Forgive me. I wasn’t as clear as I would like to be.

I’m not asking you to prove that the leaker is not a member of the Bush Admin.

I’m asking about the word “absurd“. You described the idea that a member of the Bush Admin could be the source of the leak as “absurd”. I assumed you chose the word ‘absurd’ to imply that you had ruled out the possibility that someone from the Bush Admin. (Perhaps I’m mistaken to make this equivalence and you have not ruled out the possibility?)

I was asking why you find the possibility that someone in the Bush Admin was the source of the leak to be “so absurd“. What is it that makes the idea absurd? IOW, “Do you know something that I don’t?”

“No, Abraham Foxman and you have the obligation to prove that the Bush administration is responsible for trying to smear the Israeli government. The ball is in your court, and not mine.“

I have not asserted that the leaker is tied to the Bush Admin.

Before I asked you about what you knew or had seen, I wrote, “Given the dearth of evidence about the leaker’s (leakers’) identity, it’s hard to rule much out, yet.” By this I meant to convey that I hadn’t a clue about who it might be. Your statement implied (IMHO you knew who it was not- a member of the Bush Admin. This made me curious.

I’m not trying to impugn the Bush Admin. I just wondered if you knew something I didn’t.

My apologies for not being more clear as to what I was asking.

Anyway, I hope you decide to share.

Thanks in advance.

Youíve got it all backwards. It is not my responsibility to prove that the moon is not made of green cheese. Neither am I obligated to prove that the earth isnít round. No, Abraham Foxman and you have the obligation to prove that the Bush administration is responsible for trying to smear the Israeli government. The ball is in your court, and not mine. I have yet to read Foxmanís views on this most recent incident. However, if your assessment is accurate—then this gentleman owes President Bush an apology! Foxman is flirting with outright slander.

I understand the only way it could have been better would have been if Miller broke a chair over Matthews’ back, posed over him in triumph, and hollered out “Can you smell what the Zell is cooking!?!?!”

(Roger, I noted in another thread that I was interested in your take on Miller’s speech – I’m glad to find it here, and happy to hear you feel it was a positive.)

Hiss was not your basic Ivy-league Kerryesk elitist. He was an active Soviet mole. His advocacy for nuclear parity had little to do with the Ivy League part and everything to do with the Soviet Mole part.

Steven Den Beste has written about the stickiness of Jacksonian democracy in American culture. It’s worth a read or a Google.

1.) “Zell was offering the crowd red meat” means “Zell is hitting Kerry hard and his speech is killing us.”

2.) “Zell’s speech was on too late and not heard around the country” equates to complete wishful thinking by the MSM. This brillant utterance by Frank Rich, the Times’ cultural guru, along with Maureen Dowd, [on Imus this AM], makes one wonder after hearing 10 minutes of their blather if either deals in the real world or just Manhattan gossip.

After Chris Matthews disgraced himself with his repulsive interview with Zell, Frank Luntz, the pollster, did a focus group interview in Cincinnati with a group of about 15 Ohioans. With one exception, the focus group enthusiastically endorsed the Zell Miller speech and found it credible because he was a Democrat speaking about the state of current affairs. Rather remarkable comments.

On what basis do you discount the idea that the leak was made to derail the investigation(s).

There’ve been several reports that have noted how these sorts of investigations work best when they are secret.

If someone wanted to lessen the impact of the investigation(s), one way to do it would be to leak that there was such an investigation going on.

Bear in mind that i’ve not seen any evidence that points in this direction. I’m merely noting that I’ve yet to see anything that rules out such a possibility. Basically, I’m wondering if you have seen any such thing.

Have you seen anything that would rule out the possibility that the leaker leaked to lessen the effectiveness of the investigation? If you have will you be kind enough to share what it is that you have seen?

PS If you want some good suggestions on order in food leme know.

Don’t tease, man. I’m still trying to get my favorite 3rd avenue deli to let me order by Federal Express.

Anyway, remember Charlie’s Law of the Press and intelligence: when something about intelligence is leaked, it’s almost always false, and intended to benefit the leaker.