Three cheers for the wisdom of Kevin Drum!

FRIDAY, MAY 24, 2013

And three cheers for Victoria Nuland: We’re very glad to see Kevin Drum adopt this posture regarding Victoria Nuland:
DRUM: (5/24/13): Rice, of course, has already been attacked by Republicans about as viciously and shamelessly as any State Department lieutenant in recent memory. But it's worth keeping in mind that there is a difference between the two women. In the Benghazi affair, Rice did nothing wrong, but she also did nothing especially noteworthy. Nuland, as near as I can tell, actually did yeoman work. The first draft of the CIA talking points was sloppily drafted and full of information that needed to be kept classified. Nuland firmly pushed back on this stuff, and eventually got it removed—which is exactly what she should have done.
We agree. As we read through the e-mails, we see Nuland making smart, sensible objections to an array of dumb stupid shit that came from the CIA.

It’s good that Nuland raised those objections. Just as Drum says, it’s what she should have done.

That’s why it’s so disgusting to watch a multimillionaire corporate clown like Rachel Maddow talk politics. In the May 15 segment we just critiqued, she ended up speaking with Michael Isikoff—and the well-twinned waste meats rolled their eyes at “bureaucrats” like Nuland.

Maddow and Isikoff discussed the process by which the talking points were edited. Instantly, Isikoff introduced the idea that people like Nuland had wasted their time producing “complete bureaucratic mush.”

Maddow, who is thoroughly clueless, quickly adopted Isikoff’s lead, saying of the e-mail exchanges, “It sounds like bureaucratic nonsense.”

That’s the way they talk on Fox. Maddow is too dumb and too self-involved to know that.

Maddow’s a highly skilled peddler of self. We liberals are massive marks.

(For our previous report on this topic, just click here.)


  1. Quaker in a BasementMay 24, 2013 at 3:32 PM

    Maddow’s a highly skilled peddler of self.

    Well of course she is. She's on TV.

  2. What's up to every one, since I am really eager of reading this blog's post to
    be updated daily. It consists of good data.

    Feel free to visit my website :: Chaussure Air Max

  3. "The first draft of the CIA talking points was sloppily drafted and full of information that needed to be kept classified."

    Should have been classified? What? Why did the administration release the drafts of talking points if they should have been classified? That's the Drum view that TDH admires? Well, that says a lot.

    1. No. Your understanding of what's admirable in Drumm's reporting is very wrong. But that's only to be expected from a such a dolt as yourself.

      It's actually your comment "that says a lot." And what it says is "Hey, look -- I'm a douchebag troll!"

    2. How is it that you think I decide what to put in bold print in TDH posts? What other interpretation of the admiration for Nuland's objections is there? Notably, you fail to offer an alternative understanding of what's to be admired here.

      Fail. Though, as usual, you think the potty-mouth routine is a winner.

    3. You, making clear as day that you are a douchebag, imply TDH/Drumm finds admirable releasing "drafts of talking points if they should have been classified."

      You think I have the job of explaining that's not what anyone found admirable? Reading comprehension skills solved it for the rest of us, you keep trying.

    4. Earth to douche-bag spouting AnonymousMay 26, 2013 at 3:17 PM

      No, what TDH/Drum find admirable is that Nuland removed "information that needed to be kept classified". So several questions naturally occur: a) In examining the drafts, once they were made public, would any reasonable person concur with the notion that there was "information that needed to be kept classified"? Or is this just another example of the Obama administration's relentless determination to make secrets of material innocuous in terms of national security but potentially harmful politically? b)In any case, if one assumes that the TDH/Drum judgment is correct, and that it did need to be kept classified, why were unredacted copies made public? Is THIS act the counterpart of keeping innocuous but embarrassing material secret, namely releasing potentially harmful material to avoid or lessen a political embarrassment?

    5. "Why did the administration release the drafts of talking points if they should have been classified? That's the Drum view that TDH admires?"

      You can keep pretending. It won't matter.

      Because anyone with a brain can see it's Victoria Nuland (and Drum's defence of her work) at whom any "admiration" was directed.

      Only a douchebag would continue to pretend otherwise.

    6. Anon 404,

      What is it that you think that Nuland did that was admirable? Previous commenter "Earth to.." gave choices a and b, but you could take stab at some alternative (though it won't be pretty).

  4. Do you mind if I quote a few of your articles as long as I provide credit
    and sources back to your site? My blog site is in the very
    same niche as yours and my users would genuinely benefit from a lot of the
    information you provide here. Please let me know if this ok with you.

    Stop by my homepage ... NFL Jerseys Cheap

  5. These strings range fleshlight in width and, when it reach the right temperature, all of my friends use
    computers. The main positive aspect is that it is the
    words you say after you tell him you are sorry almost always gets a positive response, anywhere and any time.

  6. Suggest you enable the spam filter.

  7. Nuland correctly pushed back on including the references to the Al Qaeda affiliated group, Ansar al-Sharia, as being the responsible party. This should've been kept classified for two reasons, the first being that the attribution was extremely sketchy and poorly sourced. An article in the Libyan newspapers is where this fact was found. Not exactly yeoman work on the part of the CIA. It's not the kind of intel one expects from the CIA to back up facts to be given to the Congressional Intelligence Committee for talking points for the press. One would sincerely hope it would be scrubbed. The second reason it was scrubbed was because the investigation was ongoing and they didn't want to alert Ansar al-Sharia unnecessarily that they were on the CIA or the FBI's radar.

    1. So you've chosen "Earth to..."'s option B. You must be very upset that the administration has divulged this highly sensitive information that should presumably remain classified.

      By the way, if the CIA clipped the info from a newspaper, isn't already in the press? And since it was in the Libyan newspaper, wouldn't that kind of alert the named groups already? Maybe that's why Nuland was told the FBI didn't object to naming the groups...

    2. hey smart guy . . . you forgot about the other reason it should not have been part of the initial talking points: "the attribution was extremely sketchy and poorly sourced."

      and by the way, genius, by the time "the administration...divulged this highly sensitive information that should presumably remain classified," it was eight months later. maybe think about that, ftard.

    3. Oh yeah, that's a hugely important point...ummm, just not relevant to anything. How's the FBI investigation going in Libya? the one that Nuland is so worried about? Is she still worried about it?

      Sober up before you post.

  8. Leon Levin offers a large spectrum of colors and combinations.
    . All the famous company is definitely a really hit this required Cannes
    by way involving tornado. Let me give you choices to different
    shoes in which means you can have a selection. Obviously if you decide as a way to pick a golf shirt,
    polo may perhaps well be the manner for you to go. http://statusnet.