Is she lying, were you mistaken, or did she just change her mind after talking to Joe Klein?

She talked to Joe Klein announcing her intention to vote for the funding bill, she then changed her mind and voted against.

Joe then rewrote the events, depicting her conversation as taking place after her vote, oblivious to the fact that the information he was putting out there was flat-out wrong.

C&P from my comment at swampland:

It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping!

There are two separate statements that are both true:

The Congressperson did indeed do an abrupt about face.

and

Reporting something that didn't, in fact, happen is shoddy journalism.

even the administration-complicit beltway media would have to change direction or be scalded by the newly informed public

Have you spent much time over at WaPO or Swampland or USAToday or CBS and checked out the comment threads over there?

The administration-complicit media gets scalded by an informed public on a daily basis, it doesn't do a damn bit of good. Anyone who calls them on their BS is dismissed as "shrill" and that's the end of it.

Now that I think of that, it helps explain why the anti-Dem story line seems to have such a life of its own. It aids in the process of the MSM defending their own sorry asses.

and then IngSoc dropped this nugget:

A lot of black ops are being run out of his office, and he's the one with the connections to make sure they keep going.

While we banter back and forth and pretend that Democracy matters, Cheney and Company live in a different world where only THEY actually know what's going on and therefore only THEY are in a position to determine what our next course of action is going to be.

I have a feeling its going to be fully another 20 years before the stuff that's currently going down begins to see the light of day and that will be due to the release of deathbed memoirs from the participants.

-instituting the draft, and it's potential for preventing wars of choice

I got into this discussion in the last thread but I'll try to state my position quickly and clearly.

If you think, that it's morally acceptable to force somone into the armed services against their will, then you don't have a moral basis to oppose a war of agression.

I just don't see any shades of gray.

A case could be made, however, for requiring public service, and my comment did mention allowing choice among departments of Defense, War and Peace.

At which point, the object, which is to make sure that the inconveniences of warfare are actually felt by the people responsible for the creation of warfare would be lost.

People who argue against withdrawal always invoke the spectre of having "lost" in Iraq. They claim that they are seeking "victory" But in an ongoing occupation these terms are meaningless. To win or lose implies an end state and if there's one thing that's abundantly clear is that our current situation has no end.

If anyone were honest about this and acknowleged that Iraq is intended merely as a springboard, then perhaps we could have a debate on merits. But once again, we the people are supposed to just sit back, keep our mouths shut and let the boys in charge (who have access to all that intelligence) just take care of things.

how do the neocon fascists believe that they can also take on Iran, Syria, or any other country? I'm undoubtedly being naive here, but I don't get it.

The air power that allowed us to march forward into Bagdhad is now languishing unused. The advantage of FRESH wars (as opposed to continued occupation) is that all that firepower can come back into play.

Besides our presense in Iraq will magically become MUCH less important.

of the Michelle Malkin Cheerleading video

You know when your opponents link directly to your content without even bothering to elaborate or comment, then you've probably committed a tactical error.

Though, the audience for this stuff is sufficiently fact-indifferent that 2 years from now, they'll still be bringing this up as an example of a left-wing conspiracy.

if it was needless to say, then why did it require a contact in the embassy to confirm its authenticity

A Rand-McNally geography textbook from 1903. In it is a chapter on the various "races of man" Due to a peculiar accident of history, it lists the Chinese as "the least developed" because of their lack of a phonetic alphabet. Of course it describes a Pyramid with "Caucasians" at the peak. You're quoting a document from 1926. In the grand sweep of history, that's an eyeblink ago.

The good news is that we think these attitudes are worthy of comment. In that regard, we've come a long way in a short time. But the basic idea that Northern Europeans owe it to the rest of the world to provide "civilization" at gunpoint still permeates our thinking. We still have quite away to go before "All Men Are Created Equal" reaches far enough into our collective consciousness to render such conversations moot.

I must admit that always use the quite unassailable "tens of thousands" formulation when discussing Iraqi civilian deaths. The attacks on the Lancet study however are just yet another example of the muddy moral thinking that goes on to justify the killing. To claim that 600,000 were killed is leftist propoganda when everyone knows that it's a mere tens of thousands. Of course that makes it quite alright then!

So why aren't they grateful again? I forget.