tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post7988420837562175881..comments2024-03-18T21:27:08.768-04:00Comments on the daily howler: Supplemental: Marshall discusses the Times’ latest mess!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-11361284090213801292015-07-29T19:17:17.240-04:002015-07-29T19:17:17.240-04:00That AWFUL Somerby!That AWFUL Somerby!As If On Cue, Another Douchenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-90793433224436479422015-07-29T16:03:31.187-04:002015-07-29T16:03:31.187-04:00No ATDBTAgain, the REAL problem is that by snarkin...No ATDBTAgain, the REAL problem is that by snarking on Clinton on Friday, Marshall forced Somerby to point out this egregious error on Tuesday afternoon.<br /><br />This diverted attention from Part 3 in the Dog Pee story and delayed the burning question of whether Trevor Noah is a bit of a hack for a whole damn day!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-81193896790159774212015-07-29T14:28:11.098-04:002015-07-29T14:28:11.098-04:00Sure, Marshall just HAS to defend the press and sn...Sure, Marshall just HAS to defend the press and snark on Clinton, but the REAL problem? Somerby.All These Douchebag Trolls Againnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-39016885204987936962015-07-29T14:26:01.384-04:002015-07-29T14:26:01.384-04:00Haha, you could attribute the chaos in Iraq to &qu...Haha, you could attribute the chaos in Iraq to "longstanding problems" but that doesn't get Bush off the hook for setting things in motion by toppling Saddam. Libya was accomplished without ground troops but the results are similar.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-52616540444807295392015-07-29T13:55:52.898-04:002015-07-29T13:55:52.898-04:00No, it wasn't.No, it wasn't. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-32474565717489939912015-07-29T13:55:38.549-04:002015-07-29T13:55:38.549-04:00What story was that?What story was that?mmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-13375297151872426732015-07-29T13:54:38.653-04:002015-07-29T13:54:38.653-04:00No, she wasn't. All of those states are export...No, she wasn't. All of those states are exporting refugees and terror for reasons related to longstanding problems in the area, not anything Clinton did while executing Obama's policy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-26272794653272067952015-07-29T13:50:13.204-04:002015-07-29T13:50:13.204-04:00Oh so you are saying Bob was inaccurate about the ...Oh so you are saying Bob was inaccurate about the timing of the post? I saw someone wrote that earlier. I thought you meant Bob's claim Marshall threw snark at the Clintons was inaccurate as we have been discussing. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-46418386864030025892015-07-29T13:34:42.759-04:002015-07-29T13:34:42.759-04:00It does seem hard to prove Marshall's initial ...It does seem hard to prove Marshall's initial reaction was not the post cited by Bob just because Marshall published a post 9 hours earlier. Especially when the post Bob quotes as being Marshall's initial reaction contains language referencing the actual earlier post. These things are tough to see.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-57422640768939187212015-07-29T13:21:56.234-04:002015-07-29T13:21:56.234-04:00So the story WAS about Clinton's Email.So the story WAS about Clinton's Email.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-80728171422255880662015-07-29T13:17:24.814-04:002015-07-29T13:17:24.814-04:00So Mrs. Clinton WASN'T the architect of a Liby...So Mrs. Clinton WASN'T the architect of a Libya policy that resulted in a failed state exporting refugees and terror! Thank God!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-1719725703790976212015-07-29T13:06:27.976-04:002015-07-29T13:06:27.976-04:00You may be right about Bob being inaccurate. I do...You may be right about Bob being inaccurate. I don't see it. It seems hard to empirically prove. Anyway, have a good one homie. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-26660592230726405162015-07-29T12:58:38.812-04:002015-07-29T12:58:38.812-04:00"Why, if you are a blogger who writes about i..."Why, if you are a blogger who writes about inaccuracy in the media, start a critique of somebody with something that is inaccurate?" You have only showed why you think it is inaccurate. That doesn't mean it's inaccurate. What is inaccurate though is Marshall's statement. If you’re going to publish a piece that really lands a big blow on the Clintons, you really need to be a totally certain it’s not entirely wrong because it's the ethical thing to do not for any other reason. Basta. Full stop. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-56790750911051252782015-07-29T12:58:01.735-04:002015-07-29T12:58:01.735-04:00Yes, the NY Times twisted this totally routine, ev...Yes, the NY Times twisted this totally routine, everyday, unremarkable PROCESS memo, into an excuse to once again fan the flames of faux outrage over the fact that she used private email.<br /><br />And as I wrote earlier, even now, to this day, the Editor's note supposedly examining what the Times did wrong is completely false and misleading in its opening sentence.<br /><br />***************<br />The Times’s coverage last week of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s use of a personal email account as secretary of state involved several corrections and changes that may have left readers with a confused picture.<br />***********<br />They are either complete idiots or are deliberately trying to confuse their readers again about what the real story was about.mmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-42304544978147726282015-07-29T12:33:41.925-04:002015-07-29T12:33:41.925-04:00The memo wasn't about Clinton's Email. Th...The memo wasn't about Clinton's Email. The story was.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-58787451729909394912015-07-29T12:27:43.668-04:002015-07-29T12:27:43.668-04:00What hardworking leader of the free world didn'...What hardworking leader of the free world didn't deserve one?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-46531491878885537792015-07-29T12:26:10.051-04:002015-07-29T12:26:10.051-04:00You can still purchase a hand gun legally.You can still purchase a hand gun legally.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-57967810349192448682015-07-29T12:25:43.596-04:002015-07-29T12:25:43.596-04:00Context matters. Go look up the context in which t...Context matters. Go look up the context in which that sentence was spoken. Notice how the context changes the interpretation -- making the meaning different than what was attributed to Gore when the sentence was lifted out of context.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-79645875763867507432015-07-29T12:24:59.469-04:002015-07-29T12:24:59.469-04:00If you bothered to read the Eichenwald piece in Ne...If you bothered to read the Eichenwald piece in Newsweek, you would understand what I mean when I declare that the story is not about her email account.<br /><br />"Potential Issues Identified by the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community Concerning the Department of State's Process for the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails under the Freedom of Information Act (ESP-15-05)."<br /><br />That is the title of the memo sent by the ICIG to the DOJ. <br /><br />Here's just a little excerpt from Eichenwald's piece:<br /><br />"And again, what those memos are actually discussing is the way that the FOIA office is handling review of the former secretary of state's emails for public release. They in no way discuss Clinton, her handling of emails or anything approaching those topics."<br /><br />You want to continue to pretend differently, that's your choice. The Times is trying to hang Clinton again for the "original sin" (Andrea Mitchell's exact words) of using a private email account, but in fact it is entirely irrelevant to this routine review by different agencies of documents before release under FOIA to the public. <br /><br />Just to be clear. Classified material can not be sent via email, even if Clinton had used the .gov account. The fact that she received these emails which are in dispute between SD and ICIG over whether there is classified material in them is totally irrelevant and was added gratuitously by the NY Times for no good reason.mmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-49803711672956269212015-07-29T12:24:20.514-04:002015-07-29T12:24:20.514-04:00What poor benighted man has never had a blowjob?What poor benighted man has never had a blowjob?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-278119429934418792015-07-29T12:23:44.091-04:002015-07-29T12:23:44.091-04:00Why say "During my service in the Congress I ...Why say "During my service in the Congress I took the initiative in creating the internet"?<br /><br />And why, if you are a blogger who writes about inaccuracy in the media, start a critique of somebody with something that is inaccurate?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-45696690640803438402015-07-29T12:22:28.884-04:002015-07-29T12:22:28.884-04:00Digby is the blog. If you prefer, I will start say...Digby is the blog. If you prefer, I will start saying "Hullabaloo says". That make you happy?<br /><br />Those Huffpo headlines are designed to make people who just skim the headlines without reading the articles think poorly about Clinton. There is another one referring to the "Times Clinton Fiasco". It is about the Times screw up, but someone reading quickly would think it is about the Times reporting on a fiasco Clinton caused. Coupled with photos that routinely show Clinton with her mouth open, frowning, or pointing a jabbing finger, these headlines are a relentless hit job against Clinton.<br /><br />That you think there is plausible deniability tells me everything I need to know about you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-42032620761460952092015-07-29T12:02:19.184-04:002015-07-29T12:02:19.184-04:00If he wanted to call attention to the thorough tra...If he wanted to call attention to the thorough trashing the Clinton team, her supporters and Clinton herself gave the Times for publishing a hit piece why not just do it directly? Why wrap it up in snark directed at the Times in sentence that is illogical and makes no sense? If you’re going to publish a piece that really lands a big blow on the Clintons, you really need to be a totally certain it’s not entirely wrong with no exceptions or qualifications whatsoever. The Clinton's reaction has no bearing on any journalist's need to be a totally certain what they are publishing is not entirely wrong. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-83090490601879562382015-07-29T11:58:52.095-04:002015-07-29T11:58:52.095-04:00Nothing was ever true. Except the blowjobs.Nothing was ever true. Except the blowjobs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-32048708724161514292015-07-29T11:57:12.512-04:002015-07-29T11:57:12.512-04:00@ 9:07AM you are probably @ 9:10PM from last night...@ 9:07AM you are probably @ 9:10PM from last night who wrote "Today Digby suggests...".<br /><br />When it was pointed out digby did not suggest anything of the sort you wrote at 11:07 "I admit I can't be bothered to go to Hullaballoo now" to find out if you erred. <br /><br />Now you, Bobfan and Hillary supporter that you are, think the HuffPo headline is aimed at Hillary and not the NC GOP chair.<br /><br />Or maybe just that HuffPo readers are as intelligent as you and might thus be misled.<br /><br />Our guess? Dog Pee Will Stop Clinton Supporters. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com