This week on the blogs, you have to decide whom you believe: O'Reilly or "Satanic" blog readers; Neo-con editors or the "liberal" media; Brokaw or "cancerous" bloggers and video gamers; 10 million missing emails or After Downing Street; "Cookie" Krongard or Henry Waxman; Republicans (on torture) or Democrats. All this and much more. Plus, DUers Whoa_Nelly, davidswanson and L. Coyote rock our world! Enjoy.
Who Ya Gonna Believe: Your "Satanic" Eyes Or O'Reilly?Betcha you didn't even know you were a Satan worshiper, did you? From
Think Progress:
O'Reilly: Progressive blog readers = 'devil worshippers.'
On Fox News yesterday, Bill O'Reilly let loose on "far-left websites" like DailyKos, stating, "If you read these far-left websites, you're a devil worshipper. You are." O'Reilly's ombudsman responded, "As a journalist, you know better than that." O'Reilly shot back: "Satan is running the DailyKos. Yes, he is!"
Journalist? O'Reilly? Now, that's funny. Of course, BillO claimed his (cough) commentary (cough) was "satire." Will someone please give this guy a dictionary?
Who Ya Gonna Believe About The So-Called Liberal Media?And you thought Jossip.com was just for Britney watching. Get a load of this juicy little
media tidbit:
What Liberal Media? Neocon takes control of the Week in Review
Neocons, say what.
Sam Tanenhaus, New York Times Book Review editor, is taking his neocon editing skillz to the Week In Review. Can't wait to see the thought pieces on how Iraq really was a good call.
Read Bill Keller's cheerful memo at the link, and have your barf bag handy. Bill's list of "terrific supporting cast" members reads like a neo-con demon's resume reference list. chilling. Ready for more media muck?
Who Ya Gonna Believe: "Luddite Dinosaur" Brokaw Or "Cancerous" Bloggers and Video Gamers?From
Kotaku:
A recent interview with Tom Brokaw conducted by Hugh Hewitt on Townhall.com reveals that the retired newscaster supported his former network's decision to air Virginia Tech murderer Cho Seung Hui's videotaped hate-filled monologue. He wasn't concerned about a series of imitators who might also want their hundreds of hours of airtime. No, he was concerned about, of course, video games. Brokaw pointed to games and, curiously, blogs as "cancerous."
Here's what Brokaw actually said:
HH: NBC ran the Virginia Tech killer tape on the day they obtained it. Steve Capus, Brian Williams made that decision. Did they make the right decision?
TB: Yeah, they did.
HH: Do you not think it's going to incite other people to try to do the same thing?
TB: No, I don't. I think...to get back to something we were talking about earlier in general thematic terms, I don't think we're doing a very good job about talking about violence in this country, either. You know, Virginia Tech went away. We didn't have any ongoing dialogue in our communities or on the air about the corrosive effect of violence. It was not what he, what people saw of him on the air that will drive them, it's what they read in blog sites, and what they see in video games. It's that kind of stuff that I think is cancerous. And I'm a free speech absolutist, but I think that at the same time, we have to have free speech in some kind of a context. And part of that context is a discussion of the possible effects of it.
Got that? Brokaw, the "free speech absolutist," wants to have his network's free speech cake and eat the critical bloggers, too. Heavy sigh. read the rest of Kotaku's post and decide for yourself who's believable. And stay tuned for Brokaw's upcoming in-depth reporting on the dangers of rock & roll. (Just kidding.)
Who Ya Gonna Believe About 10 Million Missing Emails?From Jack Cafferty (via
After Downing Street):
Cafferty: A government watchdog group now says more than 10 million White House emails are missing. Citizens for the Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) described this massive hole in White House email records last April. At that time they thought the number was 5 million - Now they say it is more than 10 million emails. In one of the great understatements of this here Christmas season, the group says that this revised estimate - quote - highlights that this is a very serious and systematic problem at the White House - unquote. Both CREW and another private group called the National Security archive are suing the Bush administration to try to get information about all these missing emails. The White House email problems first came to light during special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into the leak of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity...
It's worth noting what a critical time period these missing emails represent. Why it's from March of 2003 to October 2005. That would include the start of the Iraq War right up through the aftermath of Katrina. As the director of one of these groups put it: It doesn't get more historically valuable than that. Given the way the White House handled both the war and Katrina, it's also quite convenient that suddenly this mountain of stuff is missing. By the way it's against the law that these emails be destroyed or lost. They are supposed to be saved. The Presidential Records Act of 1978 mandates White House communications be preserved. Another law broken — Another example of nobody doing a damn thing about it.
After Downing Street adds:
Easy answer: no one believes a single defender of BushCo, not even the defenders. They're just playing that old plausible deniability game, complete with non-denial denial moves.
Who Ya Gonna Believe About Perjury?We won't have Cookie Krongard to dunk in our media milk anymore. From
MoJo Blog:
Bye-Bye Cookie (Yes, He's Crumbled)
Reuters reports that Howard "Cookie" Krongard has decided to resign as the State Department's inspector general. The decision comes after a disastrous appearance last month before Rep. Henry Waxman's House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, where Krongard's testimony invited charges of perjury. Krongard, who had allegedly interfered in an arms smuggling investigation targeting Blackwater USA, initially denied that his brother Buzzy Krongard (a former high-ranking CIA official) was a member of that company's advisory board. He later changed his tune after reaching Buzzy by phone during a break in the hearing.
It's unclear why Cookie would have lied. But if by doing so he was trying to protect his brother, the favor went unreturned when reporters reached Buzzy for comment: He explained that he'd told Cookie about his Blackwater affiliation weeks before the hearing. Seeing as Cookie's congressional testimony had been under oath, the revelation may have opened him up to prosecution. So much for brotherly love.
Brotherly love? Wait! There's more! Read the rest of the blog entry and bask in the knowledge that Cookie is suing his son's family and sending them threatening emails. (Insert your own crumbling metaphor here.)
Who Ya Gonna Believe About Profit Sharing?Are you still wondering why big media makes you watch all of those "anti-piracy" ads, yet they claim there's not enough money to share with the people who write the pieces they (the producers) don't want you to pirate? Tell them what you think by using Firedoglake's
easy contact form. (Psst! An actual "writer" has already composed a sample text for you.)
Who Ya Gonna Believe About Torture?Raise your hand if you're still confused by the explanations of Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and others concerning their reported "silence" on U.S. involvement in the latest BushCo torture scandal. P.M. Carpenter
writes:
Doubts? No, what informed lawmakers expressed was feigned and sniveling outrage. One can almost forgive the Republican participants; their creed for some time has been there are no standards of decency or legal traditions that a proper terrorist-fighting führer cannot or should not violate. Hell, they're proud of it, they advertise it, they advance themselves by it and are positively giddy about it.
Yet while there was "no objecting, no hand-wringing" at the time of their CIA-delivered educations, the loyal and purportedly upright Democratic opposition laid both on thick, once the press popped the cork on the Bush administration's unprecedented descent into the official hell of Gestapoism. They were, they told us, shocked to learn of such deplorable doings -- and in no way, and at no time, ever would have condoned them.
TPM Muckraker's Spencer Ackerman,
writes:
As we noted earlier, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA)
statement yesterday about a briefing on CIA interrogation techniques left a couple things unclear. A Pelosi aide, responding to our queries, walked us through.
According to the aide, the briefing Pelosi received in September 2002 -- when she was the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee -- did not cover any interrogation techniques then in use by the CIA. Administration officials "said these were possible techniques they might use in future but (were) not being used yet," says the aide. The aide doesn't know "if the term 'waterboarding' was used" by the briefer.
No objection was raised at the time by Pelosi to what she was told were "possible techniques." But the aide is unsure if Pelosi left the briefing clear on what those possible techniques actually entailed: "Her briefing
not as extensive as the Post story implies."
Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) took Pelosi's spot on the committee in 2003. It was only then that the administration told the committee chiefs that the techniques listed in the 2002 briefing "were actually being used." Harman, and not Pelosi, was briefed at the time. "Harman objected, which Pelosi thought was the right thing to do and would have done if she had been ranker," the aide says.Ackerman goes on to suggest that Pelosi has thrown Harmon under the bus; however, Pelosi has posted Harmon's objection letter on her own website, which suggests the opposite. Still confused? Classified information can't even be discussed, yet it looks like both Pelosi and Harmon risked the wrath of the Republican majority when they spoke secretly about their respective briefings. You'd have to believe that BushCo's CIA and his Republican majority were and are telling the whole truth about torture. Is that what you believe? Just because the WaPo says so? Oh, well. We may have to agree to disagee, but let's...
Thank A DUer!Thanks to Whoa_Nelly
for posting a great
bookmark-worthy link to next year's caucuses, primaries, and elections (in chronological order).
Thanks to davidswanson
for his insight on how to vote in a primary and not look like an idiot. Here's point #1:
1. Virtually nobody votes in primaries (or caucuses) compared to general elections. Therefore, each individual primary vote is worth many times what it is in the general election. And, it's more likely to be counted, since there's typically less fraud and abuse of the system in primaries. So, if you vote in general elections, you pretty much have to vote in primaries in order to not be an idiot. Bring a few friends to vote too, and you're practically a genius.
Hey, who doesn't want to look like a genius? Get involved, and support your candidate(s).
And thanks to L. Coyote for
this burning question on whom to trust:
So, Bush's lies were covering up perjury and obstruction of justice, and evidence of torture and war crimes. What else? The evidence was also sought by the 9/11 Commission. No doubt there is more to come still. Major players like Harriet Meirs were involved.
That is a brief summary of the import of what this newest scandal entails. Very serious and numerous crimes leading right to the President of the United States, and very impeachable crimes at that.
NOW, who would like to claim that, with all this lying going on, someone was running over to Capital Hill to fully inform Dem leaders about all this impeachable criminality?
Excellent question! For some reason, I keep seeing that scene in "Galaxy Quest," where the tiny CGI miners ambush and eat the wounded one. Are we really ready to join yet another Republican war on one of our Speakers of the House?
'Tis the season... to examine our personal beliefs, question our convictions, and consider the treatment of others. Whether we celebrate the sun, the son, or anything else this month (or not), let's keep in mind how often Republicans try to divide us and conquer us. Yes, we all believe we know which presidential candidate would be best for the country, but wouldn't every single Democrat running be a damned sight better than any of the Republicans? And we know that our elected Dems are far from perfect, but shouldn't we wait until we have a veto-proof margin before we jettison them for better leaders? It all comes down to what and whom you believe, doesn't it?
-- Delilah Boyd
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(95 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
