Church Lady Brady says that the WaPo blog is back on. He says "Tough criticism is welcome; personal attacks on writers or other readers are not."
Really? That brings up a good point. When Brady had his long sit on the pity pot about mean liberal bloggers the other day, he climbed down long enough to devote some special time to tenderly rimming the Power Tools for their work on Dan Rather and the TANG story as an example of how valuable blogs could be (though the Tool Timers, in typical fashion, think Brady should've spent a bit more time down there, they really wanted him to work the crevices).
Over at Corrente, Xan made this comment:
Brady sez:Brady wonders why "these people" are "so angry." Could it possibly be because he is lying through is teeth? That tough criticism is anything but "welcome?"Bloggers have indisputably helped fan controversy over a CBS memo on a broadcast about President Bush's National Guard service.Whereas he could have said "Bloggers, specifically Paul Lukaisiak, unpaid and distributed for free, covered the story we didn't, that George Bush failed to complete the National Guard service that he still lists on his resume. We, and the (handsomely) paid establishment media, never covered that story at all, instead allowing ourselves to be suckered by the great 'faked memos' story, which we failed to investigate properly as well.
"Considering the no-stone-unturned, no-expense-spared, no holds barred coverage we gave to every cockamamie accusation against President Clinton, we could have done better, and we understand now why the disparity would lead some to suspect we are in the tank for Republicans. Sorry about that. Our bad."
Instead he spends virtually all of Page 1 of a 2 page story complaining about being called bad names. Sorry, Jim, being as civil, gracious and (sound of grinding teeth) polite as I can possibly manage, that still qualifies as "whiny" in my book.
One of the thing Brady still harps on in his piece is how Abramoff "directed" money to Democrats. One of the original commenters on the Maryland Moment blog made this point about WaPo reporter Derek Willis:
Willis wrote: "But contrary to what some commenters have said here, Abramoff did direct donations to Democratic candidates and committees. Our reporters have documents showing this to be the case, and I have asked that we post at least some of them so that readers can see for themselves."Notice the author -- yes, Paul Lukasiak.
That was two hours ago. Now, it takes me about ten minutes to scan a document, and upload it to my own website, and post a URL -- and that's because I'm not very good at all this "internets" stuff.
Willis claims that there are documents in which Jack Abramoff directs his clients to give to Democrats. One assumes that these include signed letters or memos from Abramoff to his clients, or emails directly from Abramoff to his clients --- and one assumes that if such documents actually existed, the Post would have written about them as part of what Deborah Howell described as Susan Schmidt's "explosive" investigative work on the Abramoff scandal.....
But to date, all the Post (and Willis) have ever come up with are these facts
1. Native Americans tribes give money to both parties
2. Some Native American tribes were represented by a firm that Abramoff worked for
3. Some of these tribes gave money to some Democrats -- but since Abramoff has been around, they aren't giving Democrats as much
So, Willis, where are your "documents"? Its been two hours plus -- ten times as long as it would take for you to scan and post the "Abramoff memo" you need to show us that you aren't lying through your teeth....
Posted by: paul lukasiak | Jan 17, 2006 10:31:19 AM | Permalink
well, its now three hours and counting since Willis claimed that "Abramoff did direct donations to Democratic candidates and committees. Our reporters have documents showing this to be the case" and also claimed that he was going to get those documents posted...
but instead of posting these "explosive" documents, the Post deletes Willis's claim....
Posted by: paul lukasiak | Jan 17, 2006 11:29:24 AM | Permalink
There is nothing in either of these posts that falls outside the realm of "tough criticism" Brady claims to so bravely court. Yet these comments -- which are preserved in archives -- have never been restored to the blog and Brady continues to characterize them as brutal and obscene. I asked Brady about them in the WaPo online chat, I caught up with him at Jay Rosen's when he was commenting there and asked him, and he refuses to answer. He continues to use his pulpit to bash the liberal blogosphere like a big blubbering babyman but never answers this question, which effectively renders all his excuses hollow lies.
Remember the name -- Paul Lukasiak. He's done amazing work that deserves every accolade the Power Tools relentlessly insist on claiming for themselves. And I'll keep bringing up his name, and waving it in Brady's chickenshit face, until he answers what it is about Paul Lukasiak that sends him running for his mommie's skirts like a little girl -- could it be the fact that Paul continually shoots holes in their cheap, transparently partisan efforts to throw a robe over the naked emperor?
Brady wants to know why we use such coarse, hot language. Well, let's let him in on a really poorly kept secret. We use it consciously, because it's the only rhetoric that cuts through the mountains of bullshit people like him continue to rain down on us and everyone else who wants an honest answer out of government. If he can't stand it then he just better run home crying and get out of the fucking way, because it's not going to stop.
Oh it is now one month to the day since Deborah Howell published her original article saying Abramoff gave money to Democrats. She has still not posted a correction to this article.