THAT URANIUM STORY

NRO ^ | 7/14/2003 | David Frum

[Miss Marple]

Yes, but I got the honor of being a "butt-smoocher." I think that trumps your "petulant and dishonest."

[Howlin]

I'm sure it will turn up shortly. :-)

[Jim Robinson]

Thank you very much, Carolinamom!

[Timesink]

Why are all these people suddenly appearing? It is very difficult to get through threads lately with all of the attacks from the left and the anti-Bush conservatives.

That's the thing; they're NOT "suddenly appearing." They've been around all along. It's just that in the entire two-and-a-half-year history of the Bush Administration thus far, this is the FIRST ginned-up pseudoscandal to come along that both: a) has had legs, and b) is complex enough to allow the leftists and haters to play semantic games and argue basically anything they want from any direction. It's Tenet's fault! No, it's Blair's fault! No, it's Bush's fault! They're throwing dozens of different, mutually exclusive attacks out there at the same time, hoping to God that one of them sticks.

These people have been praying for something like this to come along since January 2001. Now they've got it. And I hope they're enjoying themselves, because the news media is already starting to hit brick walls with the story, which means it's not going to be around much longer. Example: On Sunday, AP radio news at the top of the hour had this as their top story, and was devoting two entire minutes to it; that's a LOT for a six-minute newscast. By Monday afternoon, ABC Radio didn't even have it as their top story, and they ran maybe thirty seconds. I haven't watched or listened to too much news yet today, but what little flipping around I've seen on the cable channels has been mostly about hurricanes and murders and abducted children.

Barring a major new leak from some leftover Clinton kneepadder (which probably wouldn't even be true), this story simply has no place left to go. Bush has explained himself, so has Tenet, so has Blair (and, most importantly, British intelligence). All that's left now is for the RAT presidential candidates to continue getting bolder and bolder in their attacks on the President, which will help them in the next few days ... but for which they will end up paying in millions of lost votes in 2004 once the truth finally shakes out and they're left looking like the opportunistic, soft-on-national-security, Bush-haters with nothing to offer but fear itself, that they are.

[Howlin]

I'll just wait until next year and send him a check for the leap year dollar; that'll get his attention!

[Carolinamom]

I needed to add your screen name to my post #480. Sorry I missed it.

[Howlin]

I meant to tell you the other day that I hope you submit some of your writings to The Corner.

[Timesink]

I meant to tell you the other day that I hope you submit some of your writings to The Corner.

That's very kind of you, but The Corner? On NRO? They're taking open submissions now?

[Howlin]

Well, now, that WAS impressive....he showed right up! How much do you have to give to get that kind of treatment???

[Howlin]

No, the one Bob J posted about....isn't that what it's called?

[carton253]

My posts do nothing of the kind...

I have consistently said that I wrote that you gave the President 100% of the blame. Now, I wrote that because I believed that based on your post. I have never backed away from that.

Then you posted that you didn't say that.

I then said (in more than one post) that I would have said you were correct, but you went into attack mode and that's where we've been since.

What do you want? I'm agreeing with you. It's the fact that you won't see that I'm agreeing with you that is dishonest.

[Carolinamom]

HA HA...surprised me too! Answer to your question....enough!

[DannyTN]

"but the fact is, Bush spends like a drunken sailor."

If spending is your issue, then make that the issue. Don't repeat democratic dishonesty, just because you don't like Bush in one policy area.

After all, it's not like he didn't tell us about his drug program before we elected him. Would you rather Bush not be a man of his word? We've all seen where that gets us.

[Miss Marple]

Oh, I know some of them have been around a long time (like some I am arguing with on this thread). However, when you are reading other threads, there are a serious number of brand-new anti-Bush posters who rarely debate but instead use the same slogans, over and over. Those are the ones I am tlaking about, particularly.

However, the long-time anti-Bush conservatives are not reluctant to use them as proof that "Bush is losing the base."

[Howlin]

Perhaps I should turn over the leadership of our little cabal to the one who REALLY has the influence......LOL.

[balrog666]

Thanks for the dog and pony show!

[dirtboy]

I then said (in more than one post) that I would have said you were correct

Which is dishonest. It wasn't like you never got around to correcting it - you continued to repeat it, even though you knew it was incorrect. That's my point. If my not allowing you to spin away your own dishonesty is somehow dishonest to you, so be it.

[onyx]

Ready, set, GO complain! Nice to know such an influential biddie!

Get ready JR, we're getting set to "wield our influence."

[carton253]

That does... personally, I like the part when you were accused of being in some smoke-filled dark room whispering in JimRob's ear to ban posters who have (gasp) an opinion different from yours.

That's why you are our leader...

[Timesink]

No, the one Bob J posted about....isn't that what it's called?

Ohh right, I forget what they were calling it. Yeah, I freepmailed Bob J and he said just send in a recent column. Only problem is I don't have anything recent. I consider this uranium crap a nonissue and have little desire to write about it, and I've been busy on other stuff for the last month or two anyway. I do intend to submit as soon as the muse - or the news - strikes me to write again, though.