From the New York Times:
Topping the federal government’s list of costs related to Hurricane Katrina is the $568 million in contracts for debris removal landed by a Florida company with ties to Mississippi’s Republican governor. Near the bottom is an $89.95 bill for a pair of brown steel-toe shoes bought by an Environmental Protection Agency worker in Baton Rouge, La.
The first detailed tally of commitments from federal agencies since Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast four weeks ago shows that more than 15 contracts exceed $100 million, including 5 of $500 million or more. Most of those were for clearing away the trees, homes and cars strewn across the region; purchasing trailers and mobile homes; or providing trucks, ships, buses and planes.
More than 80 percent of the $1.5 billion in contracts signed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency alone were awarded without bidding or with limited competition, government records show, provoking concerns among auditors and government officials about the potential for favoritism or abuse.
Already, questions have been raised about the political connections of two major contractors – the Shaw Group and Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton – that have been represented by the lobbyist Joe M. Allbaugh, President Bush’s former campaign manager and a former leader of FEMA.
“When you do something like this, you do increase the vulnerability for fraud, plain waste, abuse and mismanagement,” said Richard L. Skinner, the inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security, who said 60 members of his staff were examining Hurricane Katrina contracts. “We are very apprehensive about what we are seeing.”
Bills have come in for deals that apparently were clinched with a handshake, with no documentation to back them up, said Mr. Skinner, who declined to provide details.
[My emphasis]
“Questions have been raised,” you say? Why, how perfectly passive of you! But by whom, exactly, were these questions raised? And more importantly, what would happen to these passively raised questions, from a journalistic standpoint, were the Times to include in its reporting “the fact that Chairman and CEO of the Shaw Group James M. Bernhard Jr. is also chairman of the State Central Committee of the Louisiana Democratic Party”?
Somehow, I suspect the story just wouldn’t have the same spice that way. Or, if you prefer (and are of a slightly different mindset), leaving out that inconvenient bit permits the story to stay on message—suggestive of largers “truths” that the inclusion of such factual “commodities” would only muddy up.
And we can’t have that when the country needs saving…
What the heck is going on with the media?
Are they really that against reporting facts and seeming to push one political wing’s agenda?
Geez…..
Of course they could rebuild like we do here in New York City, where, in the four years that has passed since 9/11, we’ve built two new towers where the World Trade Center used to be…
Oh, wait a minute…
Nevermind.
Late in response for AID for Katrina victims, now
guilty for providing help. Do we not pay for services rendered? Or, do we wait for the most politically correct contract company to arrive for aid? This relentless pursuit of the current administration by the MSM is shameful at best, when are they going to be held accountable for obvious bias? Or do the American people keep turning a blind eye? Anyone?
Perhaps one should ask Gandelman and Jarvis if it is possible to lie by omission.
Jeff—
Perhaps the questions in question, as it were, were raised by Richard L. Skinner, the inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security, you know, the guy quoted in the next paragraph as saying: “We are very apprehensive about what we are seeing.â€Â
Do you think we can assume that Skinner has some questions he wants answered? Do you think, of all people, Skinner, the inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security, mind you, is the perfectly appropriate person to be asking these questions?
As to your other point I believe the initially troubling connection is the fact the former head of FEMA works for both companies who just got no bid contracts from FEMA. That right there doesn’t raise some questions in your mind?
Of course, as the investigation continues maybe the NY Times will note Bernhard’s involvement. Afterall, why do you think he hired to former head of FEMA to be his lobbyist, if not land FEMA contracts? If so, shouldn’t the Times also remind folks that Cheney was the CEO for Halliburton which owns KBR? Maybe they could also point out the KBR is already under investigation for its billing in Iraq. Or would all this be too much partisan context for you?
Real solid stuff there, chief.
I think “they” are right on this one. We need to put all the clean-up out for bids. We would of course have to allow at least a month for companies to survey the damage, then another two weeks to get their bid packages together. Of course then the government would have to spend at least another month investigating all the companies that bid to insure they were capable of actually doing the work, depending on how many bidders we have this could easily take 2 or 3 months. Then we would have to investigate the bids themselves to make sure nobody was lowballing hoping to make up the difference in change orders and cost overruns….
We could probably start mobilizing clean-up crews in 6-8 months I would reckon, barring any Congressional investigations of course.
Framer, if the reporter had said “Skinner has raised questions…” then no big deal—we could accept that he raised the questions.
But using the passive voice with no attribution is a propagandist tactic from way back. It lets the author insert his opinions without needing a source.
That you have no problem with that practice is troubling, but not surprising.
TW: “report”. ‘I wish reporters would report, not opine.’
frameone,
I understand what you’re getting at, but if your choice is between a competitive bidding process and getting speedy results so the likes of Shepard Smith and Wolf Blitzer will STFU, which are you going to choose?
First:
We’ve all seen examples in the Times and elsewhere of reporters writing “Questions have been raised …” or “Critics suggest that …” with no specific names or quotes following. This isn’t one of those instances. The article says questions have been raised and then immediately gives us the concerns of the most important person involved in the story.
Second:
I choose competative bidding with qualifications. Who says competative bidding would have been so slow? I don’t claim to know anything about the process, but I suspect that if KBR and Shaw Grp. saw the hurricane coming, other companies did as well. Was every other company just sitting around waiting for FEMA to call? But even if competative bidding was a cumbersome process, why wasn’t that worked out well before the hurricane hit? It’s not like FEMA couldn’t have anticipated that it might have to hire some people after a major disaster. Are we to believe that the only two companies ready to go at the time just happened to be the only two companies who had the former head of FEMA working for them as a lobbyist? That in and of itself is enough to raise questions with the inspector general and that’s all the article was reporting.
“a Florida company with ties to Mississippi’s Republican governor.”
What is this? The NYTimes version of Six Degrees of Seperation?
Just like the “questions” that Jeff wants to know who did the asking, maybe someone, a reporter perhaps, might tell us of what the “ties” consist.
But then that might entail reporting “commodity facts” that anyone can, whereas “real” reporters give us the luxury goods of truth, justice and lessons learned. (Yeah, go find your own facts, we’ve got truth!)
“It lets the author insert his opinions without needing a source.”
Robert, just to reiterate, the article sites a source immediately after the suggestion that “questions have been raised.” Writers should avoid the passive voice for all kinds of reasons, from clarity to style, but i thsi article there’s nothing wrong with the way the reporter’s use it.
frameone: If you don’t know about the bidding process, why are you spouting off about it?
Hubris?
Your contribution is ridiculous. While knowing nothing, you raise questions as if post-hurricane recovery has never gone on before, and no one in government has ever faced challeges that only you are smart enough to raise.
It would be funny, if it weren’t sad.
Of course, as the investigation continues maybe the NY Times will note Bernhard’s
involvement.
But why didn’t the NYT note it in this context? After all, language is political; why are you so suddenly sensitive about exploring the political aspects of this article’s language.
Afterall, why do you think he hired to former head of FEMA to be his lobbyist, if not land FEMA contracts? If so, shouldn’t the Times also remind folks that Cheney was the CEO for Halliburton which owns KBR? Maybe they could also point out the KBR is already under investigation for its billing in Iraq. Or would all this be too much partisan context for you?
How very, oh, inarticulate of you, Frameone. Or perhaps your use of language is not inarticulate; perhaps you think yourself quite cunning by changing the subject by skimming past the central point raised in the post. Because, of course, the NYT will surely note Bernard’s involvement (whenthepoliticalstormhaspassed,thenarrativeframeworkset,andnobodyispayingtheleastbitofattention). Nobody’s buying, dude.
PIMF, PIMF, PIMF…
#1 Just raising questions as a good citizen, Forbes. Either enlighten me about the bidding process or tell me why you accept at face value everything the government says and does but not the New York Times.
#2 Tongueboy—Lauage is political and I think Jeff’s little effort here proves my point well. He clearly asserts a political dimension to the phrasing without ever asking the authors of the article what their original intent was. He’s done the exact same thing that Oliver did to Ed: attribute political motivations to an author without consulting the author for guidance. Or, hell, even giving the authors the benefit of the doubt. Indeed, Jeff seesm to suggest that they omitted Bernhard’s name on purpose. But how could he know without asking them? Is he reading their minds? Or would he suggest that they, as indoctrinated liberals, did it unconsciously? Hmmm. I know exactly what Jeff is doing here and I’m taking the opposite reading—just as loaded, just as political. So much for that solid ground of interpretation.
I’m Jeff will respond with a flury of jargon. He’ll bust the big graphemes for this one. But what can you do.
Just raising questions as a good citizen, Forbes. Either enlighten me about the bidding process or tell me why you accept at face value everything the government says and does but not the New York Times.
Translation: Just because I don’t know what I’m talking about is no reason why you shouldn’t.
Jeff’s right, it’s becoming impossible to parody these idiots. Go study a little harder there, frameless, and when you get out of high school you can come back and talk with the grownups. You might try typing a little more slowly, too; all those typos make your already weak arguments not really worth the effort to read. And some final advice – avoid using words like graphemes if you don’t really understand their definitions. That way, you don’t look like a total tool.
Frameone,
You’re missing an important difference between this post and Oliver’s post: narrative framework.
Jeff may have a more nuanced, certainly more verbose, explanation of the narrative framework for this post than I, a humble red-stater. But my take is that this post fits the MSM-media-as-repository-of-and-framer-of-conventional-left-of-center-political-narrative. That is, what we on the Right call the “MSM” have an insulated, self-reproducing culture that not only leans left (but not necessarily hard left) but frames the news product from that perspective. Sometimes the fact framing process results from sheer provincialism; how can there be any other way to provide context to the fact set than the way propagated by me and my fellow Columbia J-School peers? Sometimes it is something a bit more sinister; a conscious attempt to manipulate and edit the fact set so that a predetermined narrative is imposed. You may not agree with the manner in which Jeff tries to shoehorn this episode into his MSM narrative, or even agree that that narrative has any validity, but you can’t disagree that the narrative has been built and is shared by many across the right-leaning spectrum.
On the other hand, there is no narrative framework to support Oliver’s thesis. There is no prior record of racist implications or statements on Ed Morrisey’s part, at least none to which Oliver pointed. There is no record of Ed Morrisey blogging about racial subjects in an inflammatory manner, at least none to which Oliver pointed. No other source has ever pointed to Ed’s racist rantings. Oliver built his narrative framework from a single positive descriptor (whose use apparently could also possibly, maybe, could be derogatory but you sure have to dig deep to make the implication) of an individual whom at least some of Ed’s readers would not have known was black until Oliver pointed it out. I know, because I was one of those readers.
So in what context do you think the information about both the lobbyist and the person who hired him should have been revealed, if not in this article?
Transparency–that why the web works so well. Start here: http://www.fema.gov/ofm/business.shtm. (I think it’s your job to do your homework, before you open your mouth, not mine.)
Well, that the NYTimes telegraphs an unabashed political agenda is pretty easy to see, so it strikes me as NOT the either/or proposition you suggest regarding who’s believable.
Cheers.
No one has to ask the author about his or her original intent. They just have to base their interpretation on what they think that intent is. The Times mentioned Rethuglican connections and didn’t mention the more local Democratic connections. In my interpretation, they left that information out on purpose in order to shade their story in a particular way. That was their intent, as I see it.
Now, it’s possible I misinterpreted, but that doesn’t mean I’m not appealing to the intent of the author when I make the argument.
Frameone continues to make an ass of himself here, and I suspect he’ll hang around until he thinks he’s found a “gotcha” moment to rub in my face.
Instead, he jumped the gun. And shown himself to be the faux-intellectual fool I already knew him to be.
One begins to wonder when his ass will become so fed up with the spankings he gets here that it’ll drag him back over to Oliver’s, where he can pretend to be smart and where nobody is likely to call him on his bullshit.
(Sorry. Too much jargon?)
But Tongueboy, who established the original framework that the MSM was liberal? And let’s not forget that Ed’s post was all about race, politics and language.
But why is Jeff allowed to rip the agency from these two individual NY Times reporters and assign it to the MSM as an all powerful framing structure while we have to take Ed as an individual with a personal record? Why is Ed beyond the influence of the larger framing structure that I see as a still racist and sexist society, a framing structure I might add that I believe all of us are influenced by. You guys keep thinking that in accussing Ed of something I’m absolving myself. I’m not. And yet is that not what Jeff is doing here—suggesting the NY Times reporters have an agenda but he doesn’t? He’s just trying to correct a bias plain and simple? Please.
As to your last point, why should the reporters reveal who hired Allbaugh at one company but not another? Why would they need to present that information at all at this point? The article is saying that the DHS inspector general is concerned about Allbaugh’s ties to FEMA. That’s what’s raising the questions, right now.
“They just have to base their interpretation on what they think that intent is.”
Jeff, that’s exaclty what Oliver did.
Can I also aks just how Bernhard’s local democratic connections would give him the edge in getting a no-bid FEMA contract? Because it’s only “questionable” if Bernhard’s political connections could have influenced the contract process.
Now hiring Allbaugh, FEMA’s former director, now that’s an edge.
First you should Google and find out how many companies there are that can take on a contract of say…..100 million plus. Then you could see which of those companies actually were in the business of providing the services you were contracting for. You might find that your options are quite limited.
As someone who routinely bids on construction projects I can tell you that there are a ton of hoops to jump through. I wouldn’t even go through the documentation needed to qualify as a bidder on a Federal Contract. Too many people needed just to track the paperwork, let alone do the job.
There is also that little thing that Owners of contracts are looking for called “Single Source Responsibility.” The Government does not want to have 100 contracts of $1 million each and end up tracking the mountain of paperwork that would entail when they can contract with a LARGE Corporation that has a track record of success and track the paperwork of ONE Corp.
And IT DOES take a long time to go through the bid process; and IT DOES take a lot of money for a company to put a bid together. When the Feds put out a bid, it takes at least a month just to get the specifications book written and printed – and you can’t have a bid process without the specs – so that everyone is bidding apples.
At times like this (National Emergencies) the Feds have pre bid Companies (KBR, Halliburton, Bechtel) who have previously bid on contracts (and won them through competitive bid) to provide emergency services at “Cost Plus”.
I can’t even comprehend the Cluster Fuck we would have if we had 100 small companies bidding for (debris removal, forestry, auto removal, bio hazard, etc) over an area as big as Utah or Great Britain. Sometimes you just have to pay a premium for speed and expertise. You don’t have the luxery of getting the best price and the best service. Think of it like buying a gallon of milk at the local “Convenience Store” at 4:00 AM. You are going to pay more than if you went to the Mega Grocery. You are paying the premium for convenience.
I based my post on a comment by Scratch:
The thinking that informs that statement is what I posted on. It implies meaning without intent.
If Willis is saying Ed’s a racist, he needs to say it. Not that the word “articulate” is racist in and of itself when it’s used by a white Republican.
Thank you Ris. That helps. Can I ask you as a contractor, would it bother you that a competitor with a lobbyist like Allbaugh got the call instead of your company? Or is that just the way the game is played.
And Jeff, I was always talking about Oliver’s original post. I don’t really think it makes much difference though because Sratch is only talking about being aware of the fact that there are people out there ready and willing to read anything into your intent if you give them a chance—be it using a certain adjective or, say, the passive voice.
Whatever. I’ve argued this. No need to rehash it here. But as somebody noted above, Ed has no history of making racially loaded claims; whereas anybody who follows the blogosphere knows the NYT has a tendency to engage in selective reporting and will shade its stories. Could be unintentional, I suppose, but I don’t believe it is.
You, of course know this, but you’ll just keep arguing for the sake of arguing. At this point you’re more of a gnat than anything else.
Which is also to say: What to some is liberal bias, could just be lazy editing to others.
All Skinner is quoted as saying is he is apprehensive about what he is seeing. Isn’t that his friggin’ job? I am assuming the “inspector general” is paid to be apprehensive, huh? Although I really don’t know why I am engaging someone who seriously suggests you could get a clean-up and reconstruction bid ready ahead of time for a class 4 hurricane.
You know why so many Halliburton and Bechtel employees wind up in DC? Because they are huge multi-nationals who recruit the damn best and the brightest and then send them all over the world learning how shit really works. They are there in Democratic administrations too, count on it. You should be grateful we have people who can get the job done, instead of bitching and moaning that they might actually get paid for having their shit together.
Could be. The question is, which was it? Just because we can’t know for sure (not having access to the writer’s soul) doesn’t mean can make the claim that it gets to be whatever we want it to be. Instead, it’s our job to interpret it as accurately as possible. And we do that by appealing to intent.
That is, if we’re really interested in making the case one way or the other.
Exactly, whatever. Why don’t all of, everyone, just go back to taking things on face value. Wouldn’t life be so much easier? Sadly, that’s a pipe dream. The lid is off, Pandora’s box is open. We live after the fall. It’s all up for grabs.
And Jeff, once again, you’re treating the reporters at the Times as if they aren’t individuals with individual records themselves, just like Ed’s. Quite frankly, I agree with you on the first point, I just don’t know why you can’t see that Ed too is embroiled in larger narrative structures and institutions with their own histories of, let’s say, indelicacies, as well.
So if we can’t everything on face value we’ll have to agree to disagree.
frameone,
I don’t know the circumstances of the contract you are questioning. It could be that they are operating under a prior competively bid contract – to provide emergency services. Or it could be that they were deemed the “best available contractor”. You, or I, don’t know if they were even the first preferred contractor. I get requests frequently to provide “rush” jobs that I have to refuse for one reason or another (Price too low, job over my capabilites, time frame for completion not sufficient, etc.)
All things being equal, if the job was one my company could do and the time frame fit and I wanted business from that customer, yeah, I would like a chance to bid. But, that is a lot of ifs.
You know, there are a lot of logistics involved in these Federal Contracts, just like there were a lot of logistics involved in moving men, equipment and supplies during the FEMA response. Most people don’t realize what it takes to do either, so they assume either incompetence or graft, when it most likely is neither.
Think a little. If you are FEMA and you are preparing for national emergencies, wouldn’t you anticipate a massive clean up and reconstruction after a Katrina? Wouldn’t you have anticipated what your needs are going to be (debris clean up, road construction, bridge rebuilding, temporary housing, etc.)? Now wouldn’t you have in existence contracts (under competitive bid) to supply those items? If you did not have them all under an existing contract, wouldn’t you have the businesses that could supply your needs in your Rolodex?
You are not being honest if you think that the contract was a direct result of lobbying after Katrina and before the contract was let. Look at it from a pragmatic point of view, rathar than a “Gotcha!” on the Bush Administration.
Is there going to be graft and corruption? You betcha. And we need to account for the money spent, even with the antiquated accounting system the Gov’t has, and we need for each case of corruption to be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted.
But frameone, isn’t your argument a trifle circular? Ed’s intent is there, pre-positioned by a racist and sexist social matrix of which he’s scarcely aware, yet Jeff is reading something into the NYT narrative that’s unwarranted? No one controls discourse but sometimes it’s okay to cry foul?
“And we do that by appealing to intent.”
Uh,oh. The ball is starting to roll again.
If I’m not mistaken KBR (Halliburton) only deals in military contracts, so would their business even fall under FEMA’s purview?
RS—
I don’t disagree with Jeff’s methodology. I disagree his resulting analysis. I’m just trying to point out that his method here is similar to that used by Oliver to reached the conlusion he did about Ed’s comments. They both proceed from the same assumptions.
Juliette,
KBR (Halliburton) is not just in military contracts. It is the highest profile part of their operation tho’. I even had an offer to join KBR after I finished my tour in Afghanistan. I politely declined.
Indeed, I would argue thatjournalists in the MSM operate within a corporate culture that is far more interested in maintaining the status quo, ie conservative interests, than rocking the boat or advancing any liberal agenda. That’s what really governs the “lazy editors” at the NY Times. And I can find just as many examples in their articles to back it up as Jeff can.
Oh yeah, I had forgotten about that oil thing.
Aside: it’s natural that a company that fills a lot of military contracts would do much of its recruiting among separating military, so your offer is no surprise, Major John.
frameone:
Really? You can find just as many examples of conservative bias in the NYTimes?
Frame some up frameone.
The mainstream media wants to sell ads. Rocking the boat increases interest and moves product. Scaring people increases interest and moves product. Pissing people off creates interest and moves product. Preserving the status quo puts people to sleep.
One of the overlooked reasons the MSM has a liberal bias in my opinion is it needs change and controversy and fear to thrive, which are also primary tools of the “progressive” movement.
Back to the original question: by whom, exactly were these questions raised, and why was the Democrats connection not mentioned? It is not supidity since the connection is not unknown.
NY Times defenders?
The engineers say fast, good and cheap, pick two. Last week the bitch was that fast was not on the list. This week they are complaining that cheap is not on the list. Next week will be cheap. The rule is still pick two.
Corrected: I should drink less:
The engineers say fast, good and cheap, pick two. Last week the bitch was that fast was not on the list. This week they are complaining that cheap is not on the list. Next week good will be missing. The rule is still pick two.
Framer –
You really should bone up on some facts before opening your mouth. I know that facts are not usually a strong point in the arguments of the left, but if you want to come here and argue, you should come prepared. This is not the right’s equivalent of the KosKids.
It’s obvious that you know nothing about the history of Haliburton, or why it gets so many big government contracts, many of which are no bid. Why did you not complain when the Clinton administration used Haliburton in much the same way as Bush does now? Could it be that you had never heard of them before the MSM put the bugaboo on them?
And being on the left, I know already that you accept arguments based on half truths and omissions. Otherwise, why would you object to Jeff pointing out just such an “omission”? What you really need to do is dig for your own facts. I would be surprised if you don’t know how to use Google, or any other search engine. It’s all right here in the ether if you bother to look.
Your problem here lies in the fact that you come here with specious arguments, but you are just about the only one here who has no idea what you are talking about. You write well, but your posts are empty, because your head is, too. I would say good luck on your search for the truth, but it is obvious that you have no intention of embarking on any such search.
Halliburton also made the tragic mistake of aquiring Dresser Industries (which had earlier loaded up on asbestos liability by itself aquiring a refractory maker). Oops. Should have stuck with oil and construction.
Of course, they didn’t get me because I didn’t leave the military – just back into the Guard from active duty. Not that they didn’t manage to convince a few of my single comrades to go back…
But Tongueboy, who established the original framework that the MSM was liberal? What difference does that make to our discussion? The framework is there, whether you agree with it or not.
And let’s not forget that Ed’s post was all about race, politics and language. And this matters….how?
But why is Jeff allowed to rip the agency from these two individual NY Times reporters and assign it to the MSM as an all powerful framing structure while we have to take Ed as an individual with a personal record? Did you not read my comment? You’ve got your answer, whether you like it or not. What point it there in retyping the entire post again? Why is Ed beyond the influence of the larger framing structure that I see as a still racist and sexist society, a framing structure I might add that I believe all of us are influenced by. One of those eternal mysteries, I suppose, like how many non-sequitors can dance on the head of a lefty’s pen. You guys keep thinking that in accussing Ed of something I’m absolving myself. I’m not. I’m not a therapist and don’t play one on TV. What makes you think I’m interested in your personal demons? And yet is that not what Jeff is doing hereâ€â€suggesting the NY Times reporters have an agenda but he doesn’t? He’s just trying to correct a bias plain and simple? Please. When did Jeff state that he does not have an agenda? Head of a pen…
Quite frankly, I agree with you on the first point, I just don’t know why
you can’t see that Ed too is embroiled in larger narrative structures and
institutions with their own histories of, let’s say, indelicacies, as well.
“histories of, let’s say, indelicacy…”? Tell us all about it, Frameone. And skip the passive-voice faux deconstructionist jargon. Tell us all in plain, red-state English all about these indelicate narrative structures and institutions. “Embroiled” doesn’t cut it, either, as a connector between Ed and these narratives/institutions. Too passive a construct for us over here on the Right. We’re all about shudder personal responsibility. Use your boldest color crayons and draw a very thick line between your self-defined narrative/institutions and Ed’s specific words. Oliver tried and got bitch-slapped. Let’s see what you’ve got.
I’m an engineer, and I say pick one. The fjords took a while, and they cost the earth (so to speak), but damn, were they good.
As for ex-military employment in defense contracting, damn straight it happens. I’ve worked with all manner of former armed services folks, from aircraft maintenance pukes to generals. Very few of them were hired for influence, unless you count being able to understand the concerns of the customer and how to best address them influence.
Oh my god! the New York Times uses the passive voice to trash local officials in New Orleans! Yet more evidence of their right wing agenda:
“During the first few days, as local officials grappled with the overwhelming disaster, Mr. Nagin and Mr. Compass were outspoken about how desperate the situation in their city was, though some of those statements are now coming under scrutiny, with some critics saying they exaggerated the situation.”
Some critics?!?!?!?! Who are these critics, attacking the local officials of New Orleans?!?! How dare they leave out Brown and Chertoff and Bush!!!!!! Why the reporters must have done it deliberately with the full backing of their right wing keepers.
http://tinyurl.com/bfh3w
Idiots.
No, frameone, you’re the idiot—lurking, just as I predicted you would, until you could spring your gotcha.
You failed the first time; now you’re 0 for 2.
In the original story, the Times report leaves out the more immediate local Democratic party connection to this Halliburton subsidiary (which it clearly should have known, as it’s been reported on elsewhere previously), then notes that questions have been raised concerning the connections that they leave in, the attempt being to intimate impropriety that they know would be completely undercut by a full disclosure of the facts. And in order to get away with it, they use the passive dodge.
Again, you know this. Why do you pretend not to? Is it that important to you that you get to call me an idiot? Fine. Just do it and get it over with. After all, you spent plenty of time in the deeply intellectual Oliver Willis comments section doing just that, anyway. Why not make a career of it?
But don’t insult my intelligence with these lame comparisons just because you’re so eager to score points.
In the story you cite, “some” critics could be seen as actually minimizing the extent to which Nagin and Blanco are coming under scrutiny. Or haven’t you been following the news lately? But as it stands, that “some” stands in for a number of varied critics, each of whom is on record as criticizing Nagin and Blanco. Just look around in every major newspaper.
Whereas in the example I posted on, where is the record of these questioners the Times claims to know about? Who is the idiot making these suggestions in the wake of already reported on revelations that Bernhard is a big player in the Dem party?
The truth is, the only people asking these questions are those who want to suggest some impropriety.
Now stop it. You’re embarrassing yourself.
Chief.
Slartibartfast: You Da Man.