I don't know why some people are saying Rahm Emanuel fed Dana Milbank info for his last column

[ohiodemocratic]

In the article in question, Milbank reminded his readers of things in which Rahm and the White House disagreed. All of these disagreements had been documented in the press prior to Milbank's piece.

Milbank spoke about Rahm's view that Guantanamo should be closed and that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should not be tried in Federal court; All of this was reported in a recent New Yorker piece on the rivalry of Rahm vs. Holder.

Can anyone point to the information that makes some suspicious that Rahm was behind the piece?
I've heard some say that it's evident the story feels too much as if it had been co-written or directed by Rahm Emanuel. But to me, it's a typical Milbank story seeking much-needed attention.

Milbank hates the left, and it's understandable that he would take sides in favor of Rahm, who is not in good terms with us liberals. Milbank has been angry because pressure from the left led to his silly video calling Hillary a "mean b*tch" being pulled.

Milbank didn't need any assistance from Rahm in order to do this.

[hlthe2b]

1. Why does it matter so much to you?

Just curious.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zipplewrath]

2. Timing

As you suggest, that article could have been written anytime over the last months. The speculation is that Rahm is feeling weak and looked to Milbank to create some support. The "new" thing in that article was the apparent conflict going on within the inner circle. To open up on Axelrod and company seemed a bit odd.

[lamp_shade]

3. Gee... no responses. Do you suppose nobody has one? That would be my guess.

:shrug:

:hi:

[Cassandra]

4. I think it's the tone.

It's so swoony (and makes it sound like the President's job is to do what Rahm advises). Did you read the comments to the article? They are either pro-Rahm or quite scathing.

[ohiodemocratic]

8. Milbank hates liberals

By praising a person that is at odds with us on the left, Milbank seeks to make us upset and get back for our criticism against him. Don't forget Olbermann made him leave his show after he (Milbank) wrote an article distorting Barcack Obama's position on something-- I don't remember exactly, but it was a big setback for the WAPO hack.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Nobody really knows, so everyone is guessing.....

which is what makes the Internet go round, because guessing and speculating are great political pastimes!

Just watch how much effort and energy we spend on this, and that will tell you all that you need to know.

My "theory" is that this story was written in order to create infighting within the White House in case there wasn't any.....also keeping the Internet folks hating on Rahm is useful to many; most who would be foes of this White House.

Bottomline is that no one actually knows anything; we just like to think we do. :crazy:

[Cha]

7. dana milbank is a mediawhore..I've had

10 years experience observing them and your theory sounds logical to me. They've done it before haven't they?

dana milbank from the wash post? Really.

<snip>

"The Washington Post has refused to run corrections on George Will’s recent “global cooling” column, despite its “stunning, boneheaded, egregious errors.” In response to a ThinkProgress request, Washington Post ombudsman Andy Alexander “sought clarification from the editorial page editors”:"

<more>
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/19/will-wp/

<snip>

"Wash. Post adds to its stable of former Republican staffers

With the recently announced hire of former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen, The Washington Post now employs four national political columnists who have previously worked for Republican administrations, but only one who has worked for a Democratic administration. The addition of Thiessen, who originated the dubious claim that waterboarding Khalid Shaikh Mohammed "stopped an attack on the Library Tower in Los Angeles," continues to move the Post's editorial page to the right, filling it with prowar and pro-torture views."

<more>
http://mediamatters.org/research/201002170015

[belpejic]

9. Um, because anyone who can read btw. the lines knows he did? n/t