Right100, and Ms. Howell,
Please, please take this comment to heart.
As much as you would like to believe otherwise, You are both compatriots of a political faction that is working to undermine the American system of government. Right100, I will take your best wishes in the next election cycle literally, for all of our sakes, your included.

The dems had nothing to do with the Abramoff scandal.

Even though you really would like it if they were.

Right100, and Ms. Howell,
Please, please take this comment to heart.
As much as you would like to believe otherwise, You are both compatriots of a political faction that is working to undermine the American system of government. Right100, I will take your best wishes in the next election cycle literally, for all of our sakes, your included.

This is dishonest. No evidence has yet come to light that Abramoff directed contributions to the Democrats.

Either you are reporting this, in which case you've not sourced it, or you are referencing prior reporting, in which case you've also not sourced it.

Doesn't anyone in charge at the Post feel ashamed that the person they hired as a judge has no grasp of the law?

I ask again, why was my comment removed?

I said that maybe you weren't a liar.

That maybe you weren't even first class at obfuscation.

But I DID say you were INCOMPETENT.

Is that it? Being called incompetent yanks your chain?

Ms. Howell,

May I suggest that you address the concerns of Post readers by scheduling one of the Post's lovely live chats? I think taking the opportunity to answer questions and address the readers directly in that fashion would be helpful.

- corbett

As others have stated, there is NO EVIDENCE that Abramoff 'directed' tribes to donate to Democrats. None.

It seems that you are missing the entire point of this story. Willfully, perhaps. The K Street Project was about one thing only--an effort to cut Democrats out of ALL the action, all the lobbying money. So why on earth would Abramoff tell the tribes to give money to his enemies?

Mrs. Howell:

Let us grant that some of Abramoff's clients gave money to Democrats on his advice. That is not news. It is lobbying. Happens every day.

Is there evidence of illegal activity in re that money? Of quid pro quo involving Democrats? That would be news. There certainly isn't any such evidence in what you have shown us so far. Nor has anyone else brought forth such evidence.

So the question then becomes: if it isn't news, why are you reporting it? Why are you repeating it? Why are you insinuating that Democrats will eventually be found "in the first tier" of people being investigated without producing any evidence that this is true?

Everyone who reads this, including you, knows the answer to that question.

If you were a reporter, what you did would have been unprofessional--an embarrassment for any news organization. You, however, are an ombudsman; the worst one I have ever encountered by far.

Nicholas Mycroft

The graph that Howell links to has been repeatedly shown to be meaningless and misleading (by independent sources, and even by conservative ones).

The document she links to has been shown to be misleading and manipulated (the joys of Photoshop!) Whoever produced this hack job (Willis?) needs to be fired and/or sued.

Why is the Post so intent on lying about this story?

Brothers and sisters, we have lived to see the day when the Post is to right of even Rich Lowry at the National Review! Katherine Graham, may her soul rest in peace, fortunately has not.

what can I say, but,

heh

Deborah, you've made a mistake, when pressed about the mistake you don't apologize, you excuse yourself

tribes giving money to politicians has nothing what so ever to do with the republican influence machine

democrats ARE NOT implicated in this scandal

you have to distance them from this scandal and apologize for making the association.

by the way

how did wapo think you might be qualified for this position?

it would seem you are as unqualified as a brown was to fema

I have another point.
In your earlier post on this issue, you confessed to receiving talking points from one of the right wing think tanks.
I applaud you for telling us where you get your information, but I'm a little curious if this is good journalism.

Specifically, shouldn't reporting on this story begin with public records? After consulting public records, wouldn't it be appropriate to contact any Congressmen which you mention in the story for comment. You tarred Reid and Dorgan but gave them no chance to explain themselves.
After consulting with the Congressmen directly, I see no problem contacting the official party offices for a statement.
Finally, at the end of the chain, you could talk to outside institutes.

Does this sound like a reasonable way to approach this story?
If it is not how you did your reporting, I would find it helpful to know more about your process---of course, any contacts that require confidentiality *cough* *Rove* can be respected.

Whatever you do, Debby, don't let on that you were shopping at Nordstrom instead of doing your job.

"I've heard from lots of angry readers about the remark in my column Sunday that lobbyist Jack Abramoff gave money to both parties. A better way to have said it would be that Abramoff "directed" contributions to both parties."

How can a reader know whether a tribe gave money to a given politician on their own behalf or whether Jack Abramoff "directed" funds to said politician other than your unsupported assertion? Where is your proof? Do you expect readers to uncritically accept your assertion with no other evidence other than your say so?

Ms. Howell,

Many hundreds of Mr. Abramoff's emails have been made public.

On Feb. 11, 2002, he told Ralph Reed, "I wish those moronic Tiguas were smarter in their political contributions. I'd love us to get our mitts on that moolah!! Oh well, stupid folks get wiped out."

Are there any correspondence which suggest that Abramoff directed his clients to give to Democrats? ANY?

Ms. Howell:

While there was perhaps some debate over whether your initial false statements that Jack Abramoff gave money to Democrats were based in partisanship or based in incompetence, there was some small hope on the part of this Post reader that you might get it right this time around.

No such luck. Your defensive and again - factually baseless - response only reinforces the belief that you have no business working as ombudsman for the East Podunk Mailer-Courant, let alone The Washington Post.

Congratulations, you are now officially a one-woman credibility wrecking crew.

There are only two outcomes here: Either your superiors at The Post realize that you are a total liability and jettison your incompetent personage, or the paper sinks out of sight (hopefully with great speed) as it is dragged down by the cumulative effect of your “reporting” and earlier damage self-inflicted during the run up to W’s Adventure in Iraq.

Frankly, at this point, I could care less which happens, but I imagine that Post leadership cares, and hopefully your very public dismissal is at hand.

Ms. Howell, your recent writings and the tone of them have been false, and demonstrably antithetical to shareholder value.

Mr. Abramoff is one of the most powerful men in the country. He is also a stridently partisan Republican, even once holding the coveted office of President of the Young Republicans, the well-known college drinking club for political aspirants. In the main, such an individual does not nor ever will "direct" his clients to give contributions to Democrats; if rare exceptions occurred, they were likely the result of shoddy vote calculation on the Republican side of the aisle. This fact should already have been obvious to a keen legal mind before it was abundantly amplified by thousands of concerned subscribers protesting your disastrous columns.

Well outside your personal area of expertise, your remarks above fail to mend fences, as should have been their purpose, and I believe they cause much further harm. You have helped your management in what appears to be a scurrilous campaign to deceive a distressingly shrinking readership on the decidedly partisan nature of the Abramoff scandal, but you have not helped well.

I believe it scant coincidence that the Washington Post Company's shareholders are now suffering as a result of what has become an obvious prostituting of journalistic integrity once of such proud repute, with share prices having fallen sharply. I believe this fall in price is highly correlated with the purposeful intent to disseminate falsehoods. In order to avoid further loss, I have instructed my family's trust to end what has been a long and profitable relationship, and to take appropriate steps to eliminate our WPO holdings.

"A better way to have said it would be that Abramoff "directed" contributions to both parties."

Shouldn't you thank Howard Kurtz for that little bit of unattributed spin? He trotted it out in an on-line forum recently; it sounded just as corrupt when he said it.

Let me lay it out for Deb one more time. Deb, suggesting something to a client is not the same as directing, as evidenced by the fact that various donations suggested by Abramoff were NOT made by the tribes.

But here is the more important point. Do you really expect that Abramoff would suggest to tribes that had traditionally contributed primarily to democrats that they start giving exclusively to republicans. Wouldn't Abramoff -an avowed republican lobbyist - have thereby risked an inference being drawn by the tribes that he was more interested in his cause than theirs? Should Abramoff really be credited with "directing" these tribes to do what they'd been doing all along, i.e., contributing to democrats? Or should the Post instead be emphasizing that this republican lobbyist directed these tribes to reverse their longstanding preference for democrats and instead contribute disproportionately to republicans?

If Abramoff's purpose was to direct as much money as possible from the tribes to his favored republicans he would do exactly what he DID do. He would gently and gradually attempted to influence them to shift their contributions to republicans. He most assuredly would NOT have "directed" them to suddently stop all contributions to democrats. To have done so would have caused suspicion that he was looking out for his own interests and not those of the Tribes. Which, as we all now know, was exactly what he was doing.

Really, Deb, as ombudsman for the Post you should have been able to figure this out for yourself. But we're here to help you, Deb. We're here to help.

With only 15% of Americans reading the newspaper, you sure are trying to push that number down aren't you? Katherine Graham must be rolling in her grave. You're a dispicable ombudsman; and until they get rid of political hacks like you, I'm done with the post.

Ms. Howell hasn't quite yet mastered the art of 'truthiness' because the essence of that is avoiding the appearance of 'wronginess'. She's being called out by the readers by her inartfulness. We need an ombudperson for the ombudsperson!

With only 15% of Americans reading the newspaper, you sure are trying to push that number down aren't you? Helen Graham must be rolling in her grave. You're a dispicable ombudsman; and until they get rid of political hacks like you, I'm done with the post.

The factually proper statement is that the Indian tribes REDUCED their contributions to Democrats after contact and association with Abramoff. The scandal is that the mainstream press has not looked at historical patterns of Indian political donations, but only at overall giving. It's in the details, that's where the spinners lie.

Deborah Howell, you owe your readers, and the Post, a retraction and correction.

Posted by: Tom3 | Jan 19, 2006 3:25:16 PM

What about Ginger? Did she abstain? Oh gosh, what did I just say?! I hope no one takes that to mean I'm implying Ginger isn't abstinent. Gosh, there I go again. Abstinence. Is that the word? Oh well.

Buh Bye Deborah. Been nice. Do write. See ya.

Ms. Howell:

While there was perhaps some debate over whether your initial false statements that Jack Abramoff gave money to Democrats were based in partisanship or based in incompetence, there was some small hope on the part of this Post reader that you might get it right this time around.

No such luck. Your defensive and again - factually baseless - response only reinforces the belief that you have no business working as ombudsman for the East Podunk Mailer-Courant, let alone The Washington Post.

Congratulations, you are now officially a one-woman credibility wrecking crew.

There are only two outcomes here: Either your superiors at The Post realize that you are a total liability and jettison your incompetent personage, or the paper sinks out of sight (hopefully with great speed) as it is dragged down by the cumulative effect of your “reporting” and earlier damage self-inflicted during the run up to W’s Adventure in Iraq.

Frankly, at this point, I could care less which happens, but I imagine that Post leadership cares, and hopefully your very public dismissal is at hand.

Okay, this would be funny if it weren't the comment I bet Howell and the gang were bobbling their haeds at (if they bother to read this).

"Ms. Howell, don't let these lefties get you down. You're doing a great job keeping the Post fair and balanced. The truth is always in the middle somewhere, not on the left or the right, and that's the bottom line here. Your job is to find the truth, not to kow-tow to a bunch of pajama clad left-wing jihadists, no matter how many "facts" they throw at you."

The very definition of "Truthiness", as in "Truthy", not "Facty". My assertations are the truth, regardless of the facts. Give this man a Colbert Report gold star!

NO DIRECTED MONEY! DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT ABRAMOFF "DIRECTED" MONEY TO DEMOCRATS?

Remember This Interview???

BLITZER: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who has now pleaded guilty to bribery charges, among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington, should the Democrat who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back?
DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.
BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.
DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence...
BLITZER: What about Senator Byron Dorgan?
DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.
BLITZER: Unfortunately Mr. Chairman, we got to leave it right there.

Mrs. Howell,

You are an embarrassment to your paper.
Do the right thing and resign.

Why did you not report the fact (available from Bloomberg) that while tribes continued to give to democrats the level of giving to democrats DECLINED after their relationships with Abramoff began?

Is it really that hard for you to get the picture of what was going on there?

At Jan 19, 2006 3:03:31 PM DougJ said, "The truth is always in the middle somewhere, not on the left or the right, and that's the bottom line here."

One person claims that 2+2=4 and the other says 2+2=6.... to which DougJ stands up proudly and states "2+2=5... it's in the middle and that the bottom line!!!"

Let's see, here's your logic:
1) Donor A was a donor to Democrat B;
2) Donor A is extorted/conned into hiring Republican C;
3) Donor A reduces its share of donations to Democrat B;
4) Republican C is shown to be engaged in a gigantic criminal enterprise;
5) your conclusion: Democrat B and Republican C are in a criminal enterprise together.

The mendacity blows the mind. And I hope you do know you're being dishonest -- if this comes out of stupidity I'm even more frightened about how low our media has reached.

The only real story in town regarding corruption is the K-Street Project -- which over more than ten years sought to not only illegally funnel money to the Bush Republicans, but also to illegally abuse Congressional power in order to punish campaign donors to the Democratic Party. Abramoff, Delay, Santorum, Frist, Rove, Reed, Norquist and the other players in the K-Street project engaged in corruption and extortion in a completely unprecedented scaled in the pursuit of their goal to establish a de facto one-party rule. Contrived 'balance' in reporting on this is an unprofessional and cowardly lie. Why are the media afraid to factually and *fairly* report this story?

Is it my imagination, or has the WaPo now bottled out completely and removed the Technorati links from it's pages? I found these really helpful in locating other sites that had commented on the articles and had insight and information to add.

Or is that why you removed them? My god, you're cowards.

Dear Mrs. Howell,

Gilligan, the Skipper, The Professor and Mary Ann all voted you off the island.

Thurston Howell III says he wants a divorce.

Better start looking for a raft.

Debbie, there's a HUGE difference. Abramoff was trying to buy influence. That's what lobbyists do. How on earth do you buy influence if the recipient doesn't know the money is from you? Unless you have proof that the Democratic recipients of tribal donatios knew it was actually being directed by Dirty Danny, you can't make an honest comparison.

****************************************

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

- Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776

Nothing like deliberately missing readers' point while being patronizing at the same time, Ms. Howell. Your attack on Dan Froomkin showed what a twisted sense of justice you possess. I don't know why the post employs an ombudsman whose only function seems to be to insult readers'intelligence.

Other people have put the case so clearly, I hope someone does read through all of these. I agree with City Girl, Beulah, theAmericanist and Lee B. to start with....

My question would be, are we supposed to read the newspaper and figure out where facts are misstated by following up with the internet or...is the newspaper supposed to actually be a source of information that can be completely relied upon. (Errors are made but then apologies should be trumpeted to make sure everyone is aware the previous information was erroneous.)

At this point, you are not shocked and appalled that you have misinformed people, you seem to be trying to cover your tracks to those who are seeking factual and clearly stated news. I'm shocked over this.

I know the MSM (as it has become known) has been taking a beating recently. Unfortunately, I believe quite a bit of it is deserved but....but....I have continued to believe in the NY Times and Washington Post. They may not be covering some of the stories they should, all of the information may not be there and some problems have occurred, but, if a statement is made in the newspaper, I basically believe that statement for what it is. When I see the Washington Post name, it carries a label of credibility. That is what you should be safe-guarding, Ms. Howell. If you know anything about brands -- and the Washington Post is a brand -- you know you protect the good reputation of a brand at all costs because that is worth millions of dollars - literally.

I just found out from a prior post that even the graphic that Ms. Howell links to in her 'clarification' is misleading. Two of the democrats mentioned in the graphic actually received ZERO dollars, and once received ONLY $500.

And for some reason, the graphic WHITES OUT THE ENTRY THAT MENTIONS TOM DELAY!

This is beyond incompetence. Is she posting a graphic given to her by the RNC? Given that it is obviously designed to muddy the issues, it certainly seems to be the case.

Disingenuous - there is no word that is better suited to describe your inclinations in the original article and the firestorm that followed.

You are doing one heckuva job there Deborah, keep it up and someday you can work for CNSNews too. It seems more like your cup of tea anyways.

Deborah, what's all that fuss about up there? It took me forever to scroll down across it to get to this comment box. Good luck with that.

What I'm writing about is to ask you if you see Sally Quinn this afternoon, tell her to call me. It's urgent. We need to finish up planning our Spring Cotillion. Thanks. You're a dear. Kiss Kiss

"There is no practical distinction between Abramhoff personally handing the money to a republican and him writing down specific instructions to tribes on who to contribute to for the Democrats. "

Yes, there is. Sorry. Thanks for playing, buhbye!

Been following this shameful episode through the various media and I do hope the Post is seriously considering the swift termination of this imbecile...

hey WP, this is getting embarrassing. seriously.

you need an ombudsman for your ombudsman.

So when's the next mass "accidental" deletion of comments, Post? Show us again just how much you care about your readers.

Even though I stopped subscribing when I moved from DC, I would gladly support and participate in a campaign to target the Post's major advertisers--particularly the national ones who Midwesterners like me could credibly threaten with lost business.

Ms. Howell,

You are a disgrace to your paper, to journalism and to the very concept of an ombudsman. It is time for you to resign. Take the pain. Eat the rat.

Let me give some more contexts on the donations to members of Congress. The following comes from http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_senate_hearings&docid=f:96229.wais

and constitutes remarks of the chairman of the Senate committe investigating Abramoff's theft from the Indians.
There is another element to the Tigua story that I feel
compelled to address. It appears that Mr. Abramoff and Mr.
Scanlon used the good name and reputation of our fellow members
in Congress in their attempts to part the tribe from its money.
You will hear today from witnesses and read from documents
indicating that Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Scanlon contended that
Senator Dodd and Congressman Ney were enlisted to spearhead
efforts in Congress to provide a legislative fix to the Tigua's
problems.
From what we know, that was not the case. Senator Dodd knew
nothing about the proposed legislative fix, never supported it.
And in fact, we are told that when the idea was proposed to his
senior staff, it was rejected at least three times. Congressman
Ney agreed to support a legislative fix after being told by Mr.
Abramoff that Senator Dodd wanted the language. So there was a
lot of shady things going on.
In short, the evidence demonstrates that Mr. Scanlon and
Mr. Abramoff told their clients that Senator Dodd and
Congressman Ney would push their proposal, knowing full well
that was not the case, in an effort to further persuade the
Tigua Tribe into continuing to pay them more millions of
dollars."

If you were a journalist, you would not write that Democrats received money from Abramoff---in an article about Abramoff's crimes---without noting that there is no evidence that Democrats in general knew of Abramoff's involvement at all.

Ms. Howell, don't let these lefties get you down. You're doing a great job keeping the Post fair and balanced. The truth is always in the middle somewhere, not on the left or the right, and that's the bottom line here. Your job is to find the truth, not to kow-tow to a bunch of pajama clad left-wing jihadists, no matter how many "facts" they throw at you.

What a completely useless graph the Washington Post put together. First they put all the money that Abramboff, the firm he worked for, and his clients into one pot. How can they honestly do that?

Are they sure a donation made by a client was done in consultation? Do they know that Abramoff made any recommendation to donate to a Democrat?

The graphic completely disguises the fact that Abramoff personally only donated money to GOP politicians and PACs. It is dishonest to say that because these tribes hired Abramoff they some how became part of "Team Abramoff."

By the way who came up with that?

It is a rediculous invention.

Paying Abramoff did not give him control of where these casinos donated their money.

The most reliable indicator of where Abramoff spread his corruption is where he personally spent his money. The chart should have only looked at the pool of money over which Abramoff had exclusive control.

I suppose that wouldn't seem like fair journalism, only reporting Republican corruption, or provide a very compelling pie chart.

What is about the anger and fury on this comments. Are you posters still fuming about dan fromkin. Please don't tell me you think democrats are exempt from corruption? If the democrats had been in power that would have done the same thing. Remember 4 out of 5 of the Keating 5 were democrats. Who ever is in power is going to be corrupted by the money.There is no practical distinction between Abramhoff personally handing the money to a republican and him writing down specific instructions to tribes on who to contribute to for the Democrats. You'all are so blinded by rage that you can see the forest throught the trees. Better luck in the Next Election. Ha Ha

Howell: "A better way to have said it would be that Abramoff "directed" contributions to both parties."

WHAT??? ARE YOU KIDDING.
So, in your 'opinion' the tribes are agents of Abramoff?? They took marching orders from him???

Really, again I will say it; no wonder the WAPO circulation is going down faster then DARTH CHENEY's.

You are a transparent agent for the GOP. Sickening.

Those who are willing to take the time can still find the FULL truth that your newspaper fails to deliver.
Abramoff made his living funneling money to the GOP. Period. What part of that does ANYONE disagree with? It is documented, witnessed, and indicted and plea-bargained.
The Post is doing some good work in spite of Woodward, Howell, Schmidt and their ilk. I still have hope for the future of a once fine newspaper.

For Woodward, Schmidt and Howell:
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776

Do tell, what happened to the Deb Howell who was once so worried about doing a good job as a journalist that she cared about details and made corrections for SCHOOL LUNCH LIST errors, which affected, say, 1000s of people?

Now, she doesn't care about political lies and shell games that affect the whole nation. What was her price?

Howell wrote: "One of those lists can be viewed in this online graphic, while a graphical summary of giving by Abramoff, his tribal clients and associated lobbyists can be viewed here."

Howell's intellectual dishonesty (and her support of the Post's twisting of this story) is astonishing.

The "online graphic" that she refers to, when compared to actual FEC filings, ( http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_donor.asp?Name=Coushatta+Tribe+of+Louisiana )demonstrated precisely the opposite of what Howell claims. The list, which Howell says shows Abramoff "directing contributions" to Democrats, shows that....

1) While Abramoff supposedly "requested" $2000 each for Jean Carnahan and Max Cleland, and $5,000 for Tom Daschle, the tribe in question gave Carnahan and Daschle NOTHING, and Cleland on $500.

2) Every GOP incumbent who was running for re-election that is mentioned on the list got at least $1000 --- the total "contribution" to the GOP names found on this "graphic" exceeded $15,000.

Perhaps more to the point, the Post went out of its way in "photoshopping" the graphic to make it appear that Tom Daschle was a recipient of Coushetta tribe funds "directed" by Abramoff (the FEC filing shows he wasn't), they "whited out" the line directly below Daschle's name -- in which some kind of "contribution" was directed to Tom Delay through the lobbying firm of Williams and Jensen (that is the firm whose address is 1155 21st St NW, #300 see http://www.williamsandjensen.com/principals.asp?id=15 ) -- a firm where Tom Delay's former chief of staff found a very lucrative job the same year that Abramoff is "directing" $20,000 to that firm.

The other graphic, which makes it appear that there was a substantial increase in donations from Native American tribes to Democrats thanks to Jack Abramoff, disguises one key fact --- these tribes had been giving to Democrats for years-- the "increase" in contributions for Democrats is a reflection of Abramoff getting these tribes as clients, NOT an increase in tribal contributions to democrats per se.

Ms Howell needs to explain why she thinks the "graphic" she linked to is evidence that donations were "directed" to Democrats when the FEC filings prove that this document was virtually ignored when it came to Democratic politicians, but GOP incumbents listed on the "graphic" all received funds that year.....

She also needs to explain why she won't admit that she lied about Jack Abramoff giving money to "both parties", and giving money to Harry Reid and Byron Dorgan.

It didn't happen -- and it is inconceivable that Howell could have "done her homework" on the Abramoff scandal and yet have written what she wrote. How has to acknowledge that she was careless and incompetent -- that her sole purpose in writing the original column was to defend "Steno Sue Schmidt" and here efforts to disassociate Tom Delay from Abramoff, and to suck up to the GOP that wants to make the WHOLLY REPUBLICAN Abramoff scandal into something "bipartisan."

Its bullshit, pure and simple. Howell lied, and she continues to lie.

The issue is not giving money, the issue is bribery.

It's the bribery, stupid!

Now give us a chart showing members of both parties who received the bribes that Abramoff and his (and DeLay's) associates have confessed to.

This needs to be brought up again and not buried deep in a post. Do you get it WaPo?

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

- Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776

I wish to quote Ms. Howell from the past, i.e. her commencment address at Mackey Hall, University of Colorado.

"I love this business, and frankly I don’t want you to go out there and screw it up. I want you to make it better.
So here’s my advice. My top 10 commandments for you to remember:

10. Accuracy is not just the most important thing; it’s the only thing. The American Society of Newspaper Editors recently did an excellent study on the credibility problems of American newspapers. The No. 1 complaint is that newspapers just don’t get facts right. Misspelled names and words; wrong addresses; wrong times. Simple stuff. This is not rocket science.

When a job seeker writes me a letter and misspells my name or has my title wrong or a misspelled word or a grammar error, I either ashcan the letter or write and tell them to get a new trade.

Sweat the small stuff. Have you heard the line: “If your mother says she loves you, check it out”? Tattoo that inside your left eyelid, and don’t forget it.

9. Don’t be afraid to look dumb and ask stupid questions. Accuracy demands it. I was once sent on two minutes’ notice to interview U.S. Sen. Gene McCarthy on his farm price support bill when I was a reporter in Minneapolis. I didn’t know anything about farm price supports. So I threw myself on the mercy of McCarthy and his aide. First they educated me, then they told me what was important about his bill, and then they told me who to call for criticism.

There was an old, wise judge – J.D. Todd – in Nueces County, Texas, when I was covering cops and courts for a radio and TV station. He could look at me and know whether I understood what was going on or not. He knew I had a noon deadline. As I would leave to call the office, he would say, “Debbie, approach the bench.” And I’d go up and he’d say, “You sure you understood all that?” And if I didn’t, he’d explain it to me.

Cops and politicians aren’t always trying to hide something from you. Let them help you when you need it. And if indeed they are hiding something, someone will know about it and probably will tell you if you keep your ear to the ground.

8. So you violate the 9th and 10th Commandments and make a mistake. Admit it. Know when to say you’re wrong. Know when to say you’re sorry. Don’t get defensive about it. Remember, daily journalism is the first rough draft of history. And we never get it all right all the time. That’s why God made corrections. Let me give you two great examples of personal humiliation.

We inadvertently left the school lunch menus out of the Sunday paper when I was editor in St. Paul. We got thousands of calls from angry parents who used that list to decide whether to pack lunches for their kids.

Then we got the snowplowing days screwed up on a snow emergency and caused hundreds of our readers to get parking tickets. Those both caused Page 1 corrections that I personally wrote. Another great moment in American journalism."

Those are words she purports to live by.

TK

Indian tribe money is not implicitly dirty, any more than any of the directed money from any of Abramoff's other clients is dirty money. The reasons the tribal money has a central part in this story is that Abramoff ripped off the tribes.

Politicians may see any Abramoff-related money as radioactive and return it. That's fine. But the tribes were the victims, not the criminals.

Ms. Howell, one journalist to another, you're just wrong on this. You need to admit it, apologize and move on, because that hole you're still digging is never going to get any shallower.

As a longtime reader of the Washington Post, I am appalled at Deborah Howell's performance as the paper's ombudsman. I am a former reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and I can not imagine an editor at my former paper allowing such poorly researched material to get into print--whether as a news story, opinion column, or God forbid, an ombudsman's essay.

There is NOTHING of an ombudsman in Deborah Howell's approach to her job. An ombudsman's role is to represent the voice of the reader in the paper; to examine the paper's--and its writers'--intentions in the articles that the paper prints. Ms. Howell does none of this; she has a palpable agenda, and her tone is authoritarian (certainly not authoritative). I can only imagine how she came to be hired for this position, but it reflects very poorly on the Post that she has performed in such a careless and biased way so soon in her (one hopes, brief) tenure.

The Post need a REAL ombudsman, not some hack who sees her job as lecturing readers on the errors of their points of view, and whose own point of view is so transparent and partisan.

This is disgusting. If this is how the ombudsman treats her readers, the people whom she is paid to represent, then it is clear that I have no reason to trust anything that's printed in the Washington Post.

A once-great paper is now a laughingstock.

Here is some simple advice, given freely to Ms. Howell:

Just stop it. Stop it at once. You are not only hurting your newspaper, you are hurting our beloved country with your falsehoods.

You are on the wrong side of history.

Once again you show an intent to tar the Dems with the Abramoff brush. There seems to be a goal here to make this bi-partisan, even if just a little, for the sake of 'balance'. Clients of Abramoff were giving to Dems before Jack got the accounts. Look at the money those clients contributed after Jack was in the picture. It was a LOT less, and you can be sure if Abramoff could have got all the money to the GOP, he would have.
The K-Street project existed to build up GOP coffers and deplete the Dems. What part of that does anyone disagree with? Abramoff made his living filling the GOP belly with cash. This has been documented, witnessed, indicted, and plea bargained.
You can't build a permanent GOP majority if the other side has access to as much campaign money as you do. Where did ALL the Abramoff money go? GOP non-profits, GOP PACs, GOP 'charities', GOP travel, GOP campaigns,...etc.

I was dissapointed when I learned the Times had been used plant talking points for the GOP to quote at the rest of the media. I fear that some of that is going on at the Post also. You print a half-truth, or a lie, and the next thing we see is the GOP using your fog as a talking point. The Post still does some fine work in spite of the shills in your midst. I wish I could still trust all of your staff.

For Howell, Woodward and Schimdt:
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

- Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776

Ben Bradlee never allowed such arrogance among WaPo employees.

Bradlee is, of course, a legend.

Why does the current WaPo management allow Ms. Howell's childish rants?

If this is how the Post's OMBUDSMAN treats readers, imagine the level of contempt regular White-House bootlickers at the paper (and elsewhere, Tweety) feel for us.

Tell me again why I should read this paper...

Ms. Howell, Learn the law of holes. It is: when in a hole stop digging.

Why was my comment removed?

Pathetic.

Methinks we're dealing with someone who cannot admit to a mistake. Which, by the way, sounds very similar to a certain someone now "leading" our country. A mentor perhaps?

Face reality: As a pig with lipstick is still a pig, a blatant lie gussied up with a shiny new verb is still a blatant lie.

An ombudsman nobody believes. Congratulations Washington Post.

"The Post has copies of lists sent to tribes by Abramoff with specific directions on what members of Congress were to receive specific amounts."

Forgive me, but at this point I can't trust you on this without verifying that these lists contain specific directions from Abramoff to the tribes. And that is just the beginning of the inquiry.

It seems to me that WaPo is deleteing some posts even now.

The paper still doen't get it.

If you want to have a web presence and attract readers, do not engage in censure. The readers are intelligent enough to discriminate between posts that are relevant and the ones that are not.

In any case you should publish objective guidelines for the posters if you want to delete the posts that do not satisfy your criteria of publishability.

Are you such a jounalist that you haven't even notice that the contributions Abramoff Directs are all to republicans? don't you think this is something your readers deserve to know? so which is it, are you blatently dishonest or merely supremely incompetant?

Those patched together graphics are pathetic, and they don't prove anything.

Where is an email or a memo from Abramoff that "directs" the tribes to donate?

WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE ???

Produce the evidence or retract your statements.

At this point Ms. Howell and the Washington Post have completely lost their credibility. Ms. Howell may never regain hers.

Dear Ms. Howell--

First, permit me to say thank you for offering a posted response. It is the first time, to my knowledge, that you have engaged in a public dialog with Post readers in any way. Although I do not find your response to be persuasive or to put to rest the serious concerns that have been raised by so many, I would encourage you to find a way to pursue a regular means of conversation with Post readers.

Your first several columns have kicked up quite a few dust storms. There are similar themes in the complaints about all of them: you are committing factual errors; you are choosing topics that do not reflect priority concerms of readers; you seem to believe that there is no objective truth about anything, just charges from "both sides," and in any case that the Post's writers are under no obligation to find that truth; and you seem all too accepting of complaints about perceived "liberal bias."

May I respectfully suggest that a little retrospection is in order here. You are doing something wrong and it would seem appropriate for you to think about what you can do better. That, rather than the legalistic defense you gave us is what I would have appreciated more from you.

Assuming your paymasters at the Post see fit to continue your employment despite the evident dissatisfaction of your "clients," I would hope you will put up a web log, as Bernard Calame of the Times has done, to continue to publicly respond to readers, and that, moreover, you will think about all this before you put pen to paper on your next column.

Sincerely,

CityGirl

So Indian tribes are merely agents of Jack Abramoff? He has the power to direct them to do things?

Dear Ms. Howell,

May I call you "Debbie?" Thanks, hon.

Debbie, my own fact-checker spent less than five minutes and found a couple of quotes from dear old Jack Abramoff that I believe you may be able to incorporate into your defense as you respond to all these frivolous comments (or should that word be "scurrilous?"). Hmmm. I must ask my fact-checker to look that up...

"It is not our job to seek peaceful coexistence with the left. Our job is to remove them from power permanently."

"It was my role to push the Republicans on K Street to be more helpful to the conservative movement."

Now, correct me if I'm wrong Debbie, but I believe by saying what Jack said in those quotes, I'm sure it was his intent to be an equal opportunity contributor, to Republicans and Democrats alike.

Do you follow me? I hope so. It's making me cry over some of these comments about you and I want you to start defending yourself. I hope these quotes help you in that regard.

Sincerely,

"A better way to have said" what is in fact misleading and wrong in both instances of Mrs. Howell's fumblings is this bit of essential, truthful reporting from Bloomberg on December 21, rather than the semantics dance she seems compelled to perform: "Abramoff faces allegations that he bilked the casino-owning tribes out of millions of dollars and attempted to corrupt public officials. E-mails released by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee during a year of hearings offer evidence that he directed the tribes to donate funds to specific lawmakers. Abramoff's tribal clients continued to give money to Democrats even after he began representing them, although in smaller percentages than in the past." http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aBTFEkGJUbSI&refer=us#

This
doesn't seem that complex. There is one statement in the ombudsman's original column, another in her clarification, and the flap with MediaMatters.

The ombudsman wrote Abramoff "had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties."

You wrote it, so how it's worded is not only the meaning, it's solely your responsibility. It isn't true. He gave more than $127,000 to Republicans, and none to Democrats. Was this something you knew, but didn't consider important? Or was this something you didn't know?

You tried to clarify your original error by saying "A better way to have said it would be that Abramoff 'directed' contributions to both parties."

But you there is no "better way" to say something false.

What you said in the first place was WRONG -- not something that would have been true if you'd said it some other way. You said Abramoff made contributions to both Democrats and Republicans. He did not.

Say so.

It is not clear what you meant by "directed". There is a question of fact involved. Make it central -- did Abramoff's clients contribute to Democrats BEFORE they hired him? If they did, it is false to say that contributions to Democrats were at Abramoff's "direction".

He could not have been 'directing' what they did BEFORE they hired him. So the only 'direction' he could have given regarding contributions to Democrats would have been to maintain prior levels, increase or decrease them. Which was it?

Write your stuff by stating plain facts, please.

Finally: I read Media Matters and your reply. They called you on a one-sided approach that was also factually wrong.

You replied that the Post's reporting wasn't exactly wrong, because it was necessary to include both sides. If that commonplace had been a sound defense of the Post's reporting, it would have been sufficient.

But they pointed out that the original passage did NOT include both sides, which you had not even addressed when you announced you wouldn't respond further to Media Matters.

The facts are simple: Abramoff contributed only to Republicans. His clients had been contributing to Democrats before they hired him, and their contributions to Democrats went down (and up, to Republicans) after they hired him. You flat out mis-stated the first, and your writing continues to be misleading on the second.

The original reporting on this did NOT include the simple factual observation that the whole purpose of the K Street project was to skew all lobbying, campaign contributions and policymaking toward Republicans and Republican clients.

If someone thinks there is another side to that factual reporting, it can be tested by the facts which you did not print, on which your writing is misleading. It is consistent with both the facts and the K Street project that Abramoff would have (as he did) contribute only to Republicans and directed his clients TO CONTRIBUTE LESS to Democrats than they had before: isn't that the only way to make your misleading statement about what Abramoff "directed" into an accurate one?

So, why didn't you write to be accurate?

If the Post's ombudsman had scrupulously written ONLY the facts, none of this flap would have been necessary.

So -- what are you going to do about it now?

Ms. Howell... you need to stop digging that hole, lest you wind up as deep as the rest of the RNC when it comes to credibly addressing this important Republican scandal.

Let me dorect you to the national review Online. I'm sure you know if it. From there I quote Rick Lowry's op-ed of January 10th:

"The GOP now craves such bipartisan cover in the Jack Abramoff scandal. Republicans trumpet every Democratic connection to Abramoff in the hope that something resonates. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), took more than $60,000 from Abramoff clients! North Dakota Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan used Abramoff's skybox! It is true that any Washington influence peddler is going to spread cash and favors as widely as possible, and 210 members of Congress have received Abramoff-connected dollars. But this is, in its essence, a Republican scandal, and any attempt to portray it otherwise is a misdirection.

Abramoff is a Republican who worked closely with two of the country's most prominent conservative activists, Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed. Top aides to the most important Republican in Congress, Tom DeLay (R., Tex.) were party to his sleazy schemes. The only people referred to directly in Abramoff's recent plea agreement are a Republican congressmen and two former Republican congressional aides. The GOP members can make a case that the scandal reflects more the way Washington works than the unique perfidy of their party, but even this is self-defeating, since Republicans run Washington.

Republicans must take the scandal seriously and work to clean up in its wake. The first step was the permanent ouster of Tom DeLay as House Republican majority leader, a recognition that he is unfit to lead as long as he is underneath the Abramoff cloud.

The behavior of the right in this matter contrasts sharply with the left's lickspittle loyalty to Bill Clinton, whose maintenance in power many liberals put above any of their principles. Next, Republicans will have to show they can again embrace the spirit of reform that swept them to power in 1994."

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200601100816.asp

This is amazing. Howell defends herself by citing a Republican talking point which is supported by no evidence whatsoever. If WaPo believes that this hack is representing the interests of its readers, then there really is no reason to believe a word in this rag. What a waste.

This point bears repetition...

"The evidence shows that Abramoff directed his clients to REDUCE their donations to Democrats when he came to represent them. How this taints Democrats is beyond me."

Something that WaPo editors and writers should take note of.

Post Reader,
Sure, context tells you alot.
The context of Howell's remarks about Democrats receiving "Abramoff money" was that she said there would be stories which tarred the Dems in the future. In addition, she singled out Dorgan and Reid as recipients of "Abramoff money".

Compare what she wrote to the post from JMM and you see the difference between factual reporting and intentional misrepresentation.

Oh, and the reason Marshall had to write his post on the meaning of "Abramoff money" was because of the intentional obfuscation which the WaPo and other outlets have been promulgating on this matter.

I'm not into bashing anyone right now. I just think it is time to step back and understand the bigger picture which includes as a primary point the actions and motives of Jack Abramoff.

Everyone has friends. Many of my friends give money to Democrats, and many give money to Republicans. They're still my friends.

However, if I had an agenda of destroying a political party and I were in a position to do it through illegal means, and then I did a lot towards that goal through illegal means, I would expect that the focus would be on my motives and my actions. What my friends do with their money would be entirely irrelevant unless they were also working towards my goal.

What bothers me here is that the focus should not be on side stories that have minimal, if any, meaning in the context of the big picture.

Getting back to Ms. Howell's comments, it is of my opinion that she is focusing on the side stuff which has little or no value in the context of the big picture.

I guess if I were an ombudsman and did that, I would expect to hear from a lot of angry readers as well.

With respect to the defense of Ms. Howell's characterization of the Abramoff/Delay scandal as somehow also impacting Democrats I must say: so what?

The Abramoff/Delay corruption scandal isn't about Abramoff bribing every official in Congress. It is about a specific pattern of bribery and money laundering involving his Indian Clients in direct exchange for official governmental favors performed by Republican officials. No one anywhere has any evidence that this uber-Republican lobbyist engaged in that sort of money exchange with any Democrat in Congress at any point in time! So the nonchalant inclusion of Democrats who happened to have received some campaign contributions (none of which anyone has initmated were in any way involved in the Republican corruption scheme)is a totally irrelevant point. Sure, Republican operatives will try and confuse the issue by making this claim, but responsible and intelligent people expect "journalists" to be more responsible, more savvy and more discerning than to fall for such cheap and FALSE characterizations. Falling for this kind of garbage is bad enough, but then trying to make excuses for it only compounds the problem.

The Abramoff/Delay corruption scandal is a Republican scandal through and through. Period. Why? Because the corrupt officials of the Republican party control every branch of government at the Federal level and thus Democrats have no power to deliver the quid pro quo favors Abramoff sought. This scandal is huge and is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the massive Republican corruption in Washington that has been growing for years now. Delay and Abramoff were at the heart of this corrupt political machine, but despite the indictments of both the machine continues to operate with little or no hindrance and certainly no hindrance at all from the likes of the Washington Post's ombudsman who seems to feel her job is to be an apologist for the corrupt powers that be. Nothing ever approaching this level of corruption happened during Democratic control of the congress since World War II and probably before. Nonetheless, people like our ombudsman simply cannot bring themselves to point this out or recognize it and lord knows what it will take for her and the many others of the pampered Washington press corps to start doing their jobs instead of protecting their powerful pals.

Do you remember making this statement, Ms. Howell?

"8. So you violate the 9th and 10th Commandments and make a mistake. Admit it. Know when to say you’re wrong. Know when to say you’re sorry. Don’t get defensive about it."

Please take this to heart. Your whole tenure as Post Ombudsman has been characterized by a culture of defensiveness.

Your mistakes were no minor deficiency in wording. You made false statements that have no doubt misled many Post readers of your Sunday column.

A better way to have said it would be that Abramoff "told his clients that Democrats were just as crooked as Republicans, so the clients should make" contributions to both parties.

It's all there, in the graphic.

Now, on to my next column, where I will criticize the Post not for failing to cover the demotion of the U.S. prosecutor investigating Abramoff's dealings in Guam, but for failing to mention that Decmocrats stood by while a U.S. prosecutor was pulled off an investigation in Guam.

/phony ombudsman

Heckuva job Debby!

Time for another blogger ethics panel

At least we still have the internet!

Ms. Howell, do you recognize these words?:
"Accuracy is not just the most important thing; it’s the only thing. The American Society of Newspaper Editors recently did an excellent study on the credibility problems of American newspapers. The No. 1 complaint is that newspapers just don’t get facts right."

http://tinyurl.com/danch is just in case you can't recall who it was that said those words.

Here's what Bloomberg ( http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aBTFEkGJUbSI&refer=us# ) reported a month ago:

"Abramoff faces allegations that he bilked the casino-owning tribes out of millions of dollars and attempted to corrupt public officials. E-mails released by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee during a year of hearings offer evidence that he directed the tribes to donate funds to specific lawmakers.

Abramoff's tribal clients continued to give money to Democrats even after he began representing them, although in smaller percentages than in the past."

Ms. Howell seems to have overlooked that last sentence, in particular the words "continued to," "even after," and "in smaller percentages." Fine journalamist she is.

Celo - Exactly so. Full circle now. Heck of a job. Give her a raise AND the Medal of Freedom.

Armstrong Williams for Washington Post omsbudsman!

Mrs. Howell,

How is it that you haven't issued a correction to your inaccurate statement? I'm a very rational and pragmatic person, and I don't get it. At the very least you are losing your credibility as an ombudsman. It's not just the political crazies on either side of the debate that your losing.. it's normal, middle-of-the-road people like me.

Abramoff didn't give money to Democrats... period. Muddying the waters in this respect is simply dishonest. And in not telling the story accurately, you are failing at your job. Where is the evidence that Abramoff "directed" his tribal clients to pay DEMOCRATS? Where is your proof? What is your source?

Your credibility is quickly blowing away.

Ms. Howell,

Why don't you write a note saying you've heard not only from critical readers who think you're a bought-and-sold GOP conduit, but also from readers who think you're practicing responsible journalism.

You can say the proportions were about equal.

Just think: It'll be just like telling the Abramoff story all over again.

Do "liberals" not have better things to do? Is smug, uninformed infantilism the substitute du jour for enlightened activism these days? Is there a better way to draw more public attention to Democratic entanglements with "Abramoff money?"

It was perfectly clear to Josh Marshall, for example, that "general" discussions of "Abramoff money", however imprecise or problematic, refer less to "personal contributions from Abramoff" than campaign "contributions from entities [Abramoff] worked for as a lobbyist."

Also apparent to Marshall: "We know from some of the publicly released emails, that Abramoff in many cases used his clients' bank accounts very much as if they were his own, often giving them specific amounts and recipients for political contributions."

So why isn't it "clearer" to hysterics foaming to no avail? Or are "liberals" REALLY that dumb?

More Marshall -

When you hear about Republicans and Democrats getting 'Abramoff money' what's being talked about aren't personal contributions from Abramoff but contributions from entities he worked for as a lobbyist. So, for instance, Abramoff lobbies for Indian tribe X. Indian tribe X contributes to politician Y. Hence, politician Y got 'Abramoff money'.

Now, is that logic fair? Is that 'Abramoff money'?

As a political matter, it probably makes sense now for every pol to unload that money -- a conclusion most of them, as you can see, are coming to on their own. On the merits, though, it's more difficult to make generalizations.

We know from some of the publicly released emails, that Abramoff in many cases used his clients' bank accounts very much as if they were his own, often giving them specific amounts and recipients for political contributions. In many cases, too, he had them make donations that had little or nothing to do with their own interests (defined in lobbying terms). For instance, what interest did a couple of Abramoff tribe clients have giving money to the New Hampshire Republican party a day or two before they pulled their phone-jamming scam?

There are other cases though where a given politician was associated with Indian rights issues either before Abramoff came on the scene or because of the state or district they represent. There are members of Congress in both parties who fall into that category and are, to some extent, being unfairly tarred.

For these reasons, pure dollar amounts can't tell the whole story without getting more deeply into the context.

[ http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007441.php ]

A better way to have said it would be that Abramoff "begged his clients to make" contributions to both parties.

No, I don't have any evidence that Abramoff did that, but did you see the shiny graphic I linked to?
/phony ombudsman

Howell: "A better way to have said it would be that Abramoff "directed" contributions to both parties."

Really? Why would that be a "better" way? Have you seen any direct evidence that Abramoff "directed" contributions to both parties? I don't think that you have. In fact, the records show that Abramoff's clients contributed LESS to Democrats after they became his clients. And you also seem to miss that a lot of Abramoff's clients (like the Indian tribes in the gambling biz) already had longstanding relationships with Democrats who had worked on their behalf in years past and issues present.

Saying "Abramoff "directed" contributions to both parties" is unsupported and shows a real lack of character on your part. Why not just own up and say "I was wrong" instead of all this twisting to try to CYA?

Howell: "While Abramoff, a Republican, gave personal contributions only to Republicans, he directed his Indian tribal clients to make millions of dollars in campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties."

Really? Show me the evidence for that. Show me the evidence that contradicts the fact (FACT!) that Indian tribes that becamse Abramoff clients donated less money to Democrats after he began to represent them than before.

You know what else? There's a world of difference between perfectly legal campaign contributions (no matter who directed them) and criminal activity to which Abramoff has pleaded guilty. You're going out of your way to equate legal activity by Democrats with criminal acivity by Abramoff and Republicans. There is no way in hell that you're that dumb. That only leaves me to choose between utter incompetence or partisan shill. Which is it?

Celo,
That's a very interesting catch.
Remember what we know of Judy Miller: she was fed propaganda which the NYtimes put on the front page, and then the White House would cite the NYtimes to complete the "alley-oop"
play.

This is very suspicious.

You want to know why people are so upset at your incompetence? This is what Scott McClellan (SM) said today on the subject:

(SM): Like I said, people are insinuating things based on no evidence whatsoever. And remember, this is a gentleman who contributed, either through himself or through his clients, to both Democrats and Republicans. This was not --

(Q): Not many Democrats.

(SM): Oh, there's significant amount, if you look at some of the media reports, that has been contributed by his clients to Democrats.

See that?!?!? You are now responsible for this lie.

This response is simply stunning, Ms. Howell. You must be joking. Do you even follow what is going in Washington? Do the names Norquist, Reed and Delay mean anything to you? They are Republican operatives that came to Washington to launch a well-recognized decades-long campaign to drive Democrats from public life. That is what this story is about. That is the context that is important here. How on Earth can you be missing this bigger picture? You must understand this back story to understand why your initial statement and current statement is so wrong and