Month: March 2006

Oh Jossip… You’re Indefatigable

Stories

 

Do Vanity Fair reporters have some kind of truth serum for their interview subjects? It seems as though people are always admitting things like eating disorders or revealing their sources in huge government scandals, and then, suddenly, they never said any of these things.

First it was Lindsay Lohan‘s “I never said I had an eating disorder.” Now we have Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee claiming that “he doesn’t remember” telling the mag that former State Department official Richard L. Armitage is the likely source who named Valerie Plame to Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward.

In an article to be published in the magazine today, Bradlee is quoted as saying: “That Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption.” Armitage was deputy secretary of state in President Bush’s first term.

This month’s VF “officially” hits newsstands today, and the tell-all issue also features Teri Hatcher‘s confession that she was molested as a child. And a bunch of other stuff that nobody remembers ever saying.

http://www.jossip.com/gossip/vanity-fair/the-case-of-vanity-fairs-mystery-amnesia-20060314.php

:::Magazine: Bradlee Knows Woodward’s Source on Plame Jim VandeHei, Washington Post:::

Laura Ingraham Blames The Today Show For The Failure In Iraq

Stories

It’s GALLING…. 

She referred to hotel-balcony reporters not giving us the good stories in the middle of this war zone where just three days ago, the windows in NBC’s offices were shattered once again. She went there last month for a week or so and reporter Richard Engel has been putting his life on the line the last three years, living with shattered windows and kidnappings of the press and daily IED blasts. Over 50 journalists have been killed in Iraq, Ms. Ingraham.

There’s just Crazy Sectarian bloodshed and mass murders going on and the right-wingers, still to this day, remain dazed by the Kool-aide and she chalks it all up to Bush-hating and liberals actually wanting America to fail over there. That’s all they have left. And none of us forget those of you who were behind this war when there were sane voices warning us of this fate and they were bullied out. We remember and you don’t get to jump ship now with these sorry excuses for your equally lame excuses. O’Reilly had her on that night on his Peabody Award®-winning program, agreed with her, and said he’s really getting peeved about the tone in America. Former Senator Alan Simpson told Larry King that he sure didn’t like the partisanship permeating Washington.

Uh-uh. 

You don’t get to be pissed that we’re mad;

The Republicans created this harsh environment. The so-called weak Democrats can’t even get a hearing room from these hacks and Excuse me, but let’s just cut the old crap about how “both parties are the same” because that’s the kind of mindless drivel that goes right along with “everyone thought Saddam had WMD’s” and “the democrats can’t seem to do anything” ….and just for good measure:

“There ain’t no diference between Al Gore and George W. Bush”- idiot in America

But that kinda thinking wins out….

and we all lose.

BONUS :::BULL::::  

“Everyone knew she was a C.I.A. agent”

http://mediamatters.org/items/200603220013

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/nbc_today_ingraham_carville_gregory_060320a_320x240.wmv

A Few Examples of Why L. Brent Bozell’s NEWSBUSTERS Website is Uttterly and Completely a Horde of RIDICULOUS Apologists for a Horrible Administration

Stories

sad.JPG

HEY- OUR TORTURE ISN’T SO BAD!
AFTER ALL- SADDAM WAS WORSE!

 

O’Reilly and Ingraham Take on NBC and Television Media Bias

Posted by Noel Sheppard on March 22, 2006 – 11:25.

Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly had radio host Laura Ingraham on “The O’Reilly Factor” Tuesday evening (hat tip to Expose the Left). Fresh from her battle with NBC’s David Gregory on the “Today Show,” O’Reilly wanted Ingraham’s view (video link to follow) about NBC (from closed captioning):

Bill: Is it your opinion that NBC news spins the war in Iraq negative?

Laura: Well, it’s not between me and NBC, Bill.

Bill: Look, you’re an analyst. You watch these people. Is it your opinion that NBC news spins the war negative?

Laura: I think that the coverage of the war by NBC that I have really focused on, especially since I was in Iraq last month, to me it seems bizarrely focused only on the I.E.D.’s, only on the latest reprisal killings that are taking place. When stories that are so fascinating and interesting and broader and human interest, stuff the “Today” show and NBC likes to do, those stories are out there for anyone to get. I don’t get it.

O’Reilly then made a very bold castigation of NBC:

…………………………………………………………..

 YOU SAID IT….ASS

 

Stung by Ingraham, NBC Claims its Iraq Coverage . . . Not Negative Enough

Posted by Mark Finkelstein on March 22, 2006 – 07:56.

Stung by allegations levelled by Laura Ingraham yesterday, NBC has admitted that its Iraqi coverage is inaccurate because it’s . . . not negative enough.

Ingraham clearly hit an MSM sore spot with the charges she made during her appearance on yesterday’s Today show, in which she locked horns with David Gregory and James Carville. Read Laura in the Lions Den.

Ingraham accused most American media of covering Iraq from their balconies in the Green Zone, confining their reports largely to IEDs and killings and missing the more positive stories that abound across the country.

On this morning’s Today show, a defensive NBC asked whether it is doing a good job reporting on Iraq, and – surprise! – the Peacock Network assured itself and its viewers that indeed it is. If anything, Today told us, the situation in Iraq is even worse than the MSM portray it. You might say NBC’s position is that its coverage is not negative enough.

……………………………………………………………………….

Olbermann Distorts Bush’s Words, Asks Who Does Bush Think He’s ‘F’-ing Kidding?

Posted by Brad Wilmouth on March 22, 2006 – 02:17.

On his Monday March 20 Countdown show, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann disputed President Bush’s recent contention that he had never claimed “that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein” by citing one awkward quote from the President, which stood in contrast to other public statements that more clearly communicated the point about the 9/11 attacks being a lesson that inspired a confrontation of Iraq, rather than Iraq actually being involved in the attacks. Olbermann rhetorically posed the question: “Who does the President think he’s ‘f’-ing kidding?” On the Tuesday March 21 show, Olbermann added that “any six-year-old would have recognized that his administration had deliberately left exactly that impression.” Guest Craig Crawford labeled Bush’s recent comments as “presidential prevarication” and compared it to Bill Clinton saying, “Depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.” Notably, as recounted by CyberAlert, the Countdown host once before used selectively edited statements by Dick Cheney to make it appear the Vice President had claimed a connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, while omitting more of Cheney’s words which clarified his meaning. (Transcripts follow.)

 

 

DON’T PULL SOMETHING THERE BUDDY…..SHEESH

I’m Already Exhausted……What a bunch of wankers!

 

 

The gang that couldn’t do anything straight

Stories

The gang that couldn’t do anything straight:  Moussaoui is the tip of the dirty iceberg

E.Alterman  :::::  http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/

This is too easy.  Did they think that nobody was paying attention?  They’ve lost Bin Laden, screwed up Afghanistan, completely wrecked Iraq, destroyed our fiscal future, left us completely vulnerable on homeland security, ignored the threats to New Orleans, messed up its recovery, thrown science out the window, attacked our civil liberties, undermined freedom of the press, you know the drill.  Why is anyone surprised that they are both incompetent and dishonest when it comes to seeking justice for the terrorist murder of thousands of Americans? 

Carl Cameron Gave Me A Marlboro Light during The Clinton Impeachment Hearings

Stories

Carl Cameron Follows Bush’s Instructions On How To Describe Warrantless Domestic Wiretapping

 

Fuck You Mr. Fukuyama

Stories
FROM THE NEW YORKER:

BREAKING AWAY

by LOUIS MENAND

Francis Fukuyama and the neoconservatives.

Issue of 2006-03-27
Posted 2006-03-20

 

On February 10, 2004, the columnist Charles Krauthammer gave the annual Irving Kristol address at the American Enterprise Institute, in Washington. The lecture was called “Democratic Realism: An American Foreign Policy for a Unipolar World.” It defended the Bush Administration’s policies of unilateralism and preëmption, and proposed that their application be defined by means of a doctrine: “We will support democracy everywhere, but we will commit blood and treasure only in places where there is a strategic necessity—meaning, places central to the larger war against the existential enemy, the enemy that poses a global mortal threat to freedom.” The new “existential enemy,” Krauthammer said, is “Arab-Islamic totalitarianism,” and he compared the war that the United States should fight against this entity to the war against Fascist Germany and Japan—a war committed to the eradication of a deadly and evil culture.

Francis Fukuyama was in the audience, and he could not believe the approval with which Krauthammer’s speech was greeted. It seemed to Fukuyama that by the winter of 2004 the policies of unilateralism and preëmption might have been ripe for some reconsideration—they clearly had not performed well in Iraq—but, all around him, people were applauding enthusiastically. Fukuyama had always regarded himself as a neoconservative. He had had close relations with many of the leading figures associated with neoconservatism: Paul Wolfowitz, Albert Wohlstetter, Allan Bloom, Irving and William Kristol. Now he began to wonder if he still shared the world view of neoconservatives who, like Krauthammer, supported the Bush Administration’s war on terror. The day after the lecture, Fukuyama ran into John O’Sullivan, then the editor of the National Interest (a journal founded by Irving Kristol), and told him that he would be writing a response to Krauthammer. That article ran in the summer, 2004, issue. It was called “The Neoconservative Moment,” and in it Fukuyama announced that neoconservatism had evolved into a set of views that he could no longer support. Krauthammer published a response to Fukuyama’s response (“In Defense of Democratic Realism”) in the fall issue of the National Interest. Last spring, Fukuyama delivered the Castle Lectures, at Yale, in which he responded to Krauthammer’s response to his response to Krauthammer’s speech, and expanded his criticism of the Bush Administration. He proposed a new approach to foreign policy, which he called “realistic Wilsonianism.” Those lectures have been expanded, in turn, and published as “America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy” (Yale; $25).

Fukuyama argues that neoconservatism was founded on four principles….

 http://www.newyorker.com/printables/critics/060327crbo_books

What a F*#&ing MESS! ::: ERIC ALTERMAN

Stories

• March 20, 2006 | 11:51 AM ET |

I don’t have anything profound to add to the commentary on the third anniversary of the Iraq invasion, except that it may be the single most misguided, dishonest and counter-productive expenditure of our nation’s blood and treasure in its history.  And almost all of this was evident from the start to anyone who cared to look.  (The ideological spectrum of Sunday’s Washington Post op-ed page on the topic stretched all the way from Donald Rumsfeld to George F. Will.)  I do think that any political commentator who supported it owes his or her readers an explanation as to why they would expect such judgment to be trusted again in the future.

This is, after all, the purpose of punditry; to help people make sense of the fusillade of news that comes to them, as Walter Lippmann explained, “helter-skelter.”  What’s fascinating is that everyday people seem to have an easier time admitting how foolish they were to trust this dishonest, incompetent, ideologically-obsessed president.