Bloodless Coup

Don't those blood-for-oil people who said we were just serving the interests of Exxon Mobile look like idiots now?

Errrr, two little problems with that Mo. 1) Some would say this is one area & US firms could still get their own later. And 2) others would say that given the staggering level of incompetence seen in the years since March and April 2003, it would hardly be surprising if enriching US firms was one more airy goal that some in the administration were trying to pursue, yet were unable to actually implement.

It's possible to "serve the interests" of XOM just as ineptly as they've conducted the rest of this war from a strategic perspective. In fact, as Armand says, this is arguably the logical result of years of ineptitude.

So by the same logic, you could argue that the MSM isn't biased in not covering John Edwards' illegitimate child story for three months as much as they covered Palin's downs syndrome daughter's pregnancy in three days, because maybe they're not biased in whose families they respect, they're just incompetent.

Yeah, Morris, the world really is out to get you. The fact that Palin is a governor and a national candidate and Edwards wasn't anything but a private citizen at the time of the story couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.

And I TOTALLY fail to see how that's "the same logic" as arguing that spending several years screwing up Iraq might result in the Iraqis being so pissed at us that even the puppet government we installed won't play with us anymore.

Maybe you can explain it to me, hopefully without resorting to bizarre ungrounded analogies lifted from deranged Freepers, or wherever the hell you get this stuff.

"The same logic"? Like jacflash I haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about. I mean I realize that according to a certain set everything is the fault of the liberal media, always (a tired old refrain prominent in St. Paul tonight), but what that has to do with oil contracts and US government ineptitude ... I'm not clear on that.

"The fact that Palin is a governor and a national candidate and Edwards wasn't anything but a private citizen at the time of the story couldn't possibly have anything to do with it."

The Enquirer reported on the affair in October, they reported that Edwards was the father in December. How was Edwards not a national candidate running for President at that time? The MSM didn't care. So either they're biased, like do-I-look-good-in-this-coat Dan Rather, or they're incompetent. Joe Biden's lobbyist children are under investigation for fraud, after Obama sent millions in earmarks their way; we don't hear about it. Palin gets in the race on Friday, and the news is swamped with stories about her kid, who has downs syndrome. Tell me, are they ruthlessly biased without a moral compass, or unfathomably incompetent?

Okay, you might sort of have a point about Edwards, though I don't know how many resources news bureaus would've needed to put on that story to get it - but basically the above point still stands. Edwards was a failed national candidate, and there was little reason to think he'd emerge as the nominee in '08, so it's not remotely surprising that news bureaus would put fewer resources into covering him than onto someone who is definitely on the national ticket.

As far as Hunter Biden goes (and that's child, not children), those charges have gotten press - in fact they got national press before Biden was picked. And you are being Rovian in your construction of that sentence. Hunter Biden's legal problems have nothing whatsoever to do with Obama. And the fact that Obama earmarked funding for an Illinois project Hunter's firm was pushing ... there's no there there. Obama was providing for his constituents. Biden and his firm were doing there job, pushing that project. There's no evidence of the slightest bit of corruption in that funding.

Morris, I'm assuming that you know that it's not Palin's down's baby who had a child. And I'm assuming as well that you know the only MSM coverage of the down's baby as such has been uniformly positive.

Finally, the New York Times explained at length why it didn't take the Enquirer's (ahem) story and print it: given how hard-core a scandal it represented, they upheld their sourcing guidelines, which I'm not even sure the Enquirer has. They looked into it, couldn't lock it down, and declined to publish it.

And indeed, the best analogy available is to the rather intriguing story concerning the possibility that Trig, the aforesaid Down's baby, was not Sarah's baby, but in fact the oldest daughter Bristol's, quietly adopted by the Gov to protect her daughter. The MSM didn't pick up that story at all, and in fact only even mentioned the existence of that rumor upon the announcement of Bristol's pregnancy, which at that point was justified, since the campaign itself made clear that it was going public precisely to blunt the more pernicious rumors.

So the best analogy here is that the MSM covered neither the Edwards story nor the Bristol mothered Trig story, because neither could be confirmed to their high standards.

As for bias, I can't tell you how many times I've seen, heard, or read the MSM citing Palin's opposition to the Bridge to Nowhere without mentioning that she supported it fervently, as well as supporting the solicitation of as many congressional earmarks as she could get her hands on, right up until she figured out that the Bridge was dead in the water (as it were), and that Ted Stevens was going down in flames, respectively. Nor have they very frequently mentioned that she kept the federal largesse already provided for said bridge. Nor that she ran for Mayor of Wasilla as a divisive, standard-mold, wedge and conquer GOP mainstream standard bearer, nor that she left the town (and where I come from, which might as well be anywhere except Alaska, Wasilla is a town, and a rather small one at that; of course, where I come from, 600,000 people is a mid-sized city, not a state, and my mid-sized city is run by a 27-year old political hack) $20M in debt, which is rather a lot for a tiny little hamlet in Alaska.

This, from the same MSM who never really skewered the numerous times McCain has been patently unable to state what his position is on issues affecting millions of people.

I grant the media has been rather fawning over Obama, but in the fawning department McCain had a ten-year head start, and it hasn't really ended yet. I'm sorry, but legitimate inquiries into the depth of the vetting process and the truth behind Palin's experience are what's left of decent journalism -- it would be far more improper not to look at these questions than it is to do so.

And once again, I'd like to point out that since you insist on referring to Obama condescendingly by his first name (and among politicians, you seldom if ever do this with respect to any GOPers), you're spelling it wrong, over and over and over again. It's either impetuous or ignorant, but in either case it annoys the shit out of me. Of course, that's probably the point. Just wanted to make the observation.