"I don't believe in journalists having 'responsibility.'"
-Seth Lipsky, October 16, 2003

Seth Lipsky and Ira Stoll demanded on August 20, 2003, that Washington "finish the war" against "the Arabs."

Seth Lipsky and Ira Stoll assembled their staff for a Champagne toast to mass death on the commencement of hostilities against Iraq. Stoll called it "my war." CNN maintains a running update here of Americans killed in Ira's war.

On February 6, 2003, Seth Lipsky and Ira Stoll wrote, in all seriousness, of a pending anti-war demonstration that the "the New York City police could do worse, in the end, than to allow the protest and send two witnesses along for each participant, with an eye toward preserving at least the possibility of an eventual treason prosecution."

The June 9, 1995 Wall Street Journal quoted an SEC complaint against New York Sun backer Bruce Kovner as saying Kovner had "altered and destroyed" subpoenaed evidence. We wish you'd do the same to the daily print run of your God-awful newspaper, Bruce.

Also, Professor G. Harlan Reynolds alleged on August 27, 2002 - when the Sun was several months in publication - that Seth Lipsky and Ira Stoll had not yet paid him for a piece authored for their inaugural issue.

 
 
   
 
Friday, October 03, 2003
 
Here's a passing thought: How are hypersensitive superJews SethAndIra, who see anti-Semitism in damn near anything a Democrat does, going to react to Ahnold's confessed adoration of Adolf Hitler? Hmm... good thing the weekend's coming up, and they don't have to publish.

But there's still enough boneheadedness in today's Sun to get my goat. An idiotorial called, "A Nobel Prize for G.I. Joe" offers up these tasty tidbits:

"It takes nothing from their heroism, however, to observe that for selflessness, for a cheerful willingness to put his or her life on the line, none has a better, nobler record than the men and women of the American armed forces."

"Much of Europe may have stood down from this fight, but there was never a moment of flinching by the G.I.s who went into it."

Now, I know soldiers and veterans from all of America's armed forces. And, knowing them, I know that they are always more than willing to "do their part," get where the action is, put their life on the line. I have nothing but the deepest admiration for these people. Which is why this pissed me off.

"Cheerful"?! "Never a moment of flinching"?!

No, you fucking nitwits, it was the New York Sun and your neocon fellow-travelers who never had a moment of flinching. Was Richard Perle the first one over the wall? No, he was making fuckloads money off the deaths of American soldiers.

Who's "cheerful"? The GI who told a news crew that Rumsfeld should resign? The 3-6 soldiers we are now being told are dying in Iraq every week? What the fuck is wrong with you people?

The New York Sun cannot even speak about American soldiers, each one 20 times braver than Seth or Ira could ever be, without coming across as the condescending, blockheaded assholes that they are.

If I were willing to debase myself by playing by the same rulebook that the Sun goes by, I would ask what kind of anti-Semitic free love hippie communist peacenik Islamofascist bastards they would have to be to suggest that the brave, noble, self-sacrificing (or, at least, sacrificing on behalf of Bechtel, Halliburton, and Richard Perle) soldiers of the United States military receive the same award that was given to Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter, and that Olso-loving Yitzhak Rabin.

That's if I was willing.

I will point out that a letter published in today's Sun praises an article by "Errol Lewis." WETS? Can't even get your own columnist's name right. You pathetic sacks of shit.

Thursday, October 02, 2003
 
Whenever someone outside of LFLS or the Sun newsroom actually discovers that the newspaper exists -- rare as that is -- it is usually because Ira has written something particularly stupid. Such as his idiotorial calling for the prosecution of anti-war protesters.

Today is such a day. Josh Marshall responds to the Stool "report" from today (which I have treated below) here. TAPPED has its own take here.

The headline on TAPPED's post, "UH, DIDN'T YOU MEAN TO SLUG THAT AS AN EDITORIAL?" is a pretty good indicator that these guys have never seen this dreadful "newspaper" in action before.
 
Today R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. weighs in on the recent exposure of an undercover CIA agent, apparently by a member of the Bush Misadministration, a matter which seems to be getting quite a bit of press attention lately. Em, the Sun’s Nattering Nabob of Nellyism, dismisses the whole messy affair outright, equating it with rumors of Dan Quayle and George Bush I cheating on their wives. Good point, Em. Rumors of infidelity are, basically, the same thing as the ACTUAL blowing of a CIA agent’s cover.

Dipshit.

Just for the record, Em also refers twice to the Nation as “extreme left-wing,” which makes one wonder how he refers to The American Spectator: “makes fascism look like daycare,” along those lines, I suppose. And also for the record, “The only matter that troubles” Em “about the episode is that the CIA would employ a man as leftwing as Mr. Wilson to go to Niger. . .” Yes, leftwing. The guy who served under Reagan. And Bush. And contributed to George Bush’s unelection campaign. Pretty leftwing.

But of course it wouldn’t be a column from our “man” Em without one jaw-dropper. Today’s is that he refers one of the victims of this backfiring vendetta as “a former American diplomat who goes by the swank name of Joseph C. Wilson IV”. Swank? A “guy” who goes by R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is calling a guy named Joe Wilson swank?

I gotta hand it to you, Em; you got some huge ovaries.
 
"No respected journalist should take things out of context nor rely on hearsay or unsubstantiated data." -- Alicia Colon, New York Sun, October 1, 2003

Good thing Ira Stoll is not a "respected journalist." Today he smears the front page with his usual nonsense, taking one quotation out of a lengthy interview with General Clark to wield like a rather limp bludgeon over the good general.
In a Tuesday interview with Joshua Micah Marshall posted yesterday on the Web site talkingpointsmemo.com, General Clark gave his evaluation of the Clinton presidency. He said that the Clinton administration "in an odd replay of the Carter administration, found itself chained to the Iraqi policy -- promoted by the Project for a New American Century -- much the same way that in the Carter administration some of the same people formed the Committee on the Present Danger which cut out from the Carter administration the ability to move forward on SALT II."
The Project for a New American Century is a Washington-based nonprofit organization whose chairman is William Kristol and that advocates a "Reaganite" foreign policy of "military strength and moral clarity." The Committee on the Present Danger was a bipartisan group created to defeat the Salt II arms control agreement between America and the Soviet Union.

...

Relatively few American voters have even heard of the Project for a New American Century or remember the Committee on the Present Danger, so the flap is unlikely to sway many votes immediately. But if the interview contributes to a sense of General Clark as something of a loose cannon, that might have an effect on voters seeking a steady leader to guide the nation in the war against terrorism.

That few American voters have heard of PNAC or the CPD is about the only true claim Ira makes in his entire "report." Among the more glaring factual errors is the fact that the CPD was founded in the 1950s, well before anyone had ever heard of SALT II. It was at one point bipartisan, but later became a cheerleader for the Team B faulty intelligence that led the Reaganites to believe that the Soviet Union was far stronger than it actually was.

(If this bears some resemblance to the faulty Team B intelligence that came out of the Pentagon in the run-up to the Basra Boogie-Down, that is lost only on Ira.)

Marshall's interview of Clark touches a wide range of subjects, none of which interests Ira so much as his own distorted reading of Soviet-American history. You know, for a couple of clowns who pride themselves -- to the point of absurdity -- with their anti-Communism, SethAndIra seem to know precious little about why the Soviet Union collapsed, how and when it happened, and who the key players and events in its collapse were. They prefer the neocon talking point -- "Star Wars brought 'er down."

This point is made crystal clear in a related idiotorial:
As for Mr.Clark, his comments about the Salt II treaty, disparaging the work of the Committee on the Present Danger, indicate that he has an ideology of his own. Reading of his views, you have to pinch yourself to remember the era he is talking about. President Carter landed in the White House at the end of two generations of floundering in the face of the Soviet Union, a period when the ideology that held sway was that of peaceful coexistence. The Committee for the Present Danger was the group that recognized the catastrophe that this represented to our national security and advanced the idea that the Kremlin camarilla could be confronted.
General Clark may be right that one of the seminal moments in the struggle was when it became apparent that the Senate would refuse to ratify a flawed Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty. But he seems oblivious to the fact that with a recognition of the dangers of Salt II, came the recognition that the wiser policy was an end to mutually assured destruction and the beginning of the idea of missile defense. With this came the notion that Communist hegemony could be rolled back.

Where to begin? Oh, hell, I don't want to spend the time taking down all of this reacto drool. How about bullet points?

-- "Mutual assured destruction" was not the policy of the United States of America, at least at any point from Kennedy on. Cold War History 101

-- "The wiser policy was an end to mutually assured destruction and the beginning of the idea of missile defense" completely ignores the fact that Reagan pursued far, far deeper forms of arms control than were proposed in SALT II, which he found too complicated.

-- "President Carter landed in the White House at the end of two generations of floundering in the face of the Soviet Union, a period when the ideology that held sway was that of peaceful coexistence." Be careful, Ira. After all, war criminal Henry Kissinger sits on the board of directors of Hollinger International, an investor in the New York Sun.

-- "Reading of his views, you have to pinch yourself to remember the era he is talking about." Ira was too young to remember the time Clark was talking about. But he got all he needs to know in a tutorial from Seth "Kill em all" Lipsky and the writings of assorted neocon hacks. And no, Ira, I don't have to pinch myself. You have no right to the vague second person voice.

"Following from all this came the peaceful, triumphant American victory in the Cold War. These great strategic decisions were made by the most ideological president in recent times, Ronald Reagan, leading a bipartisan Congress to stand, in the end, with him." This is what the shitheads use in their concluding paragraph. "Stand, in the end, with him." Iran-Contra, anybody? The notion that the work of the conspiracy/game theorist camarilla at CPD did anything but harm America can only come from a truly second-class mind. Ira Stoll is your man.
 
And now, the exciting conclusion to yesterday’s idiotorial (courtesy of the Sun’s all-too-rarely-used-but-oh-so-often-needed Corrections box):

. . .the three monotheistic religions.”

Fuck! Twist ending! I didn’t see that one coming. . . who wrote it? The guy who did “The Usual Suspects”?

Wednesday, October 01, 2003
 
As any regular reader knows, we at LFLS reserve a certain affection for Alicia Colon. Oh, sure, sometimes she demands that we tolerate pedophile priests. But nobody is perfect.

So I was pleased to find in today's Sun Alicia's review of Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them." Though the title of her review refers to Franken as "The Enemy" -- rather unfortunate, as SethAndIra have taught us that the true enemy worships Allah -- she gives a reasonable, just, and remarkably readable piece of writing. Rare for the Sun.

Though I do not agree with Alicia on several points (if you read her review you will find that she seems unable to pick up on some of Franken's generous helpings of irony), I thought this point was particularly interesting:
...I would recommend it as required reading for all would-be pundits on the right. It will not change anyone’s position on the issues. It will, however, make them far more diligent about researching their facts before they go shooting off their mouths or committing their thoughts to the written page for fact-checker extraordinaire Mr. Franken to devour.

Oh, and this:
No respected journalist should take things out of context nor rely on hearsay or unsubstantiated data.

Careful what you wish for, Alicia. That would put your current publisher out of business.

Yes, SethAndIra could learn much from Alicia Colon. If they ever read her work, which I presume they do not, as so much of the newspaper goes completely unedited, un-fact-checked, and unsubstantiated.
 
Sometimes the moon is in the Seventh House, and Jupiter aligns with Mars, and our dear readers are blessed with posts from all three proprietors of this hallowed establishment. Today is such a day. . .

Dina Temple-Raston’s latest caught my eye. Dina’s latest Iraqi National Congress press release informs us that Ahmad Chalabi is sick and tired of waiting for America’s cold hard cash. Before the UN tomorrow, the current Iraqi Commander in Thief (through tomorrow) will “lay out his vision of a free Iraq and resound his contention that America needs to transfer as much authority as possible from the coalition to Iraqis.” Oh, and also Ahmad will let them know that he wants control of all that cash, $20.3 billion of it. Dina “reports” that certain members of Congress have considered loaning loot to Iraq, but our man Ahmad told the AP that a mere loan from the US “would be an added burden on the Iraqi people. . . and it would also show that the United States was less than sincere on the issue of freedom.” So please make that check payable to “Cash.” Or even better, “A. Chalabi.”

We would be remiss in noting today’s lead idiotorial. In classic Sun form, it is stupid and pointless, an attack on an Arab, Abdurahman Alamoudi, which they manage to turn into an attack on Democrats who will be attending some blah blah blah, I can’t even give a fuck. However, the conclusion to the “piece” is so dramatic, so unexpected, that for the first time the Sun has left me wanting more! Here is the idiotorial’s denouement:

Mr. Lieberman will have a special responsibility to check Mr. Zogby’s bona fides. The senator from the Nutmeg state, after all, was one of six sponsors of the American Muslim Council’s February 1996 Iftar dinner on Capitol Hill to mark the breaking of the fast of Ramadan. According to a report of the event in the anti-Israel Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, “Representing the American Muslim Council was Executive Director Abdurahman Alamoudi, who spoke of the importance of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition in American culture and the significance of fasting for each of the three

And that’s it!!! That’s how it ends!!! A cliffhanger ending!!! Brilliant!!!

Again, and again, and again, who. . .
 

Gubbamint regulation and disclosure are
overly onerous. Now, excuse me while I preside
over the execution of these late trades


Reported in today's Sun: two employees of Alliance Capital Management have been suspended relating to an investigation by the New York Attorney General and the Securities and Exchange Commission into "late trading" - a practice which regulators and experts say could be costing mom-and-pop investors billions of dollars.

Not reported in today's Sun: Alliance's vice chairman and Grand Exalted Cyclops is none other than Roger Hertog, who, incidentally, finances the sickly shit rag.
 
I have to eat a few of my words -- at least they will go down easier with some A-1 Steak Sauce. Yesterday I wrote, "Don't expect to see the Plame affair figure into the pages of the Sun anytime soon." So I was, needless to say, surprised to see the top idiotorial in today's Sun.

It is called -- get this -- "Washington Witch Hunt." SethAndIra prefer their witch hunts to target Muslims, so it is not terribly shocking that they would characterize the investigation of White House felonies such. Presumably, the leaker(s) do not subscribe to Islam. Hence, no real "scandal."

But rather than actually address the issue at hand, which you are all no doubt well aware of by now, as every serious news outfit is treating it as real news, the Sunnis prefer a handful of weak, incongruous ad hominem attacks that do little but make them look like the damn fools they are.

Take Governor Dean. He has no right to criticize the president's criminal regime. See, "Howard Dean, whose national security experience so far has been limited to securing Vermont’s border with Canada, called for resignations." Get it? Ha! (Memo to SethAndIra: the federal government polices the border with Canada. Dipshits.)

Or John Kerry (SethAndIra rather conveniently neglect to remind us which country Senator Kerry earned his national security points defending against which country) -- see, "When Senators Specter, Lieberman, Collins, and Levin introduced legislation that would have prevented the independent counsel statute from expiring back in 1999, Mr. Kerry did not sponsor it." Did he vote for it? We will never know...

See? That really is rich, relevant, illuminating stuff. There obviously is no scandal here. Expect a different (very, very stupid) point of view.

But it isn't about the Bush administration's violation of federal law, the whole scandal, "has to do with the policy battle over the the war in Iraq." Which leads us to this rather bizarre sentence:

"The CIA, as an institution, was hostile to the Pentagon’s plans for war in Iraq and to the Iraqi exiles with whom the CIA and the office of Vice President Cheney preferred to deal."

Read it again. "The CIA...was hostile...to the Iraqi exiles with whom the CIA...preferred to deal." Awesome.

"When those war plans became the president’s, the White House was justifiably outraged that a CIA spouse was out there trying retrospectively to undermine the case for war," the Sunnis throw in, just in case you are starved for a few more laughs.

Rule of law be damned! Tricky "CIA spouse" and his "fact-finding mission" to "Niger" where he found no "evidence" of Saddam's alleged attempt to buy "yellowcake" and how he "reported" his "findings" to the "White House" and they decided to "lie" about it in the "president's" State of the Union address anyway! I would actually call that rather preliminary action to undermine the case for war. Leave it to SethAndIra to make six months or so PRIOR to the war "retrospective."

You know, I get "justifiably outraged" about a lot of stuff. The limitless shit that flows from SethAndIra's keyboards, for instance. But I don't break federal law in a cheap attempt to hit back at them. And that is the difference between me and, say, Karl Rove.

Tuesday, September 30, 2003
 
The Sun today runs an obituary for Gordon Mitchell, star of many an Italian gladiator epic. The obit comes from the Associated Press. The headline, “George Mitchell, 80, American Star of Italian ‘Sword and Sandal’ Films,” is pure Sun.

Monday, September 29, 2003
 
Note the obituary pages in the past two issues of the Sun. Friday, when reporting the death of Edward Said, an academic giant who lived an amazingly storied life, SethAndIra instructed their charge Stephen Miller desecrate the man's legacy. They handily dwarfed Said's portrait - nearly doing so to the accompanying text - with a picture of the professor launching a stone in the direction of an Israeli military position. If it had been someone with actual talent who had been willing to stoop so low, we would have seen a fierce moral witness' formidable output ignored and his eloquence reduced to thuggish rock-throwing. But one need not fear encountering talent in the pages of the Sun, which no one reads anyway. This kind of embarrassing juvenilia only cements SethAndIranistan's standing as a truly regrettable pariah state among media properties.

Now compare Friday's shameful eruption to today's prolonged contemplation of the career of Elia Kazan, the disgraced filmmaker who died yesterday. SethAndIra, through the person of Stephen Miller, waste no time in canonizing him. After all, the Sun - an early supporter of Daniel Pipes' campus witch hunt - fully endorse the totalitarian idea that the right to work expires with adherence to the wrong brand of politics. Oddly missing from the oshituary is this quote from Kazan, which - with the expression of sentiment axed and the proportions further adjusted to punish poverty and dissent - amounts to SethAndIranistan's founding principle: "There's a normal sadness about hurting people, but I'd rather hurt them a little than hurt myself a lot."
 
In keeping with the Sunnis' tireless devotion to national security -- at least insofar as it relates to the security of corporate thieves, idiot neocons, supply-side ideologues or Ahmad Chalabi, all of the above -- the Sun issues nary a peep (except a paragraph or two buried at the bottom of a wire story on page 4) today about the brewing scandal *at* 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The Plame Affair -- the felonious outing of clandestine operative to Robert Novak by a pair of White House bigs -- has some real legs.

If this were a Democratic administration, no doubt we would see front-to-back coverage day in and day out, along with the requisite idiotorials. After all, this is a scandal at least on par with Mayor Bloomberg's appointment of the head of the city's human rights commission, right?

Then again, if this were a Democratic administration, this never would have happened.

Don't expect to see the Plame affair figure into the pages of the Sun anytime soon. Except perhaps buried in SethAndIra's "Briefs." It just doesn't fit their worldview -- the one in which it is quite all right to compromise national security as long as you do it in the interest of covering up the lies and crimes of an administration dedicated to some fairy-tale notion of ultimate triumph over "the Arabs."

After all, outing a covert operative may be a serious crime, but criticizing Prince George is treason.

 

 
   
  This page is powered by Blogger, the easy way to update your web site.  

Home  |  Archives  |  E-mail Grady Olivier