Oh, darn, sorry. I'm mixing up two stories.

What I meant to say was that the NYT stands behind its Duke Not A Rape reportage and furthermore still refuses to correct numerous egregious mistakes of "fact." And editor in chief Bill Keller even adds to the NYT's errors in defending its previous errors.

Criticism of [the paper's Duke] performance, [Keller] claimed, has “in some instances been unfair to the point of hysteria.” (Keller provided no specific examples of this “hysteria.”) Problems, he asserted, were caused by the Times not initially “focusing a lot of investigative energy on the story.” (In fact, the Times ran nearly two dozen stories before the first two indictments, suggesting the paper was focusing heavily on events in Durham.)

...

Yet Keller raised serious doubts about the good faith of his analysis by making misleading or outright inaccurate statements in the AJR interview. For instance, according to Smolkin, he suggested that “reporters’ jobs were complicated initially because the defense wasn’t talking.”

In fact, the initial Times reporter on the case, Joe Drape, was given extraordinary access to defense sources in late March and early April. Even at this stage, before indictments, some defense lawyers were open to sharing material with the Times—as they were open to sharing material with Mike Nifong.

...

More problematic, Keller’s assertion that the Gottlieb memorandum [featured prominently in one of Times' worst articles on the Not A Rape, claiming there was vast evidence supporting the charges even as the case was publicly imploding] “showed you for the first time what the prosecutor claimed he had, what was the basis for filing his charges” is out-and-out untrue. Nifong repeatedly stated that two items formed “the basis for filing his charges”: Crystal Mangum’s version of events from the rigged April 4, 2006 lineup; and the report of SANE Nurse-in-training Tara Levicy.

But don’t take Nifong’s word for it: the Gottlieb memorandum couldn’t have formed “the basis for filing his charges” for an obvious reason—it didn’t exist when charges were filed....

How, Keller was asked, should the media handle the case now? Providing “more, better reporting.”

Sounds reasonable. Perhaps, then, the Times could share with readers—and with the Attorney General—the basis for the following reporting, from the August 25 article: “The dancers stopped. An argument ensued. Using a racial epithet, someone yelled that they had asked for white dancers, not black ones. That much is agreed. It was 12:04 a.m. March 14.” [emphasis added]

In fact, the only people related to the case who agreed with this version of events were Mike Nifong and (sometimes) Crystal Mangum.

That thing about everyone agreeing on the timeline is crucial -- because everyone besides Nifong and Mangum says the party broke up at 12:45, when two of the accused had long ago left the party, and therefore could not have been involved in a rape which (presumably) occurred just moments before Mangum's hurried departure.

Unless, of course, one postulates that Mangum was raped by three men, then went out to finish her set, shared laugh with the boys, including the single remaining of her rapists (there's a photograph of her laughing at 12:30), and then, when she cleared her head enough to realize she'd been raped, finally managed to escape her no-longer-present attackers are mere 40 minutes later.

Not sure why it took that long. I guess maybe Steve McQueen and James Garner ran into a snag digging the tunnel.

But the Times is very, very concerned about the "racial overtones" in a new rape case, one that alas does not fit the metanarrative.

In rape cases that fit the metanarrative, "racial overtones" are a good thing, of course, as they provide so many teachable moments about race, class, and gender.

But in rape cases where the victims are the wrong color and the accused rapists are very definitely of the wrong color, there are no possible teachable moments, and, hence, "racial overtones" only create, as the NYT's headline has it, "Questions of Justice."

Incidentally, the case is about four men raping a 12 year old girl.

Not stat rape, either.

Oh: I guess I should mention, in fairness, while there's DNA evidence, apparently, thus proving sex (and therefore statutory rape), we shouldn't presume the men actually forcibly raped the girl. It's possible the (forcible) rape accusation was concocted.

Statutory rape of a 12 year old girl is no laughing matter itself, though.

And, whatever the facts, I don't seem to remember the Times' main story on the Duke Not A Rape case being headlined, "Racial Overtones in Duke Rape Case Lead To Questions of Justice."

Well, sure, that was pretty much their headline in every story, but backwards. The "Questions of Justice" being asked were "Why are these boys not yet convicted and imprisoned on the word of drugged-up schizophrenic fabulist stripper/whore? She's black. They're white. Duh. What is the hold-up here?"

Posted by: Ace at 08:28 AM | Comments (10)
Post contains 806 words, total size 6 kb.

Give to the Hidden Heroes Fund.

Thanks to Slublog and a Mystery Blog Guy. And also, me. I sort of annoyed several people trying to get "my vision" up on the screen.

Three? Dude, the guy was a one-man frigging platoon.

Thanks to Kevin of Blogiburton.

Posted by: Ace at 06:12 PM | Comments (73)
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.

It's odd... they were so rapt with her when she was slamming Republicans.

It's almost as if -- here me out on this; I know this sounds kind of Trutherish, but just give me a chance -- the MSM is much more interested in publicizing a sympathetic victim's attacks on Republicans than Democrats.

Incidentally, Sheehan has a point. You want to know who to thank for thusfar preventing the passage of any bills establishing a withdrawal date or limitation of the Coaltion forces' mission?

Harry Reid.

He could have sixty votes tomorrow on three different "moderate" bills, but he won't bring them up for vote and/or is instructing his caucus to vote against them, because he'd rather keep the war alive if doing otherwise would mean killing the political issue.

Every time this cocksucker whines about how much he wants to protect our troops from further attacks, remember, assuming a withdrawal-type bill would do so, he's deliberately choosing to let troops die for "Bush's failed war" rather than allowing any sort of meaningful vote with a chance of passage that would diminish Democratic prospects in '08.

Harry Reid

Bring the troops safely home. As soon as the elections are safely won.

Until then, let the Republicans -- and of course the troops -- bleed, baby, bleed.

Harry Reid and Bush -- and the Democrats and Republics in Congress -- are united on the proposition of keeping our troops in Iraq.

The difference?

Bush and the Republican stalwarts want to risk the lives of troops in Iraq until Al Qaeda can be defeated.

Reid and the Democratic cocksuckers want to risk the lives of troops in Iraq until Republicans up for reelection in '08 can be defeated.

Same position.

Vastly different rationales animating them, though.

And while one group wants to do everything possible to give the troops they're keeping in Iraq a chance to succeed, the other group wants to do everything possible to ensure the troops they're keeping in Iraq fail.

Because Harry Reid doesn't pick up any seats if the troops win, now does he?

Posted by: Ace at 05:57 PM | Comments (23)
Post contains 391 words, total size 3 kb.

As you probably know, there are many who serve whose heroism is kept hidden from us. Special Forces troops, for example, often have their deaths reported as "accidental," because the real circumstances of their deaths are codeword-clearance secrets.

But there is another group of covert warriors who seldom get mentioned. I speak, of course, of the brave super-secret operatives of the left-leaning blogosphere -- the "Very Special Forces," as they're known -- who, per their dictates that anyone advocating a war, say, with Pakistan, must himself serve in that war else be branded a "chickenhawk," have to a man (and woman!) selflessly enlisted to "finish the fight against Osama bin Ladin."

However, the fact that they must maintain the pose of being mere bloggers and political operatives -- in order to protect their families from terrorist reprisals -- means they must hide their heroism from the world.

Although I am well aware that I am breaching very closely-held national security secrets, I cannot abide allowing these Hidden Heroes, if you will, to go unrecognized any longer.

Slublog somehow managed to get this picture of General Glenn "Blog & Guts" Greenwald in full military regalia. I'm told that another blogger, who may or may not want his name revealed, will be forwarding another picture of "Old Blog & Guts" later.

These men -- General Glenn "Blog & Guts" Greenwald, Commander "Mad" Max Blumenthal, the agents going by the codenames "Digby," "Tbogg," "T-Rex," etc., are putting their asses on the line every day to defend this nation against the Al Qaeda threat, and manage to post interminably long screeds and unflattering pictures of Michelle Malkin day in, day out. I think they need some recognition, as well as some of the comforts of home that they're lacking as they shiver in cold caves in the frotier region of Pakistan.

Will you help? Please donate what you can, anything that can bring the taste and spirit of America to these selfless warriors serving so far away from home.

As noted below, I've been in touch with Ol' Blog & Guts, and he tells me the following are among the items most coveted by the Very Special Forces.

Urgently needed:

* DragonSkin Body Armor

* Axe Body Spray

* Pre-paid phone calls so they can stay in touch with their loved ones

* Pre-paid Madonna tickets so they can stay in touch with the spirit of dance

* Any hard-to-find regional spices and sauces -- the food in Afghanistan is awful!

* Any hard-to-find powdered cocktail mixes -- the Appletinis in Afghanistan are awful, too!

* Pretty much anything mentioned by Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove

* Except for nylons

* Subscriptions to the sort of ultra-patriotic, pro-military magazines that would make a rugged sodlier's heart swell with pride

* Such as Details, GQ, and Secret Sausage

* Tough, durable boots for those long treks up bone-littered mountain trails

* Spats

* George Bush's personal phone number (to call him to tell him liberal bloggers can't win this war alone without serious reinforcements)

* Ashton Kutcher's personal phone number (no reason given)

* Clips of patriotically themed movies, to remind them "Why They Fight"

* Especially the volleyball scene from Top Gun

and finally:

* A tough but lovable mutt they can adopt as their unit mascot

* Preferably John Stamos

I know all of you out there want to help those who are putting their asses on the line the way you can't -- won't you help these Hidden Heroes?

Let Gen. Glenn (GGreenwald@salon.com) know his selfless service is not unappreciated.

Posted by: Ace at 04:31 PM | Comments (45)
Post contains 610 words, total size 4 kb.

Christiana Hendrix, wife of Mike from Cold Fury, died in a motorcycle accident on Friday.

Condolences and prayers can be sent to Mike directly at mike@coldfury.com, or directly to this post announcing the sad news at Cold Fury.

She was only 33 or so. Awful.

Another Death, Sadly: JeffG's grandma.

Posted by: Ace at 03:35 PM | Comments (12)
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

To: Glenn Greenwald (GGreenwald@salon.com)

From: Ace of Spades

Thank you for your heroic service, Sir

...in Afghanistan, where you and your fellow lefties claim you're all gung-ho to fight. I know you must already be deployed there, as you accuse anyone who supports the war in Iraq of being a "chickenhawk;" hence, one can only presume that you, allegedly a supporter of taking the fight right into Waziristan, must already be deployed right on the border, ready to storm in at a moment's notice.

How's the internet connection in Kabul, Glenn? Spotty, I hear. You must have one of those cool SEAL satellite uplinks to be able to churn out your drearily verbose screeds every day with no apparent connection difficulties.

I really want you to know that we on the home front -- who do not possess, alas, your great courage and physical prowess -- appreciate all the Taliban you're killing in your never-ending quest to finally get Osama bin Ladin.

PS, how come none of your sockpuppets ever mentioned how many confirmed kills of Al Qaeda you had? Is it top-secret? Probably, I guess. I guess that's the trouble with being a Special Forces commando like you -- you take the most dangerous missions, but you're never able to tell the world of your incredible heroism.

No matter -- I'll do it for you! Heroes like you are usually too modest to sing their own praises (even through a sockpuppet), but be aware that I intend to document your patriotic AQ-killin' service in Afghanistan. Check my site later for a tribute to you, Max Blumenthal, and the rest of the secret liberal SuperSoldiers! I will not allow your heroism to pass unnoticed!

Glenn's brief response after the jump.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 03:16 PM | Comments (22)
Post contains 597 words, total size 4 kb.

Karachi Kabuki? I hope so; hopefully we have the green light on this and Pakistan is issuing the required "oh no you di'n't violate my territorial sovereignty" statements.

US admits/boasts of anti-AQ missions in Pakistan:

The Bush administration is acknowledging publicly that the American military has staged attacks inside Pakistan on Al Qaeda, a signal that increases pressure on the leader in Islamabad, President Musharraf.

Yesterday on " Fox News Sunday," the president's homeland security adviser, Frances Townsend, was asked about military actions in the Pakistani border provinces where Al Qaeda's chief, Osama bin Laden, and one of his two leadership councils reportedly meet regularly.

"Just because we don't speak about things publicly doesn't mean we're not doing things you talk about," she said, using phrasing similar to that President Bush favors when asked whether he will use military force against Iran's nuclear program.

American special forces operations inside the Pakistani border provinces are an open secret among close watchers of the region, but Ms. Townsend's words yesterday mark an escalation in public rhetoric against Mr. Musharraf. Mr. Musharraf has for the most part withdrawn his military from those provinces, which are dominated by tribes although subject to Pakistani federal control.

The remarks pick up a theme that has been sounded this year by other top aides to Mr. Bush. On February 27, in his first public remarks to Congress after his confirmation hearing, the director of national intelligence, Admiral Michael McConnell, spoke of focusing efforts with "great intensity" on Al Qaeda safe havens in Pakistan.

Pakistan protests plan to "eradicate" AQ havens:

ISLAMABAD hit back angrily yesterday at warnings from Washington that the US military could launch an incursion into Pakistan to eradicate a resurgent al-Qa'ida network.

US special operations teams and unmanned aircraft may already be operating inside Pakistani territory.

Top White House counter-terrorism official Fran Townsend cited intelligence revealing that al-Qa'ida had rebuilt within Pakistan's remote tribal territory and warned that if the US had "actionable targets anywhere in the world ... then we would pursue those targets".

At the same time, US director of national intelligence Mike McConnell said Osama bin Laden was living in the border area of Pakistan and that Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf's peace deal with Islamic militants in the area had seriously backfired.

"My personal view is that (bin Laden) is alive, but we don't know because we can't confirm it for over a year," Mr McConnell said. "I believe he is in the tribal region of Pakistan."

Responding to the comments, Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri said: "We are committed to controlling terrorism, and people in Pakistan get very upset when, despite all the sacrifices that Pakistan has been making, you get these criticisms.

"What I don't like is the tone that I am now hearing and that I am now reading in the American media," he said, going on to reject claims about an al-Qa'ida "safe haven" inside Pakistan.

Mr Kasuri said talk of US military strikes inside Pakistan was "irresponsible".

"When you talk of going after targets, you will lose the battle of hearts and minds," he said. "The Pakistan Army can do the job much better.

"Let the United States provide us with actionable intelligence, and you will find that Pakistan will never be lacking," he said.

Uh-huh.

I wouldn't get too excited by this, though. There are telltale signs the Great Overmountain Invasion of Pakistan, long urged by the left, is far from ready to roll.

The most glaring evidence is that Glenn Greenwald, Max Blumenthal, and various other lefties who do nothing but denigrate right-leaning bloggers and pundits as "chickenhawks" for not fighting in Iraq have not yet, apparently, deployed to the frontier regions of Pakistan.

Obviously, these true-blue patriots on the left who constantly question why rightwingers aren't serving in Iraq must, one imagines, already be signed up as part of top-secret SEAL HVT (high value target) hit-squads, ready to deploy in a war they claim they support (the Great Overmountain Invasion of Pakistan). They've been claiming we must withdraw from Iraq to fight the "real war" in Pakistan for five years; certainly they must have already gone through their top-secret Delta Force terrorist-killer training by now.

Otherwise, I don't know, they'd be like... dishonest hypocrital hack chickenhawks or something.

We'll know the US military is about to get serious about striking deep in the heart of Pakistan's Northwest territories when Greenwald, Blumenthal, et al. announce they're forced to take a break from blogging for unspecified (classified!) reasons.

I can't wait 'till Greenwald is "in country," as those in the military say, and begins sending us back Michael Yon like dispatches from the true front in the global war on terror. Except they'll be even better, because Yon is just a gutsy embed, whereas Glenn Greenwald is, I think it's fair to say, "the finest killing machine the American military has ever produced."

Wearing children's skulls on one's head? Eating a dead mook's brains?

Dude. You ain't seen nothin' yet. Wait 'till Hurricane Greenwald storms into Waziristan. Trust me, Tough, Strong SuperSoldier Greenwald ain't gonna wait 'till a terrorist is dead before eating his brains. "Why wait 'till they're cold?" Greenwald is rumored to have said during HALO training.

I almost feel sorry for these terrorists.

Almost.

Posted by: Ace at 02:28 PM | Comments (17)
Post contains 906 words, total size 6 kb.

A. Whitney Brown, who was never funny on SNL for the brief period they allowed him 60 second bits on Weekend Update. And now his career is so scary-ascendant he's reduce to doing YouTube videos.

Maybe he should just do a lip-sync to SexyBack next time, like the eight million other nobodies on YouTube. Would undoubtedly be funnier and more innovative.

Transcript below the fold if you don't want to watch this has-been. Did I say has-been? That would imply once having been a been, right? Not a has-been, a never-was.

Via LGF, Hot Air, and little ol' Sinistar.

And via Hot Air, this Important Action Alert and Pretty Vicious Rant from Kos himself, telling his readers to stop writing their true beliefs and get with the program of pretending they support the troops. Guess A. Whitney Brown wasn't set the memo; but then, everyone forgets about him. Lorne Michaels sure did. Guy was on the show for like three years due entirely to a payroll error.

Sinistar advises: Get screencaps! This post will soon be nonposted in another Stalinesque purge.

Screencapped: I got the whole post and the begging of the comments (down to the guy saying he "appreciated the snark"), but there are a lot of comments, and I'd kind of like to get them all. But it would take a while.

If you take a screencap of the comments, post what you got (from which comment to which comment) so that people know that page is covered.

You guys mind doing a group effort taking a page of comments at a time? In order to see just how much the DailyKos and the new left "supports the troops"?

Whoops--Forgot The Link: Here's that post on Daily Kos... if it still exists. more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:12 PM | Comments (59)
Post contains 1096 words, total size 7 kb.

That must be the case, because a senior NYT staffer -- someone on the masthead, according to Gawker-- called another employee a "faggot" at a party and yet the NYT is treating this as old news. Or not news at all.

Ergo, it must be Ann Coulter. Dog bites man, you know. Hardly newsworthy at this point.

The NYT has launched an internal investigation, emphasis on the "internal." We'll have no big pieces about this as there were about Coulter or Isiah "Faggot" Washington from Gray's Anatomy.

The left-leaning newspaper established a Diversity Advisory Council last week and sent out a company-wide memo outlining its latest initiatives in political correctness.

On Wednesday, the in-house newsletter, Ahead of the Times, reprinted the company's anti-harassment guidelines, explaining, "From time to time, the company likes to remind employees of its various policies . . . We encourage you to read it, which features guidelines on what to do if you have a complaint, or receive one."

"Interested in what this is all about?" a source e-mailed Gawker.com. "A masthead editor called one of their [employees] a faggot at the going-away party. An investigation is going on now. Somebody may lose their masthead position and possibly their job."

This repellent slur must be punished by a firing, as the NYT usually suggests in such matters (while, usually, not explicitly saying so; they've got to give lip-service to that pesky First Amendment, after all).

Since we know the term is forbidden, and the Times, presumably, knows who said it, I'm curious what the hell the "investigation" is "investigating," precisely. He said it, it's the worst thing a human being can say, ergo, he should be canned, immediately.

Or maybe the investigation is seeking to determine if it was a left-winger in good standing who said it, possibly about a right-winger? We all know that that's allowed by now; the left is very upset by gay-baiting, except when it's they themselves gay-baiting those on the right. That's not hate; that's just good ol' fashioned hypocrisy-exposin', like my Grandpa used to do.

Question:

Is the New York Times actually claiming its scary-smart editors are so fucking stupid they don't know yet that "faggot" is an impermissible word, thus requiring the Diversity Action Committee Important Action Alert to that effect, and thus, presumably, absolving the guy who said it because he hadn't yet gotten the memo? (Another question: Will the policy take place immediately, or will they wait until the basic principles of the Important Action Alert are fleshed out and carefully detailed in an ensuing Pretty Vicious Rant?)

Did they similarly absolve George Allen because no memo had been circulated informing him that "macaca" was racially insensitive?

Or did they just sort of assume that would be common sense?

Thanks to PetiteDov.

The New York Times

The way they... surround a story with homophobic slurs and anti-gay hate.

Update: Elizabeth Edwards just emailed me to write:

John's a fighter, and he's not going to take this lying down. On his belly.

Good for him! What business is it of the New York Times who John Edwards dates, anyway?

Gender expert Glenn Greewald also emailed.

This is yet another example of the right-wing smear machine using outdated norms of heteronormative behavior to impugn the masculinity of its opponents. I will now quote six thousands lines from The Epic of Gilgamesh in my efforts to trace this sickening slur to the earliest antecedents of chickenhawk neoconism.

Verse One

Gilgamesh was a fuckin' strong guy
Seriously, no shit, he could bench press a house
And not a little mincing sissy house, either
But a big, mighty house
With like fifty rooms
And a really big cock.

And Gilgamesh was no homo
Despite usually wearing nothing but a short skirt
He just did that for the ladies
To show off his six pack
And the impressive dangle of his enormous balls.

One time? He date-raped a velociraptor.
That's pretty hard-core, you have to admit.
And then he beat up some theater fags
Because they kept annoying him
by singing the songs from "Grease"
but with all the dirty words and sexual allusions censored out.
You ever hear Greased Lightning in the kid-friendly version?
Totally, totally fuckin quee-eh.

And then it just goes on like that for like seventy-three thousand pages.

I'll just have to trust he makes some point. God knows I'm not reading it all.

BTW, the "date-raped a velociraptor" joke (including the "pretty hard-core" follow-up) is AndrewR's joke. He posted that in some lefty's comments when they were calling me a homo.

Good joke. And, I guess I should break the sad news: Andrew has entered a busy period of his life and will not be blogging here anymore. He'll comment on occasion, and who knows, maybe will toss in a link to Something Awful or something, but, alas, AndrewR. has moved on.

Posted by: Ace at 12:10 PM | Comments (49)
Post contains 831 words, total size 5 kb.

Et tu, Noah?

Just because you have a scoop does not mean you should run it. There are more important things than your Pulitzer-grubbing ego.

Lives are at risk here, "pal." Squirrels' lives, true, but squirrels are fucking awesome.

Have you, at long last, no decency, sir?

Via Hot Air.

Posted by: Ace at 11:13 AM | Comments (14)
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.