Anybody with NY Times access?

[lederhosen]

(Bugmenot's logins don't seem to be working, and I hate registering for this sort of thing.)

If anybody has an account, would they mind taking a look at this and see if you-know-who really did claim that "The Taliban is no longer in existence" - and if so, whether there was any exculpatory context*.

So far the only other places I've found it have been on Kerry/Edwards sites, and I'm cautious about taking sound bites out of context. So I'll reserve mockery pending confirmation.

*Like, say, a variant definition of "is".

Comments

[tyggerjai.livejournal.com]

"The mood seemed to change when Representative Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, seized on President Bush's declaration in Ohio last week that "as a result of the United States military, the Taliban is no longer in existence."

So, Mr. Menendez asked Mr. Armitage, "did you fail to give the president a briefing that the Taliban is still in existence?"

Mr. Armitage said the president meant that the Taliban "is not shackling 28 million people anymore," not that it had literally vanished."

That doesn't give any context as to the original claim, alas.

sol.
.

[da-norvegicus.livejournal.com]

There is a machine at George St. cinema that lets you print out world papers. Sadly, they cost quite a bit, and don't do NY Times, just Washington and LA Times.

[reynardo.livejournal.com]

So why is Adam posting from his LJ in a coherent manner on a post by Geoffrey?

The article

[insaint.livejournal.com]

At House Hearing, Quips, Insults and Some Official Business

By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 — The House committee hearing began as a serious discussion about the coming elections in Afghanistan. It ended in insults, so partisan and personal that the committee chairman expressed relief upon adjournment.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage told the House International Relations Committee that he expected the Taliban to try to disrupt the elections in Afghanistan "perhaps even by attempting a large-scale attack on election day itself," Oct. 9.

Mr. Armitage did not suggest that he thought the elections might fail, or that the new Afghanistan might stumble on the road to democracy. In fact, Mr. Armitage had several friendly exchanges with lawmakers of both parties.

The mood seemed to change when Representative Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, seized on President Bush's declaration in Ohio last week that "as a result of the United States military, the Taliban is no longer in existence."

So, Mr. Menendez asked Mr. Armitage, "did you fail to give the president a briefing that the Taliban is still in existence?"

Mr. Armitage said the president meant that the Taliban "is not shackling 28 million people anymore," not that it had literally vanished.

The reply did not entirely satisfy Mr. Menendez, who said, "I think we have to stop sugar-coating the realities of what is happening in Afghanistan and in our other conflicts and be honest with the American people."

Mr. Armitage did not respond directly to Mr. Menendez's "sugar-coating" metaphor, choosing instead to use one of his own. "The Taliban is very much running from hidey hole to hidey hole," he said.

Moments later, Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Republican of California, opined that "nitpicking the president of the United States' words is not really constructive in this type of situation." Mr. Rohrabacher said Mr. Bush had driven the Taliban out instead of unwisely tolerating it, as he said President Bill Clinton had.

A bit later, emotions warmed even more as Representative Donald M. Payne, Democrat of New Jersey, asserted that Mr. Bush had misled the American people by taking the country to war against Iraq ("It wasn't difficult, because many people have a difficult time getting the details straight"), while the main mission was still Afghanistan.

"And I have never seen such a misuse of our power," Mr. Payne observed.

That was too much for Representative Henry J. Hyde, the Illinois Republican who heads the committee. He said that "calling the commander in chief a liar by every hour on the hour" was simply wrong, and was helpful to "the other side," by which he appeared to mean America's terrorist enemies.

Moments later, Representative Gary Ackerman, Democrat of New York, said he and his colleagues were "sick and tired" of hearing their patriotism questioned whenever they exercised their responsibilities and rights, as citizens as well as members of Congress.

Mr. Hyde did not mollify Mr. Ackerman a bit. "Nobody questions your patriotism," Mr. Hyde said. "It's your judgment that's under question."

The two lawmakers interrupted each other a few more times, until Mr. Ackerman said, "What's obvious, Mr. Chairman, is that you are a rather vicious partisan."

"Now you're really getting personal," Mr. Hyde observed.

"Well," Mr. Ackerman countered, "I think that willful ignorance is kind of personal also, Mr. Chairman."

"Just remember," Mr. Hyde shot back, "ignorance is salvageable, but stupid is forever."

"I know that," Mr. Ackerman said, "and I'm glad that you've memorized that." He went on to say that Mr. Hyde's insults notwithstanding, he had never called the president a liar.

If nothing else, the session underlined the importance of specificity in language, especially on the eve of President Bush's foreign-policy debate with Senator John Kerry, and the dangers of hyperbole.

"The time has expired, happily," Mr. Hyde said on adjournment.

Re: The article

[publius1.livejournal.com]

That was an absolutely delightful exchange. I wish we had more of these...

[wingedkami.livejournal.com]

There's an account someone created for Neil Gaiman fans. The words you're looking for are 'gaimanfans' and 'gaimanfans'.

[jazzmasterson.livejournal.com]

If it was at a Bush rally in Ohio, it's unlikely we'll get the context, as non-loyal press and those who haven't signed loyalty oaths are not allowed in. Protesters who get in anyhow have been arrested.

I would also like context beyond hearsay, but I'm going to wearily chalk this one up to "frighteningly likely" and worry about other things.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

Bah. In that case, benefit of doubt is retracted. People who *deliberately* obscure their own context don't deserve that sort of consideration.