A little of what Hot Air's Allahpundit might describe as Blue on Blue violence.
Apparently, HuffPo's Vicky Ward was negotiating for a "Vanity Fair" interview with Jill Kelley, one of the women swooped up in the Petraeus scandal. She refused to do it, though, when Kelley demanded a cover story and a "favorable interview." Next thing Wark knows, the Daily Beast's Howard Kurtz publishes what she describes as a "favorable" Kelley interview.
"This woman is just impossible," he said with a sigh. "She wants the promise of a cover and an assurance that the interview will be favorable."
"Kevin," I said "We both know that anyone who promises that is either low-rent or lying."
He agreed -- and we left it at that.
Until today, I saw, to my astonishment, that Jill Kelley appeared to have got her conditions -- not in People magazine (she had told Kalwary that's where she was headed), or the National Enquirer or Us Weekly -- but The Daily Beast.
The Daily Beast??
And what's more the "journalist" who penned the simpering interview that was mind-boggling in one aspect only -- its lack of finding any real answers from the interviewee -- is Howie Kurtz. Howie Kurtz?
Kurtz disputes Wark's charge:
There were absolutely no conditions for my interview with Jill Kelley. And I don't agree that the piece was favorable -- it was an opportunity for a woman who has been thrust into the vortex of a scandal to tell her side for the first time.
Wark doesn't believe him.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC