HEY YOU! YES, YOU!!

HEY YOU! YES, YOU!!


However you may have arrived here, this is the old Not Not Silly Newsroom.

It's a long story -- hardly worth going into here -- but after this place was declared a Brownfield Site, we abandoned it for the NEW! IMPROVED!! Not Now Silly Newsroom.

Feel free to stay and read what you came here to read, but when it's time to leave go to the new place by clicking HERE.

Saturday, November 30, 2013

Serial Liar James Rosen Responds To Me Again

It looks like James Rosen, who wrote a book filled with words, has trouble understanding his own words.  Never fear. I'm here to help.

Rosen, for those smart enough to avoid watching Fox "News," is the mendacious channel's Chief Washington Correspondent. However, Rosen also wrote a doorstopper of a book about John Mitchell -- Richard Nixon's Attorney General and, later, head of the Committee to Re-elect the President (aptly shortened to CREeP). The Strong Man: John Mitchell and the Secrets of Watergate can charitably be called Revisionist History, but more accurately it's filled with lies, half-truths, and shaded language. To make a long story short, according to Rosen, John Mitchell was innocent of all Watergate crimes -- even those for which he was convicted --  because he was out for a pack of cigarettes when they happened, or something.

My bun fight with James Rosen began in February of 2012, back when we were all so young and innocent. It flared into life when Rosen rudely jumped into a Twitter conversation I was having with Watergate whistle-blower John W. Dean. While I promised Rosen I would read his book, and did so almost immediately, it took me a year to finally review it for Not Now Silly because, quite frankly, it wasn't much of a priority. That post, Did Roger Ailes Dupe James Rosen, Or Did Rosen Dupe 'Merka?, has risen to become the #5 All Time post at Not Now Silly. However, more importantly, in it I made the claim that Fox "News" Chief Roger Ailes was Rosen's secret source quoted on Page 61.


Six months later, when Rosen found himself embroiled in a federal probe of Top Secret links and possible espionage, I returned to the topic of The Strong Man, Roger Ailes and Anna Channault in a post that asked the musical question: James Rosen: Blundering Biographer or Enemy of the State? Hilarity ensued.

Despite having blocked me blocked me a year and a half earlier, Rosen finally woke up and responded a mere 5 days later. He did so in a tweet that is a classic example of attacking the messenger because you don't like the message:



Which prompted my next Watergate-related blog post, James Rosen Responds To Me, Sort Of, in which I call Rosen's tweet a non-denial denial because I know a non-denial denial when I read one. To be charitable again: Maybe Rosen doesn't know a non-denial denial when he writes one.

Then yesterday -- totally out of the blue -- I got a new tweet from James Rosen after I promoted all my Watergate posts in a tweet. (Okay, so maybe it wasn't so "out of the blue.")



The thing of it is this: Yes, Rosen's tweet is finally a declarative denial. However, Rosen did not "told [me] before," despite what he may think the words he used meant. With tweets limited to 140 characters, Rosen spent more than half of it making fun of my beard, which surely pleased Johnny Dollar and The Flying Monkey Squad. Better he should have used some of that Twitter real estate to have made an actual denial.

I called it a non-denial denial because it denied nothing. So, no. You didn't done told me before, James.

This is how my copy of The Strong Man looked when I was done
The bigger thing of it is this, James: I didn't believe your book while I was reading it. "I have told you before" how I dropped a sticky note on every question I wanted to ask you. When I was done my copy of The Strong Man was filled with enough sticky notes to supply an Office Depot, and all fall under the general rubric of "bullshit." For that matter, James, I don't believe your Fox "News" reports when I see them, nor are you the Beatles expert you hold yourself out to be.

So, I think it's a legitimate question to ask: Why should I believe your little tweet, especially as it contradicts your previous tweet?

However, as we head in to the Holiday Season, I just want to get this contretemps behind us and go back to those halcyon days of yore, when you and I were happily exchanging Beatles' trivia, without a dark cloud on our horizon. Consequently, help me understand how the lie on Page 61 of your book came to be printed. We can achieve d├ętente if you answer the following questions:
1). Who is the secret source on Page 61, the source promised anonymity according to the book's end notes? [While you may have promised anonymity, I don't feel you need be bound to a deal that protects someone who fed you a falsehood.]
2). Did you, or did you not, not recognize that the quote was factually incorrect when you printed it?
3). Did you, or did you not, understand when you printed this false information that it went to the topic of whether Richard Nixon committed treason?
4). Why is Roger Ailes, your current boss and an intimate of Nixon and Mitchell -- and, more importantly, the re-election campaign's behind-the-scenes media man -- not mentioned or quoted in The Strong Man whatsoever?
5). What about all my other sticky notes? [See pic above.] Care to discuss them? The Anna Channault Affair is just one pile of bovine manure in a book filled with cow patties.
Just send a tweet, James. Otherwise, you're as full of shit as your book.