• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

So it was an October Surprise A Day, like an Advent calendar but for crime.

“The defense has a certain level of trust in defendant that the government does not.”

Stamping your little feets and demanding that they see how important you are? Not working anymore.

The Giant Orange Man Baby is having a bad day.

“And when the Committee says to “report your income,” that could mean anything!

Republicans in disarray!

Let me file that under fuck it.

Everything is totally normal and fine!!!

Let’s show the world that autocracy can be defeated.

Biden: Oh no. We’ve upset Big Pharma again.

I know this must be bad for Joe Biden, I just don’t know how.

Jesus, Mary, & Joseph how is that election even close?

When do the post office & the dmv weigh in on the wuhan virus?

Sadly, media malpractice has become standard practice.

The rest of the comments were smacking Boebert like she was a piñata.

The lights are all blinking red.

Pelosi: “He either is stupid, or he thinks the rest of us are.” Why not both?

People are complicated. Love is not.

Jack Smith: “Why did you start campaigning in the middle of my investigation?!”

The media handbook says “controversial” is the most negative description that can be used for a Republican.

Proof that we need a blogger ethics panel.

This isn’t Democrats spending madly. This is government catching up.

DeSantis transforming Florida into 1930s Germany with gators and theme parks.

A thin legal pretext to veneer over their personal religious and political desires.

Mobile Menu

  • Four Directions Montana
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2024 Elections
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Media / Tipping Their Hand

Tipping Their Hand

by John Cole|  May 24, 20056:54 pm| 35 Comments

This post is in: Media

FacebookTweetEmail

Gimme a fucking break, folks.

When the White House

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Old Boycotts Die Hard
Next Post: Last Comment on the Filibuster Compromise »

Reader Interactions

35Comments

  1. 1.

    Libertine

    May 24, 2005 at 7:06 pm

    Help repair the damage “they” (being Newsweek) caused? I didn’t know that Newsweek were the ones accused of abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. I can’t believe the far right pundits are keeping this issue going John. Is it because there isn’t alot of good news on SS reform, the nuclear option, the Bolton nomination, etc.? Trying to demonize the press to explain why the agenda isn’t sailing through Congress? Or just trying to beat the press into final submission

  2. 2.

    Thomas

    May 24, 2005 at 7:14 pm

    “What was the last “big one” that secular, small-government, constitutionalist conservatives won under the GWB administration?”

    Here’s what I don’t understand: When did President Bush ever pretend to be a secular, small-government, constitutionalist kinda guy? So why are so many people like you feeling disillusioned with this admin and the party in general? Did you believe their rhetoric was harmless pandering?

    Like you, I’m a Republican whose unhappy with the President and most of congress, unlike you, I’m not surprised any of this is happening.

  3. 3.

    JPS

    May 24, 2005 at 7:15 pm

    Yeah, that’s it, Libertine. Outrage at the press for running stories that they haven’t proven is demonization.

    John, I don’t expect them to certify categorically that it never happened. They ran a story whose best defense is, “Well, we don’t know it happened, but we can’t say for sure it didn’t [and we bet it probably did].” I would like them to be just a little less grudging and a little more contrite in admitting that they were irresponsible and negligent. Does that really make me Ann Coulter batshit-insane?

  4. 4.

    Billy D

    May 24, 2005 at 7:16 pm

    John, I don’t know what LGF you were reading for the last couple o’ years, becuase the one I have been reading has ALWAYS BEEN BATSHIT FUCKING INSANE. And soon enough, you’ll notice that your buddy Glenn is just as fucking crazy — indeed, he just linked approvingly that LGF story.

    By the way, I had this moment a while ago, when I woke up and realized that all these people I thought were rational were really completely fucking fascist, and I had been in denial about it.

  5. 5.

    Libertine

    May 24, 2005 at 7:24 pm

    Yeah, that’s it, Libertine. Outrage at the press for running stories that they haven’t proven is demonization.

    I have no problem with Newsweek being roundly criticized for the Koran story. They apologized, retracted and have been pillored on the blogosphere. The whole thing is going to cost them money from the hit their credibility has taken because of this story. I would think that would be enough. So continuing to go on about this story is an attempt to demonize them…

  6. 6.

    jdm

    May 24, 2005 at 7:48 pm

    Neutral. What does that mean, John?

    Either NEWSWEEK knows it (or any event for that matter) happened or it doesn’t know. It either has evidence (as in real evidence, John, not “lots” of variously confirmed reports about other perhaps related events) – or it doesn’t. This isn’t an opinion issue.

    Ann Coulter bat-shit insane… you’re funny, John.

    And for the record, the proprietor of LGF is a former Democrat/liberal.

  7. 7.

    Al Maviva

    May 24, 2005 at 7:54 pm

    Isikoff said it was a blip yesterday. That

  8. 8.

    John Cole

    May 24, 2005 at 7:54 pm

    Neutral means fucking neutral.

    You don’t want neutral. You want them to say, unequivocably that it didn’t, and they can;t. Because there are loads of reports that it did happen, loads of testimony that it did. They can not prove it one way or another, so they are NEUTRAL. They don’t know. But you want them to pretend they do know.

    That isn’t neutral.

    And I have defended the Charles Johnson from venomous attacks for four years, but he is wrong about this.

  9. 9.

    Stormy70

    May 24, 2005 at 7:55 pm

    Newsweek is not neutral, they are anti-American. Do you give them a pass for running separate covers overseas, that would ignite a firestorm if they printed them in America? Hey, they apologised for getting the story wrong, but I’m waiting for the apology for their anti-American foreign editions. The press is not neutral, they are biased. Isikoff will be fine, he will just have to work a little harder on his sourcing to be believed.

  10. 10.

    John Cole

    May 24, 2005 at 7:56 pm

    BTW- Reagan was a former Democrat- your point?

    Al- If one more conservative cries a river about the dead in Afghanistan, I am going to puke.

    These are the same people that the folks at LGF would argue have no rights at all under the law and should be shot on site for their anti-American stance.

    Spare me that bullshit, please.

  11. 11.

    Libertine

    May 24, 2005 at 7:58 pm

    . His editor said their source recanted prior to publication, yet they ran with the story. What were they hoping

  12. 12.

    jdm

    May 24, 2005 at 8:06 pm

    Then, John, Newsweek cannot be neutral, because they don’t know. There. That wasn’t so hard, was it?

    And you don’t have any idea what I want because I haven’t told you.

    … an accusation of “Ann Counter bat-shit insane”. From you. Heh.

  13. 13.

    John Cole

    May 24, 2005 at 8:21 pm

    Not knowing requires neutrality. There have been charges it happened, yet they can not confirm them. They can, likewise, not reject them.

    HENCE, THEY ARE NEUTRAL.

  14. 14.

    TJ Jackson

    May 24, 2005 at 8:32 pm

    Mr. Cole:
    Perhaps you can enlighten us all on why Newsweek apparently has such dramatically different standards of evidence for publishing a story and denying one? Just thought you might be able to explain how they could publish what they couldn’t confirm and now can’t retract what they can’t confirm.

  15. 15.

    ketel

    May 24, 2005 at 8:33 pm

    “They cannot be neutral because they don’t know.”

    Wha-wha-what?!? To me that is the height of neutrality. You don’t know, so you can’t opine without being biased one way or the other. It might help Newsweek form the decision you want them to if the Pentagon were to deny that this happened. Unfortunately for you, and despite many, many reports of this, they haven’t and thus Newsweek must remain NEUTRAL. Stop redifining our words please!

    jdm doesn’t get it John. It’s hard to see (and even harder to admit) you’re a hardliner when you’re a hardliner. To these people, bias only goes one way, and they’re right all the time.

  16. 16.

    jdm

    May 24, 2005 at 8:36 pm

    You got no proof, you got nothing. You assume it didn’t happen because you can’t prove it did. Your neutrality argument yet another variation of the fake-but accurate ploy.

    There is proof enough of real incidences without helping these yahoos from Newsweek cover their asses just so you can get your digs in against these Republicans who so disgust you.

  17. 17.

    ketel

    May 24, 2005 at 8:58 pm

    jdm, for more time extra slow for the slow learners, or should I say ‘low hanging fruit’. The gist of what John is saying is that the original thing was blown out of proportion to begin with, and now even after they have apologized and retracted and are NOT, repeat NOT, pushing the story anymore, you freaks are still calling for some bastardized version of neutrality that pleases only you.

    And there is proof. There’s an ongoing military investigation and no officials will deny the charges. Do you get that? No one is denying it, so it very well may have happened.

  18. 18.

    ketel

    May 24, 2005 at 9:01 pm

    ‘for’ = ‘one’

    Don’t feel bad, I’ve apparently got some low hangers, too!

  19. 19.

    narciso

    May 24, 2005 at 9:29 pm

    Citing India, as the impartial observer on our view of Moslems;
    those three wars,the 1947 revolution and that double
    game of chicken; over Kashmir;
    the Kosovo/Chechnya of South
    West Asia. The point is, every
    one of those stories, that are
    detrimental to the war effort
    are amplified; with other events
    are ignored, or sidelined. To
    sue one recent example; the Sunni
    side of the Iraq case, is always presented sympathetically, including thatof ex Saddam Mukharabat, SSO Republican Guard et al)any action by the Shia and
    /or Kurds is said to trigger the
    inevitable civil war; no mention
    how how these same victims; are
    the chief supporters of the Mosque
    arsenals seen in Fallujah/Ramadi
    et al; Zarquawi et al.Some stupid
    self absorbed reservists at Abu
    Ghraib; reinacting a Tarantino
    film; shouldn’t represent the
    US military. Another example is
    how the tragic incidents at Bagram
    should encourage the Afghans to
    take charge; get real, remember
    the Northern Alliance’s component warlords behaviors; Seriously it’s
    starting to feel like Ted Rall territory here

  20. 20.

    dispassionate

    May 24, 2005 at 9:37 pm

    “When did everyone in my party go Ann Coulter batshit insane?”

    Democrats, and most of the rest of the world (including most conservatives in other countries)believe this happened when Bush was elected. It’s only now that Republicans seem to be coming out of it, and questioning their policies.

  21. 21.

    syn

    May 24, 2005 at 9:48 pm

    Glenn Reynolds is one his way to becoming another Ann Coulter. Geez, the world is really wacky….better get the most recent copy of Newsweek to verify this bit of information.

    Narciso, I can relate.

  22. 22.

    John Cole

    May 24, 2005 at 10:14 pm

    What the hell does Glenn Reynolds have to do with anything?

  23. 23.

    Al Maviva

    May 24, 2005 at 11:28 pm

    John, I don’t give a flying fuck about Afghanistan. I do care about this country, and what Newsweek did was to legitmate something that looks to me like a slander. They ran the story in spite of their unimpeachable Pentagon source recanting. After five years of lecturing the government on how it should be more sensitive to Muslims, it ran an article that was a cause, if not the cause, of a number of deaths. Most of all, the lie screwed up the U.S. image a bit more – not that “America is Dead” isn’t a whack – and spawned a new mythos about the great Satan which will no doubt come back to haunt us.

    And for the record – you can check your comments on this – I didn’t have a major problem with the NY Times running the Bagram torture story, and am in fact cheering for some prosecutions, up to and including the first line company grade officers, who surely bear some responsibility for these crimes, even if their own crime was merely negligence and dereliction of duty.

    And at the end of the day, yes, I do have a problem with needlessly killed people anywhere, especially when some arrogant prick’s dishonesty is at the heart of it. I believe the right to live is universal, and while a dead guy in Afghanistan is more remote to me than a dead neighbor, the principle still matters. “Just a blip” my ass. They are even less of a blip, given that the blip is intertwined with U.S. strategic interests.

  24. 24.

    dispassionate

    May 24, 2005 at 11:32 pm

    I read your blog quite a bit, but rarely post. The main reason is I am a conservative but Australian. I used to live in the US for a few years though. So I believe I have some perspective one what a conservative is in the US and outside it.

    I was there in Orange County in the first Gulf War when the first George Bush was president.

    What Americans don’t seem to realise is Bush’s policies have never been supported by any conservative party in the world. There is not one other country where he could get elected as leader of his party, let alone the country.

    So overseas people are not being critical for the sake of it, they just don’t see in Bush’s policies a valid conservative, they never did. I believe overseas conservatives could see all the danger signs you talk about now, from listening to the rhetoric right from the beginning.

    Bush was a nationalist, not a conservative. Now he is finished because he can’t run again, so people have to find another leader, and there are no more right wing nationalists to take his place.

    So with luck the next leader will be a fiscal conservative, but he will likely lose because he won’t be able to inflame the passions of people like Bush did.

    Bush ruled by emotionalising policies, now that the emotion is going out of the argument people are thinking conservatively again.

  25. 25.

    SDN

    May 25, 2005 at 12:12 am

    Mr. Cole is simply having his “Andrew Sullivan moment”. Since Bush isn’t doing what he wants and continues to actually treat his faith as something that matters, hanging around with “those (ick) Christians”, etc., then snit fits will be pitched, no matter how much damage it does as the Left’s new poster child for “your side agrees with me!”

    I feel about Mr. Cole exactly the way I feel about John McCain: It’s all about me. And you can spare me any comments about military service: if soldiers were saints, then a synonym for treason wouldn’t be “Benedict Arnold”…. as in General, as in war hero, until, once again, someone decided they weren’t getting their “just deserts” (after the battle of Saratoga) and headed for the other side. The more things change, etc.

    Repeating and agreeing with stories that AQ briefs its’ recruits to make up by the carload (see LGF, forex) isn’t about investigating and isn’t about truth. It’s about grabbing any club that’s handy.

  26. 26.

    Andrei

    May 25, 2005 at 1:42 am

    “I feel about Mr. Cole exactly the way I feel about John McCain: It’s all about me. And you can spare me any comments about military service: if soldiers were saints, then a synonym for treason wouldn’t be “Benedict Arnold”…”

    There you have it John. (Cole and McCain.)

    The deal is sealed. You are now being discussed in the same breath as the term treason and guys like Benedict Arnold.

    A classic guilt by association tactic used by so many hacks in talk radio. Pretty soon, we’ll all be calling you Mr. Arnold, and wonder whatever became of that Cole character.

    I think Pink Floyd’s “Comfortably Numb” should be played at moments like this.

    There’ll be no more AAAAHHHHHHHH!!!… But you may feel a little sick.

  27. 27.

    Kimmitt

    May 25, 2005 at 2:02 am

    When did everyone in my party go Ann Coulter batshit insane?

    Well, there was the part where y’all impeached the President of the United States for having an affair…

  28. 28.

    John Cole

    May 25, 2005 at 8:09 am

    SDN- This one is all about you.

    Go fuck yourself.

  29. 29.

    Mary

    May 25, 2005 at 9:42 am

    “They ran the story in spite of their unimpeachable Pentagon source recanting. ”

    Al, the source recanted AFTER they published.

  30. 30.

    Tongueboy

    May 25, 2005 at 10:02 am

    I asked my state police about a report that John Cole was a registered sex offender. See, several former convicted felons said he was so I felt compelled to check it out. The state police couldn’t confirm it for me since Mr. Cole lived in a different state. I checked in another state and though they wouldn’t deny the possibility, did have some quibbles about that bank fraud rumor I was working on. Good enough for me; they didn’t immediately deny it so it must be true.

    Ooops, my bad. Turns out my single source wasn’t accurate. I apologize for any inconvenience and lives lost but remain absolutely neutral about the truth of those sex offender rumors.

  31. 31.

    John Cole

    May 25, 2005 at 10:09 am

    Except, of course, you are equating an FBI official with a convicted felon, and you are equating rumors from convicted felons with the Red Cross Inquiry and rumors from our own troops, and=, of course, me not being on any sex offender list in any states actually would be an affirmation of innocence, as opposed to a state official saying I think it is in the records but I just can’t find it.

    Except for that- the analogy is perfect.

  32. 32.

    TJ Jackson

    May 25, 2005 at 1:38 pm

    Tongueboy:
    Brilliant.

  33. 33.

    Tongueboy

    May 25, 2005 at 4:08 pm

    Thanks, TJ. I see you have received no defense from John of Newsweek’s higher standards of evidence for a story retraction than for publishing the original story.

    John, what is surprising is that you miss the broader context. The “several felons” analogy refers to the constant stream of Koran-flushing allegations from former Gitmo detainees that have somehow morphed into a stream-of-allegations-so-there-must-be-something-to-it-riiiiight?! meme in the MSM. What is the “FBI official” reference; does it have something to do with the purported e-mail tussle between some FBI officials and Southcom officers over aggressive interrogation techniques outlined in the now retracted story?

    Your reference to the Red Cross is puzzling. Are you saying that the Newsweek report is bolstered by certain Red Cross reports? If so, why didn’t they cite them? Never mind for a moment that International Red Cross investigations into Geneva Convention violations are confidential and that leaked reports may be evidence of a hidden agenda; you go further than even the article’s authors were willing to go by citing these reports in defense of their reporting. Remember, the issue at hand is not the ultimate truth of the allegations, some of which may well turn out to be true, but the eagerness of these reporters and their editors to ignore sound jounalistic practice and journalistic responsibility to rush into print an article which, by a coincidence of extreme proportions (heh), defamed the U.S. military and had the potential, since realized, of giving hotheads a feeble, totally unjustified, but real excuse to roil the waters against the United States.

    And I still remain neutral about those sex offender rumors. After all, the state police “couldn’t confirm it” (the rumor) “for me”. And since John-Cole-as-a-sex-offender fits the reporting template I’ve developed over my many years in journalism, my sourcing of several felons and lack of definitive denials by state police was certainly poor journalistic practice but in no way negates the truth of the charges. It just means we still cannot be sure of their truth. The verdict is still out.

  34. 34.

    TJ Jackson

    May 25, 2005 at 5:50 pm

    Tingueboy:
    Good points but you might want to consider the following before considering the Red Cross an objective, neutral or even reliable source of data. The red cross has allowed its abulances to be used by Hamas in Israel and the occupied territories to conduct terrorist operations on several occasions.

    The meme about prisoner abuse ignores the fact that the Geneva Convention calls for summary execution of illegal combatants. Something the US has not observed and which no other army in the world would reject. As far as I am concerned international agreements should be oberserved and enforced to the fullest when dealing with such filth.

  35. 35.

    Kimmitt

    May 26, 2005 at 4:20 am

    Geneva Convention calls for summary execution of illegal combatants.

    Cite, please?

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Baud on Righteous Rant Open Thread (Apr 15, 2024 @ 5:18pm)
  • Martin on Take the Fucking Win (Apr 15, 2024 @ 5:18pm)
  • WaterGirl on Righteous Rant Open Thread (Apr 15, 2024 @ 5:14pm)
  • hueyplong on Righteous Rant Open Thread (Apr 15, 2024 @ 5:14pm)
  • WaterGirl on Righteous Rant Open Thread (Apr 15, 2024 @ 5:13pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning
Proposed BJ meetups list from frosty

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8
Virginia House Races
Four Directions – Montana
Worker Power AZ
Four Directions – Arizona
Four Directions – Nevada

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
Positive Climate News
War in Ukraine
Cole’s “Stories from the Road”
Classified Documents Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Political Action 2024

Postcard Writing Information

Balloon Juice for Four Directions AZ

Donate

Balloon Juice for Four Directions NV

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!