Saturday, December 09, 2006


It's been quite some time since we checked in on our favorite cock-headed man-whore who somehow got daily official press access to The People's Sacred House for over two years. Sadly -- or rather, hilariously -- nothing at all has changed in Guckert's cognitive processes. Let's take just two quick, recent examples.

First, did you know that the Demonrats are just as guilty -- no, a kajillionty-and-one times more guilty -- as Mark Foley and his Republican bosses in allowing Foley's page-stalking go unpunished and unnoticed? It's true!

Democrats knew about the emails in 2005!

Let me repeat: DEMOCRATS KNEW!

Not only did Democrats know about Foley's emails to pages, but they shopped them around to media outlets to do political damage. All that bleating about protecting children underscores the hypocrisy of these folks. If Democrats were interested in protecting male pages, why didn't they contact law enforcement of their own members of the Ethics Committee?

On page 45 of the report, the Committee reveals that Justin Field, who worked for the House Democratic Caucus, received the Foley emails to the Louisiana page in November 2005. Field shared them with Matt Miller, the communications director for the House Democratic Caucus.

Miller said that his did not provide the emails to the House Ethics Committee or law enforcement because he didn't see evidence of criminal activity. Instead, he sent copies of them to the Miami Herald and the St. Petersburg Times. Miller gave the emails to Roll Call in December.

Miller also provided the emails to the communications director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, headed by Rep. Rahm Emanuel. Somehow this tidbit doesn't jive with Emanuel's denial that he didn't know about the emails. Foley's opponent certainly did and was planning to use them in the campaign.

There are more unanswered questions outside the jurisdiction of the House Ethics Committee:

1. What was the involvement of CREW?

2. What was the involvement of gay activists?

These questions will only be answered when members of these two groups boast about the roles in taking down Foley and the Republicans in Congress. The uncurious Old Media won't be looking at it any time soon - it's too busy basking in the glow of what it accomplished in the November midterms.

Well, okay, if not perfectly true, it's truthy, right? Sure.

Nope. No matter how you keep squinting at this torrent of bullshit, it just doesn't square. It's a given that Foley's higher-ups in his own party knew goddamned well what was going on, and not only did nothing, but cock-blocked Foley's Senate aspirations in the process. They had him right where they wanted him; he had a very secure seat (too easy), was an excellent fundraiser, and was good about spreading his campaign surpluses around and kicking upstairs to the capos. Plenty of political machinations taking place already, before a single member of the opposition party even has an inkling of Foley's mal-fee-ance.

Why do you think that is, Cock-Headed Man-Whore? Or are you just too "uncurious" to find out that part of the story -- which, let's face it, is the heart of the matter. If Scoutmaster Kolbe and Rerun Hastert had acted on what they knew -- well before 2005, it appears -- it wouldn't have gotten to this in the first place.

As it stands, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I hope it's true that they knew and fudged the timing just enough to affect the election. I'm sick of playing by Marquess of Queensberry rules while these fuckers re-invent the notion of dirty fighting.

But that's all beside the point. The real point -- which is why Gannon™ ignores it -- is that there is no way any Democratic staffer or member of Congress could have known definitively about Foley's page problem before Foley's fellow Republicans knew. There just isn't, and anyone who can't understand that is either an idiot or a fucking liar. I'm not sure which one Gannon™ is, but I suspect a bit of both.

Guckert's second bit of dullard nonsense is much more pernicious, yet much easier to counter. Here he takes Lara Logan to task for not being enough of a cheerleader.

The Old Media has been against the war in Iraq from the outset. In fact, it is against any war waged by a Republican president. On Monday, NBC declared that the violence in Iraq had become a "civil war."

It gets worse. Apparently Logan -- who has spent the better part of the last several years in Iraq and Afghanistan, mind you -- is just not deferential enough to Gen. Abizaid's perfunctory semantic games.

Let's cut right to the chase, motherguckert -- if you have a problem with how the "Old Media" is portraying your little bloodbath, then put on your journamalist costume, and get your fucking ass over there and start spreading the truth to us dupes. (If Gannon™ has taken his investimagative prowess to the field to give us the truth, I can find no record whatsoever of it.) Otherwise, you have no right to bitch about the supposed biases of the rest of the media. Logan has been over there literally risking her life, while you sit and lie about her like a punk. It's hard to imagine a more gutless, mealy-mouthed, chickenshit view of the world.

1 comment:

RonB said...

Made an ill-fated attempt to get more popular using Gannon recently. Planted the seed at Tbogg and World O Crap and it tripled my hits for a minute there, but no real response to my gimmick. Oh, well.

Shit, if your rants can't seem to hit big, why the hell should my pedestrian f-bombing?