You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (182)

PLAYS: (564)

This whole "White House Party Crasher" story is a look into the minds of the media elites that are promoting it. The Villagers certainly have their knickers in a bunch over this dastardly couple who got into the State dinner. Howard Kurtz did a segment on it today which looked like it was going to delve into the media's obsession of this story, but it quickly turned into a justification of their actions. Two WaPo reporters were on CNN today discussing how they broke the story, but even they didn't believe it would amount to more than a few days of news. The Villagers would have none of that.

Here's Roxanne Roberts and Amy Argetsinger telling us what's what.

KURTZ: And not just yours. As we saw, everybody was talking about it.

Look, in the first 48 hours, it seemed to me, there was a legitimate concern about security. The Secret Service apologized. People -- anyone said, gee, how could somebody who wasn't invited get so close to the president of the United States? But now, it seems to me, that's kind of a fig leaf for our interest in the more gossipy aspects of this story.

Howard Kurtz made a point about the seriousness of this idiocy. I'd say resentment should be part of his analysis too. How dare these bumpkins get into their very private elitist party. They must pay, and so does anyone from Obama's administration who dared let them in.

ARGETSINGER: But they are under investigation now by the state of Virginia, not just because of allegations about their charity, but because of allegations about their entire polo match that they've been throwing the past three years.

They're in some pretty serious trouble. And this is the thing, we don't really know. They seem to be enjoying themselves in front of the cameras, but they may be well aware of the fact that they're in very grave trouble right now.

KURTZ: But at the same time, they're sort of milking this. I mean, they go on "The Today Show" and they make themselves available for the cameras. I mean, if they skate by without any legal complications, they could be one of the most famous reality show couples.

ARGETSINGER: Well, this is the big question.

KURTZ: We're aiding and abetting this by talking about it now.

ARGETSINGER: This is a big question. I mean, does Bravo have a liability on their hands, or is Bravo sitting on a gold mine with this footage? They've had this couple on film for the past three months.

KURTZ: If it was just Tareq Salahi, and his blonde wife was not part of the picture, would we still be talking about this?

ROBERTS: It wouldn't be nearly as interesting. I mean, what makes this story, what takes this from sort of an interesting one-or- two-day story, is the fact that this couple is so over the top and so flamboyant.

There are so many stereotypes -- the thin, ambitious blonde, who was never, in fact, a Redskins cheerleader. All the tall tales that they've told, all those things, that's what makes it so fascinating.

KURTZ: Maybe that's why the media aren't letting this go. And, of course, this hasn't fully played out, so we'll get to talk about it maybe next week.

The Villagers need to keep going with the story because this couple is just too damn flamboyant. The media have taken it to the max and it doesn't look like they'll let it go any time soon. Their rage is focused on the White House social secretary named Desiree Rogers---so in essence it's actually directed at Michelle Obama. With all that is happening in America today, these nitwits are screaming on and on about this couple that they find odious. The security breach should be thoroughly checked out, but this couple appear on every damn news show like they have stolen national security secrets. And we're told that the reason they still are a big story is because they keep on lying and being weird.

Digby has been following this story and it reminds us of the time the media went ballistic against Hillary Clinton:

The fatuous gasbags were all atwitter yesterday that the White House is "stonewalling" to protect their "old Chicago pal" Desiree Rogers, the White House social secretary. As I said the other day, this is rapidly turning into a "travelgate" type Village scandal and someone is going to have to go down, preferably one who falls under the auspices of Michelle Obama, who has clearly made some kind of social error.

Just as Travelgate was about Hillary Clinton failing to respect the social pecking order by installing old Arkansas friends in a job in which the press had a personal stake, (Ryan's comments about "overshadowing" notwithstanding) I'm pretty sure this is about Michele and "her pal" somehow not respecting the pecking order and failing to understand just how sacrosanct are the invitation lists to the White House. (You'll recall that Michelle had a press avail the day of the state dinner and mentioned that she regretted not being able to invite everyone, which I thought was rather odd at the time.)

The lesson has long been clear. You do not mess with the Village tabbies. They have far more power than you might think.

Steve Benen:

I checked the byline a couple of times this morning, to make sure the column that was ostensibly written by David Broder wasn't, in fact, written by Charles Krauthammer. Regrettably, the so-called Dean of the D.C. Media Establishment actually wrote this.

The more President Obama examines our options in Afghanistan, the less he likes the choices he sees. But, as the old saying goes, to govern is to choose -- and he has stretched the internal debate to the breaking point.

It is evident from the length of this deliberative process and from the flood of leaks that have emerged from Kabul and Washington that the perfect course of action does not exist. Given that reality, the urgent necessity is to make a decision -- whether or not it is right.

"Whether or not it is right." The Commander in Chief, in other words, should put expediency over merit. Speed is preferable to accuracy. It's only the longest military conflict in American history, with the future of U.S. foreign policy on the line -- the president should worry less about due diligence and thoughtful analysis, and worry more about picking a course, even if it's wrong. Other than the loss of American servicemen and women, untold billions of dollars, and undermining U.S. interests in a critical region, what's the worst that can happen?

This says so much to me. The "dean" of Beltway journalism and conventional thinking perfectly encapsulates the Republican zeitgeist:

1. Criticize anything that Obama does. If he acts decisively, complain that he's reckless. If he acts thoughtfully, complain that he's "dithering". If he points out that he's inherited a big fat clusterf&ck, complain that he's pointing fingers. If he tries to move forward in even a slightly progressive way, complain that he's not bipartisan enough and that he should listen to Republicans. In short, make sure that no matter what, Obama is wrong.
2. There are no consequences to telling Obama he's wrong. So what if 45,000 people die because they don't have healthcare? So what if sending more troops is basically sending them to their deaths? So what if there is no stable government in Afghanistan? So what if we're spending millions of dollars every month and deficit spending is the cause du jour for those suddenly fiscally responsible Republicans?

If Obama acts quickly, and it's the wrong choice, will the decision to act fall back on Broder and the Republicans for the pressure they've placed on Obama? 'Course not. But you can bet your sweet bippy they'll only be too glad to pounce on him if there are more American deaths.

Tell you what, Broder, if you're so eager to see some action in Afghanistan, let's see you do one of your patented "folksy" reports from a coffee shop in Kandahar or Kabul. Otherwise, STFU and let the people in charge actually make a reasoned and thoughtful decision, since it affects so much in American blood and treasure.

We've had eight years of quick rather than right decisions. It's time for the grownups to be in charge now.

Andy Cobb and Josh Funk regarding the Washington Post Pundit Contest. WaPo says "entrants may not have previously written or contributed to a regular column in a major national publication in print or online. Sponsor shall determine, in its sole discretion, what constitutes a 'regular column', 'major national publication' and 'contributed'." In other words, any blogger we don't like is automatically out.

On that note, check out the "entries" from

Whiskey Fire,

Sandy Underpants,

Wonkette,

and yours truly.

The deadline for entering is midnight tonight! Good luck.

Open thread below....

Whiskey Fire: The WaPo is running a contest to find America's next great pundit! Like Charles Krauthammer? More here and here (h/t Batocchio)

The New Republic: The never-ending lunacy of Betsy McCaughey

Oliver Willis: Wild West gun policy doesn't work

They gave us a republic: Nightowl Newswrap

The Rude Pundit: Photos and quotes that only confirm that atheism equals sanity

alicublog: Film threat

Obsidian Wings: Are there really two sides to the torture question? The WaPo declares itself unable to find the truth.

Balloon Juice: Stupid and Proud of It

The Reality-Based Community: There's been a lot of hand-wringing about the financial troubles of newspapers, but now it's quite obvious how reporters are handling the situation: they are just moonlighting for the insurance industry and the RNC. Nice work if you can get it.

Nameless Cynic: We're Communicating ll

Politics in the Zeros: Zero Hedge Whols. They don't want you to find them

HOLY CRAP: Oh ye hypocrites...GWB antichrist...Ugly Christian...No Gimmick Church...How Shall You Die?...Proof we're a 'Christian' nation...Hard-Wired for sin...Catholic Bishops assail health plan...Pious torturers...Followers of the Way... Atheists' Armageddon pet rescue...The last nail...

Kent Conrad's co-op plan reminded me of the WaPo's failed "Mouthpiece Theater": It's about as insipid as humanly possible. The House of Lords really is more concerned with its members' campaign contributions than they are for the American people. Let's check to see how much jack Conrad has received from the insurance industry, shall we?

Conrad, Kent (D-ND) $828,787

Not a bad haul, eh?

If Conrad was trying to woo Republicans with his co-op plan that cannot work, guess again.

A key member of Republican leadership in the Senate declared on Tuesday that a cooperative approach to health insurance was merely a "Trojan horse" for a government-run system.

In a conference call with reporters, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said that while some progressives view the co-op proposal as an unacceptably watered-down alternative to a public insurance option, Republicans think it's still too similar. He indicated that both he and the party would oppose them.

"On the co-op... as Democrats have said, it doesn't matter what you call it, they want it to accomplish something that Republicans are opposed to," Kyl told reporters. "That is the step towards government-run health care in the country. The president himself said you can imagine a cooperative meeting that definition of a public option." Republicans see Trojans everywhere but they believe in abstinence only. Everyone knows a few of them are big teases but in the end they will just say no.

"It is [a public plan] by another name. It is a Trojan horse. And therefore no, I don't believe Republicans will be inclined to support a bill," he said.

Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My! What Jon Kyl is really saying is: Trojans and Horses and Socialists, Oh, My!

Hullabaloo:

Kent Conrad, the perpetual whiner who has been pushing this silly co-op nonsense for months now, set co-ops up from the get as a prophylactic for his fellow Democratic corporate lackeys. It has nothing to do with Republicans. Never did. It would be best if everyone just abstained from pretending that bipartisanship was ever on the table and faced the real problem: STDs (Supine Two-faced Democrats.)

GOP 12: Sanford cheated on his wife and taxpayers

Alan Colmes’ Liberaland: Here's another jiveass "conservative."  Texas secession-promoter, Rick Perry, turned down stimulus $, now wants a loan

Stinque: Leader of GOP womanizers' Jesunazi sex cult is spiritual guru to Hillary Clinton

Nixon's Ghosts: Documents from the Archives: Pat Buchanan was for Affirmative Action before he was against it

Mondoweiss: Olmert tries to resuscitate one of the all-time great lies in the Oslo peace process

Mock, Paper, Scissors: Anatomy of a column

After reading this, I have to conclude that Conservatives really can't tell reality from fantasy and are easily manipulated by movies and TV. I'm starting to understand why the Brent Bozells are always trying to sue some TV show or other. They think it's real; I mean, why would anyone sue a Buffy TVS episode, right?
Anyway, Digby's post covers the Jack Bauer influence on the right wing party.

It's very creepy and disturbing.

The Wapo also reports that the thing was just about to be operational before the plug was pulled last month. The plot thickens.

The LA Times says that the "CIA Was A Long Way From Jason Bourne" but when I read that description of a secret hit squad with no limits, I was reminded of something else, which I wrote a year ago:
Fanboy Interrogations

Dahlia Lithwick has a great column in this week's Newsweek about the biggest influence on the thinking of members of the Bush administration in regards to its "interrogation" policies: Jack Bauer.

I've written a ton about this shocking phenomenon over the years, but even I didn't know that John Yoo actually cited the show in his book:

"What if, as the Fox television program '24' recently portrayed, a high-level terrorist leader is caught who knows the location of a nuclear weapon?"...read on

Read her full article because she ends with this.

Rush was actually asking the right question. I laughed at him at the time,thinking he was an embarrassing torture fanboy. But it turns out that the military really was getting ideas from the show:

According to British lawyer and writer Philippe Sands, Jack Bauer—played by Kiefer Sutherland—was an inspiration at early "brainstorming meetings" of military officials at Guantanamo in September of 2002. Diane Beaver, the staff judge advocate general who gave legal approval to 18 controversial new interrogation techniques including water-boarding, sexual humiliation, and terrorizing prisoners with dogs, told Sands that Bauer "gave people lots of ideas."

This probably worries me as much as anything I've heard about the antics of the Bush administration. These people are so fundamentally unserious that they found inspiration in a television show when the stakes were about as high as they could possibly be. It's horrifying to think these powerful people were this daft. But they were.
It seems it was actually worse than I thought.

I do like Chris Cillizza's The FIX column for the WaPo on most days and he's been very helpful via e-mails, but what was up with his man-crush on Lindsey Graham after watching him on MTP? Graham is a constant figure on the talk-show circuit and has been for a long time, so I really find it surprising that Chris would almost call him " A New Republican Leader?"

Dispirited Republicans looking for national leaders amid a wash of scandals that have dominated national news over the last fortnight got a bit of good news on Sunday with an inspired performance on "Meet the Press" by South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham (R).

Graham, who spent the 2008 election cycle as Sen. John McCain's loyal sidekick, appeared alongside former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, the GOP frontrunner in advance of 2012, and managed to stand out.

Why? Because unlike other Republicans who seem to be so fixated on scoring political points on President Obama, Graham was willing to point out where his own party had strayed while also making a reasonable argument for GOP ideals...read on

All he's every been is a yes man for John McCain ever since I can remember who seems jacked up on Red Bull most days when he's in front of the cameras. I'd like Chris to answer the question I posed on Sunday: Why was he on NBC at all when he clearly is compromised when talking about Gov. Mark Sanford -- because he's Godfather to several of his kids? Maybe that was the reason Chris thought that he seemed a bit more humble than usual? Huckleberry was really close to Sanford and had to be torn up inside over Sanford's affair, but it really didn't stop him from taking shots at President Obama even when he tried to compliment him.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1409)

PLAYS: (4281)

On Reliable Sources this morning, Howard Kurtz brings on Huffington Post's Nico Pitney to deal with two naysayers eager to scream "collusion!" over Nico's question to President Obama this week regarding the Iranian election: WaPo's Dana Milbank and TownHall's Amanda Carpenter. The fact that hyper-partisan Carpenter is even asked her opinion shows how little interest Kurtz had in an honest dialog. Seriously, Amanda, the video shows Nico in the back of the room behind other reporters--your complaining about Nico being "pushed to the front of the room" is discredited just like all your other "facts"--who you gonna believe? Amanda or your lyin' eyes?

But it's Dana Milbank who really gets his bitchy little knickers in a twist. He starts the segment incredibly defensive. It's hard to tell whether Dana is just miffed that he didn't get called on or that some upstart blogger who doesn't get the same Beltway cocktail party invitations asked a better question than he ever has.

This whole media-created "scandal" is ridiculously inane and smacks of a willful short memory which would be comical if it wasn't supplanting much more important discussions. Um, Howie, Dana, Amanda....does the name "Jeff Gannon" ring a bell? Jamison Foser:

Here's the thing: Nobody is actually claiming that Obama knew what question Pitney was going to ask. The allegations of "coordination" and "staging" are premised on the idea that the Obama folks knew what topic Pitney would ask about - Iran.

Well, it isn't all that unusual for a president to have a pretty good idea what topic a reporter is going to ask about. If you call on a reporter from Stars & Stripes or Army Times, you'll probably get a question relating to the military. Call on a Washington Post reporter, and you'll likely get a question about steroids in baseball or haircuts. Call on a New York Times reporter, and there's a pretty good chance he'll ask what enchants you about the White House. Call on a Huffington Post reporter, and they'll probably ask something a little more substantive.[..]

I'm pretty sure Dana Milbank knew what topic he was going to be asked about when he appeared on CNN's Reliable Sources opposite Pitney today. Ohmygod! Dana Milbank and Howard Kurtz coordinated! It was staged!

Oh, the stoopid hypocrisy. It hurts, doesn't it, Dana?

Just to put this into perspective, think about this. Nico Pitney has spent the last two weeks tirelessly developing sources from inside Iran, aggregating every relevant story available on the internet through every available form of the new communication technology and synthesizing one of the most most difficult and important foreign policy stories of the decade.

Dana Milbank has spent the same period bitching about the "low press" getting to ask questions at a press conference and filming snotty little gossip items for his little insider video embarrassment called "Mouthpiece Theatre."

And the newspapers wonder why they're dying. Let me remind all of you that WaPo decided to sack Froomkin, but kept Milbank. So goes the state of "journalism" at the Washington Post.

By the way, when I emailed Nico to congratulate him on a serious smackdown of the Very. Serious. Villager., he shared with me Milbank's comment to him as Kurtz was introducing the next segment: "You're such a dick." You stay classy, Dana.

The Washington Post is dead to me:

(T)he Washington Post has terminated its relationship with liberal columnist/blogger Dan Froomkin. Froomkin authored the "White House Watch" blog and was told today that the blog had essentially run its course.

Washington Post Media Communications Director Kris Coratti tells POLITICO that "our editors and research teams are constantly reviewing our columns, blogs and other content to make sure we're giving readers the most value when they are on our site while balancing the need to make the most of our resources. Unfortunately, this means that sometimes features must be eliminated, and this time it was the blog that Dan Froomkin freelanced for washingtonpost.com."

"Run its course"???? WTF? But David Broder, who has been at WaPo since God was a little boy and whose never been in a coffeeshop he couldn't find some colorful local to confirm his preconceived (and generally wrong) notions, is still relevant? Bill Kristol, for whom the Washington Post had to issue not one or two, but THREE retractions for direct misinformation he tried to squeeze into his typical hack op-ed, is still worth holding on to. Charles farkin' Krauthammer, who has no business opining anywhere he has gotten so much wrong, is still collecting a WaPo paycheck.

But Dan Froomkin, whom Andrew Sullivan calls the "best blogger" at the paper and who is the author of 3 of the 10 most linked to articles at WaPo, is not someone worth keeping on staff?

Glenn Greenwald suspects that Froomkin was on the losing end of some internal power struggles:

Notably, Froomkin just recently had a somewhat acrimonious exchange with the oh-so-oppressed Krauthammer over torture, after Froomkin criticized Krauthammer's explicit endorsement of torture and Krauthammer responded by calling Froomkin's criticisms "stupid." And now -- weeks later -- Froomkin is fired by the Post while the persecuted Krauthammer, comparing himself to endangered journalists in Venezuela, remains at the Post, along with countless others there who think and write just like he does: i.e., standard neoconservative pablum. Froomkin was previously criticized for being "highly opinionated and liberal" by Post ombudsman Deborah Howell (even as she refused to criticize blatant right-wing journalists).

Seriously? Does the Washington Post not realize that all these neo-cons they give endless column inches to are what's ruining this country? Steven Benen:

If Froomkin is leaving the Post, it’s a real loss. Froomkin has been a great writer with keen instincts, often picking up on a burgeoning story before it’s gained traction elsewhere. Froomkin was one of the media’s most important critics of the Bush White House, and conservative bashing notwithstanding, was poised to be just as valuable holding the Obama White House accountable for its decisions.

If you like to share your opinion of the Washington Post's hiring choices, you can contact Ombudsman Andrew Alexander at ombudsman@washpost.com. Me, personally? I'm just deleting the bookmark. If I wanted neo-con and fact free tripe from Will, Kagan, Kristol and Broder, I'll just watch Fox News.

Grist: Swine Flu outbreak linked to Smithfield Factory Farms

Lawyers, Guns and Money: I'm really sick and tired of the Villagers and their pro-torture buffoonery.  Just a few years ago, they were leading the mob in this political witchhunt.  But today, they, and the old "Rule of Law" crowd, are entirely ready to ignore this, even though torture has probably killed more Americans than 9/11.

naked capitalism: On Pelosi's duplicity and apparent sandbagging of Elizabeth Warren

The Impolitic: Smart on drugs

MN Progressive Project: Voters want Coleman to concede, Pawlenty to sign certificate

Sisyphus Shrugged: Columnist fails to recognize mouldering corpse of undead irony, which then eats her brain

By David Ignatius of the Washington Post.

The mixing of anti-terrorism policy with the 2004 presidential campaign is becoming destructive. It is creating a vicious cycle of hype, skepticism and mistrust that puts the country's security at risk.

The dangers of politicizing terrorism were clear in this month's announcement about potential attacks on financial centers in the New York area and in Washington. When Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge disclosed the threats on Aug. 1, he faced immediate skepticism about whether the intelligence was valid. Sadly, the Bush administration had helped create this climate of public suspicion by overusing its elaborate, color-coded system of terrorism warnings. After a terrorism advisory by Attorney General John Ashcroft last spring was pooh-poohed the same day by Ridge, some people wondered whether these warnings were being used for political effect. In the administration's eagerness to demonstrate the seriousness of the threat against financial centers, something terrible happened. An official in Washington or Pakistan, it's not clear which, leaked the name of the captured al Qaeda operative who was a main source of the information -- a 25-year-old Pakistani named Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan. His name was leaked to the New York Times on Aug. 1, the same day the terror warning was issued, in a seeming attempt to bolster the credibility of the intelligence report.

Whatever the reason for the leak, it was disastrous for intelligence operations.