Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Buy Art, Help Kids | Where Is the Love? »

Monday, February 12, 2007

The Morning News

posted by on February 12 at 8:23 AM

Crying Wolf: Iran sending bombs to Iraq, says U.S. Military.

Bombing in Baghdad: New day, same old carnage.

Non-Binding in Washington: Now the House offers a non-binding resolution slamming Bush’s surge.

“Occasionally a joint or something.” Leader of British conservative party admits to past drug use. Possible future Prime Minister disqualified from American Idol.

Et tu, Salon? Liberal website describes Obama as “uppity.”

Move It: Mobile home owners squeezed out by rising land values in western Washington.

Proud to be from Texas: Dixie Chicks kick Grammys’ butt.

RSS icon Comments

1

Salon says,

We apologize for the gaffe

Thanks to everyone who pointed out the gaffe in the headline on the cover. We screwed up by using the word uppity -- and the error should have been caught before publication. We just fixed it -- the cover headline now matches the headline on the article, which was the correct version.

-- Jeanne Carstensen, Managing Editor

(under "letters".)

Whatever.

Posted by annie | February 12, 2007 9:07 AM
2

As of Monday morning, "uppity" has been removed and replaced with "smug" from the Salon.com site story; it now reads:

Today he drips with charisma and inspires fawning admiration from all quarters. But Obama began his journey as a smug young man with little political future.

Posted by Laurence Ballard | February 12, 2007 9:08 AM
3

Re the first item, it's really disappointing to see the NYT parroting these anonymous sources in the style of one J Miller. I haven't read the WaPo piece yet, but you'd think the NYT would've learned their lesson. Even if the claim turns out to be true, the article was based entirely on anonymous sources, served only to convey their assertions without question, and was written by Miller's accomplice in the WMD fiasco.

Posted by Gabriel | February 12, 2007 9:10 AM
4

Dan, are you stealing Sullivan's jokes now?

Posted by Gabriel | February 12, 2007 9:22 AM
5

Juan Cole is providing some worthwhile commentary on the gov't claims about Iran, and whether we're being fed another line of horseshit, just like in 2002-2003 on Iraq. Check him out.

Posted by cdc | February 12, 2007 9:32 AM
6

Whoops, no Gabriel. Gay minds think alike? And my previous post about pot and AI cited Obama's drug use disqualifying him from AI. So I was just extending that -- so maybe Sullivan stole from me? Or we stole from each other? Or we have finally achieved complete mindmeld? Accept on choice, single-payer health care, etc.

Posted by Dan Savage | February 12, 2007 9:37 AM
7

Does Joel Connelly being insane count as news, based on the fact that he's taking it to a whole other level of paranoia and meglomania?

Posted by wf | February 12, 2007 9:44 AM
8

Just teasing, Dan.

Posted by Gabriel | February 12, 2007 10:03 AM
9

Just looking briefly at the WaPo piece, it does seem much better than the NYT article simple by including this:

With so much official U.S. buildup about the purported evidence of Iranian influence in Iraq, the briefing was also notable for what was not said or shown. The officials offered no evidence to substantiate allegations that the "highest levels" of the Iranian government had sanctioned support for attacks against U.S. troops. Also, the military briefers were not joined by U.S. diplomats or representatives of the CIA or the office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Posted by Gabriel | February 12, 2007 10:04 AM
10
Posted by Levislade | February 12, 2007 10:08 AM
11

Joel Connelly: If you're not for building a new viaduct, then you're a neo-Marxist revolutionary whose real agenda is to ban cars. I know there's a base out there that Connelly's hysteria appeals to, but doesn't this sort of lunacy scare off more undecideds than it converts?

Hmm, I guess we should be telling Mr. Connelly, "Keep up the good work!"

Posted by cressona | February 12, 2007 10:35 AM
12

Um, @10 and @11 - I'm for building a new viaduct and most people call me a neo-Marxist revolutionary who wants to ban cars.

Nobody reads Joel much - he has to be outrageous to get us to read him.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 12, 2007 11:22 AM
13

Dead link for item #6.

Posted by laterite | February 12, 2007 12:47 PM
14

Mr. Danny, you should post something on the Obama/John Howard (asshole Aussie PM) stink.

Posted by JudithBjini | February 12, 2007 2:12 PM
15

That Juan Cole piece is crap. Pure speculation that US claims of Iranian weapons in Iraq is "black psy ops". Weapons and insurgents are clearly coming in from outside Iraq's borders. Time to get out (and let them kill each other) or bomb everyone else in the area. Nukes?

Posted by him | February 12, 2007 3:25 PM
16

It's crap because he points out that Iran wouldn't supply Sunni insurgents (who are the ones blowing nearly all the troops) with weaponry?

Don't like the term "black psy ops"? What else would you call anonymous cooked up claims of Iranian involvement that had been shopped around to news outlets for months? It's not like the administration has a remotely credible record with this kind of stuff.

Posted by Aexia | February 12, 2007 3:35 PM
17

Dude, in describing Salon as "liberal" you have officially demonstrated yourself to be unqualified to engage in any metacommentary, no matter how small, on the blogosphere. Whether it is because you are too old or too much of a knee-jerk anti-liberal to accurately gauge reality is an exercise that I'll leave to the readers.

Posted by Respect your youngers | February 12, 2007 6:13 PM
18

hellojojo

Posted by LevinBraunz3 | February 13, 2007 10:09 AM
19

@Aexia: it's crap because Shiites are also engaging in massive killing sprees. Where do you think Moqtada Al Sadr's Mahdi Army is getting its resources? And, it's crap because there are people OTHER THAN US TROOPS dying over there. Plus, the US provided at least some evidence of material originating from Iran. Plus, given the history of the region, it makes logical sense that they'd try to interfere (just as Saudi Arabia has said they'd enter the fray if the US withdrew). Plus, Cole provided no evidence to support HIS assertions. And, imo, "black psy ops" is used by paranoid conspiracy theorists who watch too many X-Files reruns. The same people who claim the government is incompetent (which it is) also claim there's some super-secret, sophisticated "black psy ops" going on.

Posted by him | February 13, 2007 11:50 AM
20

pdhy uxvz htodlcqp jdcsuqmrt npghzmsai fegrc mdkcubsv

Posted by psbhneuam crnkeulq | March 1, 2007 11:53 PM
21

pdhy uxvz htodlcqp jdcsuqmrt npghzmsai fegrc mdkcubsv

Posted by psbhneuam crnkeulq | March 1, 2007 11:53 PM
22

pdhy uxvz htodlcqp jdcsuqmrt npghzmsai fegrc mdkcubsv

Posted by psbhneuam crnkeulq | March 1, 2007 11:55 PM
23

pdhy uxvz htodlcqp jdcsuqmrt npghzmsai fegrc mdkcubsv

Posted by psbhneuam crnkeulq | March 1, 2007 11:55 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).