In Which I Pretend that the Boss Reads Emails from Me

Ana, thank you for posting this. Greenwald's original post should be must-reading for our current crop of dcpolitico-journos.

"People say things they'd like to take back all the time on chat shows. God knows I have, and the main problem is usually that the format doesn't allow people to reveal their full thinking on an issue. Maybe that's the case here."

Watch the clip again. Stengel's emphatic tone sure suggests otherwise.

Either that, or he succumbs way too easily to groupthink.

Or maybe he was chatting up Norah O'Donnell, hoping to make her belch out that coarse laughter of hers.

He's typical.

And not to be OT or anything, but whats become of Mr. Mike? His picture is gone, and most of his posts seem to be gone as well.

Did he pick up his ball and go home?

I saw that show on Saturday. What a sad excuse of hot air parading around as actual news reporters. What a bunch of self-important oh look at me and listen to my very special insights waste of carbon dioxide producers they are. No amount of offsets will EVER undo the waste the emanates from their tailpipes.

Monica Goodling, DoJ liason to the White House, will take the 5th in her upcoming testimony. Link below.

http://tinyurl.com/3a46tg

When can we use HTML tags?

Roger,
If memory serves, Ana said Kinsley would only be here for a week. I'd guess his term expired and he went softly into the night.

"mendacious"

Ewww, Mr. Mike residue.

The only way this will look bad on the dems is if nothing happened. But look! 5th Amendment claim! I love whole "guilty before proven innocent" theme surrounding it too. So what now? Is this the new tactic? What would happen if Mr. President claims 5th amendment? hmmmm....

The consensus seemed universal among the bloated-with-unjustified-smarmy-self-satisfaction gasbags on Teh Tweety Show.

Going after Karl is so 2006, Ana Marie. Clearly, that is what Rick meant.

Why are you bringing up the past that no one remembers? (AKA Why do you hate America?)

Rick's editorial mandate demands New, New, New! He's tired of editing the same old crap.

Pinning down Karl Rove, Yawn! Unless they can do it in a mudpit in DuPont Circle.

The Dems have to give a policy for fixing Iraq, Healthcare, and who knows what else. Now that is interesting!

Rick's got to keep it funky fresh isn't that why you got hired?

Isn't that why Rick got put on the talk show on the first place? To say something new and interesting, or something at least that he thought sounded new and interesting.

Hey, you work for TIME now.

Are you really, truly surprised to learn that your masters don't necessarily put the quest for justice and truth before all else?

Go ahead. Say you're shocked.

The amazing thing about that exchange on Matthew's show is how everyone (including the clueless Joe Biden) seem to still think Karl Rove is some kind of political genius. I can see how it might have looked that way in the short term after the 2004 vote, but look at what's happened since; Bush's approval rating's have been steadily declining, the GOP lost control of the House and the Senate (and the political agenda) and now scandal after scandal is coming to light.

Rove was never a genius, he was just ruthless and willing to bend every rule he could to the point of breaking and beyond. But instead of pointing this out, and making the obvious observation that sooner or later his tactics were bound to come back to haunt him, these cynical media insiders actually seem to worship the man.

Of course, they get their story ideas from Matt Drudge, too...no wonder the country's a mess. "Liberal media" indeed...

Thank you, Ana. Please let us know when he responds.

I've got to say, I appreciate that this blog is responsive to talkback posts and that, so far, the worthwhile comments to "Frist!" nonsense posts ratio is pretty good.

Now if you can get Stengel to not dismiss Greenwald's criticism reflexively, and stop and consider many of us had the same reaction watching it unfold live, then we'd really be getting somewhere.

What is this "accountability" thing you have going Ana Marie? You are so 2006!

You are remembering things that the WH actually said? Get with it and move on Ana Marie, you have to let this go or drink more.

Remember its about feelings. Maybe if you start phrasing your posts about how you feel about things you will be more credible.

Combined with Jay Carney's initial reaction to the US Attorney firings this lack of interest in the story on Stengel's part makes one wonder what other important stories are being ignored at Time...

Ana said:
"People say things they'd like to take back all the time on chat shows. God knows I have, and the main problem is usually that the format doesn't allow people to reveal their full thinking on an issue. Maybe that's the case here."

Well, let me parse for a little bit in order to show you that this is highly unlikely...

We don't hear him say "I don't think it's a good idea for Dems to go after Karl Rove," or "it's politically unwise for Dems to go after Karl Rove." No, what we hear is what RICHARD STENGEL WANTS.

First, he says "I am so uninterested," not "Americans are so uninterested" or "voters are so uninterested" or something like that. The video clearly shows he's voicing his own desire there. Second, the phrasing "so uninterested" is a choice that can only be described as sarcastic emphasis, as opposed to objective third party analysis/advice. "Dude, you are so not getting laid by that supermodel," or "I am so unenthusiastic about paying my taxes," etc. You get the idea- he's not just thinking this isn't a good idea for somebody else, he's personally "so not into" this idea. It's a way for him to emphasize, in a hip fashion, his own personal distaste for investigating the White House.

So while Richard Stengel might want to take those words back, it's too late. By doing some (excessive) parsing of his words, we see that Richard Stengel HIMSELF very desperately WANTS Dems to avoid investigating the White House. We can speculate as to WHY that is so, and Glenn Greenwald has already come up with a plausible theory, but perhaps Mr. Stengel could come clean to Ana (and Swampland) to explain, not why he thinks it's politically unwise for Dems to investigate the White House (because we all know that's bulls--t), but why he PERSONALLY and ADAMANTLY doesn't want Dems to investigate the White House.

Best of luck to you, Ana, in getting an answer from that arrogant a--hat. Don't hold your breath.

My take on Rove:
Bush cannot be re-elected, Cheney's not running. Rove will drive the administration to the ground in order to keep himself legal for the next Republican candidate to hire him on. Rove is the only one who needs to survive, and Bush is playing along, knowingly, I cannot say, but he is playing along. Bush wants to save his legacy, have Rove resign. But then that would ruin his career, oh well.

I think it's worse than that.

I think Bush and Cheney are in deep criminal trouble, and their only hope is to stonewall and stop investigations through intimidation.

As for TIME, I guess they just think justice being served is icky.

But of course, Ana is going to get a straightforward answer from Mr. Stengel, and then we can all feel good about this American journalistic institution.

And best of all, Ana, Joe, et al. will get those paychecks!

Is this Stengel character the same one who hired Kristol, Krauthammer and the rapidly rightward moving Kinsley and Klein all for the magazine? Is so, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the twerp doesn't want poor Karl Rove to be made uncomfortable.

Your willingness to follow up and get a confirmation/clarification is commendable. However, I'd disagree on what's the "second, larger" issue. Or to put it another way, there's ultimately the third, largest issue: Do Mr. Stengel's words accurately reflect the criteria by which he decides what's newsworthy?

Look at that quote again...he's "so not interested" because of the political-gamesmanship angle. Whether it's a legitimate story about abuse of power and damage to a critical department of the federal government plays no role in his determination of the story's importance. That, to me (and to Greenwald, if I'm reading him correctly), is the truly questionable, perhaps inexcusable, aspect of his statement. It's also the issue that you REALLY need to get his confirmation/clarification on.

BTW, whether or not he was just succumbing to groupthink, per another commenter, isn't it telling that that's the way the groupthink automatically tended among the assembled insider/bigshot panel?

And if "[p]eople say things they'd like to take back all the time on chat shows...and the main problem is usually that the format doesn't allow people to reveal their full thinking on an issue," wouldn't the obvious solution be just not to appear on them?

Joan Walsh has a blog entry about this exact subject at Salon today.

For some reason the Beltway media is not that interested in the White House getting itself into a fight. The snappy cowboys always win against the hordes of Indians, haven't you watched enough TV to know that?

Except that this is a recapitulation of Little Bighorn....

Ana, thanks for following up on this and linking to Greenwald's powerful post.

Right on, Ana Marie. I might have put it a little less delicately, but then again, Rick Stengel doesn't sign my paycheck.

I was as astonished as Glenn Greenwald by that clip from the Chris Matthews show.

It would not have surprised me at all to hear card-carrying members of the right-wing noise machine rattle off talking points about how it's all about gotcha and revenge, the Democrats are overreaching, no one wants to hear Rove testify, yadda yadda.

But these were all ostensibly mainstream journalists who cover the White House or head up DC bureaus. And yet none of them showed the slightest interest in getting to the truth about the roles of Rove and Miers in the US Attorney firings. Pretty darn curious. It kind of defies credulity. Wouldn't these journalists, whatever their political sympathies, find such a story interesting and worth pursuing? Evidently not.

This leads me to the question: How dependent are these folks on staying in good favor with Rove and the White House communications shop in order to do their day-to-day jobs? Will they be cut off and shunned if they fail to take a dive for Karl Rove while moonlighting on the talk-show circuit? Could it be that Beltway journalists are the last ones to cower in fear of Karl Rove, long after the American voter and the Democratic majorities in Congress have taken his measure and begun cutting him down to size?

I love the Chris Matthews Show, and I do--more than most anyone here--fret about the possibility that Democrats could look too much like they are trying to settle scores and too little like they are pushing policy, when in fact they are doing the latter but not getting coverage for it (why did I only learn yesterday on NPR's Marketplace about the Employee Free Choice Act, or union "card check" bill, and no one is blogging about it? That is the most fantastic news I've heard in a long time).

Still, even I thought Stengel went overboard with that comment. And this was on the heels of an amazing pronouncement a week or two ago on Charlie Rose that Joe Klein was becoming a "star" on Swampland. This was when Klein was receiving almost nothing but hostile invective in the comments, before the more recent turn of events in which he has garnered more support. That seemed very bizarre.

-Alan

Just to run a little defense for Joe Biden -- I saw the clip of the Matthews show on Youtube (linked through Greenwald's) column, and Matthews showed Biden speaking in 2005 to Rove's "genius". When Democrats still feared him. Now we laugh. He's not a genius. He's a crook.

Have never noticed Stengel on TV before. After Sunday's performance don't expect to see much of him again. What a putz.

Doesn't a fight between Democrats and the White House sell magazines? It seems Time would love this situation (unless I'm wrong about Time).

Sure, that fight may sell magazines.

But the corporate perception, rightly or wrongly, is that a GOP administration is "better for business." Think tax policy, etc.

Time's corporate. No surprise they'll feed you biased news.

Still, I'm curious to see what Ana's boss tells her to tell us. Whatever it is, no matter how bogus, she'll stick around here, workin' for the man.

Slackerinc, take a look at this piece, and come back when you're done. I'll wait.

http://tinyurl.com/38v8vj

Are you back? Good. NOW are you convinced that Dems aren't overreaching, and (more importantly) that it doesn't really matter how it "looks" to the Beltway elite?

Just listening to Dodd on Wolf and he hit a home run calling out this whole administration of malfeasance and misfeasance. Although he did down play the Hagel call for impeachment, stating we need to get all these 'issues' straightened out so we can move forward.

Best line was something like Fielding is giving bad advice. Iran-Contra ain't workin' in the 21st Century. My thought is that the GOP made their own bed, with a little help from the likes of Lieb-gang of 14. Or the Great Bring It On Dime Store Cowboy actually rode his bike into a box canyon and is getting caught with his chaps down.

Everybody is always against the Democrats trying to do anything. Jay Carney and Mike Kinsley say that there is no 'there' there. Joe Klein expresses the Concern Troll view that Dems should back off or else 'the voters' will think that it is business as usual. The entire panel of Chris Matthews show felt that Dems were going to look vindictive and that they should just play nice and legislate.

And the more the pundits express this Concern Troll meme the more true it will become because newscasts will start every fifteen minutes with the leading rhetorical question, "Are Dems looking vindictive?" or "Are Dems just playing politics with the AG?"

Why does Bush always get away with things? Why does nobody want to ask him any hard questions? Why can't the lead question be, "Is the unitary executive theory unconstitutional?" or "Did Bush break the law and hide behind executive priviledge?"

The fact is that I am just a citizen. I have never been in any political office. But I understand that governments were formed to PROTECT my rights. I understand that the misuse of US Attorneys can lead to tyranny if they exert their power against opposition parties. The fact that the punditocracy views this as a type of political tit-for-tat enrages me. Why can you not simply continue to ask questions and seek answers instead of musing over what 'the voters' may think???

Much like the AG firings, this situation smacks of improper access and influence peddling. More and more Americans are becoming less and less trusting of DC insiders of all types. Thus, the rise of Guiliani and Obama (short-timer and not insider yet) that we see in the polls. I know that I don't like this feeling of a guy extending his right hand and hiding the ball behind his back in his left. Why not return to the days of "taxation without representation"? What we are faced with is no less than a national crisis of government responsive to the people governed under a common set of laws. When that fails, we are a nation of men....

Thank you for posting this.

Between Jay Carney's post about how there was no purge, Michael Kinsley's tired post in which he repeated the conservative talking point that this purge was the same thing Clinton did, and now Rick Stengel stating that he is so uninterested in Democrats providing governmental oversight regarding the purge, one has to wonder what is the essential purpose of Time Magazine?

Is it for journalism and commentary to provide commentary into political events?

Or is it to regurgitate conventional wisdom and provide cover for the powers that be?

Look at how three of Time Magazine's premier writers and thinkers have responded to this issue and decide for yourself.

er, make that second commentary "insight". dang.

BTW, the Secretary of the Smithsonian just resigned -- story about his excessive spending on things like office furniture. Congressional committee investigating. And we heard it here first -- thanks to MK. At least we got one nugget out of his guest week.

On a more serious note, I am impressed at all this congress is doing -- in less than three months -- hearings on many different subjects, passing bills (Iraq funding, amend Patriot Act, many others), providing oversight and real governing. Too bad the press doesn't find time to write about more than their opinions about John and Elizabeth Edwards.

If they could find time, we might get Stengel interested in the fact that funds have been so seriously cut in the NIH that it is having a deleterious effect on cancer research. (George Stephanopolous on Sunday) I think if someone were to do an in depth article on all the budget cuts (research, education, etc.) that were done to make up the tax cuts and the war spending, people would be shocked. We just never see it in the aggregate.

You forget Terrapin that you, me, and probably most (if not all) of the commenters here are regular people- the dirty, filthy, teeming masses that don't earn six-figure incomes. Thus we care more about Universal Health Care, getting out of Iraq, Rule of Law, Abuse of Power, etc. than do millionaire pundits like Carney, Stengel, Klein et al. Their portfolios have been doing well in the Bush Administration and their taxes haven't gone up (and might have gone down), so as far as THEY are concerned, Bush has been very, very good to them. The rest of us, in the end, don't really matter to DC journalists. Never forget how all the journalists laughed and laughed and laughed at the Correspondent's dinner a few years ago when President Bush made a joke out of not finding those WMDs (and for that matter, the "joke" from Tumulty's colleague about how s/he don't want to write about Universal Health Care). If we really mattered, those jokes wouldn't have been funny, but they were funny to DC journalists, so...

But let's move on. Has anyone noticed that nobody on Swampland (or at TIME, as far as I know), has called for AG Gonzales to resign? Huh.

Ana,
Thank you for blogging about this. I had posted a comment to Jay regarding this, and I hope you don't mind my copying and pasting here as well.
It is a bit harsh, but I posted it on the blog about the Couric interview of the Edwardses and was already more than a wee bit put out by Jay's efforts to justify his previous macabre premature peering into Elizabeth Edwards' coffin.

I do hope you are able to get some kind of response from Mr. Stengel.

Jay,Off topic, but something I think you should be concerned about:

Yesterday on Chris Matthews' show (see Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com for the video) a Time employee, Richard Stengel, expressed what he thinks the "voters" do not want to see. I don't know how you and Richard come by your inside information about what voters really, really want to know and how voters really, really feel, but I strongly suggest you folks at Time know very fewpeople outside the Beltway gang.

Please NOTE that Chris Matthews set up this segment of his program as Democrat PAYBACK and an attempt to get Karl Rove. Most of us commenters here in Swampland see the Democrats wanting to investigate the firing of the eight US Attorneys by having Meirs, Rove, and Gonzales testify under oath NOT as payback, but as part of their duties.

Richard Stengel of TIME said the following:

”I am so uninterested in the Democrats wanting Karl Rove because it is so bad for them because it shows business as usual, tit-for-tat, vengeance. That is not what voters want to see.”

See, like yourself Mr. Carney, Mr. Stengel is UNINTERESTED in the truth and he thinks he can divine what voters want to see.

CLUE for the clueless Mr. Carney and Mr. Stengel:The American voters want democracy that works according to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Americans want to think that their system of government, while NOT flawless, works even when people like the Bush Regime, try to undermine all checks and balances set forth by our Founding Fathers. American voters want a press that takes its responsibility in helping us retain our democracy seriously.

Sincerely,

ama

"The Chris Matthews Show'
Why does this come off as a bunch of chattering airheads? (OK, an army of George Will's "tsk tsking" Democrats for being Democrats.)

Read the whole thing:

http://www.thechrismatthewsshow.com/html/transcript/index.php

Rick Stengel says "I am so uninterested in the Democrats wanting Karl Rove, because it is so bad for them. Because it shows business as usual, tit for tat, vengeance." "That's not what voters want to see." "Yes, and it's much less. It's small bore politics."

Rick Stengel, carrying water for Karl Rove.

The country club locker room antics don't end there, but make your own mind up. Once again:
http://www.thechrismatthewsshow.com/html/transcript/index.php

Rove's "genius" lies in knowing how easy it is to play the media. It's not enough to prop up his little Princeling anymore, but it is--as evidenced by the Tweety clip under discussion, by every utterance from that halfwit Norah O'Donnell (I don't think she's necessarily a GOP sympathizer, not even auditioning for a higher-paying gig at al Foxeera: I think she's just a genuinely stupid person who sincerely believes she's really smart), and most pertinently here, by the Carney Klein and Kinsley posts that say, in essence, "given a choice between my High Broderist belief system and my own lying eyes, I can only conclude that the obstruction(s) of justice and the abuse(s) of power in the Department of Justice is not really a scandal"--in light of those things, Rove's "genius" is enough to convince the Beltway CW Establishment that any investigation into administration malfeasance is just "payback" and "partisanship".

Rove's "genius" is enough to realize that he doesn't need the facts. Just enough mud in the water confuse a couple of Meet The Press roundtables (very willing, even eager, dupes), and to give cover to people like Joe Lieberman and Ken Salazar as they vote with Republicans to block any substantive investigations.

Re: "Hey, you know who's probably going to look really bad if Rove testifies? Rove."

Sadly, the best commentary on this subject came from John Oliver of the Daily Show:
"The White House is adamant that its advisors retain the right, if they so choose, to lie... If Karl Rove knew he'd one day be forced to testify under oath about advice he gave the president, he'd have to limit that advice to things that weren't shameful, illegal, or spectacularly boneheaded."

Like the man said, we laugh because it's funny and we laugh because it's true....

Thanks, Ana.

The more I read this blog the more respect I have for you and Karen Tumulty and Joe Klein. But the more I follow the media, the less respect I have for the people who run your magazine and other magazines. Jay Carney -- and even moreso Rick Stengel -- seem woefully out of touch with any kind of reality beyond cocktail party chitter chat (though Carney is getting better, at least I like to think he is).

Thanks for addressing this. If Time is going to regain its credibility as a news source -- and I'm not sure it will -- it will be because it examines the blase attitude people like Stengel have towards the news itself.

cfaller96 - "...the dirty, filthy, teeming masses that don't earn six-figure incomes."

That's me in a nutshell! ;)

In a way, I hope that the AG does NOT resign because I want more answers. If Bush were to throw the Gonz under a bus then the media would drift off onto the next missing white girl story. I want there to be investigations and answers.

But if I get to be the first to say it:

I do hereby call for Alberto Gonzales to resign.

I guess I'd also like to say, as a Democrat, that I'd rather my Congressmen investigate things they think are important than things that will help them in the polls. If this really "hurts" Democrats, then I'm that much more supportive of their desire to investigate anyway.

Terrapin, I didn't make myself clear, though I thank you for calling for AG Gonzales' resignation. I meant that no Swampland contributor- Ana, Karen, Joe, Jay- has called for AG Gonzales' resignation, and as far as I know no one at TIME magazine has called for his resignation.

I say again. Huh.

I don't think this blog would be the right place to call for his resignation. Klein could do it in a column, though I doubt he will.

I don't want Torture Boy to resign and give him boss cover. I want investigations, impeachments, President Pelosi, breakup of the United States a la 1991 USSR, an NC-17 rating for Fox News, and $1 a gallon biodiesel at my corner gas station.

Phuck resignation. Bring the chaos.

So Stengel and Carney both don't think this is interesting? Way to go, Time--quite a nose for news you've got. (A magazine like Time would be the perfect place to tie all the threads of this massively expanding scandal together, but never mind, i guess)

Could Bush and Cheney be impeached at the same time? Or would we possibly have to say President Cheney! (thunder) You get the point.
Poor Hilary though if Pelosi beats her to the first female president. She'd lose that much novelty vote.
P.S. I am not anti-Hilary per se, but this election does have a novelty vote issue.

Gonzales is being interviewed by Pete Williams on Chris Mathews Show.
Gonzales' commentary, "Ladies and gentlemen, I stand before you to stand behind you to
tell you something I know nothing about. Thursday, which is Good Friday, we're having a Father's Day party for mother's only.
Admission is free, pay at the door, pull out a chair and sit on the floor.
Those weren't his exact words, but close enough.
When he said he didn't attend meetings relating to the USAGs he meant that, he wasn't involved in the detailed discussions prior to the meeting which he said he didn't attend., unless they uncover another e-mail.
But rest assured, there will be accountability, by somebody. No Republicans were involved.

Thank goodness for investigative blogs.

Its real easy to figure out why those blowhards including Chris Matthews like Bush. They make a lot of money. Bush saved them a lot of money in taxes. They are paying him and his "brain" Karl Rove back. If you want to know why they are whores, just follow the money, honey.

During the 90s the GOP Congress issued 2000+ subpoenas of the Clinton White House. This was in addition to the massive witchunts by special prosecutors. I don't remember Rick Stengel or anybody else in the corporate media complaining.

Dems have just started issuing a few subpoenas and Stengel and his ilk are warning Democrats not to go too far. What is too far? It will take years for Dems to issue 2000 subpoenas. Why the kinder and treatment for the Bush regime?

I think we all know the answer to that.

Ana: thanks.I read the Glenn Greenwald piece and added a comment. I just realised that this is the Chris Matthews SHOW: its a show, like so many peurile tv shows in which the participants are noted for their vapid observations. Norah brayed (This is one annoying and superficial woman who is noted for defending the White House), Gloria gave herself airs while she showily pronounced her superficial tripe. Healy did not have a Clinton put down so said nothing. Stengel gave a gigolo's stylistic presentation of an airhead's effusions. The first chance I got I mentioned it by posting on a Swampland blog ( I think Joe's.

You, Karen and Joe have dealt with us openly and honestly and I appreciate that. We may disagree, but note that I express myself politely.

Perhaps Stengel should take a week here and get his head straightened so that he does not circulate the conventional wisdom of the beltway elites. Their influence on him will do him no good if he wants to be viewed as a professional. The first thing he needs to shed is his attitude.

Maybe Stengel's replacement will think this is worth taking a look at: "The RNC has said that the committee provides email addresses to White House personnel so that they can keep their official and political duties separate.

So what's the official/political breakdown for Karl Rove?

According to National Journal (not available online), Rove does approximately 95 percent of his emailing from his RNC address." -- http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002875.php

Check this out
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10322.html

What explains the failure of the mainstream media to cover the purge scandal for so long, and so many other scandals? Do you think somebody just set up newspaper editors to cheat on their wives, and threatened to tell if the editors wouldn’t play ball when they come back some day and ask for something?

It wouldn’t be that hard to do, when you think about it. People wouldn’t talk about it.

Ana, nice post but I have to ask did you add in this quick link title to the post from the front page?:

"Oversight or Overreach"

Because this in no way covers the sentiments of your post, and seems to further trivialize what is going on in the Capitol. If this was done without your knowledge you may want to look into who is doing this.

The Chris Matthews Show is a weekly display of ankle-deep punditry. It's always as bad as the clip Greenwald posted.

While you're asking Stengel questions, could you also ask him this one from Glen Greenwald:

"I would never dream of coming to this blog and just starting making assertions that "Americans believe X" or "Americans oppose Y" unless I had actual evidence to support those claims. That's because I would not expert readers of this blog to view what I write as being credible if I just spewed assertions with no empirical basis like that. No credible blogger would do that. Why don't pundits on MSNBC -- including the Managing Editor of Time Magazine -- recognize those same basic constraints?"

That is to say, Why does Stengal expect the readers of Time Magazine to find him credible when he makes up statements that have no basis in reality?

Excellent point, Anonymous. It's one thing to cite a poll. It's another to just do the old rectal pluck, with nada to back you up, as if you could do mass mind readings or something.

Mr Greenwald has now updated his blog with the links to recent polls that show just how utterly wrong and foolish Rick Stengel is.

Mr Stengel, who thinks he can pontificate so wisely upon what we Americans want, proclaimed on the Chris Mathews show that,

"I am so uninterested in the Democrats wanting Karl Rove, because it is so bad for them. Because it shows business as usual, tit for tat, vengeance...That’s not what voters want to see."

Mr Stengel is talking nonsense. From this past weekend's USA Today poll:

14. Do you think Congress should -- or should not -- investigate the involvement of White House officials in this matter?

Yes, should - 72%; No, should not - 21%

15. If Congress investigates these dismissals, in your view, should President Bush and his aides invoke "executive privilege" to protect the White House decision making process (or should they)
drop the claim of executive privilege and answer all questions being investigated?

Invoke executive privilege - 26%; Answer all questions - 68%

16. In this matter, do you think Congress should or should not issue subpoenas to force White House officials to testify under oath about this matter?

Yes, should - 68%; No, should not - 24%

What's really embarassing is how MSM is not self corrective. Andrea Mitchell reversed the statistical findings of a poll that suggested only 18% of the public wanted Libby Pardoned to only 18% DIDN'T want Libby pardoned. This was never corrected.
Contrast this with a comedy news show. Former UN ambassador John Bolton appeared on the Colbert Show and challenged Colbert's statement that Lincoln filled his cabinet with people who opposed many of his positions. Instead of just moving on, Colbert called Joanna Kearns Goodwin the historian who wrote "Team of Rivals" about Lincoln's cabinet. Goodwin told Colbert that indeed Lincoln had chosen those with differing opinions to fill cabinet slots. If a comedy news show can do fact checking, what's wrong with the MSM?

andrea mitchell also never mentioned her personal friendship with Libby.

From Greenwald's follow up post: "Under the circumstances, and given the stakes of this scandal, it would be a total abdication of the duty of Congressional oversight not to compel Rove's testimony in a public forum and under rules where it is more difficult for him to lie. And that's true regardless of whether it's politically beneficial."

Exactly. Congress has been just trying to do its *job*. Even if it's not politically beneficial. This is what DC seems to be like these days: no good deed goes unpunished.

Everything is a game. Everything is politicized. The administration has politicized everything, and the press regards it as a game. (if you can't come up with tons of examples, then you're not paying attention.) It seems like some people should have taken some high school civics classes at some point...

Rectum? Kinsley can't sit down on 'em any more.

I think I've said this before, but anybody with a nose for investigation would have reacted to the very quiet adios Harri with Fielding moving into the WH. They would have seriously been investigating and not been saying 'move on, nothing here'.

The moral/ethics issue of who's connected to who is part of the problem in the press. I am also starting to become more annoyed with each and every presser being covered without rebuttal.

That display from those dimwit pundits was absolutely pathetic. Washington media-heads need to get their heads out of their behinds.

"Oversight or Overreach"

Here's one to ask about the media's coverage of the case: "oversight or reach around".

cfaller96, that was a good piece by JMM. You probably missed it, but I actually issued a kind of "mea culpa" in a couple other threads last night (early this morning) in which I said that after watching MTP and FTN yesterday, I was coming around on the U.S. Attorneys issue.

However, in more general terms, I'm still not down with the credo that TomT stated upthread:

"I guess I'd also like to say, as a Democrat, that I'd rather my Congressmen investigate things they think are important than things that will help them in the polls. If this really 'hurts' Democrats, then I'm that much more supportive of their desire to investigate anyway."

To me, this is just going too far up the high road. We pursue this philosophy meticulously, and we're going to guarantee ourselves minority status in the future, at which point all our idealism will mean jack squat because we'll have no power to do anything.

And I'll add that this quote from TomT illustrates the real reason he and I often disagree so strenuously (rather than some kind of conspiracy or whatever). Metaphorically speaking, he's Howard Dean and I'm James Carville.

-Alan

Ana -- Do you think it might be possible to get Karen Tumulty (Time's National Political Correspondent) and the post-apology Jay Carney (Time's Washington Bureau Chief) to write something substantive about the US Attorneys dismissals? It would be great to know what their take is on the significance of these events. Jay apologized for making a fool of himself in the early innings, but he hasn't written/blogged about it since then.

I would love to hear from Jay and Karen on (any of) the following questions:

1/ In your view, what is the significance of the facts that have come to light in the US Attorneys story?

2/ Why should people care about this (if indeed you think they should)? Based on what you have read so far, is the scandal here all about the communications surrounding the firings, or is there any reason to suspect that the firings may have been carried out for an improper purpose?

3/ Drawing on your training as a journalist, what is the best way to find out whether the Lam firing was intended to shut down her investigations of Duke Cunningham's associates and/or as retaliation for these investigations?

4/ Hypothetically, if Time cared about this story, what investigatuive steps could it take to discover the truth as to whether any US Attorneys were fired to disrupt ongoing or potential investigations of influential Republicans?

5/ What is your take as to the legitimacy of the "voter fraud" cases some of the fired US Attorneys were or are currently accused of having neglected?

6/ Does it trouble you that so many prominent national journalists are treating this story as a joke?

Posted by SlackerInc
March 26, 2007

To me, this is just going too far up the high road.

Question: This administration has done so much damage what is a legitimate investigation?

1) Walter Reed and the VA Hospital system?
2) Katrina and NOLA, where does the rebuild effort stand and what has happened to displaced citizens?
3) Lost funds in Iraq?
4) Politization of the General Sevices Agency
5) Politization of USAGs?
6) Suppression of scientific data in multiple agencies from the FDA to Weather(Aerospace and Aeronautics)?
&) Fill in the blank

What's fair game? All topics can be viewed by MSM and the GOP as too wonkish or undercutting the troops. What do you consider safe?

"Metaphorically speaking, he's Howard Dean and I'm James Carville."

Hey, I know I've said some stuff to do you, but I never went so low as to compare you to James Carville!

Just in case somebody from the High Sheriff's office does read this blog and going back to rmrd0000 and Karen's post about ethics, could someone please define the measuring stick that is used for 'incompetence' at Time Warner or other MSM cabals? Even pundits should have some sort of standard besides what sells.

James Wolcott at Vanity Fair made an excellent point about this whole subject.

The media only wants a little scandal in D.C. Once a sacrificial lamb gets blamed, we can all move on and pretend that the whole system isn't corrupted.

That seems to be the instinct with institutional journalists. If it's proven that dozens of people broke the law with bribes, with witness intimidation, with trying to indict people to help win elections etc, it leads into the disturbing question of what do we do now?

Even though the media was more interested in Bill Clinton's sex life than say torture committed by our government, once the Republicans started to actually impeach him, the media backed down, so I see this in a weird way as not totally partisan.

The media doesn't want Washington exposed as a rathole. Why should they care though?

"But these were all ostensibly mainstream journalists who cover the White House or head up DC bureaus. And yet none of them showed the slightest interest in getting to the truth about the roles of Rove and Miers in the US Attorney firings. Pretty darn curious. It kind of defies credulity. Wouldn't these journalists, whatever their political sympathies, find such a story interesting and worth pursuing? Evidently not."

"Pretty darn UNcurious," I'd say.

Perhaps this singular lack of curiosity is really a symptom of some virus that the WH press corps has succumbed to, due to too much exposure to you-know-Who?

Better get the NIH on it. Oh, wait! Their funding just keeps getting cut, doesn't it?

Hey just so everyone doesn't just bash Mr. Stengal and Time, I heard Evan Thomas ME of Newsweek express a very similar position on Imus last week - something to the effect of "This attorney thing bores me." It pissed me off then, and it pisses me off now. If you are a reporter please listen. The American public does not care about your own personal imperial opinions regarding a story, we care about the facts.

Furthermore, I continue to be amazed by the nonsensical manner in which meaningless Fox Noise talking points get distributed by people who ought to know better. Things like “fired for not following administration initiatives,” the Americans are not interested in a party of investigation instead of legislation,” “Clinton did it,” – all of these are so easily debunked that it either shows that the Beltway insiders are either incompetent or dishonest. There are no other explanations.

"Furthermore, I continue to be amazed by the nonsensical manner in which meaningless Fox Noise talking points get distributed by people who ought to know better. Things like “fired for not following administration initiatives,” the Americans are not interested in a party of investigation instead of legislation,” “Clinton did it,” – all of these are so easily debunked that it either shows that the Beltway insiders are either incompetent or dishonest. There are no other explanations."
---------------

And the most pathetic part of it is that they utter these universally accessible talking points with the self-congratulatory air of someone who has unearthed a rare gem of esoteric wisdom.

Shorter Stengel

I'm so uninterested in investigating crimes and voters agree, even if polls say the opposite.

So, clarify a bit. Are you saying Stengel WILL be fired for terminal stupidity?

"So, clarify a bit. Are you saying Stengel WILL be fired for terminal stupidity?"

There'd be only Ana and Karen working here then. ; >

Accountability is a problem with the media just as much as with the government, but at least some in the media are learning (slowly) by watching their falling sales, ratings, and circulation. Just as Congress was behind the public, but now is catching up (and the GOP had to lose control for it to happen), maybe some people need to be held accountable for their cluelessness.

One of the most infuriating things about beltway pundits playing concern trolls is when they tell their viewers what the American people want or think, in the teeth of compelling evidence to the contrary.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_03_25_atrios_archive.html#117495919812608712

Duncan has the USA Today survey info.

"Hey just so everyone doesn't just bash Mr. Stengal and Time, I heard Evan Thomas ME of Newsweek express a very similar position on Imus last week - something to the effect of "This attorney thing bores me." It pissed me off then, and it pisses me off now. If you are a reporter please listen. The American public does not care about your own personal imperial opinions regarding a story, we care about the facts."

It's all of them. Every single Beltway pundit, plus AgNags is pushing these (false) Republican talking points. You've got Chris Matthews and his foursome. You've got Broder. You've got Joe Klein. You've got Ignatius. Brooks.

We haven't heard from Karen, yet, I don't believe. But the unanimity is astounding. And, broken record or not, they don't even seemed embarrassed that this involves actual law-breaking, actual violations of the public trust, actual attempts to win elections without the support of the majority of voters, and, finally, a jaw-dropping disdain for the Constitution, voters, and (as Ignatius points out) federal appointees.

Still, it's all a big ho-ho-ho that anyone would actually want to get the architect of all this under oath.

No blow jobs were executed in the making of this White House crime so there's nothing to see here, folks, move along now.

instead of focusing on rove and miers i would rather the dem's spend their time and OUR money actually working on the problems that matter to the average american such as health care and the lack of funding for our educational system. Oh yah, and getting us out of Iraq without destabilizing the mideast would be nice as well.

AMEN! You are exactly right, and I'm sick of other media pundits trying to spin this into something it's not.

They should stop trying to speak for the American Public. We wanted over sight, and that's what we're getting FINALLY. THANK YOU!

anonymous, if you think the systematic corruption of our legal and political systems doesn't affect the "average american", if you think what Gonzales and Rove and all the rest of them are unrelated to to the Iraq War....

Well, I can't say anything nice, so I won't say anything at all.

PS: Evan Thomas and Jon Meacham are both Republicans, Meacham is a full-metal fundie. That's why we sometimes call it the SCLM.

anonymous: The problem with your "tathers" is that until the Democrats clean up the leaking sewer that is the Bush administration, the rats occupying that leaking sewer will block them from doing anything meaningful about health care or funding our educational system. And ESPECIALLY block them from getting us out of Iraq.

I'm afraid that said rats have taken us well past the point where even Jesus himself could do anything about the destabilization of the middle east.

So the first order of business for the Democrats in Congress is to clean out that stinking, leaking sewer, and to properly cage the rats occupying it.

Once that has urgent task has been accomplished, they can wash their hands and go about the business of making sausage properly.

(Could I have mixed up my metaphors any more disgustingly? I think not.)

what Jim said--pervasive corruption of both Justice and the entire Executive branch matters enormously to all of us.

From 2000, believe it or not, about Gonzales (but we never heard about it from big media): "... As his first legal-related appointment as President-Elect, it shows that Bush has the intention of continuing his use of the courts to undemocratically engineer victories for himself and his corporate supporters. ..." -- http://www.commondreams.org/views/121800-105.htm

Hey, Ana, while you are asking the boss questions, maybe you can ask why everywhere else in the world, the TIME cover story is "Talibanistan", about the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, but in the USA, the TIME cover story is "Why We Should Teach the Bible in Public School".

No, I'm not kidding.

And I won't even start getting into the depth of the irony here...

h/t to debel u at the orange Satan:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/26/194443/506

It's moments like these -- and every time I read the Op-Ed pages of WaPo or watch pretty much any network "news" program -- that I feel ashamed that I have a journalism degree and blessed that I left the field more than a decade ago. The vast majority of our "leaders" in journalism just seem to be utter hacks and fools these days. Including, Ana, your boss. Thank goodness for people like Greenwald, who doesn't work for some big self-important "media property". All the real journalism these days is being done by the little guys who actually care. Again, Ana, unlike your boss.

Check out Wolcott - "The cork bobbing Dorothy Parker."

Can someone from TIME explain to me the value of renewing my subscription when the Managing Editor of what is supposed to be a news magazine says he's not interested in covering the news?

I'm constantly amazed at what drivel is passed as wisdom by the Beltway media "elites". Out here, in middle America, we care if the justice system is being corrupted for political ends. Out here it's a big deal if the administration of justice depends on ones political affiliation. I think Democrats in congress would be derilict if they did not look into Gonzo-gate. The other thought is how shallow the discussion on the Matthews show was and is. It was as if the conversation was meant to impress each other. There was no serious discussion of the underlying issues. Will we ever get adults on the Matthews Show?

it occurs to one that this, too, could be a teaching moment.

Ana, Karen, Jay, Joe, especially Joe: When we foul-mouthed vituperative bloggers talk about your Cocktail Party, that clip from Teh Tweety Show is pretty much what we're talking about, even if no alcohol or weenies were served.

TomT: "Hey, I know I've said some stuff to do you, but I never went so low as to compare you to James Carville!"

LOL...see, I nailed it. I think Carville's great (and I think in his dispute with Dean, he was clearly in the right); and would consider it an honour--not an insult--to be compared to him. Being called a Republican, OTOH, I do not appreciate whatsoever.

rmrd asked about a number of potential avenues for investigation. Those all look fine to me (though the first three are the best).

Jim: "Evan Thomas and Jon Meacham are both Republicans, Meacham is a full-metal fundie."

That's absurd. Meacham idolises FDR.

Honestly, by the standard some of you use, 95% of Americans would be "Republicans". And if that were true, we might as well give up any chance of winning elections.

-Alan

Posted by SlackerInc
March 27, 2007

rmrd asked about a number of potential avenues for investigation. Those all look fine to me (though the first three are the best).

Thanks for the response.

Further evidence of how blogs like this one truly have the potential to make the MSM more accountable and possibly more in touch.

David Broder could really benefit from a blog. Of course, he probably wouldn't read the comments.

Karl Rove is a genius only to the extent that our miserably incompetent and corrupt mainstream media allowed him so much latitude for the first six years of the Bush administration. If our press had been on the case, they would have long ago discovered that Rove is nothing more than a sick and evil little putz.

"That's absurd. Meacham idolises FDR."

That's nice. Bush thinks he's the reincarnation of Churchill. I got my information from Al Franken, who briefly wrote a column for Newsweek. Meacham was his editor.

"I think Carville's great (and I think in his dispute with Dean, he was clearly in the right); "

tells me all I need to know about you. Thanks. Carville crawls into bed every night with one of the principle PR agents of the Iraq War.

Mary Matalin sucks, no question--not sure how that all works. But pretty much everything Carville himself advocates, I endorse wholeheartedly.

rmrd, you're welcome.

-Alan

Bob Somerby has a devastating critique of Rick Stengel and the rest of the clowns on the Chris Matthews show.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/

Why would any self respecting journalist show up on a freak show like this?

"Being called a Republican, OTOH, I do not appreciate whatsoever."

I think Carville is worse than most Republicans. Most Republicans are well-meaning but misguided people, people who may been brought up by right-wing parents and never had the time or energy to inform themselves about what was wrong with these beliefs.

Carville on the other hand is profoundly cynical, profoundly Beltway uber alles, profoundly anti-democracy at some level. He's everything that's wrong with contemporary politics -- more interested in raising money than in connecting with voters.

Carville and Mary are actually well matched, they just back different 'nags'. They are as supercilious as the 'Tuned in' Time Blogger that while noting the response to the fixation with the Edwards' on Swampland went on to review and defend the lightweight Katie Couric interview. I guess there is enough 'no credibility' to paper the DoJ, Time-Warner Bldg. and 1/2 of Columbus Circle.

Please note, Elizabeth's comment today that she is sick and tired of seeing herself on the MSM. I don't think that was a comment to dissuade real coverage of the 'campaign', but a comment regarding the 'spotlight and second guessing' of a personal issue by the Luella Parsons clones trying to pass themselves off as 'serious' journalists. Is it that the Edwards' were honest enough and sincere and they have no frame of reference for that in their world. Now, it would be nice if 'we' gave the Edwards the respect that they deserve and turn the feeding frenzy on the slime running though the Capitol and those who don't seem to have the wherewithal to attempt to clean it up. Or as someone already noted: rats running in the sewers.

" But pretty much everything Carville himself advocates, I endorse wholeheartedly"

Zell Miller as Kerry's Veep?

FoxNews Liebercrat (and loser) Harold Ford to replace the very effective Howard Dean as DNC chair?

Carville was a useful tool for Bill Clinton. He's been deadweight--some argue much worse--to the party since 1999. He's Bob Shrum with less class an a funny accent.

Q: Does Ms. Cox get paid for this twaddle?

Q: Were not the Dems were elected to get us out of Iraq? (April 3 will mark 3 months of failure.)

Q: Do the Dems think they can get re-elected by only looking backward?

Q: Does Ms. Cox get paid for this twaddle?

Q: Were not the Dems elected to get us out of Iraq? (April 3 will mark 3 months of failure.)

Q: Do the Dems think they can get re-elected by only looking backward?

Actually they were elected with a higher proportion of voters citing corruption in exit polls.

"Asked which issues were extremely important to their vote, 42 percent said corruption and ethics; 40 percent, terrorism; 39 percent, the economy; 37 percent, Iraq; 36 percent, values; and 29 percent, illegal immigration."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/07/election.exitpolls/

But that's if you believe in exit polls. I understand they don't work properly in Ohio.

Democrats must always remember that when clueless pundits like Mr. STENGEL or O'DONNELL tell them what they should do, they must DO THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

For Democrats, every member of the Gang of 500 is like a hand grenade.

And as Murphys law of combat clearly states: When the pin is pulled, Mr. Hand Grenade IS NOT YOUR FRIEND!

Cox!!!! You got the coveted Wolcott link!!!

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/blogs/wolcott/2007/03/investigation_n.html

Scroll down to the p.s.

Glenn Greenwald writes with intelligence and passion about subjects of vital importance to our republic, such as the rule of law and equal justice thereunder, while Mr. Stengel is "so uninterested." It is clear that Stengel is probably unfit for the position of cleaning the bottom of Geenwald's shoes, should he be so fortunate to get it, let alone being the managing editor of a newsmagazine.

It is because Stengel is so uninterested in a story as important as this that people are becoming increasingly so uninterested in Time.

"But that's if you believe in exit polls. I understand they don't work properly in Ohio."

Except that one question where it said that, of the 18% of people who cast their vote because of "values", 56% of those people voted for Bush, and therefore America is "trending" towards hard-line theocracy and hence we all must replace the Bill of Rights with Charlton Heston's stone tablets, or something.

Followup:

Why oh why can't we have a better press corps?

(h/t Brad DeLong)

Followup:
Why oh why can't we have a better press corps?
(h/t Brad DeLong)

=='Cause if we did, it woudl threaten the profit margins of our ruling class.

One wonders if Mr. Stengel, perhaps a distant relation to Casey, actually engages his brain before opening his mouth.

His surrealistic syntax (actually a Time magazine reference to the ol' perfesser - you could look it up) is really an excuse for being just plain lazy.

Aren't there any reporters out there who get off their duffs and go out and gather news?

Mr. Stengel broken the cardinal rule of "making news rather than reporting it."

mrd0000: minor correction. Stewart interviewed Bolton and talked to Kearns Goodwin.

Posted by Alan
March 27, 2007
rmrd0000: minor correction. Stewart interviewed Bolton and talked to Kearns Goodwin.

Ok
Correction:
Doris Kearns Goodwin is the historian's name
Joanna Kearns, was on some TV sitcom.

Ana, please, please, please do what Rick won't do - explain why this might be an issue. Explain why this is being investigated. Why might some people care if the DOJ and the Whitehouse pressure U.S.A.'s to indict Democrats, without sufficient evidence, prior to the 2006 elections. Please use your position to educate people who are interested in why this might be an issue.

Ana, you know, I know, we all know, your boss is a douchebag.

So when is he getting back to you?

I think Greenwald does a good job of pointing out just how broken the current inside the beltway punditocracy is. Folks care about the criminal misdeeds of this administration, whether Chris Matthews or Rick Stengel get that or not.

I am so uninterested in what Rick Stengel thinks.

I have to marvel how biased the media is. When the GOP targeted Clinton, the MSM piled on, citing "rule of law". When real crimes are finally investigated by the Democrats, the MSM is warning them how little support they have and how it will backfire on them, ignoring polls which indicate otherwise.

The GOP has assembled a gigantic well-oiled noise machine. It makes me shudder whenever I hear Ronald Reagan say, "I paid for that microphone."

You said:
"I think Rick is putting the actual paper magazine together right now (and, shockingly, that tends to take priority over blog-related things), but I'll attempt to get some kind of response."
Perhaps he should spend more time on putting the magazine together on Sundays as well or is there a special Time magazine exception for "Sabbath gasbag" bloviation ? Yikes, you guys are just oblivious to how smug and in-bred you sound.

Stengel's shameful performance on the Matthews show is symptomatic of how corrupted our inside-the-Beltway press has become.

They are hopelessly out of touch with the will of the American people, yet constantly claim to speak for us -- despite ALL evidence that contradicts what they say.

It's an insular, incestuous world in the D.C. party circuit, and nothing is respected and slobbered over more than power and access to that power.

Stengel and his cohorts demonstrated that very clearly on Sunday: they are feckless courtiers, and enemies of real democracy.

TomT: "Carville on the other hand is profoundly cynical, profoundly Beltway uber alles"

I proudly wear the "cynical" mantle, and my MO is defending the Beltway insiders against the blogospheric insurgents. So, what else?

"profoundly anti-democracy at some level."

Like when he said the state party people weren't actually supposed to choose the DNC chair, but just vote how they were told to? LOL, that sure sounded bad...but I can't disagree with his intent: for Dean ("let's throw away our money in deep red districts we can never win; never mind if we sacrifice purple districts we have a once in a generation opportunity to take hold of--let's not even take out a loan to capitalise on that chance") to be kept as far away from the party reins as possible.

"He's everything that's wrong with contemporary politics -- more interested in raising money than in connecting with voters."

I think he's interested in raising money precisely so Democrats can connect with voters.

Jim: "Zell Miller as Kerry's Veep?"

Do you have a cite for that? This I find extremely hard to believe. IIRC, he was furious with Zell Miller after he came out with that stupid book, and asked for his previous donations back.

-Alan

as always ... follow the money

and the people on the chat shows get very well paid for spitting back whatever the RNC tells them to say

this has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions

"and the people on the chat shows get very well paid for spitting back whatever the RNC tells them to say"

Oh, come on: this is a great example of making too broad a statement. There are GOP hacks on those shows, without question, But there are also representatives of our side on the "chat shows", at least the two main ones that I watch: The Chris Matthews Show and Meet the Press.

-Alan

lmao @ SlackerInc.

I hope you aren't doing this for free.

Tony is married with children, from the electoral pit of Ohio, apologies.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Out.

Of.

Touch.

(hint: get a clue.)

Terrapin, what you said. It's very weird that the MSM is profoundly uninterested in what once would have been red meat to them (maybe they've gone vegan!)-- and are doing all this Concern Trolling, thinking maybe that it'll work, or maybe even believing their own nonsense-- that Republican scandals will really hurt Democrats.

The lack of curiosity is scary. Could it be something in the DC watercooler water?

Hey, Ana, Joe, etc, why not let us in on this? Why do bloggers and edgy journalist like Waas have to ferret out the great stories? And why am I getting all my serious indepth investigation from Vanity Fair (did you read that amazing articles about the generals who came out against the war?) and Rolling Stone? Where are Time and Newsweek? They don't even report on the great stories broken by Rolling Stone. I'm thinking maybe it's shame... but I'm probably giving you all way too much credit. But seriously, you guys really ought to read the Rolling Stone exposes.

the woo didn't read any of this. i am woomeister 2005

And are we expected to read TIME magazine for news, or for the vaunted personal opinions of its editors? Having recently cancelled my subscription, along with several gift subscriptions, TIME has a long way to go before I resume reading, much less buying it.