What is Tom DeLay doing now?

He's posing with Elvis at a nursing home -- err, campaigning in his district.

Go read this absolutely hilarious post at In the Pink Texas.





Their snark, and that of their commenters, is the best ever of late.

Update (8/28) : Charles Kuffner has a more polite take.

Last night's Daily Show interview

with Christopher Hitchens is now available for your viewing at Crooks and Liars.

You've heard it about it, you've read about it, now you can see it for yourself.

Prairie Weather links to the Texas Observer's in-depth expose' of the tangled web of connections binding the GOP together -- that's a must-click, by the way -- and adds this:

This is a big article about a big mess and these are only the opening paragraphs.

Bottom line: a real investigation, which McCain and the Indian Affairs Committee is supposed to hold, would pull down too many "key" figures in the Republican Party and (worse?) cut off big funding sources.

Now are we motivated to change the color of the Senate and House in 2006?

Well, if we are, we shouldn't count on any help from the SCLM; Editor and Publisher points to the Los Angeles Times piece that shows how the editors of TIME magazine sat on the Plame-Rove-Matthew Cooper disclosures because they did not want to influence the 2004 election:

The article details conversations involving Karl Rove, "Scooter" Libby, Matt Cooper and Robert Novak. But near its conclusion it raises an emerging issue, promoted by Michael Wolff of Vanity Fair, among others: If Time magazine had gone public about Rove's conversations with Cooper, it might have had some impact on the Bush - Kerry race for the White House last year.

Not until this summer did Cooper ask Rove for a waiver to talk to the grand jury, and ultimately the public, about their conversation. The L.A. Times article today notes that he did not do this before “because his lawyer advised against it.” But the reporters add that in addition, “Time editors were concerned about becoming part of such an explosive story in an election year.”

The story concludes: "The result was that Cooper's testimony was delayed nearly a year, well after Bush's reelection."

That worked out well for everyone, didn't it?

Billmon is yelling

...is anybody listening?

Some stories are so obvious that I fool myself into thinking the facts will speak for themselves. I forget that we don't live in that kind of world any more (if we ever did) and that amensia is no longer just a chronic condition for the corporate media but also a willful one.

So, to drive the point of my last post home a little harder, let me summarize:

The White House propaganda maestros used an Iraqi women's rights activist as a living prop at Shrub's state of the union address earlier this year, whipping wingnut war hawks and media dingdongs alike into a frenzy of teary-eyed patriotism. They also arranged for her to stand immediately in front of the mother of a Marine killed in action in Iraq -- setting the scene for a "spontaneous" hug that reduced a national television audience to quivering lumps of sentimental jello and left Joe Klein spitting phlegm-coated bile at the Democratic Party.

Now, that very same activist is telling the world the Americans just sold her, and her Iraqi sisters, down the river to a bunch of medieval mullahs with Made-in-Tehran labels on the insides of their turbans.

Will her betrayal simply be pushed down the media memory hole with yesterday's garbage? Are we really that far gone?