pudge's Journal: Karl Rove, Boy Genius

Here's the story: shoot your friend in the face, and thereby keep the latest Abu Ghraib pictures out of the news, and make the press look like completely out-of-touch buffoons in the process.

Who but Karl Rove could have devised such a plan?

Best quote of the last week: The press corps that noisily champions "the public's right to know" about a minor hunting accident simultaneously assures the public that they've no need to see these Danish cartoons that have caused riots, arson and death around the world.

Second best quote of the week (from the same article), in reference to NBC's David Gregory comparing the delay in Cheney notifying the press to the delay in Ted Kennedy notifying authorityies: Hmm. Let's see. On the one hand, the guy leaves the gal at the bottom of the river struggling for breath pressed up against the window in some small air pocket while he pulls himself out of the briny, staggers home, sleeps it off and saunters in to inform the cops the following day that, oh yeah, there was some broad down there. And, on the other hand, the guy calls 911, has the other fellow taken to the hospital, lets the sheriff know promptly but neglects to fax David Gregory's make-up girl!

Karl Rove, you are a genius.

and that's the thing

[ellem]

the PRESS was outraged by this... not anyone else.

Re:and that's the thing

[buffer-overflowed]

We got a great joke out of it though.

Me I'm more concerned we're outsourcing freakin' port management to the UAE. Bad enough when it was the British.

No outsourcy national security stuff.

My favorite Point

[nandorman]

Although I forget now who said it, someone made the point that if Cheney had called Gregory personally and offered him an exclusive on the story (instead of having the story presented in a full White House press briefing), would he have refused? Of course not. Gregory's (and the rest of them) real problem is that he didn't get the scoop or wasn't the first to know, NOT that the PUBLIC wasn't informed right away.

Re:My favorite Point

[pudge]

I believe Mary Matalin said that to Gregory on Meet the Press. Gregory was really ticked at her, and showed it, but mostly kept his cool. I kinda like Gregory; he's a decent guy, and I don't believe he is a partisan, or biased against the administration. I think he honestly just wants to do what he thinks is the best job he can do. I merely think he has a slightly skewed perspective on what makes for doing a good job.

Great story Pudge

[geoswan]

You left out a few key details though.

* You left out that the original version of events from Armstrong was that no one had been drinking, although Cheney acknowledged that he had been drinking.
* You left out that the local law enforcement officials were not allowed on to the ranch until the next morning, when all the members of the shooting party would have a chance to sober up. Seriously, you can't see how that is like the Ted Kennedy incident?

An article in the Washington Post said that Cheney had

Re:Great story Pudge

[pudge]

You left out that the original version of events from Armstrong was that no one had been drinking, although Cheney acknowledged that he had been drinking.

False on both counts.

Armstrong said she did not SEE anyone drinking the day of the accident, not that no one had been drinking on that day.

And Cheney said he had a beer or two at lunch, not that he "had been drinking." It takes about an hour per drink for alcohol to leave your system, and if he had two beers at 1 p.m., and the hunting began at 3 p.m. (wit

Responsible journalism

[geoswan]

You may be an insider, with privileges that exceed those of the rest of us, but do you think that eliminates your obligation to do fact-checking before you write? Do you think it eliminates your obligation to be civil, and refrain from insulting accusations?

Katherine Armstrong is a professional lobbyist. Her career depends on reducing the VPOTUS's embarrassment. Not surprisingly she tried to suggest that Cheney was blameless, and the shooting was all Whittington's fault.

You don't seem to have notice

Re:Responsible journalism

[pudge]

You may be an insider, with privileges that exceed those of the rest of us, but do you think that eliminates your obligation to do fact-checking before you write? Do you think it eliminates your obligation to be civil, and refrain from insulting accusations?

You stated several things that were false. You said Armstrong said something she initially said, but later took back. You said Cheney said something he did not say. You said the sheriff's department was disallowed from investigating, which is false.

You have a funny definition of "false"

[geoswan]

You wrote:

You stated several things that were false. You said Armstrong said something she initially said, but later took back.

What I wrote was:

You left out that the original version of events from Armstrong was that no one had been drinking.

So, without regard to whether she later amended her position she originally said no one had been drinking.

That means what I wrote was not false, by any reasonable definition of false.

I asked you if you didn't see the incident suggesting that Cheney

Re:You have a funny definition of "false"

[pudge]

So, without regard to whether she later amended her position she originally said no one had been drinking.

That means what I wrote was not false, by any reasonable definition of false.

Nonsense. You were not keep an exhaustive list of events that had happened: you were attempting to show that her story was different from Cheney's. It wasn't. What you said was false.

If I say, "geoswan said, 'I wet my bed,' and that shows that he is to this day a bed-wetter," I would be saying something false, even if it is