1. Anonymous says:

    I see.

    There are only two positions a â€qualified†intelligence staffer can have held over the past few years in order to remain untainted: 1) Agree with the Bush administration, or; 2) Sit on your hands and say nothing, even as the most spectacular failure of intelligence and analysis in the history of the world unfolds before your very eyes.

    Sounds great! I’ll take two of ’em!

  2. Anonymous says:

    Just beginning Ron Susskind’s book, â€The One Percent Doctrineâ€, about the formulation of our response to 9/11. It is good. He got a lot of inside info from people he calls â€the invisiblesâ€, the opposite of Arkin’s revolving door resume padders. These are devoted public servants, the people who are really competent and expert, who formulate the policies and responses, who toil long, long days for months (now years) on end, and, because they are competent, are kept on from Admin to Admin. The very people York trashes, evidently in favor of the Heritage-alum, resume-padding, incompetent partisan hacks just stopping by for a foothold before they move to a more lucrative gig.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Kevin Drum makes several good points in dismantling all the excuses why a phased withdrawal from Iraq is wrong, but I particualrly liked this:

    Because it would destroy our standing in the world? This is a fatuous argument. Staying in Iraq is doing far more damage to our standing in the world than a careful withdrawal ever would. Withdrawing from Vietnam didn’t destroy America’s standing in the world, withdrawing from Algeria didn’t destroy France’s standing in the world, and withdrawing from Lebanon didn’t destroy Israel’s standing in the world. It was staying too long that did the damage.

    If the only way to win a war against Islamic jihadism is by invading and occuping Muslim countries, we’re going to lose. Luckily, it’s not the way to win. It’s time to acknowledge this reality and demand that the Bush administration stop posturing and instead pursue a genuine, long-term winning strategy for the broader war we’re fighting. An open-ended commitment to occupying Iraq isn’t part of that.

    Josh Marshall has more on how the Dems could improve their tone on this issue and stop looking weak.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Hm… I wonder what York would do if he was consistently labelled a “partisan Republican’’. Maybe he should look in the mirror before writing this sort of rubbish? Anyway, on the evidence you present EW, “malodorous aggregaation of excrement’’ would be a better description of Mr. Byron York.

  5. Anonymous says:

    I think everything Mr. York writes is dumb. Furthermore, everything he writes is clearly written willfully.

    Ergo, he must be willfully dumb, at least when one is utilizing partisan Republican logic.


  6. Anonymous says:

    Paul — York insists that he is NOT a Republican, that he has never participated in a campaign — he may also claim that he hasn’t given any money to a candidate, but my memory is not clear on that. He was talking with Simon Rosenberg at George Washington U after Markos and Jerome had been on stage with Simon for a Crashing the Gate event the day they kicked off the book tour. Byron acknowledges that he is a convservative, but insists he is not a partisan.

    Take it for whatever you think it is worth.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Asking the Republicans to investigate the Bush administration (Phase II) is like asking the fox to guard the henhouse. A Republican â€disadvantage†during Phase II would actually be a good thing. But it is not going to happen. Pat Roberts is a political hack who will make sure that there are no damaging revelations.