check out safire in ny times

[scarface2004]

what a piece of shit...does he think he s fooling anybody into buying his crap! we need larry flynt to have a day for us to pray this asshole goes to hole...real soon!!

[Skittles]

1. are you going to post a link?

you know how freaking lazy we are

[bearfartinthewoods]

2. link for the lazy

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/22/opinion/22SAFI.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists

The Clintons decided that the Democratic primary campaign was getting out of hand. Howard Dean was getting all the buzz and too much of the passionate left's money. Word was out that Dean as nominee, owing Clintonites nothing, would quickly dump Terry McAuliffe, through whom Bill and Hillary maintain control of the Democratic National Committee.

That's when word was leaked of the former president's observation at an intimate dinner party at the Clinton Chappaqua, N.Y., estate that "there are two stars in the Democratic Party — Hillary and Wes Clark."

Meanwhile, the four-star general that Clinton fired for being a publicity hog during the Kosovo liberation has been surrounded by the Clinton-Gore mafia. Lead agent is Mark Fabiani, the impeachment spinmeister; he brought in the rest of the Restoration coterie. When reporters start poking into any defense contracts Clark arranged for clients after his retirement, he will have the lip-zipping services of the Clinton confidant Bruce Lindsey.

snip

As a boot-in-mouth politician, however, Clark ranks with Arnold Schwarzenegger. He began by claiming to have been pressured to stop his defeatist wartime CNN commentary by someone "around the White House"; challenged, he morphed that source into a Canadian Middle East think tank, equally fuzzy.

Worse, as his Clinton handlers cringed, he blew his antiwar appeal by telling reporters "I probably would have voted for" the Congressional resolution authorizing Bush to invade Iraq. Next day, the chastised candidate flip-flopped, claiming "I would never have voted for war."
Clark's strange explanation: "I've said it both ways, because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position." He put himself in the hot-pretzel position — softly twisted.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Yeap taht is slander number 2

and it is going to get only worst.

[Julien Sorel]

4. Is there any doubt whom the Right fears in an election?

This is a clever mis-mis-direction play by Rove. He's terrified of Dean, and wants Clark to get the nod, but he knows that if the right-wingers go easy on Clark, people will see right through it. So he orders his army of scribing minions to attack Clark, so that people will be fooled into thinking the Right actually fears Dean! Those smooth Republicans -- no wonder they keep winning.

[bearfartinthewoods]

5. you are making me dizzy

[Julien Sorel]

7. That's also part of the Republican plan!

See the subtlety of it, the beauty? And even if you are smart enough to follow all the byzantine twists and turns, when you start telling people what you've figured out, they'll think you're nuts! I'm telling you, Rove is a genius, in a mad scientist kind of way.

[maha]

10. When Conspiracy Theories Attack

The "stalking horse" theory spontaneously generated in several right-wing publications last week. Several examples here:

http://www.mahablog.com/2003.09.21_arch.html#1064170592594

[dkf]

6. I dunno. I've been thinking the same thing for several days now.

Check out latest note from ABC:

Clark, Clinton factor:

Advisers to the other presidential campaigns seem to be of four minds about all these Clinton people getting at least somewhat involved in the Clark effort.

a. These are people who couldn't find work at their preferred level in the other campaigns, and so were flattered to be asked by Clark (who asked many personally). They say that these are the type of people who get on conference calls at the drop of a hat.

b. They are furious that these people are gravitating to Clark, when they know nothing about him.

c. They think that Bill and Hillary Clinton are out of control and however this Clark thing ends up, the Clintons will once again have put their own interests about those of the party.

d. They think the Clintons are up to something.

And check out AP report:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33643-2003Sep19.html

[izzie]

8. Well Now. This is going to far for me.

I can not keep up with it all this. Is this 2004-101 class?I wish to hear from them all. We know that Bush is run by Karl so he is for big business, neo-cons and bible belt. He, Bush, does not do the thinking and we live in fear he may start running things.My God save us from that.He has already made the statement he is 'king' and can think and do as he likes and needs not explain to any one. Where does he get those things. Lets let these 10 talk to us and see what turns up?

[DrBB]

9. Funny how many DUers are in perfect agreement with him

I dunno. I noticed how Safire's colleague, Buchanan, has been right on target about the Iraq boondoggle. Makes me uncomfortable to agree with him, but I know where it's coming from: he's an old-style isolationist conservative. Didn't think we should've gone into WWII either. So I know where the boundaries are.

I also know where Safire's coming from. He's the one who was pushing and pushing and pushing the Saddam-9/11 connection all last year. That meeting in Czecho--he couldn't let go of it. He has carried more water for ShrumpCorp than just about anyone. He's doing his utmost to make up for having been on the "wrong" side against Bush I, back in the day. Criticizing him for Iraq-gate 'n' stuff. Though even there he did his uttermost to make it clear the Big Boy was "misled by advisers." So now he's gotta show his absolute purity and loyalty (loyalty is all, to ShrumpCorp), to prove he's a good doggie, he's on the team.

In other words, nary a word comes out of his mouth that isn't ideologically driven to support Shrump and the GOP.

So I thought, you know, kinda interesting how he's shoveling the EXACT SAME "double-bank-shot conspiracy theories" (as Josh Marshall says in his analysis of Safire's piece) that I've been reading here.

If I were a Clark basher, I'd be feeling a little, I dunno, icky right now.

edit: added some stuff to clarify