I'll Start By Calling 'Bullshit' On This

Dan Froomkin solves the problem of the MSM:

Mainstream-media political journalism is in danger of becoming increasingly irrelevant, but not because of the Internet, or even Comedy Central. The threat comes from inside. It comes from journalists being afraid to do what journalists were put on this green earth to do.

What is it about Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert that makes them so refreshing and attractive to a wide variety of viewers (including those so-important younger ones)? I would argue that, more than anything else, it is that they enthusiastically call bullshit.

Calling bullshit, of course, used to be central to journalism as well as to comedy. And we happen to be in a period in our history in which the substance in question is running particularly deep. The relentless spinning is enough to make anyone dizzy, and some of our most important political battles are about competing views of reality more than they are about policy choices. Calling bullshit has never been more vital to our democracy.

Uh huh - and the media needs to do more of it, and we would trust them to do so.  Not.

As to the media failing to call bullshit - please.  They do so all the time by simply stonewalling stories that are awkward and inconvenient, such as Kerry's Swift Boat misadventures in Vietnam.

Even in 2006 Kate Zernike of the Times is woefully and wilfully misinformed and tilted towards Kerry on this subject.  Has anyone at the Times pushed Kerry for access to his War Notes, or his Form 180? 

Has anyone at the Times pushed to resolve the odd emergence of Zaladonis in the dispute about Kerry's first Purple Heart - Zaladonis was interviewed repeatedly by historian Douglas Brinkley and at least once by a Boston Globe reporter but apparently never mentioned to them that he was with Kerry when Kerry won his first Purple Heart.  However, when kerry's conduct came under fire in 2004, Zaladonis stepped forward to vouch for Kerry's conduct - does that intrigue any reporters?

No - they called "bullshit" on the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, because they "knew" there was nothing there.  I should add that to their (partial) credit, the WaPo took a stab at getting Kerry's War Notes, but were rebuffed and lost interest.

Comments

[clarice]

Macaca. As usual from Froomkin.

[Slartibartfast]

"bulshit"?

[maryrose]

Fromkin stands alone in his total partisan view about his administration. He has never written anything positive about the Bush White House. He is a one trick pony.
Kerry will never come clean because the truth doesn't fit in with the paradigm he has of his life. His narcissistic take on himself and all things Kerry is both surreal and definitely in the land of fantasy. Like his idea that he could win the dem nomination in 08. Any clear thinking individual knows that is nothing but a pipe dream. The American public has moved on and so should Kerry. He comes in dead last in the Quinnipac poll of how well-liked and personable people are perceived to be. Even Hil doesn't crack the top 5.

[Colonel Troutman]

Has anyone at the Times pushed Kerry for access to his War Notes, or his Form 180?

I know they drew first blood, Tom - but you've got to let it go, soldier.

Let. it. go.

:)

[Colonel Troutman]

Has anyone at the Times pushed Kerry for access to his War Notes, or his Form 180?

I know they drew first blood, Tom - but you've got to let it go, soldier.

Let. it. go.

:)

[Ed]

Wow! Get a life, will you? You were able to smear the guy's repudation enough over little pissant descrepancies/omissions from 40+ years ago to cost him the election. What more do you want?

[Crust]

OK, so the administration has publicly declared it is violating the law (FISA) with only the barest pretense of a legal argument (especially after the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld eviscerated the AUMF argument) despite early protestations to the contrary. And the press does not call bullshit.

But hey, maybe Kerry misremembered the exact day he was in Cambodia 40 years ago or whatever it is that gets you hot under the collar. And the press doesn't talk about that as much as you'd like. What's so important about the rule of law anyway?

[BC]

Speaking of the Swifties, I've particularly enjoyed how history has been revised by our media overloards such that "the Swift Boat Veterans' claims have been largely refuted/debunked" is now so much part of the CW -- despite being, you know, false -- that any mention of the Swifties in print necessitates chanting it, mantra-like.

[BC]

*looks up at Ed's and Crust's comments above*

I think Glenn Greenwald must have linked you again, TM.

[Crust]

I think Glenn Greenwald must have linked you again, TM.

I can't speak for Ed, but the minuteman posted a comment at Anonymous Liberal that reminded me I hadn't been here in a while.

[SteveMG]

Classy post by Froomkin.

Thanks for raising the quality of discourse in America. Not that we need it or anything.

Wow.

I guess for the left, using obscenities constitutes being authentic.

SMG

[Cecil Turner]

. . . refuted/debunked" is now so much part of the CW -- despite being, you know, false . . .

Heh. I was going to go with Col T above . . . until Ed and Crust demonstrated it was still a current event.

As to the media failing to call bullshit - please. They do so all the time by simply stonewalling stories that are awkward and inconvenient . . .

And the similar trick of "disappearing" stories that make 'em look stupid. A recent example is this one:

Pelosi 'sad' over Bush's Iraq representation
CNN - Nov 28, 2006
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said Tuesday she feels “sad” President Bush blamed insurgent violence on al Qaeda

Which fell down the memory hole in perhaps record time.

[Terrye]

Kerry is a fraud. I knew that long before the Swift Boat vets came along and no, they have not be debunked.

And I do not think using Colbert and Stewart as role models is going to help the MSM.

And Bush is not breaking the law with that program. The fact that the left keeps saying it does not make it so. That is the problem with the left, they think that if they yammer long enough and loud enough they can rearrange reality.

[Jane]

What more do you want?

I want him out of the senate, and if I could arrange it, out of MA.

[Crust]

Terrye writes:

And Bush is not breaking the law with that program. The fact that the left keeps saying it does not make it so

And the right saying the opposite does make it so? I mean do you have any specific reasons for insisting that it is legal?

Look, the bottom line is that FISA makes it a felony to wiretap Americans without obtaining a warrant either in advance or retroactively within 3 days. The NSA has been doing exactly that. That much the administration and the critics agree on. The debate is whether FISA was 1) implicitly amended or abrogated by another law (the AUMF) or 2) is unconstitutional.

Argument 1) was rejected in a very closely analogous situation by the Supreme Court. Re argument 2), the simplest way to respond is to note that from when FISA was passed in 1978 to when it was revealed last year that the Bush admin was violating it, no one -- literally no one -- publicly argued that it unconstitutionally infringed on the president's powers.

[cboldt]

New filing in the Libby case - redacted Opinion of Nov 15, the same Opinion that Libby is appealing, relating to the relevance, admissibility and use of CIPA evidence.

A little more here, including link to the 4 Mb, 38 page PDF file

[Crust]

Sorry, I should have said bullsh*t for the benefit of SteveMG. ;)

[Cecil Turner]

2), the simplest way to respond is to note that from when FISA was passed in 1978 to when it was revealed last year that the Bush admin was violating it, no one -- literally no one -- publicly argued that it unconstitutionally infringed on the president's powers.

Nonsense. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review argued precisely that, in passing, when deciding Sealed Case in 2002:

We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.

Whether you agree or not, your argument is faulty. And we've already beat this one to death.

[clarice]

cboldt, thanks..I don't have time to review it now..but you said Libby appealed this. Don't you mean Fitz appealed it?

[cboldt]

-- "Don't you mean Fitz appealed it?" --

Yes - thanks for the correction. This is the decision appealed by Fitz.

[topsecretk9]

--It comes from journalists being afraid to do what journalists were put on this green earth to do.--

Oh PULLLEEEAASSEE. This is what Jane Hamsher love does to a beltway blowhard - their heads explode because the hot-air self-importance.

Journalists were put on this green earth to call BS? Really? Not just reports the facts jack -- or are we all so stoopid we need Froomkin to do what he was put on gods green earth for - display his Bush hate cred for all his fawning groupies - sheesh.

TM sites the dismal Swiftboat reporting, well how about the OVER BLOWN BS the media lapped up like a thirsty dog about Joe Wilson - even when the Admin was telling the "journalists" put on this earth to detect BS Wilson was full of BS?

Yeah...we all know how well to this day the journos deal with that load of BS - they recycle the same BS!

Excuse me while I go gag myself with a pitchfork in honor of Froomkin.

[anonymous]

"""Which fell down the memory hole in perhaps record time."""

I was going to mention this the other day when I was trying to look up Democrat quotes and I came across several sites that the articles that google found had been deleted from the web sites. Not fly by night sites either, but people like CNN, NYT, USA Today, etc.

[Cecil Turner]

[OT re: Libby decision.]

Holy crap, Batman! Some of this stuff is wild. Apparently Walton is planning on letting in most of the following:

As noted earlier, the defendant seeks to introduce documents and the information contained therein relating to nine different subject areas, which he contends occupied his time and focus of attention during the relevant time periods. These nine topic areas are: (1) threatened attacks on American and American interests by Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups; (2) enhancing the United States defenses for Homeland Security; (3) nuclear proliferation by Pakistani scientist A.Q.Khan and efforts by the United States to stop his activities; (4) the development of nuclear weapons by North Korea; (5) Iran's development of nuclear weapons, its arrest and potential harboring of Al Qaeda members, and its inolvement in Iraq; (6) the proper size and role of ithe Iraqi military and security forces in the months following the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime and the proper composition of the governing entity in Iraq; (7) the Israeli-Palestine relationship, including the emergence of Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) as an alternative to Yasser Arafat and the threat that Hamas posed to peace and prosperity; (8) a tense diplomatic crisis that arose during the first half of July 2003 resulting from the arrest of Turkish soldiers in Iraq by the United States military; and (9) the unrest in Liberia in June and July 2003, the danger to the United States Embassy and its occupants in Monrovia, Liberia, and the United States' role in protecting civilians caught in the middle of the conflict in Liberia. [hand typed]

Personally, I'm with Fitz on this one: it's hard to see the need for all this stuff. And though the relevance seems strained, I still hope he loses the appeal. (The jury's gonna need industrial-strength no-doz . . . but I'll be vastly amused.) I also don't see the reliance on activities that happened on the "critical dates" (because in my experience, memory mis-associations have little to do with the events around the recall dates), but who knows? Popcorn, anyone? [Thanks, cboldt.]

[Terrye]

Crust:

Like hell. Fine then, write this letter to Pelosi:

Dear Ms Pelosi:

I think it is so mean of Bushitler not to let terrorists plan attacks on my country using cell phones and emails. As we all know our country sucks and it deserves to be attacked and terrorists have rights too.

PS I wish you were more like Jim Webb. He threatened to slug Bush, Webb is my hero because his son is a Marine killing women and children in Iraq.

signed,
Member of the reality based community calling bullshit.

Just jump right in there.

[clarice]

This report says Fitz MAY appeal this ruling..Huh? I thought he did appeal it.

:Walton said he tried to balance national security concerns with Libby's right to a fair trial. The judge stressed that pre-approving classified evidence "requires a court to play the role of Johnny Carson's character Carnac the Magnificent by requiring it to render rulings before knowing the exact context of how those rulings will coincide with other evidence that has actually been developed at trial."

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has said he may appeal Walton's ruling, a move that could delay a trial scheduled to begin next month. Cheney and White House aide Karl Rove could be called as witnesses."

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/politics/16143504.htm

[cboldt]

-- "I thought he did appeal it." --

It's on the CADC docket. Good enough evidence for me. ;-)

[clarice]

Doesn't count--You're easy, cboldt. ;-)

[anonymous]

Crusty spouts: ""And the right saying the opposite does make it so? I mean do you have any specific reasons for insisting that it is legal?"""

Crust, you REALLY have no clue.

What the court has said is Bush has the authority to wiretap without warrants as part of the Executive power to gather intelligence and fight our enemies.

The court has not said he has the authority to perform warrantless wiretaps which could then be used to prosecute Americans for crimes. But Bush isn't looking to prosecute Americans for crimes based on foriegn survellance wiretaps.

Its not rocket science. If it is illegal, then how come no lefty has been able to get a reasonable court to stop it?

You don't seem to understand that Bush is wiretapping the foriegn enemy, not the American citizen and thus no probably cause of a CRIME is required. The probable cause involved is the PROBABILITY that the person is a foriegn power or agent of a foriegn power. It is just that the foriegn enemy may call an American citizen, but that does not require a separate warrant because you were on the receiving end of the call.

In addition, FISA also ALREADY allows
for surveillance without court orders. Such surveillance, however, must be "solely directed" at gathering intelligence from "foreign powers" and there must be "no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.

That means Bush can certainly, without warrants of any kind, track the calls from foriegners into the United States as long as he isn't capturing the actual conversation of the US citizen.

[Pagar]

One thing that has been publicly stated by John Kerry in front of the Senate Committee
on Foreign Relations on 22 Apr 1971, is that
he met with the enemy in Paris(while the United States was engaged in military action against the North Vietnamese) and that the United States must adopt their positions. No other
words should be necessary concerning John Kerry and the Vietnam War. Or since.
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=puppets

[Crust]

Nice try, Cecil Turner. Did you read the Conclusion of Sealed Case? Here is the second last sentence (emphasis added):

"We, therefore, believe firmly, applying the balancing test drawn from Keith, that FISA as amended is constitutional because the surveillances it authorizes are reasonable."

[anonymous]

March 29, 2006

A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).
The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.

but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.

but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.

but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.

Perhaps that will help little Sprout....

[Crust]

Anon at 3:42 writes:

Its not rocket science. If it is illegal, then how come no lefty has been able to get a reasonable court to stop it?

Huh? The only court to rule on the legality of the program has ruled that it is illegal. (In fact, more controversially, the judge went further and ruled it unconstitutional.) Yes, the judgement is stayed pending appeal if that's your point, but that's pretty standard.

[clarice]

I received a letter dated Nov 28 from DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility saying they are reviewing my complaint and will notify me of the results of the review when it is complete. They give me two weeks to submit any additional information.

[boris]

Did you read the Conclusion of Sealed Case?

So once again the correct reading and interpretation of the sealed case is braded evidence of not reading it.

The judge in that case basically said: This turkey [FISA] would be unconstitutional were it not for the mechanism it provides to the president to convert foreign intelligence into admissble evidence for use in the criminal justice system.

IOW the administration is using FISA in the exact manner recommended by the judge in the sealed case. It's your side that claims part of what the judge put in his ruling was just boilerplate meaningless dicta that is irrelevant and misleading.

Read it yourself.

[topsecretk9]

Via the AP -

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has said he may appeal Walton's ruling

It's on the CADC docket.

I thought ournalists were put on this green earth to call BS -- not spread it! Thank goodness they are smarter then us though!

[Sara (Squiggler)]

What's the point of arguing this anymore? Congress is now in control of a bunch of cowards and liars who despise all things honorable and military. Kerry, Rangel, et al, think all military are liars and dumb scum and the media agree, so those of us who knew the truth about Kerry in 1968 and were so maligned by his lies in 1971-72 are, of course, still being maligned and called liars today. This country has turned into a country of wimps and wooses who value their iPods above their brave young men and women. They would like nothing better than for all of us who know and try to tell the truth to go away so they can surrender. They want us to be humiliated on the world stage because they do not understand the concept of national pride and only understand appeasement. They don't want to think for themselves, they love the socialist nanny-state and crave submission.

I thank God I have but a few years left and won't have to watch the very end of the great experiment that was the United States.

[topsecretk9]

You go Clarice!

[kate]

Sara-don't be so down. This can be turned around. Bush needs to reconnect with the American people and do a much better job explaining the war on terror and the dangers we face.

The media won't be able to totally hide the sorry performance of the Democrats though they will try.

I'd like to see a recommittment in January to the War on Terror, plus we need someone to come in and help with strategy. Is Stormin Normin or Tommy Franks available. I know Patton, Grant, Sherman, and MacArthur are all dead.

We need someone who can be Bush's right hand man, someone who can strategize and communicate.

[SunnyDay]

Clarice - good to hear it!

[sbw]

TS9, your taking Froomkin a little too literally. Journalists seldom have to "call bullshit." Mostly they're supposed to present the evidence so compelling and clearly that the readers, themselves, "call bullshit." ... Usually directing the expletive at the subject of the article rather than the author of the article. ;-)

[Jane]

Walton said he tried to balance national security concerns with Libby's right to a fair trial.

I worry about this backfiring on Libby. You get a bunch of nutroots on the jury who hate our foreign policy and they listen to this stuff and find him guilty on "principal" (and I use that word lightly.

[anonymous]

"""Yes, the judgement is stayed pending appeal if that's your point, but that's pretty standard."

'stayed' by who? Did Bush do that too?

No the Sixth circuit did which actually wasn't necessary because radical left wing judge Taylor, that the ACLU sought out as one of the few who would actually rule in their favor, had already stayed herself.

After resolving the state secrets privilege issues mostly against the government, however, Judge Taylor didn't then move on to discovery, or let the government brief the merits. Instead, Judge Taylor just held that the govermment lost on all of the merits -- before any discovery occurred, indeed, before any of those legal issues were even briefed by the government.

[anonymous]

Crust,

Since neither the Congress, the President nor the Courts can remove the Constitutional Presidential powers of the Executive, I guess we will have to see what the Supreme court says about the terrorist surveillance program.

For now, just be glad its Bush pursuing foriegn terrorist enemies rather then Clinton reading your FBI file.

[anonymous]

Crust,
Perhaps you should start working on all those other instances where the courts have held that you don't need a warrant:

Powers, long recognized by federal law, to:

Detain American citizens for investigative purposes without a warrant;

Arrest American citizens, based on probable cause, without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the person of an American citizen who has been detained, with or without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the home of an American citizen in order to secure the premises while a warrant is being obtained;

Conduct a warrantless search of, and seize, items belonging to American citizens that are displayed in plain view and that are obviously criminal or dangerous in nature;

Conduct a warrantless search of anything belonging to an American citizen under exigent circumstances if considerations of public safety make obtaining a warrant impractical;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's home and belongings if another person, who has apparent authority over the premises, consents;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's car anytime there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or any evidence of a crime;

Conduct a warrantless search of any closed container inside the car of an American citizen if there is probable cause to search the car — regardless of whether there is probable cause to search the container itself;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property apparently abandoned by an American citizen;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property of an American citizen that has lawfully been seized in order to create an inventory and protect police from potential hazards or civil claims;

Conduct a warrantless search — including a strip search — at the border of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search at the border of the baggage and other property of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search of any American citizen seeking to enter a public building;

Conduct a warrantless search of random Americans at police checkpoints established for public-safety purposes (such as to detect and discourage drunk driving);

Conduct warrantless monitoring of common areas frequented by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens and their vessels on the high seas;

Conduct warrantless monitoring of any telephone call or conversation of an American citizen as long as one participant in the conversation has consented to the monitoring;

Conduct warrantless searches of junkyards maintained by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of docks maintained by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of bars or nightclubs owned by American citizens to police underage drinking;

Conduct warrantless searches of auto-repair shops operated by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of the books of American gem dealers in order to discourage traffic in stolen goods;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens working in government, emergency services, the transportation industry, and nuclear plants;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens who are school officials;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens who are school students;

Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens who are on bail, probation or parole.

[Specter]

Excellent post anonymous. Sometimes I agree with you.

[Extraneus]

I know I'm not the only one who sees these objections to the terrorist surveillance stuff as infinitely absurd, but really. What's the point besides making it easier for enemies? Have any real Americans been harmed by anything the evil Bushitler government has done?

I read a book once about the legal wranglings that occurred during the Black Plague of the 14th century. Much of our present estate law was developed during those cases. Unfortunately, many of the litigants, along with one third of Europe, died before their cases were settled.

[MayBee]

What is it about Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert that makes them so refreshing and attractive to a wide variety of viewers (including those so-important younger ones)? I would argue that, more than anything else, it is that they enthusiastically call bullshit.

So is Froomkin saying Journalists and Comedians were put on God's Green Earth to serve the same purpose?

I could be persuaded to agree with that.

[topsecretk9]

SBW

--Mostly they're supposed to present the evidence so compelling and clearly that the readers, themselves, "call bullshit.--

I know, but since they believe they were puton this green earth to be our proxy...I think I was put on the green earth to call bulls**t on their stupid and self-important belief - ::grin;;

[lurkerOT:]

I've been enjoying reading anonymous's posts, especially the ones like the lost warrantless post.

[Chants]

Crust not only missed an important theme underlying the meaning of this blog entry, he gave bodily form to it with his derisive hostility.

[Sue]

40+ years ago to cost him the election. What more do you want?

To do it again. In 08. Bring. Him. On.

[rrk]

Methins crustie be in a little over hisher head here. Thx anon. You write some good poetry, too.

[TexasToast]

anonymous

Thanks for the 4th Amendment Hall of Exceptions. Activist Judges - the bane of American jurisprudence.

[Pofarmer]

Am I the only one that's a little bothered that author apparently thinks that Colbert and Stewart are, ya know, journalists?

I wonder what his opinions of Hannity and Limbaugh are?

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Via Drudge:

Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby says that during the investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's identity he was preoccupied with terrorist threats, Iraq's new government and emerging nuclear programs in Iran, Pakistan and North Korea.

Court records released Friday offered the first glimpse of the type of classified information Libby wants to share with jurors at his upcoming perjury and obstruction trial.

So while the children were interested in gossip and rumor, Libby was busy with the nation's critical business.

[anonymous]

Excellent post anonymous. Sometimes I agree with you.

Posted by: Specter | December 01, 2006 at 05:23 PM

And that was your first mistake.

[Doug Reese]

You folks still going on about Kerry? OK, though, I know the feeling :)

[anonymous]

It is ironic that the same left wingers who spent years telling us that Clinton, as President, was entitled to multiple exceptions to the law such as Executive privilege for secret service agents to not testify, now claim that every law passed by Congress and signed by a President is absolute regardless of whether it is even Constitutional.

If Congress passed a law, and a President signed it saying that the Mayor of Topeka is the Commander in Chief and head of the armed forces; it would be struck down by the courts because those are Constitutional powers of the President.
FISA is no different, a law can't trump inherent Constitutional powers.

People like Crust and Toast would be screaming, your not following the law, the Mayor of Topeka is the Commander in Chief, the law says so!!

[anonymous]

"You folks still going on about Kerry?"

NOOOO,

If you care to follow along, the issue is the MEDIA, not Kerry.

[Anonymous]

Looks like the Senate may stay Republican after all.

If Jim Webb is actually a man of character and conviction as the Democrats claim...then he certainly is not going to want to be in the room with Dick Cheney and have to shake his hand and pose for pictures.

Perhaps Webb will show that he wasn't just grandstanding with the President and actually not show up for his swearing in ceremony.

My guess is Webb will be ticked off if every Republican doesn't show up and pay him the proper respect during his swearing in ceremony and he will want his picture taken to capture the event for posteriety.

[ajacksonian]

Hey I will stop when John Kerry stops!

I mean the guy digs up old photos and then purports 'new evidence' which basically shows that he was, indeed, getting other people to film and take pictures of him while in Viet Nam so as to further his future political plans.

Or, a bit before his current foot-in-mouth problem before the election, his inability to remember the actual history of things that went on in Congress and that he actually voted on here and there, regarding Iraq.

So long as John F. Kerry stands up with his 'magic hat' in hand and his assertions on *anything* he, like any politician, is a ripe target for ridicule. Shame that he has so much to ridicule now, isn't it?

But I am one that also hits John McCain for those actions after his service in Viet Nam, as I find them to be more than somewhat disagreeable. And since he feels so willing to pull my rights of free speech, I am more than willing to use what is left to go after him.

Actually, I am pretty fair minded and will open up on *whatever* politician I feel is mis-stating evidence or no longer looking out for the interests of the Nation. Like John Boehner. But then I do have my own problems with the Democratic Defense Agenda du jour concept.

Then my problems with Rep. Kingston which comes out more than lightly singed from his inanities.

Actually I have problems with the entire Congress as they apparently don't know the Powers they have.

Hey, at least I try to avoid the *easy* targets like Cynthia McKinney!

Congress should start acting less like a landed Aristocracy and more like folks who have a job to do. Especially when the leadership of One Party starts to cover for the Other Party, which really does point out their feeling on being privileged and above the Common Man to the point of nosebleeds in that rarified atmosphere. Really this 'Two Party' system is in twilight and finding either of the previous political parties may take a milk carton campaign.

That is why I call so many of them: seatwarmers. And I dislike the Nannystatism that they all put forth.

The Executive is not above reproach, either. And I believe I was the first to call the President Captain of the United States of Titanic! Plus he helps to foster the idea of the Aristocracy Upon the Hill. For all the talk of 'pork' the President does have within his ability, today, of ending it.... so the fact of it sticking around also slathers such pork fat upon him, too. Even more reprhensible is the entire lack of Foreign Policy which is one of the main duties of that Office. Or of enforcing the Laws of the Land, which is another of the duties of that Office. Mind you at least I attack the President for things within the context of his job and responsibilities, unlike others that have lost all historical reference and are free floating in history, untethered to anything. So much for the unreality of the 'Realists' and I do expect to need launch into some vituperation in the future on all of those folks.

So, John F. Kerry? Tell you what, if he stops popping up and pontificating, I will stop throwing bricks at him! It is, as they say, a 'target rich environment' and I am an equal opportunity brick thrower.

Yes, I am a Jacksonian.

And none of those elected to High Office is above scrutiny or reproach when they do NOT do their job.

[lurker]

And none of those elected to High Office is above scrutiny or reproach when they do NOT do their job.

Ah, of course! Clinton did not do his job!

[Christopher Fotos]

Froomkin has been singing this song for a long time. The column does little more than repackage a familiar theme of his washingtonpost.com blog, where Brave Froomkin exhorts cowardly reporters to "ask the tough questions." It's little more than a reminder of the alternate universe he lives in.

Some time ago, there was a public brawl about a blog he wrote where he chastised White House reporters for lying down and rolling over. I don't have the link to that column, but many of you will remember that it led to disputes that included Froomkin, Post ombudsman Deborah Howell, Washington Post Newsweek Interactive chief Jim Brady, and Post political reporter John Harris. Here's a taste of it at Jay Rosen's PressThink:

John Harris: What irked me about Froomkin’s reply to the ombudsman was his pompous suggestion that he is a lonely truth-teller at the Washington Post and the way he held himself up as a high priest and arbiter of good journalism:

“The journalists who cover Washington and the White House should be holding the president accountable. When they do, I bear witness to their work. And the answer is for more of them to do so — not for me to be dismissed as highly opinionated and liberal because I do.”

Many readers responding to his blog—the ones that prompted my response—hailed what Dan does as courageous reporting and denounced other reporters as stenographers. To be blunt: that is total bullshit. First, Dan is not principally a reporter. He is a commentator on what other people report. I took his comment to be by implication a smear on Washington Post reporters who work hard every damn day to do precisely the kind of tough-minded, accountability reporting he says he admires.

Posties sure do love the b word.

Harris and Jim VandeHei recently announced they're leaving the Post for a web operation.

Last of all, we're reminded how debased our culture has become; Froomkin apparently believes the strength of his argument increases in direct proportion to the number of times he can use the word "bullshit." Fourteen times in the column, and once in the headline, flying proudly under the Nieman Foundation Banner. What a lovely gem in your crown.

[sbw]

Other words than bullshit come to mind, and they face towards some reporters: gullible, lazy, misdirected, superficial, just to mention a few.

[SunnyDay]

So while the children were interested in gossip and rumor, Libby was busy with the nation's critical business.

This goes right along with Mac's post Democrat intelligence committee schedule - “Forget Al Qaeda, watch Bush”

And they wonder why we think they're weak on defense. Heaven help us. I don't even think another attack on US soil would change their agenda.

[Pofarmer]

where Brave Froomkin exhorts cowardly reporters to "ask the tough questions."

Apparently he's never watched a Presidential news conference.

[JJ]

The NOT link is pretty much on the mark, though some of his argument I don't get.

Nice reversal on the bs, TM.

[sherlock]

I am amazed at the lack of furor over the NYT leaking a memo critical of Maliki 24 hours before the President was to meet with him. That isn't calling "bullshit", that's calling what journos really call: "gotcha!"