I saw that. Hillarious. Apparantly, she was in on it, too. Somebody should check the Haliburton payroll...

At dinner this evening my wife loudly announced:

"Any 60 year old woman with that much heavy black eyeliner under her eyes should not be trusted"

So E&P reports on what an article from the LA Times asserted, states that it may not be the case, and this shows their bias against what exactly? They didn't say she wrote the briefing, just that she handed it to him. What are they wishfully thinking for exactly, and why should we think that the answer is anything but a figment of your imagination?

As if that isn't enough, you point to another example of E&P's bias, showing how you called them on their lies regarding Bush's bathroom note. Nice work if you weren't dead wrong about that, which of course you were. I notice you never updated that post telling us how Rice had admitted that the President wrote that note (yes, the whole note). Nice kerning, genius! Leaving out such a crucial piece of information sound like bias to me, or maybe you just can't admit when you're wrong.

Btw documents are leaked to the media, not by them.

Mantis, you might like sticking your head in the sand, and as an American that is your right, but don’t try to insult anyone else’s intelligence.

The only reason to post this story is to drag up the specter of the Bin Laden PDB one more time to fault Bush for not preventing the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01. It was a possible bonus that they could try to tar Bush’s SCOTUS nominee as being part of the problem as well. Anything that may be construed as potentially embarrassing to the President—like revealing that he, too, has bodily functions—is grist for the “hate Bush” mill.

If you have a link to a credible source about who wrote the note, email it to me and I’ll update the post. While you are at it, please tell me why such a story—that the president wrote an note about needing to use the restroom—is newsworthy.

While documents are often leaked to the media, the media can and does “leak” documents, and occasionally documents about needing to take a leak, which exactly what the restroom note was.

Don’t be obtuse.

Well, it's not usually what I consider a credible source, but I doubt you'll have a problem with the NY Post (Registration req.). This article should clear it up for you. I'll paste the pertinent section:

The usually unflappable Rice was wide-eyed when she was shown a copy of the photo yesterday during a meeting with The Post editorial board.

"Oh, my goodness . . . there are no secrets," she said, laughing.

Rice explained that when Bush handed her the note, she told him all he had to do was get up and go, and that she'd take his seat while he answered nature's call.

The Security Council session continued uninterrupted during Bush's brief absence.

I'm surprised you haven't seen it. In any case, no it wasn't newsworthy. It was funny though, and keep in mind that it was just one of over 150 pictures taken from the UN Summit, and the security council meeting during which Bush wrote the note. It was perfectly understandable if you know that it is rare for a President to attend a security council meeting, and he didn't know the protocol. In any case it was just a picture among many posted online and was not the subject of a news story until bloggers pointed it out, and until after you had complained that it was not newsworthy. It just shows your sense of humor (if you have one) is limited to only funny things about liberals, just as many liberals' senses of humor are limited to conservatives.

I understand you were just answering about leaking documents so you could perform your clever play on words, but tell me exactly where do those government documents the media leaks come from? That's right, from leaks. People leak to the media, the media reports what is leaked. It's not hard to understand. The media, despite attempts by Fox News and others, is not supposed to be on the same boat as the government, therefore when they report things that leak from that boat, they are not actually leaking anything, they are reporting what they find and what comes to them. You do understand the term "fourth estate" don't you? They are not there to keep the boat from sinking, the leak is not them.

However what this insistence that the media leaks documents belies is your propensity for blaming the wrong people. I would have had not objection if you were at least blaming the LA Times for reporting that Miers handed him the PDB, but instead you blame E&P for reporting about, hey, other news organizations reporting! Isn't that their job? Who's the obtuse one again?

I know you hate any press that doesn't vehemently support this president, but I fear one that does, no matter who sits in the White House.

While the article abstract that shows in your link doesn't contain what you say it does, I'll take your word for it. The rest of your points are, not to put too fine a point on it, stupid.

In any case it was just a picture among many posted online and was not the subject of a news story until bloggers pointed it out...

Bull. The first I saw of it were snippy little stories from the mainstream media, specifically the E&P article I discussed. Who took the picture? The MSM. Who distributed the picture? The MSM. How did bloggers find out about it? From the media. Nice try.

As for leaks...

The media does leak, mantis. Any organizational structure can and does leak, often profusely. To deny that is ignorance on your part, not mine. And just so you know,I've had members of the media leak information directly to me over the years, as well. Not just about stories, but things about people they work with, their organization's internal politics, etc. All organizations leak, even, and sometimes especially, an industry that thrives on sharing secrets.

Sorry to bust your illusions of the nobility of the media.

Back to the story of this post...

For your knowledge, biased as the L.A. Times was not the media source I cited. It was never a factor in my post, and so your argument, convoluted as it is, makes little sense. They were but one of many outlets running this story, and the E&P is -get this - in the business of reporting about the industry. They also have - get this - their own writers and editors, who determine the stories they will run, their scope, slant, and tone. I selected E&P notjust for running this story, but for how they ran the story. Period.

As for your comment, "I know you hate any press that doesn't vehemently support this president..." you obviously don't read this blog regularly. Ive been quite critical of Bush's handling of border security, immigration, the financing and rebuilding of New Orleans, his pick of Miers for SCOTUS, and on, and on... and that's just in the last month.

Nice try.

All organizations leak, even, and sometimes especially, an industry that thrives on sharing secrets.

We were talking about government documents, not information about employees of news organizations.

The first I saw of it were snippy little stories from the mainstream media, specifically the E&P article I discussed.

Who cares what the first thing you saw was? You didn't even notice that your bathroom note kerning story was crap, even though Rice's explanation made the rounds. Go back and track the story if you think I'm wrong.

I have no illusions about the nobility of the media, just its ideal function.

My argument was not convoluted at all, if you pay attention. I'll spell it out for you (even though it is all in the E&P piece, which you posted in full).

-Miers is chosen by Pres. Bush.
-White House releases photo(s) of Miers
-Many news organizations post or print the briefing photo.
-LA Times runs story about PDB.
-E&P runs story about the different ways that photo is presented by news organizations and the LA Times claims about the briefing.

If the LA Times had never run the PDB piece, E&P would probably not have run anything on the subject. Your claim of bias is based on the fact that no press would be present for classified briefings, therefore E&P must be making it up (ignoring the LA Times piece they quote). Apparently you also missed the part where E&P noted that the photo was released by the White House (and presumably was not taken by a member of the press at all).

I read this blog enough to know that you defend Bush against any criticism in the press, real or imagined, despite the fact that you feel confident in your conservative bonafides to mildly criticize him from time to time (for not being conservative enough).

We were talking about government documents, not information about employees of news organizations.

I never limited my comments about leaks to government documents, nor did you. Quit shifting your goalposts.

You didn't even notice that your bathroom note kerning story was crap...

Kerning refers to the spacing between letters in a typeface. I let it pass the first time, but please if you don't know what the word means, don't use it.

Shhhhh.....

We are better not furthering any discussion about the Aug 6 memo. I really don't think we could have convinced the country that the President was strong on terrorism if more people know about the Bin Laden memo and how he went on vacation for a month without taking any action.

Raising hackles about this "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the U.S." memo is as helpful to us as making people aware of the Downing Street Memo.

Shhhhhhh

Please be quient

Rich, which of the seven DSMs would you be referring to? The one that makes thirdhand claims, or the two that directly and specifically contradict the first one?

So you lose an argument and your response is to ban the commenter? Unfortunately for you I have an unlimited number of IPs. Since I suspect you'll try something like that again I'll keep a record of this thread.

I never limited my comments about leaks to government documents, nor did you. Quit shifting your goalposts.

you wrote:

but given the media’s proclivity towards leaking classified documents

Since when do news organizations produce classified documents? You moved the goalposts, not me.

Kerning refers to the spacing between letters in a typeface. I let it pass the first time, but please if you don't know what the word means, don't use it.

I know what the word means, that was a joke at your expense since you fancy yourself a document-analyst cum media-debunker a la Rathergate. Poor show, old chap. Further evidence that you have no sense of humor.

Hmmmm... must have banned the wrong troll. Sorry.

RE: classified documents. The "classified" documents I was referring to in the original post was obviously referring to the fact that the media loves to expose documents leaked to it by government sources.

But down in teh comment section, you didn't mention classifed documents at all in your inital post. You said:

Btw documents are leaked to the media, not by them.

You shifted the focused to documents in general being leaked. Perhaps that was not your intent, but it was the point I was discussing. Leaks came fast and furious out of CBS News due to Rathergate, just as they flowed from NY Times staffers during the Jason Blair scandal.

As for the kerning... yeah, I'm sure you knew what it meant, and you were making a joke.

You've been so funny so far, and all.