Enjoy Your Obscurity

It seems that Glenn Greenwald has decided to follow Jane Hamsher and her FireBaggers over the cliff. I can't wait until they have purified their version of the left to the point where its just Jane and Glenzilla left and they have a no holds barred cage match to decide who is the only "real" progressive.

Have fun with that.

Blog Roll just got one lighter.

The 45 Minute Lie

If only we were having a public investigation into how George Bush and Dick Cheney lied and their ideological allies in the media lied us into the war the way the British are over Tony Blair.

I wonder what public sentiment would be about those two jackasses then.

Why The Anthrax Attacks Mattered

Glenzilla points out the role that the anthrax attacks had in helping to push us to war with Iraq even though Saddam Hussein had no role in them. As is usually the case there is simply too much there to excerpt but I will just hit you with the last paragraph which sums up why we shouldn't allow the right wingers to keep claiming that Bush and Cheney kept us safe after 9/11 and why we should all still be pushing for a full investigation into those anthrax attacks.

Here we have one of the most consequential political events of the last decade at least -- a lethal biological terrorist attack aimed at key U.S. Senators and media figures, which even the FBI claims originated from a U.S. military lab. The then-British Ambassador to the U.S. is now testifying what has long been clear: that this episode played a huge role in enabling the attack on Iraq. Even our leading mainstream, establishment-serving media outlets -- and countless bio-weapons experts -- believe that we do not have real answers about who perpetrated this attack and how. And there is little apparent interest in investigating in order to find out. Evidently, this is just another one of those things that we'll relegate to "the irrelevant past," and therefore deem it unworthy of attention from our future-gazing, always-distracted minds.

Remember All Those People Who Said We Invaded Iraq Over Oil?

Meet Peter Galbraith.

Now obviously we didn't invade for a measley $100 mill but I have a feeling that this story is just the tip of the iceberg.

Stay tuned...

Mr. Anti Filibuster

What a DICK!

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Priorties

Another excellent post from Glenzilla about the Villager, in particular the Washington Post's, position that the deficit doesn't matter when talking about ramping up the war in Afghanistan but its a "major concern" when talking about health care reform.

On Iran

Glenzilla has a very provocative and thought provoking post on how the media's coverage of the new revelations about Iran's previously undisclosed nuclear facilty near Qom and their coverage during the run up to the Iraq War. If nothing else he raises questions about things that are being reported and repeated as fact which may not be based on anything more than conjecture from anonymous sources. I think you owe it to yourself to give it a read.

GOPolitico And Their Rampant False Equivalency

I don't agree with Glenzilla in this post about whether what Joe Wilson was egregious or not, but thats about the only thing I can find a quibble with and he accurately portrays how Politico and other mainstream media outlets create a bizarro world when it comes to politics all in the name of false equivalency.

Joe Klein, Blogger For Swampland, Hates Bloggers

Or I should say left wing bloggers.

You have to check out this ancedote about Joe Klein from Aimai over at No More Mister Nice Blog. Its the way you would imagine a discussion about liberal and progressive bloggers would go with Joke Line but never really thought you would hear about.

Last week I went to a cookout on the beach here with some old friends (Sausages and seafood, but no cocktail weenies!) Every year they do a cookout, and then a birthday party, and for years I've known that one of their guests was Joe Klein. I never mixed it up with him because, after all, well...the opportunity never presented itself and while I'm pretty aggressive in print no one really goes up to someone and picks a quarrel with them, do they? Or maybe they do. Yes, I guess they do. I was standing at the cookout minding my own business when Klein started pontificating for the rubes on how “surprising” and “shocking” it was that Grassley, of all people, should have come out and endorsed the “death panels” lie. I walked up and said “why are you surprised?” [edited to remove typo] to which he, in best pundit debater fashion (never allow yourself to admit you were just posing!), shot back “who says I'm surprised?” I said “well, you did. You just started your lecture saying “Its surprising.”” Its not surprising, the republicans have nothing left to lose and nothing left to gain at this point outside of pleasing the crazy base and attacking Obama and the dems.”

We were off and running. He then said that its true the fringe republicans were “crazy” but perhaps no crazier than the “crazy left” under Bush. I thought he meant the “truthers” so I said “name me one person in congress or the Senate who was as crazy on any topic as these Republican senators and Congressmen who sign on to the birther and deather stuff are now?” Evading this question he said “well, Glenn Greenwald is crazy—he's a civil liberties absolutist.” Now, me, I come from a long line of civil liberties absolutists so I said “I admire Glenn Greenwald's work immensley but it must be very embarrassing for you, of course, because he's been eating your lunch for years.” (!) I think this must be something of a sore point for him. He began shrieking “Glenn Greenwald is EVIL! EVILl!..do you know what he did? He “sicced” his blog readers on my EDITOR and she was going through a DIVORCE at the time.” Really? I said, politely, that was very wrong, if it happened.

“We kept it very quiet” he said, backing off the claim of any real harm and, as a twofer, managing to imply that only those "in the know" had been kept informed.

People around us were clamoring to know what the debate was about so I laid it out, chapter and verse: I explained the Klein was upset because he had been caught out shilling for the Republicans on National Security Matters and on the FISA court legislation in particular and that he was still upset because he'd been held up for ridicule for his absurd statement that there was no problem with the secret Bush programs although he didn't know anything about them. And that this extended to the actual retroactive FISA legislation, which he also said was fine but didn't know anything about. This seemed to inflame things somewhat. Can't see why. He began shrieking at me that he hadn't been wrong, he'd been misled by a “democratic staffer” but really, I just began laughing at that point because “I didn't read the legislation” like “the dog ate my homework” is rather a lame explanation for a grown man, let alone a self described journalist.

I re-iterated that I was a big admirer of Glenn's work and that he had just received the I.F. Stone award for his excellence. That really got Klein's goat and he started screaming that he had been one of Izzy's readers for years and that Glenn was no Izzy, that he was crazily anti-national security which Izzy wouldn't have been, and at any rate I shouldn't talk about things I don't understand and I should realize that Klein has been on the right side of every argument since the Vietnam war.

Yes! I should read his stuff on the Vietnam war!” I said that I was, in fact, one of his readers—that I read his column and his blog and that it was precisely because I did know his history, in detail, that I accepted Glenn's critique of him, which of course has always been extensively documented and linked. And then, in what might be the piece de resistance of this little interaction, he screamed “you don't read me! You read WIKIPEDIA! AND THAT'S LEFTIST.” He then added that he had always been anti war and that I should “read his [Klein's] stuff from 1993." Hmm....1993, were we at war with Iraq then? I rather thought that was a different time, and even a different president. I take it that the rationale behind that bizarre interjection is that, as far as Klein is concerned, most of this is really old history at this point and what he really wants to be talking about is health care reform.

After this the e discussion, such as it was, devolved into the usual journalistic posturing and ranting against “those bloggers” who “don't do research” and who “don't have editors.” (There were many other well respected journalists at this dinner but they don't deserve to be dragged in here) to which I responded “jeezus christ on toast points you can say that to me after it came out today that John Solomon, then of the Washington Post, was writing fawning letters to the White House explaining to them how he could spin the US attorney scandal anyway they wanted? And hellooooo? Judy Miller?” Klein actually backed down on this topic and we agreed that McClatchey had done very good reporting but the main thing I took away from the discussion is that for journalists like Klein the world is divided into practitioners/insiders and totally ignorant outsiders. He was surprised that I brought up the Solomon story, or that I took seriously the Judy Miller issue, because in his world that's really inside baseball. In fact when I pointed out how abysmal the Washington Post's editorial page had been, under Fred Hiatt's tenure, he and another Journalist standing nearby assured me that Fred is an “editorialist” so the ordinary rules don't apply and I don't need to tar the whole paper with his sins. Its as thought they imagine that each story is a stand alone piece and that there's a hard and fast line between opinion and “fact” when every day, and every way, we've seen any pretense to that distinction run right into the ground. Has any adult person thought that since Media Whores Online (of sainted memory?).

Well you at least have to give the man points for consistency. Joke Line has actually come a long way since he first stated blogging at Swampland. He is at least willing to admit every blue moon when he gets something wrong now. But at heart he has this elitist attitude about the mainstream media of which he is a member in good standing in contrast to his readers and liberal and progressive bloggers. He holds himself and his profession up as some kind of gold standard while trying to pooh pooh any instances where he and his industry get the story completely wrong. To this day he won't concede that he screwed up his FISA article, choosing instead to blame everyone but himself. But really that is just the going mindset of Villagers anyway its just kind of amusing to see him verbalize it in an real life in person exchange with one of his readers.

The Price Of Being Right

Glenzilla absolutely eviscerates Marc Ambinder for trying to dismiss the fact that once again liberals and progressives were proven right about he Bush Administration. Unfortunately as Glenn points out, the more liberals and progressives are right, the more the Villagers disdain them and continue to try to dismiss them as partisans.

Truth really does have a liberal bias, unfortunately the mainstream media is so afraid of being labeled the latter that they will eschew the former. It is what it is.

Everything That's Wrong With The Beltway Media

Glenzilla does an excellent job of summing it all up here.

Sorry to much good stuff to excerpt.

Where Are The Cronkites Of Our Generation?

Glenzilla thinks all of the journalists celebrating the life of Walter Cronkite should take a few moments out for self reflection on why they suck so bad in comparison.

I agree.

The sad thing is if Cronkite was just coming into journalism in this day and age he would probably never even reach the heights he enjoyed because of the adversarial stances he took with the powers that be. No doubt he would be "Froomkined" and banned from polite company in the Village, while unscrupulous asshats like David Gregory continue to fail upward and insure that the populous is kept in the dark "for their own good".

I really believe that our only hope at this point is the blogosphere. Only when we the people take back the adversarial role that our press SHOULD be taking with our political leaders, will we as a nation truly be able to guard against the tyranny of men. Otherwise we allow ourselves to be manipulted by "journalists" who are really just the mouthpieces of political parties and special interests. Which is how you end up with things like illegal wireless wiretapping and the Iraq War.

But my hope is that maybe one of the heavy hitters will take this time in the aftermath of Walter Cronkite's death to reexamine their role as a journalist and strive to do better. That would do more to honor Walter Cronkite's history than any number of tribute specials or moments of silence.

Holding Them Accountable

Go on and check out Glenn Greenwald's podcast with Chuck Todd.



Go on I said!

"Liberal" Mainstream Media My Ass

I am going to be busy for the next few days so blogging will be light, but I just had to link to this Glenn Greenwald post ripping the New York Times to shreds for their article yesterday about Department of Justice officials supposedly signing off on torture techniques as "legal". What the hell are we supposed to do when our media which is supposed to report the news to us instead just act as stenographers to paint a picture exactly opposite from the evidence in their possession? I know people are worried about some Newspapers going out of business but when they are misleading the public in the destructive ways that they have for at least the last 8 years now I can't help but cheer for their demise. Glenzilla's post should not only be read but also passed on to your friends and family members so every one can be informed just how shitty a job our "liberal" mainstream media is doing of reporting the facts especially when it comes to pushing Bush Administration propaganda.

Sam Alito Had Empathy, Oh Noes!

I would be remiss if I didn't link to this Glenzilla post exposing the hypocrisy of the attacks from the right on Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

With regard to that last point -- how completely different is the reaction to Sam Alito and Sonia Sotomayor -- just consider this exchange that took place at the beginning of Alito's confirmation hearing (h/t sysprog):

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito's Nomination to the Supreme Court

U.S. SENATOR TOM COBURN (R-OK): Can you comment just about Sam Alito, and what he cares about, and let us see a little bit of your heart and what's important to you in life?
ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point.

ALITO: I don't come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.

And I know about their experiences and I didn't experience those things. I don't take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.

But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.

And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.

And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.

But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."

When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.

And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.

I wonder how long before wingnuts start calling for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito to be impeached.

Making It Official

President Obama presents Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee for Supreme Court Justice.





Check the resume.

And here is Glenzilla's take.

The Smearing Of Judge Sotomayor By The Coward Jeffery Rosen

I have read many posts over the last day and a half lambasting Jeffery Rosen of The New Republic over his ridiculous post on Judge Sonia Sotomayor, one of the potential nominees to the Supreme Court, but none have been as extensive or thorough as Glenzilla's. You have to read the whole thing to get the full effect of the PWNING Greenwald hands to Rosen but here are a few excerpts.

Jeffrey Rosen's New Republic smear of Sonia Sotomayor's intellect and character -- based almost exclusively on anonymous, gossiping "sources" -- is such a model of shoddy, irresponsible, and (ironically enough) intellectually shallow "journalism" that it ought to be studied carefully. Standing alone, it reveals quite a bit about anonymity-dependent "reporting" generally, The New Republic specifically, and how much of our political discourse is conducted.

Most of the gaping flaws in Rosen's piece have been fully highlighted by others. While most of those criticisms have focused on Rosen's horrendous use of anonymous sources -- one of the most apt reactions to Rosen's piece comes, appropriately enough, in the form of well-earned derision from Wonkette -- I highly recommend this post from Law Professor Darren Hutchinson. As Professor Hutchinson conclusively documents, one of the only issues raised by Rosen that was anything other than anonymous gossip -- a claim that one of Sotomayor's judicial opinions was harshly criticized in an "unusual" footnote by another Second Circuit judge -- is totally false. In fact, it's so obviously false that, as Hutchinson suggests, it could be the by-product only of Rosen's extreme sloth or (ironically enough again) his lack of intellectual capacity. Just read Hutchinson's post for an idea of how vapid, bereft of worth and downright misleading is Rosen's attack on Sotomayor.

snip

Based on those experiences, I'm genuinely amazed at how -- overnight -- she's been transformed in conventional wisdom, largely as a result of Rosen's piece, into a stupid, shrill, out-of-her-depth Puerto Rican woman who is being considered for the Supreme Court solely due to anti-merit, affirmative action reasons. The New Republic thus fulfills its principal function in life: to allow the Right to spout any sort of invective and bile and justify it by reciting the "even-the-liberal-New-Republic-agrees" defense.

In the last 24 hours alone, Rosen's article has been used by three different National Review writers -- who, I'd be willing to bet lots of money, know virtually nothing about Sotomayor -- to declare her to be "dumb and obnoxious." That's a phrase they've revelled in repeating three times now (and counting), culminating with this: "I'm sure Mark H. is right about Sotomayor's being dumb and obnoxious, just as Derb is right about her being female and Hispanic is all the [sic] matters." The amazing speed with which so many people who know absolutely nothing about her are willing, indeed eager, to assume that she's stupid and doesn't deserve her achievements -- based on the fact that she's Puerto Rican and female and Rosen published some trashy, unaccountable gossip feeding that perception -- is really remarkable.

My perception of Sotomayor is almost the exact opposite of the picture painted by Rosen. I had a generally low opinion of the intellect of most judges -- it's one of the things I disliked most about the practice of law -- but I found her to be extremely perceptive, smart, shrewd and intellectually insightful. The image that has been instantaneously created of her as some sort of doltish mediocrity, based on nothing but Rosen's water-cooler chatter, is, at least to me, totally unrecognizable. Of the countless federal judges with whom I had substantive interaction over more than ten years of litigation, I would place her in the top tier when it comes to intellect. My impressions are very much in line with the author of this assessment of Sotomayor, who had much more extensive interaction with her and -- unlike Rosen's chatterers -- has the courage to attach his name to his statements.

Greenwald has a lot of more information that you will want to know about Sotomayor but I just wanted to give him some props for taking this line of bullshit down and exposing Rosen and TNR for the hacks that they are.

Glenzilla Tears Brian Ross A New One

Its really a joy to behold!

Anonymous Sources

Glenzilla tackles the growing problem of journalists granting anonymity to their sources with little to no reasoning and or compelling reasons behind it. He also points us to this op ed in the New York Times today from their public editor Clark Hoyt which points the finger at the Times own journalists for abusing their own policy on using anonymous sources. Its time the media grow a pair and refuse to put information out unless they are on the record. We the people deserve to know who is behind all these anonymous quotes and who is shaping public debate.

Glenzilla On The Republican Hypocrisy Over AIG

Just pointing you in the right direction.