« The McCain Deathwatch Continues | Main | Reading and Discussion: Constitutional Hardball »

April 07, 2007


Hey EW, sorry to hear you guys had a cold snap in MI this week. It was sunny and 75 in Oregon on Friday :-D

I think the DOJ swicthed links on you: the link you've posted is the PDF of an email from Margarat Chiara, not one from Iglesias.

I saw Iglesias refer to this in a television interview during the last few weeks. On Hardball. He said it was a typo and that he was actually referring to a different verse. Tweets even mentioned that the mistaken verse might have been more apt. Does MSNBC keep archives? BTW, iglesia means church in Spanish.

Gini, it was Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: Proverbs 19:25, it caught my attention and I went to the good book and looked it up. “Smite a scorner, and the simple will beware: and reprove one that hath understanding, and he will understand knowledge.”

Explain why you cited that Proverbs.

MR. IGLESIAS: It’s interesting that you would pick that up. Actually, that’s a typo. I meant to say Proverbs 19:21, which is “Many are the plans in a man’s heart, but it’s the Lord’s purpose that prevails.” In other words, all this mess may seem chaotic and without reason, but ultimately there’s a bigger plan, there’s a providential plan. So I meant to put Proverbs 19:21, not Proverbs 19:25.

Obviously, there was a bigger plan for him to cite the other verse.

Yep I just found it too! Was coming back to correct Tweets to Punkinhead.

Oh, that's even better. And I take back approximately 12% of everything bad I ever said about Russert for catching that.

Thanks for the Russert, folks.

Oh, and I fixed the link.

I'm sorry, emptywheel. I usually agree with you but this just irritates me. Why must our Justice Dept. be so engaged in quoting Bible verses? Really. Couldn't they quote say our nation's founders or constitutional scholars to make a point.

"all this mess may seem chaotic and without reason, but ultimately there’s a bigger plan"

yes there was a plan -- that's why congress is presently conducting hearings. sweet jeebus can't we get men of science up there on the bench instead of these metaphysical drug addicts?

Well, well, well. I get back from the Caribbean and, more directly, early Easter service to find an opportunity to put my Bible knowledge to good use. If I had the chance to talk to David Iglesias, as one believer to another, here's what I might say:


I found your typo quite revealing. You may have planned to write Proverbs 19:21, but I believe the Lord's purpose prevailed in this case and there's a lesson for you in Proverbs 19:25. Ask yourself if God's using you to reprove some of your old friends and colleagues at the Justice Department. Ask yourself who is showing that they understand knowledge.

Almost anything in Proverbs 19 would have sent them a message. Try 19:9--"A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall perish."

Verse 25 might also mean that it is one thing to smite a simple critic, but it is a mistake to smite a critic who has real understanding about what's going on.

It constantly amazes how few of these godly ones follow their own religion. They all should have read Proverbs 19 and, indeed, the whole book.

So, was Goodling's loyalty test the requirement to quote scripture rather than case law?

Religion and government bound tightly together is a thing to be feared.

It is interesting that the last minute firing of Iglesias is causing so much trouble for Bush Co. Without his firing I wonder if this story would have had as much traction.

I do question the oft repeated talking point "US Attorney's serve at the pleasure of the President" which may be technically true but is it legal to fire a US Attorney for not pursuing politically motivated prosecutions?

How does anyone get any sort of meaning out of this crap? First of all: who does "he" refer to? The simple person? Or the one with understanding? It can't be the second, right? Reprove someone who already has understanding, and that will give him undestanding? Nonsense. Reprove someone with understanding, and the simple will have understanding of knowledge? How's that?

I reprove anyone who claims to understand this bullshit, and hopefully he or she will now have confusion of nonsense.

jussumbody, your 23:44 scored very high on the moron scale. Here's the definition of "reprove." "re-prove /riˈpruv/
–verb (used with object), verb (used without object), -proved, -proved or -prov·en, -prov·ing.
to prove again."

That definition doesn't fit with what you wrote. If you have another definition in my mind, please provide a link.

Buy Marcy's book, ANATOMY OF DECEIT. Read it. She wrote it before the Libby trial. She nailed what came out in the trial through all her hard work and magnificent intellect. Go back and read her posts about the Libby jury. emptywheel nailed the four guilty counts that Scooter got in her posts, before the verdict.

If you're not going to show her posts the respect they deserve in your comments, please don't comment here.

John Casper, jussumbody appears to be trashing the writers of Proverbs, not Emptywheel.

Thanks Ken.
I apologize jusumbody.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad