Egad, I go away for a week and all hell breaks loose!

Or, not breaks loose, but gad and gadzooks, what is Clinton-appointee Judge Kessler THINKING in having this information handed over to people known to be sympathetic to terrorists? Citizen Smash and Instapundit are wondering about this, too. Judge Kessler is going to have some ‘splainin’ to do, should anything, God forbid, happen to the president at his inauguration, tomorrow. She should have some ‘splainin’ to do, anyway.

And Dirty Harry is just blogging and blogging about the fact that Wisconsin appears to have been stolen in both the ’04 and ’00 elections, by the democrats. Information of which the media (always calling the president “incurious”) and monkeyboy Keith O (who is actually a sportscaster, not a newsman) seem incredibly incurious, disinterested, etc, etc…you know…John Kerry is still talking about Ohio, but no one wants to look at Wisconsin…or Pennsylvania…I could go on, but why bother? I see that Captain Ed is also disturbed by this information and the press’ complete abdication of responsibility in reporting it. And Michelle Malkin is on the case.

Also, it seems even Reuters is ready to admit that the economy is in better shape that they want to admit.

Dirty Bombs in Boston?

Sigh. This is probably old news to everyone, but I’m just catching up…and it’s disheartening. Particularly this part, linked to by Polipundit and Powerline among others. Really, it’s vomit-inducing.

One bright spot: Ron Rosenbaum takes a heavy paddle to Dan Rather, and it’s a must-read:

While everyone in the world knows they rushed the “story,” skipped steps, rushed the verification process for the greater glory of you, Dan. What if the bloggers hadn’t blown the whistle, and you and your crew never learned how pathetically you were gamed by your “sources” (“Lucy Ramirez,” come on down!)—and you succeeded in putting one over on the public? Who would be getting the credit? Mary Mapes? No it would be Dan (the President Slayer) Rather.

You’d be happy to claim the credit, but look at you now—hiding under the covers of the “outside report,” clinging to your official position while your credibility as a journalist and as a stand-up guy is shredded.

You say, of the outside report that covered up for your responsibility, that you will “keep its lessons well in mind.”
Yeah, one lesson those four people learned is that they don’t have jobs and you do—while you toss them a bone in the form of meaningless praise for their “dedication”; while you use them as a fig leaf to cover your own dereliction.
After all, Dan, you made your reputation as a reporter, as a personality, as a high-profile candidate for anchorman when you took on Richard Nixon, who was blaming Watergate on his underlings and disclaiming responsibility for himself. It was a lie, Dan, one that you were vociferous in pursuing.

What would you call the stance you’re taking now? How does it differ from Nixon’s?

Read, as they say, the whole thing.

About Elizabeth Scalia