« If at First You Don't Succeed, Succeed and Succeed Again | Main | History Lane - The First Macintosh 1984 »

July 18, 2008

Comments

if Obama does not show up in Iraq tomorrow, I will neither be surprised nor take that as evidence that McCain was wrong

If Obama doesn't show up in Iraq tomorrow, the usual idiots will say it was because he was "afraid", unlike manly-man McCain.

That way Obama just can't win.

Hilzoy- You're probably right that McCain was just stupid (not malicious) to say this. But what's disturbing to me is that it isn't beyond belief that his statement was intentional and meant to endanger Obama.

That's one of the things I miss most about the pre-Bush years (granted I'm a bit young to know much other than Clinton and W. Bush). If Bob Dole had said something boneheaded like this, we'd laugh it off as a stupid mistake.

Is it *terribly* naive of me to think that politics was a little more innocent before Bush?

MeDrewNotYou: I think that the turning point was when the Gingrich Republicans took over, myself. (A previous turning point was Nixon's election.)

But I really can't imagine that McCain did this on purpose. I just can't. He can be mean ("Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?"), he reportedly has an explosive temper, he doesn't seem to know or care about policy, but trying to endanger his opponent's life is a different thing altogether. (And it would have to be endangering his opponent's life. For Obama to be attacked and survive would be, politically, good for Obama. If we have to think of things in these terms, which I only do because I want to say: assuming the kinds of calculations we're talking about, he'd have to be aiming at Obama's death. And that, I just don't see at all.)

this is the kind of behavior you can expect from someone who has spent decades as a Senator! Armed Services Committee! a Maverick! a War hero!

bah. Obama's just a cnnt and a trollop, a g ük, a gorilla-raped woman who misses her attacker, a dog like Chelsea's mom. he deserves it! McCain can't be at fault. he doesn't have a mean bone in his body.

did i forget to mention.... experience!

Hilzoy- Any reason why '94 in particular? That is, had it been building up slowly, or are Gingrich and Co. just kinda scummy that way?

Also, just Drew is fine, it saves wear on the overused 'Y' and 'U' keys. ^.^

"Hilzoy- You're probably right that McCain was just stupid (not malicious) to say this. But what's disturbing to me is that it isn't beyond belief that his statement was intentional and meant to endanger Obama."

Then that's you, not him.
Meanwhile, let's not acknowledge that McCain didn't make this public. This response to a question from a reporter, the same reporter who then presumably made this public as newsworthy solely on the basis that making it public was a terrible, terrible mistake.

Obama isn't undergoing rendition. It's a voluntary trip involving a presidential candidate and more than one senator. You know how many thousands of conversations there will have been organising such movements to which the press are privy SINCE IT INVOLVES THEM GOING TOO and here we see the one conversation selected to be leaked publically, with that decision coming from a reporter.

Cleek- You forgot integrity. Why do you hate our troops?

I am sorry to say that on this one I think you lack imagination. It reminds me of the RFK in June comment by Senator Clinton. Just to be on the safe side, I think they ought to take Cindy with them.

There you go misrepresenting McCain's words again, Hilzoy!

McCain didn't say that Obama would be in Iraq this weekend, he said he *believed* Obama would be there this weekend. His remark wasn't at all about Obama's travel plans, it was about his very own mental state. Indeed, I don't really see how you could even infer anything about where Obama's going to be this weekend from what he said.

When will you stop being unfair to McCain?

(Not to mention: we really can't even draw conclusions about McCain's mental state from what he said. After all, he hasn't given us enough details yet. What time-zone does he have in mind? Is that "tomorrow" local time? (And "local" where--Iraq or where McCain was speaking? Or where were reading?) Eastern Standard? Pacific Daylight Savings?)

Speaking of McCain's mental state, if this indeed slipped out, it does sound like another example of why he's too old -- but that's probably because I've been around too many garrulous old men lately who say inappropriate things all the time.

Kilo: "Meanwhile, let's not acknowledge that McCain didn't make this public."

Please. I suppose that if McCain described war plans, or nuclear warhead designs, in front of a reporter, you'd say that he hadn't "made them public"? I suppose not even issuing a press release with a detailed description of the disposition of all our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan would count as "making something public", since he only told the reporters.

We're talking about something quite serious here. Two things, actually: compromising the security of Sens. Obama, Reed, and Hagel, and all the people with them; and whether or not McCain has the discipline and the judgment to keep his mouth shut when he needs to. Neither is well served by saying that when someone says something in the presence of reporters, he's not "making it public".

McCain should not have done this. And the New York Times should not have published a picture of McCain’s son before he deployed to Iraq. McCain had asked the Times not to publish the article, but they did anyway.

If McCain was smarter, he would just ensure that Obama stickers, buttons, and signs were readily available for the residents of Sadr City so that they could give a good show for the cameras.

I don't care about Old Man McCain's mental state because he's not going to win. I do care about the nation's mental state, which baffles me.

Why the hell is Obama going to Iraq in the first place? I have not heard a single serious person ask that question. So a not-serious person like me is forced to ask it. If the question is not worth asking because the answer is trivially obvious, then please, somebody, let me in on it.

-- TP

Obama is all Kennedy and Harvard. Peace Corps and Green Berets. What are the other Senators doing?

ONE program paid a bunch of them to go to Rwanda today where PC opened today.

http://www.one.org/blog/2008/07/18/plane-taking-off-for-rwanda/

But I really can't imagine that McCain did this on purpose. I just can't.

This, I think, is a good example of one of the defining differences between the political culture of the left and the right. If the shoe was on the other foot, could the conservative bloggers imagine such a thing was done on purpose? Oh, You bet they could--for weeks and months on end. They'd certainly need a lot more evidence to say for sure. They're still not entirely sure whether Barack Obama loves his own grandmother. Would he risk his opponent's life? Let's ask him . . . Does such a disclosure meet the technical definition of treason? Hmm! . . . etc. etc.

Part of the reason I've moved left over the years is the generosity and decency I see on this side of the aisle when it comes to core character questions. I would hate for the left to lose that.

At the same time, I think it's undeniable that there's a real political cost to giving your opponents the benefit of the doubt. And some of them really don't deserve it.

It's okay you edited the terrorism(Blair isn't Obama, really), but that's all Obama does. Anyway, Intelligence committee(see Afghanistan funding) Shays has problems with PC too.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/18/173744/732

KOS is an RPCV too. He also likes editing, so it's okay about Shays and his wife having a party.

Please. I suppose that if McCain described war plans, or nuclear warhead designs, in front of a reporter, you'd say that he hadn't "made them public"? -- hilzoy

Well that's an open question isn't it. Meanwhile mine's answered. We now know that if it's pointed out that a reporter made this public on the sole basis that making it public was a terrible idea, you will in fact avoid acknowledging that, as predicted.

But in response, my first reaction would be, why have I been hearing about nuclear plans in the press for a week and who will be involved if this is supposed to be a secret ?

These people going to Iraq isn't news. Personally I'd like to hear a half-arsed, ill-informed arguement for WTF difference it makes whether it is known he'll be there within the next month or tomorrow. What ?

They're either going to drive his arse down route Irish in which case a month's notice is the same as a minute's or they're not, in which case neither matters.

I suppose not even issuing a press release with a detailed description of the disposition of all our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan would count as "making something public", since he only told the reporters.

Who are you again ? Any relation to the "hilzoy" who just published a post on the sole topic of whether people should have views they haven't expressed attributed to them:
"[He did not say any of those things]...Despite that fact, people felt compelled to make assumptions about his views on these questions, and to criticize him for what they imagined he must think.
I think this is not just wrong, but dangerous."

Are you an imposter, or just an arsehole with a short memory and flexible standards ?

We're talking about something quite serious here. Two things, actually:

Or we were until those 2 "serious" things were eclipsed by half a dozen far more serious ones such as nuclear plans and troop movements.

compromising the security of Sens. Obama, Reed, and Hagel, and all the people with them;

Again, Hagel, Reed and Obama going to Iraq has been in the news for a week. Their security was already compromised on the basis that they were already known to be going to Iraq. Before, during and after this comment from McCain, nothing changed except that anyone wishing to kill them needs to be in place in a much shorter timeframe. That place they need to be in is...... ?

Oh right, it's the one piece of info you need to kill anyone, the one piece that makes it irrelevant how much notice you have and it's revealed by neither.

...and whether or not McCain has the discipline and the judgment to keep his mouth shut when he needs to.

Why on earth would we be talking about that ? Is there no such thing as a settled issue ?

Neither is well served by saying that when someone says something in the presence of reporters, he's not "making it public".

What is served by ignoring the fact that this was publicised not by McCain but by a reporter ?

You mentioned disclosure of troop movements before. WTF you think is the key to those getting disclosed you idiot ? That nobody in the military in Iraq said shit about what was occurring for months and years on end while they were being flanked by embedded reporters or the reporters making a decision about what they shouldn't publicise ?

In this case, as pointed out and steadfastly ignored, is that the reporter made this information public solely on the basis that it was a bad idea to make it public. No comment still ?

The closer example here of course is not the composition of troop forces in Iraq, but where those troops will be moving to, disclosed in the press for a week beforehand. Reporting that troops will be advancing to (say) Tikrit during the invasion. You think knowing whether that's happening a week or a day out makes any difference to preparations for it ?

I said if a reporter is asking this and then publicising it specifically on the basis of how bad it is to make this public, this information available to scores and scores of reporters, then the decision made by the reporter is what's caused this security issue.

Valerie Plame didn't have a problem with Joe Wilson shopping her credentials around to reporters for months in 2003 ("Joe Wilson’s been calling everybody"), not until one of them decided to make that information public.

Given the years dedicated to examination of that news story, you've no doubt made the same distinction you make here, right ?
I'll obviously be able to find you pointing the finger at Joe Wilson's culpability for revealing his wife's occupation to reporters in your archives, won't I ? Yes, no ?
Oh sorry, it's the flexibility, I forgot.

I understand the need to write nothing, but, for the KOS readers; the meetings about PC and the Bush administration KOS mentions were actually meetings about classified CIA intelligence from RPCVs in relation to Plame and her gathering regarding counter intelligence activities under the five year law and an agent's arrest. Allegations of arranged torture by CIA came out later, but were not addressed because of the threats to the Presidents. If Dick talks, all this comes out and Plame goes to jail for treason, so don't tell anybody 'cause it's bad.

Kilo, if you had half a pound of smarts you'd click through to the underlying story before popping off. What you've asserted ("This response to a question from a reporter, the same reporter who then presumably made this public") is false. Look:

"I believe that either today or tomorrow -- and I'm not privy to his schedule -- Sen. Obama will be landing in Iraq with some other senators" who make up a congressional delegation, McCain told a campaign fund-raising luncheon.

"I am sure that Sen. Obama is going to arrive in Baghdad in a much, much safer and secure environment than the one that he would've encountered before we started the surge," McCain said.

McCain made his disclosure at a fundraiser, not a press interview. That the reporters were present is how you know it was a public event. But those bullies in the press didn't make John McCain breach Barack Obama's security; he did it on his own. And it was news because it revealed something about McCain, so the reporters reported it.

Kilo: I didn't think the reporter was the main point. But since you ask: no, I don't think the reporter should have disclosed it.

The posting rules require civility. Please respect them in future.

FD and Sudua: I have no idea at all what you're talking about. I'm not saying this snarkily; I just don't.

"Kilo, if you had half a pound of smarts you'd click through to the underlying story before popping off."
Posted by: southpaw | July 18, 2008 at 09:54 PM

I read the Reuters article hosted at TPM. WTF content did it have other than what I described ?
The only story it conveys is that McCain has said something that it is not a good idea to report publically. The public report says this. The syndicated newswire one. Anything registering ?

There's 2 dots here, try fkn joining them yourself before telling me I'm the one missing something about the article.

Is it *terribly* naive of me to think that politics was a little more innocent before Bush?

Johnson
Nixon
Atwater
Ailes

I could probably go on, and on, and on.

Naive is not really the right word, assuming you have no memory of those times.

But no, things weren't all that much more innocent.

I do think prior to Nixon there was generally a broader respect for the rule of law, but then again maybe I'm being naive.

I think back in the day there was also a wider range of activities that were legal, or at least not explicitly illegal. So, while not exactly innocent, things might have been slightly less criminal.

The difference with Bush, IMO, is not a matter of innocence as much a matter of his broadly and enthusiastically "Screw you" attitude.

Thanks -

"Kilo: I didn't think the reporter was the main point. But since you ask: no, I don't think the reporter should have disclosed it."

WTF is this supposed to mean ?
You don't think the reporter's actions -- being the subject you initially avoided mentioning, then continue to even when repeatedly prompted -- are the main point.
Well yeah, that's generally how avoiding a topic works.

Next up, are the human rights of detainees a main issue in their detainment for the Bush administration.
I don't think they are the main point, so I guess no further discussion of that is warranted either. Awesome.

"The posting rules require civility. Please respect them in future."
Posted by: hilzoy | July 18, 2008 at 09:55 PM

As I mentioned, it's going to be a little hard to figure out what standards to follow for comments, when the contradictions are so blatant.

BTW, anyone got a link for me to that Plame post ? Anyone ?

It seems nobody, myself incl, stopped to wonder why McCain said both that he wasn't privy to Obama's schedule AND that he believed he would be in Iraq over the weekend.

Is there a more likely explanation for how he could make both references unless he was referring to being told Obama's timetable by the WSJ report, the first sentence of which starts....
"Barack Obama departs for Iraq as early as this weekend"

Well. Well. Well.
Updates and apologies you say ? Reporters roles in the making of information public acknowledged where ? When ?

Kilo:

You said: "This response to a question from a reporter, the same reporter who then presumably made this public . . ."

Reuters said: "'I believe that either today or tomorrow -- and I'm not privy to his schedule -- Sen. Obama will be landing in Iraq with some other senators' who make up a congressional delegation, McCain told a campaign fund-raising luncheon."

A reporter didn't ask the question, as you asserted. To the contrary, McCain just went and said it at a public event. A public figure stands up and says something at a public event, and you blame the reporters who write a story about it. I don't know how to make it any clearer . . .

I think this should be classified as a genuine "senior moment" by the good Senator. How many other "moments" he decides to have with national security is entirely up to him.

Kilo complains that Reuters reported McCain's remarks at a Republican fundraising lunch.

Meanwhile, McCain flacks are complaining that the media are not giving McCain enough coverage.

The GOP and its acolytes are really becoming pitiful whiners, aren't they?

-- TP

I still don’t know who I’m going to vote for in the fall. First it was going to be for Obama, because I estimate that the next President is going to preside over a trainwreck, and I figured that that would give us a good conservative leader next time around.

Then it was going to be the Constitution Party, after Obama had pictures of himself taken in a USMC tee-shirt.

I’m leaning towards McCain now and the reason is his son. A Senator’s son goes to the Academies if they serve at all. Even the dumb ones. A Senator’s son does not enlist in the United States Marine Corps and deploy as a rifleman at the squad level.

It’s comforting to me to know how the McCains rebel.

Kilo complains that Reuters reported...
Meanwhile, McCain flacks are...
The GOP and its acolytes are really becoming pitiful whiners, aren't they?
Posted by: Tony P.

This would appear to say nothing other than you believe acknowledging a reporter's role in the reporting of something makes me a GOP supporter. LOL, struggling much ?

Meanwhile I'm not the pussy crying about McCain acknowledging what's in the morning's papers. That'd be you doing the whinging, sweetie.

FWIW, I couldn't give a toss if either of them are knocked. Or both for that matter. Hell, do Hillary and Mitt while you're at it, WTF do I care ?

I'm not so sure this is all that noteworthy. It's been reported Obama's going to Iraq on this trip and the general dates of the trip are known and, as Kilo points out, news reports have even said as early as this weekend. It isn't like the visit itself was kept secret until after the fact like Bush's Thanksgiving trip.

And has anyone considered that the whole discussion is a purposeful misdirection? We'll soon know. I wouldn't put it beyond either candidate to cooperate on behalf of the other for security's sake.

Are you an imposter, or just an arsehole with a short memory and flexible standards ?

If you can't tell the difference between a hypothetical and misattributing a quote, then I hope your rude & pointless stay on this board will be a short one. It will be truly boring to constantly have to explain to you when people are using analogies and when they are stating facts.

Oh right, it's the one piece of info you need to kill anyone, the one piece that makes it irrelevant how much notice you have and it's revealed by neither.

I am happily relieved that your position flipping burgers does not involve protecting anyone's security. Oddly, the people who do this for a living have a very different opinion on the subject. An opinion that has the virtue of being proven correct, unlike yours.

I'll obviously be able to find you pointing the finger at Joe Wilson's culpability for revealing his wife's occupation to reporters in your archives, won't I ? Yes, no ?
Oh sorry, it's the flexibility, I forgot.

I think the word you're searching for here is not flexibilty. It's "horsecrap". As in, "please do not bring horsecrap over from world nut daily and ask us to treat it as factual information".

As I mentioned, it's going to be a little hard to figure out what standards to follow for comments, when the contradictions are so blatant.

They involve not being a complete @sshole. Given your track record so far, go luck with that. It's really very simple though- if you had a stumper about how the reporter shouldn't have asked his quesion, you would just pose that to the board. Then, perhaps someone would point out that, had you read the story, you would know that McCain volunteered the info to a crowd.
Then you would crawl back under your rock. Politely.
Or ignore it, and continue blathering. Politely.

Really, though, if you were going to go call other people idiots, it would have been a good idea to being a little more intellectual horsepower to the discussion yourself.

If you can't tell the difference between a hypothetical and misattributing a quote, then I hope your rude & pointless stay on this board will be a short one.
Carleton Wu | July 19, 2008 at 01:51 AM

Then I guess you'll just be disappointed in the meantime.

It will be truly boring to constantly have to explain to you when people are using analogies and when they are stating facts.

Lucky for you then that you aren't in the business of explanations and you seem content to just make vague allusions to a POV without really saying anything of merit.

I am happily relieved that your position flipping burgers does not involve protecting anyone's security. Oddly, the people who do this for a living have a very different opinion on the subject. An opinion that has the virtue of being proven correct, unlike yours.

Really ? Do go on, sunshine. Re-use what you've quoted me saying, then tell me how I'm wrong.
Don't reply to me saying I would love you to do this, then just talk around it. Fill me in kiddo. Don't be scared.

They involve not being a complete @sshole. Given your track record so far, go luck with that.

What am I gonna need luck for, you whinging little girl ? Wouldn't you assume that if I'm happy to call blog authors arseholes while in conversation with them on their own blog that this isn't a concern for me ?

It's really very simple though- if you had a stumper about how the reporter shouldn't have asked his quesion, you would just pose that to the board. Then...

Except I didn't say that. In fact, nobody has suggested something that stupid was a concern, apart from you. Yeah, talk to us some more about missing the point, Carleton.

Really, though, if you were going to go call other people idiots, it would have been a good idea to being a little more intellectual horsepower to the discussion yourself.

Hey, feel free to disagree, challenge or in any way dispute anything I've written kid. Until then, you look a little lame claiming it's me coming up short here.

You've specifically taken issue with me calling hilzoy and idiot. You've also suggested you might be able to dispute the claim I made while doing so. So start with you making any attempt to dispute that.
Chop, chop. Let's see what you're bringing.

Kilo at

This response to a question from a reporter, the same reporter who then presumably made this public as newsworthy solely on the basis that making it public was a terrible, terrible mistake.

It has already been pointed out twice that this is incorrect (once in a comment to which you responded by claiming they wouldn't point out factual errors). I am trying for a third time in the most likely futile hope that you will go away and stop pissing all over the comments section of this site.


Whoops, the link that was supposed to be embedded above was http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/07/he-said-what.html#comment-122891742>kilo at 8:01PM

Kilo: You've specifically taken issue with me calling hilzoy and idiot.

Yes, but then all the other Obsidian Wings regulars, whatever our political stance, would also take issue with your calling Hilzoy an idiot. Carleton just happened to be at the front of the line.

I also take issue with your use of "girl" as a term of abuse.

bc: And has anyone considered that the whole discussion is a purposeful misdirection?

If so, McCain was being very stupid. Even if he said "Obama will be in Iraq this weekend" as a deliberate misdirection because Obama will actually be in Afghanistan this weekend. As Hilzoy noted: it's not a topic he ought to be guessing out loud about before the fact, and it's not a useful misdirection if McCain merely causes extra danger for any official visitor in Iraq this weekend.

Kilo doesn't seem to understand that the reporters who published what McCain said are not charged with any responsibility to national security. McCain said something that was - at the kindest possible interpretation - very stupid. They reported his public stupidity - and if Obama has to change his plans, well, that will be McCain's fault.

Lucky for you then that you aren't in the business of explanations

Technically correct, I don't get paid. But I did point out that your undies were twisted over thinking a hypothetical was an assertion of fact.
If this is your sad way of acknowledging this correction, so be it.

Really ? Do go on, sunshine. Re-use what you've quoted me saying, then tell me how I'm wrong.
Don't reply to me saying I would love you to do this, then just talk around it. Fill me in kiddo. Don't be scared.

Since it went over your head, Ill explain again: the people responsible for protecting the lives of VIPs do try to maintain ambiguity about their schedule. This is an order of magnitude more true when talking about travel to a war zone. These are the same people who didnt announce Bush's Thanksgiving trip to Iraq until after he had arrived af few years back. They are good at this. You are talking out of your ass.
You have some uninformed opinion that having information about someone'e schedule a month ahead of time doesn't make it any easier to target them. Im not sure how you've come to this brain-damaged conclusion, but it is not just contrary to common sense, it's also contrary to anything Ive ever heard on the subject.

I hope that I don't need to go all the way down to words of one sylable in order for you to comprehend this and not come back with 'no, please, explain it again'.

Wouldn't you assume that if I'm happy to call blog authors arseholes while in conversation with them on their own blog that this isn't a concern for me ?

No, I understand that you're a mannerless twit. I was just insulting you. Here, Ill do it again- you are dumber than dog crap. Witness this:

Except I didn't say that.

If you scroll up, you'll find an inconvenient record of your earlier statement. 8:01PM you said This response to a question from a reporter...

A liar & an idiot.

You've also suggested you might be able to dispute the claim I made while doing so.

The claim that hilzoy's an idiot? An opinion, if a stunningly ill-informed one.
The claim that McCain's response was elicited by a reporter? Shot down, and so thoroughly that you're now claiming that it didn't happen.
The claim that hilzoy said that nuclear warhead designs were actually disclosed? This was due to your failure to understand the nature of hpoythetical statements.
The claim that specific knowledge about a target's travel isn't useful in assassinating them? Too stupid to require extensive refutation, really. Although if the job above wasn't good enough, again Im willing to try monosylabically.

FWIW, I couldn't give a toss if either of them are knocked.

Yeah, that's why you're here making up all manner of BS and pathetic attempts at argumentation- because you don't care at all about the subject. It's the reporters fault, but it doesn't matter anyway because revealing itineraries isn't dangerous, and because other people have speculated about this in the past.
Lie much?

Yes, but then all the other Obsidian Wings regulars, whatever our political stance, would also take issue with your calling Hilzoy an idiot. Carleton just happened to be at the front of the line.
Jesurgislac | July 19, 2008 at 03:10 AM

Yes, but then you'll get over it.
Currently running at zero for Obsidian Wings readers disputing what prompted that assessment too, Carleton being at the head of that line as well.

"I also take issue with your use of "girl" as a term of abuse."

Hey, and I'm not big on people needing to take things out of context in order to have something to complain about, so I guess we're even.

Kilo doesn't seem to understand that the reporters who published what McCain said are not charged with any responsibility to national security.

Nobody has mentioned this yet, so it's odd you've divined that from what you've read.

Would you like to instead address what I have specifically and repeatedly cited as a reason for this reporter's irresponsibility if any is to be attributed here ?
Namely, publishing this in the sole context of claiming it is a security concern to be publishing it ?

McCain said something that was - at the kindest possible interpretation - very stupid. They reported his public stupidity - and if Obama has to change his plans, well, that will be McCain's fault.

Because.... ? Why would it be McCain's fault as opposed to the reporters who reported this beforehand ?
You appear to be suggesting that once things are published in a newspaper that if 1 person talks about these details they will then have been leaked and that 1 person is to blame.

I think I've figured out why you take exception to the word "idiot" being used as an insult too.

Currently running at zero for Obsidian Wings readers disputing what prompted that assessment too, Carleton being at the head of that line as well.

Look, if you don't understand the counterargument, Ive got all the pity in the world for you. But that doesn't mean that the counterargument doesn't exist. Just that you can't seem to handle debating stuff- you make stuff up, get called on it, deny that you said what you clearly said. You say something, someone replies, and you claim that the reply doesn't exist.
In your head, you're apparently keeping score. Is that ref in your head noticing how you made up a fact and then got caught in a baldfaced lie? I notice that you just stopped responding to that part of the conversation. Like if you don't respond, then it doesn't count.

Score:
Fabricating facts:
Kilo 1
Everyone Else 0

Lies about earlier statements:
Kilo 1
Everyone Else 0

Would you like to instead address what I have specifically and repeatedly cited as a reason for this reporter's irresponsibility if any is to be attributed here ?

If you had tried being polite, that discussion might have happened. fwiw, I have considerably more concern for the behavior of someone who could become president then for the behavior of some random reporter- good or bad.
Furthermore, whether or not the reporter was in the wrong (or, how in the wrong he was) is only tangential to the question of whether McCain was wrong. Assume that the reporter *didnt* publish the story- does that justify McCain's statement somehow? Should McCain be able to wander around babbling classified info because the onus is all on the reporters not to say anything?
Finally, you've got no particular right to control the conversation. Calling the poster an idiot for not side-tracking into your desired point is evidence of a sad, whiny sort of person- dont get what you want, so you throw a tantrum.

But I did point out that your undies were twisted over thinking a hypothetical was an assertion of fact.

You really don't understand what you are reading do you. I don't have a problem with people attributing hypotheticals to me. I have a problem with bloggers I just read complaining about people doing this, then doing this.

But now we know what you think of that topic. No doubt I can find you over in that thread displaying such sentiment as though it's something you're not scared to express based on the author, right ?
I don't even have to check do I.

Since it went over your head, Ill explain again: the people responsible for protecting the lives of VIPs do try to maintain ambiguity about their schedule.

You didn't explain this the first time and nobody's asked you to because it's not worth explaining.

We're posting in a thread about Obama going to Iraq this weekend being in the press. You quoted me saying that because Obama's trip to Iraq has already been in the press for a week, then knowing this was occurring sometime this month or sometime this weekend makes no difference unless you know where in Iraq (it's a country the size of Iraq you know!) he is going to be.

You've been asked to dispute this if you are able. You haven't attempted to yet, which does tend to confirm my suspicion that you can't.

This is an order of magnitude more true when talking about travel to a war zone.

Well you would hope so, given that the presidential candidates' movements outside of a war zone are deliberately publicised as standard practice.

These are the same people who didnt announce Bush's Thanksgiving trip to Iraq until after he had arrived af few years back.

Yes. That'll be the difference I'm talking about. Still not clicked yet has it ?
Talk to me some more about how this is over my head, sunshine. FFS.

You have some uninformed opinion that having information about someone'e schedule a month ahead of time doesn't make it any easier to target them.

No. I've said that once their travel to a country is disclosed then it's disclosed, then their specific location in that country then becomes the issue, otherwise it doesn't matter whether it's a month, week or year.
You are either able to target them where they are or you are not.

Im not sure how you've come to this brain-damaged conclusion, but it is not just contrary to common sense, it's also contrary to anything Ive ever heard on the subject.

That being..... ?
This is what you were asked to post. This is all you were asked to post. Right after you were telling me I had come up short here.
Do you want to have a 2nd crack at that or would you like to continue confirming my assumption that you are incapable of doing so.

I hope that I don't need to go all the way down to words of one sylable in order for you to comprehend this and not come back with 'no, please, explain it again'.

You haven't explained it once pal. You've been asked to, clearly on the basis that I believed you couldn't, then you've promptly confirmed that assumption.

Awesome display of "intellectual horsepower" there pal. Really impressive stuff.

I've worked as an aerospace engineer all my adult life (i.e. defense contracts) and I cannot overemphasize how thoroughly the concept of OPSEC is ingrained in people who work in defense. It becomes second nature. McCain has been in the defense world longer than I have. There is no way, none, that this was an accidental slip.

I think it was a set-up. I suspect Obama will be under pressure to change the date of his trip to avoid endangering the people protecting him- and if Obama does, the voters will perceive Obama as a coward. McCain won't say that himself, but the right-wing noise machine will.

Remember when the Defense Dept was mysteriously unable to provide Nancy Pelosi with direct flights to her district in California, subjecting her to long layovers on her commute home? When Pelosi quite reasonably said "if you can't provide nonstop flights, I'd prefer to go on commercial flights which do go nonstop from DC to San Francisco?" it was all over the media that Pelosi was a pampered princess who demanded a bigger plane. This is the same kind of setup.

And yes, if you're a bad guy in Iraq, there is a HUGE difference between knowing that Obama is arriving sometime soon, vs. knowing the date within a day.

Minor point- if Obama does change the date of his trip, I would think that would be a significant problem/handicap for his campaign, in terms of rally sites booked, getting into the schedule of state and local politicians, etc.

Kilo: "Except I didn't say that."
Charleton: "If you scroll up, you'll find an inconvenient record of your earlier statement. 8:01PM you said This response to a question from a reporter...
A liar & an idiot.

Why would I scroll up ?
This is the exchange you are quoting...

You: "It's really very simple though- if you had a stumper about how the reporter shouldn't have asked his quesion"
Me:"Except I didn't say that."

My quote appears directly below a quote from you. I can't imagine you couldn't figure out I was talking to you, nor that I quoted you instead of something else up the page.

So I assume you already consider yourself a liar and an idiot for deliberately misrepresenting what I was responding to and I won't need to call you that myself.

I don't fault reporters for asking questions and haven't here. I fault them for publicising information in the sole context of it being information that shouldn't be publicised.
Don't pretend you disagree with this if you can't.

Like a dozen times I've said this and not once has anyone disagreed with it. So I assume you're just wasting space with irrelevant nonsense because you want to appear to be disagreeing with me, but actually can't.

Yeah, that's why you're here making up all manner of BS and pathetic attempts at argumentation- because you don't care at all about the subject.

Unless of course the subject is people promoting ridiculous conspiracy theories where blame is attributed to someone for leaking information they didn't.

It's the reporters fault, but it doesn't matter anyway because revealing itineraries isn't dangerous, and because other people have speculated about this in the past.
Lie much?
Carleton Wu | July 19, 2008 at 03:31 AM

Not as much as you can evidently. That was astounding.
You do still however need to come up with that response I asked you for. Chop chop.

One more thing- one of the principles of OPSEC is that if sensitive information has been revealed, you do not amplify it, republish it, or draw attention to it in any way (not even to criticize the fact that it was improperly revealed). So even if the timing of Obama's trip had been previously published, that's no excuse.

Look, if you don't understand the counterargument, Ive got all the pity in the world for you. But that doesn't mean that the counterargument doesn't exist.

You know I can't say I've ever seen this projection tactic ever pulled off convincingly.
Was it me here avoiding what I'm challenged to post and pretending I don't know what that is or is that you ?

Just go all in and say "I know you are but what am I" and get this over with kid.

Just that you can't seem to handle debating stuff- you make stuff up, get called on it, deny that you said what you clearly said.

Nimrod, it's text. Everyone here can read me replying to you, then you pretending I wasn't quoting you but was instead replying to something else up the page.
Exactly how convincing do you think this projection about lying when you can't debate something looks ?

You say something, someone replies, and you claim that the reply doesn't exist.


Again, you are describing yourself. Nobody is confusing the two of us and clearly I'm not buying this. So really you may only be convincing yourself of this. How's that going ?

In your head, you're apparently keeping score.
Carleton Wu | July 19, 2008 at 03:49 AM

You write this then go on to post your own scores. I don't really need to say anything at this point do I.

Oh, except we're still waiting on that reply I asked you for.

"There is no way, none, that this was an accidental slip ... I think it was a set-up."
Posted by: Anne E | July 19, 2008 at 04:21 AM

Anne, since you refer to this as "a slip" I presume you make this assessment before realising that McCain referred to Obama going to Iraq, specifically this weekend, after that's what was reported in that morning's WSJ.

Like I said, an update/correction to this post by the author is probably warranted. You know, given that the entire premise of it is shot to shit.

Three points:
1) a blog is not a "board."

2) DNFTT.

3) Posting Rules.

(Huh. I thought I recalled an update to the Posting Rules, but they're not here. Obviously unposted Posting Rules aren't posting rules; if Posting Rules have been revised, obviously they need to be posted here, where the "Posting Rules" are listed. Otherwise they're obviously not legitimately in effect, if they're not publically posted under "Posting Rules.")

You really don't understand what you are reading do you. I don't have a problem with people attributing hypotheticals to me. I have a problem with bloggers I just read complaining about people doing this, then doing this.

Hilzoy just followed your sorry excuse for logic to a conclusion. Politely. If you felt that you'd not expressed yourself clearly- or been misunderstood- you could've easily clarified the matter. Her earlier post was about unjustified attributation, not about trying to understand someone's attempt at a point by continuing its logic.

You didn't explain this the first time and nobody's asked you to because it's not worth explaining.

This is a good example of your delusional behavior. Yes, I did in fact explain it. Maybe you'd like to take issue with that explaination, we can go into more detail. But denying that it occurred is an unusual, bizarre, and pointless tactic unless you're just killing time until your meds kick in. I actually said stuff- respond, disagree, whatever.
It occurs to me that this might be another example of your failure to understand the 'scroll up' function of your browser. You see, everyone can use this function to see that I did, in fact, explain this the first time (and a second time, but who's counting?). Lying about it doesn't serve a great deal of purpose.
It's not even clear if you're asking for an explanation or not- "not worth explaining"? Why are you begging for exaplinations, denying that you've been given then, asking for them again, and then saying that their not worth it? Can you keep your brain together long enough to string together a sentence?

You quoted me saying that because Obama's trip to Iraq has already been in the press for a week, then knowing this was occurring sometime this month or sometime this weekend makes no difference unless you know where in Iraq (it's a country the size of Iraq you know!) he is going to be.

Wow, that's a new point. Id like to respond to it now that you've raised it. Yes, it does matter, for several reasons:
1)there are several places that he might be likely to visit. The Iraqi Partliment, for example. Various airports. There are other places that he might or might not visit- but an enemy with resources might set up a number of attempts that only go live if the target appears. Iraq is a big country (almost as big as Iraq, even), but he's very unlikely to appear in most of it, and very likely to appear in some very small parts of it. If enemies have any assets in the Green Zone, he'll almost certainly be there at some point- and it is much, much smaller than Iraq! you know.
2)It would also be much easier to be aware of the target (via increased security activity, radio chatter, etc) if you know on precisely what day he will appear (as opposed to an entire month). For example, a spy at an airport on D-Day might notice that all air traffic had ceased, and suspect that Obama's plane was inbound there. Increased patrols might be noticed, or an area being cleared of traffic.
3)Mobile strike teams, suicide/car bombers etc could be arranged in several locations, with the intent of moving rapidly to the target once his location is known (see point 2). The enemy might use resources not available for normal attacks (say, a suicide aircraft, poison gas shells left over from the 80s, etc).
Now, Im not saying that this makes a successful assassination of Obama *likely*, just that it would vastly increase the likelihood.
You apparently suffer from the misunderstanding that Obama is going to be *just anywhere* in Iraq, as opposed to doing the sorts of things he is actually likely to do: meet with Iraqi politicians and US military commanders, tour US military bases, view prominent reconstruction sites, etc.

You've been asked to dispute this if you are able. You haven't attempted to yet, which does tend to confirm my suspicion that you can't.

I admit, Im as bad at the psychic thing as you are with the truth-telling thing and the scroll-bar thing. Is it backwards day, you come up with mild insults about how we don't answer your points, and then raise your points?
Of course, a lot of the confusion has been your general lack of clarity- I thought you were still asking for explainations about the reporter bit (you know, the bit you started the conversation with). You were too busy coming up with imaginative taunts such as 'idiot' to bother explaining yourself very clearly.

Im not really sure why Im bothering- you're just going to deny that I've responded substantively again, or even claim that you never said anything about Obama. I suppose that's why Im doing it- it'll be a complete surprise how you choose to respond.
(Well, not a *complete* surprise- Im pretty sure you won't touch the bit where you made up the stuff about the reporter asking McCain and then lied about saying that. Yes, it's clear that you're going to let that one drop down the memory hole.)

Everyone here can read me replying to you, then you pretending I wasn't quoting you but was instead replying to something else up the page.

Not sure what you're talking about. Notice how when I accused you of making stuff up and lying, I cited exactly what I was talking about. Would you care to do likewise? Im particularly curious to see myself pretending that I wasn't being quoted.

You write this then go on to post your own scores. I don't really need to say anything at this point do I.

You could gracefully concede the point that making stuff up and lying about it afterwards probably don't put you ahead on your tiny mental scoreboard. My point wasn't that keeping score is inherently foolish, but that announcing that you're keeping score and that (by your count) you're winning, is foolish because you've already been caught making up facts and lying about making up facts. And *still* haven't owned up to it.

2) DNFTT.

I know- I was hoping that this was one of the ones where when you embarrassed the crud out of them & caught them lying about what they just said, it would try to maintain a shred of dignity and crawl away.
Funny, I always have that hope; guess Im just an optimist about human nature. What I can say.

Kilo, I handled your issue in my second post. If sensitive information has been revealed, it is NOT ok to re-publish it.

If I, as an engineer working on defense contracts, revealed sensitive information that had been previously improperly published, I would be fired. And, depending on circumstances, possibly prosecuted. It's as simple as that.

Correction to my last point: because it was undated, I missed the last section of the Posting Rules, "AND ANOTHER UPDATE," where the last update was indeed posted. My apologies for my failure to notice this.

DNFTT.

So, there being no open thread: I saw The Dark Knight last night. (Buncha related links and stuff here, btw.) Loved it as much as I thought I would.

So, what did you think?

(If there's ever a weekend open thread, better continued on said open thread, but meanwhile, lacking any other option....)

It seems nobody, myself incl, stopped to wonder why McCain said both that he wasn't privy to Obama's schedule AND that he believed he would be in Iraq over the weekend.

Is there a more likely explanation for how he could make both references unless he was referring to being told Obama's timetable by the WSJ report, the first sentence of which starts....
"Barack Obama departs for Iraq as early as this weekend"

Sure there is. As a senator, he's privy to the information that a Congressional delegation, including Obama, is headed to Iraq. But he doesn't quite remember - and frankly, doesn't really need to know - the exact time Obama lands in Iraq. So he fudges it, and then to keep from looking like a dumbass, snarks about how he doesn't know Obama's schedule.

But no, your brilliant theory about how a sitting US Senator had to be informed of an impending Congressional delegation's trip to Iraq by the Wall Street Journal is both far more plausible and also makes him look extremely competent to do his job!

Kilo, I handled your issue in my second post. If sensitive information has been revealed, it is NOT ok to re-publish it.
Posted by: Anne E | July 19, 2008 at 05:01 AM

Well no, you could fault Reuters for republishing it, but it is a moot point once it's already been reported in newspaper with international circulation. You don't get that back.

Otherwise you're talking about everyone who's referenced this public information, making McCain no different than this blog.

"My apologies for my failure to notice this."

It's a little weird that it's all misattributed to Moe, though; obviously Moe did not write what it's claimed he's written. Perhaps it might be a good idea to fix that?

While I'm suggesting, any chance of posting an Editors Emeritus listing on the top sidebar, under "Authors," so Moe and the other Founders and successor bloggers emeritus get listed credit? Setting aside that it seems just wrong to not give credit where due to people who founded the blog, and spent years running it and posting here, having the Posting Rules attributed to Some Now Unknown And Unacknowledged Guy also seems rather weird, doesn't it?

'umbly offered in the spirit of having The Best Possible ObWi,
yr. hmbl. obt. srvt.

Sure there is. As a senator, he's privy to the information that a Congressional delegation, including Obama, is headed to Iraq.

Is he. You don't want to elaborate on that claim for the obvious reason I guess.

But he doesn't quite remember - and frankly, doesn't really need to know - the exact time Obama lands in Iraq. So he fudges it, and then to keep from looking like a dumbass, snarks about how he doesn't know Obama's schedule.

Hmmmm. Convincing.

But no, your brilliant theory about how a sitting US Senator had to be informed of an impending Congressional delegation's trip to Iraq by the Wall Street Journal is both far more plausible and also makes him look extremely competent to do his job!
mightygodking | July 19, 2008 at 05:16 AM

Well yes, it certainly does seem that way without any convincing suggestion to the contrary doesn't it.

Kilo,
You really are going to try to never answer for making stuff up and lying about it, aren't you?

DNFTT. Feeding a troll is being played, and giving it what it wants. Do not feed the troll. Do not give the troll more excuses to post. It's just enabling. DNFTT.

I'm quitting now, as more repetitions of the point would be pointless.

Her earlier post was about unjustified attributation, not about trying to understand someone's attempt at a point by continuing its logic

Yeah good one. Again, are you even convincing yourself I wonder.

Wow, that's a new point. Id like to respond to it now that you've raised it.

Yeah. Because you already having referenced it would totally suggest you hadn't seen it yet. Ctrl-F "month".

Yes, it does matter, for several reasons:
1)there are several places that he might be likely to visit. The Iraqi Partliment, for example. Various airports.

These will be in the same place this weekend as they will be next month. Just like route Irish, which I mentioned to point this out.

So, whether it's a month or 2 days, the issue is whether you are able to target these places or enough of them to cover the appearance of the Obama-sized convoy showing up.

Either there's a suggestion someone wanting to kill him only has a 2 day attention span or you're confirming what I wrote.

There are other places that he might or might not visit- but an enemy with resources might set up a number of attempts that only go live if the target appears.

What do you mean "might" ? If they didn't, that's otherwise known as "missing".

Iraq is a big country (almost as big as Iraq, even), but he's very unlikely to appear in most of it, and very likely to appear in some very small parts of it.

Yeah. And yet, me knowing he was going there at some unspecified time when this was reported last week, and knowing that this is occurring this weekend still leaves me with these same assumptions.

You've basically suggested nothing other than what I wrote is correct. Awesome waste of space this has been.

Unless of course you wanted to tell us which of these targets was a more likely choice now that his travel timeline has been nailed down to this weekend, then I think you've finally got the point. Whether you want to admit it or not.

When it was known he was going to Iraq the security gained by keeping this information secret was lost. That didn't happen Friday.

As I said, and you clearly agree, if he is known to be there then his presence at predictable sites is a concern, otherwise there is no difference whether his travel timeline is known a day, week or month ahead of time. These locations aren't changing.

The only difference in terms of security through embargo of information is if it doesn't leak at all. It has been on press releases for a week. That security is lost.

If enemies have any assets in the Green Zone, he'll almost certainly be there at some point- and it is much, much smaller than Iraq! you know.

You could only believe this is worth saying if you imagined they weren't there until Friday. Otherwise, again, its the same whether they infiltrated a month, week or day in advance.

The Obama-shaped guy in the Obama-sized security detail is what it is.

2)It would also be much easier to be aware of the target (via increased security activity, radio chatter, etc) if you know on precisely what day he will appear (as opposed to an entire month).

You've made an unnecessary attribution there. It is easier if there is an obvious security increase. You've known Obama is coming to Iraq for a week.

BTW, I assume you mean chatter like this...
Obama Lands in Afghanistan
New York Times - 2 hours ago

For example, a spy at an airport on D-Day might notice that all air traffic...

I get it now. When you say "a spy" rather than "the spies", you really don't expect that these informers will be there this week just like they were last year. This idea is new to you.

3)Mobile strike teams, suicide/car bombers etc could be arranged in several locations, with the intent of moving rapidly to the target once his location is known (see point 2).

Again, where's the difference between the car bomb constructed on Mon, Tue, Wed, Thu, Fri for this task ?

The enemy might use resources not available for normal attacks (say, a suicide aircraft, poison gas shells left over from the 80s, etc).

Then they'd be idiots and we don't have to worry about them.

Now, Im not saying that this makes a successful assassination of Obama *likely*, just that it would vastly increase the likelihood.

You apparently suffer from the misunderstanding that Obama is going to be *just anywhere* in Iraq, as opposed to doing the sorts of things he is actually likely to do: meet with Iraqi politicians and US military commanders, tour US military bases, view prominent reconstruction sites, etc.

No, I just understand that when you issue press releases that he is going to Iraq then these locations are already targets, whether that's a day or a week out. It's a matter of before vs after, not 7 before vs 1 before.

You either think someone wanting to make such preparations waited until today - a week after press releases said he was going (could have been the day after) - or you don't. You don't.

Like I said, what a massive waste of time this has been.

DNFTT. Feeding a troll is being played, and giving it what it wants. Do not feed the troll. Do not give the troll more excuses to post. It's just enabling. DNFTT.
I'm quitting now, as more repetitions of the point would be pointless.
Gary Farber | July 19, 2008 at 05:37 AM

You were pointless when you started pal.
We're posting under an article which only has one premise -- that McCain disclosed secret info -- which has been completely shot to shit by the fact this was in that morning's WSJ.

I note that being the sole person able to acknowledge the existance of this contrary, unpopular information, would still make me a troll under one definition, regardless of whether I enjoy taking the piss out of people who insult me.

Is that really my problem or yours though ?
Either way, as you point out, sticking your head back in the sand is the solution for both. So you know, good advice.

Apparently works for corrections to blog posts too.

So McCain said, on the 18th, that

"I believe that either today or tomorrow -- and I'm not privy to his schedule -- Sen. Obama will be landing in Iraq

According to the BBC it's Gordon Brown who's in Iraq today. The Guardian agrees and adds that Obama is in Afghanistan and will be visiting Iraq at some unspecified time in the future:

Gordon Brown flew into Baghdad this morning for a series of meetings with Iraq's leaders and David Petraeus, the American general who has led the military "surge" over the past year. [...]

Brown's visit coincided with a trip by the US Democratic presidential hopeful, Barack Obama, to Afghanistan, where he will meet the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai.

Obama is later due to travel to Iraq and will meet Brown at Downing Street next week, when the pair are expected to discuss Iraqi troop withdrawal.

So McCain said, on the 18th, that

"I believe that either today or tomorrow -- and I'm not privy to his schedule -- Sen. Obama will be landing in Iraq

According to the BBC it's Gordon Brown who's in Iraq today. The Guardian agrees and adds that Obama is in Afghanistan and will be visiting Iraq at some unspecified time in the future:

Gordon Brown flew into Baghdad this morning for a series of meetings with Iraq's leaders and David Petraeus, the American general who has led the military "surge" over the past year. [...]

Brown's visit coincided with a trip by the US Democratic presidential hopeful, Barack Obama, to Afghanistan, where he will meet the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai.

Obama is later due to travel to Iraq and will meet Brown at Downing Street next week, when the pair are expected to discuss Iraqi troop withdrawal.

Kilo, You really are going to try to never answer for making stuff up and lying about it, aren't you?
Carleton Wu | July 19, 2008 at 05:26 AM

You called me a liar for this exchange...

You: It's really very simple though- if you had a stumper about how the reporter shouldn't have asked his quesion...

Except I didn't say that. In fact, nobody has suggested something that stupid was a concern, apart from you.

As I already pointed out, I haven't said I have a problem with reporters asking questions and that what I do have a problem with has been repeated about 20 times now.

Was there something else ?
I mean, at this point you know McCain referred to Obama's weekend visit because it was stated as such in that morning's WSJ. Obama is now giving speeches from Afghanistan.

So I assume this lie was fkn massive if it's keeping this dead, dead, dead, discussion open so WTF is it already, you waste of space ?

Carleton: I know- I was hoping that this was one of the ones where when you embarrassed the crud out of them & caught them lying about what they just said, it would try to maintain a shred of dignity and crawl away.

Apparently Kilo showed up primarily to engage in personal abuse: I don't think that kind of troll can be embarrassed.

"Apparently Kilo showed up primarily to engage in personal abuse: I don't think that kind of troll can be embarrassed."

LMAO. If you were trying for embarassment, you might want to try a different thread. Any thread really. I presume all the rest of them don't feature the author refusing to correct an article that is completely discredited and all the commenters refusing to acknowledge its entire premise has been debunked.

I mean, it's not like I'll stand out now is it. Hell, as far as lies go, I even rate next to the author, do I ?
I mean, either you're pretending to have a problem with lies going uncorrected or you are not. Let's all pretend to be surprised when we discover why a comment is a problem and the article isn't.

GAry, you make an excellent point. I shall avoid feeding the troll . I maust say, this one is a bit more obstinate to normal extermination techniques (you know, logic, facts, some attempt at honest discussion).

That being said, I haven't seent he Dark Knight, but your comment in and of itself is a darn good recommendation. I have not heard a single criticim of it yet. Plus, I hear that it uses Chicago better than she has ever been used in other movies.

Sorry all, but just to tie up a loose end here . . .

The Wall Street Journal wrote: "Barack Obama departs for Iraq as early as this weekend, with a media entourage as large as some of his rallies." That article repeated what was already public about his planned trip: that it might happen as early as this weekend and Iraq was on the itinerary (along with several Middle Eastern and European countries). The WSJ did not say with any particular specificity when Obama would be in Iraq; it simply noted he was leaving on his trip shortly, perhaps as early as this weekend. The order of countries visited and the actual day of arrival in any particular country remain unspecified in the WSJ story.

By contrast, John McCain said: "I believe that either today or tomorrow -- and I'm not privy to his schedule -- Sen. Obama will be landing in Iraq with some other senators." Unlike the WSJ's report, that statement particularized Obama's actual date of arrival in Iraq to a two day window--providing substantially more information than what could be gleaned from existing press reports.

McCain revealed privileged information that the WSJ did not.

I’m leaning towards McCain now and the reason is his son. A Senator’s son goes to the Academies if they serve at all. Even the dumb ones.

(1) Al Gore.

(2) McCain went to Annapolis, where he finished near the bottom of his class with a big reputation as a party dude. And if you thing John Sidney McCain III was less a child (and grandchild) of privilege than his son, you don't know much about 4-star admirals.

The Wall Street Journal wrote: "Barack Obama departs for Iraq as early as this weekend,
...
By contrast, John McCain said: "I believe that either today or tomorrow ... Sen. Obama will be landing in Iraq with some other senators."
...
McCain revealed privileged information that the WSJ did not.
southpaw | July 19, 2008 at 08:19 AM

No. If you want to get pedantic about this rather than just admitting the obvious, then the WSJ may have revealed priviledged info, it's yet to be seen. McCain was more specific, therefore you can conclude he didn't.
Unfortunately you've pointed out that this specific info from McCain was that Obama would land Fri or Sat.

It's approaching 4pm Saturday in Baghdad. Every paper in the world says he ain't in Iraq. WTF do you need to be told here that ain't obvious already ?

DNFTT.

I'm currently running backups of the photos I took in Germany before I take my laptop in for repair.

It's approaching 4pm Saturday in Baghdad. Every paper in the world says he ain't in Iraq. WTF do you need to be told here that ain't obvious already?

Oh, I think we could have lots of fun speculating about the many things which aren't obvious. For example, did McCain mean to draw attention to the time-frame within which Obama was going to visit Iraq and get his facts wrong, or does the mistake really indicate that he was deliberately trying to mislead any terrorists who might have been planning to attack Obama? Did McCain just get confused about where Obama was going? After all, Obama did go to Afghanistan. Maybe McCain thinks Afghanistan and Iraq are very similar, and so slipped up and named the wrong one? Maybe McCain knew someone was going to Iraq and got Brown and Obama confused with each other?

I'll readily admit that such speculation would be a bit pointless, but I'm mentioning it because the fact that it's possible to speculate like that does suggest that not everything is now "obvious."

hilzoy sez:
"Note: if Obama does not show up in Iraq tomorrow, I will neither be surprised nor take that as evidence that McCain was wrong: rescheduling everything would be one obvious response to this kind of security breach.)"
-----
McCain sez:
Something at a luncheon FRIDAY.
-----
Obama's press pool sez:
Background:
This is a pool report for [THURSDAY] July 17 for flight from Chicago...to Andrews Air Force Base. All times are local ... Please note that the campaign said it would be holding this for distribution until it confirmed Sen. Obama was on the ground in Afghanistan.

Report:
The motorcade left Sen. Obama’s home in Chicago’s Kenwood neighborhood at 11:11 a.m.

thepage.time.com/obama-pool-report-4/
-----

So Obama departed for Afghanistan Thursday morning, but if he doesn't show up in Iraq, that'll be evidence that remarks made more than 24hrs later were the reason.

I guess when Obama wins the election McCain won't have to challenge the results, what with his time machine and all he could just have infinite do-overs.

Yeah, no corrections or even an update required for this post. Clearly you nailed it the first time.
Well except for the entire premise, every assumption, every claim made since being contradicted and shown to be inaccurate. But apart from that, spot on.

I'll ask Shays for an invite and put it on documents for everybody.

Ps. This ^ is called trolling people. There are no such things as inaccurate claims requiring corrections on blogs.

Please don't indulge the lies reported in every newspaper on the planet. These are all just trolls filing reports to make you feel angry on a website.

DNFTT. In fact, you should probably cancel your newspaper subscriptions. All of them apparently.

From the Be Careful What You Wish For Deptartment:

McCain -- whose camp knows a thing or two about whining -- kept whining about how Obama hadn't been to Iraq in three years and, now that he is going, they are in a tizzy about how all three major network anchors are going.

My guess is they are afraid to lose the one area -- foreign affairs -- where McSame keeps beating Obama in the polls.

And am I reading to much into things to suggest that Sen. Bayh's presence on this trip makes him the veep frontrunner?

mmm pie

Bye, kilo.

That's all you've got to say for yourself ?
Well yeah, that's solved everything.
Bon voyage to you too.

-Your Credibility

"One more thing- one of the principles of OPSEC is that if sensitive information has been revealed, you do not amplify it, republish it, or draw attention to it in any way (not even to criticize the fact that it was improperly revealed). "


Completely OT, but I've often thought the mainstream press operates this way on certain issues. Some things you don't say, and if someone does say them everyone studiously ignores it.

And am I reading to much into things to suggest that Sen. Bayh's presence on this trip makes him the veep frontrunner?

Let's hope the answer is 'yes'.

"That being said, I haven't seent he Dark Knight, but your comment in and of itself is a darn good recommendation. I have not heard a single criticim of it yet. Plus, I hear that it uses Chicago better than she has ever been used in other movies."

Also off topic, but we need an open thread. Anyway, David Denby in the New Yorker didn't like it. But take that for what it is worth. Even he had praise for what's his name's performance as the Joker.

Well! someone racked up a whole buncha mccain points good for mccain golf balls and golf hats! Good for you, Kilo! You've sucessfully batted down any suggestion that a senior senator with years of foreign policy experience and military experience in dangerous places needed to give a rat's patootie about the journalists, soldiers, diplomats and, of course, presidential candidates putting themselves in harms way during this exciting election season!

The main thing to remember is that everything revolves around McCain's chances to become president--even Obama's trip to Iraq must be made to serve Bush's legacy project. Its not remarkable that Senator McCain chose to break protocol and military procedure by alluding to Senator Obama's trip *purely for rhetorical advantage* in front of a crowd of ravenous, red meat, supporters. Its only surprising that for slightly more political gain he didn't give them Michelle Obama's home number so they could make threatening phone calls.

The thing to grasp is that McCain is so out of actual proof that Iraq is getting better--hey, what happened to that count of schools getting painted? Did that start to look kind of hollow as the people of New Orleans and now Iowa can't get their schools repainted?--and so out of explanations for why we have to stay there for 100 years if they are all better--that he has to resort to vague, mumbled, throw away lines like "I'm sure he'll find..." Its the McCain campaigns version of "British intelligence has found..." If Iraq were really getting better the country would know it, because our troops would have come home each one laden down with a big old box of ma'amoul or other Iraqi treats and cute little kiddie pictures of thanks. What's that you say? people still being blown up every day? What does that matter? Senator McCain wants to get into the white house and Cindy wants to have those drapes measured. Chaarge! And I don't just mean on her credit cards.

aimai

Is it OK if I change the subject? This is a torpedo right into the side of the McCAin campaing (from Carperbagger Report):

And while Americans consider their options, it seems Iraqi officials have already reached their own conclusion. Reuters has this stunning story.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a German magazine he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months.

In an interview with Der Spiegel released on Saturday, Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.

“U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”

It is the first time he has backed the withdrawal timetable put forward by Obama, who is visiting Afghanistan and us set to go to Iraq as part of a tour of Europe and the Middle East.

By any reasonable measure, this is pretty extraordinary. The Bush-backed Iraqi prime minister has endorsed Obama’s withdrawal policy, both in general and by name.

In fact, it gets better. Maliki, hailed by Republicans, has given up on Republican talking points altogether.


Asked if he supported Obama’s ideas more than those of John McCain, Republican presidential hopeful, Maliki said he did not want to recommend who people should vote for.

“Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems.”

Maliki added, “The Americans have found it difficult to agree on a concrete timetable for the exit because it

Oops. I clipped off the end of his sentence. Maliki said that Americans find it hard to agree on a timeline because is seems like a defeat.


McCain isn't any more intersted in the reality of the war than Bush is. To McCAin it's all about how to spin for American politics and that means how to promote a Republicans=winners and Democrats=losers frame on events.

But Maliki just blew that little game out of the water.

am I reading to much into things to suggest that Sen. Bayh's presence on this trip makes him the veep frontrunner?

Please let it not be so.

Russell- Thanks. Its somewhat comforting to know that we've had lots of real jerks around for a while.

Bush's 'Screw You' attitude is, to me, a milestone of sorts. That is, sure, Johnson was a total a**, but he had some small modicum of decency. The Civil Rights Act, despite long term costs in the South comes to mind. Bush 41 had some slimeballs like Ailes and Atwater campaign for him, but in office, I get the sense that he was a decent guy who just hung out with some shady people.

W. Bush reminds me a lot of a frat boy (Yeah, I know, not a creative observation). He flips you off and moons you and asks, "What are *you* gonna' do about it?"

"Also off topic, but we need an open thread."

Every weekend we need one -- actually, we need a standing open thread at all times -- but something seems to be required to get one that lay beyondth understanding. Maybe if we all clap very hard?

Since there's still no open thread, I have a question about Gary's and others' experiences with The Dark Knight: I was on the radio yesterday talking about the film with two other critics. One of the others largely disliked it, complaining in particular about the terrible murky cinematography. It turned out that he had seen it in an IMAX theater, unlike the rest of us, raising the obvious suspicion.

Denby, in one of the few pans, specifically refers to seeing it in IMAX.

I'd love to hear from someone who's seen it in *both* formats. Until that's possible, I'm curious as to who saw it on which format screen.

"Until that's possible, I'm curious as to who saw it on which format screen."

Long story short, I came close to seeing it at an Imax, but instead saw it at a mall multiplex.

I should say that if you ahbor films with explosions and violence, and care not a whit about comic book mythos, or Batman, and didn't bother to see Batman Begins, or didn't like it, this still is likely not a film for you.

But for any true Batman fan, anyone who had yearned without fulfillment until Batman Begins that we'd yet to ever seen a truly decent representation of the dark detective off the pages of comic books, oh, my.

And I was extremely pleased, having fanatically avoided spoilers, to have been suprised by a few minor twists.

EXTREMELY TRIVIAL MAYBE SPOILER FOLLOWS.


BELOW.


FURTHER DOWN.


(For instance, the survival of one minor character usually made dead in the mythos, and the death of another I'd thought would last into another film, while, on the other hand, I was utterly sure one apparently dead character was not, and indeed that character was not.)

Just asking:

What's wrong with Bayh?

"What's wrong with Bayh?"

He seems to have never met a corporate interest he doesn't like, tends to vote with Republicans, and generally exemplifies all that is worst about the DLC.

And I'm not all that against the DLC, at least compared to many.

And, to be sure, a lot of that criticism gets exaggerated by the passionate, and his flaws are sometimes marginal. Here's one critique, for what it's worth. Hey, look, it's got cluster munitions votes!

But, hey, National Review praises him:

Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana is a moderate Democrat. He voted for the Iraq war, and has remained a vocal defender of it. He has voted to ban partial-birth abortion, which caused the National Organization for Women to warn Al Gore against picking him as a running mate in 2000. Now Bayh wants to run for president.

o to score points with the party's Left--which sometimes seems to be all that's left of the party--he joined the Barbara Boxers and Ted Kennedys in the Senate to vote against Condoleezza Rice. We suspect that the Left will not forgive him for his other votes. All he has accomplished with this vote is to subtract from his reputation for sober-minded statesmanship.

Etc.

regardless of whether I enjoy taking the piss out of people who insult me

Yeah, getting caught fabricating facts and then lying about what you just said- that really took us all down a peg, huh? We're *laughing* at you. You're *funny*.

As I already pointed out, I haven't said I have a problem with reporters asking questions and that what I do have a problem with has been repeated about 20 times now.

Do I need to quote the exchange again? You said that McCain's statement was prompted by a reporter's questioning. Then, when southpaw pointed out that this was wrong, you claimed that this wasn't what you'd said.
You made stuff up, you lied, and you're truly embarrassing yourself. What your original point was isn't relevant to the lying and the fabrication.

I get it now. When you say "a spy" rather than "the spies", you really don't expect that these informers will be there this week just like they were last year. This idea is new to you.

No, what I mean is that a lull in air traffic might not be particularly noticable during an entire month. A change in security proceedures at an army base might not be noticed during an entire month. These sorts of things happen all the time. If you know that Obama is travelling that day, those might be signs that would allow him to be targeted.
Ill repeat, again (scroll bar issue) that this doesn't guarantee a hit. Those sorts of things will happen while he is in Iraq, unrelated to his trip. But they might increase his chance of being attacked.

>>Bye, kilo.
Posted by: hilzoy | July 19, 2008 at 10:09 AM

It's amazing how much space you can save with one kilobye.

"Kilobye" is either a beautiful pun or one of the great typos of all time.

Kilo,
Well, goodbye.
It's worth noting that you can ask the kitten to be reinstated. Not that this is worth anyone's time if you're going to continue as you started, but thought it was worth mentioning.

You probably think you were banned for being a conservative, or disagreeing with the Mighty Hilzoy. But a look through the archives will show you that there are conservatives who have posting priviledges, and that vigorous disagreement is pretty common here. Charles Bird posts here, ferchrissake.

You were banned for breaking the rules, and for detracting rather than adding to the conversation (at least, so I infer). [fwiw, Ive been banned before- again, it's not political ideology, it's behavior]. The misogyny didn't help, I suspect.

It's a shame, because you actually had a point to start off with- maybe not the conversation-stopper that you thought it was, yet something worth discussing. But you went downhill pretty quickly, and that really won't work here.
If you want to be civil & engage in debate without all of the name-calling, Id encourage you to apply for leniency.

>>"Kilobye" is either a beautiful pun or one of the great typos of all time.

Well, I was *going* to add that McCain's disclosure might make it easier for potential terrorists to kill a Bayh, but it was beneath me.

Sadly, it apparently no longer is.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad