Bush, in describing Cindy Sheehan, stated, “She expressed her opinion. I disagree with it.”
This puts Cindy Sheehan in the company of military experts who told Bush things he didn’t want to hear prior to the attack on Iraq. Experts who turned out to be correct.
PAD
• 
It would appear that one of the ironies of the 2000 election is that the kind of recount that Gore wanted was the one LEAST likely to give him the victory.
Personally–and I realize that this may be self serving–I think that the only way to do a proper recount is to include ONLY correctly cast ballots. No undervotes, no overvotes, no dimpled chads. If you stupidly punch a hole and then write in the same guys name, therby invalidating the ballot, the ballot is invalidated.
If the recount had continued with people trying to divine the intent of folks too stupid to follow the instructions Gore might have won, Bush might have won but I guarantee that even more people would have been unhappy with the results–rightly so, I think.
And just to be fair, I admire krugman for at least admitting he made a mistake (as he did a week earlier when he quoted noted fountain of misinformation John Conyers regarding turnout in an Ohio county–whereas Conyers claimed that it was a suspiciously high 98.5%, in the land of reality it was a far more resonable 72.2%–something easily looked up, which was more than Krugman bothered to do.).
Krugman’s a smart guy. He’s letting his bias get in the way though.
Personally–and I realize that this may be self serving–I think that the only way to do a proper recount is to include ONLY correctly cast ballots.
What I can’t understand is why Florida has such a pathetic and ridiculous ballot to begin with that allowed this mess in the first place.
What I can’t understand is why Florida has such a pathetic and ridiculous ballot to begin with that allowed this mess in the first place.
The infamous “butterfly ballot” was not in the entire state. As for the rest, I don’t know if Florida had any more botched votes than other states but it was the only place where it would matter.
It’s not unreasonable to ask that there be a single standard ballot type for the presidential election. Doesn’t seem to be much call for it though.
A lot of the mistakes were simply people not following the rules. The 1% or so of the population that can’t find their áššëš with both hands and a flashlight will probably always screw up a ballot, no matter how simple. What can you do?
I think Wikipedia has the best summary of the 2000 Florida Fiasco. This is a slight digression, but the various vote counts have cropped up in several posts, so I thought some readers might find it interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_US_presidential_election
See, here’s the thing.
Something intrinsically entirely definitely required for someone to lie about something is for that person to have the knowledge that the thing he’s speaking is not the truth.
This Presidential Administration spouted the belief that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. This is a belief shared by many many many other individuals at the time and before that time.
Turning back the clock, how in hëll, heaven, earth, or the tiny quasi-realities that exist in some leftist mind did President George Walker Bush, Texan, failed businessman, former Governor, human mortal seemingly normal being know that Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction whatsoever? Because he had to know that they had none in order to be lying about them having some. So what it is it? Does POTUS have clairvoyant psionic powers? Super-telepathy? What?
Say whatever you want about the POTUS. You can be accurate; you can be inaccurate; you can have an opinion right or wrong I’m not yelling at anyone to leave the country. Believe that President Bush is incompetent! I don’t care. But try to wrap your tongues around what a lie actually is.
Too many people typing all this BS on weblogs and the internet and message boards and can’t understand what a farking lie is. Lying entails knowing that the contrary of what you are saying is true.
and yes, ISP peekers, on more than one occasion I am the Blue Spider….
oh and http://husseinandterror.com
It’s amazing for a thread that only 200 or so odd comments there’s such a diversity of topic.
What does this prove? Probably that Cindy Sheehan isn’t enough to hold the attention of a thinking person; we NEED to bring up Donald Luskin vs Krugman or the old Florida thing or we would be bored! maybe if I didn’t spent this much time reading this interesting (right OR wrong) stuff I’d have the time and energy to get a date….
Blue Spider, the thing is, we do know that the current administration doctored the facts they were getting. We also know that it nurtures a culture of setting a course, ignoring or even silencing contrary views or opinions, and then fitting the facts to the course.
Did Bush know that Iraq didn’t have WMDs? Well, there’s really only one person that can honestly answer that, and he’s not really likely to appear in these forums and give us an answer. But consider this: looking at the proof trotted out before the world, can you say, looking back, distanced from the fear, anger, and hurt of 9/11, and say, honestly, that the evidence supported the claim that Iraq either had, was producing, or was close to being able to produce, WMDs. Because that’s what we were told, and in my opinion, then and now, I don’t think the facts bear that out. And I think this adminstration knew that, but played upon the emotions of a wounded nation in order to launch their war against Iraq. In that regard, yes, I think we were lied to. We were told Iraq was an imminent threat, or was on the verge of providing the means to harm the US to others. On both accounts, not only have the facts proven those justifications wrong, but the second part was wrong the moment Bush started uttering it. While Saddam may have supported Palestian actions against Isreal, was there any concrete connection between Iraq and Al Queada?
I’ve had people that support Bush justify the war by telling me that he had to make the best decision he could, given the best information he had at the time. I respond by saying that, when literally millions of possibly innocent lives are on the line, you don’t make that decision until you have solid proof. Anything less is irresponsible.
Bill,
All too true but I was hoping you’d comment on whether or not you found the stuff on jack Nelson informative.
Informative, yes; supportive of your case, not especially.
Firstly, I’m perfectly happy to dispute your claim that Clinton’s lies were legendary. In the sense of the word that means gathering much attention and much media ballyhoo, yes they were; in the sense of meaning anything substantive about the running of the country, however, I’d have to say no, they weren’t.
Stories that depend upon confidential sources can be landmark exposes of information the public actually needs to know, inveterate (or even invertebrate) gossip-mongering, or anything in between. Watergate, involving the subversion of the Constitution for political ends, is clearly an example of the former. The Lewinsky mess, IMO, is a good deal closer to the latter than the former, and the fact that it led to the impeachment farce suggests to me that it did a lot more harm to the country than good.
Nelson talks about leaks as one of the means by which a free press keeps a check on the power of government. In what way did the Lewinsky affair do anything of the kind?
So no, I don’t think the NYT is tossing out Lewinsky as an example for conservatives to look at and say “hmm, good point.” (It’s also really difficult for you to claim that while also claiming overwhelming liberal bias that slants most of what they do, I think. Are they fair, or not?) While they’re not explicitly saying that Watergate and Lewinsky are morally equivalent, by putting the two of them in the same category of “reasons why leaks are important” they’re implicitly doing so, and I think it’s a horrible attempt to provide balance.
It’s akin to talking-head newsdrones insisting that to provide “balanced coverage” of something like global warming, every single story they do about it has to include a quote from some industry-shill hired gun saying “well, we don’t think the evidence is really in” — or the NYT spending three days’ worth of front-page stories on intelligent design, which while informative in some ways is going to do nothing but fuel the “teach the controversy!” fires of the ignorant.
So yes, I found your further analysis of the Nelson piece informative, but probably not in the way you expected. Hope this was informative in turn.
TWL
Something intrinsically entirely definitely required for someone to lie about something is for that person to have the knowledge that the thing he’s speaking is not the truth.
That is, of course, true, but it doesn’t get Bush and company off the hook.
When Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. say things like “We know for a fact that he has reconstituted nuclear weapons,” they are claiming that their knowledge is beyond dispute. Not “so far as we know,” not “here’s what the evidence suggests” — they’re claiming a monopoly on Truth.
As such, they themselves raised the bar — as soon as it comes out that they did NOT in fact know it, but only guessed it based on flimsky evidence, their claim of absolute knowledge DOES in fact turn into a lie.
Argue philosophy all you like, Chris, but I’d recommend caution when you insist liberals are too blitheringly stupid to understand what a lie means. I think most of us are all too clear on the concept, thanks all the same.
TWL
So no, I don’t think the NYT is tossing out Lewinsky as an example for conservatives to look at and say “hmm, good point.” (It’s also really difficult for you to claim that while also claiming overwhelming liberal bias that slants most of what they do, I think. Are they fair, or not?)
Er, not really. See, it is possible to be biased without having to demonstrate that bias 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The fact that the new York Times gets it right more often than they get it wrong does not negate the the idea that they get it wrong too often. Are they fair or not? Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. The fact that some stories betray a bias does not mean that ALL must, does it?
I realize that some liberals seem to honestly believe that EVERY single thing on Fox News is designed to promote the Republican agenda and would be unwilling to ever even imagine that they would ever do a story right…but I refuse to indulge in that kind of chidlishness.
Furthermore, it was Mr Nelson who made the claim, so any desire to provide balance was his, not theirs. I suppose they could have dropped his reference to Clinton in the editorial but as I mentioned, that would have seemed pretty obviously biased.
While they’re not explicitly saying that Watergate and Lewinsky are morally equivalent, by putting the two of them in the same category of “reasons why leaks are important” they’re implicitly doing so, and I think it’s a horrible attempt to provide balance.
Obviously we will have to disagree on whether Clinton should have faced any punishment for his perjury (perhaps you do not even believe that he committed perjury). I’ll leave that up to history to decide. Thanks to confidential sources, history will have that opportunity. And I suspect that teh next president dragged before a court may thinktwice before trying to get away with lies and/or evasive statements. there’s your check on the power of government right there.
Argue philosophy all you like, Chris, but I’d recommend caution when you insist liberals are too blitheringly stupid to understand what a lie means. I think most of us are all too clear on the concept, thanks all the same.
Forgive me if your comment made me laugh. I couldn’t help thinking of Clinton saying “I did not have sex with that woman” and the many liberals who still say it was not a lie. Obviously, if Bush did deliberately and knowingly lie, I would agree it is a far worse lie than one about a personal sex life. My point is simply that liberals have been known to not recognize a lie when it was pretty obvious to the rest of us. (Of course, since I can’t think of very many politicians who don’t deliberately lie, it often comes down to your political leaning for how you perceive it.)
Iowa Jim
Sorry, Jim — I’ll have to call you on that. Please name for me a single liberal who says that statement is not a lie. If there are so many of them, it should be a simple enough task.
And I love the fact that “the rest of us” is used as the opposite of “liberals”. Gee, you’re not trying to marginalize anybody, oh heavens no.
And Bill — while I’ll certainly concede that Clinton lied, I’d need to know more about the legal definition of perjury to make that call one way or the other. Among other things, I believe (correct me if I’m wrong) that there are grounds to contest a ruling of perjury if it can be shown that the question was in no way germane to the case being investigated, and I’ll certainly argue that Lewinsky had nothing whatsoever to do with Kenneth Starr-Chamber’s mandate.
You’re also moving the topic from leaks and whether Lewinsky was something so crucial for Americans’ understanding that you needed anonymous sources to whether Clinton deserves punishment. Two different topics, and I’m not especially interested in the new one.
I’ll ask it straight-out: do you think the Lewinsky matter is of sufficient scope that it should be given equal billing to Watergate and Iran-Contra when discussing the need for leaks? A straight yes-or-no answer would be appreciated.
TWL
Please name for me a single liberal who says that statement is not a lie.
Surely you jest, though I was not as clear as I meant to be. I was referring to before Clinton himself admitted to having a relationship (though I don’t think he ever called it sex). Both prominent liberals and friends of mine who are liberal all said the allegations about Monica were a lie fabricated by right wing extremists. Of course, once Clinton acknowleged there was even a hint of truth to the story, one of my liberal friends (a woman) utterly rejected Clinton and even voted for Bush in the first election.
I can’t name names because I don’t remember, but there have been people on this site who even now have said Clinton did not lie in his statement “I did not have sex with that woman.” They are definitely in the minority and they are definitely hiding behind a very narrow definition of sex, but they do still exist.
If Bush were to admit tomorrow that he deliberately said Iraq had nuclear material when he knew they did not, then I would be the first in line to join you in calling him a liar. That has not yet happened, nor do I ever expect it to. But stranger things can happen.
Iowa Jim
Tim,
BTW — I was really not trying to argue with you about your point, though it probably came across that way. I just found some humor in your statement. There is some truth that we each can be blind to the faults of someone we support. I try to be objective in evaluating Pres. Bush, but I understand I am far more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt than I was Pres. Clinton.
Iowa Jim
And Bill — while I’ll certainly concede that Clinton lied, I’d need to know more about the legal definition of perjury to make that call one way or the other. Among other things, I believe (correct me if I’m wrong) that there are grounds to contest a ruling of perjury if it can be shown that the question was in no way germane to the case being investigated, and I’ll certainly argue that Lewinsky had nothing whatsoever to do with Kenneth Starr-Chamber’s mandate.
Yeah but the question he perjured himself on was not initially anything with Ken Star. It occurred during the Paula Jones case. Clinton’s defenders like to say that the questions that Jones’ attorneys asked him were not germane to the case and he didn’t have to answer them truthfully. Well, my advice to anyone who finds them self in a similar position is that it really isn’t up to you to make that assessment. Answer the dámņ questions! All I know is, if I was brought up on charges like these and tried to lie my way through questions I’d be very very lucky to get off with just having my ability to practice law suspended for a bit (assuming I had a law license).
An argument can be made that Clinton did not commit perjury but it’s a bit tortured. Only the fact that the perjury was over a sexual indiscretion gave him the cover to survive impeachment–most people decided that the crime–and it was a crime–just didn’t reach the level of seriousness that would justify removal from office. I agree.
So no, while I do not think that the Clinton scandal (let’s stop calling it the Lewinski matter–why should SHE be the one it gets named after?) is anywhere NEAR the level of seriousness of Watergate or Iran Contra, I see nothing wrong in listing it alongside them when talking about the need for leaks. Such a listing implies no equivalence in my mind, though it obviously does in your. While your interpretation is every bit as valid as mine, using it to absolve the New York Times of any liberal bent seems a stretch.
Surely you jest,
Not at all.
Given your clarification, then yes, of course a great many people had a lot of doubts about the story — not least because people had trouble believing that an obviously intelligent man would do such an intensely stupid thing.
Your original statement implied (to me, at least) that “many liberals” were still characterizing the statement as truthful even with the benefit of several years’ hindsight. That’s what I was challenging.
TWL
So no, while I do not think that the Clinton scandal (let’s stop calling it the Lewinski matter–why should SHE be the one it gets named after?) is anywhere NEAR the level of seriousness of Watergate or Iran Contra, I see nothing wrong in listing it alongside them when talking about the need for leaks. Such a listing implies no equivalence in my mind, though it obviously does in your.
Fair enough — I doubt we’re going to get much closer to common ground than that.
I avoid calling it “the Clinton scandal”, BTW, because given the way the right-wing conspiracy machine was amped up during his two terms, I’d half expect some people to say “which one, the contract murders or the drug smuggling?” Hopefully no one here, of course — but using the name of the other person involved makes it crystal clear what’s being referenced.
If you could perhaps avoid using the phrase “absolve”, BTW, that would help. Otherwise it looks like you’re trying to frame the discussion so that having any sort of “liberal bent” is considered a sin — and I trust you can see how some of us might take a wee bit of offense at that.
TWL
If you could perhaps avoid using the phrase “absolve”, BTW, that would help. Otherwise it looks like you’re trying to frame the discussion so that having any sort of “liberal bent” is considered a sin — and I trust you can see how some of us might take a wee bit of offense at that.
Ah, not my intent at all. In fact, I have no problem with the NYT having a liberal bent–it’s just that they claim that nothing of the kind exists. It’s why I have more respect for The Village Voice. Or Workers’ Daily.
Imagine what would happen if he intervened in Gabon or Zimbabwe
Is there oil in those countries? No? Oh. Ok.
I’ll step up to the plate on the Clinton thing. According to the way sexual relations were defined for that interview, which did not include oral sex, Clinton didn’t lie. In the context of the question that was asked, he was telling the truth.
Is that being weasely worded? Sure it is. But the rules were agreed to by before the tape started rolling, and only when you take the answer out of context for the question do you arrive at the conclusion that Clinton lied.
Which is totally different from Bush and Rumsfeld stating Saddam has WMDs and is trying to give them to terrorists.
And pointing out that “our” guys lie as well as “your” guys do isn’t really the best defense, especially considering that Clinton’s lie didn’t cost nearly as much as Bush’s lie.
Tim wrote, Sorry, Jim — I’ll have to call you on that. Please name for me a single liberal who says that statement is not a lie.
Bill Clinton.
And Bill — while I’ll certainly concede that Clinton lied, I’d need to know more about the legal definition of perjury to make that call one way or the other. Among other things, I believe (correct me if I’m wrong) that there are grounds to contest a ruling of perjury if it can be shown that the question was in no way germane to the case being investigated, and I’ll certainly argue that Lewinsky had nothing whatsoever to do with Kenneth Starr-Chamber’s mandate.
You’re right about the definition of perjury– it does require that the false statement given under oath be relevant to the case at hand. (“Material” is the term of art.) And you’re absolutely right that the question had nothing to do with Whitewater… which is why it’s vitally important to remember that none of the Whitewater investigators asked the question. The perjury charge against Clinton isn’t that he lied in a statement during any Whitewater investigation. (That probably wouldn’t even be perjury, because you can’t take sworn testimony from a criminal defendant outside of court– although as Martha Stewart discovered, lying to a Federal investigator carries its own punishment.) The false statement was given during his deposition in Paula Jones’s civil suit. The deposition was under oath, in a suit alleging sexual misconduct with one subordinate, and he was asked about a pattern of behavior including sexual misconduct with another subordinate. His pattern of behavior is clearly material to a lawsuit alleging behavior consistent with that pattern, so any lie about that would constitute perjury. I suppose you could raise the argument that it was inappropriate to expand Kenneth Starr’s mandate to investigate that particular felony, but that doesn’t mean Clinton didn’t commit it.
Personally, I think the fact that it was unrelated to Whitewater (of which Clinton was apparently innocent) makes it worse: the guy is being investigated for corruption, and while that highly publicized investigation is going on, he goes and commits a completely different criminal offense. President Clinton is a very smart man but he has done a few unbelievably stupid or careless things in his life, and I really wish he hadn’t done them in the White House.
Bill (Mulligan, not Clinton) responded, inter alia, An argument can be made that Clinton did not commit perjury but it’s a bit tortured.
I don’t see how even a tortured argument could be made with a straight face by any legal professional.
Bobb wrote, I’ll step up to the plate on the Clinton thing. According to the way sexual relations were defined for that interview, which did not include oral sex, Clinton didn’t lie. In the context of the question that was asked, he was telling the truth.
Unfortunately, his full answer was “I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I’ve never had an affair with her.” You’re right, with the definition established by the presiding judge, he had a decent argument for the first statement, but he didn’t know when to shut up. The second sentence is a blatant lie.
And it wasn’t an interview. It was a deposition. That’s important.
“Tim wrote, Sorry, Jim — I’ll have to call you on that. Please name for me a single liberal who says that statement is not a lie.
Bill Clinton.”
he said liberal.
Clinton’s no liberal, David, despite what the allegedly-liberal media would like the public to think.
TWL
David, I only know enough to speak to the “sexual relations” part. Was the term “affair” defined for the deposition? And the fact that it was a deposition is exactly what makes the context of the questions important. The parties went through an exhaustive process setting out the terms and limits of the depo., going to the point of defining what certain terms meant. If we’re going with the strict definition of a lie, being that the speaker of said lie has to know the false nature of his words, then explain how Clinton lied. By the terms of the deposition agreement, he didn’t speak in any false terms by saying “not have sexual relations with that woman.” And if “affair” was not defined, then he could have truthfully speaking if he did not consider his “non-sexual” encounters as an affair.
Whether the rest of the world buys that is maybe a different point altogether, but you can’t say that he lied, because of the context of the question.
If “affair” for that deposition included oral sex and the exchange of bodily fluids onto a dress, then yeah, you’ve got me, and he lied.
Which still place Clinton’s lie no where near the lie of saying that Iraq has WMDs, and they’re going to give them to terrorists, and we need to go bomb the crap out of them before they do.
Whether the rest of the world buys that is maybe a different point altogether, but you can’t say that he lied, because of the context of the question.
Actually, that’s exactly what gets him. The legal profession at least makes an attempt to use intelligble English; when terms aren’t specially defined, the ordinary definition is used. It’s not the case that lawyers need to rewrite the dictionary in anticipation of litigation; you don’t actually have to define what “is” is for a deposition. Claiming “It wasn’t an ‘affair;’ it was an ongoing series of sexual liaisons” will not get him off the hook, even if he would like the word “affair” to mean something more specific. You can’t honestly think that Clinton wasn’t aware that statement would mislead any ordinary listener, and I think knowingly misleading the listener is a pretty good definition of “lie.”
I actually haven’t seen any definition of “sexual relations” that the presiding judge used in the deposition. (That doesn’t mean that she didn’t order a specific definition, only that I haven’t been able to locate one online.) All I’ve been able to find so far is a transcript where the judge rejected the definition that Jones’s attorneys suggested, which would have encompassed everything imaginiable under the term “sexual relations.” If she didn’t actually define the term for the litigation, then again the default is ordinary English usage, under which Clinton’s answer was highly misleading (as he subsequently admitted). Thus it’s not clear to me, based on what I’ve seen, that his answer to that question was strictly truthful either, which is why I said earlier that he had a “decent” argument rather than a world-beater.
“Claiming “It wasn’t an ‘affair;’ it was an ongoing series of sexual liaisons” will not get him off the hook, even if he would like the word “affair” to mean something more specific. You can’t honestly think that Clinton wasn’t aware that statement would mislead any ordinary listener, and I think knowingly misleading the listener is a pretty good definition of “lie.” “
But here’s the big issue…what does affair mean? Webster’s defines it as “a romantic or passionate attachment typically of limited duration.” In the absence of romance or passion, it’s not an affair, but a series of sexual (but not a sexual relation) encounters.
Of course his statements were misleading, when taken out of context. Most things are. Or his even in context. I think it would have just been better had he come clean about the whole thing once the facts came out, but he decided to take the way out that would let him publically deny the issue, to a point, while staying within the legal bounds of telling the truth.
First off, Bmuderau.
Cheap shot from the peanut gallery.
Second, for both sides of the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal.
Guys, let it go. The whole thing belongs to history now.
“Guys, let it go. The whole thing belongs to history now.”
But what use would the internet be if nit-picking laywers like me and David can’t use them to discuss meaningless issues like what the definition of “is” is?
And while I’m as sorry as anyone that this dead horse is still being beaten, Clinton also testified that he could not recall if he and Monica were ever alone. He only remembered having her in the office when she delivered a pizza, not when she was giving him a hummer. That must have been one dámņ good pizza.
Ahh, but what is the definition of “passion”? According to dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=passion) one meaning is “strong sexual desire; lust.” Therefore, as long as Clinton experienced lust, he was having an affair.
Jeez! I take a few days off and you guys are suddenly arguing zippergate all over.
Let’s make it simple: Clinton cheated, he lied about it and he got caught. End of story.
It’s history now. Shouldn’t we really be focusing our energies on finding a solution to the problems of today rather than rehashing a ten-year-old BJ?
Oh, but another meaning of passion is suffering.
Obsolete, sure, but, y’know, maybe Clinton is an old fashioned kind of guy?
First off, Bmuderau. Cheap shot from the peanut gallery.it’s not a cheap shot. you brought up a ridiculous “what if”. you know that Bush would never overthrow the governments of Gabon or Zimbabwe for the reason I stated: no oil. that’s a fact and you know it
I’m hiding from the enormity of dealing with the huge loss of life we’re going to be facing over the next few days and weeks by revisiting Clinton’s foibles.
We all cope with disasters in our own way, Bobb.
Here’s how our commander-in-chief copes:
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050830/480/capm10208301856
Nero fiddled, Bush riffed.
Do your research, Peanut.
Gabon has been a major oil producer for over two decades. One of the main reasons that they’re having problems is that the oil brought serious theft and corruption on both a national and international scale.
For someone so brilliant (and you are), you’re blinded by disdain for all-thing-Bush/Republican. There’s always disagreements in government. I disagree with folks all the time at work, and sometimes we do things my way, sometimes we don’t, and at the end of the day I’m grateful that there’s no Peter David sitting on the sidelines bashing my every breath.
But seriously, you’re an awsome writer and I can’t say enough how much I enjoy your work.
For someone so brilliant (and you are), you’re blinded by disdain for all-thing-Bush/Republican.
Obviously, blindness is in the eye of the beholder, because for many of us, the distain we hold for Bush leads us to believe we’re the only ones walking around with our eyes open, and for good reason.
Do your research, Peanut. Gabon has been a major oil producer for over two decades
Major oil producer? They output 1/10 of what Iraq produces on a daily basis. Do YOUR research. Besides, his dad never invaded Gabon so he had no beef with them.
That figure only shows what Gabon outputs, not what it actually has.
As I said, Gabon has been a major oil producer for over two decades. It was actually a member of OPEC until the mid-1990’s.
But, the decline of thier largest field co-incided with the oil glut of the late 80’s and early ninties. They still have billions of barrels of oil left, but it’s in harder to reach places, like offshore. Since they didn’t invest in advanced oil tech when they were flush (See previous posts on corruption), Gabon is only just starting to find thier feet on the new oil fields.
And, why are you bringing Bush,Sr. into this discussion? He has nothing to do with it.
bmuderau brought up Senior Bush because of the theory that the real reason, or one of them, that W. Bush invaded Iraq was to avenge (or even show up) his father. So, if that were the case, he would not be similarly inclined to invade Gabon.
In the latest in a series of corrections thaqt has now run longer than many Broadway Plays, Krugman gives the LATEST adjustment to his previous misstatements: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/02/opinion/02corr-krug.html
Boy, for an economist he sure has trouble getting his facts straight. Score another one for the bloggers.
I know that. The point was that the topic was oil.
Krugman’s corrections are all technical in nature, Bill — as he says and as you’ve even agreed here, they don’t affect the validity of his original point.
Boy, you sure have trouble separating the minutiae from the essentials. Score another one for common sense.
TWL
Score another one for common sense.
Speaking of common sense, does it surprise anyone that this guy that heads FEMA, Brown, has no practical experience for the position he was appointed to by Bush?
Krugman’s corrections are all technical in nature, Bill — as he says and as you’ve even agreed here, they don’t affect the validity of his original point.
Yeah but “Untrue But Accurate” has already been copyrighted by CBS.
Boy, you sure have trouble separating the minutiae from the essentials. Score another one for common sense.
You don’t think that there may be something to be embarrassed about when you have to issue 3 corrections?
Krugman’s mistakes, including the one nobody ever mentions–relying on conspiracy nut John Conyers for data on Ohio voting that apparently was just made up out of whole cloth–are because he does not check sources. This does not seem to be too great an expectation for us to have over someone who merely writes an opinion column. It’s not like he’s a gumshoe chasing down leads.
If and when Bill O’Rielly has to correct himself this many times in such a short period I expect it will be an entire chapter in Al Franken’s next book.
Speaking of common sense, does it surprise anyone that this guy that heads FEMA, Brown, has no practical experience for the position he was appointed to by Bush?
No, unfortunately this is exactly the kind of job that untalented lackies tend to get. Since the odds are that they will not be at the wheel when the Big One hits, they can seem to be doing a good job. The same is also true apparently of whoever was in charge of hurricane preparation in New Orleans itself. It’s an easy job, unless a hurricane actually hits.
I don’t know enough about Brown to make a judgment yet but nothing I’ve seen so far has impressed me in the slightest. He’ll probably get the Medal of Freedom by the time it’s over, given Bush’s tendency to reward loyal but ineffectual underlings.
You don’t think that there may be something to be embarrassed about when you have to issue 3 corrections?
Depends on the type of corrections. In this case — frankly no, not really. Certainly not to the degree you clearly think is appropriate.
If and when Bill O’Rielly has to correct himself this many times in such a short period I expect it will be an entire chapter in Al Franken’s next book.
If O’Reilly ever has the strength of character to admit the slightest error in any sort of straightforward non-weaselly way, I’ll be surprised and even vaguely impressed.
TWL
It was just announced that Chief Justice Rehnquist passed away.
I know. I just read that a half-hour ago.
Good lord, this means Bush gets to fill another seat. Excuse my American, but: Shìŧ. Ðámņdámņdámņ. I don’t like this country anymore.
Well, rest in peace, old fella. We sure won’t.