Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 8, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

TRACKING THE WINGNUTOSPHERE....As near as I can tell, the right-wing blogosphere was so thrilled over its takedown of Dan Rather in 2004 that it's spent the entire time since then desperately digging around for similar triumphs. Unfortunately, they keep getting it wrong. Steve Benen has the rundown. (And while you're at it, check out Greg Sargent's rundown of the "Lonely Kerry" story too.)

On the positive side, they don't use a lot of four-letter words. "Wrong but well mannered" seems to be their motto.

Kevin Drum 6:57 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (88)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Okay, so the right wing blogosphere exposed the undeniable fact that CBS used fraudulent documents to smear the service of a Vietnam-era veteran who received an honorable discharge.

What has the left wing blogosphere done that even compares?

HINT: Nothing, except repeat DNC talking points. Right wing blogs are interested in media accountability. As a result, they'll sometimes be wrong. At least they have many successes to go with the occasional miss, and don't spend all their time spouting platitudes like "people powered politics" and whatever spin Howard Dean wants put on stories.

Posted by: American Hawk on January 8, 2007 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINK

"Many successes"?

Posted by: Kevin Drum on January 8, 2007 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

I thought that their motto was "Often wrong but never in doubt"

Posted by: POed Lib on January 8, 2007 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

AH - well, I personally think Josh Marshall's single-handed blocking of Social Security privatization beats some minor media scandal any day of the week.

Posted by: Minipundit on January 8, 2007 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

I have to admit that I don't really read any right-wing blogs, unless you count Volokh...but on legal issues that blog is pretty popular across the spectrum.

Blogs just don't matter on the right the same way that they do on the left.

I think a primary reason for that is that blogs are most popular among those who feel unempowered. Now that the Democrats have taken Congress we may see a decline in left-blog-influence and a rise in blog influence on the right (though still having the presidency will probably ameliorate that).

Kind of like I expect people to start finding Jon Steward a lot less humorous now that he has to start making fun of Democrats.

Posted by: Nathan on January 8, 2007 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK

AH - well, I personally think Josh Marshall's single-handed blocking of Social Security privatization beats some minor media scandal any
day of the week.

Josh Marshall and the rest of the leftist blogosphere had nothing to do with stopping Social Security privatization. That was stopped due to mostly Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer.

Al

Posted by: Da Al on January 8, 2007 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK

As long as their delusional masterbation fantasies keep them busier reaching for a paper towel then doing any real harm, all is well.

Right, A. Hawk?

Posted by: Keith G on January 8, 2007 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK

Um...What successes would those be, exactly?

You know how the R's had the GOTV playbook? We have the netroots playbook, and I for one won't forget that. I'm getting ready to do it again in the mayors race. Ask people who have another election coming up - we haven't gone anywhere, and they don't have the traction to catch up.

Posted by: Global Citizen on January 8, 2007 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

Kind of like I expect people to start finding Jon Steward a lot less humorous now that he has to start making fun of Democrats.

I'm never found Stewart funny, the few times I watched him, but I agree he will be less motivated.

Posted by: Al on January 8, 2007 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin-- This came just two days ago: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/016424.php

Minipundit-- Single-handedly? Granted, Marshall has a lot of responsibility for preventing social security from being fixed and screwing over tens of millions of present and future seniors, but he's not solely to blame.

Posted by: American Hawk on January 8, 2007 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINK
Blogs just don't matter on the right the same way that they do on the left.

Well, yeah, being the party of capital and therefore having the sympathy of the owners of virtually the entirety of the institutional media, wherever the sympathy of line employees might lay, certainly provides little incentive to favor alternative media.

Posted by: cmdicely on January 8, 2007 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK

Are you consciously riffing on The Caine Mutiny where Captain Queeg tries to relive the high point of his career by insisting the missing strawberries were pilfered by someone with a second key?

Posted by: Carl Nyberg on January 8, 2007 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

I'm one of the people who was a regular DS viewer before Election Night 2000 (although that was certainly a high point for the Daily Show). Stewart is just as funny under a democratic president, but George W Bush and the Republican Congress did make for a lot of easy targets. Bush is still around and there's also a wide-open presidential contest which should be entertaining.

I always find conservative's memories of satirists to be curiously selective. Trudeau wasn't especially merciful towards Carter or Clinton, and I suspect he won't be exactly deferential towards President Obama. Likewise, Stewart didn't pull any punches when Clinton was president.

Posted by: Don Hosek on January 8, 2007 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

What about the gay prostitute who had been credentialed as a journalist to derail unpleasant questions for the White House?

Or the fight with Sinclair broadcasting over the program designed to smear John Kerry before the election?

Posted by: Carl Nyberg on January 8, 2007 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK

You know, someone really needs to keep an "accuracy in punditry/blogs", that will list predictions/running with false accusations/omissions (such as George Will's purposeful omission of Bush's response to Jim Webb, regarding son), and basic wrong predictions.

Think of this - atrios keeps documenting the various Friedman Units of pundits, but the ACCUMULATION, in spreadsheet form, (and then with handy graphs) is what we need.

I'm thinking A google spreadsheet, as then there can be multiple contributors, while being an open view for everyone.

Thoughts? Would this be a good "view" of lack of accountability?

Then every quarter, there can be a "wrongest pundit of the quarter", a "slimiest accusing blogger of the quarter", and even, say in the case of bloggers who truly apologize for wrong-headed accusation - "rightwing pundit WITH integrity" award.

Assuming we can find some...

Posted by: JC on January 8, 2007 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

Being wrong all the time gets you hired at Time.

Being right about EVERYTHING gets you mocked for "going off [your] meds." Take THAT, Al Gore!

Posted by: Al's Mommy on January 8, 2007 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK
Kind of like I expect people to start finding Jon Steward a lot less humorous now that he has to start making fun of Democrats.

Jon Stewart, of The Daily Show, to whom I assume you intended to refer, has been making fun of Democrats for years; there is nothing for him to "start". Further, I don't understand what makes you think, if he hadn't been doing so already, he would "have to" start doing so now.

Posted by: cmdicely on January 8, 2007 at 7:36 PM | PERMALINK

The thing with the Dan Rather takedown is that they only got it right in that case because it almost certainly was a GOP engineered dirty trick in the first place. I doubt anyone in the wingnutosphere would have thought to look at something as obscure as the kerning in the Rather documents unless they were let in on the gag from the get-go. The fact that was being brought up by our friends on the right as quickly as it was just smelled of a set-up.

It seems that the only way the wingnuts can successfully pull off a "gotch ya!" is if the game is rigged.

Posted by: Richard on January 8, 2007 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINK

its called a shift in emphasis (re: Stewart)

Posted by: Nathan on January 8, 2007 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK
On the positive side, they don't use a lot of four-letter words. "Wrong but well mannered" seems to be their motto.

I admit, I haven't read any right-wing blogs regularly since Tacitus' (figurative) tap-dancing in glee on Rachel Corrie's grave, but those I do occasionally glance at now, or those I did read more regularly in the past, did not seem particularly well-mannered. Avoidance of taboo words is, even if arguably necessary, certainly not sufficient to be "well-mannered".

Posted by: cmdicely on January 8, 2007 at 7:47 PM | PERMALINK

Here is the link to the Pundit Tracking - can you see the link?

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pSy9A0KMis4m6dog5xL_MDg

Here it is as a link

Thoughts?

Posted by: standardfile on January 8, 2007 at 7:47 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan,

Its called you making stuff up without having any basis in reality or substantive point (re: everything).

Posted by: cmdicely on January 8, 2007 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

Kind of like I expect people to start finding Jon Steward a lot less humorous now that he has to start making fun of Democrats.
Posted by: Nathan

Stewart has never stopped making fun of Democrats ... partisans and idiots just never noticed because it fit into their ignorant preconceptions.

Posted by: Nads on January 8, 2007 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINK
its called a shift in emphasis … Nathan at 7:43 PM
Don't worry. Although George Allen and Rich Santorum will be difficult to replace, as long as there are lunatic Republicans eager to make insane statements like Tancredo, Brownback, Ted Stevens, Coleman, McConnell, Lott, Inhoff, and Sessions, Cornyn, and Allard, comedians will have plenty of material.

Of course, that notorious photo can be lightened in Photoshop to reveal the actual circumstances.

Mary Mapes has an email on Glenn Greenwald continuing the battle.

Posted by: Mike on January 8, 2007 at 8:03 PM | PERMALINK

"The thing with the Dan Rather takedown is that they only got it right.."

Actually there's no reason to believe they DID get it right. Virtually everything they said was wrong as the most thorough studies of the document have concluded - contrary to wingnutmania - that it could have been typed on a vintage typewriter and that it absolutely did not come from Word or use the claimed computer fonts.

None of which excuses CBS's sloppy handling and lack of verification...but let's not give the bozos credit for something they didn't do. They claimed it was a forgery but they have not been able to back up that claim.

Posted by: chaboard on January 8, 2007 at 8:10 PM | PERMALINK

The so-called "takedown" of Dan Rather was because of documents that were not forged by Rather, but by a retired TANG officer named Bill Burkett. The apparent forgery (still not fully proven) does not detract from the fact that Bush's National Guard files were purged by Karen Hughes, before Bush's White House run in 1999 and many essential records are missing.

It also doesn't detract from the fact Bush went missing from his required Guard service without penalty, when a commoner would have been court-martialed.

It also does not do away with the stubborn fact that most TANG airmen flew missions in Southeast Asia, even though they were not required to. Bush was one of the few that did not. Greg Palast, in his book Armed Madhouse interviewed colleagues of George W. Bush from the TANG who remembered him as "arrogant", "a goof-off" and "a coward".

Some takedown.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on January 8, 2007 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK

Back when Spy was being published, they actually did track the accuracy of pundit predictions, compared against their own random predictions (which they claimed came from a monkey). The monkey generally did better than average, and George Will was almost always last or next to last.

I do think it is amazing that pundits aren't held to some standard when they make easily checkable predictions. In a just world, it seems like being a pundit with a great record for predicting future events should make you the top pundit, and not being accurate should get you dropped by your syndicate.

But with Pajamas Media, their inability to break important stories correctly limits their appeal. Duh. I actually like some of their related blogs--Balloon Juice and Daniel Drezner both entertain me. But does anyone even remotely take them seriously as a news source? Even on the right, I don't see that--maybe I'm not looking in the right places. It strikes me as a vanity site more than anything.

Posted by: RWB on January 8, 2007 at 8:20 PM | PERMALINK

"They don't use a lot of four-letter words."

For those who like their calls for more bombing profanity-free.

Posted by: Max Power on January 8, 2007 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK

chaboard:

read the Thornburgh Report (commissioned by CBS). they were forged. although every individual aspect of the documents, could, in theory, have been created on an older typewriter, the problem is that no older typewriter could have created all of the document (i.e. different features were on different typewriters).

however, as the Thornburgh Report illustrates, the, um, bizarre provenance of the documents is compelling evidence that Burkett indeed forged them.

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/CBS_Report.pdf

the report also puts the lie to the assertion that Killian's secretary said that he wrote a memo like that one. she didn't. in fact, she didn't even remember Dubya.

Conservative Deflator: agreed that it was Burkett who forged the docs. CBS' problem is that Mapes lied repeatedly to get the story through (and then lied repeatedly when it was challenged). unfortunately for Rather, he chose to back Mapes to the end. (agreed that it was Rather who conservative bloggers really wanted -- although he was a minor culprit -- guilty primary of arrogance and misplaced loyalty)...

cmdicely: thanks for proving that liberals really don't have a sense of humor.

Posted by: Nathan on January 8, 2007 at 8:32 PM | PERMALINK

of course, I don't think there can be a legitimate dispute that Dubya's service record was less than stellar.

Posted by: Nathan on January 8, 2007 at 8:34 PM | PERMALINK

As I like to say about rightwing blogs: Fuck that shit!

Posted by: bigcat on January 8, 2007 at 8:55 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, Kevin.

When you have to resort to profanity, that suggests desparation. It means you've lost the argument. Therefore, it's obvious why you lefties have to resort to it all the time.

You know, in a way, I feel sorry for you. Then I realize what you're trying to do to my country, and disavow myself of those thinkings.

Posted by: egbert on January 8, 2007 at 9:47 PM | PERMALINK

The apparent forgery (still not fully proven)...
Posted by: The Conservative Deflator

I almost spewed wine out of my nose on that one. Talk about delusional. Heh.

Posted by: Red State Mike on January 8, 2007 at 9:57 PM | PERMALINK

The right wing blogs did a great job of showing that photos of bombed out ambulances in Lebanon were not bombed by Israelis. They've pursued other doctored photos coming out of Lebanon. They've pursued the false testimonies quoted by the AP of some Iraqi Captain named Hussein. And of course, the phrase "fake but accurate" is now in our lexicon thanks to their sleuthing.

It's win when either left or right catches someone lying. Open source reporting. I'm all for it.

Posted by: Red State Mike on January 8, 2007 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINK

When you have to resort to profanity, that suggests desparation. It means I've lost the dictionary. eghead

Posted by: floopmeister on January 8, 2007 at 10:01 PM | PERMALINK

egbert, could you cite an example of Kevin D. ever swearing?

Posted by: David W. on January 8, 2007 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINK

I'm pretty sure I remember a couple occasions when he did. Not pretty.

Posted by: egbert on January 8, 2007 at 10:05 PM | PERMALINK

A few days ago it was reported by several media sources that the Interior Ministry confirmed that Jamil Hussein was an active member of the Multi-National Force - Iraq, and further it was reported that he now faces arrest for breaking the pledge not to talk to journalists that all police officers sign when they join the police force. A ministry spokesman who had heretofore denied Hussein's existence, acknowledged that Hussein is an officer attached to the Khadra police station.
Contents

Posted by: Global Citizen on January 8, 2007 at 10:07 PM | PERMALINK

hey wing nuts

what did the rightwing blogs get right about Iraq?

um...er....nothing

Posted by: maccabee on January 8, 2007 at 10:07 PM | PERMALINK

egbert, merely being "pretty sure" isn't quite good enough. Please, try and not paint with too broad a brush in the future.

Posted by: David W. on January 8, 2007 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK

I can tell that the wingnuts are hurting over their loss of power

why?

as wrong as the rightwing has been, they are still unable to admit it, and unable to accept the fact that they are in the minority.

it's sad

i have been hanging out reading rightwng blogs and they are just vomiting their guts out over the election

Posted by: maccabee on January 8, 2007 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK

For myself, I only wish I could swear as well as Sam Clemens did. There's a real art to the use of invective that can be downright inspiring if done right. Ask General Phil Sheridan about how he swore up and down the Shenandoah Valley back in 1865 while sending the Rebels whirling back through Winchester, if you don't believe me... ;-)

Posted by: David W. on January 8, 2007 at 10:14 PM | PERMALINK

FWIW, I think this recent line from Steve Gilliard is a hoot:

"The right blogs could fuck up a free blow job at the Bunny Ranch."

Willie Nelson would of course just kick back and relax... :-)

Posted by: David W. on January 8, 2007 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan (and red state mike): from the report, page 18:

"The Panel was not able to reach a definitive conclusion as to the authenticity of the Killian documents."

is that so hard to understand? (Red State Mike, that's also the quality of Lebanon ambulances, and perhaps you haven't noticed that, in fact, there was a captain hussein, whose testimonies have not been discovered false. where do you get off accusing anyone but the right wing nutcases of lying about this stuff?)

I don't find any reference at all in the thornburgh table of contents about killian's secretary. given your inaccurate representation of the conclusions of the thornburgh committee, perhaps you could provide the page citation and a quote, as i just did?

trust but verify, you know.

Posted by: howard on January 8, 2007 at 10:31 PM | PERMALINK

"Blogs just don't matter on the right the same way that they do on the left."
Which explains why they are uniformly shite and, without exception, wrong about almost everything. Only in America would fantasists like Michelle Malkin and her ilk have both the audacity and the opportunity to turn themselves into commentators on serious issues. Why does anybody even reference this bullshit?

Posted by: billy on January 8, 2007 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINK

"The Panel was not able to reach a definitive conclusion as to the authenticity of the Killian documents."

is that so hard to understand?

remember who you're talking to..

Posted by: haha on January 8, 2007 at 10:54 PM | PERMALINK

If by well-mannered you mean calling for the deaths of people they don't agree with—but not swearing about it—I guess they are pretty polite.

Posted by: Kenji on January 8, 2007 at 10:56 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, guys and girls. You won !

Why don't you stop whining ?

"I can tell that the wingnuts are hurting over their loss of power

why?

as wrong as the rightwing has been, they are still unable to admit it, and unable to accept the fact that they are in the minority.

it's sad

i have been hanging out reading rightwng blogs and they are just vomiting their guts out over the election

Posted by: maccabee"

Would you mind pointing out where you saw this ? What I've seen is a lot of questioning of why the Republicans lost their way in Congress and how to fix it. This is how a party revives its ideas. Not by six years of whining and spinning conspiracy theories. Those Diebold machines suddenly got better, didn't they.

Thanks for a laugh.

Posted by: Mike K on January 8, 2007 at 11:18 PM | PERMALINK

the report also puts the lie to the assertion that Killian's secretary said that he wrote a memo like that one. she didn't.

or you're completely delusional:

Now, another voice - a credible voice - has entered the debate. Killian's secretary, Marian Carr Knox, describes herself as Killian's "right hand" during much of the 1970s.

She flew to New York Wednesday afternoon to tell 60 Minutes that she believes the documents we obtained are not authentic.

But there's yet another confusing twist to this story. She told Correspondent Dan Rather that she believes what the documents actually say is exactly as we reported.

Knox says she didn’t type these memos, but she says she did type ones that contained the same information.

“I know that I didn’t type them," says Knox. "However, the information in those is correct.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/15/60II/main643768.shtml

in fact, she didn't even remember Dubya.

Knox remembers Lt. Bush well, and saw him often as he showed up for weekend training in 1971 and 1972.

Posted by: st on January 8, 2007 at 11:20 PM | PERMALINK

Why do I think Bush is behind all this?

Posted by: Please Eat My Pies on January 8, 2007 at 11:33 PM | PERMALINK

Blogs just don't matter on the right the same way that they do on the left.

The reason for this is that the blogs on the right have never been able to find a reason for existing. On the right, the blogs are merely conduits for right wing talking points that you can see laundered from Drudge to the Washington Times over to "analysts" on Fox News.

The reason that blogs have more importance on the left is because they became community-forming tools for those who felt left out of the loop by a party that they felt wasn't paying attention to their concerns (for example, with respect to their rightly-held skepticism about the Iraq war).

Posted by: Constantine on January 8, 2007 at 11:48 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think we've heard the full story on Jamil Hussein.

We assume, but don't know for sure, that the "Jamil Gholaiem Hussein" who has now been identified is the AP's source, even though he appears to be the same person who previously denied providing information to the AP. But that is only the first step in answering the questions that have emerged about the AP's reliance on him as a source. Why has Hussein been a source for events not just in his precinct, but all over Baghdad? Has he really been an eyewitness to 61 or more news stories, or has he based his reports on hearsay? Or is he a front for other sources who don't want to be identified by name? If AP still believes that Hussein is a reliable source after the "burning Sunni" story, why has it apparently not cited him as a source for any story since then? What happened with the burned-down mosques and the immolated Sunnis? The AP originally said that four mosques burned, then changed its reporting to a single mosque (apparently without issuing a correction). Was Hussein the source for the four-mosque claim? What does Hussein's account of these events tell us about his credibility on other stories?

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/016439.php

Posted by: ex-liberal on January 8, 2007 at 11:57 PM | PERMALINK

I believe, in the case of Jamil Hussein, that there is enough controversy surrounding him to cast many clouds and I will wait to see how it all sorts out and not speculate in the meantime. For now, he exists. Apparently. That could change tomorrow.

Posted by: Global Citizen on January 9, 2007 at 12:03 AM | PERMALINK

idiots, try reading the fucking report.

but, yeah, you're too lazy.

pp. 197-200. (I made one mistake, Knox remembers Bush and doesn't remember his having any disciplinary issues and remembers Killian as liking him)

and only about, oh, one-half of the report goes to showing that the documents were forgeries (the Thornburgh Committee was not given the authority to make an ultimate determination...but they found no evidence whatsoever that the documents were authentic and a lot of evidence that they were fake).

but yeah, you guys are too lazy to read the actual report...but you'll bloviate anyway.

Posted by: Nathan on January 9, 2007 at 12:07 AM | PERMALINK

st:

if you bothered to read the Thornburgh Report you'd find that CBS apparently lied about what Knox said too.

Posted by: Nathan on January 9, 2007 at 12:08 AM | PERMALINK

...but you'll bloviate anyway.

Pot, meet kettle.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on January 9, 2007 at 12:20 AM | PERMALINK

On the positive side, they don't use a lot of four-letter words. "Wrong but well mannered" seems to be their motto.

Yeah, isn't it strange that they have an aversion to the term 'civil war' - yet they love the terms 'civil' and 'war'.

Posted by: floopmeister on January 9, 2007 at 12:40 AM | PERMALINK

In my fantasy, the great cultural and ideological tragedy that the 1960's wrought in the U.S.A. would have been very much ameliorated.

Yeah, well in my fantasy Kate Bush appears outside my bedroom window, dressed in flowing skirts, pleading that she's cold and wants to be let in.

Funny how it never happened...

Posted by: floopmeister on January 9, 2007 at 12:44 AM | PERMALINK

Donald - I don't much care for those who lust for their glory days as warriors, only regretting they didn't kill more. It belies a deep pathology. This was my favorite cousin. He still is, and he is the reason I loathe slugs like the fatuous Mike Cook.

Posted by: Global Citizen on January 9, 2007 at 12:48 AM | PERMALINK

Mike

Little Green Footballs

they are suicidal and absolutely foaming at every single person who disagrees with them

they're all armchair generals and they bite at anyone who questions the efficacy of the surge

rightwingnuthouse- also in the throes of parsing out each word of the AP disaster and the surge.

powerline. attacking people who have been mostly
right/ attacking liberals in general. hating life

it's so funny to see the rightwing losing

liars and cheaters are terrible losers

because they have no honor
'


that's where

Posted by: maccabee on January 9, 2007 at 12:50 AM | PERMALINK

AH - well, I personally think Josh Marshall's single-handed blocking of Social Security privatization beats some minor media scandal any day of the week.
Posted by: Minipundit on January 8, 2007 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

WORD.

Josh Marshall does not get nearly enough credit for the consequences of this great and heroic deed. I hope that Madam President Pelosi awards him a Presidential Medal of Freedom. (of course, after the whole impeachment and war-crimes trials are out of the way).

Posted by: Extradite Rumsfeld on January 9, 2007 at 12:59 AM | PERMALINK

Nathan, what a frickin' ass you are.

you implied the thornburgh report said the documents were forgeries. the report said no such thing. now you're trying to fog the issue.

you stated that the report said that Knox, the secretary, didn't remember Bush. As you now acknowledge, that's false.

you stated that the report puts the lie to Knox's assertion to the Dallas Morning News. it does no such thing, in the very pages you cite (it says the panel cannot determine, and since we are provided no transcript of the interview with her, neither can we).

are the odds very high that the documents were a forgery? absolutely.

that's rather a different matter, as is the basic fact that the story didn't need the documents: bush's failure to perform is a matter of public record at this stage.

typical asswipe rightwing crap, as is the bs that ex-liberal quotes from powerline.

proving kevin's basic point, of course....

Posted by: howard on January 9, 2007 at 1:00 AM | PERMALINK

In my fantasy, the great cultural and ideological tragedy that the 1960's wrought in the U.S.A. would have been very much ameliorated.

And for Christmas, did we all get house-trained puppies who never dhewed up Mom's shoes...and ponies too???

Posted by: Global Citizen on January 9, 2007 at 1:01 AM | PERMALINK

Little Green Footballs

When Marla Ruzicka, the founder of the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, was killed by a car bomb in Iraq, Little Green Football-ers just had to comment:

It’s probably George Bush’s fault for letting her wander around Iraq instead of putting her in a gulag.
Couldn’t have happened to a nicer tool.
Oh, I know what’s next. Her parents will sue the car manufacturer, or maybe the tire maker.
There’s no better useful idiot than a dead useful idiot.
Nominate her for the Mincemeat/Pull-Yourself-Together Award
At least the moonbat parents aren’t yet saying "they killed their best friend."
I can guess what color her eyes were! BLEW!
I’m having another drink to celebrate another moonbat meeting a well deserved demise.
She went from "peace" activist to piece activist.
Another moonbat bitch slapped by reality....
And Hugh Hewitt had the audacity to say of the lefty blogosphere: "They are training a generation of young Democratic activists to be angry, vulgar, profane, and cruel."

So not only does the Wingnutosphere get it wrong, it's not so well-mannered.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on January 9, 2007 at 1:13 AM | PERMALINK

I sincerely thank you for venturing over to that festering swamp LGF so we didn't have to.

Posted by: Global Citizen on January 9, 2007 at 1:28 AM | PERMALINK

Let's see, who are the Republicans that Kevin Drum spent the past years trying to 'take down," shall we?

George Bush, check.
Dick Cheney, check.
Condi Rice, check.
Don Rumsfeld, check.
Colin Powell, check.
Rudy Guliani, check.
John McCain, check
Mitt Romeny, check
Newt Gingrich, check
Bill Frist, check
Dennis Hastert, check
Karl Rove, check
Scooter Libby, check


Oh, I could mention Joe Lieberman too, but he is a Democrat that Kevin Drum tried to take down.

Hypocricy, Thy Name is Drum!

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on January 9, 2007 at 1:29 AM | PERMALINK

Sockpuppet...Thy name is Kenneth...and Frazier...and Havlicek. Did I miss any?

Posted by: Global Citizen on January 9, 2007 at 1:31 AM | PERMALINK

Hawk writes:

Okay, so the right wing blogosphere exposed the undeniable fact that CBS used fraudulent documents to smear the service of a Vietnam-era veteran.

Correct use of qualifiers. Bush never served in a combat zone. He never faced a hostile enemy in service for his country. He didn't fight in the Vietnam war. The most hostile place he served in was Houston. There are questions about how regular his attendance was in the Guard. What isn't in doubt is that John Kerry served his country and engaged the enemy in combat in Vietnam. But yes, Bush was a veteran in the Vietnam era.

Posted by: Andy on January 9, 2007 at 1:54 AM | PERMALINK

if you bothered to read the Thornburgh Report you'd find that CBS apparently lied about what Knox said too.

apparently you haven't bothered to read it because that's not what it says at all.

Knox told Dan Rather in a recorded interview that the essence of what the documents contained was correct -- which indicts Bush's service in the Guard. (p. 197)

so cbs was not lying -- QED. just one more thing you've been proven wrong about by your own link.

later under more specific questioning by the panel she gave answers in a less authoritative voice that seemed to cast doubt on what she told Rather.

contrary to what you're trying to sell here, however (while getting most of the facts wrong at the saem time) the panel in fact concluded that her testimony on the two occasions was somewhat inconsistent and they weren't sure whether she was more accurate with Rather or with them. (p. 199)

your complete misrepresenation of this case is nothing short of breathtaking. please keep calling us idiots, though; the irony is fantastic.

Posted by: st on January 9, 2007 at 1:58 AM | PERMALINK

You know, my husband served for 24 years and went to the Balkans as an intel officer, and he refuses to call himself a veteran because he never saw combat. He will correct you that he is a retiree, not a veteran, and explain why he takes that stance.

So no, Bush does not qualify as a veteran in our house.

Posted by: Global Citizen on January 9, 2007 at 2:02 AM | PERMALINK

The media's problems go a lot deeper than Jamail.

The imaginative Katrina reporting. The entire Plame fiasco. Much of the "news" and the Photoshop specials out of the Lebanon war. Posed "damage" photos from Afghanistan and Pakistan, and fake films from the Palestinians. Endless news information based on anonymous, vague, and untracable sources. Big stories based on false information in the New York Times, with quiet corrections in some obscure section days later.

That's just off the top of my head.

The media has a lot of credibility problems

And as yet, nobody has shown that what this Jamail said was actually true.

Posted by: rnc on January 9, 2007 at 2:02 AM | PERMALINK

Globe, I got the LGF quotes from FireDogLake so I didn't have to thankfully venture into the land of the Lizardoids.

egbert: When you have to resort to profanity, that suggests desparation. It means you've lost the argument. Therefore, it's obvious why you lefties have to resort to it all the time.

Oh, really? Wingnut extraordinaire Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom didn't take to kindly to dissenting opinions on his blog:

Bush is the Commander in Chief, Steve.  Fuck yourself.
And why is it classless dickheads like you only care about the war veterans who are anti-war? 
Seriously, man. Give it a fucking rest. The adults are having a conversation here.
Jeff also hates being called a chickenhawk to which he replied:
Wonder if he’d like to feel my dick slapping him across his face.
Whoa! Plenty more of some really, really well-mannered comments from Goldstein documented at Sadly No!

Posted by: Apollo 13 on January 9, 2007 at 2:18 AM | PERMALINK

"Hypocricy, Thy Name is Drum!"

Grade-8 education, thy name is Bedwetter!

Posted by: Kenji on January 9, 2007 at 3:39 AM | PERMALINK

"Bedwetter" might be one of Kenneth's many sockpuppets.

Posted by: Global Citizen on January 9, 2007 at 3:47 AM | PERMALINK

Oh yeah - the spelling. Duh.

Yo, dipshit - Download Firefox and use the spellchecker, since 8th grade didn't take. It's spelled hypocrisy

Posted by: Global Citizen on January 9, 2007 at 3:49 AM | PERMALINK

On the positive side, they don't use a lot of four-letter words. "Wrong but well mannered" seems to be their motto.

Fuck you, clown.

Posted by: Anarch on January 9, 2007 at 6:17 AM | PERMALINK

proving kevin's basic point, of course

Oh, sweet irony: Nathan, who has been caught just plain making shit up time and again, commenting on Kevin's post regarding wingnut accuracy, and once again being caught making shit up!

Nathan, you -- not to mention the Powerline-citing neocon "ex-liberal", Mike K, Matthew Marler, and a host of other dishonest conservatives who offend these forums with your bullshit, have been caught in your lies so many times that you have no credibility at all. Why do you even bother?

Posted by: Gregory on January 9, 2007 at 9:22 AM | PERMALINK

Global said: Yo, dipshit - Download Firefox and use the spellchecker, since 8th grade didn't take. It's spelled hypocrisy

But 8th grade was the best 4 years of Fucktard's life!

Posted by: bigcat on January 9, 2007 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK

Don Rumsfeld, gone
Colin Powell, gone, and waking up ... slowly.
Rudy Guliani, no chance in hell.
John McCain, no chance in hell.
Mitt Romeny, no chance in hell.
Newt Gingrich, no chance in hell.
Bill Frist, goen (though, admittedly, retired).
Dennis Hastert, demoted.
Karl Rove, unfortunately, still there.
Scooter Libby, jail.

Add in Cunningham (who Josh Marshall was covering long, long, long before any corporate media was) and not too bad.

So you can have your precious three or four photoshopped images and focus on kerning, while the grown ups take on issues such as corruption and gross violations of our country's Constitution.

Posted by: Unholy Moses on January 9, 2007 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

funny how objective outside observers like Howard Kurtz, et al, read the Thornburgh Report the same way I do...but anyway.

hint: they couldn't come right out and say "Burkett forged the documents"....it was written by lawyers...they're not risking a libel suit no matter how certain they are.

instead they gave about 50 reasons to believe that Burkett forged the documents, and well, found no reasons to believe the documents were authentic.

they caught Burkett and Mapes in numerous lies.
Knox testified twice in front of the Thornburgh Committe -- on both occasions contradicting what she allegedly told Rather (since no one has seen the full transcript of the Rather interview...only snippets...there's a reasonable inference to be made that the interview was edited in a misleading fashion).

I have made nothing up. I made one mistake...which I promptly "caught" and acknowledged myself....none of you knew about it -- cause you couldn't be bothered to even look at the report -- until I gave you specific page numbers.

Posted by: Nathan on January 9, 2007 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

funny how objective outside observers like Howard Kurtz, et al, read the Thornburgh Report the same way I do

Objection, Counselor -- assertion not in evidence: That Howard Kurtz is an "objective outside observer (props for the alliteration, though). And, of course, it isn't funny at all how the same discredited wingnut blogs Kevin refers to reads the Thornburgh Report the same way discredited wingnut Nathan does, so even if Kurtz is an "objective outside observer," there's the fact that just as Nathan's reading of the report is shown to be in error, Kurtz reading must be so as well.

Further irony alert: Nathan, of all people, explaining how lawyers work. Good Ford, I pity your clients.

As for Nathan's assertion that ne "made nothing up," well, I for one can testify that statement is a lie -- I've seen him do it often enough.

Posted by: Gregory on January 9, 2007 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

The comments on this thread exemplify, better than any thread I've read on this site, just exactly how deeply and profoundly pathetic the right-wing dittohead world is.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 9, 2007 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Speaking of Firefox. Google's got a nifty little Notebook plug you run in the browser window.

Posted by: MsNThrope on January 9, 2007 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

Gregory wrote: "Objection, Counselor -- assertion not in evidence: That Howard Kurtz is an "objective outside observer (props for the alliteration, though)."

Howard Kurtz is an outspoken admirer and promoter of Rush Limbaugh. In no way is Howard Kurtz remotely "objective". Anyone who claims that he is, is a deliberate liar.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 9, 2007 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan the ignorant liar sez:none of you knew about it -- cause you couldn't be bothered to even look at the report --

Which is directly contradicted by howard's comment from last night(January 8, 2007 at 10:31 PM), and clearly proves, via specific page citation, that he has read it, and that Nathan is an ignorant liar.

Posted by: haha on January 9, 2007 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

Unfortunately, they keep getting it wrong.

Sort of like Josh Marshall et. al. regarding Plame.

Posted by: Brian on January 9, 2007 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

I notice that not at any time has anyone raised the suggestion that the infamous "CBS documents" may have been scanned, OCR'ed and reproduced via computer.

Here's how it works: you scan the document, use a computer program to "recognize" the text (and then eliminate residual/computer-generated errors via a word-processing program), reformat if necessary, and reprint. It is even possible to paste in digitized copies of original signatures - and they can't always be detected as digitized.

This is done more often than most people realize.

It's a lot less scandalous to state - ACCURATELY - that "These are not the original documents" than to scream "FORGERY!", quite possibly inaccurately.

If that's what really happened, the only thing CBS can be faulted for is failing to verify the "chain of possession". But, again, that's not scandal-worthy and could not possibly justify forcing a longtime news anchor into retirement.

Maven

Posted by: Maven on January 9, 2007 at 9:55 PM | PERMALINK

"On the positive side, they don't use a lot of four-letter words. "Wrong but well mannered" seems to be their motto." Furthermore Michael Moore is fat.

Posted by: Robert Waldmann on January 10, 2007 at 8:25 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly