Sorry, Scaeagles- I could have sworn you told me a long time ago you hadn't read it, and your prior posting about questioning the integrity of the report sort of supported it. Fair enough- if you have read it, then I will be more than willing to listen to your opinion on the subject. Drives me crazy when people shoot something down without at least looking into the subject- kind of like all the homeschool people who won't let their kid read Harry Potter because it's EVIL. They haven't read it, but their pastors assure them of the series corruptive nature and they act like even talking about it will condemn their souls to oblivion.


Might I add it's also rare that you typo? Must have been difficult writing that last line.;):p

Well what do you know, Drudge took down the link to the blog post scaeagles linked to. And the GW stories are still there so it isn't that he just moved on.

Of course a correction/retraction would be more than could be hoped for but at least for once he took a minor step.

OMG!! Bush is a terrorist!!!!

Diplmoacy with Iran!!!

Let the Spin begin.:rolleyes:

Can you say "Waffle" Mr Bush.... I knew you could!

For the record, I completely disagree with this action.

Only semi-spin. But among those more intelligent critics of Obama's statements the argument was that it would be inappropriate for there to be a summit level meeting between heads of state such as the presidents of Iran and the USA and this type of thing was pretty much what they said was appropriate.

Those who read unstated nuance into Obama's initial statements also said that of course Obama would first work through lower level diplomatic channels and this would be the form of most any "meeting without demands" with enemy states.

And then there were idiots on both sides (though definitely louder on the right side).

I wonder if this means Edwards is off Obama's short list of VP choices....I'm curious as to if it actually happened.

Unless it can be clearly shown as untrue (which I doubt, the rumors of this long pre-date the Enquirer story from earlier this year) I don't see any way he could be the VP choice.

But while he may have been on the shortlist it never struck me as likely he'd be chosen. So for me the question is whether it kills his chances of any position in the administration and I imagine that depends on how Elizabeth responds.

Very disappointing if so.

Does the Enquirer have a good reputation for factual reporting?