I have no idea, after reading this story, what the supposed "bias" of Kurtz is that you are ranting about.

That I might wish that an evil person had been eliminated?

That the world would be a wholly truly better place without some of the bad actors operating amongst us?

This is an 'aspiration' projected, "if you will", into the past.

And thus incapable of realization...it cannot rise to action or result.

However....

To wish that that evil creature should be blown to bits

as it slept in some far-away place is another thing entirely.

It would be then ongoingly that I wish foul, egregious and awful things to happen to another living creature.

Any other.

THAT is itself evil, reflects on and demeans me & us.

And so not to be countenanced...at all...ever

for that reason alone, if not many others.

But to recognize that the world might well have been a better place....I stand by that.

[Disclaimer: never having commented on any of this until now]

Howard Kurtz, David Ignatius, Richen "never saw a Bush policy I couldn't apologize for" Cohen, "dean of journalism" king dipstick himself David Broder, Charles "exterminate all the brutes" Krauthammer, George "people are commodity" Will, Fred "whatever the Administration says MUST be right" Hyatt and of course Bob "I was for the war before I was for my book deal" Woodward . . . the Washington Post has assembled a skull-clutchingly moronic line-up of so-called analysts. Froomkin is the sole voice that saves the paper from being written off entirely as a pathetic propaganda tool of deluded DC Insiderdom (see: Republic party mouthpiece). We expect Will and Krauthammer to be shills for their failed ideologies, fine. But the others, especially Broder. . . wow, WaPo has really sunk to serious new lows during the past couple of years.

Wait, I stand corrected. The investigative work done by Dana Priest. Priest and Froomkin save that paper from being just expensively-produced toilet paper.

Don't get me started on the NY Times. . . [Brooks, I'm looking at you, moron.]

As you have pointed out, Glenn, the difference in sourcing (anonymous comments on left versus authored articles on right) of these inhuman comments is amazing. Will Kurtz now denounce Mark Levin's column that you excerpted on on your earlier post today?

[Greenwald:] Several days ago, Mark Levin, writing at National Review, complained about a New York Times article reporting on U.S. actions against Al Qaeda in the Horn of Africa, claiming that the Times "gives up more of our strategic secrets." After excerpting part of the article, Levin -- following the "kill-the-traitor" code which Frank Gaffney has been urging -- concluded as follows:

Oh, do I long for the good old days when Abraham Lincoln, our greatest president, punished such acts of betrayal. And no, I am not joking.

The faux reference to Lincoln notwithstanding, here we have a death wish that ain't no joke-- or at least so he says. Vile enough, Mr. Kurtz?

"No, perish the though".

Somebody's got to mention it.

You just have to have fun with.

At the next oppurtune moment in terms of a news story like the bomb near Cheney, I'm going to concoct the most outrageous post I can think of and send it to various sites, left and right.

Then tune in to the conservative media personalities--radio, print, and TV--to see if the outraged numbskulls are quoting it.

Like Warhol said, everyone gets 15 minutes.

If they quote others instead of mine, send an e-mail to Brit Hume or Malkin or whoever, telling them about my post and where it's at, and how I deserve some air play too, God damn it.

The more I think it was a mistake for the Huffington site to take the posts down.

Don't give the right wingers who are monitoring blogs the satisfaction. Just make a statement that it's not that big a deal and we're going to leave them up.

FOX would have stories about how the site is being requested to take down the offensive material and they are refusing.

They'd get tired of being fucked with eventually.

Hi Glenn,

Great to come back from vacation and see you bringing much needed attention to the problematic decline of Howard Kurtz.

Decline of what? Integrity, accuracy, intellect, credibility, professionalism, accountability, ethics, restraint, fairness, responsibility...it's like he's got Alzheimers disease of the career...

Having lived in DC for two decades, I’ve had plenty of exposure to Kurtz over the years – it’s been trying, to say the least. I actually engaged him in a furious back-and-forth one time via e-mail after becoming exasperated by his inability to understand what his role is as media watcher and more specific the role of the press in being analytical. As the Kutz software program so aptly noted, he just kept telling me “he didn’t see it.” I came to the conclusion then that he just isn’t that bright, and it has grown even worse by his unsophisticated understanding of the Internet and blogs, and the underhanded things people can do to get stories out. I decided to kick Kutz to the curb after he got in bed with Malkin – that is beyond the pale, and for him to act as her PR agent in the latest story tells you all you need to know about his suspect skills. He is useless.

I’m at the point where I think everyone (the government, the press, etc.) is in on a elaborate mind-game to make us remaining sane people really start questioning our sanity … all the journalists and officials are spinning the most inane lies, and everyone is acting that it is the normal course, and here we are screaming as they fit us with white jackets. One big Truman Show, but with the future of our country and the lives of our military and citizens at stake.

One commenter said that we will all wake up one day with a huge hangover and sheepishly look back at this crazy period (as the Germans did after WWII), then shrug it off. Problem is those of us who actual have been awake and watching this horror in real time – those scars will be deep.