What Part of "Shut Up" Didn't You Understand?

Print This Post

You may also like...

7 Responses

  1. Charles says:

    Begging for the release of transcripts that may be classified and therefore not likely to be released for reasons having nothing to do with saving your dangling ass doesn't help your credibility.

  2. mojo says:

    I keep telling people this as well. "Look, that friendly cop in the interview room? NOT YOUR BUDDY, ok?"

  3. Chris says:

    I don't yell at the radio much, but I was shouting during that interview. It was ridiculous.

    Are there any members of the CA congressional delegation that aren't embarassments?

  4. Scott Jacobs says:

    The answer that was, basically, "I'm not going to say what I talked about on that call until I've seen the transcripts" is maybe the best example of "I'm not going to start lying until I know exactly what you know" ever.

  5. Patrick says:

    Begging for the release of transcripts that may be classified and therefore not likely to be released for reasons having nothing to do with saving your dangling ass doesn’t help your credibility.

    When unnamed government officials are leaking the contents of those transcripts, with no verification that the transcripts are accurate, it's rather bothersome that Ms. Harman can't see or discuss them.

    Between Jane Harman, who is willing to talk, and an unnamed leaker in the paper that published Jayson Blair, Judith Miller, and publicized the almost utterly unfounded, anonymous allegations against John Yoo, I'm rather more inclined to go with Harman. I appreciate Ken's point in this post, but think it misses the larger point, as do you.

    The Times should name its sources. Since it won't, until the Justice Department does release the documents, I'm rather sympathetic to Harman.

  6. Ken says:

    But willing to talk about what, exactly?

    Say the New York Times prints a story saying that anonymous sources have told them there may be secret evidence, collected illegally by the government, that I have been fucking goats at midnight in the Capitol Rotunda.

    It's entirely reasonable for me to argue that the New York Times ought not print stories so sourced, and that even if the secret evidence exists, it's appalling that the evidence was gathered illegally and that it is being marshaled against me in the press anonymously.

    However, if my response incorporates some of that critique, but also veers off into "I cannot possibly remember every thing I have or have not fucked in the Rotunda" and "we do not know if there was fucking by me in the Rotunda, but what I fucked in the Rotunda was not, technically, goat," it is inescapable that this will become the story. In other words, in addition to getting the accused into more trouble, non-denial-sort-of-quasi-denials-in-a-way have a nasty habit of obscuring the more important issues in play.

  7. Jane Harman's confusion on the legitimacy of wiretaps has been documented before.