The Ostroy Report

The Ostroy Report is a fresh, aggressive voice for Democrats and a watchdog of the GOP/Tea Party. We support President Obama and the Democratic agenda and seek to preserve the Senate majority while taking back the House. But we're also not afraid to criticize the left when necessary.

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

Washington Post's Dana Priest Bitch-Slaps Bill Bennett. It Was a Beautiful Thing to Watch



Earlier this year Washington Post beat reporter Dana Priest was awarded journalism's highest honor, the Pulitzer Prize, for her reports exposing the government's secret 'black site' prisons and other controversial counterterrorism tactics. On NBC's Meet the Press Sunday, conservative blowhard hypocrite William Bennett was quoted from April as saying that Priest was "not worthy of an award but rather worthy of jail." The basis of Bennett's argument echoes the Busheviks' incendiary rhetoric that the media is committing treason, putting the nation in grave danger by publishing articles on classified spy programs such as the NSA wiretappings and the SWIFT financial transaction-monitoring program. Priest, other journalists and in particular, the New York Times, have come under the Busheviks' fire.

But in response to Bennett's outlandish statement, Priest put the smack-down on the 'recovering' gambling addict when she told host Andrea Mitchell: "Well, it's not a crime to publish classified information. And this is one of the things Mr. Bennett keeps telling people that it is. But, in fact, there are some narrow categories of information you can't publish, certain signals, communications, intelligence, the names of covert operatives and nuclear secrets. Now why isn't it a crime? I mean, some people would like to make casino gambling a crime, but it is not a crime. Why isn't it a crime? Because the framers of the Constitution wanted to protect the press so that they could perform a basic role in government oversight, and you can't do that." As Jon Stewart's homeboy would say, "Oh snap!" As Priest delivered her "gambling" line, the bloviating Bennett became visibly disturbed as he winced, shook his head, wringed his hands and muttered what appeared to be something like "..a mistake," as in, it was a mistake to come on this show. Bennett had been combative and belligerent from the get-go, looking disgusted throughout, and as if his head was about to blow. Early on, he rudely interrupted Mitchell with, "Is that it? Is that it for me? when she turned from him to ask a question of another guest, former NY Times columnist William Safire. "No. No. Stand by," Mitchell responded as if she was dealing with a petulant 10-year-old. "I want to ask Bill Safire to weigh in on this."

Priest's bitch-slap was a beautiful thing to witness, and it was done in the most subtle, seemingly unrehearsed manner, yet with the overall effect of castration. And it was well deserved. Bennett is a classic Repuglican hypocrite, author of The Book of Virtues, a collection of parables on morality and personal responsibility; a guide for parents. Furthermore, during Bill Clinton's ugly, highly partisan impeachment hearings, Bennett was relentless in his attacks on the former president for his "sins." And then in the Spring of 2003, this virtue magnate was outed for having a very serious gambling addiction, which he fessed up to and likened to a "drinking problem." So much for morality, huh? It's the same old story with these Repugs: do as I say, not as I do.

Over the controversial SWIFT program in particular, Bennett was the show's lone defender of King George's attempt to crucify the media. "I've been in the Times for 30 years disagreeing with Times editorial policy right down the line," said Safire. "On this one, I think they did the right thing" in publishing their story last month exposing the Busheviks' tracking of terrorists' funds within the world banking system.

And the Wall Street Journal's John Harwood said he believes the controversy is nothing more than a drummed up effort on the part of Bush and the GOP to distract voters from the real issues: "If you're a Republican in the White House or in Congress, would you rather talk about immigration, gas prices, the estate tax, all the things that you can't get done right now, or would you rather go after The New York Times, the Supreme Court on the Guantanamo ruling...and say "They're tying our hands in the war on terrorism?"

One question that comes to mind is, if this is not a highly political ruse by the Busheviks to scapegoat the NY Times and divert attention away from their policy failures, and it's truly in the interest of national security, why then have they singled out the left-leaning NY Times and not the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post, which ran similar articles? Because they know that, overall, the press was justified in publishing these stories. As Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof wrote Sunday, "Is the press a traitor when it tells you, or when it doesn't?"

16 Comments:

  • At 10:53 PM, Anonymous Jeany said…

    Majority Report re-ran their interview with Eric Boehlert on the last 2 segments of tonight's broadcast, and it made me wonder if anyone anywhere in this vast blogosphere has suggested sending Andrea Mitchell some love. I don't normally expect much of her or anyone on NBC, but whoever conceived the show, booked the guests, and scripted the show set Bennett up like a cheap kewpie doll. It was a thing of beauty to watch, and not one moment too soon.

    The media are chickenshits; they're so scared of the right wingnuts that they self-censor like a battered wife; the sort of abuse that comes from the right is utterly alien to the left of us (to coin a phrase), and it may be that love is all we have, that on such a rare and signal event, we should send a little praise to whoever put that smackdown together.

    I was amazed to hear Safire stick with his journalistic tribe, but I'll take it.

    Maybe that's the model of how to deal with the likes of Bennett; to isolate them and then beat them about the head and shoulders... which leads me to wonder whether his wind-up fan club has astroturfed NBC yet.

    Anyway, I've gone off the NYTimes, after Judith Miller's crimes, who hasn't? But a friend e-mailed me a clip from another blog this morning, it ended with a suggestion that the reason the WH hammered the NYT and let the WSJ and the LAT off the hook is that there's an even yet worse revealation coming, and they're after ginning up a knee-jerk response, keeping the gallery tuned up as it were. The distraction of the shivaree is an important component of their theatre.

     
  • At 9:01 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    You diminish the victory by the use of "bitch" slap.

     
  • At 10:16 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    The usual liberal tripe. When you run out of substance, just get personal. And many adoring liberal fans cheer and lift you on their shoulders. Who cares if you lost the argument. It makes them feel better.

     
  • At 10:52 AM, Anonymous SurroundedByTheMan said…

    Oh come on All_I_Can_Stands! You know the right-wingers get holy on personal attacks! So if the liberals do it isn't ok?

     
  • At 11:56 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    It is always ok. We have free speech. My point is that she used a personal attack because she lacked anything else to say. What she said was as intellectually relevant as "well, your momma wears army boots" or "my daddy can beat up your daddy"

     
  • At 12:32 PM, Blogger The Ostroy Report said…

    First off, to Anonymous, if all you walked away from my story was the I used the word "bitch," then you're missing the whole point, which is no surpirse. And besides, if you want G-rated commentary, check out Larry King. I hear he has a fabulously suck-uppy show.

    And to my old pal All I Can Stands, you're way too funny, my friend. What are we supposed to do, cry for you and your weak little Repuglican co-horts who are gettin' all beat up by the big bad nasty all-powerful Liberals? Honestly, pal, stop drinking that dang Kool-aid. It's messin' with your brain!

     
  • At 3:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "BITCH: 2. A bad or bad-tempered woman used as a strong term of contempt or hostility." Webster's New World Dictionary. It's a sexist's word for a woman; and there is no equivalent word for a man. Not only that "bitch slap", on the street, is synonymous with "pimp slap". The pimp slaps the "bitch", (whore) usually for criticizing him.

     
  • At 4:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "BITCH: 2. A bad or bad-tempered woman used as a strong term of contempt or hostility." Webster's New World Dictionary. It's a sexist's word for a woman; and there is no equivalent word for a man. Not only that "bitch slap", on the street, is synonymous with "pimp slap". The pimp slaps the "bitch", (whore) usually for criticizing him.

    I think Ostroy's basically saying that Priest is the "pimp" and Bennett was the bitch being slapped. If you think he was making a derogatory slur against women then you read the whole thing wrong.

     
  • At 5:18 PM, Anonymous Jad_Dittmar said…

    Well I see the anti's are descending into a bitch / whore-type discussion, again. Let's get back to the topic:

    The reason Harwood of the Wall Street Journal defended the NY Times is because the WSJ released the same info on the same day!

    So if the daily media updates to the GOP marketing outlets want to be "fair and balanced" they better add the WSJ to the hit list of incendiary "liberal" names they're spewing out.

    oh... and... if the Times gets put away, then Harwood et al will be going to the Federal journalism prison too. Maybe Cuba would be a good spot for it?

    Isn't it great when one side controls all three levers of gov't?

    Vote anti-incumbent.

     
  • At 8:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I don't know what bitch has to do with the topic, but I do know that when a carefully worded articulate and well timed comment is made by anyone even one tick left of the mean, the attack begains. They cry foul while having highly placed imbiciles start spouting every kind of nasty back byting nonsense. If this one flatulant gas bag gets flustered by an accurate side shot from an intelectual superior, then he has no place in public office. As for the right to free speech; yes, everyone has the right to free speech, and this "poor" fellow had every right to defend himself when confronted with his short comings. I don't think that it is impossible to believe that this gang of new-cons is beyond setting (forcing) up reporters to admit to things that they may not in fact have done, to setting up news shows with falsified data so they can claim foul, and throw an otherwise well repsected news agency into a groveling for scraps position. When all of the money is flowing uphill why is it not suprising that the media is getting stomped. I mean that if the swift boat men, and the swift finacial spying, and the direct phone spying, and the not so direct phone spying, and the stealing from native americans to fund illegal campaign stratagies, and the graft and the corruption, and the leaks that kill american covert patriots, is not enough to convince you that there is way more to worry about than this one fat flatulant gas bag then there is no hope for this society. Not that I believe american soceity will be any less than a dictatorship sooner then anybody could imagine.

     
  • At 1:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Oh, Popeye, like swift-boating in the 2004 election run by the GOPstapo wasn't personal?! Get a clue!

    I'm with Ostroy, you gotta stay outta the Kool-aid.

     
  • At 12:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    anonymous said
    "Oh, Popeye, like swift-boating in the 2004 election run by the GOPstapo wasn't personal?! Get a clue!

    I'm with Ostroy, you gotta stay outta the Kool-aid."

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Did you not read the post? Was I to obtuse, I can't tell? Did you not glean that I was on Ostroy's side? My comment was in response to the person that didn't like the word BITCH, and all_i_can_stands who just seems to be out of touch with reality both of whom used the words that my post tried to address.
    I am slam bang in agreement with the fact that the subject of the original article is a two faced lying scum and deserved everything he got, plus some things unfortunately, he never will.

    Yes the swift boat thing was personal; and it was also political, it was there to divert attention from the fact that our current President is a coward.

    Please reread what I wrote again with these things in mind, and remember sometimes people; even ones posting on a blog, can write with a sense of irony.

    Maybe if I had said "conservative blowhard hypocrite William Bennett" instead of ""this "poor" fellow" (please notice the quotes around the word poor it is not meant to be sympathetic to Bennett, in fact on several occasions I mention that Bennett is a "fat flatulant gas bag".
    I guess I need to stop assuming that the people that I would like to read my response are intellegent enough to understand it: especially when they are on my side!!!!!!!

     
  • At 2:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Lot of misunderstanding going on. The use of the word bitch is not offensive because G-rated commentary is preferred. The objection is to the use of a word which demeans women; and, as used in the article was actually, albeit unintentionally, calling Dana Priest a bitch. And "bitch slap" means an open-handed slap which is weak like a woman would slap. I thought her retort was as strong as any man might have made.

     
  • At 2:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Anonymous said...
    Lot of misunderstanding going on. The use of the word bitch is not offensive because G-rated commentary is preferred. The objection is to the use of a word which demeans women; and, as used in the article was actually, albeit unintentionally, calling Dana Priest a bitch. And "bitch slap" means an open-handed slap which is weak like a woman would slap. I thought her retort was as strong as any man might have made.

    Hey anonymus, you apparently have way too much time on your hands.

     
  • At 11:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The Majority enjoy how your Ilk live in a Culture of Treason, contrary to the deluge of Left Wing Contrived Polls, You All Will Lose Again in 2006/08. Nobody Will Ever Trust or VOTE for the Exposed Blogosphere Kook Non-mainstream Radical Leftist Democrat Party EVER Again. As Bennet was Right She & The Leftist ILK need all to be incarcerated or lined up against the wall if WE had our Way....

     
  • At 4:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    At the rate you Republicans are breaking the law, from the top on down, there will be no room left for "the Leftist Ilk" to be incarcerated. Of course many of "you all" are getting away with it now, but that won't continue. And as for lining the "Ilk" up against the wall - how Christian is that? I'm shocked. Shocked.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home