Remember how when Bill Clinton finally fessed up to having sex with Monica, all the conservatives praised him for his contrition and for telling the truth? Yeah, me neither. The thing is that when you are finally forced to fess up after lying repeatedly, you don't really deserve any credit. Even worse in the case of Domenech is that not only did he lie repeatedly but he actually went so far as to blame others for his misdeeds and sneered at and smeared his accusers. All the while, he must have known that he was lying and that there were many other plagiarized pieces that hadn't yet come to light that couldn't be blamed on an editor or the tooth fairy or whoever. And he is still lying. One, new cases are still coming up (eg the Jonah Goldberg one) and his version of that AP quote is a crock of shit. I don't get why people are being so polite. He claims that he was quoting an AP piece that never ran and that there is no evidence that ever existed? Obviously, he's making it up. I hate to say this, but Ben Domenech is not a good man. He is a lying, deceitful weasel who is thoroughly unpleasant (read his self-serving and lying defenses over the past few days or the general sneering tone of his blog) and seems to lack even common decency and any kind of a moral compass. The only thing worse is the sickening hypocrisy of the right-wingers at places like Red State who are filled with praise for Domenech's supposed contrition and manly apologizing.

Although Joe Conason is absolutely correct in his article and conclusions, I wonder why we

are surprised by the Post's behavior? Having given Bob Woodward a salary and the Post's

imprimatur for decades, why should we be appalled by Domenech? The Post has some terrific

journalists, i.e., Priest, Millbank, Harris, Robinson, et al. But they have yet to reprimand

Woodward, who, contrary to "greatest living journalist" label, is a lousy, mendacious writer,

who ignores editorial safeguards. He's an almost inarticulate popinjay, strutting about

Washington, apparently enamored of his total "nothingness".

As a sometime reader of my hometown paper, The Times, I am on shaky ground, critiquing the

Post. Given Judy Miller, I conclude both newspapers suck.

Once again I am reminded of why I love Joe Conason. Who else would have the wit, the memory, and the political acumen to call Ben the "love child of Janet Cook and Donald Segretti." It gave me the best laugh of my day. Now, if MSNBC would can Tucker Carlson and give his hour to Joe, I could watch them 2 hours a day (Olberman being the other hour, of course). More Joe!

No way! Couldn't be! Republicans are bound by morals and shit like that; why would they lie unless it was to prove their inherent righteousness, I beg of you!

Gasp! Perish the thought! What's the world coming to, I ask you? Next thing you know, neocons will start using newspeak where "we don't torture" means we probably do, "anytime you're talking about wiretap, there's a warrant" means that they don't really need them, and "it's important to listen to everyone" means "let's get that Sheehan woman arrested as soon as she's out of the spotlight". This cannot BE! It must be a vile smear campaign from left-wingers.

He attended but did not graduate from William and Mary, where all students are very aware of the honor code, the oldest in the nation. He claims to have resigned from the Flat Hat after problems with editors inserting text into his articles, but I wonder if his "resignation" from the Flat Hat coincided with him leaving W&M. And I wonder why he left. Did he fail out, was there disciplinary action, did he run out of money?

Heck, if the Republican president can lie with impunity than why not some weasely little operative? This administration has set new lows for veracity and morality--it's no surprise that their toadies in the blogisphere twist the facts, omit the facts, or fabricate them out of whole cloth to support their positions. It is, however, refreshing to see this little worm get taken down. May the liar-in-chief meet the same fate.

And speaking of Froomkin, have you noticed how hard it is to navigate to his column on the washingtonpost.com? Used to be prominently featured on the Politics page. Now you have to search for his name. Next thing you know he'll be shoved out to make room for Laura Ingraham...

After two decades of listening to (as Al Franken puts it) the "lying liars" of the right constantly bloviate without any regard to facts, in a movement where there are apologists for Joe McCarthy, Japanese internment, the Nazi party, and any other number of horrors, is it any wonder that a "young conservative" exhibits many of the same behaviors? Should we be surprised at Ben Domenech's outrageous statements, plagiarism, and mere nodding aquantaince with the truth?

The members of the young right are at least as radical as the older generation at whose feet they learned. If you grow up listening to and reading Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and their ilk, is it any wonder that you emulate them in ways both fair and foul? Is it any wonder that you lie in a similar manner? In an era where the President consider himself above the law, and indeed even brags about flaunting it, is it any wonder that young conservatives feel that only those idiots on the left are constrained by commonly-accepted legal and moral codes?

The answer to these rhetorical questions, my friends, is "No." The right has sowed hatred, anger, and lies, and this is what we are all reaping. God help our country.

Yehuda, you seem very hard to please.

"So I want to know, was the Globe/AP article he posted on him website real or not?"

Well, all signs point to "not." But without seizing Domenech's hard drive or getting an admission of guilt from him, it's hard to say for sure. Saying that he definitely did or did not fake it without a valid source would be poor reporting, and possibly a lawsuit.

A better question would be, "Has the AP confirmed or denied that one of its reporters filed a story with the questionable quote?" And it might be too early to know, though it does deserve an answer.

As for "peculiar," I can only assume he meant "strange-looking." Although "unprofessional" or "homemade" are also likely. Perhaps it is just odd that he said he'd post a link to the article, but instead he linked to a document on his own Web site. Peculiar, no?

If I were you, I wouldn't expect every report you read to leave you wholly satisfied that you know everything about the subject. Especially when a story is about allegations being denied.