Comments on: S&M&NBC

S&M&NBC

kablam — Thu, 28 Nov 2002 07:32:40 -0800

Well, now that his cover is blown, he'll probably be hired to work for Henry Kissinger on the 9-11 coverup, or with Admiral Poindexter, on "Big Brother." Whips and chains and weapons of mass destruction.

By: RobbieFal

RobbieFal — Thu, 28 Nov 2002 07:45:06 -0800

he'll whip Saddam into shape and ask him repeatedly who his daddy is! (but Saddam won't know!)

By: Fabulon7

Fabulon7 — Thu, 28 Nov 2002 08:05:01 -0800

Isn't it a little childish of the WP to bring up the S&M thing? Really, who cares? This is a marginal story made barely sensational enough to publish because of buddy's prediliction for kinky sex.
Grow up, reporters.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Thu, 28 Nov 2002 08:12:02 -0800

more bush sleight-of-hand. spank that saddam bitch, dubya!

By: Postroad

Postroad — Thu, 28 Nov 2002 08:15:17 -0800

Don't ask. Don' tell?

By: johnnyboy

johnnyboy — Thu, 28 Nov 2002 08:15:30 -0800

as blackadder would say - yeeesssss.

By: holycola

holycola — Thu, 28 Nov 2002 08:27:29 -0800

What does his sex life have to do with his credentials? Is this Fox News or something. For christ sake kablam try finding an article that's halfway relevant, and double-shame on the Post for stooping to such lows. I've never heard of the curse that wishes someone to live in absurd times, but these times are certainly that.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Thu, 28 Nov 2002 08:32:43 -0800

well certainly the WP has to compete with Fox News, but mefite readers DO NOT have to be distracted by the "BatBoy, Son of Elvis" aspects of this information. What the fuck is the administration up to now? And why isn't this guy already employed as an airport security scanner?

By: mygoditsbob

mygoditsbob — Thu, 28 Nov 2002 08:48:58 -0800

I agree that playing up the sex angle is gratuitous, but the guys qualifications are dubious at best. The experience that he touts as qualifying him for the post came over 20 years ago. This is one of the guys we're relying on to perform a critical function that may avert a war?

By: dhartung

dhartung — Thu, 28 Nov 2002 08:56:09 -0800

Well, thank God that's in the capable hands of the UN.

By: nelleish

nelleish — Thu, 28 Nov 2002 08:57:54 -0800

Personally, I could care less about his sexual preferences, not my business. It's the fact he doesn't have a specialized degree in any of the fields the UN supposedly requires in their inspectors, as well as offering "seminars on 'weaponization of chemical and biological agents' for $595 a session" and running a firm that sells bioterror products that sort of worries me. That, and the whole issue of not performing background checks TO BEGIN WITH. Ditto to mygoditsbob's emphasis.

By: timeistight

timeistight — Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:02:01 -0800

Without a Washington Post login I have no idea whose character your trying to assassinate or which political agenda you're trying to promote. maybe that's a good thing.

By: timeistight

timeistight — Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:06:24 -0800

Apologies for the typos.

By: RJ Reynolds

RJ Reynolds — Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:22:56 -0800

That pervert-baiting article just makes me see red. That's absolutely disgusting of the Post. I think what they're trying to say (and failing) is that, when the Bush Administration gets wind of this, there's going to be a stink. Speaking of said Administration, it's quite interesting that there's no quote from them on this, and only a vague assimilated comment from a "State Department official"... who was probably among the people who endorsed/forwarded Mr. Leather's resume to the U.N. So, how did this story start? Did it start when the Post starting googling the members of the team? Or did it start with a leak from the White House to undermine the results of the weapon inspection team? And, if the weapons inspection team is so weak, then why is this member the only one singled out? Sure, by their report, his credentials sound pretty fucking shabby. But given their scandal-mongering about his sex life, how the hell am I supposed to believe any of this crap?

By: RJ Reynolds

RJ Reynolds — Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:56:55 -0800

And then I left the house and saw the cover of the New York Post: U.N. Weapons Hunt Farce. I felt much better about the other Post. Such good journalism here in New York: "The Bush administration, which is deeply skeptical Iraq will comply with the get-tough inspection rules mandated by the U.N. Security Council, withheld official comment about the bizarre first day of inspections." Just wait til they get wind of this whole kinky lifestyle angle! Tomorrow's cover will be a doozy.

By: andrew cooke

andrew cooke — Thu, 28 Nov 2002 12:16:48 -0800

isn't mefi crap these days?

By: inksyndicate

inksyndicate — Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:02:25 -0800

Answer: yes. The whip-'n'-chain-liberation movement still has a ways to go. Until people are free to be humiliated by dominatrixes in the privacy of their own homes, you know this would have been embarassing sooner or later. Don't blame the Post. Still, better someone who's into whips and chains than someone who is into power as an aphrodesiac.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Thu, 28 Nov 2002 14:25:06 -0800

That's absolutely disgusting of the Post. I think what they're trying to say (and failing) is that, when the Bush Administration gets wind of this, there's going to be a stink. Um, it was the bush administration that sponsored this guy as an inspector.

By: Poagao

Poagao — Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:32:12 -0800

"Crazy mix-up between theonion.com and the Washington Post results in hilarious article being taken seriously" Next we'll have left-handed weapons inspectors whose favorite color is -perish the thought- blue!

By: pmurray63

pmurray63 — Thu, 28 Nov 2002 21:31:53 -0800

Personally, I could care less about his sexual preferences Umm... I suspect you actually mean that you couldn't care less, nelleish. Think about it. (Sorry, but it's a pet peeve of mine.) FWIW, yes, I agree that the sex angle was gratuitous and distracting. So has anyone written the WP's ombudsman to complain? ["The Post's Ombudsman, Michael Getler, is the readers' representative within the newspaper. E-mail him at ombudsman@washpost.com"] Links to Getler's articles show up on Romanesko's Media News periodically, and he does seem willing to bite the hand that feeds him.

By: drezdn

drezdn — Fri, 29 Nov 2002 00:10:28 -0800

and he does seem willing to bite the hand that feeds him. Isn't that the point of an ombudsman?

By: nofundy

nofundy — Fri, 29 Nov 2002 04:47:40 -0800

But given their scandal-mongering about his sex life, how the hell am I supposed to believe any of this crap? - RJ Reynolds Exactly!! Exactly what I thought when the Post hammered on President Clinton for years. And now the same Post sees no reason for investigations into the Duhbya follies. But then, they're not about sex, are they?

By: vbfg

vbfg — Fri, 29 Nov 2002 05:56:30 -0800

"McGeorge said yesterday that a State Department official invited him to apply for the U.N. team, and officials at State and the United Nations did not ask about his S&M background. But he said he would tender his resignation to Blix if The Post printed a story about it.", says story printed in The Post.

By: holycola

holycola — Sat, 30 Nov 2002 09:26:40 -0800

The experience that he touts as qualifying him for the post came over 20 years ago. It fits well considering that the reports Bush has cited as evidence of big nasty weapons development were over 2 years old, when they said anything at all. This whole effort is an autumn farce to guarantee a new years war.