I don't like the way you're lookin' at me!

The next time some guy storms my way, obviously angry enough to spit nails, I expect to be absolved when I knee him in the groin before he gets the opportunity to damage me.

I'm sure the judge will let me take the "anticipatory defense" defense.

Eight years: two too many...

... for Group W, now trapped in the kitchen? I expect the torch-toting rabble won't be kind.

Ah, truth.

John Edwards for President in 2008!

Say what?

One would not ordinarily think that the Libertarian Party and MoveOn have much in common, but in this world....

Turns out the Downing Street Memo is finally drawing some hey, wait just a daggum minute here! reactions. Both the MoveOnPAC and the Libertarians are supporting Rep. John Conyers' call for Group W to 'fess up to lying. Maybe we should say "being untruthful" instead. "Fabricating justifications" might keep us off some Carnivore-style in-my-bidnez government peek machine, but, hey, I kind of like saying "perpetrating a mendacious prevarication."

Wonder what Group W's propensity to follow the Goebbels principle* will take us from here? Keep an eye on this dance of the seven veils. (Google News)

* Wikipedia has a sometimes irritating method of dealing with copyrighted material -- in this case, the picture of Goebbels. Click on the "Joseph Goebbels" link in the Wikipedia copyright notice page to bring back the article.

How to make friends and reward supporters -- Not!

Take an honest scientific researcher who carefully reports missing plague samples, grill him for hours, force him to sign a confession, pillory him in court, ruin his reputation, beggar his family, and send him to prison. Just more fun and games with Group W!

Abuse "not unusual" -- in D.C.

Group W second-in-command Dick Cheney defends John Bolton's nomination as our representative to the UN, according to a NYT article by Douglas Jehl. The lede paragraph:

As members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee agreed Friday to allocate two more weeks for their examination of John R. Bolton, Vice President Dick Cheney called for solidarity with the embattled nominee, who is seeking Senate confirmation as ambassador to the United Nations.

Turns out, Jehl says, "Mr. Cheney seemed to suggest that the bullying of subordinates, one of the charges leveled against Mr. Bolton, was not so unusual in Washington." Well, not with this crowd, anyway.

Colin Powell, once again a free agent, is quietly talking about the nominee to Senators -- reports are that he isn't very fond of Bolton.

(Powell lost quite a bit of his veracity rating among certain groups when he joined Group W in its Big Lie Over Why We Should Attack Iraq. Perhaps he is reconsidering the relationship, as he was tossed aside -- along with his son -- when his constituency was no longer necessary to maintain power.)
(Google News search)

None are Above Maligning

I grew up in West Virginia. Robert C. Byrd has been our Senator for as long as I can remember.

Sunday's News and Observer (March 20) contained a letter in the Q section titled "Media need sunshine" from one John W. Matthews of Chapel Hill, obviously a Group W supporter, targeting Senator Byrd while purporting to comment on last week's open government series.

The offensive paragraphs:

The N&O has failed to report on Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd's recent Senate speech in which he compared Republicans to Hitler and Nazis. The Anti-Defamation League called Byrd's remarks "hideous, outrageous and offensive." It said Byrd should "apologize to the American people for showing such disrespect for this country's democratic process."

Why doesn't The N&O think Byrd's remarks, as shameful as the worst of those of the late Sen. Joe McCarthy, are news? And why no reporting on the ADL's and others' condemnations of Byrd's remarks?

Accompanying comment from the editor (link added):

[As for the Byrd story, wire editor Andy Bechtel says: "We didn't run anything on the flap over his speech for lack of space, but we monitored it to see if the story would pick up steam. For whatever reason, it did not. This was a story that had more buzz on the Internet and radio than the wires. Only the AP covered it, and it was a one-day story for them." Molly Ivins' column on Byrd ran on the op-ed page March 9.]

My response, which they may or may not print, is as follows (link added):

The writer from Chapel Hill who was upset with the lack of local coverage about Sen. Robert C. Byrd’s recent speech needs to get a grip.

March 1, the senior Senator from West Virginia addressed an attempt by Senate leaders to ban a particular form of debate by fiat instead of following rules established to change the rules. They were trying to bypass uncomfortable discussion about judicial appointments – in effect, stifling the disagreement naturally inherent in any democracy.

In a tiny part of his speech, Byrd used the example of the Nazi-era German “Enabling Law” to illustrate his concern that legislating by extra-legal methods leads to no good.

Both sides of the isle consider Byrd “the conscience of the Senate.” His extensive understanding of history serves us well, particularly when his colleagues wish to avoid the mistakes of the past and want to understand the traditional philosophical foundations of the Senate.

It is insulting to compare him to the outrageous Joe McCarthy, whose tactics during the Red Scare are, I believe, in line with the current administration’s methods.

Perhaps the letter writer needs a remedial course in English as Byrd is not known for hiding behind fancy language. Perhaps he should read the complete speech, available on the Senator’s Web site.

The decision by the N&O to “monitor” the “flap” – and then not print anything – is vindication for my position that daily newspapers still serve the important gatekeeping function of separating real news from rumor and gossip. Keep it up!

(If you want to see the Senator's March 10 speech about the same subject, click here.)

The Big Lie Technique

Group W is defending its propaganda efforts. The Government Accountability Office said covert propaganda is not something in which our government should indulge itself. Group W's legal counsel's office disagrees, and claims the stuff they push isn't propaganda.

I guess we can add this to their tendency to repeat unsubstantiated so-called "facts" -- about Iraq, about Social Security, about the budget -- until everyone believes 'em. It's probably part and parcel of their "faith-based" approach to reality: who needs facts when God is on your side?