The Center for Public Integrity on the Bush Administration’s Iraq Lies
Nice summing up of the lies Bush and Company told in the run-up to war with Iraq: Iraq: The War Card. Pretty much speaks for itself.
103 Responses to “The Center for Public Integrity on the Bush Administration’s Iraq Lies”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:17 pm
I knew them assholes lied, but when I read that article this morning I almost fell off of my chair. Because when you consider how many times they lied and then how many times the media repeated those lies, I guess you can hardly blame the American people for buying into it.
I’m glad my Prime Minister never fell for it.
What really gets me are the 20 or so percent that STILL believe this shit!
Let me refer to my official “Out of Office Countdown” calendar for a second…
Only 363 more days of putting up with this idiot!
It’s actually a really great calendar. Hmm, perhaps I will start to post the many famous quotes included with it! Let’s begin.
There’s no such thing as legacies. At least, there is a legacy, but I’ll never see it.” – George W. Bush, The White House, January 2001
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:01 pm
impeach
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Impeach? There’s a petition here: http://www.wexlerwantshearings.com/
By the way, I told you so. This “Iraq: The War Card” article vindicates everything that I was saying in my initial arguments with shcb. I accusing him of being totally suckered in by his government and media propaganda, to the point where he is indistinguishable from the proles depicted in George Orwell’s 1984.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:18 pm
I agree, as I always have – bring on the impeachment hearings. I signed the petition. It should prove to be quite revealing and interesting.
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:14 pm
So incredibly infuriating. It was infuriating at the time watching this unfold, and it’s even more so looking back against the backdrop of what is plainly obvious now (but was predicted by many before, who were at the time ridiculed). These people do not communicate — they market — and they are masters of the playing the public’s attention span. The more people that see things like this that lay it all out in total the better. Please let this analysis be picked up by 60 minutes, CNN, some news outlet that can distract itself from turning the election process into a football game long enough to do some good.
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:21 pm
By the way, although it’s not the most damning, I find this part to be one of the most telling:
Never, ever trust anybody who demands subordinates follow without questioning, but shuffle off all accountability onto them. Having seen this time again in the business world, it is the surest sign of incompetence that I know. A decider who refuses to take responsibility for his decisions is a fraud.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:03 pm
So, other than spending a lot of time counting speeches was there anything new here? I still didn’t see any evidence that anyone actually knew without a doubt that there were no WMD’s before the US inspectors in Marine battle fatigues took a good look. Did I miss something?
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Yep. You missed a lot.
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:08 pm
So you believe, shcb, that we need to make sure with absolute certainty that there isn’t a reason to invade countries before we do so.
I think it may be time that you prove to me with absolute certainty that you aren’t a terrorist operative coding messages from al Qaeda within inane lies.com comments. In dealing with this threat, I will not take any option off the table, including banning.
January 24th, 2008 at 5:28 am
In this specific case, absolutely. We’ve been through this a dozen times, but I will be happy to go into it in whatever detail you want. But yes, in this case we had to be sure he did not have WMD. When we invaded in the first Gulf war he was farther along in the development than our intel showed, finding out later that our intel was wrong again, and he had indeed not only had the capability of producing a bomb but had already placed one in the hands of terrorists would have been worse to an unimaginable degree. All he had to do was open his country to inspectors as he had promised to do in the cease fire agreement. We of course had no such agreement with any other country in the area even though several, most notably Libya, abided by our wishes anyway, and were not invaded.
As to you banning me, what are you terms? Would you like a picture of my dirty pickup? Would you like to visit my home? Meet my wife? Hold my grandchildren? I have nothing to hide, come onto my property and inspect anything you wish.
January 24th, 2008 at 5:46 am
All clever fronts, and besides I’m too lazy to bother with any of that. But I have clear (and secret) evidence that you have ties to multiple terrorist organizations as well as the KKK and a consortium of child pornographers. It’s clear to everyone what your true intensions here are. You have only one choice — begin posting sensible reasoned arguments so we can be sure they don’t contain coded messages, or face our full force!
January 24th, 2008 at 7:10 am
I can’t prove a negation, and I don’t have the power to undo anything you chose to do to me. All I can do is offer full transparency. If you do your inspections and I tell you it is ok to search anywhere you want except for the bedroom and then take you to the front yard at gunpoint after you have finished searching the rest of the house and hold you there for a half hour while my wife scurries about inside and then let you search the bedroom, you have justification for doing whatever you want even though I have let you search my house. If however I abide by my agreement and you still censor me the international community will have every right to chastise you, even though they have no more power to undo what you do than I.
January 24th, 2008 at 9:20 am
ymatt,
I totally agree with the point you made above about the administration basically accusing the intelligence community of gross incompotence over this when it’s perfectly clear that the intelligence they were providing was being twisted by a bunch war mongerers.
In time however, I think more and more people will start to come forward and speak the truth about what really happend, especially after this dickhead leaves office. Then maybe the last 20 or so percent (e.g. shcb) will finally see the light and come to their senses.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:31 am
NL,
That is quite possible, the problem with it is that my side will say the whistle blower is lying and attack their character, your side will attack the attackers character and on and on. This is the rough and tumble part of politics no matter which side you’re on. So unless there is a memo or a blue dress we will never know what thought process went through peoples heads at that time, or since for that matter. I think to be fair there have been a lot of people on your side that have perpetrated many lies about the nonexistent lies of this administration for the express purpose of gaining power.
To be fair in these cases I do try and put things in the context of the time. The thing that bothers me about this argument the most is people saying there were no WMD’s so they were lying. The administration may have been lying, but not necessarily.
It was the same thing when Clinton bombed the aspirin factory and my side said he should have known there was no poison gas being produced there, I gave Clinton the benefit of the doubt on that one, not on the timing of it, but on the act itself. His best intelligence said there was poison being produced and that was good enough for me.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:01 am
My side, your side.. yadayadayada.
I am not on any one side. I am for truth, honour and respect for innocent life, plain and simple.
It just so happens that “your side” is full of a lot of horse shit. I don’t need a memo or a blue dress to tell me that. It’s called free thinking. Analyzing the facts and coming to my own conclusion.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:25 am
And I submit you have theories and assumptions Bush knew there were no WMD’s but no facts, or even evidence.
I would have no problem if your side, and yes you have chosen sides, if your side said “I think Bush is lying”, or “in my opinion…”
So you say you have come to your own conclusion Bush knew there were no WMD’s before we invaded based on facts. Those facts are?
January 24th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
…”Those facts are” … plain for all to see in myriads of sources and places, many of which were readily aparent to millions of people around the world prior to the invasion, and even far more available now. That you do not see is not our problem here, you may find the answers you seek if you genuinely wanted to see (and if you looked beyond Fox and Rush limbaugh, etc., etc. ad nauseum.)
January 24th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
so give me just one.
January 24th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
No.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
I couldn’t care less what Bush actually believed about Iraq’s possession of WMDs. The only thing that matters is that he insisted they did, despite many, many people at the time questioning that assertion, and acted on that basis. We now know that he was wrong. That is a vast error in judgement, whether or not he truly believed selective, unreliable intelligence, or if he simply used this intelligence to spin a story. The fact remains that he made sweeping, false assertions that were not supported by the evidence that he was certainly aware of at the time.
Add on top of that his insistence of pushing all accountability off onto faceless organizations or subordinate scapegoats just makes it all the more pathetic, and illuminates the character of the man all the more clearly.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I’ll give you not just one, but the lie generator central: The Office of Special Plans.
Staffed by PNAC ‘patriots’ who ‘stove-piped’ the hottest (read bogus) Iraq intel to gin up a case for war war war! The Downing Street memo has it on the record at the time that Blair and shrubbie were “fixing the facts around the policy”. Even a schlameil like me could google right thru the blatantly bullshit Powell prezo before the UN. And similarly shrubbie’s rhetoric, to say nothing of Darth Cheney, was irrationally bellicose and (ahem) factually challenged.
OSP was created by corrupt Rethug Paul (war war war! o and some kickbacks for my girlfriend) Wolfowitz and Douggie (dumbest fucking man on the planet) Feith (btw just so you rwnjs don’t get yer panties all knotted up, that quote about Feith was from Gen. Tommy Franks). AIPAC, PNAC, war graft, oil grab, power grab, wrap it all up in the flag and the pain of 9/11 and… crimminy I can’t spend all day laying it out in irrefutably google-ref’d detail. Which you will promptly dis-Believe anyway.
362 days to go
impeach tomorrow (if you can make it stick)
January 24th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Without getting into the ugliness that discussion of the story’s content tends to bring out on this site, I find it interesting that the AP considers it un-newsworthy to disclose who are the principle funders of the Center, and the incestuous relationship it has with the Fund for “Independence” in Journalism.
January 24th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Do tell, I’m honestly curious.
January 24th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Knarly and Matt,
That was the answer I expected, don’t feel bad that you couldn’t come up with a lie, you can’t find something that isn’t there. Inky, if you would like to resubmit in English I will respond. I saw something about the Downing Street Memo. As I have explained in the past there is nothing there, the memo was an opinion of someone else’s opinion of the thought process of the Bush administration leading up to Iraq. The most damning thing in it is that they had decided to invade no matter what the status of WMD. Even if that were the case that doesn’t mean the administration was lying, it just means they thought there was enough justification with or without WMD.
So how did this whole “Bush lied, people died” BS start? As I recall, it was relatively early in the war Sadam had been captured, we had an incumbent president that was still popular running against an opponent that was under attack from fellow swift boat crewmen. The Democrats needed something to counter these attacks, lacking any credible dirt to build on and lacking imagination, the Democrats had to find something with a military flair. They tried using “Bush lied, people died” recycling and reliving the glory days of Vietnam, did you know John Kerry served there? Sorry for the aside. But people weren’t interested, they still remembered Bush with his arm around the retired fireman with the bull horn, they were still pissed the Arabs had knocked down our city and killed our friends. Bush had no history of lying, he seemed like a good guy. Then the Dems found a guy that had documents that showed this bullhorn toting, flight suit wearing swaggering fellow to be a deserter. Run Dan run, run with the story, lead with it, we have to get this guy before the end of the day, oops what do you mean they didn’t have that font back then? But he’s still scum, Dan said so. Crap what do we do now? Well we are the recyclers, dust off those “Bush lied people died” bumper stickers. But it’s not true. So? You never heard that if you tell a lie enough it will become the truth? And as Knarly pointed out millions now believe, praise be the Lord we’re going to win in ‘08
So why did the Dems perpetrate this? For the same reason Bush oversold WMD’s, laziness. It is simply easier to say, they have nukes and they aim to use them than to go into the intricacies of war strategy and tactics, the history of the area, and the difficulties and futility of negotiating with religious zealots. The dems were faced with explaining the opposing view of those same subjects, “Bush lied and people died” was so much simpler.
January 25th, 2008 at 4:11 am
So why did the Dems perpetrate this? See the Model:
Success comes from unleashing “a veritable barrage of lies and slanders against whatever adversary seems most dangerous, until the nerves of the attacked person break down.” This tactic is most successful against “the bourgeoisie [Republicans], which is neither morally nor mentally equal to such attacks.” (Adolph Hitler)
January 25th, 2008 at 7:33 am
I have no intention of “debating” something that 99% percent of the world’s population has known for years, but I’ll give the biggest fact.
You see, shcb, before Iraq was invaded there were these weapons inspectors in the country, for years. You see, their sole job was to monitor and audit Iraq’s weapons programs.
Weapons experts. Not politicians, pundits, etc. Weapons Inspectors.
Now these weapons inspectors, who were in Iraq looking for these scary WMD looked and looked and looked. They couldn’t find anything.
They looked some more. Nope. Nothing there.
They informed the world that they were looking hard, but could find nothing. Not a trace of anything. They even offered to keep looking. After all, what was the big hurry?
So you see, the people in charge of looking for WMD in Iraq clearly said there were none, but even offered to keep looking anyways.
But no, that did not fit into the administration’s war plans. So you invaded. And still haven’t found squat.
You were probably too busy chasing prairie dogs and watching NASCAR to notice any of this. Which pretty much tells me everything I need to know about the type of person you are, and always suspected you were.
January 25th, 2008 at 8:25 am
The contrast between the good and bad aspects of these types of threads is interesting to me.
On the one hand, I feel that these kinds of threads detract from the strange diversity of opinion that makes up the lies.com community. The You ’08 posts really opened my eyes to how different we all are from each other. I’d love to see more of that kind of stuff so that I can be exposed to ideas I really don’t find anywhere else.
On the other hand, it’s a good refresher on how solid the evidence against Bush is. Despite how diverse this crowd is, we’re almost completely unified in despising Bush for all his manifest shortcomings.
I wonder what will happen to us once Bush is gone. As nice as it is to be refreshed with some reminders of how horrible Bush Republicanism is, I’m really looking forward to having more topics we can disagree on.
Hopefully the next administration will bring us some good fodder for Trade and Healthcare threads where we can all disagree with each other.
January 25th, 2008 at 8:34 am
rwnj – I know your reading comprehension is amusingly low, but really the few abbreviations I used could easily be picked up (or glossed over) in context.
I misspelled schlemiel
prezo – abbreviation for presentation
ref’d – abbreviation for referenced
crimminy – short for christ all mighty you are farking stupid
tv – so bush’s numerous, referenced, verifiable lies make him equal to Hitler or something? wow, maybe some day you will see the light of reason (tho i doubt it because my previous sentence used something called satire) I know, I know, it’s all Bill E Bob Clinton’s fault (or Tom Daschel’s if you believe serial liar Karl Rove)
craig – funny I don’t recall you whining about civility and decorum when tv was screaming “asshole” “traitor” “seditious blah blah blah” and all the rest for the last, say, seven years or so. yMom handles banning and censorship here, go whine to her about your need for civility in discourse.
I often wonder if the human race suffers from a mental defect or trick similar to pareidolia, the tendency to see faces or meaning (the first thing a baby learns to recognize – other than the nipple – is mother’s face) where there is none. Common examples are the fish scales that spell allah, the virgin mary on a toasted cheese sandwich, christ’s face in a tree knot. I am pretty sure this is the case for most of the rwnjs who post here and nearly all of them at little green footballs. shrubco makes easily refutable lies about (just one example) Iraq, yet when rwnjs look at the lies they see something like “tom daschel is a pussy! he made us go to war!” or “bushee lied repeatedly reads as Dems = Hitler!” I am certainly not immune to this I am sure, but being aware of a physiological bias to the fallible human mind’s machinery can (perhaps) help one rise above narrow linear thinking. Sometimes I call it “lazy thinking” but in some cases it is perverse, intentional, disbelief in the cold cruel facts of reality.
Oooops. Why bother to address the rwnj crowd with intelligence and maturity when posts like tv’s make a mockery of reasoned ‘debate’. There is no real debate with extremists, the rwnjs will simply disbelieve (just like their symbiotic twins the ienjs). I would wager a year’s income rwnj never bothered to look up “office of special plans” then compare the dire pronouncements of WMDoom!!!!! with actual reality.
reality – no WMDs
rwnj bullshit – we found em! errr, uh, they are in Syria and Iran! um, Saddam was Evil™? uhhhhhh… FREEDOM!!!!! (repeat endlessly)
naaaah, better to use sarcasm, irony, wit and humor (mixed with a google-referenced dose of Reality) to pop tv’s jingoism, rwnj’s blinkered partisanship, craig’s false equivalencies and lefty, well, I am still working with lefty’s doctors to come up with a mix of anti-psychotics that will work for more than three posts in a row.
– – – –
I now return you to shcb’s urgent debate about the relative merits of Ginger vs Mary Anne.
January 25th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Steve, welcome aboard. In case you haven’t noticed it, the crowd here is basically divided into 3 groups.
The Right Wing Nut Jobs
War is good! Bush is God! Libs is Evil™ flibberty gibbid!
The Wafflers
Please folks, lets just have a nice chat and pretend the last 8 years haven’t happened. Tea anyone?
The Awakened
hfs! w has been nothing short of a giant clusterfuck disaster for America! the Ds don’t look like much, but they are better aligned on my issues that the Rs.
January 25th, 2008 at 9:01 am
well inky, at last we agree on something :) except I would clasify the awakened as the left wing nut jobs, but I certainly fit the rwnj
January 25th, 2008 at 9:47 am
so did you read the wiki entry on the Office of Special Plans?
doubt it
you can’t face the awful reality
January 25th, 2008 at 9:57 am
I didn’t read the wiki site but I did start to read a bit on it this morning on another site, but I had to get to work, I’ll look into it more this evening. My first impression is it was similar to Hillary’s panel she put together for health care in the Clinton years, but I literally read maybe 3 paragraphs. I’m generally not in favor of these blue ribbon panels or whatever the current tag is but I will look into it. It was new to me though, thanks for bringing it up.
January 25th, 2008 at 10:19 am
There are Wafflers here? I don’t think I could identify even one who fits into that category.
What I was talking about was the diversity within the Awakened crowd.
January 25th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
I thought this particular quote from my calendar is on topic:
“See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”
George W. Bush
Athena Middle and High School
Tuesday, May 24, 2005 in Rochester, NY.
January 25th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
so what was he talking about when he said this?
January 25th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
LOL. You name it buddy, he was talking about it.
January 25th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
InkyDude, I sure hate being the only partisan tool here. Da pain, Boss, da pain. And yes, I called (screamed, nope, I don’t scream at children, even if they’re spoiled little brats ranting incoherently or playground bullies) you an asshole on a single occasion a couple of years ago – appropriately, since you were being a simple-minded asshole – and you’ve still not recovered. I’ve tried to be careful not to inflict another such devastating injury since then.
In your little diatribe about your use of sarcasm, irony, wit and humor to disguise your inability to communicate using the English language, you failed to mention that they only work when combined with your consistent misquotes, omissions, distortions, exaggerations and outright lies.
January 25th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Amen to that. We shouldn’t have to be talking about the stupidity of this administration — we should be debating the kinds of policy issues that define the course of nations that don’t have enormous fuck-ups to deal with first.
And enki, with the “three groups” thing? No.
January 25th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
And actually, let’s see if lies.com is a more pleasant place without shcb or enkidu for a while.
January 25th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
ymatt,
your call on that, if you want my opinion (suspect not) that is not a good idea. at least let ’em know how long “a while” is, and perhaps consider limiting to one two or a few messages a day, or a few lines or something rather than a total ban.
I appreciate shcb’s stupidity, as it gets me to rethink whether normal people might alsobe similarly misinformed. surprisingly, i sometimes find they are tending that way and a good discussion brings them around… in any event it’d be nice for a change if 50% of the threads were not taken up with high school stories or the merits of gopher hunting from shcb… as for enk, he makes me laff, but the abusive stuff is good because it makes me look less abusive of the rwnj’s.
just my opinions, hope that didn’t get me banned.
you’ll notice my 911 posts have been selfcensored despite some damn interesting news on that front lately, only because it seems most do not want to hear about the LIES told about hat, after all, Iraq was a domino a few steps below 911… goodnight.
January 25th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Nah, I’m not even really sure how long I want it to be, but I want to see what happens. Their charm has worn off.
I have no interest in banning people for their opinions, and I don’t feel all that wonderful for having banned at all, but I’m beginning to see too much drowning out of rational argument by their insistence on pursuing argument seemingly purely for the purpose of drawing ire or picking a fight. My only rule is to respect others — which doesn’t mean you have to agree with them or even be nice to them.
Your 911 spam restraint is noted, and appreciated however. :)
January 26th, 2008 at 11:08 am
ymatt, putting 2 guys in your own microcosmic version of Gitmo, with no specific charges and for an indeterminate length of time, is a good start I guess. Just a few more people to silence and you should be left only with charming people who follow your rule. Today’s congressional leaders want your formula.
January 26th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
TV,
seems the model fits the bush admin and their appointments better than congressional leaders, as i don’t see many dissenters around bush
regardless the 2 guys in micro gitmo are free to go anywhere they like, and could probly find a way to return under an alias
but the guys in gitmo aren’t even free to stop breathing
and if the congressional leaders did find ymom’s formula, they could be voted out soon enuf, but we can’t do squat about the micro tyrant here.
that is the reality, so quit yer whining.
January 26th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Actually, fellow partisan tool, I was whining about the whining of Democrat congressional leaders’ attempts to silence the whining of right-wing radio hosts.
January 26th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
ymatt, I think I found something that may explain our ‘friend’ shcb.
He’s not a RWNJ, he’s an RWA. Perhaps you should keep him locked in micro gitmo a little longer:
January 26th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Here is one of the links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_Authoritarianism
January 26th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Go Obama!
January 27th, 2008 at 10:38 am
I just unbanned shcb and enkidu. If I’m honest with myself, it’s because I don’t like being in a position of being resented, and — joking aside — you guys probably do a bit resent the presence of a moderator. If this were a larger community, if I were more consistently active in it, or if I had more clearly cut reasons for banning them, I might feel differently. In this situation, I feel like I’ve just been silly.
That said, I guess I’d like to make something clear, and make a bit of a plea. I didn’t ban to eliminate non-liberal points of view (ask enkidu) — that’s either shcb’s persecution delusion or his attempt at reverse psychology. I didn’t ban to put arbitrary rules on discussion (if you look back, I feel I’ve gone out of my way to try to broaden the discussion generally). So what’s my problem?
After I banned shcb, he posted a couple of items to his own sparse blog explaining that he wasn’t surprised, because he likes to “rib” liberals, and because liberals are intolerant. He then goes on to use this as a launching board to project all sorts of generalizations onto my motivations and onto to the weaknesses of “liberalism”.
I could give you counterexamples to every one of the points made, but let me just assure you, shcb, that all of that is nonsense.
I have this personal philosophy that one should always try to improve things, to make progress, or at least not impede it. In everything I do, I try to repay the money, time, or trust I’m given with a contribution that is greater (or at least equal) to it. To do otherwise, I feel, is to be a parasite.
I believe shcb and enkidu come here because they like to provoke. On the internet, we generally call this “trolling”, and it is the oldest reason to start banning in the book. To me, it comes down to wasting the time and attention of others for the sake of entertainment, to provoke fury and outrage for amusement or to provoke heated arguments to pass the time. If it were me doing it, I would be ashamed and regretful that I had spent my time and others’ in provoking arguments that aren’t even meant to sway the opinions of others or to create better understanding. I would be ashamed that rather than contributing to others in some small part, I had been a parasite.
In the health care debate, my opinion was changed due to some excellent arguments made by others here. On shcb’s blog, he claims that one of his posts that I deleted might have “struck a chord”. Again, let me assure him that the kind of argument he makes could never sway my opinion, because it isn’t meant to. I have had many debates with people whose opinions skew far to the conservative end from mine (Texas is good for that), and I have at times modified my opinions as a result and was thankful for it. If I had gone into those arguments with the assumption that these people were “conservatives” and thus clearly had no opinions that could be worthwhile, I would only be wasting their time and mine. And as long as shcb feels the need to simplify differing opinions to “liberalism” and cast all manner of baseless aspersions on these straw men, he is the debate equivalent of a school boy flicking somebody’s ear until they lash out.
So perhaps I’m extra sensitive to this because it’s nearly a moral issue for me, because I’ve been coming to lies.com for a very long time, and because I feel the political debate today is so important but is so often missing in mass media, discarded in favor of sensationalism and partisanship. But I’m not sure I’m interested in trying to keep the parasites away by force.
So my plea is this: Consider your opinions, because even the most misguided have thought they were in the right at the time; and think about how you use your words because time is scarce. Don’t be a parasite.
January 27th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Amen.
January 27th, 2008 at 11:22 am
If anyone is interested here is what Matt is talking about.
http://shcb.blogspot.com/2008/01/ban.html
January 27th, 2008 at 11:25 am
This might illustrate differences of opinion, to some people what you have is a noble endeavor but for others, perhaps those who more than just a little history, all you have is a criminal running from truh and ‘justice’.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/01/25/bush-misinterprets-painting-or-does-he/
January 27th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Be sure to read on to include the comments, especially the 3rd one (Steve) that exposed the author as an idiot and a partisan fraud.
January 27th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Yeah, if Steve is correct that’s a whole lot of making something out of nothing (and it kinda is anyway). Lame.
January 27th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
I’m sorry, but all I could think of as I was reading that was Peter Falk with his arms crossed, looking at that velvet painting in the despotic dictator’s gallery with his one good eye in the original In-laws, saying something like “ stunning, your Excellency, absolutely stunning”. I may have to go rent that tonight.
January 27th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
yes, it’s totally making something out of nothing. even if the story was 100% true, it is only amusing (droll, lame) and means nothing other than the point that the author made: that partisian people will see the same set of facts and come to different conclusion
if steve is right, I will never again put my faith in mainstream media (or at least AOL), to sift out the lies; misled again…
January 27th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
I really enjoyed Peter Falk in “Wings of Desire” A story set in Berlin about angels who stand silently observing, perhaps influencing, providing solace, always experiencing the thoughts and emotions of living humans. An angel falls in love with a girl and discovers the joy of experience firsthand.
ymmv
January 27th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
No Knarly, this is indicative of the depth of hatred for Bush some (many? I believe your words were millions) on your side possess. This guy is somehow tying the President’s interpretation of art to one short stop by De Hague on the train ride to the gallows. And you felt the need to post it here. You know Hitler’s beloved hound was a GSD, and ole’ SHCB sleeps with 4 every night hmmm….
January 27th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
shcb,
you have me confused with someone else.
yes, maybe millions of others around the world hate him, i currently think he’s less hatable and much more comical in a very pathetic arrogant sort of way, that is what i think is best about the story: just one more thing that bush interpreted 100% wrong (or not as steve points out) and might have avoided by asking someone to do a little research on other interretations or uses of the painting. Hindsight is 2020, like the Iraq debacle which was to be a short, cheap (it would pay for itself! they said!) and noble escapade into Iraq. Except with Iraq, there were millions of people who had 20/20 foresight and bush was dead wrong (it has been anything but short, cheap and noble.)
So the only thing outstanding is your little baiting tactic: “And you felt the need to post it here.” Even if I were a dog, that would be a pathetic anthropomorphising of your own motivations. I felt no “need”, I simply thought it illustrated a point about “partisians” which was being discussed in the posts previous and since it stuck me as funny it seemed nice to share it with others here who might find it amusing too. After analysis, it is now totally bereft of any humour so you can let it go, shcb, no harm was intended to your ‘courageous’ and ‘most honorable’ commander in shit.
January 27th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
2)
2)
Put 2 and 2 together
January 27th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
So, you are saying that 2 plus 2 equals 5? Wrong! Or was that parady? If it was, that’s pretty deep for you shcb!
I getit now, that was a humble parady of your fellow RWA’s biased citicisms of Michael Moore tactics. You make those RWA trained monkeys look even sillier than they do on their own! well done my friend.
At least Michael Moore keeps the context of what someone is saying! In your (half) quote of me you have *conveniently* left out the fact that this was put forth as a statement of my opinion, but that rather it was merely – and more clearly – it was my comparing the positions of “some people” as compared to “other’s” who *perhaps* “… [know] more than a little history…”
So as usual, you’ve demonstrated through brilliant parady how your fellow RWA “put 2 and 2 together” AND CONCLUDE: “WHY HECK RICK, EVry’un KNOWS THETs 5!”
January 27th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Actually, in this instance, #2 + #2 = either 2 (statements) or 1 (conclusion), but not 5. New math?
January 27th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
And, Michael Moore keeps the context of what someone is saying!? His failure to do that was the basis of most criticism of his “documentaries”.
January 28th, 2008 at 5:29 am
Never murder a man who is committing suicide.
Woodrow Wilson
January 28th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Sorry ’bout that.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:38 am
The funny part is that I was composing a response in my mind about liberal friends that used to use the ploy of “well there are some who would say…” so they could have a fall back position if the debate got too hot. Then they would just say, “well I’m not saying that, that is just what others say”. And then Knarly uses that exact tactic and steals my thunder before I could get pen to paper. Curses. Oh well, back to the suicide.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:46 am
knarly and NL, this one’s for you:
http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=261254
perhaps I’ll be banned for pointing this out (or more likely be called a racist such n such, so on and so forth by the Rs that post here)
My wife is Canadian, but her family is of almost pure Dutch extraction. They take pride in, and often repeat the homily “Cheap as a Dutchman”. Next time they tour the US south, I’ll ask Grandpa to put an extra pfennig or two on the tab.
It also reminded me of that comedy audio bit “I am Canadian!” (from molson?) and the parody versions, esp “I am Texan” and “I am an American”
Alas, any use of humor or satire seems to be a ban-able offense.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
My father and both of his parents was born in Oostmahorn, and my first cousin Pieter has been Burgemeester of Kollum for several years now. If the service is especially good surely your grandpa could spare a groschen, or perhaps a guilder, although all have been replaced by the Euro. (Intended as humor, hopefully not a bannable offense) Damn, we could be cousins through marriage, Inky.
I was lost in most of the article, not being aware of any racist applications of the term. I assure you, Knarly and NL, that any earlier references I might have made using the term were intended to reflect your citizenship in the sovereign nation of Canada.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
LOL! Wow, I really had no idea about that code word!
I have to tell you though, judging by what I have seen this past year in America with respect to racism, it’s not looking good. There are definitely some stored up tensions, particularly in the South. Beatings, nooses and now, code words?!
It doesn’t give me much hope for Obama pulling it out. Sigh.
Just let your friends or colour know that everywhere else on the planet being called Canadian is a huge compliment. You should also let them know that if they’re feeling victimized by their fellow countrymen, they are welcome up here where we pay no attention to one’s race, religion or sexual orientation. If they’re hardworking, compassionate people, they are welcome, just as they were during America’s slavery period. There is no need for anyone to have to put up with bigotry in the 21st century.
And you’re right, it was “Joe” from the Molson commercial, I AM CANADIAN.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
“friends of colour” (yep, the Canadian spelling)
January 28th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Dude, shut up. I unbanned you, and I thought I made it clear that I won’t be doing any moderation in the future. That means you can at least have the dignity to stop playing victim.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
so “shut up” is now reasoned debate?
you flamed [in another thread] that Hillary is “a team killing fucktard (sic)”… is that reasoned debate?
I suggest you ban yourself for a few days
get over yourself, o wait… you already said that too
January 28th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
I would submit that there is a need for an active moderator in the absence of self-moderation by participants.
As it stands now, ymatt has allowed shcb and TV, by default of their aggressive RWA personalities, to create the laws within the Lies jungle? (I had hoped we had learned from the mainstream media where that leads (i.e. into the Fox’s den) but alas, it seems ignorance reigns here.
So let’s see if I got the new laws (rules) straight:
1. It is against the rules to quote out of context but this does not apply to shcb.
2. If the discussion is about partisianship, and someone says “these people say this but these other people say that” then shcb, and only shcb, can pick one of those and accuse the person of belonging solely in that camp.
3. shcb and any follower, e.g. TV, may continue to make posts belittling that straw-man position, and the person who they erroneously attribute it to, as long as they like, even after the accused has offered his real opinion (Bush may not be a criminal but he is certainly a joke!), and long after a full explanation has been provided. Any attempts at explanation will be subject to further ridicule, as per Karl’s modus operandi, e.g. “Swift Boating” strategy.
4. shcb can equate killing muslims with killing prairie dogs with near impunity, because reasonable people will let the subject drop after a time; but if another person mentions that there are people who think that Bush is a criminal while others think Bush is simply ill-advised, well, then shcb and his followers will be allowed to continue making posts ad nauseum on their own misconceptions and raise intentionally inflamatory accusations for as long as they want. All that, regardless of how lame or inconsequential the accused original statements may have been.
Those rules sound like the unwritten rules of playgrounds located in slums. Fortunately I never had to play in those environments and if I did venture there as a kid I would soon leave because the bullying I witnessed looked stupid and NotFun: it felt to me like a very unsatisfying way to play, and despite their bravado those who were picking on the other kids seemed the most unsatisfied with their own lives.
It is not so surprising that I feel the same about what I see on this site, just surprising to me how long it has taken to notice it so clearly.
By the way, I take no offence at Enk’s post on the term “Canadian” being the new racist code for “nigger” as it is simply another reflection on the society in which you live and it has nothing to do with me as a Canadian. NL comments on that topic were good too.
and Enk, ymatt is right, you can stop playing victim now.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
never mind my last comment Enk, , I see from your last post that you have already.
January 28th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Dear yMom,
Perhaps this will get me banned again, for it may not comport with your unique (and evidently capricious) sense of equivalence, debate and decorum. Reasoned debate, huh? So you snap one day and with no warning just ban a couple posters because you don’t like what they have to say or the way they say it (same thing). That doesn’t sound very reasonable.
I don’t agree with a great deal of what shcb has to say and I think it would be fair to say vice versa. Yet I would defend to the death his right to say it. tv and lefty are just too whacked or too set in their blinkered partisanship to be useful for anything other than comic relief (of which they supply plenty!) I have been on the intertubes since the very beginning, and the Troll rule is: If you don’t like what someone has to say, ignore it.
I read this blog for years before sending my first post. I just shook my head for ages while tv and craig (no so much really) and that patriot guy spewed all sorts of nonsense, but kept coming back because I enjoyed jbc’s skewering of topics (and lately the podcasts/links). But I kept my silence, until one day back in ’05 (?) I read a post by tv that stated definitively “we found the WMDs!!!”. Really? That would be big news and change my opinion of the whole Iraq boondoggle. So I very politely asked tv to back up his claim. His list of world threatening WMDs was laughable, and his proofs pathetic. Easily disproved and I politely (at first) laid out the case that his WMDs weren’t on the news because there wasn’t anything like real weapons. Certainly nothing to go to war over. But the funny thing is tv wouldn’t take any proof provided by a seditious treasonous librl. He denied and denied and denied, and has stated elsewhere on this blog long after that ‘debate’ that he won the debate and we did find the WMDs. Which is why just about any post by Inky provokes tv to paroxysms of (usually incoherent) rage. And why I have stopped merely skipping over rwnj drivel at lies.com and actually started saying something.
No I think I was banned because I dared to make fun of yMom’s bullshit (just quoting from the lies.com manifesto, if it is good enough for jbc, then I do hope I can use similar adult language without calling down the wrath of yMom, or perhaps he’ll ban jbc too). I would like to say that yMom’s debating with conservatives in his circle of friends and family is admirable, but perhaps flawed (I have no idea just how radical his R relations might be). If someone believes the sun goes around the earth, there is no debate. There is no equivalency. One ‘side’ is wrong. There is only the truth. And the sad truth is that the present day Republican machine is a hideous fun house mirror version of the decent, good, bedrock American conservatism that may still exist somewhere down under all the horrors the likes of Bush, Reagan, Delay, Rove, macaca, et al have shoveled over this country and this planet. Sadly yMom seems to think that bipartisanship (which was defined as “date rape” by the R majority) and docile ‘debate’ with hardened radicals is going to change extremist minds. As I have stated over and over (and here again), I don’t insist that everyone take a satyrical approach to extremism, but I also deny yMom’s insistence that my posts must be by her ‘yMommy’s De Queensbury rules’. Stop bringing a spork to a gun fight. Radical rightwingnutjobbery is killing America.
Wake. The. ****. Up. Already!
I am voting in a primary for the first time in my life (politics haven’t been that important in the past). I like all the top Dem candidates, and after a lifetime of ind/na voting, I have never, ever, seen such a sorry crop of Republicans. I am leaning towards Obama, but worry that he may not have the stones to actually fight the entrenched power groups. But after hearing yMom call Hillary a (and I quote directly from your post to “Kleiman on Drum on Obama” on 1/23/08 at 6:23am) “total team-killing fucktard” (btw will you ban yourself for such a post?) I have been looking at Hillary more closely. Some of her policies are closer to Edwards’ than Obama’s from some of the reading I have been doing of late. If Edwards went for VP on Obama’s ticket I would be satisfied that we would have decent leadership for the next 8 to 16 years. Super Tuesday is coming up, haven’t decided yet…
Tell you what yMom, I’ll meet you half way. I will give up my tongue in cheek “Rethuggles™®©” and refer to the GOP as “R” from now on (which you may note doesn’t exactly preclude one from filling in the R as either term, both accurate). I’ll lighten up on shcb (as long as he actually stops cherry picking his info from conservapedia) and decent Rs. If craig or any newcomers want a spirited – if occasionally profane – discussion then I am all for it. But expect me to dish the radical rwnjs like tv and lefty the cold hard (rhetorical) slap across their piehole every single time they tender such ridiculous bullshit as “jimberjawed flopper rejuicnik” or tv’s “classic Xmas’05 ‘libs is Evil!™” tirade. Radical rwnjs just can’t admit they were ever wrong. Notice I am not even asking you to come halfway off your ‘authoritah’ kick, just don’t tase me, bro! Censorship is wrong.
Calling me a parasite just lowers you to the level of shrubco. Would you ban parasites like John Stewart? Colbert? (I can see how his schtick might confuse you). shrubbie ‘joked’ about being the dictator. Well, you now have a chance to show whether you are a tinpot dictator -OR- someone who stands up and fights for America. All of it. Even the “fucktards” you disagree with.
enkidu
January 28th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Knarly,
I think this is what drives Matt crazy so I will just take those hits, most of them had some validity, although I certainly don’t want any special privileges. It seems I may have not been clear enough on a few of the points you mentioned. Since this thread still has some reasonable discussions going on I would be happy to clear any misunderstandings up on a dead thread if you wish. The only one I wish to dispute is that TV is my follower, to the contrary, he is more well spoken and intelligent than I and was here first. If anything I am his follower.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Enki… you’re cracking me up here. What part of “I won’t be doing any moderation in the future” did you not understand? Why are you trying to bargain with me? Curse, yell, be as adolescent or offensive as you want for all I care, but I’m not doing shit about it unless you start threatening violence. My whole stated problem with you in the first place that prompted the (brief) ban was your insistence on picking useless fights, and now apparently you’ve decided to make me your nemesis even though I’m telling you to do whatever you want. Hilarious.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Also, I stand proudly behind my “teamkilling fucktard” comment, sir. It is fitting and appropriate to her behavior.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
shcb,
Okay, TV is not your follower, it just appeared so in the past few posts but as you state it is not an accurate statement, hence this recant.
As for going off into a dead thread with you to discuss the arcane topics you’d been hoisting on me and which I’d been throwing back: No, because it’s better to just drop some things.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Inky, in reviewing the posts from ’05, I can’t seem to find examples of my paroxysms of incoherent rage that interrupted your reasoned, bi-partisan discussion, although I did find my repeated admissions that the list of “found” WMD was faulty. Since you missed it the first time(s), I repeat it now. Also, since I’m the only one here who tends to fly off on incoherent rants, I apologize. As for your meaningful applications of R nicknames and their trademark symbols, I encourage you to continue using them.
I am, however, relieved that I’m not considered a stereotypical radical rwnj, having repeatedly admitted being wrong. ;-)
January 28th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
yMom,
I see why Enk’s post is hilarious to you, taken from your perspective of his having a baby tantrum over nothing, since you’ve given him his freedom here. It is hilarious from that perspective.
But try reading it again, putting aside anything personal, because the points he makes about why fights the rwnj’s in their own gutters with their own weapons has a lot of validity. Especially TV not listeneing to anything a liberal might have to say because liberals are like “Canadians” to a rwnj, they are not the beloved figures of authority that all good RWA’s idolize.
(Refer to the wiki article on RWA for further insight.)
January 28th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Kudos Knarly, I’m sure they will resurface in one form or another in the future anyway. But one at a time then will be easier than a gaggle now.
January 28th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Er, I’d urge him to couch his points in something other than a screed about my apparent dictatorial tendencies.
January 28th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
ymatt,
I agree. (And I had no idea you were so sensitive.)
Ergo: Enk, feel free to elaborate on the uselessness of reasonable debate with rwnj’s (or more accurately the RWA personality types), but please recognize it is simply a waste of time diss’n yMom. Remember, she gave birth to you, you wild little man, so a few kind words might be in order occasionally.
January 28th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
I’m not sensitive, I’m just efficient. :)
January 28th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
actually you have deleted many of my posts
banned me for no reason other than some sort of bogus ‘equivalency’ for banning shcb?
if the tin pot fits…
o, btw, can I borrow the car tonight yMom? thx
January 28th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
TV doesn’t listen to anything a liberal might have to say? Hmmm – give an example.
Examining the three attitudinal clusters used to define RWA folks, from my perspective the criteria appear to define LWA folks. If necessary, I can easily match the author’s bullets point-by-point, giving examples to illustrate.
Based on discussion in the wiki comment section, the author of the entry essentially admits his working relationship with Daily Kos… partisan, by chance? He even admits that the title of the article is misleading, while proclaiming the contents to be valid. Reminds me of a Dan Rather episode… If this clown wants to stereotype all conservatives with an acronym, who cares? If his ideas are adopted in sloganeering tactics, it seems to place the sheep-like users in the LWA arena.
January 28th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
I see….
1) from your RWA perspective there is a denial that it can apply to yourself, so it must apply to your perceived adversaries, point by point, and you can prove it (don’t bother to demonstrate, I believe you can – or at least that you can convince yourself);
2) the author of the wiki entry (not necessarily the prof’s who conducted the surveys) is linked to Daily Kos therefore it is partisian therefore it is invalid;
3) the author is honest enough to admit the title has a problem, therefore he has admitted a weakness therefore he is not an authoritative source therefore the ENTIRE article is not valid,
4) these weak criticisms reminds you of a Dan Rather episode (let’s see, that be the one where the history of Bush’s service record was exposed, however one (of many, many documents and credible testimonies) turned out to be bogus therefore all mainstream media reporting of the dishonorable service history were banished from public record in a Rethuglican feeding frenzy over that one pathetic piece of paper, destroying a distinguished career which exhibited more bravery in two days in Vietnam than your Commander (who is now in shit) has exhibited in his entire life)… so, because it reminds you of that succesful Rovian attack on Dan Rather, you are confident to conduct any similar atack on that article, therefore, predictably, the article is not valid;
5) you then dehumanized the author with the derogatory label of “clown”, which has the pleasing effect of making you feel superior to him but the main motive is to make him seem less human than you so that you appear to ahve more authority in setting up a straw man lie (“If this clown wants to stereotype all conservatives with an acronym…” FIRST, who knows what he wants he could just as easily wish that this whole analysis did not fit so well and SECOND he is not stereotyping ALL conservatives, just the ones that exhibit a particular sort of intentional self delusional bullheaded ignorance, there are lots of conservatives that do not fit that stereotype in fact most that I know in person do not)… so because you called him a clown and you feel superior nothing he says and nothing said in his defence makes any difference to you, therefore the author and his article and anyone who supports him* is not valid.
With the stage set in #5, your coup de grace is a pre-emptive strike against anyone who would attempt to raise awareness of the RWA personality trait. But kudos to you, because what we are talking about is a personality trait, and the article itself makes clear that the personality type could also maifest itself in left wingers too (citing the example of communists.)
That the focus has been on the RWA dominating American conservative politics is, fom my perspective of an outsider observing your country, entirely appropriate to the Rovian tactics and shift in power structures that we’ve seen since 2000 (and before).
*do I support the author? Frankly, I just skimmed the article yesterday and it seemed partly related to the debate about banning shcb so I presented it here, now that I have your opinion (ahem) I’ll go back and take a closer look. By the way, I fully realize the paradox that the more you object to the article the more it seems to apply to you, in that way it is a lot like Swift Boating someone, so I’ll try not to hold that against you too much…
January 28th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Funny… and I like clowns.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
TV,
I’ve re-skimmed the wiki article at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism
but I will not bother conducting a critical analysis. It’s enough that it is useful for establishing a simple picture (stereotype if you must, much like shcb’s annoying habit of determining where people sit before figuring out where they stand.)
Even if the RWA wiki article is grossly in error such that it is little better than a some Popular Mechanics 911 hit piece, well at least the wiki article serves a useful function. It highlights traits so that (a) those who exhibit the traits may reflect upon themselves and so that (b)those who find themselves defined as an adversary by those people exhibiting the traits can frame explanations in terms that a rwnj (oops I mean a RWA) might attempt to understand. Whereas, the latter (i.e. the PM 911 hit piece) serves no useful function except to further illustrate how the illusion of authority will trap the thinking of a RWA. I suspect all that is unintelligible and thus hilarious to you RWA types.
So to move forrwards TV, I will accept most of your highly specious criticisms of the wiki RWA article, while at the same time acknowledge that it fits to a tee what I’ve experienced corresponding with you clowns on Lies (and TV, yes, I like clowns too.)
Now, to bring the RWA discussion back to our topic: “The Center for Public Integrity on the Bush Administration’s Iraq Lies”, here’s a little test.
HOW many RWA traits can you spot in this video clip between the 3:25 and 5:15 minute mark?
(Hint – to “Uncritically accept that many problems are ‘our most serious problem'” is but one of the most obvious of the traits illustrated.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz9Ew1UBBj0
The rest of the short video discusses minor issues, such as IMPEACHMENT…
January 29th, 2008 at 6:52 am
In order to accept the findings of these “two non-profit journalism groups”, the Non-Profit Center for Public Integrity (certainly sounds honest!):
1st, one must accept this “study group’s” obvious definition of a lie and their characterization of statements that didn’t come to fruition as lies. You do; I don’t – choices.
2nd, one must accept that this “study group” entered into their “research” objectively, seeking factual truth. You do; I don’t – choices.
3rd, one must accept any analysis by Keith Olbermann, Rachel Madden (of Air America, MSNBC political analyst), MSNBC, Wolf Blitzer, Jack Cafferty, CNN, etc. as being unbiased. You do; I sure as hell don’t – choices.
4th, one must accept as valid, unbiased and honest the findings of any “study group” that is funded to any degree by George Soros. You do; I don’t – choices.
5th, you must accept as valid and unbiased any film compiled and distributed by a political candidate (in this instance, Ron Paul) in a campaign year. You do; I don’t – choices.
6th, you must accept as “balanced” the email letters selected for public viewing in response to Cafferty’s “Question of the Hour” – 7 letters, none finding a problem with the study group or its conclusions. You do; I don’t – choices.
(btw, check the email responses on O’Reilly’s show for a similar imbalance – good luck).
I could add many more acceptance criteria, but you get the idea. Yes, I know I’m make assumptions as to your acceptance of criteria, but I assume you concur with premises in the link you provided.
RWA/LWA traits are easily identifiable throughout the film, not just in the 1:50 you specified; Authoritarian submissiveness to the authoritarian aggression of today’s power-hungry leftists, and certainly Conventionalism in accepting the mischaracterizations of LWA premises. There are two sides to every coin, and the coin weighs the same whether heads-up or tail-up – choices.
Olbermann suggests “impeaching after the election, so it’s a completely ‘apolitical’ issue.” Sorry, KeithO, but your suggestion, in and of itself, implies that impeachment proceedings would indeed be polically motivated, only with a little revenge added for good measure. More to the point, in this case the call for impeachment is purely and solely politically motivated, whether in 2004, 2008, 2012, or later. The Dems know it will be correctly perceived as such by all voters, regardless of party preference, and that has surely been a considered criterion in their rejection of impeachment hearings to date.
“The Study” follows LWA guidelines perfectly with their conclusive analysis that: The statements (by this administration) “were part of an orchestrated campaign that effective galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.”
Allow me to provide the fairness and balance from my perspective: This “Study” is “part and parcel to a larger orchestrated campaign that has effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, has led the nation to be bitterly divided under decidedly false assertions.”
January 29th, 2008 at 7:36 am
Enkidu, that article you linked to yesterday re: the new “code word” for the N word is quite the topic around water coolers across the country today. There are letters to the editors in all the major papers. Here is one from the Toronto Star that I particularly liked:
—
As a Canadian born and raised in Toronto and residing in the U.S. for nearly a decade, I can tell you that substituting “Canadian” for the N-word is common practice among white men in many states. I have come across it many times.
In 1998, I worked as a consultant and travelled across the U.S. for work with colleges and universities. On one of my first visits, in Maryland, I was introduced to a large group of white men as a “Canadian.” They all thought this was hysterical. I was surprised, but expected the usual questions about hockey, igloos and French.
Later in the evening, over a few pints, they confided that “Canadian” is used instead of the N-word when “blacks are around,” as it’s so ambiguous. I was offended by this. I was unsure if I was more angry as a Canadian – a white boy from Leaside – or because I was drinking with a bunch of rednecks who throw the N-word around.
As the night continued, I ultimately dealt with the situation in Canadian fashion: Pulling the shirt of one of the mouthy members of the group over his head, I cracked him in the head a few times and suggested if he wanted to be ignorant, he had to choose another country.
My travels have since brought me to every state in the U.S., and I can confirm that “Canadian” means the N-word in several, particularly in the South. Sad but true, eh?
Michael Wymant, New York, N.Y.
—
I like how he utilized the hockey manouver of jerserying that punk and laying it on ’em. This is how I know he is a real Canadian.
January 29th, 2008 at 10:14 am
The jerseying for sure, but also the fact that he took a while to make sure that he had all his facts straight and was actually dealing with racist rednecks and wasn’t experiencing a simple misunderstanding that could be put straight over a few beers, and when that was determined the “lesson” was administered with little malice, much clarity and a brutal brevity. If he wasn’t a real Canadian, the fighting would have started immediately and turned into a brawl that wrecks the whole pub.
January 29th, 2008 at 10:14 am
TV,
It sounds like you’ve put some thought into this, certainly more than I have. Your analogy of “the flip side of the same coin” has a certain appeal here, to me it means that the argument (coin) has a certain value, and the two sides are the partisan views of what the coin is worth. Is that what you were suggesting?
To ensure I understand you, when you disregard comments of LW partisan media figures like those in the video out of hand because of their obvious bias, do you also disregard the comments of RW partisan media figures like O’Reilly, or does O’Reilly hold more credibility for you because he better supports the establishment or authoritative voice?
Lastly, I have a question about the content in the 3:30 – 5:15 segment, particularly the observation (Andrew Card’s?) that a political marketing campaign can’t be launched in August so the selling of the clear, present and growing danger from Iraq was put off for a further three weeks, in other words the critical danger that Saddam posed with visions of mushrooms clouds and all was of paramount importance, but the need to sell the war to the American people at the right time (after August) was a higher priority in order to successfully galvanize the support of the American people. Does that make sense to you?
What about the other issue where bushed linked a critical military bill which was required to prevent another 911, and then attached certain legal protections for long distance phone companies that had to remain in the bill or else he would veto the measure when it came to him, does that make sense to you to?
January 29th, 2008 at 10:17 am
bushed = Bush (oops)
January 29th, 2008 at 10:17 am
to = too
January 29th, 2008 at 11:58 am
You addressed this to TV but I’ll take a stab at it. Do you have any other information? Bill number, timeframe, that sort of thing? The president can’t attach things to a bill, (except for a signing statement) he can send it back to congress and ask them to do it, but that may be nitpicky to your question since the end result is the same. It would seem to me that Bush would naturally sign most any bill that would fight this war, so I would think if anyone was attaching something to a bill to help an unrelated entity it would be his opposition. I will say that this type of thing happens all the time on both sides of the isle, the President even mentioned it last night in the State of the Union speech.
January 29th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Coin – Yes, that’s what I meant – even when the coin is spinning. :-)
O’Reilly – Admittedly I identify better with him because of idealogical similarities, which I think is quite natural, although I don’t accept everything he says at “face value.” It might not be evident to everyone unless they’ve watch him from his beginning on Fox, but he has become more conservative over the years. A natural defensive mechanism resulting from constant criticism? I don’t know why.
The other two topics you mentioned were treated essentially as passing items, and I don’t know enough of the details – time frames, etc. Please link sites if you know them – believe it or not, I do read all linked articles. Out of curiosity and increased awareness, if nothing more – the primary reason I visit Lies.com.
I don’t have time this week to research it fully. I haven’t mentioned it before, but I’m a musician, and get the opportunity the next three nights to work with a world-renowned composer, Frank Ticheli. Five-hour round trips each day, plus rehearsal and performance time, but worth it.
I never visit “right-wing” sites except for ScrappleFace (for the wit/humor) because I already know what they’re saying. I wish Air America was available, but can get opinions from the “other side” just as easily at Lies.com. That probably answers the question of why I get frustrated with Enkidu’s posts – he’s so focused on vengeful insults that the only thing I can glean from his mind is that he hates conservatives. Oh well…
January 29th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
shcb,
It was rferenced in the video I posted within the timeframe, sorry I got no further reference than that. The excercise was not in how it was officiall rationalied the excercise was to look at the big picture and determine whether there was a cognitive disconnect that goes unoticed with RWA hinking tendancies (i.e. Describing one, and then the other distinct item to be of paramout importance without recognizing the logical incongruence.). Feel free to research all you want and report back, but I am growing tired of this thread.
TV,
Sounds reasonable…hope you have a blast with the composer, good luck.
January 30th, 2008 at 9:35 am
screetcher veterinarian: u funny
It IS nice after so many years of reading your screetchy screeds that you are slowly learning to be polite or whatever. Are Ds still Evil™? just checking
thx
January 30th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Ah, so that’s what you have to offer – enlightening!
Please reference at least one example of my stereotyping of all D’s as being “Evil”…… just one will do.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Knarly,
I really don’t put any stock in this RWA article. It is just a random sampling of human traits this author finds repulsive, and since he also finds conservatives repulsive he just tags them on his nemesis. You can find individuals with this set of traits in any group you can put together. He also sees no virtue in any of these traits. Depending on the situation and the line of work an individual has chosen these individual or grouped traits may be beneficial or detrimental to the task at hand.
January 30th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
A spot on summary of the presidency of George W. Bush from the Toronto Sun (A Conservative Paper):
http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Commentary/2008/01/30/4800916.html
Though what we call conservative up here a lot of people down there would call liberal.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:43 pm
and the media’s Iraqi war lies continue:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3255