- The "undisciplined"
- Whatever happened to consent of the governed?
- Journolist can't fool half the people
- Submitted 07/23/10
Posted: 23 Jul 2010 03:47 AM PDT
The New York Times has a brief item:
Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Lebanese Shiite movement Hezbollah, said Thursday that he had been told that members of the group would be indicted by a United Nations tribunal investigating the 2005 killing of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri of Lebanon, left.
There's very little more in the Daily Star:
Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said his party expected the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) would charge some Hizbullah members with involvement in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
And there's this little bit:
Nasrallah said that Prime Minister Saad Hariri had visited him prior to his trip to the United States and informed him that "undisciplined" Hizbullah members would be indicted.
What does "undisciplined" mean?
Nasrallah added that Hariri had assured him that he, too, was convinced Hezbollah as an organization had not been involved.
Apparently it's in Sa'ad Hariri's best interest to maintain the distinction. But why does Nasrallah fear indictments? Michael Young answers:
Indictments would throw Hizbullah's strategy into disarray. For a start, the party cannot maintain Lebanon's readiness for war if it chooses to go on the offensive domestically in order to pressure Hariri and the government into denouncing the special tribunal. Nasrallah would either have to opt for domestic instability, which would only divide the country, or avoid that path, so as to preserve some sort of united front against Israel. The secretary general could not do both.
Young also explains what else the investigators need to do. Apparently, despite his powerful and ruthless masters, Nasrallah still has to maintain the fiction that he's independent and puts Lebanon's interests first. And while Syria and Iran are both masters of Hezbollah, they each have slightly different interests in how they manipulate Nasrallah.
Crossposted at Yourish.
Posted: 23 Jul 2010 01:52 AM PDT
The editors of the Washington Post wrap up an editorial The public deserves a hearing for a Medicare appointee with:
Dr. Berwick, as we have said previously, comes to the job with impeccable qualifications and broad support, including that of three Republican predecessors at the CMS. But he has made numerous controversial statements about which Republicans ought to have been able to question him fully. It's unfortunate that Mr. Baucus and the administration seem disinclined to have that happen, and it lends credence to suggestions that the administration was motivated not only by the asserted need for speed but also by a desire to avoid a public debate about Dr. Berwick's views.
Which leads to:
Who is playing political games now?
In it's endorsement of candidate Obama, the editors of the Washington Post wrote:
But Mr. Obama's temperament is unlike anything we've seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view.
Of course there was never any evidence that Obama wanted to hear opposing points of view and now it's clear that he certainly doesn't want voters to hear them.
Continuing this disturbing line of thought is Charles Krauthammer with Beware the Lame Duck.
It's a target-rich environment. The only thing holding the Democrats back would be shame, a Washington commodity in chronically short supply. To pass in a lame-duck session major legislation so unpopular that Democrats had no chance of passing it in regular session -- after major Democratic losses signifying a withdrawal of the mandate implicitly granted in 2008 -- would be an egregious violation of elementary democratic norms.
As Krauthammer observed in the beginning of his article, President Obama (and his legislative majorities) have spent all their political capital passing sweeping changes in our economic life; even bypassing the usual norms to pass what they wanted. Now will they continue flouting the legislative ground rules to preserve and even expand the role of government that they've imposed on us?
Posted: 22 Jul 2010 11:51 PM PDT
As the Daily Caller releases bits and pieces of the Journalist-archives, it's interesting to see which issues were of concern to the 'listers. One of yesterday's articles focused on the 'lister's interest in framing the narrative of the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin as Sen. John McCain's running mate.
But in many other exchanges, the Journolisters clearly had another, more partisan goal in mind: to formulate the most effective talking points in order to defeat Palin and McCain and help elect Barack Obama president. The tone was more campaign headquarters than newsroom.
Indeed Palin's selection was the biggest story that day two years ago. As soon as it broke, it pushed candidate Obama's acceptance speech out of the top spot of memeorandum.
Meanwhile, 51% of those surveyed thought the press was "trying to hurt" Mrs. Palin with its coverage.
I don't know to what degree the Journolisters drove the coverage of Palin - in those memeorandum screen shots, I didn't see any any obvious Journolist names - or if their coverage of her was symptomatic of the pervasive bias in the MSM. I don't know if the Daily Caller's reporting constitutes a smoking gun or a confirmation of something at least half the country knew to be true.
Should I be more upset that the 'listers tried to frame a narrative that was damaging to Palin (and McCain) or that their effort couldn't be differentiated from "straight" reporting.
Note: I've made a few changes from my original post for added clarity.
Posted: 22 Jul 2010 10:07 PM PDT
Watcher's Council submissions are UP!
Read. Enjoy. Be informed.
|You are subscribed to email updates from Soccer Dad |
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
|Email delivery powered by Google|
|Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610|