Monday, January 22, 2007

One for the "moonbats"

Dan Riehl is a constant source of amusement. First, read this post from October, when he tried to blame Citzens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington for covering up the Foley scandal for some sort of supposed political gain.
Why Is CREW Lying?

They must be genuine moonbats at CREW to believe they are going to get into a he said, she said with the FBI and come away a winner. The FBI states that they now believe CREW may have had emails in question in the Foley case as far back as April and that CREW refused to provide clean copies, or tell them how they came into their possession.

Those requests are perfunctory if someone really wants an investigation to take place. Here they are below in the original pdf file CREW had on its site. Obviously they were redacted, precisely as the FBI claims.
Today:
Earlier today, the Department of Justice Inspector General (IG) released its report regarding the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) response to former Rep. Mark Foley’s (R-FL) emails to a former House page.

In July 2006, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sent the emails to the FBI for investigation. In October, after the FBI revealed that it had not conducted any investigation into the emails, CREW requested an IG inquiry into the FBI’s inaction. Days later, CREW sent a second letter to the IG asking for a review of FBI misstatements regarding CREW’s conduct in the matter.

In its report, the IG concludes that the FBI should have taken some action when CREW sent the Foley emails to the Bureau in July and it should have “notified CREW, the complainant in this case, that the FBI declined to open an investigation.” The IG based this assessment, in part, on the fact that the language in Rep. Foley’s emails “fell within the type of behavior that the FBI warns against in its Parent’s Guide to Internet Safety.”

Regarding the misstatements to the media regarding the information CREW provided to the FBI, the IG found that “statements attributed to the FBI and the Department about CREW and the Foley e-mails were not accurate.” First, the IG found that contrary to the FBI’s claims, the emails CREW forwarded were not redacted by CREW and that the “emails still contained the full names of the pages and the House employee to whom the emails were sent.” Further, the IG found that despite statements to the contrary, the FBI “did not seek additional information from CREW,” other than one follow-up phone call. Finally, the IG found that the emails were provided to CREW in July 2006, not April as an unnamed FBI source had claimed.
If Dan Riehl didn't exist, I'd just have to invent him, if only because he's so damned funny. He's the sad clown of politics who always ends up with a face full of cream pie.

Update: I'd like to thank Dan Riehl for dropping by and commenting. I guess I'll have to take his word on the "car wreck" analogy. If anyone knows what the blogging equivalent of a bad accident would look like, it must be Dan.

Update: Dear Riehl World Viewers,

Dan Riehl told you about how us liberal "moonbats" were so horribly spun by CREW. Here's what he failed to do.

Whenever I clip a few words from a quote, I let you know with an ellipse (...) or, if it's a significant portion, I give you the classic [snip] to let you know I've cut a big piece of writing that doesn't relate precisely to what I'm talking about. Here, however, is what Riehl gave you in his recent post on this subject.
Investigators: FBI not wrong to dismiss complaint about Foley

A Justice inspector general's investigation cleared the FBI of accusations that officials were too quick in declining to open an investigation based on five e-mails from Foley, none of them explicit in nature, to a former page.
Now, he actually linked to the article quoted, however, which reads:
Investigators: FBI not wrong to dismiss complaint about Foley

The FBI misled reporters about its decision not to investigate a series of e-mails between former Rep. Mark Foley and a congressional page, but was justified in deciding not to open a case based on information provided in July 2006, Justice Department investigators said Monday.

A Justice inspector general's investigation cleared the FBI of accusations that officials were too quick in declining to open an investigation based on five e-mails from Foley, none of them explicit in nature, to a former page.

[snip]

The IG also noted that Foley's messages followed the lines of behavior that the FBI describes as "gradual seduction" in its Parent's Guide to Internet Safety.
So that's what "cleared" means these days?

If you have the brains of, say, the average second grader, you see that Riehl's original post, which accused CREW of "lying" is complete and utter bullshit. CREW provided "clean copies" and made no attempt to obscure the source of their information, as Riehl argued originally.

The guy's simply full of crap, people, and you're not helping him or your respective causes by pretending he's not. It will just lead to him embarassing either himself or you.

21 Comments:

Anonymous reverter said...

IS there any way to rub Dan's nose in it? I know that doesn't work for dogs to keep them from defecating in the house, but maybe it will for him.

11:48 AM  
Blogger Woody Guthrie's Guitar (aka Konopelli) said...

me? i'd much prefer it if, instead of a cream pie, he got a face full of really mushy, runny, stinky dogshit, which he far more richly deserves...and then be forced to lick his lips...
.

11:56 AM  
Blogger Sinfonian said...

More like one hundred for the moonbats!

If this were a prize fight, the ref would have stopped it a long time ago ...

12:01 PM  
Blogger Micheal said...

there was a commenter named bart over at Greenwald's joint, who insisted that CREW had been the real criminal, by receiving information which was supposedly obtained by Dems hacking into GOP computers.

No, really. I hounded this guy mercilessly after that, inquiring as to the status of that conspiracy theory.

I won't take credit for bart finally leaving GG's blog, but I'd like to think I contributed in my own way to his departure...

12:16 PM  
Anonymous Chief Angry Cloud said...

I'll give Dan credit for one thing, though. He has a pretty open comment policy. Every time he gets a link from the Daou Report, he gets his ass handed to him in the comments and I've never seen him ban anyone.

He's still a total idiot.

12:18 PM  
Anonymous djangone said...

Yes indeedy, Dan is funny. It's always a cheap smile to run across some bizarrely worded sentence in his posts, the kind of phrasing that not only leaves you wondering about his muddled thinking, but truly curious whether he has narcolepsy and is snoozing away while he randomly copies and pastes with his still-awake mouse-hand.

My favorite quote about Dan Riehl, from his short slapping-down at the hands of renegade conservative John Cole: 'Dan Riehl is an unmitigated asshole.'

1:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reverter:
Rubbing my dog's nose in his urine worked wonders for getting him house broken. There may still be hope for Dan after all.

1:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>pretty open comment policy

Yeah, he's one of the only wingnuts with open comments. It will be interesting to see how long that lasts if Dan starts feeling beseiged.

If you are really lucky, he'll show up here and comment. It's usually a treat when he shows up. I give him some credit for defending himself but no credit at all for the quality of his defense.

2:19 PM  
Anonymous Dan Riehl said...

"If you are really lucky, he'll show up here and comment"

Once is luck, twice and you should consider yourself blessed! ; )

I love coming by and looking at you guys ... its, ... it's almost as interesting as driving up on a serious car wreck. How could I not look, if only just a peek?

3:49 PM  
Anonymous Lesley said...

Today's cream pie should have this blog post etched on it. In fact, I'd love to see a world where the Dan Rhiel's were forced to constantly retract. There wouldn't be enough time in each day for all the retracting and apologizing he'd have to do.

4:16 PM  
Anonymous Mnemosyne said...

I love coming by and looking at you guys ... its, ... it's almost as interesting as driving up on a serious car wreck.

Here's the problem, Danno -- you're lying in the middle of the street 50 feet from the windshield of your wrecked car, totally convinced that it must be someone else's accident that you're looking at.

4:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What flavor Koolaid are you drinking, Dan

4:33 PM  
Anonymous thecountryofmike said...

Here's the problem, Danno -- you're lying in the middle of the street 50 feet from the windshield of your wrecked car, totally convinced that it must be someone else's accident that you're looking at.

Best.

Blog comment.

Ever.

.

5:01 PM  
Blogger clio said...

totally convinced that it must be someone else's accident that you're looking at.

Those head injuries will do that, to ya.

6:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Poor dan wrong about everything everytime but he does let that stop him. Gotta love that plucky can do canuck spirit

6:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's a dilemma for you... With all your honor and dignity what would you do? This test only has one question, but it's a very important one.

Please don't answer it without giving it some serious thought. By giving an honest answer you will be able to test where you stand morally.

The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation, where you will have to make a decision one way or the other. Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous. Please scroll down slowly and consider each line - this is important for the test to work accurately.

You're in Florida...In Miami, to be exact. There is great chaos going on around you, caused by a hurricane and severe floods. There are huge masses of water all over you. You are a CNN photographer and you are in the middle of this great disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless. You're trying to shoot very impressive photos. There are houses and people floating around you, disappearing into the water. Nature is showing all its destructive power and is ripping everything away with it.

Suddenly you see a man in the water, he is fighting for his life, trying not to be taken away by the masses of water and mud. You move closer. Somehow the man looks familiar.

Suddenly you know who it is -- it's Dan Riehl.

At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take him away, forever. You have two options. You can save him or you can take the best photo of your life. So you can save the life of Dan Riehl, or you can shoot a Pulitzer prize winning photo, a unique photo displaying the death of one of the world's most ignorant men.

And here's the question (please give an honest answer):

Would you select color film, or rather go with the simplicity of classic black and white?

6:57 PM  
Blogger Pangloss said...

Dear Anonymous at 6:57PM.

Thank you for demonstrating for anyone with a heart that you have none. Party of Death has you soooooo nailed.

7:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see Riehl doesn't have the decency and grace to post the news that the FBI lied on his web site. I suppose he hopes his readers will never find out he was wrong and he lacks the courage to admit it himself.

7:38 PM  
Anonymous Goseph Gerbils said...

I parse and I parse, but no matter how I try, I can't make Dan Riehl look like he knows what "perfunctory" actually means.

And when the man himself says, "Once is luck, twice and you should consider yourself blessed!" it is no surprise that he completely fails to address the content of the post. But I guess the Nitpicker is blessed, if blessings are what you step in when your neighbor's dog misbehaves on your front lawn.

7:54 PM  
Blogger Nitpicker said...

Goseph,

It's the "blessing" of the Irish: At least they weren't my good shoes.

7:57 PM  
Blogger merlallen said...

In order to be embarrassed by your lies, you need a sense of shame and a shred of decency. Wingnuts have neither, so can never be embarrassed.

12:55 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home