Some additional reading September 12th from 16:10 to 22:50:
- The Mahablog » Ike – "Where is all the sincere Republican concern that was displayed over Gustav? Two weeks ago, as the Republican National Convention was about to begin, President Bush flew to Texas so he could be filmed strutting around in an emergency control center, pretending to be doing something.
Today, Bush stuck to his fundraising schedule."
In other words, Republican's concern is phony, phony, phony.
- "Media Matters" Privileging the lie – Why it matters if the media fact-checks candidates assertions…just remember Gore vs. Bush
- Experience 101 – Dick Cavett – Opinion – New York Times Blog – "So far I have not seen her confronted with some of the things about which she has been, to put it in that awful Diplomatically Correct phrase, “somewhat less than fully truthful.” (Typesetter: If space is scarce, use “lying.”) As in claiming “no thanks” to the bridge money while failing to disclose that she kept it."
- Blog-Sothoth: The Power of the Internet Tubes – Most excellent:
"Within a bit under 30 hours of posting my Donors Choose library was fully funded. You guys are awesome. I felt ridiculous but I was crying on my way to Back to School night tonight because I was so happy. How often do we cry from happiness? Not nearly enough. I thought it would take weeks to raise $400. I know teachers who wait forever." - The Washington Monthly – Palin and the Bush Doctrine – "For that reason, one of the most striking things about Palin's response, to me, was this: in answering Gibson's question, she seemed to think that she was accepting the Bush Doctrine, but what she actually said just restated the old doctrine of preemption. When, as Palin said, "there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people", the claim that we have the right to preempt that strike does not require the Bush Doctrine; it just requires the old, and much more widely accepted, doctrine of preemption. That is: in what Palin says here, she's not actually supporting the Bush Doctrine at all. She's just saying what generations of American Presidents and candidates have said: that when a country is actually about to attack us, we don't have to wait for them to actually land a blow before we can strike back."
- James Fallows – The Palin Interview – "What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the "Bush Doctrine" exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years."