Turdblossom Writes Letters

Dear Bob Novak:

It boils down to this: as a journalist, do you feel you have a responsibility to dig into the claims made by your sources, seek out evidence and come to a professional judgment as to the real facts? Or do you feel if a charge is breathtaking enough, thoroughly checking it out isn’t a necessity?

I know you might be concerned that asking these questions could restrict your ability to make sensational charges in your column, but don’t you think you have a responsibility to provide even a shred of supporting evidence before sullying the journalistic reputations of the Washington Post?

People used to believe journalists were searching for the truth. But your column increasingly seems to be focused on wishful thinking, hoping something is one way and diminishing the search for facts and evidence in favor of repeating your fondest desires. For example, while you do ask the CIA whether Ms. Plame sent her husband, you did not press Armitage and Libby when they said "Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger."

The difficulty with your approach is you reduced yourself to the guy in the bar who repeats what the fellow next to him says – “Wilson’s wife suggested sending him! Wilson’s wife suggested sending him!” – only louder, because it suits your pre-selected story line ("the CIA is attacking the Vice President") and you don’t want the facts to get in the way of a good fable. You have relinquished the central responsibility of an investigative reporter, namely to press everyone in order to get to the facts. You didn’t subject the statements of others to skeptical and independent review. You have chosen instead to simply repeat something someone else says because it agrees with the theme line your sources fed you, created the nifty counter-attack to shield the Vice President.

Oh I’m sorry. Did I say this was a letter to Novak criticizing him for his column outing Valerie Plame? I meant it was a letter to Dan Abrams to, once again, say things to the press Rove is unwilling to say under oath to HJC. (h/t TP)

74 replies
  1. MadDog says:

    A turd in the hand is worth 2 in the Bush:

    …I certainly didn’t meet with anyone at the Justice Department or either of the two U.S. Attorneys in Alabama about investigating or indicting Siegelman.

    Meet with folks? Heck, as The Turdblossom™ and Bush’s Brain®, Ah don’t take meetings with mah flunkies. Ah jest BlackBerry ‘em. Ya know, “do this or else!”

  2. prostratedragon says:

    You know, that Rove fellow is really pretty disagreeable. Belches sulfur when he talks.

  3. skdadl says:

    Is that letter to Abrams real? I’m still having trouble believing that.

    If it is real, it tells us right away something interesting about the difference between being a backroom boy and civilized communication. Beginning to end, that is bullying, overly detailed self-justification turned into aggression against a target. Look at all those questions — huh? huh? huh? Boy, does whoever wrote that need an editor. That is so awful. I can hardly believe how awfully self-revealing that is.

    If it is real, it is evidence that Karl Rove does not know how to cope with living outside of the UE bubble, or at least he does not know how he is going to sound to any reality-based community.

    If it isn’t real, of course, I am just going to be very embarrassed tomorrow morning. At the moment, I’m just so shocked by the tone and loss of control that I can’t analyse further.

    • JimWhite says:

      Rove’s temper is pretty well known, so it would be understandable that he could produce this. I don’t understand how it would come into the possession of Lopez at NRO. Surely Rove wouldn’t give it to her, would he? And don’t you think Abrams would give it to KO or to Rachel Maddow if he wanted to get it publicized?

      • emptywheel says:

        I was wondering the same thing. I’m particularly enamored of the timing. The letter was written five days ago. In the interim, Conyers has invited Rove, and Luskin has balked.

        Now it’s POSSIBLE that Rove, in a fit, gave this to K-Lo earlier in the week, hubristically ignoring how it might cause some legal problems. I can imagine he thought he had time to try to embarrass Abrams. But publishing this as KLo did today, when Luskin was chickening out, that’s curious.

        • Peterr says:

          I’d guess that hubris is the most important thing on K-Lo’s mind — her own, not Rove’s. The tone of the letter certainly sounds like Rove’s GQ interview, and it fits with Rove’s own vision of the media.

          On the other hand, I can’t imagine Abrams not mentioning a letter like this if he had received it. He’d be crowing from the rooftops, not hiding it under a pillow.

          Sadly, I’d bet on this being a figment of K-Lo’s imagination. Though I’d be happy to have Mr Rove come before Mr Conyers, under oath, and prove me wrong.

          • WilliamOckham says:

            Or maybe Rove chickened out from actually sending it to Abrams. I can envision a scenario where Rove writes the letter and Luskin doesn’t let him send it. Then it leaks out. I bet Rove disavows the letter.

  4. WilliamOckham says:

    Totally OT:

    Today is April 18. Does anybody with access to PACER have this:

    ORDERED that, also on or before April 18, 2008, OA shall file an affidavit setting forth the answers to those questions posed by the Court during the March 28, 2008 conference call as to which defense counsel was unable to provide answers. Specifically, OA shall indicate: (1) whether it asserted in writing that it was processing FOIA requests subject to its administrative discretion prior to doing asserting administrative discretion in connection with its June 2007 production of documents in response to CREW’s FOIA request; (2) when OA ceased accepting FOIA requests for processing; and (3) whether OA has functioned in a manner consistent with the PRA since determining that it was subject to that statute rather than the FRA.

    • looseheadprop says:


      I have a pacer account, but I need the index # of the case, and the court (ic. Southern disrict of ny, or Northern district of Va) as the case may be.

      • WilliamOckham says:


        This is CREW v. OA in the US District Court for D.C. Is this the index # of the case:

        Civil Action No. 07-964 (CKK)

        The Order that I quoted from has this header:

        Case 1:07-cv-00964-CKK Document 41


  5. jnardo says:

    Did Karl Rove write that? The one thing that makes me think he did is that in spite of its length and the litany of questions and challenges, the author makes only one actual denial: “And I certainly didn’t meet with anyone at the Justice Department or either of the two U.S. Attorneys in Alabama about investigating or indicting Siegelman. My involvement in the campaign was to approve a request that the President appear at a Riley campaign fundraising event, one of several score fundraising events the President did that election cycle.” That is typical Rove style, to make statements of specifics that obscure the truth. If it wasn’t Rove, it was someone adept at the Rovian style…

    • RevDeb says:

      And I certainly didn’t meet with anyone at the Justice Department or either of the two U.S. Attorneys in Alabama about investigating or indicting Siegelman.

      So he didn’t meet with them. Did he speak with them on the phone? Did he e-mail, fax IM blackberry or have any other kinds of contact?

      Weasel words from one of the biggest weasels known to humankind.

      Just saying.

      • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

        Yep, think you’ve nailed it.
        Crooks&Liars has the clip of Abrams talking about the letter.
        Here’s hoping Mr Abrams uses the letter as evidence in his continuing investigation.
        What a cheering thought!

  6. WilliamOckham says:

    The date on the letter at the Corner is April 13 (this past Sunday). Abrams says he got it today, the same day the Corner published it. Either that 13 is an OCR error for 18 (pretty common, but odd) or something funky is going on.

    • emptywheel says:


      Which says Rove sent it after the “invitation” from Conyers.

      Odd, because it’s going to force Paul CLement to work extra hard at coming up with a reason why this is protected from subpoena.

      • BooRadley says:

        Bullseye, as per usual.

        Begin wild-ass-guess-alert

        Maybe Rove is using this as leverage, because the WH refused a request?

        Rover’s temper tantrum started with Defcon 1, gold bars Luskin’s “sure,” he’ll testify. To which Clement and everyone else in the WH responded “no, no Karl, we don’t want you testifying, please, please….” When Defcon 1 didn’t achieve the desired results, so now Karl wrote to Abrams.

        Karl’s assuming probably correctly that the WH will go to any lengths to insulate him from a subpoena.

        Maybe it has something to do with the old fault lines between DeadEye and Junior or GHWB/JB3 and Junior. Maybe someone from the WH leaked something unfavorable about Rover (in a conservative publication that we don’t track closely) and he wants that person fired?

        End wild-ass-guess-alert

  7. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    It boils down to this: as a journalist, do you feel you have a responsibility to dig into the claims made by your sources, seek out evidence and come to a professional judgment as to the real facts? Or do you feel if a charge is breathtaking enough, thoroughly checking it out isn’t a necessity?

    I assumed this was more droll EW wit.
    Then I read the original letter… 8-

    File under: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth And Related Dysfunctional, Destructive Delusions
    Accountability was never Rove’s strong suit.

    Newsweek might want to rethink Rove’s contract after they read his letter to Abrams.

  8. LabDancer says:

    Abrams versus Evil Personified is just what Dan needs to distinguish him from the failed [& from appearances bitter] Tucker & the other try-out wet pundits Mitchell & Gregory to get into the MSNBC upper echelons of Timmeh & Tweetybird & Keith – plus take out the suspicions that his presence is somehow owing to the preeminence of father Floyd. He’s got a turd by the tail with trying to take ownership of the Siegelman saga, especially since his faux Countdown/MSNBC “brand” accommodation format doesn’t allow for kind of focused that the Turdblossom merits [The material is almost inexhaustible. MSNBC could put 3 hours daily 5 days a week on Rove & it would still take a generation to repeat a theme.] Plus it seemed to me he was off to roaring start with featuring Scott Horton but for some reason he never gave the gifted Horton room to draw a breath & I doubt Scott will stay unless that changes. What Dan needs is to sit down & watch the gentle style of Bill Moyers, who was typically superb with the two ladies tonight, both superb, one the 25 year old BAGHDAD BUREAU CHIEF for McLatchy newspapers, which Juan Cole links to daily on that situation there, the other a sort of academic cousin of Ms. E Wheel on separation of church & state – & Bill looked like his laughlines would burst as he ended by telling us he’s got Jeremiah Wright lined up for next week.

    But since MSNBC only has one success story on getting the story both out & CORRECT, I’ll believe Dan v Karl smackdown is real when we see it.

  9. Rayne says:

    What an arrogant f*ck that fat slug Rove is.

    He’s gone beyond tweaking and slapping the opposition to outright slugging them. It may be hubris, but he only does this because he’s got something up his sleeve.

    Does he have enough intel gleaned from domestic spying on anybody and everybody who might press him to answer the questions he asks himself? What other card is he going to play to stop what should be the next step — or has he already played it, since he’s already ignoring a subpoena?

  10. MarieRoget says:

    Now that it’s confirmed by Abrams he in fact did receive this letter from Rove, I can’t help but speculate Rove may think he can play Abrams somehow, that this might be a first salvo in a plan to shape how his role in the Seigelman prosecution is covered. Hence the questions, the weasel words & the non-denial denials. Reads a bit over the top though, Karl. Should try to stay a little more in control of yrself & that temper while trying to twist the issue back on Dan Abrams…

    Must be tough to have to dirty his hands sending anything to Abrams really, since Rove’s more used to turning to an aide or fellow Bushie & shouting, “Off with his head!” or something more vulgar. And then making it happen.

  11. skdadl says:

    EW, I was too flummoxed by Rove last night to remember to say this, but your opening play on the letter is wonderful satire.

    I’ve just been looking at Rove’s closing paragraphs again, and they are fascinating. He throws in that little dig about “your cable show” — well, to me that’s a dig, but what does he think he’s doing? The last two paragraphs especially amount to a kind of taunting analysis/admission of the impossible world he’s created for Abrams and all us other little people to live and work in. I know the glove image is originally Siegelman’s, but Rove loves it — it works for him, exactly as he wants things to work. “The glove fits! The glove fits!” — it’s eerie. And who can read that without remembering another glove?

  12. MarieRoget says:

    Is it possible Rove is somehow trying to gin up a feud between himself & Abrams, skewing news stories to center around Abrams having a spat w/Rove, or even Abrams’ journalism cred? Any of those could turn tv coverage into a Rove v. Abrams tabloid-style smackdown, obscuring the real issues w/the Siegelman prosecution.

    Just casting around to figure out why Rove would send a letter at all. Why not just remain silent…

    • Jim Clausen says:

      Typical Roveian tactic. Attack your opponent projecting your weakness or perception thereof on your opponent.

      KKKarl is very vulnerable in Alabama. Hence the opening salvo. Myself, I think this will backfire bigtime and if Gold Bar Luskin let him send it he was a fool. It’s a whole lot different legal climate since the Plame Affair.
      Karma and hubris, slime your way outa this KKKarl.

    • WilliamOckham says:

      The letter is a classic Rove ploy. Lots of bluster, denials of accusations that nobody made, raising questions that sound like denials but really aren’t, and off-hand insults against his accusers. He very much wants to make Abrams the issue to obscure what happened in the Siegelman case.

      This letter shows how worried Rove is. He’s totally dependent on Bush to keep him out of trouble, and that’s an uncomfortable position for him.

  13. BooRadley says:

    OT, gold bars Luskin pulled back. Now he says his “sure,” was “taken out of context.”

    At the same time gold bars is in reverse, his client charges ahead.

    • MarieRoget says:

      If he wants to hides behind that old excuse, perhaps Luskin should make a phone call next time instead of sending an email. Abrams didn’t “disappear” it, he preserved it. Novel idea.

  14. pdaly says:

    Karl Rove’s letter to Dan Abrams reads like a shopping list of details Rove would like to gather BEFORE he has to appear in testimony under oath. It’s like Luskin’s move all over again–trying to shake loose from Viveca Novak information that Time magazine had of Rove’s interaction with Matt Cooper re: the Plame leak. Shake the tree. See what falls out.

    This quote from Rove’s letter to Abrams seems revealing of Rove’s work.

    Didn’t it strike you as foolish for me to ask someone with no particular experience to undertake a task requiring adroit surveillance and shadowing skills, a mission with such potential to blow up in everyone’s faces?

    So these are the criteria Rove uses when hiring a hit team on a political opponent. Looks like he’s thought this out for prior occasions. Skilled in surveillance and shadowing. Skilled in hiding one’s tracks.

    Then Rove uses his letter to Abrams to call (Dana) Jill Simpson fat:

    Did you ever consider that the Governor’s security detail might have taken note of an ample-sized, redheaded woman who kept showing up at his events with a camera?

    I think Rove does not like Ms. Simpson. How childish. But better to call Simpson names than to make a declarative statement on the record that she is lying.

    Ultimately, however, it is heart warming that even Karl Rove believes there is a time and place for ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ Saying so and proving so are two very different realities. Now if only Rove would take that distinction and go to work pro bono to help some of those prisoners in Gitmo to receive a fair hearing. Innocent until proven guilty and all. Who knows, some of those prisoners might even be authoritarian types perfect for carrying on the neocon agenda. Just sitting in prison– what a waste of talent.

    • Jim Clausen says:

      In spytalk this is call “shaking the tree” to see what falls out. KKKarl is very nervous. Frogmarch anyone?

      • pdaly says:

        I found a youtube video. It is grainy but I think I caught a glimpse of Karl Rove in the hot seat.
        See what you think.

        skdadl @ 29. I agree totally.

        • Jim Clausen says:

          Ageed. I used to,live in Gilbert AZ where pecan groves met developers. Great anaolgy. Thanks

    • skdadl says:

      This quote from Rove’s letter to Abrams seems revealing of Rove’s work.

      Didn’t it strike you as foolish for me to ask someone with no particular experience to undertake a task requiring adroit surveillance and shadowing skills, a mission with such potential to blow up in everyone’s faces?

      So these are the criteria Rove uses when hiring a hit team on a political opponent. Looks like he’s thought this out for prior occasions. Skilled in surveillance and shadowing. Skilled in hiding one’s tracks.

      That is a wonderful passage, isn’t it? “A mission with such potential to blow up in everyone’s faces” — somebody has been thinking about these things a lot.

      A mission … a mission. Funny. I am so seldom planning missions m’self. So seldom that it wouldn’t occur to me even to use the word.

      • Loo Hoo. says:

        I’m thinking Rove actually thought Abrams might answer him, and let him know what the evidence is!

        • skdadl says:

          Well, yes — you guys have convinced me that that’s what he was probably thinking. Heh. Didn’t work, did it?

          Before he left the White House, even if he was known to have a temper, did Rove ever show that in public?

          • Loo Hoo. says:

            I don’t remember seeing a temper, just blind “I will not change my mind” attitude. “I know everything” and “Don’t talk to me.”

    • looseheadprop says:

      I agree thtit is a list of things he would like to know. It reads like an FBI investigation plan. However, I think it is also notable for the narowness of the things it asks for. I assume he is trying to direct scrutiny towards theing he knows are not htere or twoards witnesses he knows will back him up,

      Notice how he is definiing “campaign operative” as if that could only mean a paid staffer ro consultant. Notice how he is talking about “expense reports” which are second tier (what she herself says about where she want and what she spent)documnentationto document her travels as opposed to crdit card or ATM withdrawals, first tier documentation (what a neutral third party says about what was spent and where).

      Also look at the witnesses he pointing to : Folks he already knows have been on record as contradicting her, but many of them are folks who might have exposure as co-conspirators, so you honestly expect them to back her up without a cooperation agreement with a relevant prosecutor?

      It’s one big strawman. And the telephone records thingy I find revealing b/c as commnetor pointed out above, it may be that he wants to know if they have his blackberry records-or he may have been careful about what numbers he gave to her and always had her call in to others.

      The part that cracked me up though was when he dared them to produce any emails or correspondence–I believe he thnks thay have done an adequate job fo purging and destroying all those missing emails. I don’t know if he is right, but ist suggests to me that he did most of his dirty work via those missing emails and believes that without those emails, he will walk.

      • Jim Clausen says:

        It sure is nice to have the jerk wondering rather than knowing the evidence against him. His smugness will be his downfall. Unfortunately the GOP uses him becuz he is all they got.

        LHP your series has been wonderful for us legal eagles who do not know the legal culture as you do. Thanks much.

      • pdaly says:

        The ‘first tier’ and ’second tier’ distinctions are interesting. I wouldn’t have noticed that–thanks for pointing it out.

        Yes, his confidence on the emails is a bit unfounded unless he has first hand knowledge of what emails were or were not saved.

        Thanks for your helpful posts on the legal aspects of this case and the myriad others this administration has paraded past us.

  15. MarieRoget says:

    Rove’s letter, plus his speeches, Q&As, & other statements since leaving WH employ have been a tad revealing, haven’t they? First rule of being a truly successful in-the-dark operator I would think is knowing how to keep your mouth shut about it & choosing what you do say very carefully. Perhaps that Rovian temper gets in the way.

    • Jim Clausen says:

      “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”

      “When we act we create our own reality…”

      “We will fu%k him like he has never been fu%ked before”

      Temper, hubris, fantasy, manipulation, and filth.

    • WilliamOckham says:

      Wow, the Administration seems to have moved beyond Orwell and straight into Lewis Carroll territory with this one.

      The OA doesn’t have a document that says when they made their decision, but they swear it was on the same day as the OLC memo, but after they got the OLC memo, which makes the OLC memo “pre-decisional and deliberative”.

      • PJEvans says:

        That sounds like ‘the cat ate my homework’ to me.
        Someone should ask them to prove that sequence of events.

        • bmaz says:

          No, no, no. Don’t you understand? That sequence was part of the “deliberative process”; therefore no one has a right to ask or know that information.

    • MadDog says:

      Sorry to be so late to the party yet again, but this excessive drooling takes time to clean up. You just can’t believe the mess I make. *g*

      Oh, I see the OA is down to its last straws of defense:

      Shorter OA: “Oh Puleeeeeze! We need Pixie dust, puleeeeeeze!”

  16. bmaz says:

    Yeah, don’t you especially like the”final decision”? Hmmm, where would the Office of Administration, the nuts and bolts of the Executive Branch of our Federal government, post notice of a fundamental change in the way the entire office is perceived, not to mention a complete shift in the way it’s act are recorded and reported?

    A. A formal notice on the agency website
    B. A formal notice published in the Federal Register or some other official journal/report
    C. An official press release
    D. A statement or notice issued by the White House
    E. Etching graffiti on the wall of Larry Craig’s stall at Union Station Pleading it as a disingenuous position in an obscure court document after being sued.

  17. masaccio says:

    Someone read the La Raza case and decided that as long as no one mentioned the OLC opinion, they didn’t have to disclose it. That OLC opinion must really stink, kind of like the other garbage from a formerly respected organization.

    • bmaz says:

      You almost have to wonder if the OLC opinion actually supports their decision at all. You would normally think that it it did, they would “rely” on it and cite it as authority for the propriety of their controversial position.

  18. WilliamOckham says:

    According to the OA, the sequence of events is:

    1. April 2006, The White House Counsel’s Office asked the OLC for legal advice on whether or not the OA was subject to FOIA.

    2. Between then and June 2007, the OA sometimes, but not consistently, claimed to be processing FOIA requests as a matter of administrative discretion.

    3. On June 25, 2007, they said they were going to move to dismiss the CREW lawsuit because the OA wasn’t an agency subject to FOIA.

    4. On Aug. 7, 2007, the judge said the OA had explain by Aug. 22, 2007 why the OA wasn’t subject to FOIA.

    5. On Aug. 22, 2007, the OLC sends them the memo. Later, on that same day, the final decision is made. The OA submits their response to the court without mentioning the OLC memo.

    I’m sure it was just a coincidence of timing that the OLC finished their memo on Aug. 22. My only question is: Did they scrub the OA website before or after the OLC memo?

    • WilliamOckham says:

      Slight correction:

      5. On Aug. 21, 2007, the OLC sends them the memo. Later, on that same day, the final decision is made.

      6. On Aug. 22, 2007, OA submits their response to the court without mentioning the OLC memo.

      I’m sure it was just a coincidence of timing that the OLC finished their memo on Aug. 21.

  19. JohnLopresti says:

    There are going to be some fairly knowledgeable people at a convention in Washington DC ~June 12. I wonder if there are planned panels on topics such as stamping documents Treat as if TopSecret, Fourth Branch hybrid composite function of the nonpresidency uncongressional vicepresident’s office, the impossibile costs of recovering email for >200 days for >10 offices in the executive, or even review of possible backdating of OLC memos, plus the new stovepiped department of defense approvals of state sponsored torture. Cass Sunstein and Laurence Tribe will make presentations, Linda Greenhouse and Dahlia Lithwick will lead discussions. It will be a staid event, with interesting coffeetime exchanges. Though the brochure, linked, avers almost none of this.

  20. masaccio says:

    So, I google up Jean Lin, and find that in most of her Federal Court appearances, she says the judge can’t hear the case because it interferes with the established prerogatives of the executive branch.

  21. rkilowatt says:

    [email protected] “You would normally think…”
    Part of the criminal mind is to take advantage of decent attitudes and behaviors.

    “… the whole atmosphere of every prison is an atmosphere of glorification of that sort of gambling in “clever strokes” which constitutes the very essence of theft, swindling and all sorts of similar anti-social deeds.” PKropotkin’s Memoirs, ca 1899

  22. MadDog says:

    OT – Atrios links to a substantial NYT article that is a must read:

    Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand

    A PENTAGON CAMPAIGN Retired officers have been used to shape terrorism coverage from inside the TV and radio networks.

    In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo Bay. The detention center had just been branded “the gulag of our times” by Amnesty International, there were new allegations of abuse from United Nations human rights experts and calls were mounting for its closure.

    The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.

    To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

    Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

    The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

    Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves…

    • MadDog says:

      And more from that 11 page NYT article:

      Five years into the Iraq war, most details of the architecture and execution of the Pentagon’s campaign have never been disclosed. But The Times successfully sued the Defense Department to gain access to 8,000 pages of e-mail messages, transcripts and records describing years of private briefings, trips to Iraq and Guantánamo and an extensive Pentagon talking points operation.

      These records reveal a symbiotic relationship where the usual dividing lines between government and journalism have been obliterated.

      Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions.”

      Though many analysts are paid network consultants, making $500 to $1,000 per appearance, in Pentagon meetings they sometimes spoke as if they were operating behind enemy lines, interviews and transcripts show. Some offered the Pentagon tips on how to outmaneuver the networks, or as one analyst put it to Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, “the Chris Matthewses and the Wolf Blitzers of the world.” Some warned of planned stories or sent the Pentagon copies of their correspondence with network news executives. Many — although certainly not all — faithfully echoed talking points intended to counter critics

      (My Bold)

      • Loo Hoo. says:

        NYT did proud. Gives me hope that this whole sewer can be fixed.

        General McInerney, the Fox analyst, for example, sits on the boards of several military contractors, including Nortel Government Solutions, a supplier of communication networks.

        It’s nice to know that these kinds of experts will be held to account.

        Am I Pollyanna?

        • MadDog says:

          What I found disquieting about the NYT article, was the fact that the NYT spent almost all their writing about these military “analysts”, and a miniscule amount about their corporate MSM enablers.

          To me, the real story is the corporate MSM enablers. Willing propagandists who don’t cover news, but instead are complicit in “Propaganda for Profit”.

          Yes, shame on the former military “analysts”, but more shame on their corporate MSM enablers!

        • bobschacht says:

          “It’s nice to know that these kinds of experts will be held to account.”

          Not until they have to wear “I am a Pentagon shill” placards while being interviewed on TV.

          That’ll be the day we know they’ve been held to account.

          Bob in HI

  23. JohnLopresti says:

    Having worked formerly raising cows, I thought I would mention a topic addressing the origin of the President’s creative ‘handle’ TblossM, in a long ago thread. Today I looked at the mycologic sites available to explain the affinity of mushrooms with their preferred growing substrate, an exercise which the reader may verify by a google search. Perhaps KRove creates phamphlets overnight, when supplied the proper substrate.

    re 60+61, there were some excellent threads on the prior ew site concerning payola of reporters, timelines of which scandals might be an interesting correlation with the television variety. I stay away from television. Because of JudyJudy’s reporting background there were frequent discussions of the important topic of suborned media voices. I will have to read the NYT multipage article more closely, but it seems to be fairly dispassionate, even bordering on a vacuous recounting of the daily grind of the newsmachine.

    I wanted to leave a link to the mushroom bloom from cowmanure, but have yet to find much more than hiker journals and some quaint but erudite countryside treatises. This is a site with a slight mention of bovines as friends of blossomingMycetes, but with fairly interesting camera work, albeit not quite the specific images that would illustrate the synergy of fungus and tud.

  24. bmaz says:

    Hey Randiego, are you lurking around? Good thing you didn’t pick this series to come over for a beer and ballgame! Ouch. 22 innings one night for the Padres, then they give up 22 runs to the DBacks the next two nights.

    JThomason – This may be one group of humans whose brain function would actually benefit greatly from psychedelics.

  25. JohnLopresti says:

    [email protected] or 65,JT, there is a fairly new book at Project Gutenberg that launches into the pastorale though there is dispute between the ag value of equus as compared to bovine; having studied agricultural economics in a variety of fields this seemed mundane, but imagisticaly it might fit KR’s record as a muckraking specialist; most of what I learned about his work was bland reporting in the Libby matter, whereas most of his documents remained protected by the GJ seal, five appearances in that matter.

  26. JThomason says:

    OT I think. I am listening to Joan Borysenko on Hay House radio and she just allowed that “that a wheel spins only because of the emptiness at its center.” Is this relevant?

Comments are closed.