Mueller on Meet the Press, June 2nd.
MR. MUELLER: No. I’m just getting started on the job. And the beauty of the job is I have the opportunity to work with FBI special agents, the men and women in the FBI, who are remarkable and wonderful. And what gets lost in a lot of this dialogue is the job that they have done since September 11 in protecting this country. Within two weeks, they identified the 19 hijackers, within six weeks, they identified the fact that this was al-Qaeda, leading back to Osama bin Laden. Since September 11, they have been working day and night to protect the country from additional attacks. They are a wonderful group of individuals. It is the people that has made the bureau in the past, and I’m proud to be a part of it.
(via Blowback via Dack).
As Blowback points out, this was a mere 2 weeks after the bombing campaign in Afghanistan began on October 7.
Tuesday, June 04, 2002
Oooh, I see why all the libertarian-conservatives are A-OK with the FBI's new powers. They must have gotten the memo from CATO, which says everything is peachy.
Wait, the administration puts out a report about Global Warming and then Bush dismisses it?
I'm so glad the grownups are in charge.
I'm so glad the grownups are in charge.
Unsurprisingly, Cockburn and St. Clair are big fans of Paul Wellstone's anti-semitic Green opponent, who appears to be politically to the Right of him.
These idiots are just pissed off that no one in the power structure has ever given them a seat at the table. Can you blame them?
These idiots are just pissed off that no one in the power structure has ever given them a seat at the table. Can you blame them?
Who does Lloyd Grove think is behind MWO?
Reader M.S. sent me this from his recent online chat:
Lloyd Grove: Good morning, everyone. How come this short week has gone on so long? I am ready to relax this weekend, for sure. So, it seems, is that left wing Web site that last week was inciting an e-mail campaign against me for that "tell-all Washington memoirist David Brock in Sibley psychiatric ward" item. The e-mails seem to be fizzling out and I haven't noticed any new diatribes on the site, like the one comparing Brock to a courageous Soviet dissident and me to a Stalinist thug. Maybe the author of these learned pensees received a chilling phone call from his book publisher about the catastrophic consequences of yet another missed deadline. Anyhow, let's meet OUR deadlines right now.
If this isn't a throwaway comment then Grove believes those behind the site are under pressure for a book deadline. Anyone wanna guess who he's referring to? I vote Bob Somerby. But why would Somerby run his own site under his name and MWO under a pseudonym?
Anyone have other guesses who he means?
Reader M.S. sent me this from his recent online chat:
Lloyd Grove: Good morning, everyone. How come this short week has gone on so long? I am ready to relax this weekend, for sure. So, it seems, is that left wing Web site that last week was inciting an e-mail campaign against me for that "tell-all Washington memoirist David Brock in Sibley psychiatric ward" item. The e-mails seem to be fizzling out and I haven't noticed any new diatribes on the site, like the one comparing Brock to a courageous Soviet dissident and me to a Stalinist thug. Maybe the author of these learned pensees received a chilling phone call from his book publisher about the catastrophic consequences of yet another missed deadline. Anyhow, let's meet OUR deadlines right now.
If this isn't a throwaway comment then Grove believes those behind the site are under pressure for a book deadline. Anyone wanna guess who he's referring to? I vote Bob Somerby. But why would Somerby run his own site under his name and MWO under a pseudonym?
Anyone have other guesses who he means?
Jennifer Liberto's Salon article on MWO has the wrong angle for the story. She emphasizes two aspects -- the anonymity and therefore unaccountability of the site, and the site's occasionally email campaigns.
The anonymity angle makes it a mystery story and hints at deeper forces at work, as well as somehow questioning its legitimacy. The unaccountability spin is both irrelevant and false. What type of accountability is Liberto referring to? This is never made clear. Is it financial accountability - to customers and owners? We know that doesn't necessarily make for good media. That is part of the site's premise, in any case -- they're called whores for a reason. Besides, many many political publications either are known to or are rumored to lose oodles of cash (despite Mickey Kaus's pathological obsession, this phenomenon is not limited to the The American Prospect but is true of most conservative political publications as well, which would not survive without the deep pockets of its supporters.) Accountable to its critics? Well, MWO is as accountable to them as anyone. Accountable to its readers? As any MWO reader knows, emailing mwo@mediawhoresonline.com will often get you a response. Accountable to the Washington Beltway Cocktail Party Circuit? In the end, that is probably what she meant.
Full disclosure here: I am a long time reader and occasional contributor along with a lot of readers. But, contrary to the suspicions of a certain editor of a certain conservative publication, I have no inside knowledge of the inner workings of the site. My own belief is that people can play the "guessing game" all they want about who is behind MWO, but they're going to be severely disappointed in the end. It is possible to do what they do without being an "insider." In fact, rather more possible I would argue - what insider would have the time?
As for MWO's email campaigns, they are actually relatively few and far between. And, when they do call for them they are not simply because some journalist said a bad thing about Bill Clinton, but for more extreme whorish behavior. They didn't invent email campaigns.
Liberto fails completely to address the substance of anything posted on MWO's web site. She fails to attack the validity of anything they have written. Though she raises nebulous questions about their reliability due to their partisanship and anonymity (rumor is Solitary, Nasty, and Short write the words while Brutish takes care of the graphics), as most of what they do is to critique mainstream media it is difficult to know how they are unreliable factually. They aren't the first partisan magazine or e-zine to come down the road.
Some have seen Liberto's article as a hit piece. It may have been, but it was a pretty piss poor hit piece. I thought it was mostly just ignorant gossip-column style writing that qualifies as journalism these days. I hope Salon didn't pay too much for it.
UPDATE: I just noticed that the always fabulous Tamara Baker has a piece about this, which includes this quote from Maia Cowan, who was interviewed, but essentially ignored, by Liberto:
One of the most important moments of my life occurred years ago when I realized that how defensive I felt when somebody criticized me was directly proportional to the validity of the criticism.
Pity the mediawhores never had that Moment of Truth. They'd be better reporters for it.
In a world where Howie Kurtz's weekly suckfest Reliable Sources is what qualifies as media criticism, this comment is dead on.
The anonymity angle makes it a mystery story and hints at deeper forces at work, as well as somehow questioning its legitimacy. The unaccountability spin is both irrelevant and false. What type of accountability is Liberto referring to? This is never made clear. Is it financial accountability - to customers and owners? We know that doesn't necessarily make for good media. That is part of the site's premise, in any case -- they're called whores for a reason. Besides, many many political publications either are known to or are rumored to lose oodles of cash (despite Mickey Kaus's pathological obsession, this phenomenon is not limited to the The American Prospect but is true of most conservative political publications as well, which would not survive without the deep pockets of its supporters.) Accountable to its critics? Well, MWO is as accountable to them as anyone. Accountable to its readers? As any MWO reader knows, emailing mwo@mediawhoresonline.com will often get you a response. Accountable to the Washington Beltway Cocktail Party Circuit? In the end, that is probably what she meant.
Full disclosure here: I am a long time reader and occasional contributor along with a lot of readers. But, contrary to the suspicions of a certain editor of a certain conservative publication, I have no inside knowledge of the inner workings of the site. My own belief is that people can play the "guessing game" all they want about who is behind MWO, but they're going to be severely disappointed in the end. It is possible to do what they do without being an "insider." In fact, rather more possible I would argue - what insider would have the time?
As for MWO's email campaigns, they are actually relatively few and far between. And, when they do call for them they are not simply because some journalist said a bad thing about Bill Clinton, but for more extreme whorish behavior. They didn't invent email campaigns.
Liberto fails completely to address the substance of anything posted on MWO's web site. She fails to attack the validity of anything they have written. Though she raises nebulous questions about their reliability due to their partisanship and anonymity (rumor is Solitary, Nasty, and Short write the words while Brutish takes care of the graphics), as most of what they do is to critique mainstream media it is difficult to know how they are unreliable factually. They aren't the first partisan magazine or e-zine to come down the road.
Some have seen Liberto's article as a hit piece. It may have been, but it was a pretty piss poor hit piece. I thought it was mostly just ignorant gossip-column style writing that qualifies as journalism these days. I hope Salon didn't pay too much for it.
UPDATE: I just noticed that the always fabulous Tamara Baker has a piece about this, which includes this quote from Maia Cowan, who was interviewed, but essentially ignored, by Liberto:
One of the most important moments of my life occurred years ago when I realized that how defensive I felt when somebody criticized me was directly proportional to the validity of the criticism.
Pity the mediawhores never had that Moment of Truth. They'd be better reporters for it.
In a world where Howie Kurtz's weekly suckfest Reliable Sources is what qualifies as media criticism, this comment is dead on.
Salon has a decent article about Louis Freeh here (premium), but I think the previous article in the American Prospect (linked via TAPPED) is more on the money. The 90s were a time when being a CHA got you a free pass in the media and in politics. A few honest souls in the more "mainstream media" will carefully reveal they are aware of this fact, but most don't bother.
Monday, June 03, 2002
Sadly, this Top 10 Conservative idiots entry isn't very funny.
John "Big Brother" Ashcroft is watching you. Last week the Bush administration gave itself a collective woody and announced that the Fourth Amendment was toast. See, apparently the FBI needs "broad new powers to monitor Americans," according to Yahoo News, and John Ashcroft is salivating with excitement now that he can spy on websites, libraries, churches and political organizations without needing any evidence of criminal wrongdoing - oh, providing the goal is "detecting or preventing terrorism," of course. Civil liberties organizations are concerned that these new powers will mean a return to the civil rights abuses of the 60s and 70s, but apparently the government has promised that it won't, which means there's nothing to worry about. So if John Ashcroft is reading this, we'd just like to say: Luv ya, John! You're the man! You crazy whacked-out unconstitutional power-hungry psycho!
Did I miss the outrage in libertarian-conservative blogistan? Or maybe, as I've long suspected, it really is just conservative-libertarian...
John "Big Brother" Ashcroft is watching you. Last week the Bush administration gave itself a collective woody and announced that the Fourth Amendment was toast. See, apparently the FBI needs "broad new powers to monitor Americans," according to Yahoo News, and John Ashcroft is salivating with excitement now that he can spy on websites, libraries, churches and political organizations without needing any evidence of criminal wrongdoing - oh, providing the goal is "detecting or preventing terrorism," of course. Civil liberties organizations are concerned that these new powers will mean a return to the civil rights abuses of the 60s and 70s, but apparently the government has promised that it won't, which means there's nothing to worry about. So if John Ashcroft is reading this, we'd just like to say: Luv ya, John! You're the man! You crazy whacked-out unconstitutional power-hungry psycho!
Did I miss the outrage in libertarian-conservative blogistan? Or maybe, as I've long suspected, it really is just conservative-libertarian...
Digby sez:
Frankly, I don't think any liberal should expend one moment worrying about whether they are being uncivil or bad mannered when criticising the press. Compared to Freep or Lucianne, MWO is St. Francis of Assisi.
The vitriol on those sites is unequaled. And that makes me believe that they are likely the ones who send out the violent or threatening e-mails in MWO's name.
Furthermore, the accountability issue is a red herring. Who is the Washington Post accountable to? Shareholders. They care superficially about accuracy or truth, but they are held accountable only to a corporate board or a stock price. The fact that we know the name of Len Downie and can talk to him or about him is irrelevant as to whether he cares or will be moved by accusations of innacuracy or political bias. MWO has proved that.
There is no accountablity in the American press at all. Our libel laws are a joke. Anyone can print lies with impunity. Who are they kidding? Mwo is no less or no more accountable than the mainstream press so it's anonymity is irrelevant.
The reason people want to know who is behind MWO is because they want to judge their "social status." Are they "insiders." Where did they go to school. What are their credentials? Are they "somebody" we should worry about? If it's some flyover nobody, then who cares what they say.
They are scared because they can't peg this site as either "in" or "out" of their rarified little world and it's driving them crazy.
hehhehheh.
Frankly, I don't think any liberal should expend one moment worrying about whether they are being uncivil or bad mannered when criticising the press. Compared to Freep or Lucianne, MWO is St. Francis of Assisi.
The vitriol on those sites is unequaled. And that makes me believe that they are likely the ones who send out the violent or threatening e-mails in MWO's name.
Furthermore, the accountability issue is a red herring. Who is the Washington Post accountable to? Shareholders. They care superficially about accuracy or truth, but they are held accountable only to a corporate board or a stock price. The fact that we know the name of Len Downie and can talk to him or about him is irrelevant as to whether he cares or will be moved by accusations of innacuracy or political bias. MWO has proved that.
There is no accountablity in the American press at all. Our libel laws are a joke. Anyone can print lies with impunity. Who are they kidding? Mwo is no less or no more accountable than the mainstream press so it's anonymity is irrelevant.
The reason people want to know who is behind MWO is because they want to judge their "social status." Are they "insiders." Where did they go to school. What are their credentials? Are they "somebody" we should worry about? If it's some flyover nobody, then who cares what they say.
They are scared because they can't peg this site as either "in" or "out" of their rarified little world and it's driving them crazy.
hehhehheh.
The U.S. Attorney's Office and Ashcroft have differing opinions on the 2nd amendment, apparently.
The U.S. attorney's office argued yesterday in D.C. Superior Court that the District's ban on handguns should be upheld, brushing aside the Bush administration's new directive that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to bear firearms.
In the first of at least three cases that challenge the District's prohibition on handguns as unconstitutional, assistant U.S. attorneys filed motions defending the broad statute, citing a 15-year-old D.C. Court of Appeals decision as binding local precedent.
Over to you, Glenn.
The U.S. attorney's office argued yesterday in D.C. Superior Court that the District's ban on handguns should be upheld, brushing aside the Bush administration's new directive that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to bear firearms.
In the first of at least three cases that challenge the District's prohibition on handguns as unconstitutional, assistant U.S. attorneys filed motions defending the broad statute, citing a 15-year-old D.C. Court of Appeals decision as binding local precedent.
Over to you, Glenn.
David Neiwert has posted a quicky critique of the Liberto MWO article, voicing my own similar sentiments. I'll hopefully chime in later...
I have to chime in on Jennifer Liberto's not-very-good piece on Media Whores Online:
What I object to most of all is the utter lack of context to this piece. Liberto seems to be blithely unaware that the mass e-mail attack hardly originated with MWO. This strategem actually came into its own as a result of the ultra-conservative (and frankly neo-Patriot) Free Republic Web site. Ask anyone who dared write anything anti-conservative during the late 1990s what it was like to get "Freeped." The rabid MWO hordes clearly represent the flip side of this, but why shouldn't liberals be able to fire away with the same abandon and gusto as conservatives? And frankly, having sampled both sides, I think the MWO crowd on balance is more civilized, though probably only by degrees.
A noteworthy passage:
Of course, it's hard to take MWO seriously as a media watchdog, when it remains completely free of any accountability.
Actually, the main criteria for whether or not to take MWO seriously is whether or not they are right. And a lot of times, they catch these pundits and faux journalists with their pants down, and they do it very effectively.Liberto utterly fails to acknowledge this.
There's more.
I have to chime in on Jennifer Liberto's not-very-good piece on Media Whores Online:
What I object to most of all is the utter lack of context to this piece. Liberto seems to be blithely unaware that the mass e-mail attack hardly originated with MWO. This strategem actually came into its own as a result of the ultra-conservative (and frankly neo-Patriot) Free Republic Web site. Ask anyone who dared write anything anti-conservative during the late 1990s what it was like to get "Freeped." The rabid MWO hordes clearly represent the flip side of this, but why shouldn't liberals be able to fire away with the same abandon and gusto as conservatives? And frankly, having sampled both sides, I think the MWO crowd on balance is more civilized, though probably only by degrees.
A noteworthy passage:
Of course, it's hard to take MWO seriously as a media watchdog, when it remains completely free of any accountability.
Actually, the main criteria for whether or not to take MWO seriously is whether or not they are right. And a lot of times, they catch these pundits and faux journalists with their pants down, and they do it very effectively.Liberto utterly fails to acknowledge this.
There's more.
It appears that in my absence, the Daily Brew got his blog up and running, decreasing the degree to which "daily" is a misnomer.
William Safire is still upset that his pal Henry K. had his phone bugged.
Ah, the good 'ole days of Cointelpro..
Ah, the good 'ole days of Cointelpro..
Charles Murtaugh has a few obervations for those who believe that the movie version of The Sum of All Fears transformed the Islamo-fascists (not) from the book into neo-Nazis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)