Eat The Press

On yesterday's edition of "Meet The Press", John Brennan took the opportunity to blast his GOP critics for politicizing the war on terror. A worthy cause, considering how consistently wrong and foolish they've been on all matters related to the failed Christmas bomb attack.

On the show, this part stood out:

BRENNAN: On Christmas night, I called a number of senior members of Congress. I spoke to Senators McConnell and Bond. I spoke to Representative Boehner and Hoekstra. I explained to them that he was in F.B.I. custody. That Mr. Abdulmutallab was in fact talking. That he was cooperating at that point. They knew that in F.B.I. custody means that there's a process then you follow as far as mirandizing and presenting him in front of the magistrate.

None of those individuals raised any concerns with me, at that point. They didn't say, "Is he going into military custody? Is he going to be Mirandized?" They were very appreciative of the information. We told them we'd keep them informed. And that's what we did. So, there's been quite a bit of an outcry after the fact. Where again, I'm just very concerned on behalf of the counterterrorism professionals throughout our government that politicians continue to make this a political football. And are using it for whatever political or partisan purposes.

Yesterday, I gave myself a pat on the back for correctly intuiting that the process went something like this:

1. Captain Crotchfire happens. He is detained and treated as you would anyone who tried to kill people with an incompetently weaponized scrotum.

2. GOP lawmakers are informed.

3. Some time passes. It looks like nothing bad has happened, so this can be politicized.

4. A plan is hatched to politicize this. It does not make any fucking sense, but whatever. People remember being scared, they can be made to be scared of a sad and lonely loser who pasted flammable goop on his balls for the glory of his Sky-God.

5. Al Qaeda is like: "Wow. Thanks for taking an incident that would normally make us embarrassed to be in the terrorist business, and turning it into a super-successful field op! We will definitely associate ourselves with this sad loser."

6. We are honestly asked to entertain the possibility that it would have been better to have tortured this sad loser, so that we could have some false intelligence, presumably on this network of sad losers who paste gunk to their taint and set them afire.

7. The media aids and abets the cynical opportunists who populate the political landscape, and they should all die in the snow but they won't.

Now you can add the eighth part of the process: the part where the same GOP lawmakers, weeks after the fact, now think they deserve a pass because HOW SHOULD THEY KNOW HOW THE F.B.I. works, anyway? Via Spencer Ackerman, at the Washington Independent:

Sure enough, Sen. Chris Bond (R-Mo.) and Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the ranking Republicans on the congressional intelligence committees, insisted that Brennan never specifically told them the FBI would Mirandize Abdulmutallab. "If he had I would [have] told him the Administration was making a mistake," Bond said. The entire Republican leadership, including fact-averse Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House GOP leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) echoed Bond's claims in one form or another. Apparently these men, who claim leadership on national security, know less about FBI procedure than the average movie-goer. Obviously the FBI Mirandizes suspects in their custody.

I think that Hoekstra's inclusion is worth noting, because no one is faster to grandstand on national security issues than Hoekstra. Maybe if, in the end, he's so ignorant in the basics of law enforcement procedures, he should just calm down, shut up, stop twittering, and of course maybe rein in his instinct to turn everything he knows nothing about into an opportunity for personal enrichment.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

It's hard for me to muster up even a whit of sympathy for the forever-beleaguered White House Press Corps. Yet they persist, in a self-made glass case of emotion, to periodically bitch about how difficult their jobs are and how they feel frozen out by President Obama. Last week, it was the New York Times's Peter Baker singing the eloquent complaint-aria:

Over the last two weeks, President Obama has taken questions from unemployed workers in Ohio, students in Florida and a cancer survivor in New Hampshire. He took questions from YouTube users, Senate Democrats and even House Republicans. Almost everyone, it seems, but the White House press corps.

Baker goes on to note that, after a year Obama has succeeded in doing "what every modern president may have wanted to do but never did: effectively shut out the reporters who work just a few feet from the Oval Office." If Peter Baker hadn't told you this, you wouldn't have noticed.

And you probably didn't notice, even then! Why? Because Baker's complaint came during a week of pretty peak public interaction by the president. (Read the above paragraph again... I think Baker noticed this!) But since it obviously didn't occur to anyone in America to be concerned about the White House press corps, Howard Kurtz takes up the matter in an astonishing attempt to make all of this out to be some sort of problem:

It would be hard -- impossible, actually -- to argue that Obama hasn't been accessible to the media, not with his constant television interviews. The man has even done color commentary at a Georgetown basketball game. But the decision to bypass the White House press corps is no accident.

"It's a source of great frustration here," says Chip Reid, CBS's White House correspondent. "It's important for us to hold the president's feet to the fire."

What can I say? The White House Press Room is the finest and most ornate Kabuki theater in the Western Hemisphere. Questions asked by members of the corps are Kabuki. Their complaints about the answers are Kabuki. THIS VERY HOWARD KURTZ ARTICLE IS PART OF THE KABUKI. Meanwhile, America tunes all this right the frack out. In fact, the people seem to prefer watching the House GOP Caucus do the whole "feet to the fire" job! Can you remember the last time Chip Reid asked the president a question and 15,000 people joined a Facebook group, demanding more?

The hilarious thing to me is that the White House Press Corps seems to largely spend its time not digging up scoops of national import, but alternating between their two great ur-complaints of this White House. This month, he's not accessible enough. When that gets corrected, the press corps will bitch about how the president is "overexposed." This actually comes up in the Kurtz column:

Still, a press corps that periodically complained about George W. Bush's infrequent news conferences should not let Obama walk away from the practice unchallenged. And some of its members have protested. Reid raised the issue with Gibbs at a briefing last month, and Hearst columnist Helen Thomas said the president has "gone an obscenely long time, not holding one."

Gibbs responded to Reid by saying that the last time the subject came up, "you all, to a person, reminded me of our dramatic overexposure."

If you cast your mind back to early August of 2009, Howard Kurtz was busy like a bee, facilitating that complaint, hither and yon.

But if you want to gauge the essential lack of value of the White House Press Corps, this pull from Kurtz's column today says it all:

Obama held news conferences in February, March, April, June and July, four of them East Room extravaganzas at 8 p.m. He fielded questions easily and confidently and was widely seen as a natural.

But the July 22 session underscored how the administration can lose control of the story line. During a news conference devoted almost entirely to health-care reform, Obama answered a final question about the arrest of his friend Henry Louis Gates -- he said the Cambridge police acted "stupidly" -- and the resulting flap dominated the news for a week.

See, Kurtz is making it sound like the White House went undercover because the brave press corps pinned it down with some groundbreaking journalism. My read is that, after five press conferences the White House noticed that the press corps was putting the most effort behind blowing the Henry Louis Gates incident out of proportion. It was, on substance, one of the least essential things that has ever been uttered at a presidential press conference. BUT HE LOST CONTROL OF THE STORYLINE!

Finally, a win for the White House press room! But when you really look at it, it's not much. It's sort of like winning a reality-show challenge, in that it took a lot of hard work to do and yet didn't change the lives of anyone watching at home.

I mean, the end result of that whole incident was that it forced the president to drink a beer. Trust me, Ron Howard is not going to make a movie about this journalism.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Good morning, everyone and welcome to your Superbowl Sunday edition of this here liveblog which chronicles certain moments of the Sunday morning political gabfestivals. My name is Jason, coming to you from snow-crippled Washington, DC. We have had, like, seventeen feet of snow fall on us in the past 48 hours, all of which was fun times, you know? What with all the powdery goodness and the school cancellations and the rampant snowpunning ("Ra Ra ah-ah-ah! Snow-ma snow-ma-ma! Ga-ga ooh-la-la! Want your bad snowmance!").

Until last night, when our power went out. That's when the suck side of this winter calamity finally revealed itself. It was sort of a major bummer, as you might expect, especially when you've planned an evening of nothing more ambitious then watching Torchwood and then Saturday Night Live, only to end up having to read by candlelight. Why haven't they made a steam-powered internet? I do not know that answers, to these things! But the bright side was, hey, maybe the power will stay out for a long enough time that I won't have to watch the Sunday morning shows!

Well, as you can tell, YAY ME, right? Just in time, my teevee works. And later, I get to shovel my car partially out of its ice-womb. Yay. YAY!

Anyway. You can leave a comment, or send an email, or, if you want to follow my slow descent into snowmadness later in the day, follow me on Twitter. Right now, it's time to rip this band-aid off by watching...

FOX NEWS SUNDAY

Woot! Big news today as the woman they call Trixie Klondyke, aka Sarah Palin, is making her first Sunday morning talk show appearance only about a year and a half after it might have mattered. She was in Nashville, addressing the Tea Party Grievance Trade Show and Birther Expo, cold readin' her notes off her hand, and probably grifting on the streets of Nashville, running dice games and whatnot. Now she's here with Chris Wallace, who I think told Don Imus this week that he plans on hitting that? Or being the hittee of that? Anyway, laps were involved.

How does Palin see herself? She says that the Tea Party movement should merge with the GOP, and in fact, that's what's happening: the Tea Party folks are slowly getting subsumed within the larger GOP. Soon they will come to know the sweet feeling of elevating their haunches into the air, so that lobbyists may sample their innocence, and they'll be whores like the rest of everyone in politics. Whether Palin intends to speed that along or just skim a little off the top for herself (or a lot, considering her boffo speaker fee!) is something that the pimps obviously don't care about.

But, in her opinion, both parties have "lost their way." Of course, she thinks all mankind have "lost their way." She's proud to be a part of this, but claims to not want to be a leader. Just a principal financial beneficiary! She also makes a "teleprompter" joke. In just a little while from now, she'll come to see the value in TelePrompters!

Chris Wallace starts pointing out how Bill Kristol is upset with her endorsement of Rand Paul, who favors things like closing GITMO and doing away with the Patriot Act. Palin lays it off on Paul being in favor of "Tenther" style federalism, which belies a lack of awareness of how the government works and how those sorts of issues have nothing to do with Federalism. "You can never find a perfect candidate, but I'm proud to support him." For reasons, I guess, that she doesn't quite know.

As far the Obama presidency, "He has some misguided decisions that he is making." She also thinks that he's saying "Sit down and shut up." Wallace is all "O RLY?" "Where is he saying sit down and shut up?" Palin: "Just sort of his general persona."

Basically, Palin sort of thinks that the "we" that opposes Obama initiatives constitutes a population of significant enough size that it should offset the larger population that supports the same initiatives.

She does not take back her "palling around with terrorists," because she still wants Obama to explain his relationship with Bill Ayers...I guess she needs a personal session, in which he explains the complexities of challenge grant panels, to her?

Wallace says, "Hasn't he done a good job protecting the country?" Palin insists that he "kinda went along with the commanders on the ground." Not sure, at all, what they mean, considering those commanders will deploy the forces they asked for on the dates they asked for the deployment.

Palin doesn't want criminals to be treated according to the Constitution. But who is surprised by that!

Palin is "very happy to hear about" the slightly decent economic news. She hasn't had the time to READ ALL THE NEWSPAPERS, lately, I guess. She's also concerned about the "government takeover of the private sector," whatever that means:

Next, some word soup about the free market and entrepeneurship that Tina Fey can use as a comedy monologue.

Now, there's some stuff about giving women the right to choose? BUT WHAT ABOUT THE BABIES IN THE WOMB THAT THE STATE OWNS? She is happy she was able to "make the right decision," but that term, "make the right decision" doesn't have any meaning when your belief system doesn't acknowledge the decision making process. "I organically arrived at the same decision I would have gladly had forced upon me." Why not just be HONEST about this? Oh, everyone should be forced to spit out their babies! Why even pretend? Why drizzle that determinist outlook with "Choice Sauce?"

She wants to "empower women," to see the awesome power of not having autonomy. YOU ARE STRONG AND SMART ENOUGH TO SHUT UP AND DO WHAT YOU ARE TOLD!

How about the whole quitting thing? "Didn't you let your enemies drive you from office?" Wallace asks. "Hell no!" says Palin. Now Alaska is off the hook for fighting all of her many ethical lapses. She also somehow believes that she is fighting for Alaska's energy industry.

"Before you were talking about Ronald Reagan," Wallace says, pointing out that Reagan would never have quit. Palin says that in her case, it was affecting her constituents.

Wallace asks about Todd Palin's many many emails of political opinions that he send hither and yon, to everyone. Palin lays it off as her sharing advice with Todd. Wallace reminds her that he was emailing all manner of government officials. OK. Here is her weird explanation for all of that. Brace yourself, it's weird.

"He was forwarding on emails. And here's another thing. Todd and I being, in some cases, thousands of miles apart, if I emailed him about being, say, outside traveling, Todd's home, he's there, there, as a desktop, and I'm telling Todd, "Hey! Todd! Print this off for me, I'm going to grab it on my way home, because I work off a Blackberry, constantly, for practical reasons, it helped too. Todd helped as Alaska's "First Dude" with no staff. with no office, being thousands of miles away during a lot of times, with his job in Prudhomme Bay on the North Slope and commercial fishing. He helped with workforce development issues, issues that meant a lot to him and people out there, IN THE REAL WORLD. With carhearts, and steeltoed boots and hardhats trying to build this country. Todd helped in that respect. He never got into the minutiae of the politics, Todd's too good for that, he hates this kind of periphery political bull-stuff that we go through. He's not a part of any of that and, no, more power to Todd for being a good adviser and being a good practical person with common sense solutions."

1. So, Sarah Palin does not understand how "email" works.
2. Alaska's "First Dude" office is unstaffed? How is the state not, at this minute, ON FIRE?
3. SEE WHY PEOPLE USE TELEPROMPTERS, NOW?
4. Oh, yes! This woman is so obviously better off without the help of smart political advisers like Nicolle Wallace!

I am now an hour behind! Because of constantly having to rewing this nonsense, to figure out what this lady is saying.

LIGHTNING ROUND! Palin says Eric Holder and Rahm should step down. Don't Ask Don't Tell should stay in place. She has more to say about Rahm, none of which makes sense, or is interesting. Rush Limbaugh, as you know, is allowed to say the word "retarded," because it was "satire."

Palin says that she "did not hear Rush Limbaugh call a group of people he did not agree with 'effing retards,' but it was reported Rahm Emanuel said it." BUT IT WAS REPORTED? Oh, God, this woman makes no sense and she's just nto glib enough to be dishonest successfully. It is really quite magical.

Look, I don't know why we are trying to parse this. You are not allowed to say the word "retarded" if you do not agree with Sarah Palin's political point of view. If you are someone who does, or more importantly, someone that Palin needs the approval of, you can use it all the time, she will excuse it.

Wallace asks her, as a Fox News analyst, to handicap the GOP race for 2012. She says she can't do it. "Well, you're not a very good analyst," Wallace says. Palin goes on to laud "young turks" in the GOP like Paul Ryan, who has a weird, radically stupid budget he's pimping. She wants to see all sorts of contested primaries.

Sarah Palin may or may not be thinking about thinking about running for president. She's formed a PAC, which is an arm of her book sales empire.

Is she more knowledgeable about foreign and domestic affairs now than she was a year ago? "Well I should hope so!" she says. But...but...what's the answer to the question?

Palin thinks that Obama should declare war on Iran, to show his toughness, and get re-elected. of course, if he did that, he'd lose re-election, because the majority of voters would wonder when Obama became a psychopath.

And now Palin is back to suggesting that the sliver of the population who identify as "tea party" are the prevailing constituency who'se opinions should be treasured above all others.

Palin says that her speaker's fee for the Tea Party convention is something she won't be keeping, but reinvesting into the cause. She doesn't know how yet! I can't wait to see Wasilla's foremost fund accountant lay out the paperwork on that! I have a funny feeling that it's going to be very Geithneresque.

Anyway, Palin will be "fighting elitists," for some reason, and will be the messenger for "common sense solutions." She then offers up a "You betcha" on command, when Wallace asks for it.

She's at least learned the catchphrase! Arf arf!

Okay. I'm going to resist the urge to press the rewind on this panel. Bill Sammon, Mara Liasson, Bill Kristol and Juan Williams.

Anyway, Abdulmutallab is cooperating with authorities, so there goes that talking point. The new thing is, "Why are you telling our enemies that he is talking?" Maybe because everyone insisted that the FBI wasn't getting any actionable intelligence out of him. This is dumb. It basically exposes the fact that no matter what happens here, if Abdulmutallab doesn't get tortured, people like Bill Sammon will criticize it. The good news is that the investigation and interrogation is proceeding in precisely the way you should want it to -- effectively. I'm sleeping easier, knowing that we are not dragging out a lot of bad intel from this loser, and pretending it's actionable.

Kristol, by the way, is way behind the news on this. Gibbs gave an answer. People yelled. Now Gibbs has updated the answer. So now he's lying and publicly talking about the interrogation. No matter what move is made, Kristol doesn't like it. Unless, of course, we attach electrodes to what's left of Captain Crotchfire's crotch and let Kristol watch, so he can enthusiastically fap himself.

Anyway, didn't we have this argument last week? Williams points out again that military tribunals aren't effective.

Kristol doesn't know if Sarah Palin will run for president. Juan Williams says it's odd that she took money from the tea party people and won't speak to CPAC for free. Sammon says that the mainstream media hates Palin and the Tea party movement because they are a threat. I sort of think the mainstream media loves Palin and the tea Party because both serve as a sort of comic relief.

I'm honestly not sure what either threaten. The people in the tea party movement have been believing what they believe for a long, long time. Now they are just staging for-profit therapy sessions, where they talk about their feelings and help each other not feel so sad about the fact that they are at the fringes of society and that most of America doesn't think as they do. They need this encounter group of theirs because they feel threatened by mainstream society. The reverse isn't true.

Anyway, let's move on, before the Superbowl starts!

THE CHRIS MATTHEWS SHOW

Today, we have Norah O'Donnell, Andrew Ross Sorkin, Kathleen Parker and Michael Duffy. Sorkin is all blinky-blink, for some reason.

Anyway, Obama needs to be "popular" in Matthews' opinion! So, turn your Presidency into an anodyne, feel-good factory, and stop solving problems! That's how you get popular. Or, you know, pass the things that the people want passed?

Norah O'Donnell says that the goal is to be "civil" and make "tax cuts for small businesses." And he's going to college basketball games? And Parker worries that he'll be seen as a "campaigner, not a leader." And Sorkin says, "I don't think Obama will win over the Sarah Palin/Glenn Beck crowd." Are you sure, though? Think about that some more and get back to me.

Kathleen Parker's boots look pretty fabulous, in case you are wondering.

"If government can't function, do Republicans ever pay a price for that," Matthews asks. The answer is probably no? Because they wouldn't filibuster everything and place blanket holds on nominees if the opposite is true.

Sorkin says the unemployment rate is still not very good.

Parker says that the GOP just doesn't want to engage. "They're just waiting until November." Duffy adds, "They don't want to give Obama a win."

Meanwhile, as Duffy points out COngress is looking for Obama to tell them what to do on health care, and Obama doesn't want to, for some reason, so maybe they'll just have to figure out how to legislate?

O'Donnell does not want to "cool down" Glenn Beck, with soothing oils and exfolients.

Can Obama get his approval numbers up with unemployment so high? O'Donnell says yes, but not substantially. Sorkin agrees, for the same reason. Duffy and Parker seem to more optimistic. As Duffy points out, "events happen."

Matthews is now talking about politicians and their Superbowl picks. The big takeaway: Richard Nixon was terrible at picking football games. O'Donnell and Parker say that you should not take sides, but Parker allows that there's no problem picking the underdog, if you frame it like this. Duffy says there's no harm in going with "the sentimental favorite," by which he means the Saints, who Matthews immediately offers he is rooting for. And, also: WHY AM I TYPING ANY OF THIS??

Anyway, Obama said to turn off the teevees, and stop paying the attention to the echo chamber, and stop watching shows that focus on mindless politics. Well, I guess the President just figures some dumb loser will come along and liveblog it all for you.

SIGH. HE IS RIGHT OF COURSE. PLEASE DO NOT BOMB IRAN.

Tell me that Cyclonic Perpetual Emotion Machine isn't the best band name, in the world. Better than even Appletini Partyboy or Journo Nitro-Lube!

O'Donnell says, "First he disses Vegas and now he's dissing the cable channels!" ONly he did not really "diss Vegas." Though I have been to Vegas, and it's worthy of dissing. It is an awful, awful, terrible place, filled with grifters and whores and the touring cast of Mamma Mia, and terrible overpriced food, except for a few good brunch places out in the county where tourists do not go. Also, BILLIONS OF FORECLOSED UPON HOMES. And everyone is either terribly sad or is desperately pretending to be happy, in their own smeared makeup, wild-eyes on the edge of an epic nervous breakdown sort of way. I hope I never, ever, ever, go back to Las Vegas.

Oh, crap, we're at commercial.

Anyway, that's how you diss Las Vegas!

Tell Chris something he doesn't know. O'Donnell says that Palin's PAC has spent more money purchasing her own book than she has given to candidates. BUT HOW HAS CHRIS NOT HEARD ABOUT THAT? Sorkin says that Wall Street banks have to disclose their bonuses to Andrew Cuomo. Parker bets that the Democrats will "force the GOP to filibuster" as in actually get up and start reading phone books and what not. I like Kathleen, so I'm going to recommend she read Ryan Grim's piece for us, entitled, "The Myth Of The Filibuster: Dems Can't Make Republicans Talk All Night."

Also, she should read Ryan's book, "This Is Your Country on Drugs: The Secret History of Getting High in America.." I MEAN, WHY NOT?

Duffy says 5,000 pages of Jimmy Carter's diaries are coming out this year. Hopefully, they will be as erotic as those "RED SHOE" diaries.

Anyway, Matthews wants to know why attitudes on "Don't Ask Don't Tell" have changed. Norah says it's a matter of greater acceptance. Sorkin says that the internet and social networks have made gays more acceptable. (?!?!?!) Parker says that it's a generational matter, her generation has passed along values of tolerance. That said, she thinks that it's a military question that the military has to answer. Duffy says it's generational, and by the way, the military has to attract recruits that are just more predisposed to gay people.

I would add that we debated this issue originally during a relatively peaceful time, but now, the "shit," as they say, had "just got real," and we really cannot be discharging soldiers and linguists and medics and whatnot for such a stupid reason. Plus, bigots and bigotry can suck me.

MEET THE PRESS

Today on Meet The Press, we have Alan Greenspan and Henry Paulson. And snow! David Gregory rattles off some "snOMG" and "Snowmageddon" jokes, with the help of President Obama. Plus, all sorts of politics, discussed in as tacky a manner as possible with Ed Gillespie and Dee Dee Myers.

First, here's John Brennan, to talk about terrorism and The War Against Terror. How does Brennan define winning TWAT? Brennan says TWAT will be won when we "destroy" al Qaeda by "taking away their ability to train those operatives to carry out attacks either there or here in the homeland."

But we are still in danger. So says Leon Panetta. And everyone else! DANGER IS COMING. But, as Brennan says, our counter-terrorism successes "come every day." We're just not braggy about it.

"We have been very very successful," he says, at thwarting attacks. And he assures us that there is no credible threat of an attack at the Superbowl. Outside of a massive WHO DAT ATTACK! Am I right, Louisiana?

Brennan is also not that worried about "sleeper cells" that might hit your locak Bed Bath and Beyond. "We've dedicated a lot of resources," there.

AWW, BUT SCOTT BROWN COLD DISSED YOU, JOHN BRENNAN! We shouldn't pay for lawyers to defend terrorists. It's only a COnstitutional right, but to people like Scott Brown, values are fads and he's totally into some new values right now.

Anyway, Brennan goes on to describe the effective and successful effort that's been deployed in the case of Captain Crotchfire. His kicker, "Quite frankly, I'm tiring of politicians using national security issues such as terrorism as a political football. They are going out there. They're unknowing of the facts. And they're making charges and allegations that are not anchored in reality."

GREGORY: Well, let's talk about one of those allegations. Senator Kit Bond saying that members of the Intelligence Committee were told not to talk at all about the fact that that he was now cooperating. That he was speaking to the F.B.I. And then it gets leaked out to the press after that, saying that the Administration was responsible for leaking classified data that they were told to keep under wraps.

BRENNAN: Again, inconsistent with the facts. Senator Bond and other senior members of Congress were briefed on Monday about Abdulmutallab's cooperation. They were told about the fact of that cooperation, as well as some information that he was sharing. During the the subsequent date, in the hearing, it unfortunately came out that that intelligence was starting to flow from Mr. Abdulmutallab. The press was all over it. This network went out right away and reported that.

And so, we then wanted to make sure that we were able to provide to the networks and to the media the correct rendition of what happened. And how instrumental Mr. Abdulmutallab's family was in getting him to cooperate. And it was a very successful activity on the part of the F.B.I., Department of Justice and others. Including the intelligence community. So, what we did was to make sure that the facts were out there as best they could be.

GREGORY: To those that say you have not shared enough information about how you intended to handle him, you say what?

BRENNAN: I say that there are sensitive investigations and operations underway, and we're not gonna compromise our ability to follow up on that information and to disrupt further terrorist attacks. And there have been instances when information has been shared with the Hill, when we see it in the media the next day. And we have to be very circumspect as far as what information's gonna be shared. The premium that this President puts on the work of the intelligence and law enforcement community is to disrupt future attacks and to protect the American People.

HAHA. Nice burn on NBC. Also, there's this:

BRENNAN: On Christmas night, I called a number of senior members of Congress. I spoke to Senators McConnell and Bond. I spoke to Representative Boehner and Hoekstra. I explained to them that he was in F.B.I. custody. That Mr. Abdulmutallab was in fact talking. That he was cooperating at that point. They knew that in F.B.I. custody means that there's a process then you follow as far as mirandizing and presenting him in front of the magistrate.

None of those individuals raised any concerns with me, at that point. They didn't say, "Is he going into military custody? Is he going to be mirandized?" They were very appreciative of the information. We told them we'd keep them informed. And that's what we did. So, there's been quite a bit of an outcry after the fact. Where again, I'm just very concerned on behalf of the counterterrorism professionals throughout our government that politicians continue to make this a political football. And are using it for whatever political or partisan purposes.

This is about how I thought the process went:

1. Captain Crotchfire happens. He is detained and treated as you would anyone who tried to kill people with an incompetently weaponized scrotum.

2. GOP lawmakers are informed.

3. Some time passes. It looks like nothing bad has happened, so this can be politicized.

4. A plan is hatched to politicize this. It does not make any fucking sense, but whatever, people remember being scared, they can be made to be scared of a sad and lonely loser that pasted flammable goop on his balls for the glory of his Sky-God.

5. Al Qaeda is like, "Wow. Thanks for taking an incident that would normally make us embarrassed to be in the terrorist business, and turning it into a super-successful field op! We will definitely associate ourselves with this sad loser."

6. We are honestly asked to entertain the possibility that it would have been better to have tortured this sad loser, so that we could have some false intelligence, presumably on this network of sad losers that paste gunk to their taint and set afire.

7. The media aids and abets the cynical opportunists who populate the political landscape, and they should all die in the snow, but they won't.

Anyway, KSM, he's getting tried, and the trial's outcome is pre-determined? So it will be a shining example of jurisprudence. Gregory doesn't bother asking, "Hey, is the fact that we tortured the crap out of these guys now impact our ability to try him with American values?" Because Gregory does not care about that stuff.

Now, Gregory has Alan Greenspan and Hank Paulson on his show. He immediately asks: "Do you guys feel at all bad, for being so wrong about everything, and setting the stage for a near economic collapse?"

HA KIDDING! He could not have articulated that question, with his head buried in the bun-chasm of these two sage geniuses of the economy! But I bet I had you going there, for nanoseconds!

Gregory asks if the slight turnaround in unemployment numbers is a massive turnaround, and Greenspan tells him no it is a slight turnaround.

Paulson says the economy is clearly recovering and that America is awesome and that maybe the awesomeness of America will make some cookies for the unemployed.

Regulatory reform, much? Greenspan says, HELLLLL NO! Cut taxes and let jobs get created and don't do anything to prevent this all from happening again, of course. And Paulson adds, DID I NOT JUST SAY HOW AWESOME AMERICA IS? SURELY YOU DON'T WANT THIS AWESOME COUNTRY TO GET SAD, WITH REGULATIONS.

This makes sense to Gregory! What can we do, to make more awesomeness. Paulson says that we need to make CEO's feel special, so they do not sit in their ornate offices, crying about how unappreciated they are! "Part of it is confidence and psychology. What's going on inside the head of the CEO. And how comfortable does he or she feel about the the future?"

WHY AREN'T MORE OF YOU COMFORTING AMERICA'S CEOs!?

Greenspan says, "The recession is over!" POP CRISTAL EVERYONE. Plus, maybe some "innovation" will happen? "Innovation by definition is not forecastable. So, we don't know where the jobs are coming from. We don't know how this market is exactly in terms of dynamics going to move forward. But we know that this process is underway, and there's every reason to believe it will continue." OKAY I LOVE THIS CERTAINTY! Please give Lloyd Blankfein ALL THE MONEES!

Here's the thing that Paulson says that will make headlines: "I was very impressed that Candidate Obama was very concerned with what was going on. And was very supportive. Candidate McCain, I will admit, gave me a few more anxious days and hours." Yes, because McCain seemed to not really know what, as they say, he was talking about? And that he used the epic financial crisis as a means for him to flashily win news cycles? While Obama proved himself to be the sort of person who would EVENTUALLY APPOINT LARRY SUMMERS AND TIM GEITHNER TO IMPORTANT POSITIONS, GAH.

David Gregory: "Let me ask you about housing." Both Paulson and Greenspan have nice houses, nicer than you and I could even imagine!

Gregory asks Paulson about the deficits:

PAULSON: Oh, I just have no doubt that it is by far the most serious long-term challenge we as a nation face. All these other economic issues are minor compared to that. And it's a generational issue. Because there's no way we're going to-- to deal effectively with the deficit without reforming the entitlement programs. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.

And it doesn't have to be a crisis. This is something that can be handled. But one of the things I talk about in my book, and one of the lessons that just hit me right between the eyes being in Washington, is it's very, very difficult to get Congress to act on anything that's big and difficult and controversial if there's not an immediate crisis. And so, what it's gonna take to get leaders on both sides to come together and deal with this, I think is a huge question.

Maybe the truth of that hit him right between the eyes because of his own failure to forestall the massive economic crisis?

Asked about letting the Bush tax cuts expire, Paulson expresses precisely the sort of unawareness about how revenues and deficits work as I imagined he would. THIS GUY WAS IN CHARGE OF MATH, FOR THE COUNTRY.

Greenspan is disturbed by the fact that the Senate voted down the Blue Ribbon Deficit Commission. If I were him, I'd be disturbed that such as thing was proposed! The fact that it was voted down was an extension of the cowardice that spurred its near creation in the first place.

Paulson and Greenspan are both rooting for Peyton Manning. Man, New Orleans' karma just keeps growing and growing!

And now, here's Ed Gillespie and Dee Dee Myers, talkin' about junk. Gillespie says that Palin has the ability to connect with people. Yes, a small group of exceedingly odd people. The comedian Gallagher had much the same success. Dee Dee Myers says, she's "not sure" where the movement is going, if it's a third party or whatnot. Gillespie thinks that they will just end up voting for the GOP candidates. I think that's probably true, seeing as how these folks have been voting for GOP candidates right along. They could force the GOP to go fringier, in certain districts.

I am impressed that we've gotten two dyed-in-the-wool establishment types to talk about this topic for this long. Not to worry, they are not making a whole lot of sense!

Waiting for Gregory to try to get this discussion out of the ditch. He does so by asking about the President's health care agenda, and adjusting to "the new normal." Gillespie thinks that maybe some health care reform matters could get passed piecemeal, but that they have to talk about jobs, now. HONEST TO GOD, IS THIS HOW THESE PEOPLE MAKE A LIVING? Haven't we been talking about how Obama has to start talking about jobs, for three weeks now? Gillespie is amazing only in that he makes you totally convinced that he had this whole idea himself and is saying it for the first time.

Myers, also, is not saying anything that hasn't been said a million times in the past three weeks. Why doesn't Meet The Press just call itself a "recap show?"

"TODAY, ON MEET THE PRESS: some people say some stuff that other people have been saying for a month, plus...LOST! That show is crazy! What is going on, on that island? Probably something weird."

DAVID GREGORY IS EXCITED BECAUSE HE IS GOING TO A HOCKEY GAME TODAY! WOW! THAT IS SO NEAT! THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT WITH US.

By the way, the DAMNED PENGUINS are winning that hockey game right now!

Anyway! If you are not under a blanket of snow, HAVE FUN GOING TO WORK TOMORROW. And if you are under a blanket of snow, please take the time today to say "Thank you!" to the people who are plowing and shoving and shoveling you out! They've probably been working for a few days now, and they're mostly under-appreciated.

Leading a wave of skepticism against the proposed merger of NBC Universal and Comcast is a senator with inside information about the National Broadcasting Company, Minnesota Democrat Al Franken. The former Saturday Night Live star criticized the merger in hearings of the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, raising concerns that sounded like a Brill's Content op-ed come to life: "When the same company that produces the programs runs the pipes, we have reason to be nervous."

Know what else should make one nervous? The knowledge that the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision would basically allow either NBC or Comcast to become some sort of corporate interests Voltron, capable of rising up and destroying Franken's political career with tens of millions of dollars and the used furniture from the set of the Jay Leno Show.

Still, Franken persisted:

I was at NBC in the 1990s, when Financial Interest and Syndication rules--more commonly known as Fin-Syn--were relaxed and then essentially eliminated. Until then, Fin-Syn rules had prevented networks from owning more than a very small portion of the programs they aired. This was to prevent an inherent conflict of interest.

At that time, NBC executives testified that gutting Fin-Syn would not lead the network to favor its own programming. To the contrary, the NBC President declared, "It is in our self-interest to do everything we can to promote a strong independent production community."

But by 1992, NBC was the single largest supplier of its own prime-time programming. Today, if an independent producer wants to get its show on a network's schedule, it's a routine practice for the network to demand at least part ownership of the show. This is completely contrary to what NBC and the other networks said they would do when they were trying to get Fin-Syn rescinded.

So while I commend NBCU and Comcast for making voluntary commitments as part of this merger, you'll have to excuse me if I don't just trust their promises.

Franken has been the Democrats' leading source of sack lately. At least according to the "five sources" who Halperin-Heilemanned up this story for Politico, conjuring up a scene in which Franken was giving it to David Axelrod for punting on health care reform.

All in all, if it were possible for anyone to have a bright political future, Al Franken would likely be one of them.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

I just got an email from Tom Winter, the president and editor-in-chief of conservative periodical Human Events. Seems like they are in a bit of a sticky wicket, money-wise, and Time-Warner is to blame, for sending lobbyists to Capitol Hill. Anyway, SEND THESE PAUPERS MONEY, I GUESS?

Dear Friend of HUMAN EVENTS:

It pains me terribly to write a letter like this, but HUMAN EVENTS needs your help.

Let me explain...

You may recall that, for several years, the federal government's taxpayer-subsidized mail-delivery monopoly -- aka the United States Postal Service -- has been hitting us with a whopping 20 percent rate increase that drove up our annual delivery costs by more than $170,000.

To put it bluntly, this is a staggering sum that we simply can't afford.

Now, it's outrageous enough that the USPS can continually jack up our rates without fearing any loss of our business to more cost-efficient competitors -- something it can do ONLY because federal law effectively protects it from private competition.

But what really burns me up is that these increases are part of a new rate system that was designed in part by lobbyists for liberal media giant Time Warner and other large publishers to benefit themselves at the expense of smaller competitors such as HUMAN EVENTS.

So instead of Time Warner's mailing costs ratcheting up like ours, the cost of delivering liberal Time magazine and other Big Media publications increase at about half the rate hike forced on HUMAN EVENTS (and that's after some of those publications actually had a decrease in postage costs while ours increased!).

Yes, those lobbyists are awful, but surely the good people at Human Events appreciate the way lobbyists destroyed health care reform and financial regulatory reform, right? From their perspective, politically, isn't this sort of a wash?

Winter goes on:

This means there's much more at stake here than the survival of HUMAN EVENTS. Free speech, and the right of conservatives to get their message out on the same terms as liberals, is also at stake.

And if the liberal media giants such as Time Warner get away with this ploy, the consequences for the future of our country -- at a time when the Obama administration is trying to turn us into a European-style socialist state -- could be catastrophic.

Actually, it's an especially catastrophic free-speech issue in the environment created by the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case. I gather that Human Events supported that outcome so, once again, from their perspective, this would seem to be a wash.

But if I could help out here, I have a suggestion. Maybe Human Events could use this thing called the "World Wide Web" to exclusively distribute their content? And stop sending things to people in the mail?

It seems to me that if your business model is, "Let's get our subscribers to send us money so that we can continue to kill trees and mail the tree-corpses to people," it may as well be: "Let's get our subscribers to send us money to subsidize a web-based distribution model that doesn't come with all these additional costs that are subject to the influence of powerful corporate lobbyists, whom we actually like and would prefer to turn loose upon America in an orgy of corporate spending, forever, BWAHAHAHA."

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

So, Richard Shelby! As you may have heard, he is being what the kids on the street call "an intransigent dick." This is because he's placed a blanket hold on all of President Obama's nominations for no other reason than that he feels Obama hasn't shown sufficient respect to Alabama.

It is crazy that America cannot have judges or agency heads or, you know, a guy to head up the Transportation Safety Administration, just because the president didn't send flowers and wishes to Alabama, but that is basically what is happening.

Also? Remember that part of Obama's "Question Time" with the House GOP Caucus, when he said, "wasteful spending is usually spent somehow outside of your district," and quipped: "The spending in your district tends to seem pretty sensible." Well...

According to the report, Shelby is holding Obama's nominees hostage until a pair of lucrative programs that would send billions in taxpayer dollars to his home state get back on track. The two programs Shelby wants to move forward or else:

- A $40 billion contract to build air-to-air refueling tankers. From CongressDaily: "Northrop/EADS team would build the planes in Mobile, Ala., but has threatened to pull out of the competition unless the Air Force makes changes to a draft request for proposals." Federal Times offers more details on the tanker deal, and also confirms its connection to the hold.

- An improvised explosive device testing lab for the FBI. From CongressDaily: "[Shelby] is frustrated that the Obama administration won't build" the center, which Shelby earmarked $45 million for in 2008. The center is due to be based "at the Army's Redstone Arsenal."

At any rate, now Michael Keegan, president of People For The American Way, has weighed in with complaints about Shelby:

"Senator Shelby's move is deeply cynical and an abuse of Senate procedure," said Michael B. Keegan, President of People For the American Way. "The American people deserve a functioning government, but Senator Shelby would rather hobble important agencies that keep us safe and provide important services than risk losing some pork barrel projects for his own state. Conservative commentators have slammed Democrats negotiating deals that pale in comparison to this. I hope they'll be aggressive in pointing out Senator Shelby's behavior, but I'm not holding my breath."

Senator Shelby is angry about the Pentagon's bidding process for air-to-air refueling tankers and funding for a research center to be built in his state. His hold effectively blocks votes on more than 70 executive branch nominees, including officials in the Army, Air Force, Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice and Department of State.

"To block votes on U.S. Attorneys, key positions in the armed forces, and nominees tasked with overseeing the disposal of radioactive waste in order to wring a few more dollars from the federal government in dangerously irresponsible," said Keegan. "Senator Shelby is doing an immense disservice to all Americans, including his own constituents. When voters voice their anger about the gridlock and partisanship in Washington, this is exactly what they're talking about."

Keegan went on to say that Shelby "better watch out" because "Carly Fiorina's sheep may want to have a few words with him." But there, I think he's just being trendy.

Let's say that the person you are competing against in the California GOP Senate primary releases a political advertisement that is expensive and deranged, with fake sheep crawling around with lite-brite eyes in a field, and a terrible, malformed metaphor that actually insults the fiscal conservatives whom everyone wants to win over. What do you do? YOU DO NOTHING, DUH. Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake!

But lucky for Carly Fiorina, who made the awesomely bad "Demon Sheep" ad (and who promises more of them!), her competitors are... how do you say? Oh, yes: terrible.

Take the target of the "Demon Sheep" ad: Tom Campbell. Campbell should have done nothing. NOTHING! Just let people encounter the "Demon Sheep" ad in the wild, and trust that it's overarching insanity is readily apparent to everybody. Because it is! And out there in the wilderness, everyone is reinforcing how dumb the ad is.

Instead, the Campbell campaign sent the ad around to everyone on its email list, a move that ensures the ad is seen by more people but without the filter of smart cultural arbiters, like me, who point out how terrible it is. So by doing so, Campbell actually ends up bringing attention to the substance of the ad's underlying complaint.

Tom Campbell's campaign is terrible! But they do not think so. Check out this Twitter from Campbell campaign consultant, Patrick Ruffini:

Patrick Ruffini doesn't know what he's talking about! And the comparison does not work, on multiple levels too complicated for me to explain. But suffice it to say, the "DemonSheep" ad is not "John Edwards having sex with Rielle Hunter." And furthermore, had Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama obtained the alleged John Edwards sex tape, I can guarantee you their campaigns would not have sent the video to their supporters, in a campaign email. They would have quietly leaked it to Politico, or something.

But we also have to talk about California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, the terrible Twittering loser who is just the worst! Nobody is making a bigger deal over the "Demon Sheep" ad than DeVore. Oh, Lord, look at what he's done! He went out and got the "www.demonsheep.org" domain name. He's erected a terrible site called "S.F.T.E.O.D.S.F.O.P.D." This stands for "The Society for the Eradication of Demon Sheep From Our Political Discourse." It contains an "All Your Base Are Belong To Us Joke" -- remember how funny we thought that was in like 2002? We spent whole 15-minute periods being amused by that.

Gah. DeVore is the worst. He's not even mentioned in the "Demon Sheep" ad. But he's so keen to horn in on the action that he's going way overboard in complaining about it. Basically, the guy is just revealing himself to be desperate for attention.

Hey, Patrick Ruffini, it's Chuck DeVore you should be baiting into having sex with Rielle Hunter!

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

One of the things that makes me sad about Carly Fiorina's "Demon Sheep" campaign ad is that I genuinely enjoy writing about campaign ads. Because they are so terrible!

But here we are in February with long, long months ahead in the campaign season, and Fiorina has already ensured that the year of campaign ads has peaked too soon. And so, my life is complete crap from here on in.

But Fiorina is apparently going to do her best to do something about it. As The Daily Beast's Benjamin Sarlin reports, she has only just begun to get crazy!

Don't be surprised if the Fiorina camp does more in this vein in the weeks ahead.

"We can expect to see equally if not more shocking web-based ads or videos coming from our campaign moving forward," [Fiorina spokeswoman] Julie Soderlund said.

Soderlund also says: "It's been touted as the most genius ad ever all the way down to the worst, but no matter what, people are talking about it and it generates views." (Except the part where people think it is "the most genius ad ever," most of that is true).

Seriously, what the Fiorina campaign should be doing is firing everyone involved with this ad -- you know, for calling fiscal conservatives sheep, for making some poor guy crawl around in a field, for attempting to create buzz over this crazy acronym "FCINO," which stands for Fiscal Conservative In Name Only -- but for my own sake, I'm glad this doesn't seem to be happening.

Speaking of that acronym, Soderlund says: "It's 'fuh-see-no.'"

Oh, sweetie. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but stop trying to make "FUH-SEE-NO" work because it is not happening.

That said, as long as the Fiorina campaign intends to get shocking, I have suggestion: Why not call Tom Campbell an "Incubus?" Then, you can shoot an entire, freaked-out ad in Esperanto and it can star William Shatner!

WATCH:

That'll be $15,000!

For more DEMON SHEEP amusement, please enjoy a special edition of The Inside Story podcast, with Ana Marie Cox, featuring Talking Points Memo's Christina Bellantoni and ABC News senior reporter Rick Klein.

RELATED:
Carly Fiorina's Demon Sheep [The Daily Beast]
So, How Much Did This Cost? [Wonkette]

PREVIOUSLY, on the HUFFINGTON POST:

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Political pollsters simply will not stop attempting to reduce everything in American life that we enjoy to a stupid left-vs.-right debate until we rise up as one, put them on ice floes and shove them off in the direction of Greenland with the warning that they will be repeatedly shot in the face if they attempt to return to these shores. The latest travesty: someone went out and did a poll on which voters are pulling for which team in Superbowl XLIV.

The poll was done by Public Policy Polling, and in the first sentence, they say:

In a time of increasing political polarization, even the Super Bowl is dividing Americans along party lines.

OH SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP. Can't we just enjoy this one thing?

Here are the findings:

A new Public Policy Polling national survey finds that 32% of voters in the country are rooting for the New Orleans Saints on Sunday, compared to 22% who prefer the Indianapolis Colts.

Democrats strongly prefer the Saints, by a 36-21 margin. But Republicans are narrowly going for the Colts, 26-25. Independents lean toward the Saints as well, 33-20.

Ugh. So, a significant number of people like the Saints, because people like underdogs, maybe? But! A significant number of people like the Colts, because they like winners? Also: there are people who reside in those cities who root for their team all the time?

I'd take a look at the number that doesn't show up here: the undecideds. If 32% of the people like New Orleans and 22% of the people like Indianapolis, that leaves 46% of the people undecided. You know what that means, don't you? If Indianapolis can make their case to the people, they could still pull out the New Hampshire Primary!

But what if the superdelegates prefer New Orleans? And what if the Colts are sleeping with Rielle Hunter? SO MUCH TO CONSIDER.

Anyway, maybe people should just try to decouple their love of football from the passions of their political ideologies. For a day. Just one day, OK?

To Greenland with you, Public Policy Polling!

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

If you want just one taste of the essential stupidity of the politicization of the Abdulmutallab investigation, you need only look at today's Washington Post, in an article titled "Criticism of Obama on national security likely to remain big issue."

Therein, we get the following quote from Angry Leprechaun Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.):

"Instead of trying to excuse the inexcusable, the administration should take responsibility for the dire consequences of its decision to swiftly grant civilian rights to this foreign terrorist."

But as Spencer Ackerman points out, it's hard to see what the "dire consequences" are. If we're strictly being factual, we can say this: As a consequence of swiftly granting civilian rights to this foreign terrorist, the FBI is obtaining a significant amount of intel on al Qaeda that they didn't already have. That would suggest to me that the "dire consequences" of following the rule of law have fallen most heavily on foreign terrorists.

That said, I can nevertheless discern some potential dire consequences. A dire consequence of the right's insistence on politicizing the Christmas Crotchfire attack is that they've transformed an al Qaeda failure into an al Qaeda victory. A dire consequence of insisting that Abdulmutallab isn't entitled to Constitutional rights is that more people might start believing that this is true, when it isn't. And finally, a dire consequence of treating Jeff Sessions opinions on the matter as credible is that there may be yet more newspaper articles titled "Criticism of Obama on national security likely to remain big issue," when the facts in evidence very clearly state that it should not be an issue at all.

RELATED:
The GOP, National Security and Facts Not in Evidence [Washington Independent]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

I won't be the first to make note of this, but I'm grateful to email tipster Michael H., who points out that Carly Fiorina's "Demon Sheep" attack ad -- which is now notorious enough on the Internet to be a top ten trending topic on Twitter (for "#demonsheep" overnight) -- seems to have been inspired by the movie "Black Sheep".

Written and directed by Jonathan King, "Black Sheep" is a classic slice of B-movie horror, about how "an experiment in genetic engineering turns harmless sheep into blood-thirsty killers that terrorize a sprawling New Zealand farm".

Here's the trailer. It is awesome:

Obviously, the lambs will never stop screaming. Still, we are getting close to being able to write a campaign ad trend piece on low-budget movies providing the inspiration for campaign ads. We have the Demon Sheep and the Frankenstein Coroners. We only need one more. Personally, I hope that the campaign season doesn't end without someone riffing on Dragon Wars.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Thanks to an outbreak of reported-on reality, a beloved War On Terror talking point -- that the FBI's by-the-books interrogation of Umar Farouq Abdulmuttalab was an example of counter-terror malpractice -- can now be considered fundamentally false. Here's Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller:

The family of the failed Christmas Day bomber, Umar Farouq Abdulmuttalab, played a pivotal role in getting their son to start cooperating with federal authorities in sharing information about Al Qaeda, a senior administration official said Tuesday evening.

Abdulmuttalab has been cooperating with authorities and sharing intelligence since last Thursday, another administration official told ABC News.

The family was "instrumental in gaining Mr. Abdulmuttalab's cooperation," said the senior administration official. The information Abdulmuttalab is sharing has been described by other officials as fresh and actionable.

Here's where you score one for that whole "rule of law" thingy:

"One of the principal reasons why his family came back is because they had complete trust in the US system of justice and believed that Umar Farouq would be treated fairly and appropriately," the senior official said. "And that they would be as well."

The FBI and Abdulmuttalab's family approached the subject and "gained his cooperation. He has been cooperating for days," the official said.

Also, this is pretty delicious: "Abdulmuttalab was talking to FBI agents on Saturday, at the same time Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, ranking Republican on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, issued the Republican response to the president's weekly address, decrying Abdulmuttalab's presence in the criminal justice system."

Sucks to be Susan Collins!

Over at The American Prospect, Adam Serwer has a lot more on how the particulars of the Abdulmutallab case actually help to deconstruct "several pro-torture, anti-due process myths" that have been injected into the discourse. The big takeaway: law enforcement officials can, do, and should play a vital role in counter-terror efforts, and that working within their Constitutional constraints doesn't inhibit their ability to keep us safe.

Nevertheless, I anticipate that this will continue to be one of those cases in which the media will continue to give significant latitude to a side in this debate that has been thoroughly discredited.

RELATED:
Obama Administration Secured Help of Abdulmuttalab's Family to Get Him to Share Intelligence [ABC News Political Punch]
Abdulmutallab Interrogation Explodes Six Central Torture Myths [TAPPED]
Ex-FBI Interrogator: McConnell and Co. 'Don't Know What They're Talking About' on Abdulmutallab [Washington Independent]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

HOLY CRAP, AMERICA. Mere days after a teensy little Orleans Parish Coroner's election offered the opening salvo in the Attack Ad Wars of Campaign 2010, we have this ad from Carly Fiorina, running for the Senate in California that is a straight-up game-changing, shock-and-awe slice of pure, mountain-grown BONKERS.

In this THREE-AND-A-HALF MINUTE LONG video, the Fiorina campaign goes after former California Congressman Tom Campbell, who leads the Republican field in the primary race to unseat incumbent Senator Barbara Boxer. The Fiorina campaign's main point is that Campbell is a "Fiscal Conservative In Name Only." It's a fairly standard issue claim -- or at least it would be, if the video that presented the argument didn't play like Terry Gilliam and Ingmar Bergman collaborated on a campaign-year sequel to "The Wicker Man".

The epic ad begins with a voice-over narrator intoning, "Purity...piety..." against the backdrop of galloping sheep. Then, Monty Python animation kicks in, elevating one sheep on a giant column into the ionosphere. Then: THUNDER! LIGHTNING! Darkening skies! A new voice-over narrator -- the cheapest Morgan Freeman imitator money could buy -- starts impugning Campbell, amid jump cuts of Campbell and sheep and pigs and graphs and quotes, while Satan's opera company chants dark recitatives in the background.

"And sadly, we're just getting started..." Cheap Morgan Freeman says. And sadly, THEY ARE! JUST! GETTING STARTED! More accusations and quotes and scary question marks, until it achieves its apotheosis: DEMON-EYED SHEEP!

By the way: this whole metaphor of Campbell pretending to be a heroic cutter of budgets and limiter of government DOES NOT REALLY WORK when you refer to him as a "wolf in sheep's clothing." Surely, the brave fiscal conservatives are the more vulpine breed! Ideally, the Fiorina campaign would want to contend that Campbell is a SHEEP in WOLVES' clothing. Right? Take off his disguise and he's just another member of the herd? I guess it's hard to work in the DEMON-EYED SHEEP image, in that case.

Also, when the ad gets around to mentioning that Fiorina is the better choice, maybe its makers should have killed the Satan Opera for a more optimistic piece of music?

Fiorina campaign: you should totally call me for ideas!

And OMFG, the poor guy who had to crawl around on all fours in a field wearing a sheep's pelt to make this ad! I have the most pity for that individual. I also have pity for California State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, the twittering loser who is also running in this primary race that no one takes seriously, and who probably has a sad that he's not earned his own attack ad like this.

That said, this advertisement is just beyond belief. I dare anyone to top this.

[WATCH]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

In testimony proffered at yesterday's hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke in forthright, plainspoken terms about why the current "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy should be repealed.

"No matter how I look at the issue," Mullen said, "I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens." Noting that he was speaking for himself and not for the other service chiefs, Mullen added: "For me, it comes down to integrity - theirs as individuals and ours as an institution."

Late yesterday, Representative Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) went on CNN's "The Situation Room" with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), and insinuated that Mullen was not being authentic when he spoke out in favor of repealing DADT, that he was merely acceding to the administration's demands.

HUNTER: Admiral Mullen and -- and Secretary Gates are both political appointees. They're going to be biased. They're going to say what the administration wants them to say. What I want to talk to is the Marines Corps commandant. I want to talk to -- to -- to General Casey in -- in the Army. I want to see what the military leaders -- the actual service leaders have to say on this, because I think they'll have a much different take than the political appointees.

BLITZER: All right. Let me just hesitate for a second, Congressman Hunter. Secretary Gates is certainly a political appointee named by the president, confirmed by the Senate. But Admiral Mullen is a four star Navy admiral, the chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, a career military officer. You're saying he's a political appointee?

HUNTER: What I'm saying is his -- his -- his point of view -- and he stressed this today -- was his and his alone. It is not his -- his actual Joint Chiefs' point of view.

BLITZER: But you're saying he's biased.

HUNTER: I think we're going to hear something very different.

GILLIBRAND: Wolf, may I...

BLITZER: Are you -- are you saying...

GILLIBRAND: ...address this question?

BLITZER: Yes, hold on, Senator. I just want to clarify what the Congressman is saying. You're saying he's biased?

HUNTER: Oh, he is biased to the administration. Yes. I believe so.

Naturally, it's not beyond the pale to suggest that officials who testify before Congress don't often come there with the intention of advancing an agenda. There's no way for Duncan Hunter or I to know how the administration influenced Mullen's testimony, or what demands were placed on him. That said, it's hard to discern any evidence to indicate that Mullen wasn't offering his authentic opinion. And regardless, he was in no way obligated to re-affirm his stated position on Twitter, later in the day. If you recall, Mullen said:

Stand by what I said: Allowing homosexuals to serve openly is the right thing to do. Comes down to inntegrity.

Suffice it to say, I think that when I tell you that Duncan Hunter is up to some Swift Boat-style nonsense, I'm calling it correctly.

Meanwhile, it's Hunter who's saying, "What I want to talk to is the Marines Corps commandant. I want to talk to -- to -- to General Casey in -- in the Army." Seems to me that it's Hunter who came to the table lacking an authentic opinion on the matter.

A day later, on NPR, here's how Hunter's authentic opinion revealed itself:

HUNTER: No, because I think it's bad for the cohesiveness and the unity in the military especially those that are in close combat, close quarters in country right now, it's not the time to do it. I think the military is not civilian and I think the folks that have been in the military in very close situations with each other, there has to be a special bond there and I think that bond is broken. If you open up the military to transgenders, to hermaphrodites to gays and lesbians.

HOST: Transgenders and hermaphrodites?

HUNTER: Yea, that's going to be part of this thing. It's not just gays an lesbians, it's this whole thing.

Duncan Hunter is not a man to be taken seriously.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

While I was rooting around yesterday, examining the coverage of this week's hearings on Don't Ask Don't Tell, I happened upon this piece in the Wall Street Journal, titled "Iraq Veteran Leads 'Don't Ask' Push". The article's primary focus was Representative Patrick Murphy (D-Penn.), who's been leading the Congressional effort to get DADT repealed. Buried in the article, I noticed a curious and ultimately troubling editorial choice. See if you can spot it!

"I served with great soldiers who were thrown out just because they were gay," said Mr. Murphy, who is married. "I was disheartened that the Constitution that I took an oath to support and defend was really being abused by that policy."

Did you see it? Here's a hint: let's take a look at the issues page on Murphy's website. Casting around, I see that Murphy supports things like "broad reform of our nation's health care system", "tax breaks for first responders" and that he "broke with his party to oppose the Democratic Budget... because he did not believe it did enough to guarantee middle class tax breaks and rein in government spending."

And yet, I'm having a hard time believing that any journalist anywhere would write something like:

Patrick Murphy, who is married, favors broad reform of our nation's health care system.

Or:

Patrick Murphy, who is married, favors tax breaks for first responders.

Or:

Patrick Murphy, who is married, broke with his fellow Democrats in opposing their proposed budget.

There's no other mention of any party's marital status in the article, save for the subject of the article -- Murphy -- who is spearheading the repeal effort. It's strange and it's creepy and it's frankly condescending in the way it suggests that Murphy's efforts are legit because it's a straight man sticking up for gay and lesbian soldiers, whose own judgments on the issue are biased, I guess? As if we can't completely trust the opinion of a Lieutenant Dan Choi or a Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach without a heterosexual co-signing it?

A reminder: in many parts of the United States, the fact that gays and lesbians are not permitted the privilege of being referred to as "married" in newspaper articles is not their fault!

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]