Glenn Beck has wasted no time joining his pal Alex Jones on the conspiracy train. How long will it take to filter into Congress?

Via RightWingWatch:

Beck then went on to send a semi-coded message to those in the upper level of the government warning that they had better come clean about this Saudi national because The Blaze has information that reveals that he "is a very bad, bad, bad man" which will be revealed on Monday.

"I don't bluff," Beck stated, "I make promises. The truth matters. I've had enough of what you've done to our country. I thought I had heard and seen it all. I thought I didn't trust my government. Oh no, no, no. There is no depth that these people will not stoop to. They have until Monday and then The Blaze will expose it."

This conspiracy theory comes out of the rumors emerging about the Saudi national who was fingered by the media on Monday after the bombings and later found not to be a suspect. Beck and his pals have decided there's a coverup because he has some kind of relationship to the Benghazi tragedy in September.

This is little more than an attempt to use the current tragedy to flog the past because it works politically for the extreme right wing. They can link up scary brown people with Russians! Because...scary.

It's cynical, it's ugly and it's vintage Glenn Beck.

Amato wrote earlier today that he wondered why the media didn't report on McChrystal's coverup of Pat Tillman's death. Well, every once in a while, Howard Kurtz actually reveals something useful about the media Village mindset:

One journalistic question to emerge from Rolling Stone's takedown of Stanley McChrystal is whether a military beat reporter could have -- or would have -- done it. Michael Hastings was on a one-time assignment; he didn't need to deal with the general and his people again. This, by the way, is no different than the tension faced by every city hall and statehouse reporter versus someone coming in for a one-shot piece.

Hastings himself addressed the question in a 2008 GQ piece, talking about being embedded as a presidential campaign reporter:

"The dance with staffers is a perilous one. You're probably not going to get much, if any, one-on-one time with the candidate, which means your sources of information are the people who work for him. So you pretend to be friendly and nonthreatening, and over time you 'build trust,' which everybody involved knows is an illusion. If the time comes, if your editor calls for it, you're supposed to [expletive] them over."

Pretend? Not a pretty picture.

NYU journalism professor and blogger Jay Rosen pivots toward Politico's coverage of the McChrystal affair:

"In one of the many articles The Politico ran about the episode, the following observation was made by reporters Gordon Lubold and Carol E. Lee:

"McChrystal, an expert on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency, has long been thought to be uniquely qualified to lead in Afghanistan. But he is not known for being media savvy. Hastings, who has covered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for two years, according to the magazine, is not well-known within the Defense Department. And as a freelance reporter, Hastings would be considered a bigger risk to be given unfettered access, compared with a beat reporter, who would not risk burning bridges by publishing many of McChrystal's remarks.

"Now this seemed to several observers -- and I was one -- a reveal. Think about what the Politico is saying: an experienced beat reporter is less of a risk for a powerful figure like McChrystal because an experienced beat reporter would probably not want to 'burn bridges' with key sources by telling the world what happens when those sources let their guard down. . .

"And then, the next day... the reveal disappears. The Politico erased it, as if the thing had never happened. Down the memory hole, like in Orwell's 1984."

This is frustratingly true; I saw it all the time when I was a reporter, and yes, the temptation to soften stories is real. After all, most public figures are interesting, charismatic people and mostly, they're fun to be around.

But your loyalty has to be to your readers. I'm sorry to say, I was in a distinct minority. That's why politicians were always shocked when I had the audacity to actually report what they said. I was supposed to know what to censor.

"I thought we were friends!" one local official said to me.

I looked at him. "I stood there and asked you a question. You responded, and you watched me write down your answer. What did you think was going to happen?" I said.

That's why I'm a big believer in rotating beats. You just don't want reporters getting too familiar with their sources - and it doesn't serve the public interest. If that still exists, I mean.

DOWNLOADS: (776)

PLAYS: (1536)

Embed

Brit Hume called Gen. McChrystal really dumb because he allowed "Rolling Stone" of all media outlets access to him and his staff for a lengthy interview about how he feels about the war and his Commander in Chief. How dare he use a hippie rag instead of coming to a Villager?

Hume: This is a regular mess. The comments made by General McChrystal himself and by his aides. The astonishing lack of judgement shown in granting access to Rolling Stone. ROLLING STONE! Of all publications. No one over the age of four would speak on the record to Rolling Stone about delicate military matter and 'above all' about laying yourself with all kinds of back room opinions about your partners in the effort and the commander in chief and the vice president. This is a firing offense under normal circumstances. The president would be totally justified in General McChrystal. He may have to do it anyway....

Much of it had to be listening to Biden because he goes on and on and on, but that aside I mean he's still the Vice President of the United States, he's owed respect by General McChrystal and his subordinates aides and then in itself is what they said about him is insubordination, no question about it, I mean, I, Megan, I just don't know as I think about it whether the President can keep him even if he thinks he's vital to the mission. I mean this is pretty blatant stuff...

Kelly: Why? What is the fall out to President Obama if he keeps him?

Hume: Well, what I figure is he'll look weak. He may feel that he'll look weak, but think...(stutter) in a sense look, he may feel that he may make McChrystal crawl across enough broken glass here in Washington tomorrow and humble himself to such an extent..and he may be able to impose him some career....he might find some compromise way to keep him in the post with it being pretty clear that the guy is damaged goods. That might leave the President's prestige intact, but this is pretty strong medicine to be dealt in that article.

Kelly: Couldn't this be an opportunity for President Obama, for lack of a better word, "take the high road?" He's been criticized for having a thin skin and usually that comes with respect from the media, but is this an opportunity for him to say, it was out of line....but he's still the best man to complete a very important strategy that I've committed 30,00 additional American lives ...

Hume:...but these comments were so strong and so negative and so disrespectful and look, the fact that most of them were not made by McChrystal himself doesn't really help because he was clearly present when all these discussions were going on. All this loose talk was going on..I wonder and we may find out Rolling Stone has insisted that it's on the record and everybody knew it and I have my doubts about that. I would be surprised if Gem McChrystal said it was all on the record and we all knew it. Can you imagine anybody, look it. If that's the case the guy maybe outta be fired for being dumb! To have that kind of loose talk to any media outlet.

No one in their right mind, on the record or off talks like this to in front of the media. You just don't do it.

I think he isn't that dumb and just wanted out of Afghanistan altogether since his planning has failed completely. He can now be hailed a right wingnut hero by the fringers for calling out the President, Joe Biden and the Afghan team when he goes on a speaking tour of the AEI's and other tea party events. He can make as many false claims as he wants about what actually happened during the planning and implementation of his counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan since we know he'll lie even about his own troops. (Pat Tillman cover-up) So where's the downside for him to get fired? His military friends in the media, while believing his actions are a firing offense, they will say like Col. Jack Jacobs did on MSNBC that all the troops feel Obama's people are incompetent fools too.

As Karoli pointed out, troops are not happy being sent to die under the General's plan.

And he simply knew he could be labeled the 'General Failure' after General Petraeus was hailed a big hero by the media over Iraq. How are they both measuring up at this point? Any more fainting spells?

UPDATE: I believe he should be fired, but as John Cole points out Obama can do what he wants to do. "Can you imagine going through life with all this artificial nonsense dictating your decision making process?"

Digby has a great post up that says Obama is being advised NOT to fire him and a link to how he can be the one to "save face."

Gitmo - the gift that keeps on giving -- that is, if you're trying to inspire a new generation of jihadi terrorists. Via Raw Story:

Four members of a US military intelligence unit assigned to Guantanamo Bay are questioning the government's official version of the deaths of three detainees in the summer of 2006.

The soldiers are offering a very different version of events than the one provided by the official report carried out by the Naval Criminal Investigation Service. Their stories suggest the three inmates may not have killed themselves -- or, at least, not in the way the US military claims.

"All four soldiers say they were ordered by their commanding officer not to speak out, and all four soldiers provide evidence that authorities initiated a cover-up within hours of the prisoners’ deaths," reports Scott Horton at Harper's magazine.

According to the US Navy, Gitmo detainees Salah Ahmed Al-Salami, Mani Shaman Al-Utaybi and Yasser Talal Al-Zahrani were found hanged in their cells on June 9. 2006. The US military initially described their deaths as "asymmetrical warfare" against the United States, before finally declaring that the deaths were suicides that the inmates coordinated among themselves.

But a report from Seton Hall University Law School, released last fall, cast doubt on almost every element of the US military's story. It questioned, for example, how it would have been possible for the three detainees to have stuffed rags down their throats and then, while choking, managed to raise themselves up to a noose and hang themselves.

The report (PDF) stated:

There is no explanation of how each of the detainees, much less all three, could have done the following: braided a noose by tearing up his sheets and/or clothing, made a mannequin of himself so it would appear to the guards he was asleep in his cell, hung sheets to block vision into the cell—a violation of Standard Operating Procedures, tied his feet together, tied his hands together, hung the noose from the metal mesh of the cell wall and/or ceiling, climbed up on to the sink, put the noose around his neck and released his weight to result in death by strangulation, hanged until dead and hung for at least two hours completely unnoticed by guards.

Army Staff Sergeant Joseph Hickman told Harper's magazine that he was made aware of the existence of a secret detention center at Guantanamo, nicknamed by some of the guards "Camp No," because "No, it doesn't exist." According to Hickman, it was generally believed among camp guards that the facility was used by the CIA.

Hickman also said there was a van on site, referred to as the "paddy wagon," which was allowed to come in and out of the main detention area without going through the usual inspection. On the night of the three detainees' deaths, Hickman says he saw the paddy wagon leave the area where the three were being detained and head off in the direction of Camp No. The paddy wagon, which can carry only one prisoner at a time in a cage in the back, reportedly made the trip three times.

Hickman says he saw the paddy wagon return and go directly to the medical center. Shortly after, a senior non-commissioned officer, whose name Hickman didn't know, ordered him to convey a code word to a petty officer. When he did, the petty officer ran off in a panic.

(Update below) Here comes Matt "The Eggman" Drudge to (Mr. Predatorgate) Mark Foley's defense. He uses that age old "attack the messenger" conservative technique-only in a creepier way. He says the congressional pages are just as responsible because of Youtube and pop culture and how dare they egg him on like that. They are just 16 and 17 year old beasts after all and not innocent little babies who are engaged in a conspiracy against poor, old Foley. What kind of beast does that make the 52 year old Foley?

Download | play -MP3 They are 16 and 17 year old beasts... (31 seconds)

Download | play -MP3-It was two ways ladies and gentleman ( oh Matt, that's why we have Predator laws. To protect them from the Foley's. I just thought you should know) (40 seconds)

Download | play -MP3--He'd feel better if they were 8 or something....

Download | play -MP3- They will regulate the Internet now...That's really all this is.

(h/t Robert)

Update:

Jane's got the transcipts done of the audio:

I swear I am not making this up. Listen to it. Drudge is so f*&^king sick it's really, really disturbing, but to know he's doing it on behalf of the official Bush-Hastert-Boehner-Reynolds GOP coverup is the truly demented part. No limits to how low they will go. Absolutely no limits...read on

This is officially a huge coverup now. ABC

A Republican staff member warned Congressional pages five years ago to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley, according to a former page. Matthew Loraditch, a page in the 2001-2002 class, told ABC News he and other pages were warned about Foley by a supervisor in the House Clerk's office. Loraditch, the president of the Page Alumni Association, said the pages were told "don't get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff.

There's no way for the Republican leadership to feign ignorance or miscommunication any longer. Hastert and Co. should be held accountable.

Meanwhile, Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY) accepted $100k from Foley in back July.

Continue reading »

Reefer Madness: The debate about Medical Marijuana is on!

Does marijuana help people like Angel Raich? Is it illegal if a doctor prescribes it? "The justices refused three years ago to protect distributors of medical marijuana from federal anti-drug charges." Or do people just want to get stoned?

There’s also the argument that says we need the FDA to study it more closely. What about the Vioxx scandal and a supposed coverup by the FDA that David Graham brought to the public? I think all you need to do is talk to someone from the seventies and you'll get all the information that you need to know. Why did it take a study from 2001 to tell us that pot gives you the munchies?

I'm surprised the big drug companies aren't pushing to allow them to distrbute yet another drug legally out into society. There are ads on 24/7 that makes it seem like happiness is a just a pill away!

Yet children are commiting suicide from these Antidepressants that are supposed to be a godsend.

Where’s the outrage?

When has anyone jumped off a bridge after smoking a joint? You might want to eat the bridge, but normally, one wants to lie on the couch with a bag of chips and a subway footlong sandwich and watch the tube.

The side effects for oxycodone, percocet, and vicodin often include addiction and painful withdrawals, yet are almost completely ignored as a deterrent in their prescription by doctors.

The other argument that doctors will write prescriptions blatantly like drug dealers is capricious at best. I don’t think a person will be able to walk into a doctor’s office and say, "I have this twinge, can you write a script for chronic?" They can already go to the mall and do that. If marijuana will help people, then what is all this hubbub? Do we still have Reefer Madness on our minds?

Talk Left has a series of great articles about MM.

Here's an in-depth video clip segment from Aaron Brown on the subject:

Video

Mike's Blog Round Up

Check out the headline on the cover of this week's print edition of the Economist.

How many BushCo coverups are there? Welp, there's this one, these horrors, this, and this one, which is connected to this, and This Modern World: We're very concerned about family values except, of course, when it involves children

get your war on: some recent additions you may have missed...

Correction: It turns out that Discourse.net made an error that appeared in yesterday's roundup.

A former FBI says he was the source called "Deep Throat" who leaked secrets about President Nixon's Watergate coverup to The Washington Post, Vanity Fair reported Tuesday. W. Mark Felt, 91, who was second-in-command at the FBI in the early 1970s, kept the secret even from his family until 2002, when he confided to a friend that he had been Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward' s source, the magazine said.

Will Woodward and Bernstein confirm this?