if you must, but honest to God, aren't there enough problems within your own party? There isn't a single issue that George Bush has tackled well, and you want to come here and sling mud at the democrats.
Hey, guys! Anyone want to reply to the questions I've put out in my posts here (on topic)? I was hoping for some input!
Republicans have always been known as fighters. That's why they won World Wars I and II, not Wilson and Roosevelt, why they defeated the Berlin Airlift and not Truman, why they went into South Korean, again not Truman, why they won the Cuban Missle Crisis and not Kennedy, and why they could later claim that Reagan was following tradition when he liberated 37 people during a sporadic though crucial two-hour fight on Granada and why Bush was inspired to successfully invade Panama.
And then Bush junior tried to carry on by infesting Washington---the White House, the Congress, the State Department, the Pentagon---with a collection of unscarred, summer commandoes unseen by any other administration in 200 years.
When he finally was awakened by 9/11 to become the 'War President,' and was forced to pick up arms, he made feints at Afghanistan and then, staying home, again, sent 150,000 other troops to the wrong country.
All of this may be quite acceptable to the Red hicks of the heartland, but history, in time, will look at it differently.
Conservative said, "There are easy ways to neuter the opponent, but dems are to scared to employ them."
Such as?
Robert,
The problem with you guys is that you cannot stand some honest constructive critisism.
Okay, let's take this point by point.
First, what you have here is a herd of cats, not a herd of sheep. So "you guys" is off the mark to begin with. I'm not one of "those guys." I express my own opinions, from my own experience and reasoning. Lumping me with others is a sign of weak reasoning on your part.
And "constructive criticism?" Well, first, I'd like to hear something I haven't heard a thousand times before. Something new, something actually insightful, instead of cliche as wisdom.
You want to hear that things are OK with the state of your party.
I do? It's not "my party," either. I vote Democratic, but I don't "belong" to it. Something about my Protestant upbringing, perhaps. And I think the Democratic Party is in pitiful shape. But it's slightly better than the GOP, and since one of those two nominees is going to win, I'd best support one.
Unlike other conservatives that I know, I did not start ad-hominem attacks, but simply exposed a fundamental weakness of your organization.
And I haven't made an ad hominem attack on you, yet. I'm just not impressed with your reasoning, or your attempts at metaphor.
I understand that you have no answer to my arguments, so you question my motives instead.
I've answered everyone of your "arguments." Your problem is reading comprehension. I don't question your motives. I question your ability to articulate an argument. Which is a fair question in a debate, not, as you undoubtedly will respond, an ad hominem attack.
TJ has it right; is he a troll too?
Who? And why is he right? And why do I care?
Repeating your same assertion repeatedly, hoping for some response so you can jump on the response and "prove" your superior position/argument/ability to reason, is classic "trolling" in my book. You don't like the designation, don't engage in the behavior.
I hate it when I screw up the tags. And repeating it gives me a chance to fix a thing or two.
Robert,
The problem with you guys is that you cannot stand some honest constructive critisism.
Okay, let's take this point by point.
First, what you have here is a herd of cats, not a herd of sheep. So "you guys" is off the mark to begin with. I'm not one of "those guys." I express my own opinions, from my own experience and reasoning. Lumping me with others is a sign of weak reasoning on your part.
And "constructive criticism?" Well, first, I'd like to hear something I haven't heard a thousand times before. Something new, something actually insightful, instead of cliche as wisdom.
You want to hear that things are OK with the state of your party.
I do? It's not "my party," either. I vote Democratic, but I don't "belong" to it. Something about my Protestant upbringing, perhaps. And I think the Democratic Party is in pitiful shape. But it's slightly better than the GOP, and since one of those two nominees is going to win, I'd best support one.
Unlike other conservatives that I know, I did not start ad-hominem attacks, but simply exposed a fundamental weakness of your organization.
And I haven't made an ad hominem attack on you, yet. I'm just not impressed with your reasoning, or your attempts at metaphor. And "fundamental weakness." You haven't touched on that one, yet.
I understand that you have no answer to my arguments, so you question my motives instead.
I've answered everyone of your "arguments." Your problem is reading comprehension. I don't question your motives. I question your ability to articulate an argument. Which is a fair question in a debate, not, as you undoubtedly will respond, an ad hominem attack.
TJ has it right; is he a troll too?
Who? And why is he right? And why do I care?
Repeating your same assertion repeatedly, hoping for some response so you can jump on the response and "prove" your superior position/argument/ability to reason, is classic "trolling" in my book. You don't like the designation, don't engage in the behavior.
Jesus, it's hard for people to communicate these days. Conservative, if you have some advice as to how to "neuter" George Bush, have at it. I'm encouraged to hear you will not necessarily be voting Republican in November.
Wouldn't it be funny if the Bush administration had Iranian and Israeli spies influencing foreign policy?
On media coverage:
This was the lead story on CNN and MSNBC last night, fairly breathless/excited/big time stuff (did not watch Fox), Nightline changed their planned program, and any movement on this story means all the talking heads at the convention next week will keep bringing it up.
Do I assume this will get the coverage it deserves? Well, if it doesn't, it is left to Kerry to make it a major issues, in which case it will be.
Considering Sandy Berger's notes were such a big issue, this damn sure better have some legs. The Rozen link is a first-class piece of coverage, guarded speculation with supporting facts. Just the way we like it.
Conservative is quite right about Democrats being unable to play hardball. Constructive suggestions? I don't know, how about having a Kerry "War Room"? How about getting out the message that the Rethug convention is an "extreme makeover"? How about tying Bush to Tom Delay the way Clinton tied Dole to Gingrich? How about publicizing the Texas GOP platform (might want to see if there are any other extreme GOP platforms out there as well)? How about 30 seconds of Bushisms?
The latest update is that the Pentagon intelligence officer couldn't get intelligence to the White House without passing it through the Israelis.
That is absolutely breathtaking.
"Just b/c I am conservative, does not mean I am voting for W. Don't assume"
Conservative,
If you're really not voting for Bush, then welcome to Eschaton, and I agree with whatever you post. 
save us from the hypocrites
test
test
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
