"The 'Sacking' of O'Beirne"

Now that's a true double-bagger.

The link above leads to the efforts of one Kathryn Benedict XVI-Lopez, who is outraged that folks would mock Kitty O'Beirne's book, illustrated on its cover with unflattering caricatures, by creating a fake book cover with an unflattering caricature of O'Beirne. It's beyond the pale of Rich Lowry's inner thighs, huffs Lopez.

Next thing you know, someone with better computer and artistic skills than me will review Jonah Goldberg's forthcoming tome on "liberal fascists" by photoshopping a Hitler 'tache on the Doughy Pantload.

Though my record is far from perfect, I try to avoid commenting on the appearances of others, and not only because I'm no beauty contest winner myself. Those who engage in such tactics themselves, however (I'm looking at you, Kaus, and Big Pharma), are fair game. In O'Beirne's case, her inner ugliness far exceeds her sourpuss appearance. And Lopez could never look as stupid as the things she writes.

(Link via World O'Crap.)

Frank Off And Die

I'm deeply disappointed to learn that Frank Abramoff doesn't read my blog.

There's some sort of set-to at a community college down south. I'm not exactly sure, but I think has something to do with lax graduation standards.

Okrent and Ad Nags: BFF

It's a mutual masturbation admiration society in Harvard Square:

[Dan] Okrent said yesterday that he would spend his semester at the Shorenstein Center working on two books -- one a collection of his Times columns, and the other a longer-term project on the history of the U.S. during prohibition.

Okrent started his job at the Times in the midst of "widespread skepticism" in the newsroom about the necessity of a public editor, said Adam Nagourney, a political correspondent for the paper who was a fellow at the Kennedy School's Institute of Politics this fall. Nagourney -- himself a target of a 2004 Okrent column criticizing the Times' coverage of the Howard Dean campaign -- said much of that skepticism evaporated by the end of Okrent's tenure.

"He just won people over by his honesty," Nagourney said.

As regards Jokrent's plans to "work on" a book of his NYT columns, I look forward to wiping my ass with the finished product.

Traitors In Pajamas

Here's a tale of treason, illegal leaks and lobbyists that you won't read at Depends Media.

Why? Because the spittle-flecked powers that be Depends Media don't honestly give a shit about national security, terrorism or the rule of law.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 - A federal judge sentenced a former Defense Department analyst, Lawrence A. Franklin, to more than 12 years in prison today after Mr. Franklin admitted passing classified military information to two pro-Israel lobbyists and an Israeli diplomat....

Before his sentencing, Mr. Franklin pleaded guilty to three felony counts for improperly retaining and disclosing classified information in exchange for his cooperation and the government's willingness to drop three other charges against him. He will not have to begin serving his sentence until after the completion of legal proceedings against Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman, who are scheduled to go on trial in April. That could lead prosecutors to agree to seek a reduction in Mr. Franklin's sentence, government official said.

Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman were charged in an indictment in August 2005 with conspiring to gather and disclose classified national security information to journalists and an unnamed foreign power that government officials identified as Israel. Aipac dismissed the two men in April 2005.

The indictment said the two men had disclosed classified information about a number of subjects, including American policy in Iran, terrorism in central Asia, Al Qaeda and the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers apartment in Saudi Arabia, which killed 23 Americans, mainly members of the military.

....

Mr. Franklin worked at the Pentagon for a time under Douglas Feith, a former undersecretary at the agency. Mr. Franklin has said he developed a relationship with the two lobbyists in the belief that they had access to officials a the National Security Council and could communicate his views to senior officials there.

In addition to his meetings with the lobbyists, the government charged, Mr. Franklin also met with an Israeli embassy official and passed on secret military information about weapons tests in the Middle East and military activities in Iraq.

Tristam Shandy reminds us how the apologists in pajamas assured us that Franklin was a victim of a runaway prosecution. Here's Roger el-Simon, some fifteen months ago, slandering the team that brought a criminal to justice:

Franklin is evidently suspected of passing informaton on US deliberations about Iran to the Israelis. That's a bad thing, if true, although I would be surprised if the content of these pages differs radically from what you read on op-ed pages or Iran centered blogs. And making the case public before bringing the case to a conclusion seems almost to be an admission of failure on the part of the FBI. What appears to be going on is more of a political struggle than genuine information protection.

Hey, Rog. It's true! It's true!

We await your half-hearted, feeble condemnation of Franklin. If you can manage to write about Cyril Wecht taking the forceps home for the weekend, you could at least give us a peep on crimes against the nation.

And then there's Brother Ledeen (as el-Simon calls him), a dear, dear pal of Franklin. In a textbook case of projection, Ledeen claimed that the FBI's investigation of Franklin was either "incompetence or McCarthyism. In either case, it's disgusting."

I'm sure our neo-clown friend is at FBI H.Q. right now, begging for forgiveness.

I'll keep my eye on the Depends site, waiting for updates. But I expect Rog and Mikey won't be commenting any time soon.

Which is worst: A shill, a whore or a putz?

Starting today, Roger Ailes will only allow vitriolic comments concerning its content at this site.

Anyone attempting to maintain a civil conservation, especially about issues that people feel strongly (and differently) about, will have their comments deleted and their commenting privileges revoked. Only vicious personal attacks, profanity and hate mail concerning your host will be permitted. Attacks on what I apparently intended to say are preferred, particularly those made in response to my assertions that my views are being misrepresented. Unprintable comments are ideally suited to this effort.

New York Times reporters interested in vague and whiny comments on this new policy may contact me via e-mail.

"It's a truth universally acknowledged that good news about epidemics rarely make it into the mainstream media."

MR. McCLELLAN: Because we don't discuss staff-level meetings --

Q Of course you do, whenever you want to discuss staff-level meetings. And if Karl Rove, who has ties to Ralph Reed, which he does, we want to know if he has ties to Jack Abramoff, and if they met --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I can answer that.

Q Oh, great. Well, before you said --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I mean, about if he knows -- yes, he knows -- he knows Mr. Abramoff. They are both former heads of the College Republicans. That's how they got to know each other way back, I think it was in the early '80s. And my understanding is that Karl would describe it as more of a casual relationship, than a business relationship. That's what he has said.

Yes, and Karl also has said he never leaked Valerie Plame's CIA employment to reporters. Haven't you learned anything, Scottie?

p.s. to Steno Sue: You've got your marching orders!

More Oreo Lies

In a piece touting Ken Blackwell as the new Ronald Reagan -- which should come in handy if Blackwell's ever indicted -- a City Journal hack repeats the lie that Lt. Governor Michael Steele was pelted with cookies:

Though Blackwell has yet to suffer the kind of indignities of Maryland's Steele -- pelted with Oreo cookies in his campaign appearances -- black Democrats have dismissed him as an opportunist for joining the GOP and accused him of trying to "disenfranchise" blacks to help elect George Bush president.

Michael Steele has yet to suffer "the kind of indignities of Maryland's Steele" -- it's a fucking fabrication.

At this point, Steven Malanga or anyone else repeating this discredited lie is acting in bad faith and cannot be trusted about anything.

Secretly filmed tirades against Muslims and Asians by the leader of the British National party, Nick Griffin, were described to a jury yesterday, including claims that rape and paedophilia against non-believers were countenanced by the Qur'an.

At private party meetings, the Cambridge graduate who has immersed himself in far-right politics for nearly 30 years described parts of Britain as "multiracial hellholes" targeted by a supposed Asian Muslim plan for global conquest.

Earlier today, for about three minutes, I had the following quote up under the headline "Howard Kurtz Is A Pedophile." But that was too subtle for my tastes.

Fort Washington, Md.: Reporter Sue Schmidt and ombudsman Deborah Howell have both asserted repeatedly that Jack Abramoff gave money to Democrats as well as Republicans. The FEC shows no record of any Democrat getting any money from Abramoff, period. Some Indian tribes who were among Abramoff's victims contributed funds to some Democrats, but suggesting that that somehow is a donation from Abramoff defies logic. How does the Post justify passing on what appears to be nothing but GOP spin as fact?

Howard Kurtz: Howell's column Sunday said that a number of Democrats "have gotten Abramoff campaign money." That was inartfully worded. I believe what she was trying to say, and I have not discussed this with her, is that some Democrats have received campaign cash from Abramoff clients, and that this may have been orchestrated by the convicted lobbyist. That's why you have a number of Democrats (as well as many Republicans, now including Denny Hastert) giving back the tainted dough or donating it to charity. Even National Review Editor Rich Lowry says this is basically a Republican scandal -- we are talking about a Bush fundraiser and Tom DeLay pal -- but where the tangled web has extended to Democrats, we need to mention that too.

And I believe Howell's statement was very artfully worded. It was a fucking masterpiece.

Also, for those playing along at home, the BBC World Service is repeating the same GOP lie about Abramoff's contributions.

Private Hitch Enlists, Complains About Army Food

Remind me again, Chris, why I shouldn't wish Al Gore was at the helm these days?

Ready, Aim, Fire

"Ayres, one of the state's best-known Republican consultants and pollsters, said the best way to determine Reed's political future would be to 'ask Jack Abramoff. Only [the former lobbyist] and some prosecutors know what he has to say about Reed.' Pichon, the Dawson County Republican, said: 'If Reed ends up winning the primary, we might be at the point where we blow our brains out over that issue.'" -- Washington Post

Actually, a gentle breeze could accomplish the same thing.

Meanwhile, Ralph Reed has turned from agnostic to true believer in his results-oriented defense of his scumbaggery. A month ago, Reed asserted:

"We will never know how many marriages and lives were saved, or how many children were spared the consequences of compulsive gambling."

Since then, according to the WaPo, he's received a divine revelation:

"Many marriages and lives were saved" and "many children were spared the consequences of gambling because of the work I did."

It's a miracle.

(Post story via firedoglake)

We, the undersigned, having failed to convince anyone to ignore the Republican Culture of Corruption by ignoring it ourselves, will now pretend that we give a rat's ass about ethics. We'll still support sleazebags like DeLay and lie about Democrats in order to deflect criticism from our party, and we'll label a traitor anyone calling for transparency, accountability or openness in the Bush Administration. And we'll suck up to you especially hard if you pretend to take us seriously, because no one else does.

Signed,

Various Self-Important Chuckleheads

I'm serious.

The Doughy Pantload defends the illegal strip search of 10-year-olds by defending a mass-murdering pedophile and kidnappers:

Lastly, I keep getting charged with supporting government power so long as it's my guy in office. But George Bush has nothing to do with the issue of warranted searches of drug dealers (or their children) and anybody who read my column when Bill Clinton was in office will find that I'm perfectly consistent on these sorts of issues. But, speaking of Bill Clinton, it would be nice to know how many of these holier than thouers were upset -- even remotely -- by Janet Reno's assault on the Branch Davidians or the seizure of Elian Gonzales.

Let's review the facts: The Branch Davidians brutally murdered four federal agents executing a lawful search warrant of the compound of a pedophile cult leader/armed terrorist before Janet Reno became Attorney General. After Reno became A.G., the Branch Davidians set fire to their own compound, murdering their own children and killing themselves (the latter being no loss whatsoever).

Janet Reno's lawful rescue of Elian Gonzales from those who were holding him illegally -- that's kidnapping -- involved neither a search nor a seizure of Gonzales.

No assault. No seizure.

Keep digging, Pantload. You're about to reach the depths of your mother's racist bulletin board.

Bonus correction of Stanley Kurtz: We didn't "los[e] 80,000 soldiers in the Battle of the Bulge." There were an estimated 76,000 to 80,000 casualties, but only 10,000 to 19,000 deaths.

Update (1/16): Oops. It looks like I stole this from TBogg.