You are far too impressed with yourself. Some Dublin jounos, as I know, drink in the Palace Bar, others in McDaids, some have been around long enough to still know here Joe Dwyers' is.

Stop kidding yourself -- you are a pretty transparent type, I'll look up Wendy Shea for a definition. I am sure it is as caustic as she would apply to me.

The new lemon seems not to be McCain ironically, enough, but Clinton. The name Clinton has replaced that of Bush, and there is still much juice in that rind. The names have been changed--the Democrat good guy is Obama now, but the bad guy is also a Democrat, Clinton.

Hillary just hasn't invited journalists to enough "ordinary folk" meat-grilling parties at her house. These are clearly the types of things that should determine our choice for president.

Say nothing of the fact that McCain chews the head off of any reporter who dares ask him whether he and John Kerry discussed being running mates in 2004 - the man is clearly a sweet, honest, and completely open guy!

Who would have known? LOL

If prospective sources learn that a particular reporter (or, worse, all reporters) may burn them by treating every interaction as presumptively on the record, then those sources will of course go out of their way to avoid the press. Who wouldn't?

Then how do you explain the fact that Paxman continues to have interviews with some of the most powerful sources in Britain? Is it just that the Brits are so much more masochistic than us yanks?

(Sorry if someone's already gotten to this. I've been out moving mountains of snow from place to place.)

oh my god that bush thing was infuriating. what a robot. what a tool. he can't think on his feet, he can only spit out pieces of propaganda, and he must finish chewing when he bites down on a sugar cube! don't interrupt the horsie! he'll bit your hand off! it's just so ....embarrassing that he is our president, seriously. it's humiliating and i haven't even left my house.

those other clips were a breath of fresh airi love that guy paxman! i mean, i lived the reporter in the last one, too. but bush got my pulse over 200 with his detestable, loathsome self.

thanks for exposing how vapid and moronic and useless our mainstream press is for the most part. we all really need the reminders. their complicity in so much ruin today is shocking. sorrowful.

When they aren't hyping plates thrown in the air and lens reflections as flying saucers, they mine this site for material.

http://rense.com

they left out the mink coat but they got the pimp hat and suit.

"Ex-patriots"? You must mean those who no longer feel any love of country. For all your condscension, you are a master of malapropism, if nothing else. The word is "expatriates" and btw that pub of male strutting, Doheny and Nesbits, is so yesterday!

I agree about the dry lemon. The new lemon seems not to be McCain ironically, enough, but Clinton. The name Clinton has replaced that of Bush, and there is still much juice in that rind. The names have been changed--the Democrat good guy is Obama now, but the bad guy is also a Democrat, Clinton. In any case that hole is rapidly running dry for me; I'll save my outrage for when I'm outraged. I can't do it every evening at 5:01 pm.

I'm not bebop, but maybe I can help. What bothers you about Bolton is probably best expressed by the ironical German quip:

Einbildung ist auch eine Bildung. (Vanity is also a [form of] education.)

It's a play on the fact that the word for self-love and the word for education share the same root in German (from bilden, to form or to frame.) Most English lovers of literature are familiar with it in the word Bildungsroman, the coming-of-age novel.

But enough pedantry.... What makes Bolton so insufferable is that he's confused egotism with erudition. Nothing, in my opinion, can turn an intelligent man into a boor and a bully more quickly than deciding at some point in his adolescence that he needn't take into account what anyone else thinks in forming his opinions.

Do I get an "A?" ;-)

You area lovable joker? I am almost about to invest in a laptop. If electricity goes out during a thunder shower, the gleaming bright laptop window screen can be my glowing 'friend' in the outdoor crap-pot-hole?

If a squishy is performed,

a outdoor pot-house will have laptop light.

I've seen the first Spring bunny do a hop hop.

After a flop-drop, a yellow ducky in a bath tub seems right. I tease...

The CEO's and Wall Street crew swig vodka inside the W.H. and wiggle at a indoor flusher.

Peepers in the outdoor bogs are peeping crazily. Thumper is a bushy-tail rabbit with a wiggle cute nose.

I best hush.

I'm nice if I give an apology?

I have a pimple on my nose.

Or put it this way, only journalists are defending the leak -- the problem I would say is that Glen Greenwald identifies too much with Ms. Peev and not enough with Ms. Power. More introspection, less projection.

Why would I identify with Ms. Peev? I'm not a reporter.

The really really revealing set of words Ms. Power used is "we fucked up" at the very beginning of the quoted remarks. To be blunt there is no way that someone giving an interview that they understood was for verbatim quotation would have opened with the profanity in question -- or any profanity at all. The phrase illustrates that she though she was speaking to a reporter in a manner that was not a for the record interview -- one way or another.

Peev said the interview was on the record. Power issued a statement and did not contradict that in any way.

Yet here you are, claiming the assumption was that the interview was off the record. But you don't have a single fact to support that claim. You're just making it up.

If Power thought the whole thing was off the record, then why did she specify that she wanted that one comment to be off the record? If the whole thing were off the record, that comment already would have been and she wouldn't have had to request it.

Do you actually think it's an effective way to argue to just make up facts that have no support anywhere, and are contradicted by all available evidence?

Personally, if asked by someone "should I talk to Glenn Greenwald?" I would now have to say "are you fucking joking!" All very sad ...

I'm not interested in talking to anyone who with rules that they can force me to censor things they say if they end up embarrassed by their remarks. That's called being a propagandist.