Case in point: Washington Post “media critic” Howard Kurtz’s article today about FOX News Channel’s “reporters’” growing discomfort with the shenanigans of FNC darling Glenn Beck, he of the mighty chalkboard of insanity, his ludicrous fits of crying, his manic desire to be a political player, the fearmongering, paranoia and Stalin-Mao-Hitler-Marxist-Communist-Racist-Obama-hating cavalcade of madness. The meme that Beck is merely an entertainer and that FOX personalities are worried that the new star on the block could damage its relationship with the White House and the channel’s reputation are laughable at best. After all, Beck organized the infamous “9/12″ rallies, a non-news event enthusiastically covered by FOX, complete with inflated crowd estimates. Beck, in displays of false modesty, claims to be a mere rodeo clown. Nonsense. He’s a liar, an ignoramus and a dangerous Father Coughlinesque demagogue who has done enormous damage to political discourse and the profession of journalism. (Beck would probably decry Coughlin’s loyalties but the technique remains the same).

Beck apologized recently for wasting his audience’s time following a hilariously absurd and demented interview with disgraced tickling enthusiast and former Congressman Eric Massa. But not to worry, he’s back to whatever passes for normal now.

FOX’s “news” operation didn’t show restraint or a desire for fact-checking while helping pump damaging, and false stories about the Clintons into the media churn, with the Vince Foster conspiracy theory still holding a strong showing behind the JFK assassination.

And it’s not as if Beck makes money for the network. He’s a loss leader (here’s a partial list of companies that have pulled their ads, despite Beck’s strong ratings). There are rumblings that Rupert Murdoch’s children are fed up with the drama surrounding FOX News’s foolishness, but you can bet that as long as daddy Rupert is in charge and Roger Ailes continues to draw breath nothing will change.

The Kurtz article follows an absurd piece in the Washington Post by former New York Times Executive Editor Howell Raines. With wide-eyed wonder, he ponders the vexing question of why reputable media organizations don’t call FOX out as a propaganda mill. This from a man who if he had a sense of shame would have the decency to keep quiet about media ethics, considering that reporter Bush/Cheney stenographer Judy Miller’s wildly incorrect WMD/Chalabi articles started being published in the NYT on his watch. The New York Times, which sets the agenda for all other publications in the United States, was thereby complicit in pushing falsehoods that led to an unjust and unnecessary war, costing thousands of American lives and ruining the U.S.’s reputation around the world. Good work, Howell.

But to answer your question, Howell: Cowardice. The American media are sheep. You’re welcome.

American reporters love to express their wonder at the Pakistani media’s love of conspiracy theories and wrinkle their brows over what a terrible impact the dissemination of false and sensationalistic information could have on the U.S.-Pak relationship. Look in the mirror, people.

– Cross Post from: The Pakistan Update

For some folks at MSNBC? Seems like it, given this recent departure. Craig Crawford, an MSNBC mainstay, has quit the network, even leaving before his contract was out. Wait until you read why that is in this article, MSNBC Political Analyst Craig Crawford Has Left the Network – In A Very Public Way. (Photo by Terry Ballard)

It confirms what many of us have been saying for a while:

Writing on his blog at CQPolitics.com, Crawford says he has found the network “unrewarding for me,” – and expands on his reason for leaving in a comment to Mediaite.

Crawford last appeared on MSNBC on February 5, as a guest on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, where he regularly appeared (according to TV Eyes). The blog post came exactly one month after that appearance. Crawford wrote:

Three months short of my current contract I sent the following to the boss, Phil Griffin: “Phil, Just wanted to give you the heads up that my situation with MSNBC has become so unrewarding for me that I’ve decided to move on. — Craig”

But he really expanded on the reasoning in the comments:

i simply could not any longer endure being a cartoon player for lefty games, just gotta move on to higher ground even if there’s no oxygen

i have never and never will forgive Chris for calling me a racist after the West Virginia primary (the last time I will ever go on air with him). Probably should have resigned then and there, but better late than never.

“Cartoon character for lefty games”?? Holy smokes! Tell us how you really feel, Craig:

We asked Crawford what he was referring to regarding Chris Matthews, and to expand on why he left the network. He responded by email:

I haven’t felt like a good fit for MSNBC since the presidential campaign, and the hard turn toward point-of-view programming. No particular event brought this on, just my desire to try other outlets and have more fun. As far as Chris is concerned, on Morning Joe after the West Virginia primary he accused me of always defending Clinton and what he claimed to be her racially motivated campaigning. That’s the problem. Trying to be fair became seen as bias in the new thinking over there. But I do wish my many pals at MSNBC nothing but good things.

This appears to be that incident from Morning Joe.

Dang, Craig, maybe you could have spoken up a bit more back then, giving it back to Tingly Leg that Hillary ISN’T racist, and for Tingles to claim she is, and calling you a racist, too, was nothing short of reprehensible and slanderous? Just asking. So, tell us more:

The decision by a Countdown regular to leave MSNBC because of his the way he perceives the network is a notable one. Although Crawford isn’t purely left-wing, he is a commentator that represents the left perspective. His exit, and his reasoning, show some level of discontent among those who may be politically on the same team at MSNBC.

Crawford says on his blog he will be on Fox & Friends as a guest on Monday, although FNC says he won’t be. He also writes in the comments that he is a “free agent.”

> Update: Crawford took down the F&F booking info shortly after publication.

Some interesting comments at both Craig’s blog, and at Mediaite about Craig’s decision. Many people support him, but a number of MSNBO viewers attack him for going to “Fox and Friends.” Now there’s a surprise.

It is mighty interesting that Crawford has departed the network before his contract was up, and especially the reasons why. I reckon it is better late than never. Oh, no, wait – because he colluded in MSNBC becoming MSNBO, participated in Hillary-bashing even if it was in staying silent in the face of blatant falsehoods about her from other commentators. And he did participate in their “lefty games.” Now, we are stuck with Obama wrecking our country. But, hey – if things keep going this way, there will be fewer “journalists” willing to make Obama’s presidency a success, like Good Ol’ Chris Matthews. I guess that’s something.

Welcome to the Kool Aide Free zone, also free of Hopium smoke. Glad you made it out, Craig.

While we can lament that Speaker Pelosi arrogantly ignores the majority of the population with her reckless actions re health care legislation, or her behaving as if the American people are morons with no recall of her recent damaging statements towards millions of them, her statement that she agrees with some of the tea partiers’ view is heartening for one reason — it shows how powerful the Tea Partiers have become. They are now a group to be courted. And reckoned with. If this doesn’t tell you some pretty big people are quaking in their boots, I don’t know what does.

Just last summer, we had to listen to endless jokes by Anderson Cooper of CNN , Keith Olbermann and David Shuster of MSNBC, and even Senator Chuck Shumer. No longer are they using the “teabagger” slur. That already backfired in painful ways. Pelosi and Hoyer are not talking about swastikas anymore. The New Yorker and Newsweek magazines recently had articles referring to “The Tea Party Movement”. A lefty ‘coffee party’ movement has sprung up as an imitator. The British have actually started a similar Tea Party Movement, where I am told they will be serving real tea at their rallies.

So much for Tea Partiers being a fringe group.

What a difference a year makes.

While a third party is probably not a good idea as it would only split the vote, favoring incumbents, for Tea Partiers to allow themselves to be courted, even catered to is a good thing. Only when every elected official is terrified of losing their job, only when they get on the stick and start doing the people’s business instead of their own will we get back to a place of fiscal responsibility, sensible policy and job growth.

But they will have to do more than just tell us. They are going to have to show us. And prove they have a record worthy of keeping them in office, or electing them to office in the first place.

Let is pray that the era of electing American Idol is over. That hasn’t worked out too well.

The embattled liberal group ACORN is in the process of dissolving its national structure, with state and local-chapters splitting off from the underfunded, controversial national group, an official close to the group confirmed.

“ACORN has dissolved as a national structure of state organizations,” said a senior official close to the group, who declined to be identified by name because of the fierce conservative attacks on the group that began when a conservative filmmaker caught some staffers of its tax advisory arms on tape appearing to offer advice on incorporating a prostitution business.

Ah, yes – this is all the fault of that pesky James O’Keefe and those mean Republicans. It has absolutely ZIP to do with ACORN being under investigation in at least 14 states for voter registration fraud, and is under federal indictment in Nevada, or their participation in the mortgage lending crisis, or anything like that.

The article referenced above also has this Update:

A person familiar with the New York reorganization said the new group has a new board, including some relative outsiders, like an official at the union Workers United, Wilfredo Larancuent, as well as most of the old leadership.

But the impact appears to be minimal.

“It’s not like this is some kind of hostile thing,” said the New York source. “This is what Fox has produced. National Acorn and Bertha Lewis are continuing doing their thing, but the New York flagship has been forced into this new organization.”

“As far as the work in the communities and policy campaigns, no one will notice the difference,” the source said. “It’s people who still believe in their basic mission of fighting for poor people.”

ALSO: National ACORN says it continues to exist, despite the departure of state chapters, including also California’s, which departed under similar terms last month.

Yes, yes, it is clear – this has nothing to do with voter registration fraud, voter fraud, bad mortgages, or the fact that this is SUPPOSED to be a non-partisan organization that is working primarily to hep Democrats, including Obama, elected to office. Nope – it’s all because Fox News and James O’Keefe are mean to them. I got it.

Do they really think we are so stupid that we are not going to KNOW they are the same group as before? Hey, we’re not in Congress or anything – we aren’t THAT easily duped. I’m pretty sure we can keep up.

But guess who apparently cannot? Oh, yes indeedy – President Obama. Remember this little clip from his interview with George Stephanopoulos?

Wait until you get a load of THIS one:

Again, do these politicians really NOT know we have VIDEOTAPE??? Holy moley, Obama, you are way too young to be that forgetful. Oh, wait – that’s not forgetfulness, that’s flat out lying. No doubt, once ACORN has finished changing its name and banners, he’s going to claim he has NO idea who or what that organization is.

Hey, here’s a fun little contest we can have. “Liar, liar, pants on fire!” is a bit dated as an expression, and we so need a new one for Obama and the numerous whoppers he lets fly (not to mention most politicians). What pithy saying can you craft that about Obama and his numerous lies? This should be fun. Oh, and prize ideas, too, would be welcome. Have at it!

In the latter days of the Carter presidency, it became fashionable to say that the office had become unmanageable and was simply too big for one man. Some suggested a single, six-year presidential term. The president’s own White House counsel suggested abolishing the separation of powers and going to a more parliamentary system of unitary executive control. America had become ungovernable.

Then came Ronald Reagan, and all that chatter disappeared.

The tyranny of entitlements? Reagan collaborated with Tip O’Neill, the legendary Democratic House speaker, to establish the Alan Greenspan commission that kept Social Security solvent for a quarter-century.

A corrupted system of taxation? Reagan worked with liberal Democrat Bill Bradley to craft a legislative miracle: tax reform that eliminated dozens of loopholes and slashed rates across the board — and fueled two decades of economic growth.

Later, a highly skilled Democratic president, Bill Clinton, successfully tackled another supposedly intractable problem: the culture of intergenerational dependency. He collaborated with another House speaker, Newt Gingrich, to produce the single most successful social reform of our time, the abolition of welfare as an entitlement.

Krauthammer hits the nail on the head:

It turned out that the country’s problems were not problems of structure but of leadership. Reagan and Clinton had it. Carter didn’t. Under a president with extensive executive experience, good political skills and an ideological compass in tune with the public, the country was indeed governable.

One needs experience, depth of knowledge on policy and the workings of government as well as specific understanding of the needs of Americans in order to move this country forward. Tone deaf policies that do little to solve those needs will not lead to a good result.

Krauthammer continues:

It’s 2010, and the first-year agenda of a popular and promising young president has gone down in flames. Barack Obama’s two signature initiatives — cap-and-trade and health-care reform — lie in ruins.

Desperate to explain away this scandalous state of affairs, liberal apologists haul out the old reliable from the Carter years: “America the Ungovernable.” So declared Newsweek. “Is America Ungovernable?” coyly asked the New Republic. Guess the answer. [snip]

Yet, what’s new about any of these supposedly ruinous structural impediments? Special interests blocking policy changes? They have been around since the beginning of the republic — and since the beginning of the republic, strong presidents, like the two Roosevelts, have rallied the citizenry and overcome them.

Krauthammer goes on to dissect the latest liberal complaints about Republican’s use of the filibuster pointing out Democrats did the same in blocking GW Bush’s judicial appointments. Their complaints that Congress’ structure impedes progress is likewise blather to provide cover for an administration that has lost control of its message.

…Indeed, the Senate with its ponderous procedures and decentralized structure is serving precisely the function the Founders intended: as a brake on the passions of the House and a caution about precipitous transformative change.

Krauthammer took time to praise another Democrat along the way:

Leave it to Mickey Kaus, a principled liberal who supports health-care reform, to debunk these structural excuses: “Lots of intellectual effort now seems to be going into explaining Obama’s (possible/likely/impending) health care failure as the inevitable product of larger historic and constitutional forces. . . . But in this case there’s a simpler explanation: Barack Obama’s job was to sell a health care reform plan to American voters. He failed.”

He failed because the utter implausibility of its central promise — expanded coverage at lower cost — led voters to conclude that it would lead ultimately to more government, more taxes and more debt. More broadly, the Democrats failed because, thinking the economic emergency would give them the political mandate and legislative window, they tried to impose a left-wing agenda on a center-right country. The people said no, expressing themselves first in spontaneous demonstrations, then in public opinion polls, then in elections — Virginia, New Jersey and, most emphatically, Massachusetts.

That’s not a structural defect. That’s a textbook demonstration of popular will expressing itself — despite the special interests — through the existing structures. In other words, the system worked.

I also read an interesting piece by Joe Scarborough yesterday, discussing his own conservative principles. He stated that while he may not agree with President Obama’s agenda, he prays for him daily to find a successful way to lead for the sake of our country. He said “if his grandmother could pray for Carter, he could pray for Obama.”

My prayer is that the President starts paying more attention to the message Americans are sending him and less attention to those like Nancy Pelosi who are arrogant in continuing to tell the rest of us to get lost. Perhaps he would then find the country is governable.

The packaging of a fantasy is an art in and of itself cleverly crafted by publicists, ambitious stage parents and cynical editors. The formula is fairly simple. The performer must always be portrayed as single and wholesome. Marriage, homosexuality, bizarre personality quirks, poor grooming, violent tendencies, psychological issues, consumption of alcohol and/or drugs and smoking must be concealed at all costs lest the fantasy, and possibly a career, go up in smoke. Chastity rings a la Jonas Brothers are a big plus. The star has to be accessible but always slightly out of reach, cute but never sexual, perfectly behaved….and rather bland. Attracting and keeping the attention of young female fans, who tend to be fickle when it comes to the cuties they admire, is easier said than done.

But it’s impossible to put off the inevitable. The girls realize they’re at a puppet show when they see the strings. The star turns out to be a regular guy. After shedding a few tears and pouting a bit, the heartbroken and disappointed girls move on to the next object of their undying love.

During Campaign 2008, the American press corps hit a double by acting as both the editors of fluffy teenage magazines AND their audience: Weepy, starstruck young girls. The campaign coverage was breathless in its uncritical hero worship of candidate Obama while treating Hillary Clinton like the evil woman who comes between the adoring fan and the object of his/her adoration. The Yoko Ono of politics, if you will. The McCain camp spoofed this silly dynamic by putting out an ad drawing attention to the American Idol-like press coverage of the Obama campaign (the ad was removed from YouTube for copyright violations). And imagine how the press corps would have reacted if Bill Clinton had given his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention standing in front of a set bearing a distinct likeness to a Grecian temple.

Over a year has passed since Obama was sworn into office. Only now are the media beginning to ask whether the man they lost their heads over is the same guy from 2008. The jury’s still out with many in the press corps who continue to keep hope alive. For those who refuse to face the reality that Barack Obama is not the political Donny Osmond, the latest craze is blaming advisors for the Obama administration’s lack of legislative accomplishments. Never mind that Rahm Emanuel was not elected President and that it really doesn’t matter whether Valerie Jarrett chooses to hold court at a restaurant in Georgetown instead of pressing the flesh at an event (and you know things are getting dire when anyone in Obama’s circle is compared unfavorably to Bill Clinton, a man still reviled by the Washington press establishment). These people were appointed by the President to carry out his wishes. If Obama thought they were doing him a disservice they would be fired. The new narrative casting aspersions on the aides is a cop out. It advances the idea that these advisors fell out of the sky, formed a cabal and are now freelancing instead of following the orders of the First Boss. Nonsense.

Obama spent his first year holding a series of town halls, public meetings, press conferences and television interviews. But the bottom line is that legislatively the party has ground to a halt. The foolish narratives advanced by the media aren’t helping much. So the Republicans won an addition seat in Massachusetts? Yes, it’s a significant and important political story, but in a world populated by grown-ups going from a 60-40 supermajority in the Senate to 59-41 does not give the Democrats an out to fold their tents and go home. The Republicans haven’t achieved a supermajority in living memory but were still able to advance a controversial agenda during the tenure of George W. Bush. The fear and defeatism emanating from the Democratic caucus demonstrates an inability, or unwillingness, to lead. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s performance has been particularly timid. What ever happened to the Harry Reid who served as chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission:

A man named Jack Gordon, who later married LaToya Jackson, tried to give Reid a $12,000 bribe. Reid let the FBI videotape Gordon offering him the bribe, and then, according to aLas Vegas Review-Journal account, he “put his hands around Gordon’s neck and said, ‘You son of a bitch, you tried to bribe me.’” That’s right, Senate Democrats are being led by a man who once tried to strangle LaToya Jackson’s future husband-manager.

The media have reached a crossroads. They can either do a group hug and cry over a dream deferred, an illusion they helped create, or they can stop searching for scapegoats and covering Obama as they would any other politician.

Will this happen? It’s hard to tell. It appears that the press have moved on to swoon over their next fascination: American Idol, er, Campaign 2012.

–
Cross Post from: ThePakistanUpdate.com

No doubt working with and around politicians is a risky business. Consider the tawdry, never-ending saga of John Edwards and his merry band of enablers, chief among whom is former Edwards aide Andrew Young, now out baying for blood.

Young and his wife appeared on ABC’s 20/20 recently to empty the X-rated clown car. To hear them tell the story, working for the Edwardses was a mixture of dark and light, Gaslight-meets-Almost Famous, a traveling ego and sex parade financed by eccentric heiress Bunny Mellon, who had held a grudge against Hillary Clinton ever since the then-First Lady allegedly refused to take Mellon’s advice pertaining to changes to a White House garden.

Given the fact that this story has been dragging its way in and out of the news for the better part of a year and a half, it’s fair to ask why it remains newsworthy. Why Young and his wife are so forthcoming now is no coincidence. As of this writing, the only people who will not have to worry about finances from now on are the Edwardses. Rielle Hunter and the Youngs will probably never be able to work again. Hunter will receive support payments from Edwards. The Youngs are finished in politics. All parties will rack up heavy legal bills while under investigation by the FEC and the IRS – but only the Edwardses can afford to shoulder this financial burden.

The issue is not how could John Edwards have been so reckless (because he thought he wouldn’t get caught) or whether it’s been decided who the victim is (hands down: the child. The rest of the adults, even the candidate’s cancer-stricken wife, all played along for the cameras. At least for a while).

The issue that continues to matter is image and illusion. Campaigns are like performances – how you interpret the action depends on whether you’re watching the actors on stage or backstage observing the crew frantically pulling the ropes and running around moving the backdrops. The repercussions of the great Shame of 2008 continues to play on the stage even though the Edwardses have been relegated to the sidelines for the most part.

Pulling off the John and Elizabeth 2008 Tour would have stretched the patience and imagination of even the most hardened rock and roll road manager. Imagine your boss ordering you and your spouse to make room for his pregnant mistress in your home. And then move you, your family and the woman from home to home. And expect you to claim paternity. And ask you to help fake a paternity test. And all during a presidential campaign, not while touring as the opening act for Van Halen. It would appear that Young finally decided to spill the beans because the job Edwards had promised him running a foundation for the poor (!) and financed by Mellon didn’t materialize.

While the Youngs justify their actions by saying they were caught up in the thrill of working for a man who could be president — you know, For The Good Of The Country — surely even they knew that Edwards’ candidacy was the proverbial pinless grenade. They also never articulate WHY they thought Edwards should be elected to the nation’s highest office – apart from their own person gain of course. Why else would two seemingly sane adults agree to have their lives taken over and turned upside down to benefit the career of a selfish, egotistical man?

The press is largely to blame for this fiasco. They missed a huge story that they chose to ignore despite the National Enquirer’s dogged coverage – including pictures – and the candidate’s grotesquely indiscreet behavior. They created the campaign’s archetypes – Son of a Mill Worker with Cancer-Stricken Wife Defying the Odds, First Lady-Turned-Senator Who Overcame Betrayal and Her Lothario Husband, Scrappy Surprise Pick Republican Vice Presidential Candidate and Her Colorfully-Named Family, Flinty Patriot and Vietnam War Hero Political Maverick (here’s an alternate view)….the problem was that once the script was written it didn’t change. The Clintons are racists? If you say so we’ll run with it. Elizabeth Edwards selflessly and bravely persuaded her husband to continue his campaign despite her grim cancer diagnosis? Great story. Let the presses role. Barack Obama’s value as a symbol of How Far We’ve Come is more important than determining whether he’s got what it takes to fix the wreckage left behind by 8 years of Bush-Cheney? Give that man a Nobel Prize. No wonder the media don’t know what to do now. The templates they created during the campaign are significantly at odds with the reality that played out afterwards. Crafting these narratives is easy and ultimately serves to drive conventional wisdom for good or ill. But if the traveling press corps – especially the media assigned to the Edwards campaign – could have missed a story so obvious that it may as well have jumped up and down waving its arms yelling “look over here! I’m a story!”, who knows what other facts the voters were kept in the dark about?

One inevitable result of press missteps of this nature is the creation of a ripe atmosphere for conspiracy theory, which only serves to disinform and encourage cynicism and irrational fear.

As the fallout resulting from the media’s carelessness is surveyed, here’s one thing you’re unlikely to see from the reporters and editors responsible for the coverage: An apology.

Back to the lion tamer. He managed to escape relatively unscathed. The lion is back in its cage and will probably be sent to the lion equivalent of the glue factory. The crowd watching the show narrowly avoided being eaten. And no refunds will be granted at the door.

–
Cross Post from The Pakistan Update

Congressman – Senator – Vice President – 37th President of the United States Lyndon Baines Johnson was a crude, tactless man. Bobby Kennedy loathed him. The photograph of Johnson taking the oath of office on Air Force One standing next to a shocked, blood-spattered Jacqueline Kennedy is one of the most tragic and iconic images of the 1960s. Conspiracy theorists driven by hatred of Johnson’s Vietnam policies – including filmmaker Oliver Stone – believe Johnson had a hand in Kennedy’s death, a theory that despite lack of proof is stubbornly resilient.

Mystery shrouds Johnson’s election to the Senate in 1948, which many believe Johnson stole with a little help from his friends. In one infamous precinct, 202 ballots were cast alphabetically – all by “voters” who were dead at the time the election was held.

Johnson was a flagrant womanizer. He was ill-mannered, foulmouthed, crooked, stubborn and dead wrong on Vietnam. His tactic for getting his way, known as “the Johnson Treatment,” consisted of a little carrot and, when necessary, abundant stick. When charm didn’t work blackmail and brute force did the trick.

He didn’t like to lose and threw more than a few elbows to win. The “Daisy Girl” ad, which ran only once during his campaign for President against Barry Goldwater in 1964, is still considered one of the most effective attack ads ever made. Accusing your opponent of being a lunatic may not adhere to the Marquess of Queensbery rules but it wins elections.

So why remember this bully and lout?

Because when it came to doing the right thing for the little guy, Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat with a capital “D,” a politician who defied all expectations by being far ahead of his time. As President, he was responsible for designing the “Great Society” legislation that included laws that upheld civil rights, Public Broadcasting, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, aid to education, and helping the disadvantaged in his “War on Poverty.” All while fighting dyed-in-the-wool racist Congressmen, Senators and Governors and a public that had not yet reached a higher state of enlightenment on race relations. And all this without a White House Chief of Staff.

Does Lyndon Johnson sound like the sort of President who would have allowed members of his party to defy him and not feel the sharp end of the stick? Would Senators like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson have been able grind the legislative process to a halt with no repercussions? Punishment would have been swift and severe. Committee assignments – gone. Funding for re-election – gone. You want to be a maverick? Political Siberia awaits.

Consider the new President’s conversation with Martin Luther King three days into Johnson’s term following the Kennedy assassination (and consider that he regarded civil rights an important enough issue that he spoke to MLK while the country was still in mourning). Consider his record on civil rights. Going after the Ku Klux Klan. Appointing the first black Supreme Court justice.

LBJ was no fool. He knew the risks of pushing a progressive agenda. “We have lost the South for a generation” Johnson said about the fate of the Democratic party after signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But sign it he did.

His presidency has largely been defined by the debacle of Vietnam, by anti-war protesters chanting “hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” He was not a well-loved man when he left office.

But his amazing legacy of social reform brought about by sheer grit and determination remains.

When can the U.S. expect Obama to learn from his predecessor? When will he understand that allowing Congress to squabble like spoiled children and set the President’s agenda is allowing the tail to wag to the dog and makes the party – particularly the President – appear weak and indecisive? Or that the seating of one more Republican Senator doesn’t nullify the results of the 2008 election? That voters want a president who backs up his oratorical skills with action? That “change” wasn’t a focus group-approved slogan for voters, but an actual promise? That just because you inherit a mess of a war from your predecessor doesn’t mean you continue along the same path into quagmire – a dilemma that dogged Johnson’s presidency?

Obama is not Lyndon Johnson. He does not possess Johnson’s remarkable political skills or experience or his cutthroat approach to getting his way. Obama is an outstanding orator. But is he capable of gutsy leadership? Can he get his party in line?

The jury’s still out. During an ABC News interview following Scott Brown’s victory in Massacusetts, Obama warned Democrats in Congress not to “jam” a health care reform bill through now that they’ve lost their commanding majority in the Senate, and said they must wait for newly elected Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown to be sworn into office.

Lyndon Johnson is rolling in his grave.

–
This piece was first published at: ThePakistanUpdate.com

The other night, Stewart went after Olbermann for his baseless attacks on Scott Brown, the new US Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (see, I know how to spell it, even without spell-check! Ahem.). It was absolutely priceless, and is continued within Olbermann’s response to Stewart below:

Yeah, I think there is one person who was funny in that clip, and it sure wasn’t Olbermann.

Stewart gave Olbermann a couple of points, but when someone uses as a reference a video clip (a Brown rally) that has been discredited, yet still insists on making the point with no context (that what was shouted off camera related to a case on which Coakley worked), it is demonstrative of some of the hoops Olbermann will jump through to attack someone. It is disingenuous at best, but that is what we have come to expect from Olbermann. Bluster, innuendo, and attacks based on the thinnest of inferences. I mean, really, for Olbermann, of all people, to attack ANYONE else for being sexist, is just, well, laughable. Go back to the 2008 Primary campaign on just about any night, but this one in particular is pretty indicative:

Olbermann was discussing the election with Newsweek’s Howard Fineman, a frequent guest. They topic was, how can a winner finally be determined in this never-ending Democratic race for the nomination? Of course, the assumption was that it was Clinton that should be shown the door (despite clearly still earning her spot in the race thanks to, um, voters). Fineman said that, all the delegate math aside, ultimately it was going to take “some adults somewhere in the Democratic party to step in and stop this thing, like a referee in a fight that could go on for thirty rounds. Those are the super, super, super delegates who are going to have to decide this.”

Said Olbermann: “Right. Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.”

Now, WHO’S sexist, exactly, Keith? Yeah, uh huh – I’ll give you a hint. It ain’t Scott Brown.

And since Jon Stewart mentioned John Edwards, I just had to see what he said about him. Here it is – a newsflash for “idiots”:

Well, I certainly cannot disagree with Stewart’s assessment of those who did NOT know this child really was Edwards, all protests aside.

Yep, I may just have to start watching The Daily Show again if he keeps going this way. I guess people really ARE starting to wake up! And about damn time, too…

The pursuit of truth, transparency, and integrity on our economic landscape is forever challenging. The true challenge of this pursuit is the length to which many people will go to disguise and bury these virtues. Much of my writing is dedicated to uncovering these virtues amidst the degradation so prevalent in our country.

Ed Schultz’s transgression requires no work on my part or anybody else. Schultz takes journalistic integrity to a new low in espousing the fact that he would cheat to keep Scott Brown from winning today’s Massachusetts Senate runoff election:

You can’t make this stuff up. Schultz is clearly trying to drive ratings and create shock value with his statement. That said, is it any wonder why Americans with at least some degree of intelligence are running away from the mainstream media that propagates this sort of garbage?

I am sure Scott Brown hopes Ed Schultz and Patrick Kennedy (see my earlier post) are both back on the stump today. Nitwits such as these are only serving to steel the fortitude of Americans who are sickened by the lack of intelligence and real character prevalent on our economic and political landscape.

Schultz – like Kennedy – removes all doubt as to how stupid he truly is. Ed Schultz, just another jackass brought to us by the liberal mainstream media.

LD

Many of you may know that I spent a few years in the Boston area. And no, this isn’t about baseball, though I can say – it is hard being a Fan of the Pinstripes in Red Sox Nation. Clearly, though, I survived.

No, this is about some of the legal cases that have Martha Coakley’s name on them. Recently, Bronwyn’s Harbor made mention of one case, the Fells Acres Case, with which I am very familiar. Why? Because I knew Cheryl LaFave and her mother, Violet Amirault. They, along with their brother, were falsely accused of child abuse at the daycare center they ran. They are now all out of prison. John Stossel did an investigative report for ABC News on the Fells Acres case, and the imprisonment of the Amirault family (h/t to Brownyn’s Harbor):

Three lives were destroyed by false allegations – three. People, GOOD people, who never deserved the horrible stigma that became attached to them. And Martha Coakley was hellbent on keeping Gerald Amirault in prison, even after the glaring lack of evidence, and the glaring coercion of testimony from the children.

There was another big case with which Coakley was connected (h/t to Nazareth Priest for this article). That was the “Pedophile Priest” case,t he second in a three-part series of “Martha’s Greatest Hits: The Things The Democrats Would Like You To Forget About Martha Coakley.” Click HERE for Part Three.

Back to the case at hand. This one is a doozy:

The “Pedophile Priest” Case, 1995-2002: Coakley cut secret deal in 1995 that allowed Father Geoghan to molest again.

Martha Coakley is running for the U.S. Senate in part on her track record of keeping children safe from predators. The actual facts, however, are somewhat at odds with her campaign biography.

One of the most notorious cases of homosexual child abuse in the “pedophile priests” scandal that rocked the American Catholic Church in general and the Archdiocese of Boston in particular over the past twenty years involved Father John Geoghan, who came to symbolize the cancer in the church.

Here’s a brief introduction to the late, defrocked Father Geoghan by Denise Noe in Crime Magazine. Be sure to read the whole story, then come back.

The unofficial poster boy for priest pedophilia was a Boston priest named Father John Geoghan. He became a symbol for everything the church had done wrong in handling this problem when, on Jan. 6, 2002, The Boston Globe broke the story about how Boston’s archbishop, Cardinal Bernard Law, had moved the abusive Geoghan from parish to parish over the years. The article also discussed the $10 million dollar settlement the church had already made with families of his victims. After the article ran, an embarrassed Law apologized – and turned over to law enforcement the names of dozens of Boston priests who had been similarly accused.

The Geoghan scandal rocked Boston, and eventually resulted in Cardinal Law’s removal as Archbishop. In part to shield him from possible prosecution, the late Pope John Paul II summoned Law to Rome, where he was ensconced as the Archpriest of the historic Basilica of St. Mary Major, and replaced him in Boston with Archbishop Sean O’Malley.

And what was Ms. Coakley’s role in all this? At first, she was applauded for her role in the successful prosecution of Father Geoghan in 2002. But then it was discovered that she had plea-bargained away molestation charges against him in 1995, letting him off with probation in a deal that was kept secret from the public.

What?

One possible explanation for her actions is that she had lost a high-profile case against a priest in suburban Woburn, Father Paul Manning; Manning’s parishioners reportedly cheered when he was acquitted of molesting an 11-year-old altar boy at his 1994 trial.

Still, as David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, noted at the time: “Charging Geoghan with something and exposing him publicly might well have brought forward victims, witnesses, whistle-blowers, and evidence that could have resulted in a conviction and a tougher sentence.’’

Sigh. I don’t even know what to say about this. But here is what Martha Coakley has to say in defending this decision:

Wow. I am no attorney, but I have worked with and for attorneys. I cannot imagine them not pursuing every lead they could in a case. I cannot imagine them pushing to get the records from the Roman Catholic Diocese, even if they were freakin’ deacons in the church. Holy smokes.

The article continues:

And here’s the Boston Globe story, recounting the whole sordid mess:

When Martha Coakley was the Middlesex district attorney, her office prosecuted the Rev. John J. Geoghan based on an allegation that he squeezed the buttocks of a 10-year-old boy a single time at a public swimming pool. The highly publicized 2002 conviction won Coakley widespread praise for bringing the first successful criminal case against the widely accused pedophile, a priest many had called “Father Jack.’’

But seven years earlier, Coakley, then the head of the Middlesex child abuse unit, had Geoghan in her sights and took a dramatically different approach. Back then, three grade-school brothers told investigators that Geoghan had inappropriately touched them during numerous visits to their Waltham home, and had made lewd telephone calls to them. Rather than prosecute, Coakley agreed to grant Geoghan a year of probation in a closed-door proceeding that received no media attention at all.

Because of the deal, Geoghan faced no formal charges and no criminal record.

In sanctioning the 1995 probation agreement, Coakley, now the front-runner in a special election for the United States Senate, never pressed the Boston Archdiocese for any prior complaints against Geoghan.

That’s one way to make a name for yourself: let a pedophile off the hook privately so that he can molest more children, and then make a big, public conviction to take credit for your amazing work keeping children safe from……the pedophile priest you secretly let go seven years earlier.

And as for Father Geoghan, he was strangled and killed by a fellow inmate in February, 2004.

That is quite a sordid tale indeed. I encourage you to read the other two parts of this series (I’ll give you a hint about Part Three – it has to do with unreported assets). It is eye opening.

Now, I know some people are surprised I am not supporting the woman in this case (though since I live in SC, I don’t exactly have a vote – oh wait, maybe if I worked for ACORN I could…Ahem.). And I did like Coakley when I first heard about her. I was excited at the prospect of a woman taking over Teddy’s seat, an irony considering his way with women. But, as Scott Brown has reminded us, it isn’t Teddy’s Seat:

As I have stated all along, it is the RECORD of the candidates that needs to be considered. The decisions Coakley made as Attorney General are indicative of the decisions she will make as a US Senator, and those DO affect all of us. This is exactly for what I was calling during the 2008 Primary Season – look at the records of the candidates, and vote for the one who stands above.

That means, when the Massachusetts Democrats send out a four page mailer with the claim that Scott Brown wants to turn away ALL rape victims from hospitals, they sure as hell better be able to back that up with his RECORD. This is to what they are referring:

Brown is a state senator, and in 2005 he filed an amendment that would have allowed workers at religious hospitals or with firmly held religious beliefs to avoid giving emergency contraception to rape victims. The amendment failed, and Brown voted in favor of a bill allowing the contraception. He also voted to override a veto issued by his fellow Republican, then-Gov. Mitt Romney.

This is casting aspersions plain and simple. Stick to the facts, stick to the records, let the people decide based on that. Don’t take (yet another)page out of the Obama playbook a la the “Harry and Louise” ads. If the party believes she is the best candidate, they shouldn’t have to resort to flat-out lies about her opponent’s record.

So we need more women in Congress? Hells yeah. But that doesn’t mean we should want any woman, regardless of her record or the (stupid) things she says. In this particular case, Scott Brown appears to be the better candidate. He is pro-choice, a lieutenant colonel (30 years) in the National Guard JAG Corps, and supports civil unions for LGB people, like (too) many Democrats. As far as I can tell, Brown knows Curt Schilling is NOT a Yankees fan, so there’s that…

The people will decide who will fill the people’s seat. Until then, it is sure to be an interesting ride.

Charles Krauthammer wrote the following piece about a week before Obama’s most recent “I have to have my face on tv” speech regarding our security and the Christmas Day terrorist attempt. Since I cannot stand to watch him (I have the exact same aversion to him talking as I did to Bush, only I didn’t need Dramamine with Bush like I do with Obama’s constant head-swiveling teleprompter reading the times I have had to watch him), I have to go by transcripts, though those are soporific. There’s nothing like a good double cappuccino to help me through those moments.

Fortunately, there are others who can stand to watch Obama’s speeches, one of whom is Mr. Krauthammer himself. Here is his impression of Obama’s speech on terrorism and the Christmas Day attempt:

It makes this piece, A Terrorist War Obama Has Denied, even more prescient:

Janet Napolitano — former Arizona governor, now overmatched secretary of homeland security — will forever be remembered for having said of the attempt to bring down an airliner over Detroit: “The system worked.” The attacker’s concerned father had warned U.S. authorities about his son’s jihadist tendencies. The would-be bomber paid cash and checked no luggage on a transoceanic flight. He was nonetheless allowed to fly, and would have killed 288 people in the air alone, save for a faulty detonator and quick actions by a few passengers.

Heck of a job, Brownie.

That reference is even more appropriate when you consider the following:

Holy SMOKES – this is the head of Homeland Security?? Unbelievable. Krauthammer seems to think so, too:

The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration’s response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to play down and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face. Napolitano renames terrorism “man-caused disasters.” Obama goes abroad and pledges to cleanse America of its post-9/11 counterterrorist sins. Hence, Guantanamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York — a trifecta of political correctness and image management.

And just to make sure even the dimmest understand, Obama banishes the term “war on terror.” It’s over — that is, if it ever existed.

Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately, al-Qaeda has not. Which gives new meaning to the term “asymmetric warfare.”

And produces linguistic — and logical — oddities that littered Obama’s public pronouncements following the Christmas Day attack. In his first statement, Obama referred to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as “an isolated extremist.” This is the same president who, after the Fort Hood, Tex., shooting, warned us “against jumping to conclusions” — code for daring to associate the mass murder there with Nidal Hasan’s Islamist ideology. Yet, with Abdulmutallab, Obama jumped immediately to the conclusion, against all existing evidence, that the would-be bomber acted alone.

And even if Obama declares, “the buck stops with me,” as it surely SHOULD – he is the president, after all – his unwillingness to acknowledge the reality of the world in which we live, is, well, frightening. The speech on Thursday did little to change that, not unlike the one he made shortly after the failed terrorist attempt. When he could get himself off the links, that is:

More jarring still were Obama’s references to the terrorist as a “suspect” who “allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device.” You can hear the echo of FDR: “Yesterday, December 7, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — Japanese naval and air force suspects allegedly bombed Pearl Harbor.”

Obama reassured the nation that this “suspect” had been charged. Reassurance? The president should be saying: We have captured an enemy combatant — an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians — and now to prevent future attacks, he is being interrogated regarding information he may have about al-Qaeda in Yemen.

Instead, Abdulmutallab is dispatched to some Detroit-area jail and immediately lawyered up. At which point — surprise! — he stops talking.

This absurdity renders hollow Obama’s declaration that “we will not rest until we find all who were involved.” Once we’ve given Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, we have gratuitously forfeited our right to find out from him precisely who else was involved, namely those who trained, instructed, armed and sent him.

This is all quite mad even in Obama’s terms. He sends 30,000 troops to fight terror overseas, yet if any terrorists come to attack us here, they are magically transformed from enemy into defendant.

The logic is perverse. If we find Abdulmutallab in an al-Qaeda training camp in Yemen, where he is merely preparing for a terror attack, we snuff him out with a Predator — no judge, no jury, no qualms. But if we catch him in the United States in the very act of mass murder, he instantly acquires protection not just from execution by drone but even from interrogation.

The president said that this incident highlights “the nature of those who threaten our homeland.” But the president is constantly denying the nature of those who threaten our homeland. On Tuesday, he referred five times to Abdulmutallab (and his terrorist ilk) as “extremist[s].”

A man who shoots abortion doctors is an extremist. An eco-fanatic who torches logging sites is an extremist. Abdulmutallab is not one of these. He is a jihadist. And unlike the guys who shoot abortion doctors, jihadists have cells all over the world; they blow up trains in London, nightclubs in Bali and airplanes over Detroit (if they can); and are openly pledged to war on America.

Any government can through laxity let someone slip through the cracks. But a government that refuses to admit that we are at war, indeed, refuses even to name the enemy — jihadist is a word banished from the Obama lexicon — turns laxity into a governing philosophy. (letters@charleskrauthammer.com)

As I said, his “the buck stops with me” did little to change that impression that we are, indeed, at war. Napolitano admitting she had no idea the extent of what Al Qaeda can do was shocking – I bet the average person in, say, Kansas, or just about anyone at your local 7-11, could tell you that Al Qaeda is a scary damn operation. What doesn’t she, or Obama, get about that? What does it take to convince them?

Clearly, Obama has not yet been convinced by what this country has endured thus far, even in the last few months under his watch: Fort Hood and the soldiers and civilian killed there; Khost, Afghanistan and the CIA agents lost there; and the Christmas Day attempt. Frankly his speech did little to truly demonstrate the buck stopped with him. Rather, the intelligence community was clearly laid out by the president, yet not one person in the upper echelons lost their job. Not “Heckuva Job” Napolitano, not Brennan, not Leiter, not anyone. Huh. Already cheapening the whole, “Buck stops here” thing, if you ask me.

Until Obama is willing to admit, acknowledge, and deal with the reality of organized terrorism which has as its focus US, I shudder to think what can happen next…

Well, there is one organization that has a request for Congress, and that would be C-Span. Surely you remember the numerous times Obama promised to debate healthcare in the open, so constituents could see what their elected officials were doing, and that it would be aired on C-Span, rather than the bill being crafted in secret, behind closed doors? Well, naturally, we should have known (and many of us suspected), that scenario, the secret meetings one, was EXACTLY what the Democrats have done. C-Span is over it, and recently sent this letter to the Powers-That-Be:

December 30, 2009

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi The Honorable Harry Reid
Speaker Majority Leader
United States House or Representatives United States Senate

The Honorable John Boehner The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Minority Leader Minority Leader
United States House of Representatives United States Senate

Dear Speaker Pelosi:
Representative Boehner:
Senator Reid:
Senator McConnell:

As your respective chambers work to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate health care bills, C-SPAN requests that you open all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings, to electronic media coverage.

The C-SPAN networks will commit the necessary resources to covering all of these sessions LIVE and in their entirety. We will also, as we willingly do each day, provide C-SPAN’s multi-camera coverage to any interested member of the Capitol Hill broadcast pool.

Since the initial introduction of the America’s Affordable Health Care Act of 2009 in the House and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the Senate
C-SPAN has televised literally hundreds of hours of committee hearings, mark ups and floor debate on these bills for the public to see. And importantly, we have archived all of this video for future generations to study in the C-SPAN Video Archives.

President Obama, Senate and House leaders, many of your rank-and-file members, and the nation’s editorial pages have all talked about the value of transparent discussions on reforming the nation’s health care system. Now that the process moves to the critical stage of reconciliation between the Chambers, we respectfully request that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American.

We hope you will give serious consideration to this request. We are most willing to employ the latest digital technology to make the cameras, lights and microphones as unobtrusive as possible.

Please contact me if I can answer any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian Lamb

I guess Mr. Lamb couldn’t put “Honorable” in quotation marks, though I think I would have been sorely tempted to do so for the members he addressed. But that’s just me.

And what kind of response did C-Span get? Nothing formal yet, but Speaker Pelosi and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D,MD), among others, appeared before the cameras in the video below. Wait until you hear Speaker Pelosi’s response about Obama’s campaign promises. That’s a good one. And Rep. Van Hollen goes on at some length about the process behind the Healthcare bill. I suggest you not drink or eat anything while he is speaking. Just a suggestion. Then it goes back to Speaker Pelosi. Does it ever get funny around the 7:45 mark:

Okay, just HOW is it that none of their heads exploded while they stood up there lying through their teeth? Mr. Van Hollen’s voice did go up and crack, a tell-tale sign he’s lying, and Pelosi just blathered on with impunity.

I might add, yes, there were all kinds of Town Halls, Mr. Van Hollen, and the vast majority of people then told you and your colleagues that We. Do. Not. Want. This. Bill. As. Crafted. We have been saying it, screaming it, writing, it, and phoning it in, Rep. Van Hollen. The problem is, y’all aren’t listening. Even today, the majority of Americans do not want this policy you are about to shove down our throats.

This certainly explains another poll, that the majority of Americans think Congress is doing a poor job. Yeah. No kidding.

Oh, wait, maybe there’s another possibility for the La-La Land response by the giggly Speaker of the House. Perhaps Nancy just doesn’t understand the word. That is the only possible explanation I can think of to explain her emphatic insistence that this has been the most transparent process EVER. Either that, or I’m thinking really, really good drugs. Considering her giddy, giggly self, I am inclined to the latter. Ahem.

In case you didn’t catch what she and Rep. Hollen said, this aptly entitled article,
Nancy Pelosi’s Response, has it:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) defended Congress’ work on a healthcare bill Tuesday saying the process has displayed historic transparency, just as C-SPAN mounts an effort to open the negotiations.

C-SPAN wrote a letter to congressional leaders Tuesday asking that TV cameras be allowed to film negotiations to reconcile the House and Senate versions of healthcare reform legislation.

But Pelosi said Congress has already been transparent throughout the process.

“There has never been a more open process for any legislation,” Pelosi said at a press conference.

Pelosi also hinted that holding informal negotiations–likely without TV cameras–might be the most practical way to push the legislation through.

“We will do what is necessary to pass the bill,” Pelosi said.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), assistant to the Speaker, said the healthcare bill had been “subjected to unprecedented level of public scrutiny.”

Pressed on whether C-SPAN cameras would be allowed in negotiations, Van Hollen hedged.

“We don’t even know if there’s going to be a conference committee,” he said, alluding to the likelihood that Democrats will reconcile the two bills behind closed doors.

Oh, yes, unprecedented “public scrutiny.” Seems to me Rep. Van Hollen has been smoking a bit too much of that Hopium if closed-door, often partisan, meetings in which decisions are made to payoff Big Pharma (Obama – before the official work on the Healthcare Bill even got started), the insurance industry, and to force taxes on the middle class that will make it the working poor class. Staggering. Again, Rep. Van Hollen, we have said – CLEARLY – that we do not want this bill of yours. (The Comments after this article are mighty telling. I didn’t see a Pro-Pelosi one among them. Here’s the Link if you’d like to see for yourself.)

Oh, and the White House? If you had to guess, what do you think Obama would do? If you guessed avoidance, you’d be right. If you wish to read Robert Weasel Gibbs’ slippery response to queries about the C-Span letter, click HERE. If you have a strong stomach, or high threshold for bullshit, that is.

Here’s the reality of the situation:

You tell it, Johhny Mac. Transparency on this issue, with this Congress, is simply non-existent. Oh, and Mr. Lamb? I wouldn’t be holding my breath for Nancy, Harry, or Barry to let the cameras in anytime soon…

The answer to that question is even more disturbing, as the video below explains:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Yes, this Jordanian doctor was a double agent. This article, NBC: Al-Qaida Double-Agent Killed CIA Officers ; Officials: Perpetrator of Afghan attack was supposed to infiltrate al-Qaida, goes into more detail regarding how and why this attack was carried out:

The suicide bombing on a CIA base in Afghanistan last week was carried out by a Jordanian doctor who was an al-Qaida double-agent, Western intelligence officials told NBC News.

Initial reports said that the attack, which killed seven CIA officers, was carried out by a member of the Afghan National Army.

According to Western intelligence officials, the perpetrator was Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, 36, an al-Qaida sympathizer from Zarqa, which is also the hometown of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian militant Islamist believed responsible for several devastating attacks in Iraq.

Al-Balawi was arrested by Jordanian intelligence more than a year ago. He had moderated the main al-Qaida chat forum before his arrest and was known online as Abu Dujanah al-Khurasani.

“Abu Dujanah was an active member of jihadi forums,” said Evan Kohlmann, who tracks jihadi Web sites for NBC News. “He was actually an administrator on the now-defunct Al-Hesbah forum, previously al-Qaida’s main chat forum.”

The Jordanians believed that al-Balawi had been successfully reformed and brought over to the American and Jordanian side. They set him up as an agent and sent him to Afghanistan and Pakistan to infiltrate al-Qaida.

His specific mission, according to officials, was to find and meet Ayman al Zawahiri, al-Qaida’s No. 2, also a physician.

However, a Taliban spokesman, quoted on the Al-Jazeera Web site, said al-Balawi misled Jordanian and U.S. intelligence services for a year. The spokesman, Al-Hajj Ya’qub, promised to release a video confirming his account of the Afghanistan attack.

I cannot even begin to guess how it was determined that this doctor had “turned,” and was going to work against Al Qaeda. I leave such questions to Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer and expert on Counter-terrorism, who knows far more about this than I could ever even hope to, or want to, know (and you can catch a number of recent appearances by Larry Johnson on CNN discussing the CIA, Yemen, and TSA HERE). That a doctor could do this to other people, though, is just staggering to me It flies in the face of everything doctors are supposed to stand for: Do No Harm. Just like the Fort Hood terrorist, Army Major Nidal Hasan. How can this happen? What would drive someone whose life work is supposed to be helping people:

On martyrdom
After he arrived in Afghanistan last year, al-Balawi was interviewed by one of al-Qaida’s main Internet sites, the Vanguards of Khurasan, on the subject of martyrdom.

“When you ponder the verses and hadiths that speak about jihad and its graciousness, and then you let your imagination run wild to fly with what Allah has prepared for martyrs, your life become cheap for its purpose, and the extravagant houses and expensive cars and all the decoration of life become very distasteful in your eyes,” he told the interviewer.

He added, “They say ‘there’s love that kills.’ And I only see that as truthful in the love for jihad, as this love is either going to kill you in repentance should you choose to sit away from jihad, or will kill you as a martyr for the cause of Allah if you choose to go to Jihad, and the human must choose between these two deaths.”

Last week, according to the Western officials, al-Balawi reportedly called his handler to say he needed to meet with the CIA’s team based in Khost, Afghanistan, because he said he had urgent information he needed to relay about Zawahiri.

Ah yes – there it is. “There’s love that kills.” I have a fair amount of theological training, but I must say, this is a shocking interpretation, in my humble opinion, that is.

The doctor/bomber was convincing:

Close relations with Jordanian intelligence

His handler was a senior intelligence official, identified in Jordanian press accounts as Sharif Ali bin Zeid.

But bin Zeid was not just a Jordanian intelligence officer; he was also a member of the Jordanian royal family and was a first cousin of the king and grandnephew of the first king Abdullah.

Bin Zeid’s prominent role offers rare insight into the close partnership between American and Jordanian intelligence officials and how crucial their relationship has become to the overall counterterrorism strategy.

“We have a close partnership with the Jordanians on counterterrorism matters,” a U.S. official told The Washington Post. “Having suffered serious losses from terrorist attacks on their own soil, they are keenly aware of the significant threat posed by extremists.”

Jordan’s official news agency, Petra, said bin Zeid was killed “on Wednesday evening as a martyr while performing the sacred duty of the Jordanian forces in Afghanistan” and provided no further details about his death.

Meanwhile, Al-Jazeera reported that al-Balawi’s family refused to speak to the media on instructions from Jordanian security services.

Sources close to the family told Al-Jazeera’s Web site that Jordanian Intelligence arrested the perpetrator’s younger brother and ordered his father not to set up a condolence tent for his son so that it would not turn into a gathering place for jihadist sympathizers.

I would say that was the very least they could do, especially given this quote: “on Wednesday evening as a martyr while performing the sacred duty of the Jordanian forces in Afghanistan”…Holy shit.

This bombing has a huge impact, as one might imagine:

Key base for CIA

According to Western officials, bin Zeid, along with the seven CIA officers, were killed when al-Balawi, the formerly trusted informant turned double-agent, detonated his suicide belt at Camp Chapman.

Some of the officers had flown in from Kabul for what was thought to be an important meeting.

The base was used to direct and coordinate CIA operations and intelligence gathering in Khost, a hotbed of insurgent activity because of its proximity to Pakistan’s lawless tribal areas, former CIA officials said. Among the CIA officers killed was the chief of the operation, they said.

Six other people were wounded in what was one of the worst attacks in CIA history.

A senior U.S. intelligence official told NBC the CIA is “looking closely at every aspect of the Khost attack.”

“The agency is determined to continue pursuing aggressive counterterrorism operations. Last week’s attack will be avenged. Some very bad people will eventually have a very bad day,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Qari Hussain, a top militant commander with the Pakistani Taliban who is believed to be a suicide bombing mastermind, said last week that militants had been searching for a way to damage the CIA’s ability to launch missile strikes on the Pakistani side of the border.

Using remote-controlled aircraft, the U.S. has launched scores of such missile attacks in the tribal regions over the past year and a half, aiming for high-value al-Qaida and other militant targets. The most successful strike, in August, killed former Pakistani Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud at his father-in-law’s home.

The Washington Post reported Friday that the CIA base has been at the heart of overseeing this covert program. The newspaper cited two former intelligence officials who have visited Chapman as saying that U.S. personnel there are heavily involved in the selection of al-Qaida and Taliban targets for the drone aircraft strikes. (Richard Engel is NBC News Chief Foreign Correspondent; Robert Windrem is a senior NBC News Producer.)

I love a good spy thriller as much as the next person, but this isn’t Hollywood. What this tragedy brings home forcefully is that this is not a movie, this is not some script crafted by some Intelligence wannabe. This is real. Real people lost their lives in service to this country, a service that is too often unsung or unappreciated, getting recognition not for what goes right, but for what goes wrong. The work they do, often referred to as “cloak and dagger,” is beyond most of our imaginings. It is done, though, for our benefit, for our safety, for our protection. And those who lost their lives are real people, with families, with small children. They have devoted their lives to trying to stop the kinds of attacks we saw here on 9/11, to stop Al Qaeda. And they were betrayed by someone they thought they could trust.

Intelligence work, obviously, is not an exact science. How does one know for sure when someone is telling the truth, when someone is truly on your side? Sadly, in this one instance, they did not. And now, more stars will be going up on the wall.

If you are so inclined, there is a fund for the families of these fallen officers, which include 8 children. The address is: The CIA Officers Memorial Fund, c/o Arnold & Porter LLP, 555 12th Street NW, Washington, DC 20004.

What you may NOT have heard was the connection between this same man and Hillary Clinton:

The Politiken newspaper reported Sunday that Danish intelligence knew the 28-year-old Somali man was held in Kenya in September for allegedly plotting an attack against U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Citing unnamed sources, the newspaper said he was later released due to lack of evidence.

But Denmark’s ambassador to Kenya, Bo Jensen, told the news agency Ritzau the man was arrested in Kenya for incomplete travel documents. He said Kenyan authorities never told the embassy he was suspected in any terror plot.

I don’t remember hearing word ONE about an attempted assassination on Secretary Clinton’s life. It wasn’t all that recent, either. It was on August 5th of 2009. If you do a search, the first date you’ll find for any mention of this attempt (or at least the first one I found) was from September 8th, 2009. In a blog, I might add, but even it backed off from the assertion:

A plot by al Qaeda-linked Islamist militants to bomb the hotel where Secretary Clinton was staying during her visit to Nairobi, Kenya, last month (shown above) was foiled at the last minute, The Australian reports. Very scary.

[Update (Sept. 10): This story might not be true -- see stacyx's comment below. FP regrets any error; at the time of posting, the story seemed credible.]

Here is “Stacyx’s” comment:

I covered this story on my blog and was initially concerned that there was no MSM coverage. Then I spoke to someone at ABC news and they said the reason the US and British media were not covering the alleged terror plot story was because all their inside sources said there was no truth to the story.

Except there was some truth to it, apparently, and the newssource that claimed otherwise, was, well, lying. What a big surprise. And what a HUGE surprise that the US and British MSM didn’t bother to cover this story.

We find out a full five months after the fact only because one of the Al Qaeda members who tried to blow our Secretary of State to smithereens in Nairobi, was caught in another country trying to kill someone else.

Holy freakin’ cow. (Clinton in Nairobi, AFP photo)

Not for nothing, but someone else almost died because the authorities did not pass along the information about this terrorist and his attempts.

Not to be a complete and total cynic about this, but I cannot help but wonder why the media decided this was not newsworthy. I have my suspicions, including that Obama’s poll numbers were already tanking then, and Clinton’s were rising. Take a look at Obama’s numbers in August:

Or could it be that if we were told about this attempt on Secretary Clinton’s life by an Al Qaeda operative, Obama would have to admit that there were actually honest-to-goodness terrorists out there, trying to do us harm? That attempted terrorist attacks were not attempted “man-made disasters“?

Uh, yeah. There is that. And then there is the total incompetence of our media, or the attempt to cover up by the media, either one of which is completely unacceptable.

And to think, we found out about this attempt on our beloved Hillary Clinton’s life because of an attempt on a cartoonist. Feel free to craft the next line to THAT set-up…