From Hugh Hewitt:
I received a call from Amy Goldstein of the Washington Post today, requesting I call her back to discuss the nomination of John Roberts. I assumed that this is because (1)I worked with John Roberts in the White House Counsel's office for a year and (2)the big document dump may have turned up memos with my name on them which are of interest to the Post. Goldstein had a big story on the docs in Wednesday's Post.
Then again, it might be about the White House basketball team on which I was the player-coach and for which Judge Roberts played. That team's level of play was truly a scandal.
Or she might be calling about the "White House V-Toes," the 1985 White House Nike Capitol Challenge 5-k Team, for which both Judge Roberts and I ran.
The subject didn't matter to me. I had my assistant call back and say fine. She could interview me. Only one condition: The interview had to be conducted on air, live, during my broadcast. Would she please call the show line at 3:06 Pacific?
I had a similar request from a New York Times reporter for a similar interview a couple of days back. I made the same offer. He didn't respond.
Amy Goldstein did respond. She declined. My assistant relayed that Ms. Goldstein didn't want her story "out there" before it ran.
Fine, I thought. But then I got to thinking: Isn't journalism supposed to be in the public interest? If Goldstein wants information from me, and I am willing to give it to her, isn't she putting her own interests in a "scoop" or an "angle" ahead of the public's by refusing to conduct an interview she thought would be useful in the first place? And isn't she going forward with a story she knows may well be unnecessarily incomplete because she doesn't like the fact that her questions and my answers would have been on the record?
I of course want my listeners to get a chance if not to see the sausage that is MSM "news" being made, at least hear it being ground fine. I had hoped to compare whatever I was able to provide Ms. Goldstein with whatever it is that she publishes on the subject. Interesting all around, no?
But she declined to conduct the interview she requested. How interesting to note that the Post is willing to use sources that insist on anonymity, but not sources that demand transparency.
Saturday, July 30, 2005
Friday, July 29, 2005
Hee Hee
Nancy Pelosi is a fool (as if you didn't already know that).
Q Can you elaborate, Madame Leader, on some of the offers that were made to Democrats that you know about?
REP. PELOSI: No.
Q In which case -- it's a pretty serious charge, that you're saying some of them didn't pass legal muster to you.
REP. PELOSI: Yeah.
Q You're saying that -- that Republicans were trying to bribe Democrats?
REP. PELOSI: I didn't use the word bribe.
Q Well, you said it wasn't legal.
REP. PELOSI: I said that offers were made that were, in my view, questionable. And I know that they would be at a cost to the taxpayers. And I say that without any hesitation.
Q But that's a very serious charge.
REP. PELOSI: It is.
Q Could you just -- could you just give us the specifics of what you've heard?
REP. PELOSI: No, I'm not going to. I'm telling you, and -- why don't you go ask the Republicans or the White House what they were offering people? They would know best; they're the ones who were making the offers. I think that this has to stop. We have to stop the Republican rip-off of the legislative process on Capitol Hill. It has to stop now...
Q Madame Leader, I'm sorry to belabor this point, but it is -- let me see how to phrase this -- is there a difference between horse trading and federal violation regarding offering something of value for somebody's vote?
REP. PELOSI: Yes.
Q There's got to be a difference, right?
REP. PELOSI: Yeah. There is.
Q So now you're beyond just the normal give and take of --
REP. PELOSI: Yes.
Q I don't see how you can just lay that out there without giving us the specifics --
REP. PELOSI: Well, I just did. But I just did.
Q Is that fair, though? Is that the way you would like to be treated?
REP. PELOSI: That's the way we are treated. That's the way we are treated.
Q Are you going to pursue any sort of ethics complaint --
REP. PELOSI: I may. I may. I may. Not me, but those who have the information may. But these are the kinds of things that are very hard to prove if the deal is not consummated. That doesn't mean the deal wasn't offered. And it really -- because they have a poverty of arguments in favor of CAFTA, they have to resort to these extraordinary means.
Q Can you elaborate, Madame Leader, on some of the offers that were made to Democrats that you know about?
REP. PELOSI: No.
Q In which case -- it's a pretty serious charge, that you're saying some of them didn't pass legal muster to you.
REP. PELOSI: Yeah.
Q You're saying that -- that Republicans were trying to bribe Democrats?
REP. PELOSI: I didn't use the word bribe.
Q Well, you said it wasn't legal.
REP. PELOSI: I said that offers were made that were, in my view, questionable. And I know that they would be at a cost to the taxpayers. And I say that without any hesitation.
Q But that's a very serious charge.
REP. PELOSI: It is.
Q Could you just -- could you just give us the specifics of what you've heard?
REP. PELOSI: No, I'm not going to. I'm telling you, and -- why don't you go ask the Republicans or the White House what they were offering people? They would know best; they're the ones who were making the offers. I think that this has to stop. We have to stop the Republican rip-off of the legislative process on Capitol Hill. It has to stop now...
Q Madame Leader, I'm sorry to belabor this point, but it is -- let me see how to phrase this -- is there a difference between horse trading and federal violation regarding offering something of value for somebody's vote?
REP. PELOSI: Yes.
Q There's got to be a difference, right?
REP. PELOSI: Yeah. There is.
Q So now you're beyond just the normal give and take of --
REP. PELOSI: Yes.
Q I don't see how you can just lay that out there without giving us the specifics --
REP. PELOSI: Well, I just did. But I just did.
Q Is that fair, though? Is that the way you would like to be treated?
REP. PELOSI: That's the way we are treated. That's the way we are treated.
Q Are you going to pursue any sort of ethics complaint --
REP. PELOSI: I may. I may. I may. Not me, but those who have the information may. But these are the kinds of things that are very hard to prove if the deal is not consummated. That doesn't mean the deal wasn't offered. And it really -- because they have a poverty of arguments in favor of CAFTA, they have to resort to these extraordinary means.
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Best Book Blurb Ever
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam", a new book by Robert Spencer, just came out and includes the following blurb on the top of the book:
"May Allah rip out his spine from his back and split his brains in two, and then put them both back, and then do it over and over and over again. Amen." -- "praise" for the author on RevivingIslam.com."
"May Allah rip out his spine from his back and split his brains in two, and then put them both back, and then do it over and over and over again. Amen." -- "praise" for the author on RevivingIslam.com."
An Objective Reporter
From The Hill:
Reporter: Cheney’s not presidential materialIf Vice President Cheney is indeed a “serious darkhorse” candidate for president in 2008, as Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward recently suggested, he probably won’t want to enlist legendary White House reporter Helen Thomas to help with his press relations, even though she has proposed a campaign strategy he could run on....But asked this week if she is promoting a Cheney candidacy, Thomas made it clear she isn’t.
“The day I say Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I’ll kill myself,” she told The Hill. “All we need is one more liar.”
Thomas added, “I think he’d like to run, but it would be a sad day for the country if he does.”
Is that "I'll kill myself" statement a promise?
Reporter: Cheney’s not presidential materialIf Vice President Cheney is indeed a “serious darkhorse” candidate for president in 2008, as Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward recently suggested, he probably won’t want to enlist legendary White House reporter Helen Thomas to help with his press relations, even though she has proposed a campaign strategy he could run on....But asked this week if she is promoting a Cheney candidacy, Thomas made it clear she isn’t.
“The day I say Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I’ll kill myself,” she told The Hill. “All we need is one more liar.”
Thomas added, “I think he’d like to run, but it would be a sad day for the country if he does.”
Is that "I'll kill myself" statement a promise?
Religion of Peace
News from Indonesia:
The government continues to investigate, arrest and prosecute Islamic terrorists. But religious conflicts continue as well. More moderate Moslem leaders, while helping the government by preaching against the Islamic radicals, also want government help to stem the growth of Christianity. Missionaries, both Indonesian and foreign, have been successful in converting an increasing number of Moslem Indonesians. The Islamic clergy want the government to intervene. By law, only five religions are allowed in Indonesia, and the government has a tradition of getting involved in religious affairs. While 85 percent of Indonesians are Moslem, most of the remainder are Christian. On some islands, the population is half, or more, Christian. On those islands, many Moslems see Christianity as a more "modern" religion. Christian clergy and missionaries are generally better educated than their Moslem counterparts, and the Christians tend to be more successful economically as well.
The government continues to investigate, arrest and prosecute Islamic terrorists. But religious conflicts continue as well. More moderate Moslem leaders, while helping the government by preaching against the Islamic radicals, also want government help to stem the growth of Christianity. Missionaries, both Indonesian and foreign, have been successful in converting an increasing number of Moslem Indonesians. The Islamic clergy want the government to intervene. By law, only five religions are allowed in Indonesia, and the government has a tradition of getting involved in religious affairs. While 85 percent of Indonesians are Moslem, most of the remainder are Christian. On some islands, the population is half, or more, Christian. On those islands, many Moslems see Christianity as a more "modern" religion. Christian clergy and missionaries are generally better educated than their Moslem counterparts, and the Christians tend to be more successful economically as well.
Who Confirmed This Guy?
I believe he was a Reagan appointment. The Gipper let us down with this guy.
SEATTLE (AP) - The sentence itself was fairly straightforward: An Algerian man received 22 years for plotting to bomb the Los Angeles airport on the eve of the millennium. It was what the judge said in imposing the term that raised eyebrows.
U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour said the successful prosecution of Ahmed Ressam should serve not only as a warning to terrorists, but as a statement to the Bush administration about its terrorism-fighting tactics.
"We did not need to use a secret military tribunal, detain the defendant indefinitely as an enemy combatant or deny the defendant the right to counsel," he said Wednesday. "The message to the world from today's sentencing is that our courts have not abandoned our commitment to the ideals that set our nation apart."
The problem is that this nutjob will be out of jail in 22 years, if not sooner. Do you think he'll try this again? Yep.
SEATTLE (AP) - The sentence itself was fairly straightforward: An Algerian man received 22 years for plotting to bomb the Los Angeles airport on the eve of the millennium. It was what the judge said in imposing the term that raised eyebrows.
U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour said the successful prosecution of Ahmed Ressam should serve not only as a warning to terrorists, but as a statement to the Bush administration about its terrorism-fighting tactics.
"We did not need to use a secret military tribunal, detain the defendant indefinitely as an enemy combatant or deny the defendant the right to counsel," he said Wednesday. "The message to the world from today's sentencing is that our courts have not abandoned our commitment to the ideals that set our nation apart."
The problem is that this nutjob will be out of jail in 22 years, if not sooner. Do you think he'll try this again? Yep.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
