Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 09-13-2006, 04:56 PM

it is kinda funny that it took this to put robert novak's credibility into question. i dont know where the assumption could have come from that he had much previously for folk not conservative themselves.

part of the reason the novak piece is confusing is that he wants (typically for novak) to tow the republican party line concerning the storyline they would prefer to have framing the leak itself (pretending that it has already been reduced to a question of motivation such that any deviation from I AM DOING THIS TO DETROY A CRITIC OF THE BUSHWAR counts somehow as falsification of the problems attending the leak---a ludicrous line that has not been defended coherently, either here or anywhere else)----this spin creates something of a false dilemma concerning armitage as the source. that is because in the end all the article really does is loop back onto the question of motive at a slight remove---while at the same time compounding it by making it clear that armitage knew exactly what he was doing when he gave novak this information in the first place.

so let's think about this for a minute: armitage was a signatory to the project for a new american century call for saddam hussein's removal in 1998.
he is well known as a neocon.
it follows that if he opposed bushwar, it was probably because he saw the case the administration was floating for it for what it was--flim flam--and objected to the political damage that it might do.
so there is no reason to imagine that armitage opposed invading iraq--only the way in which the bush people played the game to enable it.

so i am not at all sure where this notion of armitage as an opponent of invading iraq came from--it reads to me like another conservative bit of horse doo doo.

that's right, i said horse doo doo.

let's assume for a minute that armitage opposed how iraq was to be invaded, not the invasion of iraq itself---would that mean somehow that he would cease to also be in the employ of the administration and would therefore be ruled out as someone who could carry a bit of---um----cargo for the administration in an effort to destroy a critic? if anything novak's piece, beneath the regurgitation of the rightwing line of the moment, indicates that armitage was acting in something of an official capacity, doesn't it?

09-13-2006, 04:56 PM	#3 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it is kinda funny that it took this to put robert novak's credibility into question. i dont know where the assumption could have come from that he had much previously for folk not conservative themselves. part of the reason the novak piece is confusing is that he wants (typically for novak) to tow the republican party line concerning the storyline they would prefer to have framing the leak itself (pretending that it has already been reduced to a question of motivation such that any deviation from I AM DOING THIS TO DETROY A CRITIC OF THE BUSHWAR counts somehow as falsification of the problems attending the leak---a ludicrous line that has not been defended coherently, either here or anywhere else)----this spin creates something of a false dilemma concerning armitage as the source. that is because in the end all the article really does is loop back onto the question of motive at a slight remove---while at the same time compounding it by making it clear that armitage knew exactly what he was doing when he gave novak this information in the first place. so let's think about this for a minute: armitage was a signatory to the project for a new american century call for saddam hussein's removal in 1998. he is well known as a neocon. it follows that if he opposed bushwar, it was probably because he saw the case the administration was floating for it for what it was--flim flam--and objected to the political damage that it might do. so there is no reason to imagine that armitage opposed invading iraq--only the way in which the bush people played the game to enable it. so i am not at all sure where this notion of armitage as an opponent of invading iraq came from--it reads to me like another conservative bit of horse doo doo. that's right, i said horse doo doo. let's assume for a minute that armitage opposed how iraq was to be invaded, not the invasion of iraq itself---would that mean somehow that he would cease to also be in the employ of the administration and would therefore be ruled out as someone who could carry a bit of---um----cargo for the administration in an effort to destroy a critic? if anything novak's piece, beneath the regurgitation of the rightwing line of the moment, indicates that armitage was acting in something of an official capacity, doesn't it? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite