New York Times announces hiring of Bill Kristol
According to the Politico, responding to criticism over the The New York Times' decision to hire Bill Kristol as a columnist, Times editorial page editor Andy Rosenthal said he doesn't understand "this weird fear of opposing views." But it's not Kristol's "opposing views" that many critics are citing in denouncing the decision. As Media Matters for America documented, Kristol was chief among a handful of conservative commentators who offered highly optimistic predictions regarding the Iraq war's duration, difficulty, and human and financial costs -- even in the face of evidence to the contrary. And Kristol has not limited himself to misinformation on Iraq; Media Matters has documented numerous examples on a variety of topics.
For example:
Kristol falsely claimed of Clinton and Obama: "She hasn't
passed any legislation. He hasn't either."
Echoing White House, Kristol attacked Pelosi for trip to Syria, which
GOP-led delegation also visited
Conservative
pundits attacked Clinton for perjury and obstruction, but now defend Libby
Wallace failed to challenge Standard editors on debunked story
Kristol falsely claimed Dems "renounce[] the use of force"
against "jihadist Islamic threat"
Kristol: I wish
Bush had said "a little more about winning" and "a little less about helping the Iraqis"
Kristol's first Time column contradicted by Time's
own reporting
Kristol repeatedly attacks "critics"
of the Bush administration, yet refuses to name, or quote, a single one
Kristol and Kagan falsely claimed exit polls showed public evenly
split on "pullout from Iraq"
On Fox News Sunday,
Kristol falsely claimed "Missouri, Virginia, Tennessee, Ohio" are "pro-Bush states"
On Fox, Kristol blamed "voters in Florida" for Foley debacle:
"[M]aybe they should have known better"
Kristol
accused Democrats -- not Republicans -- of turning 9-11 anniversary "into a partisan fight";
falsely claimed Bush never attacked Clinton terror policies
Kristol: Democrats oppose Lieberman because he is "pro-American";
Coulter claimed Lamont supporters are "anti-American"
Conservative pundits made wildly wrong claims about how Iraq would
turn out -- what are they saying now about the Middle East?
Kristol falsely claimed Bush "declassified most" of the NIE
Kristol erroneously cited polls; falsely claimed that, since
March, "no new information" Bush misled U.S. into Iraq
Kristol called Britain a "happy ACLU playground" for both "decent
dissidents" and terrorists
After GOP source of
Schiavo memo was confirmed, Hume, Kristol failed to acknowledge their roles in suggesting
Democrats had authored it
Another writer who should be on the staff at The National Imquirer. But the Inquirer requires more truth in their pieces.
It's not that Kristol has a "conservative" voice, but that his record of truthful and accurate portrayals of events is abysmal.
If you're a betting man, bet for Kristol to be WRONG on all facts, and it's a sure winner for you. Same for his "predictions". Of TEN Predictions Kristol makes about what will happen in six months or a year, with the war or with the elections or any other topic ... ALL TEN WILL BE WRONG.
So, it's not so much that Kristol is "conservative", it's that he's a lousy thinker, a reliably (almost comically) terrible analyst, and whatever he says, if taken seriously, will misinform, misdirect, and bamboozle the unwary reader.
This is like the NBA hiring on a high-profile, high salary player who has NEVER SUNK A BASKET. Hiring the chronically incorrect seems a phenomena that strikes only in a partisan media, where the "conservative" label means everything, while accuracy, prudence, and intelligence count for nothing.
The only explanation I can come up with is that The NYT is uncomfortable being one of the only organizations in the country who employs a genuine leftist (Paul Krugman), and they want to make up for it by bringing in a completely discredited radical like Kristol. Who actually respects the view of neocons anymore? Haven't economic conservatives and evangelicals moved on past the notion of ideological fanatics hijacking their philosophies by conducting bizarre and hideous foreign policy experiments? We have to raise hell about this one, because we're right.
Lovely. Like giving a teenager a car. You get to spread misinformation at greater speeds.
This will cost subscriptions, a few but will lessen the NY Times credibility. Unless of course, like a typical neocon, Kristol is being suckered into the deal. He says something stupid, which is normal for his publication, to only have the Times fire him, shortly after ...in a highly public scandal of falsifying facts and refusing to provide validation to the Times editors. That would be a scenario I wouldn't mind watching pan out.
But that's just speculation.
So the "liberal" NY Times is hiring the architect of the ill-conceived Iraq war which has claimed the lives of nearly 4000 American and countless Iraqis. I guess the constant bashing by the far right has turned them insane.
"It wasn’t supposed to be this way. You weren’t supposed to be graduating into an America fighting a misbegotten war in a foreign land. You weren’t supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights, whether it’s the rights of immigrants to start a new life, or the rights of gays to marry, or the rights of women to choose. You weren’t supposed to be graduating into a world where oil still drove policy and environmentalists have to fight relentlessly for every gain. You weren’t. But you are. And for that, I’m sorry." -Arthur Sulzberger, Jr.
what do you think of the fact that so much of judith miller's reporting on wmd turned out to be wrong, and was reprinted in papers all over this country?
For you and Solon: my point was that the NYT is hardly some conservative monolith when the publisher feels like that. When it comes down to subjectivity, how do you think he's going to lean when choosing which stories to run?
And, mefirst, what do you think of Bill Clinton saying this: "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."? You're right; the UN was also wrong all those years.
"and if we have to use force". it wasn't needed because the inspectors were in there.
So then you were answering a strawman that no one ever asserted. Ok, got it. Try once in a while to see something in terms other than does it fit in the black box or the white box. Making a claim that the NYTimes is not some monolithically liberal forces as WAS done is not saying it IS a monolithically conservative force.
The date of Clinton's comment was ????
By your logic, Japan is still a threat because Roosevelt said so in 1942.
Yeah, he sure called that one. Couldnt have said it better myself. Was there supposed to be a POINT to you posting that?
Good for the NYT ,diversity and balance is what America needs.
Oh get real.
Sueld is an intellectual vagabond.
Or a comedic genius.
kristol provides "diversity and balance"? i was thinking more blind partisanship and total ignorance of the issues.
Plenty of conservatives blew the call on the Iraq war including Krystal. No question about it. Still, this is an opinion column so really what would have changed besides nothing had he offered a different opinion on the war in the first place? He's so powerful that he could have prevented the war or something?
do you disagree with my assessment?
Diversity?? It sounds like no liberal (posting on this site) is in favor of diversity. Explain to me, if you can, why diversity is such a prized possesion to the many liberals, yet when divesity happens the same liberals complain about unfairness.
Again, if you can explain to me why this isn't hypocrocy at it's finest. (Using the posters who are against this hiring as an example), how can any good liberal complain about a liberal media outlet hiring a conservative? You've spent so much time complaining about how unfair the radio system is to the poor liberal minority, but when the liberal majority in the print media shows the same diversity you DEMAND of radio media, you come here to whine about unfairness and already demanding this persons head on a platter.
Nobody here has said a word about unfairness. Why don't you Mr. tough guy conservative, tell us why it is that when the left pushes back that conservatives (like you) cry like a buncha sissy pant, whiney butts because lefties won't compromise with intractable ideologues?
The left is pushing back? Hmm, I don't see that. But I do see you avoiding my question and trying out your best solon impression.
Please. You act so innocent. So above the fray. Just because you sometimes put your insults in a courteous package doesn't make you reasonable.
I'm ignoring your very stupid, very loaded question. Stop posing leading questions and I, and other posters here, will respond thoughtfully. Short of that, you just sound like you're whining because we won't play nice with those who have no intention of tolerating liberal opinions.
"Stop posing leading questions and I, and other posters here, will respond thoughtfully."
No, you won't. And, neither will any other poster. You want me to ask 'softball' questions so you look good to your friends? The fact is you are afraid to answer the question because it will show how stupid your idea of fairness in media is.
Your weak attempt at a point was stawman stupidity and yes a loaded question. No one is saying the NYTimes shouldnt hire Kristol because he is a conservative nor is the NYTimes monolithically liberal since it ALREADY has conservative editorial writers and publishes such writers. So your very weak attempt was based on a flawed premise. Try to keep up.
And I see even the mighty 'solon' will not answer the simple question; Why do liberals hate diversity in print media but demand it in radio media? Does that one scare you too much, too?
Oh, btw, have you even read any of the replies in this thread?? Every complaint is BECAUSE they are hiring a conservative!
It's been answered several times already.
I showed it was a strawman argument, a logical fallacy by definition. YES I have read the posts the majority of which are arguing that he is WRONG all the time and a shameless propagandist. Show me the post saying the NYTimes shouldnt hire any conservatives until you can cough that one up your loaded, question, based on a strawman is itself a fallacy and showing that IS an answer. Try to keep up. Where is the liberal saying they HATE diversity? Right that liberal doesnt exist so your question was without merit. Anwer me THIS question WHY do you hate American soldiers so much you want them to DIE for Halliburtons profits? Dont dodge now answer the question.
"Anwer me THIS question WHY do you hate American soldiers so much you want them to DIE for Halliburtons profits? Dont dodge now answer the question."
I don't want any soldier dying, (if it isn't haliburton it'll be someone else making a profit) but, I'm certainly not blind to the dangers of terrorists being in control anywhere.
Yeah, neither am I. I just dont get why if the problem is fundamentalist Islamic terrorists we invaded the most secular Islamic nation in the middle east. One that the CIA said DIRECTLY was no threat to commit terrorism against us. Meanwhile I notice you didnt answer my question. Instead you did what I did and denied the legitimacy of the question. A valid tactic since the question was ludicrous and bogus, much like yours.
"I just dont get why if the problem is fundamentalist Islamic terrorists we invaded the most secular Islamic nation in the middle east"
Of course you don't get it. Nobody expects you to understand the intricicies of 'world power politics'.
I fully answered your question. However, you "don't get it" and will remain confused.
So, Phil, short answer: Why did we invade? When can we get out?
Ok, I'll answer.
We invaded because Japan attacked the US military at Pearl Harbor. That allowed us to attack both Germany and Italy without prior provocation by either country.
We, probably, won't leave Germany. It is very strategic to keep our troops there.
Japan attacked us on December 7, 1941 and we declared war on them the next day. December 11, Germany and Italy both declared war on us and we responded in kind.
Al queda declared war on the US and then attacked us. Are we not allowed to respond this time??
We did...in Afghanistan. Then the Neocons decided to start their war for oil in Iraq and abandon the fight against Al Qaeda.
you are amazingly uninformed, philib. the vote in congress on dec. 8 1941 was a declaration of war against japan, and them alone. go read a book, maybe.
I was talking about Iraq.
I understand the intricasies of foriegn policy better than a brianwashed moron like you EVER will. I guess what I should have said is I dont get why braindead, hivemind idiots like you BUY such a transparently moronic EXCUSE as terrorism for invading the most secular Islamic nation in the middle east. I forgot to figure in the STUPID factor. And NO you didnt answer my question any better than I answered YOURS. I asked WHY you hated the troops so much and wanted them dead not DO YOU. You answered a different question because the original was bogus and dumb, like yours. Why do I have to teach you idiots jr high logic? Try to keep up, this isnt your third grade civics class
"I asked WHY you hated the troops so much and wanted them dead not DO YOU."
You DID ask 'why do you'. I said 'I do not'. Using what logic would I answer a 'why' if I 'do not'?
are you going to answer friedbergboy's questions above?
not in this forum.
but you did anyway, with the usual misinformation.
Right in the same way I keep saying that the replies are NOT complaining, despite your ridiculous claim they are, that the NYTimes should not hire a conservative. Rather they are saying that Kristol hasnt been right about anything for years what qualifies him to have a job as an editorial writer? There isnt any arguing the FACT that the NYTimes publishes and employs many conservatives. Show one post saying they shouldnt. What you did was NOT answer the question it was denying the very validity of the question which is EXACTLY the same answer I gave YOU.
"Rather they are saying that Kristol hasnt been right about anything for years what qualifies him to have a job as an editorial writer?"
Are you saying this group of hack posters have more experience in hiring/firing than the nagement staff at the nyt's?? Your insinuation of that FACT seems to give too much validity to the knowledge of anyone posting on this subject.
Your "opinion" of Kristol being 'right' at any given time is purely that..."opinion". If the nyt's knows that he "hasn't been right about anything for years" it sure goes a long way in showing what kind of publication it expects to be and/or has been. And, like I said before, if that is true then he should fit right in.
As for your mundane question; I have no knowledge of the hiring/firing requirements of an editorial writer, but the nyt's does. If you don't like their decision go whine to them. Or, continue whining to your friends of common intellect.
Are you saying this group of hack posters have more experience in hiring/firing than the nagement staff at the nyt's??
Apparently we do.
Your "opinion" of Kristol being 'right' at any given time is purely that..."opinion".
The guy is a nutcase.
As for your mundane question; I have no knowledge of the hiring/firing requirements of an editorial writer, but the nyt's does. If you don't like their decision go whine to them. Or, continue whining to your friends of common intellect.
The NY Times has the right to hire a nutcase but please don't try insult our intelligence. They had the nerve to say this guy is somehow respected and will provide some balance. Who the hєll are they kidding?
"Stop posing leading questions and I, and other posters here, will respond thoughtfully." -me
No, you won't. And, neither will any other poster. You want me to ask 'softball' questions so you look good to your friends? The fact is you are afraid to answer the question because it will show how stupid your idea of fairness in media is." phil
Like I said, you just sound like you're whining because we won't play nice with those who have no intention of tolerating liberal opinions.
Thanks for illustrating my exact point. XOXO
You made a point? Maybe you did, maybe you didn't. However, the fact remains that both the kingpins in this site...the 'brains' behind the outfit (solon and roundhouse) refuse to even attempt to answer my question on your hypocrosy. The good news is, I don't expect any of you to answer it. It would take a thoughtful mind to answer it truthfully. But, I do like reading all your excuses for NOT answering it.
Solon, Roundhouse, ya'll must be pretty powerful people here at MMfA, since you're the "brains" behind this site....as opposed to David Brock, Eric Alterman, Eric Boehlert, or many of the others that actually work for this website.
Apparently, they're "kingpins" ! Nice, how does one get that position?
Looks like tedious work, though, answering questions from the Kingpinheads who don't even realize when their own question is answered.Philib may be the thickest con poster here of all time.
Yeah, I know I'm drunk with the power.
Wait. I still drink my paper towel filtered coffee from a styrofoam cup. I guess this power thing ain't all it's cracked up to be.
I just hope, Solon is livin' better than me.
Whatever, bud. You're the problem and you know it. You posed a faulty premise in your question because you dang well know that Kristol's opinions represent the warmongering propaganda wing of the GOP. He is not a legitimate opinionist in my humble opinion, that's the short and long of it. But hey, it's the right reserved by the NY Times to hire who they see fit. It's MMFA's right to document his lies and our right to comment on his bs. So get over it.
And by all means, keep crying about my lack of consideration of your strawman, I have come to expect such peevish discontent from lunatic fringe republicans like yourself. You're like those Republican royalists who, now that they are out of the majority, suddenly learned how to pronounce the word bipartisan. But only as pertains to getting their way as they give nothing in return except a block and blame radical minority.
Also if you must continue to deny that myself and the folks here are interested in honest, spirited discourse, just consider how we behave toward earnest conservatives like Jeter and particularly Bruce and also Oscar to a large degree. We return the respect they show us.
You're a straight up punk, Phil. You need to get over yourself. This is a progressive site which comes with certain expectations not dis-similar to that of being a guest in a neighbor's home. Think about it.
P.S.
Thanks for grouping in such awesome company as Solon, but I don't merit such high praise.
Wow, you are so stupid. We HAVE answered it. There IS NO HYPOCRISY. We arent complaining about NYTimes diversity as your strawman stupidity suggests. We are asking why someone so wrong so often deserves a pundit job. That is at least the third time we have answered it . I suggest you get someone with a normal IQ to explain all this to you since it is obviously too complicated for your substandard brain. Oh and there are plenty of smart liberals on this site. It seems most dont want to waste their time with your strawmen, stupidity, and obtuse stuborness.
i didn't say don't hire a conservative. that's your spin. i want other opinions. my complaint was about him specifically, and in response to a statement that he brought balance. i've watched kristol on fox sunday, lying away with that chesire cat grin. and you are on the usual kick that liberals dominate the print media. not when a guy like david broder is considered a liberal. he's not. and if no one wanted other opinions on this site, then how come you and your pals are given so much time and space on here. but you're still the victim, right?
"and if no one wanted other opinions on this site, then how come you and your pals are given so much time and space on here. but you're still the victim, right?"
Uhh, you are required by law to give me my time and space on this site. You CANNOT refuse my entry. So, your point is mute.
As for "victim", isn't the PURPOSE (that this site exsists) is to whine about how victimized the left is by the right?
Required by law? what law requires that a web site post points of view other than its own?
wow.
This is a non-profit organization, isn't it? They cannot refuse entry of anyone. Otherwise it is a discrimination issue and they could lose their non-profit status.
That is why they give you the right to flag a comment. That way they can, legally, weed out the differing opinions. Haven't you ever read the 'terms of use' agreement you signed when you joined? That's ok, neither have many others who commonly use profanity and personal insults in their postings.
This is a non-profit organization, isn't it? They cannot refuse entry of anyone. Otherwise it is a discrimination issue and they could lose their non-profit status.
So they can refuse your tired entries, albeit with consequences.
Stop, you're making me cry with your stories of "victimization".
You must cry every time you come to this site, then. Since every article is about the left being victimized by someone.
And you retaliate by crying?
Nope, it's not about the left being victimized.
It's about the truth being victimized.
no one said a poster or posts can't be removed from here. but the point is that you are given plenty of leeway on here. so you have no complaints about your access here.
I'm not the one complaining about access here. I am the one questioning your hypocrosy for demanding diversity in one media outlet, yet denouncing diversity in another. I've noticed not ONE of you have taken on that question, yet.
I'm all for diversity but couldn't they find a conservative who wasn't a nutcase? Isn't there one left?
you: "that way they can, legally, weed out the differing opinions". looks like you are complaining about access, but the fact is no one gets "weeded out" for a different opinion. and i specifically stated earlier that i want different opinions. i don't want all the same. the question here is kristol.
The issue is not fairness or balance, its a simple matter of hiring someone qualified for the job. Kristol has been wrong in virtually every statement he's made regarding the war, and several websites have compiled extensive lists of the lies or fabricated facts he uses to bolster his case. Had you or I brought such a track record of incompetence and dishonesty to a potential employer, we'd be laughed out of the building. When Kristol brings the same "credentials" to "the paper of record" he gets a plum job. And conservatives say they oppose welfare...hah!
Yes you are posting a strawman argument no one is making. Good job there.
Of course your posts don't have to be accepted on here. You might challenge this, but MM could use a number of excuses to exclude you. This is so dishonest of you.
One reason I post here is that other viewpoints are allowed but the threads do get monitored for profanity and off-topic posting and trolling. You might let me know if their are any right-leaning sites that do the same.
"Of course your posts don't have to be accepted on here. You might challenge this, but MM could use a number of excuses to exclude you. This is so dishonest of you."
Yes, they could. And every reason not within their 'terms of use' could be a reason for a discrimination suit. I'm surprised more of you don't know more about this issue. Do none of you know anything about discrimination?
no, since you are not being discriminated against, which was your claim.
They don't have to even have threads at all. And I doubt very much that you would get very far with a discrimination suit. If you go off-topic regularly, that's a fair reason to get banned. according to terms of use. Egads, most of us could get canned under those terms...
Bill Kristol is the topic, right?
" If you go off-topic regularly, that's a fair reason to get banned. according to terms of use. Egads, most of us could get canned under those terms... "
Yes, but how many of the liberals are actually canned? How many of the "trolls" as many term them, get canned? No need to answer, I visually SEE how many liberals do NOT get canned (who regularily violate the 'tou' agreement). And, by the many comments referring to past conservative voices that are now gone, I can deduce that conservative voices are regularily prohibited from expressing their opinions.
"Bill Kristol is the topic, right?"
Yes, and so is the hiring/firing practices of liberal news media outlets, and the excuses used to achieve both. Are you saying my current questions and statements don't fit within the topic?
i can tell you two liberals who were banned, coop and sue. and there was reason, especially in coop's case.
The fact is that Kristol is not a professional writer in any sense of the word.
Just a hack who lies distorts.
So, what are you people upset about, then?? He will fit right in at the NYT's.
And, that's what I've been saying all along, that you don't want this guy hired because he's a conservative (hypocrits), not because he isn't qualified for the job. Because being a "hack" certainly qualifies him to work at the NYT's.
Maybe he and Judith Miller can hang out. Do you think Kristol was a good choice for a conservative columnist or do you think there were better ones?
"Required by law?" You can't really be stupid enough to believe that, can you?
"Uhh, you are required by law to give me my time and space on this site. You CANNOT refuse my entry. So, your point is mute."
First of all it's moot, not mute.
Secondly, are you referring to the fairness doctrine by any chance? LOL, anyways what happened to "free market capitalism"? I don't see you complaining to the likes of BillOReally.com or Insanity Hannity??
Here is some advice, it's a PRIVILEGE for you to post here, so relish in it. You do NOT, however, have a RIGHT to space or time on this website, seeing that you don't own this website nor pay there bills {That's Hillary's Job ;-), yes.. I'm joking}
WOW, what law? You are beyond delusional. And NO the purpose of this site is to show how much the conservative media LIES and DISORTS we leave the whining and snivelling to you conservatives that just HATE when we do that.
Typical right winger - they neither read nor understand the Constitution or the law. I wonder if he thinks Bill O'Reilly is violating the law when he dumps, bans and threatens those whose posts he doesn't agree with. Hey, show us liberals that you conservo-nuts really are people of true conviction, sue Bill-o, why dotcha!
BTW, I think the NY Times should have hired Coultergeist - the blather's the same but she looks better than Little Bill in a black sheath dress.
there have even been several instances on here of o'reilly cutting off the mike on his show when someone says something he doesn't like.
God you people are the largest group of whiners I've ever seen!
BOR can hire/fire/ban whoever he wants. So can the nyt's. When EITHER of them have a 'tou' agreement that states otherwise then you have a complaint. This site has a 'specific' list of reasons for eliminating people you don't like AND a process for achieving it. However, any 3rd grader knows that if you discriminate based solely on whether my political opinion differs from yours, then you open yourself up to a discrimination suit. And, since I don't regularly break the rules (as many of the current posters do) I have no fear of being weeded out (legally). But, of course, they don't have that fear either, since this site will NOT remove a liberal poster for breaking the rules of use agreement (huh, solon?).
Maybe you think discrimination and the unfairness act only count when liberals get the short end of the stick? That's what I think. I think none of you have the fortitude to accept others in spite of their differences.
i gave you an example of a liberal poster who was removed, coop.
Just like the MRC? They are set up in the same manner, maybe you should post comments there. Oh, wait......
"Diversity?? It sounds like no liberal (posting on this site) is in favor of diversity. Explain to me, if you can, why diversity is such a prized possesion to the many liberals, yet when divesity happens the same liberals complain about unfairness."
Diversity! Kristol brings nothing to the table but his lunacy. He should be on the street corner like all the other kooks and not in a major newspaper.
The invective and insults are proof of the lack of want of diversity here.
It is the lack of honesty that invokes most of the insults; the lack of reasoned discourse and study of the issues.
Is this a parody?
If it is, there is not much of a chance many will 'get it'.
Stranger/philib, tag teaming to post
snarky comments regarding their host
Diversity they lack
They defend an old hack
spewing misinformed spin coast to coast.
Wow, strawman arguments to the point of delusion. Who is saying anything like the NYTimes shouldnt be diverse? They already are, you act like there arent already conservative editors writing there. The point is why Kristol? He has been so wrong so much of the last four years what has he done to deserve it?
Then you begin snivelling from another insanely delusional stance. The leftwing print media? So again you try by repititious assertion to show what you WISH were true. The media is not liberal. Feel free to say it is another few thousand times in the vain hope you will magically make it true. I know the hivemind has that assignment but I AM a liberal and they arent carrying my water. Personally had they picked a conservative who hadnt spent the last four years where he rarely said or wrote anything within shouting distance of reality other than his name I wouldnt have made a peep. Trying to turn this into what we ARENT saying is weak.
There are no "absolutes".
But, OVERWHELMINGLY, the New York Times presents news stories in a factual manner. When it comes to "controversial" stories, the New York Times has leaned very RIGHTWING for the past decade.
The Rightwing becomes livid at the writings of Paul Krugman. WHY? Because he is the lone voice of anything NEAR "Liberal" at the Times. As noted earlier, Judith Miller was carrying the Rightwing/Bush water on Iraq invasion at the Times for YEARS.
Editorially, the NYT has taken the Bush side of things since before his election. On the election of 2000, the NYT published one of the most DISHONEST stories in history, with their report on what the "Consortium" found about who actually won the election (it was GORE, but you had to go more than a dozen paragraphs into the story to find the actual truth).
So, any PREMISE that begins with the NYT being "Liberal" or not having "diversity" is a fatally flawed premise that is flat out WRONG.
A comparison with Rightwing RADIO is a hoot as well, because it is monolithically Rightwing partisans. Where is the Paul Krugman in AM radio?
Obviously, the Rightwing wishes to DENY that they have acheived a successful takeover of all MEDIA, because they wish to cling to the VICTIM status of being unfairly treated and unable to "get their message out".
Having the New York Times look at their lineup and determine what they really NEED is another conservative like Kristol, is like Col. Sanders looking at the menu and deciding what they really need is another chicken dish.
Philib, Bruce, et al,
Is this the columnist you would like to see the NYT add or would you rather see a different one?
I would think that if any columnist, no matter what side of the spectrum he or she was on, was wrong, incorrect, or misled the public this much it would be hard for them to find a job, don't you?
Personally, I don't care who the nyt's hires. I don't read the paper. So, I wouldn't know whether they have 1 conservative or 100 conservative writers already on-board.
"I would think that if any columnist,... was wrong, incorrect, or misled the public this much it would be hard for them to find a job, don't you?"
Yes, I do think that. Maybe that's why he found a job so easily with the nyt's? Maybe, just maybe, he's got the perfect resume to qualify for working at the nyt's.
Other than Jayson Blair and Judith Miller, who are you referring to? Who or what is a "credible" news source in your opinion?
I asked the question not because you read or don't read the NYT, but because I am guessing you are hoping that the country becomes more conservative. One good way to do that is to have credible, good writers making policy arguments in the media. Do you think Kristol was a good choice? Who would you have picked to advocate for the conservative agenda? I didn't post that to get into an insult war or hear what you think of the NYT.
Do you find Kristol to be an informative columnist?
"Personally, I don't care who the nyt's hires. I don't read the paper. So, I wouldn't know whether they have 1 conservative or 100 conservative writers already on-board."-phil
Boy are you a hypocritaical jackass. You have no idea what you're talking about in regard the NYT yet you still feel qualified to tell us that it is a liberal rag, have no diverse opinions and "being a "hack" certainly qualifies him [Kristol] to work at the NYT's."
Idiot.
Do you regularly listen to Michael Savage? Then how are you qualified to label him a repulbican?
Weiner is probably more of the nutcase than Kristol.
Phil,
If you could choose a columnist to read, would it be Kristol?
I think the phrase "total ignorance" is an overstatement.
The NY Times should not be mainstreaming a nut job like Kristol. His rantings should stay in that crappy magazine of his.
Come on Bruce. Don't give me that nonsense that he's just one man, he's a critical part of a dangerous and powerful qabal. Kristol is the chairmanan of that imperialist enterprise called Project for a New American Century. His is not mere opinion, his is the propaganda of global conquest. And now, thanks to the New York Times his tentacles are cast even further and his warmongering tripe is legitimized.
How on earth a sensible person like yourself would offer even a modest defense of Kristol is astounding. The man's "opinion" fills coffins with the mangled bodies of real patriots.
"The man's "opinion" fills coffins with the mangled bodies of real patriots."
I didn't know he was President. HOW MANY people are you going to blame the war deaths on? Have you ever thought of blaming the terrorists?? No, I reckon not.
You have no right to blame war deaths on a media outlet any more than I can blame war deaths on the inacurate/misleading portrayal of the war by mmfa and every other liberal media outlet. If you claim to have that right, then I have the right to whine about mmfa misleading stories being the main cause of over 4000 US Military deaths and untold Iraqi deaths.
Perhaps this new hire by the nyt, maybe they will actually bring factual news to the paper and we won't read as much propoganda filled with lies and inuendo that has cost our nation so much in human life and limb.
how come no paper calls attention to the fact that bush has repeatedly lied by saying that he had to invade because saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in? it's barely mentioned.
Maybe because it aint true?? Just a guess as to why all the liberal papers would ignore such a claim. While the fringe thinkers have no problem believing it. Of course, fringe thinkers aren't usually very bright (very one-dimensional).
Well then, by your tortured reasoning the mere fact that it ain't true would be the very reason why the lying "liberal print media" would print it. You're chasing your own tail.
Bush absolutly made that claim. The first time he made it was in June of 03 during a meeting with Kofi Annon to reporters. He has made it since. OR do you mean because the CLAIM itself isnt true. Except that is the story Bush is lying AGAIN. Then again he lies so much maybe it isnt news anymore.
ain't true? here's the quote by bush, july 2003: "we gave him a chance to let the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." and that is not the only time he said it. feel free to admit you're wrong.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/060807.html
I would admit I am wrong, if you give me proof that I'm wrong. The link you were nice enough to provide said NOTHING of invasion. If you have more, you better start providing them, cause you're going to look really stupid if you say you can, then you don't.
When you quote a specific quote, it's always wise to use the ENTIRE quote. I would hate to think that a liberal is intentionally taking a quote out of context to further your ideals.
so show me where i did not provide what was requested? or what i took out of context. i quoted bush exactly in july, 2003. he said saddam would not let the inspectors in. that was a lie. are you denying that the inspectors were there before bush invaded?
Actually we have every right to blame the media, especially neo-CONS like Kristol for their spreading information which led to the invasion and occupation. Bush/Cheney were determined to control the oil and plant a base in Iraq; and get a ground zero for war profiteering.
Kristol and others provided cover and drummed up enthusiasm among the gullible public for it.
He isn't "conservative" at all. There is no balancing viewpoint to liberals that he expresses. His opinions are worse than worthless garbage.
"Kristol and others provided cover and drummed up enthusiasm among the gullible public for it."
Yes, and name one democrat who didn't support the intention and/or reasons to invade Iraq. Thanks for pointing out who the 'gullible' are fooled by. Can you name any?
Alright, think back to 98, how many democrats thought Saddam was a danger to world peace? Do you really want me to repost every major liberal's speach about how dangerous Saddam was and how we should stop him at all costs?
I'm thinking back to '98 and you're right. Many Democrats thought that Saddam was a threat.
The difference is that GW acted and started a war that will not end in my lifetime.
Congress authorized him to put his finger on the trigger, but the only one who can be blamed is the man who pulled the trigger.
I blame Bush, Cheney, and the neo-con chorus who really, really wanted the invasion.
The congress and press who enabled them and the clueless public who went along must also share the blame.
"I'm thinking back to '98 and you're right. Many Democrats thought that Saddam was a threat."
Take that one step further...how many of the "many democrats" agreed there were WMD's??
"The difference is that GW acted and started a war that will not end in my lifetime. "
You must not have faith in our military, then. Are wars supposed to start and end with the flick of the switch? Which war was it you were in? Oh, yeah the VietNam war. Where all the soldiers were 'baby killers' according to the liberal media. Were you one too, or, are you a different kind of soldier than all the news reports told us about.
Where all the soldiers were 'baby killers' according to the liberal media.
Which "liberal" media outlet called them "baby killers"?
The ones that exist ONLY in his delusional fantasies. The hivemind prefers them so to reality.
It was the media that called us baby killers.
The "fictional" media.
I never heard it in the legitimate newsmedia. I never heard it from real people.
Only in crapfests like the Rambo movies.
How many of those Dems told SPECIFIC and Demonstrable LIES like Bush did? Like when he made up the IAEA report that never existed? Or like when touted the Aluminum tubes as ONLY being usable for gas centrifuges when our own GC Scientists had studied them and denied they were even LIKELY to be used that way. And did we INVADE in 98? Why no that would be 03 AFTER the inspectors were back in Iraq giving us new intelligence and reason to suspect there were NO WMDs in Iraq.
"How many of those Dems told SPECIFIC and Demonstrable LIES like Bush did?"
All of them did and still are. How many examples do you want? Or, are you like the other denyists who wouldn't believe it anyway?
Cough them up. What is it to me. I am not a Democrat. I blame them for the war to some extent to. Show me. I am not convinced they dont exist. Lots of Dems are so spineless they would jump on ANY bandwagon they thought popular. I just havent SEEN them. Meanwhile there is no QUESTION Bush told straight out specific, LIES, so dont waste my time with broad statements about what they BELIEVE. I want specific flat out lies. I can absolutly be convinced they exist.
Still waiting till you cough up those specific lies from Dems.
You make a claim that Bush made specific lies (without proof), but you demand that I show you proof of democratic lies?
In your liberal thinking world, just read ANY of the posts by stranger that quote the pro-war rally cry by every democrat he puts out there. In the world YOU live in all those statements are lies. NOW, where's YOUR proof?? Or, are you gonna weasel out of answering ANOTHER question?
BTW, you are as hardcore democrat as they come. Nobody is fooled by your 'I'm innocent' act. You're as guilty as the next guy.
Those quotations prove that many people thought that Sadam was a threat. He was a loose cannon (in other words, after the U.S. government armed him and propped him up, he became a rogue and wouldn't play ball)
There is no real insight here by you. Thinking he was a danger is one thing; invading and occupying is another...and only Bush/Cheney/neo-conservatives wanted that and DID that. They tried to convince Clinton to do it in his term and he didn't. Bush is enough of a danger to humanity that he was eager to do it.
By the way, this has been explained over and over again to you and others. Yet it does not register. I'm starting to think that not only do you not read the entire thread, you don't even bother to really absorb replies to YOUR posts.
I did prove my point, which I have done MANY times on this site. I cited the Sept 7 2002 speech where he MADE UP AN IAEA report that didnt exist. I mentioned the Aluminum tubes story that had already been refuted by OUR scientists in the field long before. It really isnt my fault that you dont know what you are talking about. There may be such specific lies. As I said I am not a Dem, I dont trust them. Stranger hasnt shown any as of yet those are all broad statements of belief. IF that is all Bush had done instead of lying about aluminum tubes and making up non existant reports I wouldnt be calling him a liar. Since you apparantly COULDNT come up with such specific outright lies. I will accept your surrender. They still might exist you just dont know what you are talking about well enough to produce them. You only make the claim, like the STUPID claim about the media calling Vietnam vets baby killers because the hivemind TOLD you to believe it, not because you actually KNOW of real incidents. I got it.
phil, i provided specific evidence that bush lied about the inspectors being in iraq. so, it's up to you. did bush lie?
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
And that proves what? That he said it is not the issue. The intelligence can't change is the mantra of the simple minded, smart people recognize that new input might change the equation. Thank god for liberals, if it weren't for them always questioning the status quo the world would still be flat.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
Stop trolling and just provide a link.
If you really are not aware of these quotes by Democrats about their belief that Saddam still had WMD, you are proving the point about the liberal bubble and the willful ignorance of the left.
These quotes have been all over the place for years now. Stop wasting our time with it yet again and just post a link.
Google 'em, lazy bones.
I have several links already. You could have provided a link or ask me to do it instead of cluttering up the board.
If you cant tell the difference between those broad statements of belief and rhetoric and the SPECIFIC lies Bush told then you prove the ignornace and delusional bubble you hiveminders spend your entire lives in.
So what cough up something AFTER the inspectors were back in IRaq or a SPECIFIC LIE like Bush told. Not broad statements of belief. I wouldnt be calling Bush a liar if all he said was I THINK Iraq has wmds.
"He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ..." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
She did NOT say "I think", she says "he has". You have repeatadly stated there is no proof of a connection between our 'invasion' and 'al queda'. Hilary says otherwise. Is she lying?? Maybe, just maybe she is a little more informed than YOU are.
Hillary is either a liar or repeating Bush administration lies.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"if necessary"
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"since the inspectors left" and they came back and found nothing and bush had them removed because he wanted to invade.
WHAT!?! No comment on hilary's admittion that there is an al queda/iraq connection? I thought you hard-core liberals insist on NO CONNECTION. Maybe we have another liar running for president?
The CIA discounted the Iraq/Al Qaeda connection so she must have gotten it from someplace: the Bush administration.
"The CIA discounted the Iraq/Al Qaeda connection so she must have gotten it from someplace:"
Or, the Clinton administration. She may have been nearby at times, huh? Also, didn't the CIA say there were WMD's in Iraq? Which CIA are we to believe? The ones YOU agree with or the ones I agree with?
No comment on hilary's admittion that there is an al queda/iraq connection
Uh oh...we'd better put a suicide watch on for certain of the left wing commenters here
actually the 9-11 commission said there were contacts, but no operational partnership. but what about the inspectors being in iraq and finding nothing? that was the main reason we invaded. any comment on that?
Oh, so you admit there is a connection between al queda and Iraq? What's the next liberal lie to be debunked?
So, you don't require an operating relationship between two entities to start a war?
If you don't require anything more than that kind of relationship, should we overthrow our OWN GOVERNMENT since we gave financial aid to Afghanistan and the Taliban when they were ruling the country?
The Taliban? ReallY...we did? When?
I know you're not referring to to the Muhahadeen which we did support against the Russians...cuz you wouldn't make that mistake right?
No he wasnt talking about the Muhajadeen he meant THIS:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3556
Yet the Bush administration did more than praise the Taliban's proclaimed ban of opium cultivation. In mid-May, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Afghanistan in addition to the humanitarian aid the United States had long been providing to agencies assisting Afghan refugees. Given Callahan's comment, there was little doubt that the new stipend was a reward for Kabul's anti-drug efforts. That $43 million grant needs to be placed in context. Afghanistan's estimated gross domestic product was a mere $2 billion. The equivalent financial impact on the U.S. economy would have required an infusion of $215 billion. In other words, $43 million was very serious money to Afghanistan's theocratic masters.
The Cato institute by the way is a fairly conservative thinktank
Thanks, Solon, I was away from the computer. I hope he gets a chance to respond. Happy New Year, Buddy! Its always good to know you have my back.
no problem
we gave financial aid to Afghanistan and the Taliban
I guess Solon didn't read her own article.
Where does it say we gave money to the Taliban?...or supported them in any way shape or form?
Oh, it doesn't? Really?
Solon keeps posting these links that prove exactly what I am saying. Does she actually read the articles?
OK at this point we all get how stupid you are and that you basically cannot get information from written material. Its time for you to bring back that six year old to read these articles TO YOU. At this point you are just embrassing yourself to a piteous degree. it said THIS
In mid-May, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Afghanistan in addition to the humanitarian aid the United States had long been providing to agencies
So find someone with a normal IQ to explain to you what a 43 million dollar grant TO AFGHANISTAN means while they are at it perhaps they can explain to you what the term IN ADDITION TO means. I am tired of holding your hand and explaining things most reasonably bright six year olds would find obvious.
Solon, what international organization recognized the taliban as the ruling governmental authority in Afghanistan?
Happy New Year philib
Happy New Year to you, too, the stranger.
so you are saying that the taliban were not the ruling government authority in afghanistan? well, then who was. your move.
so you are saying that the taliban were not the ruling government authority in afghanistan?
Where did i ever say that?
Are you a Solon sock puppet. C'mon...fess up.
They were not, however, recognized by most of the world, including us and the UN, as legitimate.
...and no money went to them. So, what's your point.
sure it's not you that is getting your sock puppet identities mixed up? i clearly asked philib that question, directly under his name, in reponse to his question, which was "what international organization recognized the taliban as the ruling government authority in afgahnistan?" so explain how you are answering a question i asked him and you are claiming you never said that. i never said you did. i asked him.
It wasn't inder his name and you still didn't answer the question about who recognized the Taliban..
..and answer my question below..
..pretty please
it was directly under his name. right there to see. and the question was not about who recognized them. the contention was whether they were effectively the ruling authority in afghanistan. they were. just because we did not recognize the government of china until the early 70s doesn't mean they were not in charge. simple, huh?
OK..we agree that the Taliban was in charge..
..though not officially recognized by anyone but a couple of whack job Islamo-Fascist organizations
..again..what's your point ?
the "point" is that philib was trying to argue that the taliban were not in charge because they were not widely recognized. got it?
so you are saying that the taliban were not the ruling government authority in afghanistan?
I never said that at all. The Taliban did rule as thugs, but they were not recognized as legitimate by us nor by most of the world...including the UN..
...and no money went to them...so what's your point?
MEFIRST...you don't seem quite as thick-headed as Solon, so let me ask this question.
Solon is trying to make the extremely long strectch that because we sent $43 million worth of gruel to Afghanistan that we were actually helping the Taliban..because..umm...the Taliban would use the money that THEY intended to spend on food for famine relief..
..this is asinine...which we have come to expect from Solon..
..if the Taliban had the ability or intention to feed the people, why were the NGOs (who are funded from outside Afghanistan) there in the first place?..
...why had $143 million poured in in the previous several years?..
Gosh..why weren't the Taliban taking care of its own people. They don't. They kill them.
The MSM spins this stuff this way because they know that the country is filled with dimwits like Solon who are so receptive to the most inane propaganda
well, it did say that the 43 million to afghanistan was "in addition" to the aid already provided to humanitarian agencies? and why trust the bush administration? you had cheney calling for dropping sanctions against iraq in the late 90's when he headed halliburton. obviously he wasn't that concerned.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_1005.html
you had cheney calling for dropping sanctions against iraq in the late 90's when he headed halliburton
He did? Really? Because if he didn't you'd be a total lying idiot like Solon.
It's a good thing you provided the link with the transcript to back you up. Because if you didn't offer up this bit of evidence people would think you were a lying douche:
IFILL: Mr. Vice President, in June of 2000 when you were still CEO of Halliburton, you said that U.S. businesses should be allowed to do business with Iran because, quote, "Unilateral sanctions almost never work."
Are you sure you're not a Solon sock puppet..
...and thanks for posting the link for the Cheney-Edwards debate. I had almost forgotten how badly Mr. Cheney eviscerated the little princess
now the vice president, as you [ifill] pointed out, called for lifting the sanctions on iraq. quote unquote.
The Cato institute by the way is a fairly conservative thinktank
Lady...you really are retarded. Cato Institute being a fairly conservative think tank.
The money was given to humanitarian agencies...smarter people call them NGO's..NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS..
...that means they are not part of any government..espaecially Afghanistan.
..I will say it yet again..the easiest job in the history of the world is that of left wing propagandist..
..Honest to Christ...i have never come across a bigger obtuse knucklehead anywhere...ever..
...Solon has to be one of the dumbest women to ever have existed..
what is your motivation in calling people she and lady when you do not, at the very least, know if they are or are not "ladies". personally, i'm sure you know. you did it with me, and both solon and i are males. is it what you consider some kind of put down? it says far more about you than the person addressed.
Well lets face it. When you are as stupid as the Stranger, and are getting slapped around as badly as he is, I guess petty attempts at what a neandrathal would think an insult is the best you can do. At this point. Pity is the worst I can feel for the guy I mean he obviously cant read.
So are you trying to win an award as the stupidest person on the Planet? Even with your VAST level of ignorance you will have to do better to beat out Sean Hannity. The article says the money was given to AFGHANISTAN, IN ADDITION TO the humanitarian money, it says it was given to reward the GOVERNMENT for its work wiping out the opium industry. Learn to read for goodness sake you insufferable moron. I cannot believe someone as stupid as you adds condescension to your public displays of abject stupidity. For goodness sake stop making such a public fool out of yourself. Even IF the money had been given to NGOs that would STILL free up money for the Taliban to use elsewhere. The very TITLE of that article was HOW WASHINGTON FUNDED THE TALIBAN. Just how comitted to stupidity are you anyway?
Like I said many times before, the easiest job in the history of the human race is that of left wing propagandist.
...but...but...the title of the article is "How Washington Funded the Taliban"...or some other simple idiocy..
This is a good article on the topic that shows how morons like Solon are led by the rings in their noses:
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_02_23_archive.html
From the article:
Since it was first created by syndicated columnist Robert Scheer, the myth that the Bush administration "gave" $43 million to Afghanistan's Taliban regime in 2001 has circled the globe and circulated throughout the mainstream media in the US. Even after myriad attempts to correct the record, this pervasive bit of disinformation refuses to die.
As we have noted many times, President Bush granted $43 million in food aid and food security programs to relieve an impending famine in Afghanistan in May 2001, continuing an aid program initiated by President Clinton. The programs were administered directly by the United Nations and NGOs, bypassing the regime.
Scheer's June 2001 column, however, claimed that this constituted a "gift of $43 million" to the Taliban while never once mentioning the famine in the country or that the "gift" was food aid that bypassed the regime. Scheer's distortion has set off a series of echoes that shows no signs of fading.
Like I said, the MSM can easily distort the news because of the idiots like Solon out there
go read your article again, you friggin' idjit..
...where does it say that we gave money to the Taliban?..
...Oh it doesn't? Really? ...you mean the title of the article is completely misleading?.. ...you mean they would just word it it in such a way that the really stupid among us would believe the false implication ?...gosh isn't that intellectually dishonest?...isn't that *gasp* propaganda?..
Solon...think about it.
Ignore the lying MSM for a change.
remember when Bush sent all that money to help the people in Iran after the earthquake hat killed tens of thousands?..
...was he actually propping up the theocratic regime there..
(...umm, I'd better answer that for her. It's "No.")
So when Bush sent $43 million to NGO's in Afghanistan (not the Taliban) for food etc. to help offset the effect of a famine...was he propping up the Taliban..(Again I'll answer for her. That too is a "no").
gee...I wonder why the lying, corrupt MSM never accused Clintoon of propping up the Taliban when his admin sent over $143 million to the NGO's there..
..*gasp*...you don't think the MSM would propagandize, do you?
since it has already been pointed out to you, you know he is not a she or her. the one and only reason you persist is that you feel you are downgrading someone by calling them she. weird.
Huh? I must have missed that. How is calling someone a woman downgrading.?.
..what a sexist pig
much, if not most of the $43 million was in food goods..
...Bush that magnificent b*st*rd...he sent bgas of flour over thinking that the Taliban would steal them to whop people over the head with them
IN ADDITION TO the humanitarian money, it says it was given to reward the GOVERNMENT for its work wiping out the opium industry
Really? It does? Where?..
...I'm sure it does, cuz if not, you'd look really, really stupid.
IN ADDITION TO the humanitarian money, it says it was given to reward the GOVERNMENT for its work wiping out the opium industry
Really? It does? Where?..
...I'm sure it does, cuz if not, you'd look really, really stupid
Excuse me. I meant to ask where it was said by the Bush admin that feeding starving people in Afghanistan was a reward to the Taliban...
...was the $143 million given by Clintoon also a reward?..
...funny...no one in the lying, corupt MSM never made that claim
Uh...frederboy, WE didn't start the war! Are you trying to rewrite history already? Or, are you still in solon's 3rd grade class?
Where did I say we started the war? All I said is that we gave money to the Taliban, nothing more.
There are CONNECTIONS between the CIA and KGB, they had meetings too. So what? There was no collaborative relationship and no other type matters. So what other ignorant rightwing talking point do you want us to debunk? You can keep blurring these distinctions but only idiot hiveminders are fooled. Those of us with functioning cerbral cortexes know better.
"There was no collaborative relationship and no other type matters."
Absolutely there were collaborative relationships between the CIA and KGB. You would have to be living in a box if you thought otherwise. What shape is your 3rd grade class? Oh, yeah... a box.
No comment on hilary's admittion that there is an al queda/iraq connection
Uh oh...we'd better put a suicide watch on for certain of the left wing commenters here- The Stranger
Which ones? Those who like to spell words correctly? ;0)
You mean like BUSH? Well no Hillary is pretty bad. I am not suprised at her hawkish attitude but Bush lies like most people breathe and she isnt THAT bad. I do agree though that I would hate to see her be president. Of course compared to President George W Gump she would probably be Thomas Jefferson.
You worthless troll. You keep dribbling out irrelevant statements from dems who were wrong that were BEFORE the inspectors were back in Iraq going wherever they wanted and that were NOT the specific LIES like Bush told.
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
..So said the member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
and there was nothing there, so said the u.n. inspectors, the ones bush threw out.
Again, so what? You can't blame democrats for repeating information that was assumed true at the time. It's been long proven that the Bush cabal lied and manufactured or stretched information that was then provided to congress. It's since been proven, and the democrats have denounced the false info that the bush cabal provided. No story here, your attempt to cry hipocracy holds no water.
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
Quick...somebody call Keith "Ckicken 'n Waffles" Olbermann. I'm sure he'll rush to get this out.
Yup, nice try but we ain't buying your snake oil. Post all the democratic links from 2002 all you want, it still doesn't change the fact that they were supporting an administration that turned out to be a bunch of lying crooks who manufactured intelligence and covered up facts to start a war. Dems have since found the truth and have denounced the false data. Enjoy your fantasy land, we here on the real earth know better.
You are a worthless troll. Your repititions about Dems being WRONG is precious. I still blame them for repeating the propaganda but what they DIDNT do and what Bush DID do was tell specific outright LIES not broad statements about I think this so we should do that and still nothing from March of 03 after the weapons inspectors had been there a few months. Your BS is weak and makes no point.
Yes, and name one democrat who didn't support the intention and/or reasons to invade Iraq. Thanks for pointing out who the 'gullible' are fooled by. Can you name any?
I would say nearly all of them once it became clear that Bush had lied about the WMD threat. And instead of admitting he lied, he pulled the inspectors and commenced the bombing.
Let me get this straight. You say that Clinton's intel that showed Saddam had WMD's were lies?? Because every democrat agreed Saddam was a threat (in 98). Suddenly, in 00, the WMD intel is incorrect and Bush/co has us in a war for oil?
Well, I'm glad that Clinton promoted lies about WMD's too. I would hate to think that only Bush/co did it.
Let me get this straight. You say that Clinton's intel that showed Saddam had WMD's were lies?? Because every democrat agreed Saddam was a threat (in 98). Suddenly, in 00, the WMD intel is incorrect and Bush/co has us in a war for oil?
I would say they were assumptions made by people who couldn't verify whether Saddam had weapons or not because Clinton pulled the inspectors in early 1998. When the inspectors weren't able to find all those weapons Bush claimed Saddam had in 2002 and 2003, everyone should have rethought their conclusions about Saddam's WMD program. But Bush said f*uck that and started a war of aggression.
The administration did lie about the nuclear threat posed by Saddam, Saddam having an active weapons' program and his connections to Al Qaeda.
Someone should wash your mouth out with soap. That's an amazing lot of assumptions you like to make, "if it's a lie now does that mean clinton was lying?" is quite an amazing feat! You are intellectually dishonest, but I'm betting you believe you are just pointing out some fallacy or hipocracy with liberal thinking. You may want to try peddling your wares elsewhere, cause no one here is buying.
"if it's a lie now does that mean clinton was lying?" is quite an amazing feat! "
Well, if saddam did in fact have WMD's as President Clinton told us he did, how did the intel suddenly become "lies supporting the war for oil" when Bush told us the same thing??
the inspectors were in iraq and finding nothing. that ended the controversy. your comment on that?
Why did bill and hilary and byrd and kerry and kennedy and so on and so on say there ARE WMD's in iraq? Did they all lie to promote this war for oil, also? Response, please.
what does that have to do with the fact that the inspectors were there and finding nothing. did anyone know "for sure" before? no. did they know after the inspectors were there in country? yes. and address my specific point, which was, it was all a moot point when the inspectors found nothing. response?
Because they ARENT the same thing. ON Sept 7, 2002 in a joint press conference with Tony Blair Bush said. "I would remind you, that when the inspectors were in Iraq, when they were finally denied access, a report came out saying Iraq was six months away from a (nuclear) weapon. No such report. Bush pulled it directly out of his ass at least not one making that claim The IAEA said so the next day. THEN there were the 12 reports he sent to congress and all his administration liars sent out to claim the aluminum tubes could ONLY be used for gas centrifuges after the scientists who studied those tubes said they were unlikely to be used that way at all. Cough up the deliberate, specific LIES like those that Clinton told. Not broad statements of belief, rather specific outright LIES like Bush told. How about that the trucks we found WERE the WMDS AFTER the scientists said there was not a trace of chemical weapons on them and their design made them unsuited to be used for making chemical weapons since they had no steam sterilizers or a safe way to take the hazardous material from the storage container. How about when Bush said we had to invade Iraq because they wouldnt let the inspectors in? Cough up some outright, specific egregious LIES like THAT Democrats told not these I believe statements that were wrong. Ya got nothin. We have swatted this weak BS away a dozen times already.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
What? You mean that Keith "Chicken 'n Waffles" Olbermann hasn't mentioned this?
Please, can you come up with something more recent? 2002 information was proven to be a lie. Yellow cake uranium, the processing tubes, etc. etc. etc. turned out to be flat out lies. Posting links of Democrats supporting an administration because of the intel the admin provided means nothing now, that info was proven a lie and the dems have since denounced it.
Nope..the yellow cake story turned out to be 100% true. Joe Wilson even said that.
Another conservative lie. His report said Iran not Iraq.
Oh my effing gosh!
Do you really believe that, or are you simply trying to be outrageous?
Please, oh please cite the source for this one.
Cite your source and I'll cite mine's (it's actually MMFA).
Cite my source for what? Simply plug any of these quotes in a search engine and you will get all the info your little heart desires (Unfortuneately, your little head won't be able to process it).
Give me a quote, source, cite, or link to anything showing where Joe Wilson said that Iran was trying to but yellow cake from Niger.
Betcha can't.
Look at falsehood #3.
Holy Crap! Are you being serious here?
MMFA is duping the stupid among us again.
Iran tried to buy yellowcake in '98...Iraq in '99.
This is a serious question; are you people really this uniformed or this dishonest?
"Iran tried to buy yellowcake in '98...Iraq in '99."
That's why I asked you to cite your source. Wilson never said Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger at any time but he did state that Iran did.
"Iran tried to buy yellowcake in '98...Iraq in '99."
That's why I asked you to cite your source.
That right wing rag The WaPo is one
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle
Again, Wilson never said Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Niger; it was some guy's interpretation which was, in all probability wrong.
your wapo report is based on the conclusions of a republican controlled senate committee. not exactly impartial.
your wapo report is based on the conclusions of a republican controlled senate committee. not exactly impartial.
Umm...noooo..the story is based on Joe Wilson's words.
It's too bad he's not rotting in jail, as he should be.
The only people who should be rotting in jail right now are Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. They should all be awaiting trial at The Hague.
No he shouldnt. He was RIGHT. You are WRONG its just that simple.
This doesnt support your claim open to question is not the same as they did it. Second when they say it bolstered Bushs claim they are talking about the minister who said Iraq wanted trade talks with them and IGNORED the FACT that the same mininster said they HAD THOSE TRADE TALKS AND IRAQ NEVER BROUGHT UP URANIUM. Ya got nothin. What is really frustrating is we swat this weak BS away and the cons slink off and just come back later and make the same hivemind talking point already refuted a dozen times. You guys just wont give up on your weak BS that has been long ago debunked.
Yeah...that's the ticket...the secret meeting was about smuggling cowpeas..
Anything's possible.
Just because YOU are too stupid to think of any reason other than uranium they would have that meeting doesnt mean there WAS no other reason. That trade delegation also went to Burking Faso, Brazzavilee and a couple other central African states that DONT have uranium. The point is to tie themselves economically to third world countries since they have no way of knowing who will come up in rotation for the Security counsel and undermine the sanctions. DUH. Try to keep up.
Umm...first of all you were aware that Brazzaville ia actually a city and not a country, weren't you...please say yes..
...and secondly..i don't know where in the hell you got the idea that Congo and Burkina Faso don't have uranium...BECAUSE THEY MOST CERTAINLY DO..
..go ahead look it up...
...Solon is dumb...even by libtard standards
When my IQ drops half as low as yours I will just commit supuku out of shame. Yes I know that Brazzaville is the capital of the Congo and yes they do have uranium. Burkina faso is NOT an exporter of uranium if they have any its the first I have heard about it. Did the Congo SAY Iraq tried to buy uranium from them? NO in fact we have a memo where the Congo OFFERED them uranium AND THEY TURNED IT DOWN you insufferable moron. How can you get so stupid. Cough up the evidence that Burkina faso has uranium according to wikipedia their listed natural resources are:[link to en.wikipedia.org] Faso has many natural resources, including; manganese, limestone, marble, phosphates, pumice, salt and small deposits of gold.
I dont see uranium listed there they also talk about their mineral exploitation
There is mineral exploitation of copper, iron, manganese and, above all, gold.
What I DONT see there is uranium you lying and incredibly ignorant cretin. Do you EVER know what you are talking about? You are fast becoming the STUPIDEST poster on this site. Meanwhile back to our ORIGINAL argument WHERE is your evidence that Iraq tried to get uranium from Niger in a trade talk WHERE THE ISSUE OF URANIUM NEVER CAME UP? You are bone ignorant and too stupid to believe. Your talking points are garbage and you are a moron.
Both the Butler Review and the Senate Select Committee on Pre War Iraq Intelligence (SSCI) point to other efforts by Saddam to purchase uranium, most notably from the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Solon...this is a serious question. Are you retarded?
No actually I am a very bright guy. YOU are just so stupid you mistake LOGIC for retardation because you are too ignorant to even RECOGNIZE higher brain function since we have a memo from the Congo OFFERING to sell Iraq uranium and them TURNING IT DOWN only a moron of you considerable stupidity could even take that claim seriously. Tell me being as stupid as you are did you have to hire someone to remind you to BREATHE?
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004903.php
So far, ISG has found only one offer of uranium to Baghdad since 1991—an approach Iraq appears to have turned down. In mid-May 2003, an ISG team found an Iraqi Embassy document in the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) headquarters related to an offer to sell yellowcake to Iraq. The document reveals that a Ugandan businessman approached the Iraqis with an offer to sell uranium, reportedly from the Congo. The Iraqi Embassy in Nairobi—in reporting this matter back to Baghdad on 20 May 2001—indicated it told the Ugandan that Iraq does not deal with these materials, explained the circumstances of sanctions, and said that Baghdad was not concerned about these matters right now. Figure 1 is the translation of this document.
Further from the ISG
ISG has not found evidence to show that Iraq sought uranium from abroad after 1991 or renewed indigenous production of such material—activities that we believe would have constituted an Iraqi effort to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program.
Ya got nothin and you are INCREDIBLY ignorant
Solon..you forgot to mention that the claim to have turned down Congo's offer came from the Iraqi government.
I'm sure it was simply an oversight on your part.
Seriously, are you retarded?
That isnt even CLOSE to right. It was not a CLAIM made by the Iraqi government. It was a memo WE found in their archives AFTER we took Baghdad. Do you EVER know what you are talking about?
The question is no longer whether or not Solon is retarded, but rather as to what degree.
Go look at your source as to who claimed that the Congo offered up yeller cake and that they (the Iraqis) turned it down.
Amazing
Your ignorance is fascinating in its scope. Your stupidity apparantly extends to an inability to READ so find a six year old to read it to you again. Just in case this will help enough to penetrate your ignorance and capacity for reality denial
In mid-May 2003, an ISG team found an Iraqi Embassy document in the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) headquarters related to an offer to sell yellowcake to Iraq. The document reveals that a Ugandan businessman approached the Iraqis with an offer to sell uranium, reportedly from the Congo
So exactly WHAT PART of In mid-May 2003, an ISG team found an Iraqi Embassy document in the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) headquarters are you FAR too stupid to comprehend?
So exactly WHAT PART of In mid-May 2003, an ISG team found an Iraqi Embassy document in the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) headquarters
Ummm..Slappy...right there. Isn't the Iraqi embassy part of the Iraqi gov't?
Don't you think they'd try to be a little sneaky since they were under UN sanctions?
...and when they contacted Niger to try to arrange a yellowcake buy...do you actually expect Saddam would pick up the phone and say "Hi. Mr. Pm of Niger...it's me Saddam. How's the wives and kids. The reason I was calling is that I wanted to know if you would illegally sell me some uranium so's I can build some nuclear weapons. I know that you would be subject to severe sanctions, but I thought I would ask. Let's do lunch sometime. Allahu Akbar."
I'll bet that's the same way drug kingpins do it too
there was no attempt by iraq to buy yellowcake from niger. speculation and innuendo are not proof. you have none.
NO they didnt you are full of it.
In late February 2002, the CIA sent former Ambassador Joseph Wilson to investigate dubious claims about Iraq's attempted purchase of yellowcake uranium from Niger. Wilson returned and informed the CIA that reports of yellowcake sales to Iraq were "unequivocally wrong." However, the Bush administration continued to mention yellowcake purchases as justification for military action--most prominently in the January, 2003, State of the Union when President Bush repeated the allegation, citing British intelligence sources.[65] In response, Wilson wrote a critical The New York Times op-ed in June 2003 explaining that the CIA had investigated these yellowcake claims and believed them to be fraudulent. Shortly after Wilson's op-ed, the identity of Wilson's wife, undercover CIA analyst Valerie Plame, was revealed in a column by Robert Novak. Since it is a felony to reveal the identity of a CIA agent Novak's column launched an investigation by the Justice Department into the source of the leak. I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff, was convicted of perjury in the Plame leak investigation. The source of the leak was found to be Richard Armitage. He was never charged.[66]
According to George Tenet (the CIA director during Wilson's trip), Bush, Cheney, and other senior administration officials were not briefed on Wilson's report because it "did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad" and hence lacked urgency.[14] In his memoir, Tenet called the report "unremarkable" and said he had no recollection of hearing about Wilson's trip at the time it took place.[15] Tenet said that the the report was accordingly simply "given a normal and wide distribution (within the intelligence community)".[16]
Commentators differed as to whether Bush's statements were supported by the conclusions of Wilson's reports. A July 2004 Wall Street Journal editorial found that Wilson's claims of distortion were justified,[17] though a July 2005 WSJ editorial, on the other hand, asserted that Wilson lied in the editorial about "what he'd discovered in Africa, how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, or even why he was sent on the mission".[18] Likewise, an April 2006 Washington Post editorial claimed that "Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth and that, in fact, his report [to the CIA] supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium".[19] A July 2006 Washington Post news report, however, suggested that Bush's speech and selective declassification gave the impression that the intelligence was more certain than it truly was, supporting Wilson's claims.[20] David Corn has also supported Wilson's editorial.[21]
Yeah, I'm just not seeing anything where Wilson says the yellow cake story was true. Methinks you were lying about that one...
Ahem..
Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq."
These are Niger's primary exports:
Exports - commodities: uranium ore, livestock, cowpeas, onions
So..Iraq sent a secret delegation to arrange purchase of goats...or cowpeas?
I've said it before and I'll say it again...the easiest job in the history of the world has to be that of liberal propagandist. You guys will let yourselves be spoon fed the dumbest crap.
According to Wilson, the PM of Niger said he was approached in 1999 by an Iraqi delegation who wanted to buy yellow cake.
The PM declined citing the UN trade embargo (psst...that was one of the sanctions we've heard so muh about).
Bush said that Iraq tried to buy yellow cake...Wilson backs him up in his report...but then lid about it later.
Wilson should be rotting in federal prison....along with his lying wife.
Wilsons report DIDNT back him up. Niger doesnt control its uranium. That is controlled by a French consortium from mining to shipping and Niger couldnt sell Iraq uranium if they wanted to. You ought to be in an asylum for the congenitally ignorant.
That was the guy's interpretation of the meeting (he has no way of knowing) but Wilson said his claim was wrong because the delegation visited several African countries asking about expanding commercial relations and none of the countries besides Niger had anything to do with uranium. Furthermore, Iraq already had large stockpiles of uranium at its disposable so it really didn't make sense for them to go outside the country.
That was the guy's interpretation of the meeting (he has no way of knowing)
That "guy' was the PM of Niger..
And your point is...? For all I know he could be a liar like Bush.
Forget the above post. That was uncalled-for.
and that was still his "interpretation". period. there was no offer by iraq to buy uranium.
The GUY also said that uranium NEVER CAME UP IN THE MEETING. Whatever his mind reading told him he THOUGHT the meeting was about they HAD the meeting notice what he DIDNT say? That is that we had the meeting and the Iraqi delegation asked us to sell them uranium? Why didnt he say that? BECAUSE THE WORD URANIUM WAS NEVER UTTERED BY THE IRAQI DELEGATION.
I dont know how much simpler this could be. Its STUPID to use the fact there WAS a meeting to say Iraq tried to buy uranium AFTER the meeting without the FACT that uranium was never mentioned blowing the whole concept out of the water. You guys are SO weak because you are COMMITTED to the hivemind delusions and never let FACTS and reality get in the way of you repeating those delusions.
I like the part where the Strange One shifted from "the report was based on Joe Wilson's own words" to "it was the interpretation of the PM", and did it as if there was nothing ridiculous about that .
The depth of the brainwashing is astounding when you see it in print like that.Reading the arguments of Philib & Strangy devolve is like watching a body decompose in time-lapse photography.
Nope...nothing was changed. Wilson used his very own words to recount what the PM told him in his very own words.
This isn't the hardest concept to grasp..I wouldn't guess.
Nope..the yellow cake story turned out to be 100% true. Joe Wilson even said that.- The Stranger
See the difference between your Plan A and Plan B ? This sort of ducking & weaving might work with some drunk in a bar, but it's on record here.You really have a lot of nerve calling others else retarded because you're confused. But you are pretty entertaining, so thanks for that.
I stand behind it all.
Actually, I think drunks in a bar would be much more sentient and coherent than this here crew.
Happy New Year
Since you obviously do not absorb the things that others say to you (unless they agree with your viewpoint)
And you are addressing the crew in your own head: right wing talking points from various misinformed and outright liars
I agree with you.
Nope...no ducking and weaving. Go read it all through again. I'm taking this path with this goofball Solon to show her how she (and whole lotta other folks)is being fed a ton of crap.
It's a long slow process. It covering all the bases..better said...it's refuting all what she believes to be true. The web of lies put out by the MSM has produces a labrynth of misinformation in her mind that needs to be untangled.
It's kind of scary for her right now, as evidenced by the weird, incoherent comments she makes.
She'll come around...maybe. More likely she'll end up in a straight jacket.
Try to find any contradictions. You won't
The web of lies put out by the MSM has produces a labrynth of misinformation in her mind that needs to be untangled.
Soory about that mixed metaphor. The New Year celebration started a little early this year at Casa del Extranjero and the bubbly has been flowing for a while.
I had in mind to say the Solon needed assistance navigating through the labrytnth..it just didn't quite come out that way.
G'Night and Happy New Year. I won't be around as much, but you'll be in my thoughts
Too bad. The batting practice you provide is entertaining
Well, let's see. You said Joe Wilson even said it was true that Iraq tried to buy yellow cake uranium, proven wrong. To use an article from the WSJ as proof otherwise is disengenious, they wrote another one a few days later saying that Bush most likely exaggerated all the reports about Iraq.
You said OBL was in custody in Sudan and Clinton refused to extradite him, again proven wrong. Sudan coerced him to leave only after pressure from Saudi Arabia and the US. The US could not extradite him because they had no proof on him for anything at the time. Once info was uncovered in 1998 Clinton immediately had the courts file against OBL so they could extradite if an opportunity arose.
Lies and distortions, bud. You have been outed as intellectually dishonest.
You are so ignorant its embarassing. Its like trying to teach a third grader quantum mechanics. You dont know enough to even GET how stupid and uninformed you are. You didnt even KNOW there were two countries called the Congo. The Democratic Republic of the Congo which we used to call Zaire and the Congo, so they are often referred to by their capitals to avoid the sort of confusion that is your natural state. I am a man by the way but you dont care. You think its cute to call everyone she as if it were an insult because that is how stupid you are. Blatantly bone ignorant and without a single functioning braincell. Are you STILL claiming that the meeting where uranium was never even MENTIONED is proof that Iraq tried to buy uranium? You are too stupid to have a rational discourse with. Its a waste of time trying to walk you by the hand like a challenged pre teen through the basic logic and information that anyone half way informed already knows. Only the most comitted hiveminder is still trying to claim Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger OR the Congo. Your ignorance is pathetic and sad yet you are not only PROUD of how stupid you are you are condescending thile PARADING your ignorance. You make arguments based on what you WISH were true since you dont have the dimmest conception of what you are talking about. You have been spanked on this subject. Time to stop digging. You have made the point you are pathetically uninformed.
third grader quantum mechanics. You dont know enough to even GET how stupid and uninformed you are. You didnt even KNOW there were two countries called the Congo
Go ahead and show everyone where this is indicated.
I know you wouldn't just make this up...cuz doing something like that would make you look completely stupid..right?
OK here is an 8th grade geography lesson for you. Long ago there was a kingdom known as Kongo. Today on the two sides of the Congo river there are TWO countries that share that name. The Congo sometimes called Congo Brazzaville after THEIR capital and The Democratic Republic of Congo which has the capital of Kisasha, which we used to call Zaire. I didnt have to make it up, its basic jr high geography. Get a map for goodness sake
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo
[edit] Modern countriesCongo may refer to either of two countries in Africa, which get their name from the mutually-shared river:
MAN are you stupid
No, you moron...show me where I indicated that I didn't know there were two African nations with Congo in its name.
Solon mopped the floor with you. Get over it.
Why do you think he won't be around as much anymore? ;)
Hint: it's really not work related!
the amazing thing is that trollers often do their right wing spin as a volunteer effort, unlike the paid media wing-nuts. But a hat tip to them for never letting any fact get in the way of their stubborn bloviating.
Solon mopped the floor with you. Get over it.
Pssst...when playing sock puppet,remember to check which name you're commenting under)
..it works better that way..
..otherwise everyone else would think you're a total douchebag..
...that's just a word to the wise...cuz I know you'd never try anything like that..
..Amazing
I post only under this name. I mopped the floor with you. That isnt bragging any reasonbly bright ten year old could have. I am mostly proud of my patience.
And they had those talks but the Iraqi delegation NEVER EVEN SAID THE WORD URANIUM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-21-uranium_x.htm
He said Niger's former prime minister, Ibrahim Mayaki, had told him that in 1999 he had been approached by a businessman who urged him to meet with an Iraqi delegation. Mayaki said he assumed the meeting would be about uranium, but uranium never came up
So exactly what do the words URANIUM NEVER CAME UP MEAN TO YOU, that you would use this meeting where URANIUM NEVER CAME UP to make the claim Iraq tried to buy Uranium, WHICH NEVER CAME UP, from Niger? This is old news we swatted this weak BS away long ago. The easiest job in the world is to tell you hivemind morons what to believe and send you out to disseminate the propaganda as if it made sense. Ya got nothin.
The 16 words from the Stete of the union Address were: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
The Butler Report shows that Saddam did try to buy yellow cake from a country in Africa...The Congo
Joe Wilson goes to an entirely different country in Africa - Niger-and finds out that Saddam tried to buy yellwocake from there too..
...and somehow the MSM manages to convince the libtards that Bush lied about this..
...amazing
The Butler report shows no such thing. It is an ass covering report saying they BELIEVE what they need to believe in order to save some shred of credibility. This is the intelligence organization that was busted trying to foist off a plagerized 11 year old graduate students REPORT as their white paper. They can beleive what they want what they CANT DO what they HAVENT done is cough up any evidence. Iraq HAD 500 tons of yellowcake left over from their 80's enrichment program. Niger doesnt control their uranium and they turned DOWN an offer from the Congo (that is Congo Kinsasha not Congo Brazzaville). Not to mention exactly what would Iraq have DONE with uranium? Smuggled it 1000 miles to Iraq, built secret facilities from equipment they COULD NOT GET, enrich it in secret, which is virtually impossible all while we were watching them like a hawk? You would have to be as ignorant as, well you are, to take this seriously.
the butler report. a guy appointed by blair says everything is just fine and dandy.
Not only that, this Bush apologist is taking the word of a foreign intelligence agency over his own. The CIA has distance itself from the Butler Report because it assumes a lot of things and the claims are exaggerated.
boy, sure hated to miss your piss fest. Seems you can't cite one written instance of Wilson actually saying Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake uranium, and instead resorted to posting all sorts of crap about other people supposing that was what some meeting was about. You righties really do believe anything Rush tells you! Better watch out, because we also found WMD's in Iraq! Except the ones that were moved to Syria! And the other ones that were sold to Osama! Who doesn't matter anymore, except he's still alive! ooga booga!
Look guys, Bush et al plugged the war like a horny teenage boy at a soc hop. Yes many democrats spinelessly went along. Seems as if that canard of unpatriotic democrat war wimps finally seems debunkable... But wait...
How could the dems not follow the commander in chief during such a time of danger - ha ha ha. I wonder how the politics will play out when there is a REAL THREAT! This ultumately might be one of the most damaging aspect - The bush legacy -that the next president who needs a benefit of the doubt will not be believed when there actually is a real threat.
Yet what our troll mates seem to forget is that there was some in the media that called bush on the lies and there were observers who could accurately and credibly call into account the war cheerleaders. This includes major players in the intel community and former weapons inspectors in Iraq. They were marginalized by big media to protect market share. Ask Phil Donahue
Meanwhile the big media, including the "liberal new york times" went right along. Krystal's spin won the day and of course being wrong has no consequences - only more exposure and promotion.
So my troll friends, why why why wouldn't such a respectible and "liberal" outfit like the times not want to find a conservative who might actually represent them well, instead of one that has an impressive track record of distortion and agenda. You would think some conservatives would be honest and humble and maybe be angered that such a "liberal" monster such as the times would not spend more effort to find someone to represent them well.
Maybe their indiference is because they would rather avoid reality and be stuck in their "we are always right and patriotic by definition" dogma.
exactly right about donahue. he was fired because msnbc did not want to be seen as antiwar and antibush. donahue was beating hardball at the time of his firing:
http://www.allyourtv.com/0203season/news/02252003donahue.html
That is actually an argument with some legitimacy. The "liberal" NYT hires Krystal as a conservative columnist when in fact he isn't mainstream conservative at all but rather a neo-conservative. The NYT can claim diversity of opinion while selling Krystals views as mainstream conservatism while the true "moderate" conservatives get squeezed out.
Yes that IS a legitimate argument. It has the benifit of being logical. IT might even be true.
Keep trollin', trollin', trollin',
never really knowin',
if what you're repeatin', been said!
Don't try to get yer facts straight,
once you post it's too late,
your lies and those deflections, will decide.
Spread those rumors thick,
Let's see what will stick, obtuse observations will abide.
Spin it up, spread it thick, Keep repeatin', make it stick, Lay it on, Obfuscate Dittohead!
Set it up, claim it's fact, Who will check? Grey is black, Get yer facts - from faux news, Dittohead!
Snoop, was that Rawhide ?
Guilty as charged!
No it didnt you are out of your mind.
WEAK useless BS from BEFORE the inspectors were back in Iraq we have seen all these before you worthless troll.
The differences are that Clinton wasnt sure enough to INVADE THE COUNTRY and that the Clinton intelligence didnt have him telling strait out LIES like Bush did when he made up the IAEA report or when he lied about the aluminum tubes. THAT is a big difference. The inspectors were in Iraq going whereever they wanted if we had good intelligence we could have given it to them and seen where it took us. Instead Gump pulled them out because he didnt want them saying there werent any WMDs there and threw an I want my war fit.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
who opposed the invasion because we had the inspectors in there.
I didn't know he was President. HOW MANY people are you going to blame the war deaths on? Have you ever thought of blaming the terrorists?? No, I reckon not.
The deaths occurred because of the ill-conceived invasion of Iraq. Anyone who advocated for it and those who authorized it are responsible.
You make the false assumption that Iraq had anything to with 9/11. Aside from that glaring inconsistency, Kristol and his PNAC buds led a coordinated propaganda campaign to win hearts and minds over to the side of of the Shock and Awe mentality of Cheney and Bush. It was successful.
You can try to minimize in your mind the impact of Kristol's crusade, but don't try to sell it here. The era of belligerent foreign policy is ending. The era of dimwit conservatism is ending. Get used to being the lunatic fringe again, your type had it all and blew it.
You're absolutely right!
We have no right to blame a media outlet for the deaths of almost 4000 American soldiers.
But every American has the right to hold the architect for this administration's war policies accountable.
And that would be Kristol himself as co-founder of the PNAC.
And which "terrorists" are we to blame? The ones hiding in Pakistan? Those still in Afghanistan? Those in Saudi Arabia where most of those who hurt us on 9/11 were born?
The "terrorists" in Iraq were not terrorists until we invaded and challenged those in opposition to "Bring it on".
When will you deadenders, you thirty percenters, start to question those who took us to war and not those who've opposed it from the beginning?
"But every American has the right to hold the architect for this administration's war policies accountable."
I agree, wholeheartedly, with that statement. Just who are these architects? Are they the ones who undermine our military moral? Are they the ones who refuse to fund the military? Or, are they just the ones you choose them to be to make your rationalization of war crimes fit your parameters?
how about the ones that let osama go at tora bora?
We never had him in Tora Bora. It was because Clinton refused the offer to take bin Laden when he was in custody in Somalia that he was able to murder 3000 Americans.
nope. he was surrounded at tora bora. the bush administration farmed out the job to local warlords, instead of american troops. and there was no way we could bring osama to this country when he was in sudan because at the time there was no indictment against him. it was bush who has said he's not too concerned about bin ladin. and bush who said he was "not on point" about bin ladin prior to 9-11.
nope. he was surrounded at tora bora.
Really? He was? just exactly where is the evidence of that?
this is two thirds down in the link. "one of them was brig. general james n. mathis, the commander of some 4000 marines who had arrived in the afghan theater by now." "mathis, along with another officer with whom i spoke, was convinced that with these numbers he could have surrounded and sealed off bin ladin's lair..." "the general was turned down."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/magazine/11TORABORA.html?pagewanted=print
"mathis, along with another officer with whom i spoke, was convinced that with these numbers he could have surrounded and sealed off bin ladin's lair..."
So...what you're saying is bin Laden was not surrounded, after all, huh?
Seriously...you don't see that you just reinforced what I said?
he was surrounded, as i said by before, by the warlord's troops. there was no doubt of the area he was. mathis was convinced. that's why he wanted to put his troops in there. he was "turned down".
"mathis, along with another officer with whom i spoke, was convinced that with these numbers he could have surrounded and sealed off bin ladin's lair..."
Hate to play 'word games', but you specifically say he WAS surrounded and the proof you bring says differently. Are you going to correct yourself or continue believing whatever you made up in your mind?
He WAS surrounded by the Warlords troops, which is NOT the same as being surrounded by the Marines. No inconsistancy in what was said
that's all you can do is play "word games". read the story, it refers to a specific set of caves where osama was holded up and the "afghan militias" assaulting them. a marine general was ready to go in with 4000 american troops and he was turned down. osama subsequently escaped across the border. had we put in the american troops, instead of warlord troops of dubious and sometimes conflicting loyalties, it's very likely we could have captured bin ladin. got it, mr. word games?
Yeah, but your mind does not see that the leader said they "could" have surrounded him. YOU say they DID surround them.
Your proof is inacurate. You lie to further your point. Bring FACTS not LIES.
read my first posts on this, if you can. i said the bush administration "farmed out the job" to afghan warlords, who did have him surrounded. they were unwilling or unable to capture him. an american general was saying he could go in there and get him. he was turned down. i made it quite clear from the beginning that it was the bush administration who failed to allow american troops to at least go in and try. i'm aware the american general said "could". maybe i can break it down for you. saying he was "surrounded" by warlord troops does not mean he was not surrounded. i never said anywhere he was surrounded by american troops. in fact i specified warlord troops.
and there was no way we could bring osama to this country when he was in sudan because at the time there was no indictment against him
Wow..the circular logic here is stupendously stupid. Clinton says he did not take him because he was not indicted.
it was Clinton's job to get him indicted
and what had he done at the time to be indicted, which was the mid 90s? there is this little thing called proof?
and what had he done at the time to be indicted, which was the mid 90s? there is this little thing called proof?
The first WTC bombing..
...oh and by the way...you don't indict on proof...you indict on evidence
and what was his connection to the first wtc bombing? those people are all in jail.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304306,00.html
We know, with a 70 percent level of certainty - which is huge in the world of intelligence - that in August of 2007, bin Laden was in a convoy headed south from Tora Bora. We had his butt, on camera, on satellite. We were listening to his conversations. We had the world’s best hunters/killers - Seal Team 6 - nearby. We had the world class Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) coordinating with the CIA and other agencies. We had unmanned drones overhead with missiles on their wings; we had the best Air Force on the planet, begging to drop one on the terrorist. We had him in our sights; we had done it. Nice job again guys - now, pull the damn trigger.
Colonel David Hunt, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a FOX News military analyst and the author of the New York Times bestseller They Just Don’t Get It. He has extensive operational experience in counterterrorism, special operations, and intelligence operations. He has trained the FBI and Special Forces in counterterrorism tactics, served as the security adviser to six different Olympic Games, testified as an expert at many major terrorist trials, and lectured at the CIA, the FBI, and the National Security Agency.
We know, with a 70 percent level of certainty - which is huge in the world of intelligence - that in August of 2007, bin Laden was in a convoy headed south from Tora Bora. We had his butt, on camera, on satellite.
There's a 70% chance he might be there...shoot him
...sounds kinda stoopit, doesn't it, Slappy?
Slappy? Kind of stoopid and disrespectful, junior.
After the 70% certainty, the troops were PULLED BACK because all the special forces were given new instructions: to prepare to invade Iraq. This enraged the special ops no end. But of course Bush/Cheney, Bill Kristol and the other neoCons don't really care about catching Bin Laden. They want endless war and don't care what horrors they unleash. They make lots of money and feel great about shedding someone else's blood.
We know, with a 70 percent level of certainty - which is huge in the world of intelligence - that in August of 2007,
Hey STOOPID, IF Clinton missed him before 9/11 WHAT FREAKING EXCUSE DO YOU HAVE FOR JUNIOR MISSING IN 2007 ?
NEED MORE TIME?
Why don't you try: because obl is smarter than either of those two presidents?
OBL was in actual physical custody. Clinton refused the offer to have him extradicted.
Since 9/11, there has never been any evidence as to where the hell OBL was. Some people simply had a guess.
Clinton allowed OBL to murder 3000 Americans
Seriosly...what's not to understand.
Some of the documents he ordered Sandy Burglar to steal and destroy , I'm sure, covered this
"Clinton allowed OBL to murder 3000 Americans" Stranger&stranger
wow.At this point, I feel sorta bad for laughing at you, Strange. You really are special, and I'm sorry for not being more sensitive to your condition.
OBL was in actual physical custody. Clinton refused the offer to have him extradicted.
Bin Laden's criticism of the Saudi monarchy led the government to attempt to silence him. Laden moved to Sudan in 1992 and established a new base for mujahideen operations in Khartoum. Bin Laden continued his verbal assault on Saudi King Fahd. On 5 March 1994, the King retaliated by personally revoking his citizenship and sending an embassary to Sudan to demand bin Laden's passport so that he no longer travel. His family was persuaded to cut off his monthly stipend equivalent of about $7 million a year.[46] By now Laden was strongly associated with Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) who made up the core of al-Qaeda by this time. In 1995 EIJ attempted to assassinate Hosni Mubarak. The attempt failed and disastrous backlash ensued, and EIJ was abruptly expelled from Sudan. In May 1996, under increasing pressure from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United States, Sudan asked bin Laden to leave. Laden was forced to make a distress sale of his assets in Sudan that left with almost nothing.[47]
Looks like you were just caught in another lie. Bin Laden wasn't in custody, but pressured to leave. And the US played a role in forcing him out of Sudan, vs. your claim of Clinton did nothing. I guess it's time for you to post another of your famed "someone else said" obfuscations to try and save face.
When he's cornered, stranger and phlipball slither off to some other talking point.
Well done, snoop.
Mary, considering YOU are the one who told me to stay on topic, I'm surprised you are even involved in this discussion.
However, after reading what was posted, it does NOT say he wasn't in custody. It doesn't say he WAS in custody. Simple (maybe correct) anology; if a border agent catches an illegal immigrant and asks him to leave the country, was he in custody at any time?
none of which has anything to do with the fact that we had no evidence against him to charge him with anything and bring him here. i know the nicities of the law escape you, but a prosecutor needs an actual indictment to do that. and not that made up crap by your strange friend about osama being involved in the first wtc bombing. clinton put all those people in jail.
Bin Laden wasn't in custody, but pressured to leave.
We don't have you and we don't control you, but if you don't leave, you're going to face consequences..
..this too sounds kinda stoopit when said out loud, doesn't it Slappy?
Since 9/11, there has never been any evidence as to where the hell OBL was. Some people simply had a guess.
Dicky didn't clue you in, but in Nov. 2001 he a a pretty good idea where OBL was.
ABCNEWS' DIANE SAWYER Do we have intelligence now that we really trust? In other words, do we have any intelligence that is taking us closer to bin Laden?
VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY I think so. We're getting a lot of reports now, more than we got before. The volume has increased. And some of them conflict, but truly what's happened is we've narrowed the amount of space inside Afghanistan that he feels safe in.
SAWYER Do you believe he's in Tora Bora?
CHENEY I think he's still in Afghanistan. I think he's probably in that general area.
SAWYER Why do you think he's still there?
CHENEY Because I think he was equipped to go to ground there. He's got what he believes to be fairly secure facilities, caves underground. It's an area he's familiar with. He operated there back during the war against the Soviets in the '80s. He's got a large number of fighters with him probably, a fairly secure personal security force that he has some degree of confidence in, and he'll have to he may try to leave, that is, he may depart for other territory, but that's not quite as easy as it would have been a few months ago. Anybody who contemplates providing sanctuary for bin Laden at this point has to keep in mind what happened to the Taliban when they did that.
SAWYER Have we seen, those infrared sensors showed up a lot of people in any caves?
CHENEY We followed, with our various intelligence assets, some of it's human reporting, some of it comes from imagery and so forth. We're able to follow groups moving around inside Afghanistan to zero in on certain facilities, where we've had considerable success hitting particular facilities where we thought there were leaders of al Qaeda, and we've clearly been able to hit a number of them. But he doesn't travel around with certainly the big banners saying "I'm Osama bin Laden." This is a guy who has gotten very good at security, who's been through a lot over the years in terms of understanding our capability and our strengths, and so he works very hard at preserving his security, and so far he's been successful, although not fully successful because we've gotten so many facilities.
So...to recap...we had no idea where he was.
Why did you even bother to post this?
then why did general mathis say he wanted to surround and seal off bin ladin's "lair", but was turned down. sounds like we knew where he was.
They're the ones who advocate boondoggles like the invasion of Iraq that kill, maim, mangle, and mutilate military men and women.
We want to trust the president when he says we are threatend - Well he was not only slightly wrong but completely wrong and made little effort to understand the complexity of the situation before the war. This is incompetence at the very least. He has blood on his hands.
We want to trust that the media will give us the complex reality of the situation as best as they can - no wait... we want entertainment. No wait... we want it in simple easy to digest packages. no wait... we expect them to be a business and an honest and accurate information source.
Looking back it is obvious that any politician or citizen that relied only on mainstream sources was quite unlikely to understand the situation properly. It took an effort to go against the tide and see the big picture which was a train wreck. Amazingly many did see it and their views were questioned along with their patriotism. Kristol's performance in all this was shameful... as bad as any blue stained dress or white bronco pursuite.
Yeah the ones who undermine military morale by starting a war he told OUTRIGHT LIES to get us into, trying to cut their benifits and other Bushwa BS. Those trying to get as many Americans KILLED as they possibly can. Those guys. Like YOU and the Bush administration.
Yes siree!! I'm a neo-con. I support the troops - the sticker on my car proves it. Except when it comes to military pay raises, proper state-side medical care, proper mental health care, reasonable tours of duty, quallity food/water, properly armed humvees.
Wait. On second thought what I really support is contractors and huge profits for all my friends!
"Perhaps this new hire by the nyt, maybe they will actually bring factual news to the paper and we won't read as much propoganda filled with lies and inuendo that has cost our nation so much in human life and limb. "-phil
But you don't read the NYT. You're just bloviating like the idiot you are.
Roundhiouse, I think you are giving Krystal much more credit and power than he , in reality, possesses.
I give him very little credit as a person. However as part of PNAC he wielded a great deal of influence over the administration's foreign policy.
My problem with him is he has shown his complete incompetence. I dont care how conservative he is. The NYTimes publishes lots of conservative op-eds. I just think they ought to give gigs to those who occasionally get something right and Kristol doesnt qualify.
I think the issue goes far beyond his incompetence. Maybe I skimmed too much on this thread but I haven't noticed the word "agenda" being used much. Kristol has an agenda for the war, he has a personal stake in those arguments. That provides approximately zero chance of him being objective.
If Hillary is elected and invades Canada for no reason, I can raise hell over that even though I'm liberal. But if I'm a liberal who said why we should have invaded Canada even before it happened, then I have no objectivity whatsoever.
He's even condemned the NYT in the past when they've reported stories that hurt his agenda. It's almost as if they're pandering to neoconservatives whose power and influence are crumbling, saying "Do you like us now? Huh? Please?" It's truly bizarre. "We know you hate us, and your fringe warmongering policies are ever-increasingly unpopular and discredited, but how would you like us to pay you to have your radical views legitimized?"
"His is not mere opinion, his is the propaganda of global conquest."
There you have it, folks, roundabout figured it out. The nyt's is hiring him because of his 'new world order' ideas. Every liberal believes in the 'new world order', so it is only natural that he is hired by a company seeking the same end result.
Diversity? What adding a liar and exaggerator to the honest journalists?
Balance? To what balance the truth?
Well, I would respect differences in opinion if they weren't so skewed and twisted as to try to make fat-out lies appear credible.
Maybe he's just jumping ship since his ill-conceived Weekly Standard is about ready to capsize.
In Sueeld's America, truth tellers like Olbermann are garbage and liars like Kristol indicates "diversity."
No, Olbermann is diversity also, and would be perfect for the NYT Op Ed page, he is a wonderful writer. Difference is that he is on a mainstream network, I am not advocating Krystal to replace Gretta on FAUX. You do not like Krystal, fine, but an op-ed piece is perfect for him. It is his opinion.
My point is that the op-eds are full of pseudo "conservatives" who misinform and mangle the truth, mostly deliberately, it seems. This is propoganda, not honest opinion.
I'd welcome a genuine conservative who addressed the conservative viewpoint based upon real facts.
The 'liberal' NY Times devotes far more space to right-wingers (David Brooks, William Safire, Judith Miller, Huckabee's favorite foreign policy expert Thomas Freidman, and now Kristol) than the Wall Street Journal devotes to liberals.
Yes diversity ands balance. Kristol will nicely balance out the truth told elsewhere in the paper.
In the spirit of fairness, it shouldn't be a big deal to have a conservative columnist on the staff. After all, he is just a columnist, not a reporter. In this capacity, Kristol will expose his slant to a wider audience and he will discredit himself in no time at all.
What's incredible is that he is literally wrong on everything!!! Wonder who he likes in the Super bowl???
I can only hope he picks the Patriots.
P.S. I live in Indianapolis.
So apparantly the job called for someone who spent a minimum of four years being absolutly and utterly WRONG about every single thing they ever said about their area of expertise. Who knew?
Well, that philosophy does work very well for every other print media outlet there is. Why would the nyt want to miss out on the profits that the other print outlets experience? It even seems to work for some of these internet opinion sites.
Well YOU do make that argument seem solid. Do YOU ever get anything right? Meanwhile back on Planet EARTH...got some examples?
"Well YOU do make that argument seem solid. Do YOU ever get anything right? Meanwhile back on Planet EARTH...got some examples?"
Need more examples?
So far I havent seen ANY. There are plenty of whackjob websites so you OUGHT to be able to give examples. They dont mean much. I saw a website once that detailed how the Smurfs were part of an international socialist conspiricy to brainwash our youth. Coughing up website examples doesnt make much point anyone can put one up.
I didn't think you'd understand that one.
Hopefully, enough people will voice their disbelief at this insane decision by the NY Times. i have been reading this paper for 40 years, but it's time to cancel my subscription. Paper of record, indeed.
Bring back Jason Blair and make it a twosome, NYT....
Accountability? What's that? In the America of today, you are REWARDED for failure if you lie about it enough and are a part of the elites. Only the poor...have to be accountable, fight neverending economic wars and obtain tax and other benefits in our new American system of privilege. The banks screw consumers and get protected. The President and Conservatives have paid no price for the lies and commoditization of war -- in open defiance of the MAJORITY of American's wishes. For shame.
Kristol provides ideological balance and diversity to the NYT like Himmler provided constructive criticism to the Jews of Europe 70 years ago.
This is not a matter of presenting both sides of a story. This is pretending, manufacturing and presenting a side that doesn't exist.
Of all the sins of omission and commission the MSM were and continue to be responsible for over the past 10-12 years, there is none bigger than pretending and continuing to pretend that Bush and the gops had a legitimate argument worthy of serious consideration and careful deliberation in the first place. They don't. They never did. They never will.
They're gops. They steal elections: obstruct justice, falsify intelligence, out CIA Agents, threaten National Security, ignore Presidential Daily Briefs, Start unjustified and unjustifiable wars, get tens of thousands of American Military Personnel killed and maimed for nothing and plunge the Country into ruinous debt. It's who they are. It's what they do.
Rosenthal told Politico shortly after the official announcement Saturday that he fails to understand “this weird fear of opposing views.”
Andy doesn't understand his liberal audience. They wrap themselves in propaganda like a warm fuzzy blanket. It's cozy and comfy and all is well.
It makes them feel safe. They don't have to think. The liberal mindset is like one big nursery.
Giving them an opinion outside their group think is like telling a toddler there is no Santy Claus.
The cognitive dissonance is just too much for them to take.
That's why the left hates FOX..it actually is fair and balanced and honest.
The recent study by the non-partisan Center for Media and Public Affairs is definitive proof that FOX is the most fair and credible source for news.
Andy doesn't understand his conservative audience. They wrap themselves in propaganda like a warm fuzzy blanket. It's cozy and comfy and all is well.
It makes them feel safe. They don't have to think. The conservative mindset is like one big nursery.
Giving them an opinion outside their group think is like telling a toddler there is no Santy Claus.
The cognitive dissonance is just too much for them to take.
That's why the right hates TRUTH..it actually is fair and balanced and honest.
THERE, I fixed it for yal. No, no thanks necessary. As for this bit of tripe that follows?
The recent study by the non-partisan Center for Media and Public Affairs is definitive proof that FOX is the most fair and credible source for news.
The so called "non partisan...blah blah blah," was written by a PAID CONSULTANT of The FoxNewsWhorehouse.
Thanks Buzzrat. The Stranger was projecting the retarded low level qualities of the right onto the left. Thanks for correcting that.
Thank you for the correction :)
New slogan: We fix the news at Faux to fit the policy of BushCo. Inc.
That's why the left hates FOX..it actually is fair and balanced and honest.
I don't hate FOX "News"; I just think they should change their name to something more appropriate like "the FOX Warmongering Network (FWMN)" or "Fox Republican BS Channel (FRBSC)".
Projection alert. The most ignorant and brainwashed, allergic to reality poster at this site is talking to US about what he thinks about liberals. Of course in his VAST ignorance, this is just one delusion among many. Stranger you are a waste of precious oxygen. You are far to stupid to take seriously.
solon, if you disagree with his opinion so much, why don't you write a reason why instead of doing exactly what he predicted you would do. All you succeed in doing by your constant name-calling is to strengthen the impression that everyone has of the 'typical liberal'. And if whining and cussing are 'typical' then you certainly do your part to promote liberalism to it's fullest.
Stop whining.
Remember it is OK for conservatives to stereotype and define liberals but its not ok for liberals to do the same to conservatives.
For example, how many here would agree when Bill Oriely says that liberals are secular moral relevist (don't believe there is a right or wrong)?
I gues we should shut up, lower our heads and say "your right, Bill, we are immoral degenerates"
I gues we should shut up, lower our heads and say "your right, Bill, we are immoral degenerates"
Well, at least one of y'all is coming around.
Sorry stranger, this view that lefties reject a moral right and wrong might make bill Oriely and his drones sleep better at night but it is wrong. Yes there are some who believe that morals are subjective but to generalize this shows how lazy and sloppy the right wing media is. It makes their arguments sound better by creating straw men (just like saddam was the next hitler) but anyone who reads progressive literature would quickly understand the uselessness of the stereotype. It is only good for a smear.
Why we accept this type of discourse is amazing. Krystol and BO and company are not being held accountable for such distortions, in fact these distortions are useful because they give their message the comforting entertainment value of being on the winning team. Sure, we must play the role of being the clueless evil ones.
Yet somehow sending our nation to war by actively distorting the truth does not require, at the very least, a public explanation before getting promoted. That actually does sound like subjective morals to me.
So go ahead and under estamate all the "pinheads" or hyperventalate the evil unpatriotic elitist. Reality is way too difficult. So if it makes you feel better - yes we are evil
Now go back to sleep
His OPINION was nothing more than one long ad hominem attack on liberals. You didnt take HIM to task for that but predictably whine like a little girl scout that I am treating him the way he is treating us. Its old, its tired, its stupid. When he makes an actual POINT instead of slandering us liberals I will deal with it. Meanwhile it just isnt up to you how I post.
the non-partisan Center for Media and Public Affairs? You mean that group that receives practically all of it's funding from only conservative groups? The same group that got 85% of it's funding from the John M. Olin, Scaife, and Smith Richardson foundations, all well known right wing extremist organizations? That "fair and balanced" group?
I'm well aware of the perils of resorting to argumentum ad hominem in debate, but, alas, I cannot resist: Bill Kristol is the most repulsive slug to crawl out from a medieval rock. He has a Bill Buckley mouth: thin and elongated, like a lopsided vagina. On Fox Noise Sunday, he smirks at Juan Williams when the latter takes issue with Kristol's lies and distortions, and he sneaks glances at his co-con, Brit Hume, when the latter is delivering the goods on neo-con talking points.
Possibly the worst thing about Kristol is his anal retentiveness: until he started reading blogs calling the fact to his attention, he wore the same J. C. Penney necktie for 148 consecutive shows, a red and blue horizontal stripe job that went out in 1980. What, the guy is too stingy to pay $30 for two cravats at a buy-one-get-one-free necktie sale?
But, hey, the Times needs its token crypto-fascist, more that ever now that we're all but certain to have a Dem in the White House for the next four, and possibly eight, years. After all, to quote another famous GOP, they "won't have [George W. Bush] to kick around any more."
See what I mean about cognitive dissonance and what it does to the infantile mind?
Truth to a lefty is like sunlight to a vampire.
Stranger, I'm pretty sure everybody here has figured out by now that you're a raging lefty doing a parody of a Republican zombie, but you might want to kick it down a notch.
Remember, you're playing the part of a dittohead, but one that actually has internet access and can write.Most meeting those standards would have understood the item above, and the few remaining would have been clued in by Buzzramjet's post.
You're going a bit over the top, and that gives the impression that liberals have to create nutty characters to reinforce the absurdity of giving Kristol and other government operatives a position in our media.
A little restraint , that's all I'm asking.Your performance art posting as an ignorant Bushbot is pretty good, and it requires pretending to be stoopid. Just keep it in the realm of the realistically stoopid, I think the satire will be more effective.
That discomfiture that predicated your post is called cognitive dissonance. You're uncomfortable because the rock has been turned over; the liberal bubble here has been burst.
To paraphrase Andy Rosenthal, you fear opposing views. Thus the ad hominem.
95% of the national media leans left; the majority far left. Hell, even 83% of contributions from Fox News employees go to Democrats.
The reason the MSM is so dominated by the left is that people of that ilk feel the need to control others; to get them to conform to their worldview.
Meanwhile, the folks on the right are the ones that are out making this country run.
It's a miracle that something like Fox, an MSM source that actually gives BOTH sides could be created.
Your mini screed here just proves the point that the left really does fear opposing views.
"To paraphrase Andy Rosenthal, you fear opposing views."
That couldn't be more true. I find it funny they constantly demand equality in broadcast radio(ruled by conservative shows), yet become enraged when liberal print voluntarily creates more equality.
Oh, too funny! You think bringing on a known liar and projectionist is bringing balance to the supposedly liberal dominated print? I'm all for balance, but aside from Paul Harvey, the consevatives got nuttin'!
Your definitions of conservative and liberal must be very interesting.
Do you think that mentioning that soldiers die in Iraq is "liberal"? How about the sub-prime mortage fiasco? Or China & India buying up so much of the U.S. debt? Or that oil production is on a long, slow decline?
These things are barely mentioned in the MSM, and when they are, somehow that's too much information for so-called conservatives to take, apparently.
The MSM has a greed bias; whatever they think will give them good market share. So it's Britney and Lindsey, missing white women, horrible crimes, etc. This isn't conservative or liberal bias, folks.
That discomfiture that predicated your post is called cognitive dissonance. You're uncomfortable because the rock has been turned over; the liberal bubble here has been burst.
I wish there was this liberal bubble you talk of.
95% of the national media leans left; the majority far left. Hell, even 83% of contributions from Fox News employees go to Democrats.
Even though the media should lean left because most of America agrees with Democratic policies, it doesnt.
And over 95 percent of reporters don't give contributions to either party.
Stranger, was that directed at anybody in particular, or are you responding to imaginary posters as part of your act now?
Whoever it was directed at,Stranger, I am interested in what you saw as "cognitive dissonance" in any post.Can you explain that?
Or Has "cognitive dissonance" joined "ad hominem" , "attacking the messenger","beg the question" and countless others as terms you don't really understand and misuse, but that you imagine take the place of real arguments?
Anybody? I'm picturing Strangy furiously thumbing through his Psych 101 book, with Dr. Phil on the tube in the background, trying desperately to apply cognitive dissonance to somebody's post here.Philib, can you help him/her out?
That must be a tough transition, from listening to the Rush Clown show, where BS like that flows like water, to a place where some connection to reality is required.
I think he is either a rushbot or a paid "misinformer" He's always trying to throw in off topic misinformation.
He and his tag team partner together don't make up a full deck.
You got those stats WHERE? Oh that right, you pulled them directly out of your ASS. I guess that hugely far left media that gave us the cheerleading for the invasion of Iraq, that ignored the Downing street memo, that wouldnt call Bush on his lies, THAT liberal media? The one that exists ONLY in the substandard brains of you hiveminders.
More projection from the king of delusions, along with stealing my lines. It is painfully clear that it is YOU guys who run screaming from any exposure to factual reality as if it were molten lava.
jmmartin3402 wrote:
"Bill Kristol is the most repulsive slug to crawl out from a medieval rock. He has a Bill Buckley mouth: thin and elongated, like a lopsided vagina."
Now, jmm, that's just an insult to vaginas everywhere. A pox on you, sir (or madam!)
The Strango has more comic schtick
Than Karl Rove has dirty tricks
He thinks that Faux "News"
Is the brand that can't lose
But it's only for hiveminded hicks
Center for Media and Public Affairs - Non- partisan, my arse.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs
"When the mesage is strong, attack the messenger."...is the sine qua non of the left wing.
Sure the CMPA had its seed funding and most of its aggregate donations provided by mostly conservative foundations, but donations in recent years are more equal between left and right concerns. The Pew Trust is now a large contributor.
Having said that, take notice that the results and methodology of CMPA have never been challenged in a serious way. There is a lot of shrieking coming from the left, but that all goes back to my point in a previous comment that libs freak when taken out of their comfort zone.
"...the results and methodology of CMPA have never been challenged in a serious way."
What's to challenge? They're a conservative funded scam producing paid-for results according to their own conservative guidelines.That's like challenging a mother's opinion of her dim-witted child.
And please stop trying to dilute the power of our well-defined categories of logical fallacies.Pointing out that the CMPA is a GOP agent created to support GOP propaganda is, by no stretch of the imagination,"Attacking the messenger", it's only exposing the messenger as a paid shill.
Stranger, I'm not entirely sure if you were Billiybobjones, as you dittoheads trade in your screen names with every new embarassment, but if you are that same poster, think back to the Rush Limbaugh "Phony Soldiers" deal.
The dittoheads were asked to provide some evidence of these phony soldiers who were media/lefty heroes, or STFU. Billiybob weaseled out by calling this challenge a false choice (or as close as he could get to the right term).
Logical fallacies are eternal. You can't outflank them, so in the future, realize that citing a ridiculous messenger will not be protected by a candy-ass "don't attack the messenger" dodge.
Put some work into your act. It will be more fun for everybody.
Well said, HuntingtonBeachLefty, well said!
Cool. So when MMFA does their own studies you take the same skeptical eye towards them I asume, being that they are definitely coming at their studies with preconceived notions of what they want to present to the public.
Yeah.
"Stranger, I'm not entirely sure if you were Billiybobjones..."
I was wondering the same thing. But my guess is that this guy is one of those "Rush wanna be" commentators you hear on the radio.
I remember Jason Lewis used to post here (well, when I asked if it was him, he "pleaded the fifth"), got his arse kicked, and conveniently disappeared after being discovered. I would not be surprised if this Stranger is actually him coming back for more.
Nope not him
Also...to have had my arse kicked...wouldn't I have actually had to have had my arse kicked?
Having said that, take notice that the results and methodology of CMPA have never been challenged in a serious way.
Even if I thought the methodology was solid (which I don't), the CMPA framed the argument wrong. People are abandoning the current conservative ideology so coverage should be far more unfavorable to them. What FOX has done is to create a false balance. In fact all of the networks are giving more favorable coverage to republicans than they deserve [if the study is accurate].
"Who's Fair and Balanced?: Fox News Channel's coverage was more balanced toward both parties than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split almost evenly 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates 49% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties. "On the three broadcast networks, opinion on Democratic candidates split 47% positive vs. 53% negative, while evaluations of Republicans were more negative 40% positive vs. 60% negative. For both parties combined, network evaluations were almost 3 to 2 negative in tone, i.e. 41% positive vs. 59% negative."
I think you hit the nail on the head. The "study" simply presumes that "fair and balanced" reporting would be equally positive and negative. (The phrasing seems to hide the fact that these news shows give reports of factual stories, not opinion-based "evalutations".
Actually "fair and balanced" reporting of the news would probably come out far more negative for Republicans than shown in this study. So one could actually take its results as evidence of bias *in favor* of Republicans, and FOX would have by far the most biased reporting.
Exactly, Clore. The right has been hammering this delusion of a "liberal biased " media by the same distorted sense of fairness you point out.
They want a Special Olympics model for the media, where GOP operatives like Kristol get a medal for lying, as long as he tries as hard at it as do real journalists at telling the truth.
I'm looking forward to, in addition to their "news" and business channel, Fox Sports, where positive coverage of all teams is split evenly, regardless of their actual performance.
stranger: "libs freak when taken out of their comfort zone". and what explains the fact that limbaugh refuses to have any liberal guests on his show? it's just more of the same right wingers over and over. whereas the hosts on the left have right wingers on all the time. it's rush's listeners who are lining up to say ditto, rush, whatever you say.
The Times hires a con job named Kristol
Likes war mongering, but won't hold a pistol
'Cause he won't fight in war
He discounts blood and gore
Won't dirty his pinkie or fist'l.
Kristol and his type, the apologists, the enablers, are beholden to the current ruling classes. This is true of BillO, Chris Wallace (his dad must be proud), Hannity, Malkin, Limbaugh, Savage, Coulter, ad nauseum.
Their futures are tied directly to the disastrous policies (and people) they defended and defend to this day. Their time is closing in on them. They're freaking out. Once Bush is out they're afraid they will be held up as puppets of a failed administration (as they should be).
If the class they have defended goes down, so does their income and cache. They really don't give a damn about anything else, and certainly not the people.
I don't think Kristol and Savage should lumped in with the rest. They have the interests of Israel at heart similarly to how many Americans of English or German ancestry took sides prior to the two world wars.
The others you mentioned are simply political partisans. They also support Israel but more indirectly. They primarily support a political party.
I must add, these "pundits" (BillO, Chris Wallace (his dad must be proud), Hannity, Malkin, Limbaugh, Savage, Coulter, ad nauseum) believe only in money. Not honesty, integrity or truth, but money.
Wait for it... the wingnuts will claim that NYT is setting up Kristol for debunking as part of an evil conspiracy in the "Liberal Media."
Kristol must be a hell of a dinner party guest for NYT editors to pay him big bucks for crackhead opinions.
Jeez, I wonder what happened to common sense in the media... much less liberalism.
See what I mean about cognitive dissonance and what it does to the infantile neo con conservative mind?
Truth to a Neo Con is like sunlight to a vampire.
There! I fixed that one for ya too! No No No, Please no thanks necessary.
The "conservative pundits" of this era are nothing more than Quislings. It may well be true also of the "liberal pundits". We'll see.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Now that Judith Miller no longer works for the NYT and David Brooks's columns are betraying his faltering convictions in the Republican agenda and its failures, this is a perfect time to fill a void. With Nicholas Kristol on leave, could the hiring of Bill Kristol be a clerical error? Surely the publishers or editors of the NYT cannot believe that they can increase their ciruculation by adding his insights to their op-ed pages!
After his powwow with some of his Freedoms Watch boys in Vegas, Shelly Adelson promised Pinch they'd be sure to throw some ads the old Gray Lady's way if Pinch could only see it in his heart to open up a space for Bill Kristol.
No I don't see wht you mean "the stranger". "JMMARTIN" was just pointing out some OBJECTIVE observations about Kristol. - all quite true.
It's nice to see the New York Times try to bring some balance to it's very liberal newspaper.
The NYTimes has ALWAYS had conservative columnists. ALWAYS, they have always had balance. To a wingnut any source that doesnt slavishly conform to rightwing propaganda is liberal. The question is what has Krystol done the last four years except be FLAT OUT WRONG about everything he says , predicts or analyses and why THAT makes him qualified to opine in one of the worlds most respected and influential newspapers. They could BALANCE their paper by bringing on Amadinejad to write a column, I just wonder why it makes sense.
Solon, I think it's becoming pretty clear by some of the posts here that, to the wingnuts, Reality and BS are simply two different opinions, and equally valid opposing viewpoints.
And they never bother to think that they might be wrong. Whenver they have a link, it's either from a biased source or the link is irrelevant to whatever point they are trying to make (usually off topic.)
Case in point: all the quotations of Dems making statements about Sadam and Iraq. None of these people would have invaded under the circumstances, and none would have skewed intelligence to justify it. Only BushCo did that.
Kristol and the other NeoCons were perfectly willing to lie to get their invasion. They don't care about the death and destruction.
With this turn of events at the NYT, 2008 will be a busy year at Media Matters! Kristol's still got the Weekly Standard and various TV and radio appearances to spread his fertilizer substitute.
I look forward to all the debunking of Kristol's tall tale telling that MM will be doing.
Why would Kristol take a job with a newspaper he does not respect? (yes, I know money trumps principles every time) Why would the NYT hire someone who believes it's untruthful, unprincipled, and little more than a rag?
And why would the Times editorial page editor, Andy Rosenthal insult readers by referring to Kristol as a "serious, respected conservative intellectual?"
I'm still waiting for the punch line.
As is true of most situations where psychological motivations/causes are trying to be divined, we are facing a situation of over determination in the case of the appointment of Bill Kristol as a Times columnist. Having said that, let me add some tidbits of different (i.e., complementary) perspectives in terms of the psychological atmosphere in play at the monthly Op-Ed columnist meetings around the Big Op-Ed table at the NYT (I'm making up this scenario, of course).1. Kristol's decision to join the NYT can actually be read as his own personal bet against right wing media for the coming quadrennial. Not that this scourge will go away entirely when the Dems are in office. Hemorrhoids never disappear altogether – unless they are surgically removed, and only neo-cons advocate such drastic solutions when it comes to a feature of the body politic they do not like. They just shrink in size. Let's hope Kristol is proven right, uh, correct about the partial eclipse – in terms of influence – of right wing media.2. The big loser in this, in terms of the Op-Ed club at the NYT, is David Brooks. He's an intellectual joke to begin with. And he sort of knows it from the email he gets at the Times. There used to be a video interview with Brooks at the NYT website where Brooks was describing his early public feedback experiences as the new kid on the Op-Ed schedule block: (paraphrase) "My email was stuffed with messages of the form: 'You suck, Krugman rocks.'" And how good can he feel good about the fact that his former boss at The Weekly Standard has followed him over to the NYT, where he thought he owned the "thoughtful conservative" franchise? Not that Kristol is particularly thoughtful when viewed according to reasonably objective standards of logic and fact-based reality. But Brooks will see it that way, and it will be interesting to follow whether he feels he has to compete by ratcheting up his own blur-and-slur style to match the slur-and-blur style of Kristol, or whether he retreats more frequently into his superficial sociologist's corner.3. Except in one technical respect, the big winner is Krugman. The only sense in which he loses is that NYT etiquette now prevents him from going after Kristol by name in his columns. Probably also in his blog, but I don't actually know the NYT rules on this. You can bet that Kristol viewed this as a major benefit of the assignment as well. Nobody likes to be directly in Krugman's gunsights. He just brings too many weapons to the battle.In sum, though I think that the NYT decision to hire Kristol was a bit perverse, I don't think there will be any real damage from it, and the piling on that Kristol suffers will be fun to watch. Indeed, we can now probably look forward to more entries for the NYT from MMFA!
Who is this "The Stranger" and why hasn't he figured out that he's a persona non grata on this web site? And before The Stranger chimes in and says, "See, there's your typical liberal, trying to thwart my First Amendment Rights to have my say," I assure you, you selfish, megalomaniacal, greedy, elitist, dumbass twit, I may despise your message but I would fight to the death your right to post it.
I'm willing to bet he's a paid shill. What other reason could there possibly be for the sudden appearance of someone who posts nothing but hard-line right-wing drivel in response to every story published at MMFA? No one is THAT closed-minded, nor has that much time on their hands, unless it is part of their job. I don't even bother to read his posts anymore - just consider the source and move on.
I may despise your message but I would fight to the death your right to post it.
That's the spirit.
you ask who is the stranger. the question could also be where is billybob, justicetruth, and all the other posters who are here all over these threads and then just "disappear", after all their arguments get shot down. i want to see if the strange one is here a month from now. or perhaps we will see someone "new" with the same old arguments. "new" as in new name.
by next month, a new rightwing poster:
strangerthanbilliyboytruthymaxroger
Hmm. I'm a bit surprised that mefirst and Mary59 seem to want to class my political views with those of The Stranger. I have reread what I wrote and can find no basis there for such a judgment. But then again, what I wrote was so long and poorly formatted that probably no one had the patience to make it all the way through. So the failure in communication has arguably been my fault.
Sorry for the confusion; we weren't talking about you. There was recently someone posting as billiybobjones (with numbers at the end) and unless you have changed your screen name, that isn't you.
It's fairly obvious that some of the trolls come back under different screen names periodically, whether they get busted or just bored I don't know.
"...some of the trolls come back under different screen names periodically, whether they get busted or just bored I don't know." (Mary59)
busted or bored, not very likely. Humiliated is a better bet. As immune to it as they sometimes seem, I think eventually even the thickest realize that a clean slate is better than their history.
You're right. Makes you wonder though. They are so doggone thick you'd think that nothing would embarrass them.
it wasn't you billyblog.
and i did read your post. it was thoughtful and an interesting perspective.
Their response was to JMMartin who asked who stranger was not to you. It can get confusing who is being responded to.
Nope..The Stranger always has been and will continue to be my nom de poste.
(Sigh)... with the end of the holiday season, I won't be able to be with my friends at MMFA as much.
damn, how did i know that.
Ummm, because YOU'RE the one 'flagging' his comments??
You must not understand the concept of "flagging". Once flagged, that person's posts are ERASED. He's still here, ergo no flagging...
ummm, no. didn't he just say it was his intention not to be here as much? you can read, can't you?
and anyone can go to the dowd thread of dec. 23, and see me arguing with both you, mr. philib, and stranger. i don't hide from anyone.
It's not my intention. It's the reality...back to work time.
How is it even possible you could even misinterpret that?...even
i guess you can't read either. i made no comment on why you were not going to be here. i picked up on the busy schedule explanation of yours. your pal implied that you would not be here because i would flag your posts. i explained that it was obvious by your own words that it was your intention not to be here, nothing to do with me. can either of you grasp anything?
. i made no comment on why you were not going to be here.
Really, now?
So..who posted this at 10:31:51 this morning?:
you ask who is the stranger. the question could also be where is billybob, justicetruth, and all the other posters who are here all over these threads and then just "disappear", after all their arguments get shot down. i want to see if the strange one is here a month from now. or perhaps we will see someone "new" with the same old arguments. "new" as in new name
Oh yeah..it was MEFIRST.
She really cares about integrity and credibility, doesn't she?
it's he, not she. and i was talking about when your pal said you would not be here because i flagged your posts. that was untrue. you had clearly said that you would be too busy. i suggest you take it up with your pal. he can't read or can't tell the truth.
Are you on Huckabee's revolving door prison plan? I thought he let's out anyone who assaults democrats...
As laughable as most of his thoughts and analysis are, I'm sure many casual readers will confuse him with the other Bill(y) Crystal, and think, "This guy really IS funny". Nothin' like a little ridiculous humor to boost readership.-:)
I may despise your message but I would fight to the death your right to post it.
That's the spirit. - The Stranger
Considering your support of people who have fought to censor or squash any descent, sought unlimited power for the sake of it, and purposefully twisted any fact or just out right lied to justify their agenda while make the country less safe and dangerously exposed both socially and economically -- I for one find your willingness to hide behind another person's decency especially while you mock it with that oh so cavalier reply disgusting. There is the real NeoCon legacy to our culture cowardice hiding behind someone else who has some values -- "value voters" my backside. You and those who support your positions are filth. And no I am not referring to Kristol hiring specifically but your more general opinions on what we "liberals" are up to.
However while I am mentioning the titled person. Kristol is a hack has been every Conservative "thinker" and pundit that comes readily to mind -- I separate these two because it is obivious one is giving orders and the other is trumpeting them -- since at least the Nixon administration. The NYT does not and should give time to outright lies -- yes I did not say opinion because saying a traffic light is green when it is red is not an opinion but a error or an out-and-out lie that will eventually cost a life.
Stranger, I wish the absolute worst for you and those like you in the New Year.
Considering your support of people who have fought to censor or squash any descent,
Umm..(giggle)...just whose "descent" have I ..(snicker)...supported the censoring or quashing of?..(hee-hee)
"Umm..(giggle)...just whose "descent" have I ..(snicker)...supported the censoring or quashing of?..(hee-hee)"- The Stranger
George W. Bush?
What really amazes me is how the mainstream media is constantly bending over backwards trying to accomodate conservatives all in the name of diversity.
Take a look at the op-ed pages of any conservative newspaper -- the Washington Times, the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal, etc. They never, ever feature anything but conservative commentators there. They don't give a rat's rear end about featuring an opposing viewpoint or diverse opinion. Yet they insist that all other newspapers should.
Even real liberal media (not the mainstream media) does the same thing. At one time, Salon.com had Andrew Sullivan and David Horowitz as columnists. The Huffington Post has postings by Joe Scarborough and Michael Smerconish, among others. What is this obsession with providing a platform for conservatives when they already have more outlets and venues for presenting their opinions than progressives do?
I go with HBL's take. He's(she?it?) a democratic operative going too far over the top. I'd like to see a real conservative take it to task for the damage done to the conservative point of view by this clown.
Though as indicated by the poster, we'll soon be short one stranger. I'm sure the replacement identity is already being roughed out.
That Kristol is a neocon there can be little doubt. But I hate to break it to you folks, there are millions of Americans who share his worldview in terms of this nation's foreign policy, many of whom have lots of money and lots of influence. Aside from the opinion of far left-wingers, Kristol is not considered an intellectually shallow nutcase, whether you agree with his opinions or not.
And if left-wingers are convinced that he's a warmongering emperialist, and/or some nutcase espousing far right ideas that are so removed from the mainstream, then they should welcome the fact that his opinions will be exposed. Perhaps that way more Americans will be persuaded that neocons of his type are leading this country down a dangerous path. You know, consistent with the whole "market place of ideas" theory that has proved well for the U.S. over all these years.
That his opinions now will be read by more people of differing views, they will be subject to more criticism and scrutiny. And that's good. In terms of his upcoming columns, I hope the leftwingers on here challenge and rebut the substance of his opinions, instead of taking refuge in the typical juvenile arguments so often resorted to, like Kristol's a "stupid," "rightwinger" . . . and all the other names commonly used to dismiss conservative viewpoints without actually addressing them.
Yes, there are many influential and moneyed people that want to war monger to make more money and have more influence. That is the neocon vision, endless war for profit. That there are "millions" of people with that world view is fairly suspect imo. That said, Kristol has already been proven to be what he is: a neocon shill and liar. I do not know the motivation behind the NYT's hiring of this person, but he will be torn a new one on a regular basis and be made the laughing stalk (we could laugh that is if he didn't mindlessly help pave the way for more death) that he is.
The neocon "vision" is dead
PNAC hangs by a thread
These clowns will now cower
When Dems take the power
They'll need to get real jobs instead
Did you see the long list presented here of Kristols falsehoods and distortions?
You write as if Kristol's spiels are something new to be debated and maybe implemented. Where have you been for the last 7 plus years? Kristol's ideas have been voiced and acted upon and we can see the results.
Or to be fair and balance we must continue to give the flat earth view equal time as well even thought it is obviously false?
Of course, since so many Americans seem to agree with Kristol's views, as you state, than it seems his message is already out there. Maybe the masses need to hear some other voices that actually mesh with reality, as unpleasant as that may be for some of them.
That his opinions now will be read by more people of differing views, they will be subject to more criticism and scrutiny.
You mean his lunatic rantings.
“I hate to break it to you folks, there are millions of Americans who share his worldview in terms of this nation's foreign policy…”---ThompSteve
This site is a “progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.” (click on “about us” page on this site).
“Aside from the opinion of far left-wingers…”ThompSteve
Because Kristol is far right, people who disagree with him are on the far left—is that the idea? I see Kristol as neither left nor right, but a person with a special interest---his is Israel. Others in the GOP want to benefit oil companies or the military industrial complex. In others words the ‘left-right’ paradigm does not work anymore---it should be ‘right-wrong’.
“Kristol is not considered an intellectually shallow nutcase…”Thompsteve
What do you call someone who is wrong so much, a genius?
And if left-wingers are convinced that he's a warmongering emperialist, and/or some nutcase espousing far right ideas that are so removed from the mainstream, then they should welcome the fact that his opinions will be exposed---ThompSteve
His ideas are already exposed! That is the cause of the stir. He is a blatant (as opposed to the others already at the NY Times) and shameless propagandist.
I hope the leftwingers on here challenge and rebut the substance of his opinions, instead of taking refuge in the typical juvenile arguments so often resorted to, like Kristol's a "stupid," "rightwinger" . . . and all the other names commonly used to dismiss conservative viewpoints without actually addressing them.---ThompSteve
Sorry if your feeling were hurt, but the country is going into enormous debt from this occupation. I think this spending will be a big factor in a coming great depression.
“Kristol is not considered an intellectually shallow nutcase…”Thompsteve
What do you call someone who is wrong so much, a genius?---Eddy3957
-------------------------------------------------------
On second thought, he did help get the USA over there, and it sounds to me like if a Dem is elected he/she will flip-flop on getting out.
Krystol goes point and frames the issues, and then Limbaugh, acting as national precinct captain, legitimizes the propaganda in the angry white male mind.
And repeat.
thompsteve's argument is the more people lie, the more they will be exposed? that hasn't really worked with faux, limbaugh, et al. their followers believe it all.
Right, whereas if you were to walk into a bar and heard a blowhard like Limbaugh you likely would not pay him any mind. However, because he is on the radio and everybody can hear him who wants to, it becomes a communal (of the tribe) event which piques people's curiosity so they will at least listen. He obtains the legitimacy just being on the radio confers.
Similarly, Kristol will receive perceived legitimacy he does not merit by just being in the NY Times because the paper still has perceived legitimacy. Legitimacy by association.
following the thread today...i see the logic.
1. the discussion should be about whether Kristol has the street kred to have a weekly column at the NYT.
2. the discussion is whether the discussion is about Kristol being a conservative.
Kristol doesnt have the street kred...he has been a neo-con who was a drummer for the war beat in 2002 and fully signed onto the PNAC ideology. I could write a better column for NYT and have more street.
I'd welcome a genuine conservative who addressed the conservative viewpoint based upon real facts.
Hi there
He said FACTS not ignorant delusions. You wouldnt know a fact if it bit your sack.
Did you know he praised an inaugural speech without disclosing that he had a hand in writing it?
Did you know that he was on the board of Enron?
Like all of the neo-conservatives, looking out for the wealthy and the corporations is Kristol's priority. You are insignificant to him and this is the difference between me and the conservatives. It is about power and who has it. When us liberals can out-wit them soley by our numbers, we will be on top again. If you think being a liberal is about killing babies and hating god, you are listening to Hannity and Rushbo..They are not conservative, they are just haters of 60's history.
2002 Georgia
Max Cleland leads Saxby Chambliss 49% to 44% in an Atlanta Journal Constitution poll 4 days before the election...
Cleland loses 46% to 53%--a 12-percentage-point discrepancy.
VoteTust USA is a great place to find out how you can help with voting integrity in your state or nationally. We have made some pretty good progress in trying to save our nation from becoming a banana republic--but there's a long way to go.
They're ready, willing and able to steal 2008.
and georgia was one of the first states with all electronic voting in that election year. the same year that high republican officials paid a company to jam the phones of the democratic ride to the polls campaign in the new hampshire senate race. the gop has paid millions in lawyer fees for those indicted and convicted. then there is also the story of the mysterious "negative" 16,000 gore vote in a single precinct in volusia county florida on election night 2000. gore was ready to concede, when he was informed of that "mistake", for which there has never been an adequate explanation, or another 4000 vote anti gore error in adjacent brevard county. makes you wonder how many "minor" errors went undiscovered. we need a paper trail, if it's a paper and pencil and a week to count, so be it.
Aha ha ha... typical liberal. Complain about the results when you don't win. Whine about inproprieties when you lose. VERY typical
Why don't you complain about voting machines in the states you win? Oh, wait ... they worked perfectly, didn't they?
In Colorado, we elected Dems last year and we de-certified the voting machines this year. The lines and flat-out disgusting problems were eliminated.
What I cannot quite grasp, is why would the NYT pay KKKristol's rate, when silly lies can be had so much more cheaply from the three other braindead Neo-cons still willing publicly to back Bungle? Most of that species have slithered back into crevices and caves, to await the next opportunity to lie for no visible reason other than it feels so gooood to lie about even the most inane things; but William remains loudly, publicly, the very same fool and liar we all know - to an extent that should embarrass any sapience ever resident in that husk.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!
THANK GOD this is the last year that we have to suffer through the most corrupt, incompetent, lying administration since Nixon or Hoover unless we get another Republican President from the current candidates.
I didn't make a list but I agree with this one 100%.
http://www.rollingstone.com/photos/gallery/17538811/dickheads_of_the_year/1
Jefferson wrote "... whenever the people are WELL-INFORMED, they can be trusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights." How does Kristol's spewing of lies keep our citizenry well-informed? This is the bar the Times must answer to. Kristol claimed that there was almost no evidence at all that the Sunni and Shia in Iraq can't get along. This is an historical lie. What's more, Kristol's Neocon Straussian philosophy encourages telling "noble lies" to the masses of Americans so the Neocon Elites can further their own agenda. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5010.htmhttp://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/bill-kristol-pundit-superstar.html Whenever a Neocon pundit in our free press shamelessly lies to American citizens, they are abusing their position of power because they are actively deceiving citizens--the exact opposite of keeping them well-informed. - FTF
Sentiments returned Pearl.
The list is good, of course I'd add a few, Scooter Libby (How soon we forget), Republican legislators (who continued to toe srubs line) and the whole fox Bnews crew. Dishonerable mention, cooporate media.
Maybe Kristol can up his game next year, he sounds to be more visible and I think will be the subject of a few threads in the coming year.
Conley, Pearlene, Eweston, everybody else here, happy New Year, thanks for all the food for thought and laughs you've given me.
A special thanks to the first string conservative posters here (mostly absent on this thread, except for Bruce) who keep it interesting by supplying rational disagreements and good kindling.
And a very special, in a Special Olympics sense of the word, thanks to Stranger, Philib, and the other wingnut posters who come here and remind us of something very important;That right wing media machine that might easily be laughed off as too ridiculous to fool anybody actually works on a small number of our fellow Americans, and they vote.
You are useful examples, and Real American Heroes. Thank you, and I hope the new year finds you getting the help you need.
I wouldn't have thought the topic warranted over 300 posts. The week off must have created a backlog of pent-up-prose and a smattering of pent-up-poetry to which this one article provided release.
I didn't see the article in time to participate meaningfully, but it's nice to see something new in here.
Happy New Year, all.
Thanks to David Brock and all the staff at Media Matters.
Your great work stands as a beacon, amid the wreckage of America brought on by conservatism.
A great 2007, and looking forward to a great 2008.
Happy New Year!!!
Bloody Bill Kristol. Well if the NYT is looking for a liar who gets NO story right, they've done it. Expect each of his neocon screeds to generate 600 plus letters all from progressive people smarter and more skilled at writing than the silverplated spoon in mouth Kristol. The Times will like the response, but vain prick Kristol wont.