Deborah Howell, journalistic whore: Document the atrocities.

Rather than disemboweling Howell's latest piece of crap myself, I'll leave it to my readers to identify at least six logical howlers or misdirections in that single piece.

Howell really has learned nothing from this latest adventure. God, but she is a worthless hack.

UPDATE: Driftglass dumps a steaming load on Howell's plate.

THE VALUE OF VERY CAREFUL SEMANTICS: What follows is an example of why you should be very careful about how you read someone else's prose. In Howell's latest piece is the puzzling paragraph:

But there is no doubt about the campaign contributions that were directed to lawmakers of both parties. Records from the Federal Election Commission and the Center for Public Integrity show that Abramoff's Indian clients contributed money to 195 Republicans and 88 Democrats between 1999 and 2004. The Post also has copies of lists sent to tribes by Abramoff with his personal directions on which members were to receive what amounts.

Let's deconstruct this one sentence at a time, shall we?

Howell, in that first sentence above, quite clearly claims that campaign contributions were "directed to lawmakers of both parties." (She strangely omits mentioning who did the directing, so we'll assume it was Jack Abramoff.) But, ignoring whether or not this is even true, a simpler question is: Why would Abramoff explicitly direct money to Democrats at all?

It's well known that Abramoff never gave a cent of his own money to Democrats, so isn't it a bit odd that he would direct his own clients to do that? Why? What would be the purpose? Abramoff was a Republican -- why would he encourage his clients to give money to the opposition party? In any event, Howell clearly seems to be suggesting that this is, in fact, what happened. Or is she?

Note the very next sentence:

Records from the Federal Election Commission and the Center for Public Integrity show that Abramoff's Indian clients contributed money to 195 Republicans and 88 Democrats between 1999 and 2004.

Whoa, hold on. While the above shows that Indian tribes did contribute to both parties (and, again, no one is denying that), there is absolutely nothing in any of that that supports Howell's claim of "direction" by Abramoff to Democrats, so it's not clear what Howell's point is. Howell seems to be using this information to bolster her original claim of "direction" to Democrats but it does nothing of the sort. It simply shows that money was donated to both parties by Indian tribes. So what?

But it's Howell's final sentence in that paragraph that's maddeningly provocative:

The Post also has copies of lists sent to tribes by Abramoff with his personal directions on which members were to receive what amounts.

Wow! So the Post actually has explicit evidence that money was directed to Democrats by Abramoff? Well, no, not quite. Note that that sentence says only that the Post has evidence as to Abramoff's personal directions but mysteriously doesn't make the claim that those directions involve both parties. Is this just poor writing on Howell's part? Or is it extremely careful phrasing so she has plausible deniability later?

Note how badly the three sentences in that paragraph hang together. The first makes the claim of direction of money to both parties, but without mentioning Abramoff's name. Curious, no? The second sentence talks only of well-known (and perfectly legal) contributions from Indian tribes to both parties, without claiming simultaneous "direction" of those monies by Jack Abramoff. And the third sentence claims proof of "direction" by Abramoff without including the Democrats in that claim.

Either Howell is one of the most incompetent journalists in the history of journamalism. Or she's being awfully careful to leave herself an out.

HOLY CRAP: Now this is a smackdown.