I disagree with Joel Achenbach, writing A Handle On Scandal in the Washington Post.
For instance, when Joel writes, "Scandals require code words, terms that no one ever used before but suddenly are all over LexisNexis: enemies list, dirty tricks, White House plumbers, cancer on the presidency, Deep Throat, arms for hostages, stained blue dress, etc. So far this one has produced only "yellowcake uranium" and "aluminum tubes," which don't exactly get the pulse racing," I have to ask, where did you get your "rule book" for scandals? Are there other requirements besides catchphrases? Cut it out with the red herrings.
Joel then writes "So far the story doesn't have a mysterious, charismatic figure at the heart of it. There's no Lt. Col. Oliver North, ramrod straight as he takes the oath and then lies to Congress. There's no G. Gordon Liddy, holding his hand over a flame to prove his willpower."
Joel, what about Donny Rumsfeld? What about Pauly Wolfowitz? Both charismatic, both weird and scary.
And then, Joel's crowning achievement, "There's nothing in the story as dramatic as a secret arms-for-hostages deal with funds diverted illegally to Nicaraguan rebels. No Democratic office has been burgled. No powerful official has lied about untoward relations with a big-haired intern. A scandal has a hard time getting off the ground when so much of it involves speech-writing and the alleged inadequacy of the vetting process."
Oh no, there's nothing dramatic at all about sending 150,000 American troops overseas to wage a war of aggression unprecedneted in our nation's history and against the explicit will of the world and much of our own citizenry, with the willing aid of Big Media, which was hoping for some slack when it came time to overhaul the regulations at the FCC. Nothing to see here, folks, move along...
"In a real scandal, the scandalmongers ask, "What did the president know, and when did he know it?" but that does not easily apply in this case, in part because the administration's opponents cannot imagine the president as a mastermind of anything."
The Nation. The New Republic. The New York Times. Buzzflash. the LA Times. The San Francisco Chronicle. Even Richard Cohen at the Washington Post, who by and large supported the war. And Joel, read any Paul Krugman or Nicholas Kristof lately? What are you a
I would say your lies speak for themselves, asshole.
For instance, when Joel writes, "Scandals require code words, terms that no one ever used before but suddenly are all over LexisNexis: enemies list, dirty tricks, White House plumbers, cancer on the presidency, Deep Throat, arms for hostages, stained blue dress, etc. So far this one has produced only "yellowcake uranium" and "aluminum tubes," which don't exactly get the pulse racing," I have to ask, where did you get your "rule book" for scandals? Are there other requirements besides catchphrases? Cut it out with the red herrings.
Joel then writes "So far the story doesn't have a mysterious, charismatic figure at the heart of it. There's no Lt. Col. Oliver North, ramrod straight as he takes the oath and then lies to Congress. There's no G. Gordon Liddy, holding his hand over a flame to prove his willpower."
Joel, what about Donny Rumsfeld? What about Pauly Wolfowitz? Both charismatic, both weird and scary.
And then, Joel's crowning achievement, "There's nothing in the story as dramatic as a secret arms-for-hostages deal with funds diverted illegally to Nicaraguan rebels. No Democratic office has been burgled. No powerful official has lied about untoward relations with a big-haired intern. A scandal has a hard time getting off the ground when so much of it involves speech-writing and the alleged inadequacy of the vetting process."
Oh no, there's nothing dramatic at all about sending 150,000 American troops overseas to wage a war of aggression unprecedneted in our nation's history and against the explicit will of the world and much of our own citizenry, with the willing aid of Big Media, which was hoping for some slack when it came time to overhaul the regulations at the FCC. Nothing to see here, folks, move along...
"In a real scandal, the scandalmongers ask, "What did the president know, and when did he know it?" but that does not easily apply in this case, in part because the administration's opponents cannot imagine the president as a mastermind of anything."
The Nation. The New Republic. The New York Times. Buzzflash. the LA Times. The San Francisco Chronicle. Even Richard Cohen at the Washington Post, who by and large supported the war. And Joel, read any Paul Krugman or Nicholas Kristof lately? What are you a
FUCKING MINDLESS IDIOT??
I would say your lies speak for themselves, asshole.
<< Home