Here I am bloggingheadsing with Reihan Salam mostly talking about HITS but the New York Times liked the part about Iran.
« Now We Know | Main | Outdated »
My Head Blogs
07 May 2008 08:46 am
Comments (7)
I saw the NYTimes video yesterday and thought it was brilliant satire: the problem of Iranian interference in Iraq. Ha! I mean, as Americans, to talk about that with a straight face is just stunningly hard.
I learned I've been pronouncing 'chimera' wrong for almost 4 decades.
Matthew:
Don't you feel extremely awkward, dare I say "hypocritical", to denounce our current foreign policy, since you yourself were in favor of the AUMF in 2003?
I've never once seen you apologize for this, rather you've written an entire book which is completely contradictory to your support for this horrible foreign policy mess that we're currently in.
I read today a quote that said "takes down hapless Democrats (and the Republicans they sided with) on their foreign policy screwups and points them back to what works."
Are you going to also "take down" yourself?
How can you do book tours and promote this thing, knowing full well that you're just as much at fault for our current mess as anyone that you call "hapless"?
This, to me, is a joke.
I can't see the video because the NYT has no comprehension how to do multimedia, which doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
What did Matt say about Iran?
If he didn't answer my two questions, I'm not sure I care, but I want to know if he said anything exceptionally stupid.
Nice job on the f-bombs!
OK, I skipped through it and spotted Matt's comments on Iran.
BTW, Matt, saying "another fifteen years of this is dumb" was pretty cool. Calling the other guy directly "You're dumb!" was even cooler. So don't complain when I do it to you every day.
On Iran, Matt basically just did his usual song and dance. Yes, we should do diplomacy, yes, we shouldn't have this overall hostility to Iran, yeah, yeah, Matt, we know and we agree.
Now answer my two fucking questions, please.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Speaking of the idiots populating the Times writing staff:
By Adam Nagourney
New York Times
4:01 a.m. ET, Wed., May. 7, 2008
“Her showing in the two states did not permit Mrs. Clinton to cut into Mr. Obama’s lead in pledged delegates or his overall lead in the popular vote.
Indeed, Mr. Obama may have widened his delegate lead over Mrs. Clinton, an outcome with mathematic and political resonance.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WTF? At 4AM Nagourney writes Obama MAY have widened his delegate lead? Uh, didn’t just about every political junkie/journo/pollster/consultant pretty much conclude the night’s results plainly result in a widening of the delegate count in Obama’s favor? He won the larger of the two states in play by a wide margin. How in the hell does “may have widened” even make its way into a paragraph? Geez.
Posted by steve duncan | May 7, 2008 8:58 AM