Remembering St. McCain’s attack on Kerry's botched joke

Stories

St. McCain’s look of desperation

By: John Amato @ 10:15 AM – PST Submit or Digg this Post

johnmccain-hc.jpg John McCain had this weird—glazed look in his eyes as he attacked John Kerry’s botched joke on Hannity & Colmes Tuesday night. (Here’s Kerry’s reply to the distortions)

Video -WMP Video -QT

How quickly St. McCain forgot his high praise of Kerry:

In his work toward that day, Kerry earned the “unbounded respect and admiration” of McCain, who, like others in the Senate, originally viewed Kerry with suspicion. “You get to know people and you make decisions about them,” says McCain. “I found him to be the genuine article.”

or this :

On a more serious note, McCain added later, “I think that the best Americans from both parties should be the nominees of their parties, so that the American people would have the very best to select from, and I would certainly put Sen. Kerry in that category.”

It’s sad how an election cycle will bring out the worst in people. I guess the Republicans are that desperate, but by bringing up the Iraq war front and center, they might have made a mistake:

In attacking Mr. Kerry and defending the war, the White House clearly made the calculation that achieving what has been its main strategic goal this year — firing up a dispirited conservative base — would outweigh any risk that might come in spotlighting a war that Republican Party officials said had become a huge burden for its candidates.

Wiki:Sound List

Stories

Wikipedia:Sound/list – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Wikipedia:Sound/list
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Sound
Jump to: navigation, searchThis is a list of full length copyleft/public domain songs available on Wikipedia or the Commons (alphabetically sorted by composer using a custom script). See /playlist for just URLs to use with a music player. If you have trouble playing ogg files, see Wikipedia:Media help (Ogg).

“According to the Germans, President Bush mischaracterized Curveball's information when he warned..

Stories

From
 THE LOS ANGELES TIMES
 NOV 20 2005

“According to the Germans, President Bush mischaracterized Curveball’s information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons. Then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell also misstated Curveball’s accounts in his prewar presentation to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, the Germans said… The White House, for example, ignored evidence gathered by United Nations weapons inspectors shortly before the war that disproved Curveball’s account. Bush and his aides issued increasingly dire warnings about Iraq’s biological weapons before the war even though intelligence from Curveball had not changed in two years.

At the Central Intelligence Agency, officials embraced Curveball’s account even though they could not confirm it or interview him until a year after the invasion. They ignored multiple warnings about his reliability before the war, punished in-house critics who provided proof that he had lied and refused to admit error until May 2004, 14 months after the invasion.”

Cheating on an Ethics Test? It’s ‘Topic A’ at Columbia – New York Times:

Stories

Cheating on an Ethics Test? It’s ‘Topic A’ at Columbia – New York Times:

December 1, 2006
Cheating on an Ethics Test? It’s ‘Topic A’ at Columbia
By KAREN W. ARENSON

Cheating is not unheard of on university campuses. But cheating on an open-book, take-home exam in a pass-fail course seems odd, and all the more so in a course about ethics.

Yet Columbia’s Graduate School of Journalism is looking into whether students may have cheated on the final exam in just such a course, “Critical Issues in Journalism.” According to the school’s Web site, the course “explores the social role of journalism and the journalist from legal, historical, ethical, and economic perspectives,” with a focus on ethics.

Nicholas Lemann, dean of the journalism school, said that students had to sign on to a Columbia Web site to gain access to the exam, and that once they did, had 90 minutes to write a couple of essays. But he was unwilling to detail how the cheating might have occurred.

Mr. Lemann said that no student had been formally accused of any violation, but that the issue had become “Topic A” at the school.

The situation was reported yesterday by RadarOnline.com.

The course was taught by Samuel G. Freedman, a professor of journalism at the school who also contributes columns on education and religion to The New York Times. Mr. Freedman confirmed yesterday evening that “there are allegations of cheating.”

“We are looking into them,” he said, adding that he did not want to comment further because of privacy concerns.

Students in the course, which is required of all students in Columbia’s basic journalism master’s program, have been told they must attend a specially scheduled additional session of the course today in connection with the exam. About 200 students took the course this fall.

“We have encountered a serious problem with the final exam, and will not register a passing grade in the course for anyone who does not attend,” David A. Klatell, vice dean at the school, wrote in an e-mail message, which was forwarded to a reporter by a student. Mr. Klatell did not respond to several telephone and e-mail requests for comment.

Mr. Lemann said that he was surprised that students might have been concerned about how they scored on the pass-fail exam, and that exams and grades at the school were rare.

“We are not a very grade-intensive institution,” he said. “Our school is run on a pass-fail basis.”

“Our students are strivers,” he added. “But they are striving to get good clips. It is not like law school, where fine differences in points make all the difference in the world.”

George Will Distorts WaPo's Own Reporting To Smear Jim Webb |

Stories

TPMCafe:

George Will Distorts WaPo’s Own Reporting To Smear Jim Webb
By Greg Sargent | bioThis is one of the rankest displays of journalistic dishonesty I’ve seen in some time. In today’s Washington Post column, George Will assails Dem Senator-elect Jim Webb over his now-well-known confrontation with President Bush at a White House reception. To do so, Will badly distorts the reporting his own paper did on the episode, and it’s quite clear his distortions were entirely deliberate.

First, let’s check out how Will recounts the episode in his column.

Will writes:

Wednesday’s Post reported that at a White House reception for newly elected members of Congress, Webb “tried to avoid President Bush,” refusing to pass through the reception line or have his picture taken with the president. When Bush asked Webb, whose son is a Marine in Iraq, “How’s your boy?” Webb replied, “I’d like to get them [sic] out of Iraq.” When the president again asked “How’s your boy?” Webb replied, “That’s between me and my boy.”

Will says the episode demonstrates Webb’s “calculated rudeness toward another human being” — i.e., the President — who “asked a civil and caring question, as one parent to another.”

But do you notice something missing from Will’s recounting of the episode?

Here’s how the Washingon Post actually reported on the episode the day before Will’s column:

At a recent White House reception for freshman members of Congress, Virginia’s newest senator tried to avoid President Bush. Democrat James Webb declined to stand in a presidential receiving line or to have his picture taken with the man he had often criticized on the stump this fall. But it wasn’t long before Bush found him.

“How’s your boy?” Bush asked, referring to Webb’s son, a Marine serving in Iraq.

“I’d like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President,” Webb responded, echoing a campaign theme.

“That’s not what I asked you,” Bush said. “How’s your boy?”

“That’s between me and my boy, Mr. President,” Webb said coldly, ending the conversation on the State Floor of the East Wing of the White House.

See what happened? Will omitted the pissy retort from the President that provoked Webb. Will cut out the line from the President where he said: “That’s not what I asked you.” In Will’s recounting, that instead became a sign of Bush’s parental solicitiousness: “The president again asked `How’s your boy?'”

Will’s change completely alters the tenor of the conversation from one in which Bush was rude first to Webb, which is what the Post’s original account suggested, to one in which Webb was inexplicably rude to the President, which is how Will wanted to represent what happened.

It’s virtually impossible to see how that could have been the result of mere incompetence on Will’s part. Rather, it’s very clear that Will cut the line because it was an inconvenient impediment to his journalistic goal, which was to portray Webb as a “boor” who was rude to the Commander in Chief, and to show that this new upstart is a threat to Washington’s alleged code of “civility and clear speaking” (his words). On that score, also note that in the original version, Webb said “Mr. President” twice — and neither appeared in Will’s version.

You’d think such an obvious misrepresentation would irritate the Post’s top brass. You’d think they would be annoyed with Will for sullying their pages with such journalistic misbehavior. Indeed, it’s kind of amusing to imagine what went through Will’s mind as he cut and pasted the Post’s original reporting and then hit the delete button to get rid of the inconvenient quote. Did he think to himself, “Yeah, this is bad, but no one will notice”? Or did he think, “What the heck — people will notice, but it won’t affect my professional or social standing, so who cares”?

Paging Howard Kurtz: Do you consider your colleague’s effort journalistically acceptable? I don’t. This was a really bad one.

War Criminals Master List has officially begun and Kate O'Beirne is IN…damn it….

Stories

The most recent images of abuse concerning Iraqi detainees will inevitably fuel the anti-Americanism that endangers American lives � not at the hands of sadistic young misfits but at the hands of our elected representatives. Members of Congress elbowing their way into camera range to question, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, whether abuses were widespread and senior commanders were implicated and accusing the military of engaging in some cover-up are abusing the Abu Ghraib scandal and recklessly putting our troops at risk.

Top Ten Reasons Why Joe Lieberman is a Gutless Schmuck

Stories

REASON NUMBER ONE:
Senate hearings …

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, the behavior by Americans at the prison in Iraq is, as we all acknowledge, immoral, intolerable and un-American. It deserves the apology that you have given today and that have been given by others in high positions in our government and our military.

I cannot help but say, however, that those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on September 11th, 2001, never apologized. Those who have killed hundreds of Americans in uniform in Iraq working to liberate Iraq and protect our security have never apologized.

And those who murdered and burned and humiliated four Americans in Fallujah a while ago never received an apology from anybody.

So it’s part of — wrongs occurred here, by the people in those pictures and perhaps by people up the chain of command.

But Americans are different. That’s why we’re outraged by this. That’s why the apologies were due.

Cartoonist relaxed when he saw CNN was covering standoff

Stories

lPoynter Online – Romenesko:

Cartoonist relaxed when he saw CNN was covering standoff
Romenesko Misc.
Former El Nuevo Herald cartoonist Jose Varela tells Mega TV: “I never thought my life was in danger [during last Friday’s Miami Herald Building standoff]. Yes, I got scared when the SWAT team shut down the lights in the building, but I relaxed when I turned on CNN and saw that they were covering the incident. I knew then that they could not kill me.”
Posted at 2:03:51 PM

LAT started describing Iraq situation as "civil war" last month

Stories

Poynter Online – Romenesko:

LAT started describing Iraq situation as “civil war” last month
Los Angeles Times
NBC is the first television network to officially adopt the term “civil war,” while the Los Angeles Times was the first major news outlet to formally adopt the description when it began to refer to the hostilities as a civil war in October — “without public fanfare,” the paper notes. Times foreign editor Marjorie Miller says: “For some time now we believe it has been a fairly simple call: Inside one country you have different armed groups fighting with each other. That is the definition of a civil war.”
/> NYT will use “civil war,” but “sparingly and carefully,” says Keller (BG)
/> J-prof: NBC move “a defining and negative moment” in Iraq war (USAT)
/> Washington Post doesn’t have a policy on “civil war,” says Downie (E&P)
Posted at 8:25:00 AM

Old Link Line-up Part 1

Stories

JOSEPH WILSON

GREGORY THIELMANN

MAX CLELAND

PATRICK LANG

JOSEPH BIDEN

RICHARD LUGAR

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI

CHUCK HAGEL

RICHARD SHELBY

WARREN RUDMAN

SEYMOUR HERSH

JOHN McCAIN

ANTHONY ZINNI

BRENT SCOWCROFT

DAVID KELLY

MOHAMMED AL BARADEI

GARY HART

PAUL O’NEILL

RICHARD CLARKE