Late in the last decade, liberal legal eagle Alan Dershowitz wrote a book called "Sexual McCarthyism," in which he made the "compelling" analogy about Joe McCarthy searching for fake communists, just as Bill Clinton was recruiting fake...sex partners? This old book is relevant only because The Washington Post selected Dershowitz as the book reviewer for Bill O'Reilly's new book "Kids Are Americans Too."

Dershowitz began by noting factual errors in the book, a routine task for a critic. But quickly, he dipped into the sexual harassment lawsuit of former O'Reilly producer Andrea Mackris. Instead of reviewing the book, then Dershowitz turned it into a screed mocking O'Reilly as a hypocrite. For example:

The Washington Post reported today that select members of congress were briefed by the CIA in 2002 about enhanced interrogation techniques. Included in the briefing was current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). 

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

According to the article, the CIA gave congressional overseers approximately 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of waterboarding, other harsh interrogation methods, and virtual tours of the CIA's overseas detention sites.

Then-Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-FL) was also a party to the briefings.

When people say that Democrats have been briefed, on CIA methods, it seems like such a vague term.  Then, when an article like this comes out, and gives the amount of briefings and the subjects they were briefed on, it really shows what a hypocritical group these Democrats are. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html?wpisrc=newsletter

Have fun.

Unless you have either been asleep or out of the country for the last two years, you are fully aware of the contention made by climate alarmists in the media that rising atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are responsible for global warming.

In fact, this is such a common press theme that in just the last month alone, there have been more than 3,000 English-speaking news reports (LexisNexis search limit) around the world containing the words carbon dioxide and global warming/climate change.

It therefore goes without saying that this is a large part of the junk science folks like former Vice President Al Gore claim is settled, as they avow there is a significant correlation between the amount of CO2 in the air and the surface temperature of the planet. To save us all from imminent doom, the presence of this heinous greenhouse gas must be reduced immediately.

Yet, with all this finger-pointing at CO2 being the culprit for all earth's ills other than those caused by George W. Bush and every politician with an "R" next to his or her name, there's a tremendously inconvenient truth Gore and his media sycophants can't possibly refute:

Looking to head off even more controversy, NBC announced Saturday that it has reversed its decision to not show ads supporting the troops during the holidays.

Yet, that didn't seem to please the Associated Press which in its article concerning this u-turn chose to depict Freedom's Watch as "a group backed by wealthy Republican fundraisers" that is "critical of liberals."

Was this the appropriate moment to so categorize this organization? If the situation was somewhat reversed, would the AP have characterized MoveOn.org or Media Matters for America as a group backed by wealthy Democrat fundraisers that is critical of conservatives?

Before we get there, AP reported Saturday (emphasis added throughout):

Apparently Boehlert thinks discourse on unfair practices by the right side of politics is "whining". There are numerous links and quotes to NB in this latest diatribe of mischaracterizations by a Media Matters blogger.

To save you all from being enraged at the throne of Hillary-approved talking points, here's a cliff notes:

For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: The alternative minimum tax. If Congress doesn't act before it recesses, an estimated 23 million more Americans will pay this tax in 2007 than 2006. This will be a HUGE tax increase for many, as my accountant told me the cut-off for a married couple could be $120,000 in income.

Once in the grips of AMT, the unlucky taxpayer can write-off less and less of his/her property and state taxes on his 1040. As such, not only is he/she taxed at a higher rate, but also on a higher adjusted gross income. This makes AMT a HUGE tax increase.

Questions: Why hasn't Congress moved on this, and why hasn't this been a huge on-going media story given the number of families that will be affected? Furthermore, do you think the media would have been mute about this if the issue hadn't been decided last year when the Republicans were still in charge and Democrats were trying to unseat them?

Apparently, the Philly Inquirer wants us to know that the GOP candidates for president are drooling, half sentient, Bible thumping, gun toting, racists. Oh, and Fred Thompson is stupid and lazy. Just as apparently, the Philadelphia Inquirer is having trouble finding writers for their rag. I mean, what else could explain their giving a teenager a shot at filling space in the Sunday issue? Of course, I could be wrong. It could be that Dick Polman only writes like a 15-year-old. Worse, Polman seems to have sold himself to the Inquirer as some sort of comedian with "The American Debate, For the love of guns, God and Reagan," too. But, if he IS an adult and really does think his Sunday piece is funny, well, there's no accounting for taste -- or sense -- on the far left, I suppose. I guess the joke is on the readers of the Inquirer.

Steve Fraser might look mild-mannered, but when it comes to economic doomsaying, he is the Rocky Marciano of recession, the Tiger Woods of turndown, the David Beckham of depression.

Speaking of bending one, Fraser's LA Times column of today, "Symptoms of an Economic Depression," twists U.S. economic data into a harbinger of impending doom. Fraser begins by falsely claiming that "no one wants to utter the word 'depression.'" In fact, Fraser himself, a left-wing labor historian, wants not merely to utter it, but to bellow the word with a 10,000 megawatt bullhorn. Why? Because, as he gleefully predicts in that same column:

This perfect storm [of a bad economy] will be upon us just as the election season heats up, and it will inevitably hasten the already well-advanced implosion of the Republican Party.

Removing any doubt about how she sees the world from the left, Valerie Plame Wilson, in an interview Thursday which aired Saturday night on a Washington, DC area cable channel, admired the work of the far-left Media Matters as she revealed she seeks out the group's postings for their “accuracy” and presentation of “the facts.” Carol Joynt (her blog), a former CBS News producer who as the owner of the Nathans of Georgetown restaurant every week interviews a newsmaker in front of a lunch crowd in what becomes the hour-long Q&A Cafe on NewsChannel 8, asked whether she reads “news differently than the rest of us?” Plame Wilson replied:

Having been at the center of this, I'm much more skeptical. I do try to seek other sources of information. I find something like -- there's a blog called Media Matters, I think it's Media Matters, that seeks to sort of accuracy. You know, here's some statements in the Washington Post or the New York Times or made by presidential candidates of both stripes, here's, here are the facts on them. I find that is helpful.

I am not sure whether to "file" this one under "socialized medicine" or "dimmitude" .

The Link from Dimmiwatch: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/019032.php#comments

The orginal article from the Sunday Express: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/27213/Nurses-told-to-turn-Muslims-beds-to-Mecca

It is most interesting to read the comments under that second (original) article.

Why would Barbara Walters make Bill Clinton a Most Fascinating Person of 2007? She explained it on Thursday’s Good Morning America: “We didn't want a political candidate, but I mean he has had such a year. Wrote another best-selling book, Giving, traveled all over the place. And we talked to him about what it was like to be, you know, what he thinks it's going to be if she wins.”

But the ooziest, least credible part came when GMA co-host Robin Roberts asked Walters “What do you make of the partnership between Bill and Hillary Clinton?” Walters laid on the lovey-dovey-Clintons line, thick as an oil slick: “Well, you know, we asked him, for example if he does, you know, text messaging. And he said no, he calls her because he has to hear her voice. He knows from the moment she says hello what kind of a day it is for her. Well, that's the only kind of relationship you can have if you're very close and, you know, obviously, they are.”

That’s not exactly what Walters heard from Hillary during a long, mostly fawning 2003 interview about her memoir. Hillary ducked and dodged on whether her husband is now hopelessly devoted only to her. From our book Whitewash: