ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Friday, May 26, 2006

Thursday, May 25, 2006

Macbeth - Now With a Moonbat Twist!!!

"Double, double toil and trouble; Fires burn, and cauldron bubble."

Or, perhaps,

"Out, damned spot! out, I say!"

It seems that some in the blogosphere are having some great times at the expense of Jessie "I'm The Next John Kerry!" Macbeth.

See this hilarious post from WuzzaDem

And be sure to check out Iowahawk.

As a decorated combat veteran of Bush's Iraq misadventure, I am all too familiar with the saying "the first casualty of war is truth." Because this administration sold us a war of empire on a double stack combo of lies, biggie sized them, and served them up with extra mustard. And I was there to see it, man.

My story starts in 2001. I was a sophomore at Mayfield High, a star athlete who was captain of the basketball, football, and track teams, and had singlehandly scored 200 home runs in one memorable wrestling meet against the Riverdale Archies. Obviously, this made me irresistable to girls, and I easily bagged the entire pom squad after winning my 4th straight state debate championship. No shit dude, I totally taped the whole thing, but I left it in the VCR and my stupid mom recorded it over with an episode of Wheel of Fortune.

While my incredible athletic and sexual prowess earned me accolades on the field and in the sack, it also earned me many enemies in the halls of Mayfield High. [...] Then I learned a senior named Bueller had sworn his revenge on me because I smoked his Ferrari with my 600 horsepower VTEC Civic, which does 180 mph in the quarter, easy.

The PeaceFilms site is down now.... how sad.

:-)

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Cosby

In case you missed this editorial in USAToday on Monday, it's a great one about Bill Cosby and his message to American black men. (and yes, the fact that I'm posting on USAToday means that I'm traveling...)

Funnyman's serious message
Posted 5/21/2006 5:59 PM ET

Sometimes a social problem becomes so overwhelming that silence ensues. Such is the case with the state of America's black men, far too many of whom grow up without father figures and have fallen far behind the rest of society.

Fortunately, there's one voice so clear and brilliant that it adds up to a chorus. That voice belongs to comedian and activist Bill Cosby.

Cosby, 68, is on a 20-city tour, dubbed "A Call Out with Bill Cosby," where he tackles tough issues he first raised in a controversial 2004 speech at the NAACP gala commemorating the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court decision that desegregated schools.

The facts are not in dispute. In urban areas, the high school dropout rate for black men runs as high as 50%. Of those who drop out, the jobless rate exceeds 70%. And as of two years ago, 21% of black men who didn't attend college were incarcerated.

But grim facts are not what Cosby adds to the debate. Rather, he speaks the unspeakable, pointing out that some cultural norms in parts of the African-American community contribute to a worsening situation:

Illiteracy. Civil rights workers "marched and were hit in the face with rocks ... to get an education," Cosby says, "and we've got these knuckleheads walking around who don't want to learn English. ... You can't land a plane with 'Why you ain't ...' You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth."

Impact of 'Brown' "What did we do with it? The white man, he's laughing. ... Fifty percent dropout rate; rest of them in prison."

Teen sex. "What is it with young girls getting after some girl who wants to still remain a virgin? Who are these sick black people and where did they come from? And why haven't they been parented to shut up? "

Blame "We cannot blame white people. ... It's not what they're doing to us. It's what we are not doing."

Cosby's candor has stirred criticism from fellow African-Americans. Blaming personal behavior ducks the question of racism and lets white people off the hook, they argue.

No, it doesn't. Any reasonable person understands the destructive legacy that slavery, Jim Crow laws and racism have imposed. Cosby, however, is in a unique position to speak the obvious: Tolerance of destructive personal habits and low education expectations are crippling young black Americans, especially men. This is just the voice America needs to break through the silence.

As I've mentioned before, success in America is not a difficult prospect for those with the will and the understanding of what's required... It's a shame that the anointed black leadership (referred to by some as hucksters, bigots, and crooks).

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

In a fashion reminiscient of Gengis Khan

SWARM! SWARM! SWARM!

Jessie Macbeth's interview performance in this film is causing quite a stir in the blogosphere. Milbloggers have serious questions about this guy's authenticity. (Apparently, his uniform is about as authentic as those in Private Benjamin... Allah at Hot Air has all the links.

Watch the video yourself.

America - meet the next John Kerry. It's interesting how his "interview" echoes Kerry's sentiments (no specifics on the incidents and discusses how the US is terrorizing the people of Iraq). But hey.... what's the big deal about smearing the troops? I mean, that doesn't mean that you don't support them, right?

Regardless of whether this guy is an actual Army Ranger or not, here are some issues I have with the film:

  1. He provides no dates for any of the incidents. Give us some dates, Jessie, so we can verify.
  2. He provides no locations other than "Iraq" and "Baghdad". He mentions an atrocity at a mosque, reminiscien of Gengis Khan, but doesn't provide us with the village that it was in.
  3. He provides no information about his commanding officers who ordered such atrocities. Give us a name so we can follow up.
  4. What other soldiers were present during these atrocities?

Until Jessie provides this information, this information is about as reliable as anything posted on TruthOut.org.

Also see QandO... and DetailedRecruiter, who investigated a DoD website to see if Jess Macbeth wsa registered and couldn't find any record of him.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Monday, May 22, 2006

Let's rachet up the story a bit... That apology? Nevermind.

I was going to add to St. Wendelers excellent post below, but instead decided to create my own, because there's just too much goodness in the latest from Marc Ash at TruthOut:

Information Sharing on the Rove Indictment Story

By Marc Ash,

Sun May 21st, 2006 at 11:58:26 AM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation

I'd like to break this posting into two categories: What we know, and what we believe. They will be clearly marked
Gotcha, stuff you think you know in one category, stuff you just make up in the other category. At least your going to clearly mark them this time. Got it.
We know that we have now three independent sources confirming that attorneys for Karl Rove were handed an indictment either late in the night of May 12 or early in the morning of May 13. We know that each source was in a position to know what they were talking about.
But are they in a position to lie about it to you? And how independent are they if they all have the facts from a (in your words) "locked down" meeting?

We know that the office of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald will not confirm, will not deny, will not comment on its investigation or on our report. We know that both Rove's attorney Robert Luskin and Rove's spokesman Mark Corallo have categorically denied all key facts we have set forth.
So you in reality you know nothing. Fitz has refused to confirm or deny, and the other side has denied. Why does that automatically mean that the side you are rooting against is lying?
We know we have information that directly contradicts Luskin and Corallo's denials.
Of course you don't print that information. Your previous article just says that you have additional sources that prove they are lying, but don't provide any details.
We know that there were two network news crews outside of the building in Washington, DC that houses the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm that represents Karl Rove.
So two network news crews were outside the building waiting (wishing?) for the same thing you are apparantly wishing for, but haven't reported anything. Yet this means that you are telling the truth? The entire Washington Redskins football team could have been staked out in the Patton Boggs bathroom and it wouldn't mean that you were telling the truth. The only thing it does mean is that your ego's are stroked by the presence of network news crews being in the same place you are.
We know that the 4th floor of that building (where the Patton Boggs offices are located) was locked down all day Friday and into Saturday night.
You still haven't provide any information on how you know that or the details of what a "lockdown" means. Are lockdowns unusual? Was it the whole 4th floor? Why would they need to lock down the whole 4th floor to negotiate a plea bargain? Additional information would be helpful in determining if this little factoid adds anything but spice to the story. Lockdown does not equal "indictment."
We know that we have not received a request for a retraction from anyone. And we know that White House spokesman Tony Snow now refuses to discuss Karl Rove - at all.
I would call the Luskin's and Corallo's denials pretty close to a retraction. Obviously Karl Rove isn't going to threaten you with a libel lawsuit.. He's a public figure and you can probably say whatever you want about him, that doesn't mean its true. And as to Tony Snow, nice use of the word "now" as if Tony Snow has been on the job long enough to discuss Karl Rove, well, ever, in his capacity as White House Press Secretary.
Further, we know - and we want our readers to know - that we are dependent on confidential sources. We know that a report based solely on information obtained from confidential sources bears some inherent risks. We know that this is - by far - the biggest story we have ever covered, and that we are learning some things as we go along. Finally, we know that we have the support of those who have always supported us, and that must now earn the support of those who have joined us as of late.Your Co-Conspirator,
So basically, you are out of your league, your sources don't want to stick their names behind the story, and yet you think this enhances the truthfulness of their charges rather than cause doubt. And because left-wing netrooters that want to see Karl Rove indicted so bad support you, you're willing to jump off the cliff with them.
We now move on to what we believe. (If you are looking for any guarantees, please turn back now.)
Translation: We're about to make stuff up. What a bang-up news organization. Mary Mapes isn't on staff with you is she?

We believe that we hit a nerve with our report. When I get calls on my cell phone from Karl Rove's attorney and spokesman, I have to wonder what's up.

How about, "Your printing false information." If you basically say someones is already indicted and they weren't in fact indicted, how would you expect them to react? There is no scenario in your world where Karl isn't indicted is there?
"I" believe - but cannot confirm - that Mark Corallo, Karl Rove's spokesman gave Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post my phone number. I believe Howard Kurtz contacted me with the intention of writing a piece critical of our organization.
And this means, what exactly? Karl forced Howie to write a hit piece against you using his mind rays? Howard Kurtz is the media critic of the Washington Post, maybe you've heard of it. You sir are making an ass out of yourself and your organization with your so called journalism on this story. I would think that Howard doesn't need any prodding to write about you.
I know that Anne Marie Squeo of the Wall Street Journal attacked us and independent journalism as a whole in her piece titled, "Rove's Camp Takes Center of Web Storm / Bloggers Underscore How Net's Reporting, Dynamics Provide Grist for the Rumor Mill."
See above. She covers the Justice Department for the Wall Street Journal (maybe you've heard about that one too).
We believe that rolling out that much conservative journalistic muscle to rebut this story is telling. And we believe that Rove's camp is making a concerted effort to discredit our story and our organization.
Howard Kurtz is conservative muscle? I watched Anne Marie Squeo this morning on CSPAN, she doesnt' seem like she's rooting for ol Karl. Just doesn't believe in printing her wishing and seeing if they come true. Rove's camp doesn't need much of an effort (concerted or otherwise) to discredit the story.
Further - and again this is "What We Believe" - Rove may be turning state's evidence. We suspect that the scope of Fitzgerald's investigation may have broadened - clearly to Cheney - and according to one "off the record source" to individuals and events not directly related to the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. We believe that the indictment which does exist against Karl Rove is sealed. Finally, we believe that there is currently a great deal of activity in the Plame investigation.
Now that is just funny. Your story hasn't panned out or been confirmed by any other news organization in the world, in fact its been derided by more than a few. The primary participants in the story have denied it in no uncertain terms. And instead of retracting your story, you lead yourself further down the rabbit hole and assume that Rove has not only turned states evidence, but is ratting out Cheney. Why Cheney? Well why not, right? Do you ever assume that perhaps, just perhaps, there isn't an indictment at all? And instead you're being led astray? And no duh, there's a great deal of activity going on. You could have said that about any non-holiday portion of any of the past 3 years. That's hardly a scoop (or evidence that Karl Rove is about to be frog-marched).

We know that this story is of vital interest to the community, and that providing as much information as we can is very important to our readers. We want you to know that this is challenging territory and that we are proceeding with as much speed as the terrain will allow.
Why do I get the feeling that by the "community" he's referring to the DUers and the Kos crowd. Just don't stumble, ok?

Your Co-Conspirator
ARC: Brian

Sunday, May 21, 2006

Ahead of the "Fake But Accurate" News Cycle

Woops... perhaps it was 24 business weeks?

The TruthOut Non-Apology Apology is here, although the link is getting swarmed. Here's a snippet:

On Saturday afternoon, May 13, 2006, TruthOut ran a story titled, "Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators." The story stated in part that top Bush aide Karl Rove had earlier that day been indicted on the charges set forth in the story's title.

The time has now come, however, to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story. While we paid very careful attention to the sourcing on this story, we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle. In moving as quickly as we did, we caused more confusion than clarity. And that was a disservice to our readership and we regret it.

As such, we will be taking the wait-and-see approach for the time being. We will keep you posted.

sorry, but this has nothing to do with a news cycle and everything to do with the Left's willingness to repeat any information, no matter how idiotic it is. The fact that this is being chalked up to the "news cycle" (and assuming the indictments have been handed down) means that the MSM has this information, but is unwilling to cover it even though TruthOut has reported it. As has been demonstrated over the past few days, Jason Leopold and TruthOut can't exactly be considered trusted sources - and their unwillingness to come clean with something other than a half-assed apology further undermines their credibility.

No doubt that the Moonbats will continue to profess their faith in Truthout and that they're right, even though they're wrong.

Back to stockpiling the booze, Moonbats! Make sure you have plenty of ice!

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Howard Dean - Undermining Black Incumbents

I can't wait for the Kossacks, OliverWillis, & the other Moonbats to comment on this story:

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN MAY 21, 2006 20:00:02 ET XXXXX

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE WORKED TO DEFEAT NAGIN

**Exclusive**

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) secretly placed political operatives in the city of New Orleans to work against the reelection efforts of incumbent Democrat Mayor Ray Nagin, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

DNC Chairman Howard Dean made the decision himself to back mayoral candidate and sitting Lieutenant Governor Mitch Landrieu (D-LA), sources reveal.

Dean came to the decision to back the white challenger, over the African-American incumbent Nagin, despite concerns amongst senior black officials in the Party that the DNC should stay neutral.

The DNC teams actively worked to defeat Nagin under the auspice of the committee's voting rights program.

The party's field efforts also coincided with a national effort by Democrat contributors to support Landrieu.

Landrieu had outraised Nagin by a wide margin - $3.3 million to $541,980.

Preliminary campaign finance reports indicate many of Landrieu’s contributions came from out of state white Democrat leaders and financiers, including a $1,000 contribution from Sen. Ben Nelson's (D-NE) PAC.

The defeat of Mitch Landrieu is the latest setback for Dean's often criticized field operation.

In his victory speech late Saturday night, Nagin praised President Bush.

"You and I have probably been the most vilified politicians in the country. But I want to thank you for moving that promise that you made in Jackson Square forward," Nagin said.

Developing...

Oliver Willis has been referring to black conservatives as doing the "shuck & jive" and attacking them for so long.... I wonder how this news will be received - that the head of the Democratic Party actively sought to defeat an incumbent African-American mayor.

This highlights the differences in the parties:
The Republican Party - where African-Americans are appreciated and moved into leadership positions.

The Democratic Party - where African-Americans are great as rank & file volunteers every 2 years. And if you are in a leadership position, please don't expect on keeping it.

Of course, when Howard Dean, a wealthy white Northeastern Liberal who always favored the diversity of Vermont (or the Hamptons) for his campaign staff, uses insensitive racial remarks, there is not so much as a peep from the Left, so I doubt this story will be commented on at all.

Also see Riehl World and Espella Humanzee for other comments. Bill Quick of the DailyPundit offers this:
Yeah, I imagine it must be pretty embarassing to have a living, breathing, extremely obvious example of what todays Democratic Party is really all about - race baiting, corruption, and incredible incompetence.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler